← Back to Distinction 24

Dist. 24, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 4

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 24

Textus Latinus
p. 618

Quaestio IV. Utrum ordo sit Sacramentum unum, vel plura.

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page: markers 1–6 are page 618's footer sequence (Quaracchi notes 7–12; that page's notes 1–6 belong to the preceding quaestio III), and 7–12 are page 619's footer sequence (Quaracchi notes 1–6; that page's notes 7–8 begin the following Pars I Dubia).

Quarto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum ordo sit Sacramentum unum, vel plura. Et quod sit unum, videtur:

1. Per divisionem Sacramentorum, quae dividuntur in septem1: si ergo alia non subdividuntur, videtur, quod ordo sit unum Sacramentum.

2. Item, Sacramentum unionis sive communionis est unum Sacramentum2: ergo pari ratione et Sacramentum ordinis.

3. Item, ab eodem est unitas, a quo est perfectio et complementum3; sed Sacramentum ordinis unum habet complementum, scilicet sacerdotium, quod complet omnes ordines praecedentes: ergo unum est Sacramentum.

4. Item, «quanto aliqua virtus potentior, tanto magis unita4»: ergo quanto Sacramentum maius et excellentius, tanto magis unum; sed Sacramentum ordinis est excellens et in statu excellenti collocat ordinatum: ergo etc.

Contra: 1. Multiplicato inferiori, multiplicatur superius5; sed Sacramentum est superius ad ordinem: ergo cum sint plures ordines, sunt ergo plura Sacramenta.

2. Item, cum ordinis Sacramentum dividitur; aut in partes integrales, aut subiectivas6. Non integrales, quia nulla pars integralis recipit praedicationem totius, sed quilibet gradus ecclesiasticus recipit praedicationem sui totius. Si in subiectivas: p. 619 ergo redit idem, quod prius, quod illud Sacramentum multiplicetur.

3. Item, hoc Sacramentum est ordinatum ad dispensationem aliorum Sacramentorum; sed alia Sacramenta differunt specie: ergo potentiae ordinatae ad illa debent differre specie7: ergo videtur, quod istud Sacramentum per species diversas plurificetur.

4. Item, sacerdos cum sacerdote habet convenientiam in Sacramento ordinis; sed sacerdos cum diacono habet distinctionem et differentiam; constat, quod non solum materialem, ergo specificam habet differentiam: ergo cum utrumque horum sit Sacramentum, videtur, quod ordinis Sacramentum diversas habeat species Sacramentorum.

Conclusio.

Sacramentum ordinis est unum, habet tamen plures partes potestativas, unum perfectum Sacramentum constituentes.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Sacramentum ordinis unum est, multas tamen habet partes, quae Sacramentum non plurificant, pro eo quod non sunt omnino partes subiectivae, et tamen recipiunt praedicationem totius, quia naturam habent quodam modo partium subiectivarum; et tales sunt partes potestativae8. Quae maxime competunt ordini: tum quia ordo dicitur ordinata potestas, quae ex ordinatione multorum ad unum redditur perfecta, et quodlibet illorum participat rationem potestatis, licet non perfectionis; tum etiam, quia ordo concernit distinctionem in partibus, sicut et numerus. Unde quemadmodum partes numeri quodam modo habent naturam partium integrantium in hoc, quod simul convenientes per ordinem reddunt numerum perfectum, ut partes senarii constituunt senarium, et tamen quaelibet pars numeri est numerus: sic omnes gradus ordinum unum faciunt Sacramentum perfectum, et tamen quilibet gradus ordo dicitur9. — Et concedendae sunt rationes ostendentes, hoc Sacramentum esse unum, quamvis aliquae non sint multum cogentes.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod multiplicato inferiori etc.; dicendum, quod istud verum est in eo quod habet naturam speciei sive partis subiectivae solum; non sic est in proposito.

2. Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum dividatur in partes integrales, aut subiectivas; dicendum, quod dividitur in partes potestativas, quae utrarumque partium habent naturam; unde sicut divisio analogi10 tenet medium inter divisionem aequivoci et univoci: sic talis divisio medium tenet inter divisionem totius universalis et totius integralis.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ad dispensationem aliorum ordinatur; dicendum, quod principaliter ordinatur ad dispensationem Sacramenti altaris, quod unum est11.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de differentia, dicendum, quod quodam modo est specifica, quodam modo non. Una enim species non disponit ad aliam, sicut unus ordo ad alium disponit; et ideo non est ibi specifica distinctio, sed tamen aliquo modo distinguuntur; quia tamen ad unum complementum ordinantur, ideo unum Sacramentum faciunt12.

---

English Translation

Question IV. Whether order is one Sacrament, or several.

Fourth and last it is asked, whether order is one Sacrament, or several. And that it is one, seems [true]:

1. By the division of the Sacraments, which are divided into seven1: if therefore the others are not subdivided, it seems that order is one Sacrament.

2. Likewise, the Sacrament of union or of communion is one Sacrament2: therefore by parity of reasoning also the Sacrament of order.

3. Likewise, from the same [source] is unity from which is perfection and completion3; but the Sacrament of order has one completion, namely the priesthood, which completes all the preceding orders: therefore it is one Sacrament.

4. Likewise, «the more powerful any power is, the more it is united4»: therefore the greater and more excellent a Sacrament is, the more it is one; but the Sacrament of order is excellent and sets the ordained in an excellent state: therefore etc.

On the contrary: 1. When the inferior is multiplied, the superior is multiplied5; but the Sacrament is superior to order: therefore, since there are several orders, there are therefore several Sacraments.

2. Likewise, since the Sacrament of order is divided; either into integral parts, or into subjective6. Not into integral, because no integral part receives the predication of the whole, but each ecclesiastical grade receives the predication of its whole [self]. If into subjective: then it returns to the same as before, that that Sacrament is multiplied.

3. Likewise, this Sacrament is ordained to the dispensing of the other Sacraments; but the other Sacraments differ in species: therefore the powers ordained to them must differ in species7: therefore it seems that this Sacrament is multiplied through diverse species.

4. Likewise, priest with priest has agreement in the Sacrament of order; but priest with deacon has distinction and difference; it is established that [he has] not only a material [difference], therefore he has a specific difference: therefore, since each of these is a Sacrament, it seems that the Sacrament of order has diverse species of Sacraments.

Conclusion.

The Sacrament of order is one, yet it has several potestative parts, constituting one perfect Sacrament.

I respond: It must be said that the Sacrament of order is one, yet it has many parts, which do not multiply the Sacrament, for the reason that they are not wholly subjective parts, and yet they receive the predication of the whole, because they have in a certain way the nature of subjective parts; and such are potestative parts8. Which most fittingly belong to order: both because order is called an ordered power, which by the ordering of many to one is rendered perfect, and each of them participates in the character of power, though not of perfection; and also because order concerns distinction in [its] parts, just as number [does]. Hence, just as the parts of a number in a certain way have the nature of integrant parts in this, that coming together in order they render a perfect number, as the parts of six constitute six, and yet each part of a number is a number: so all the grades of orders make one perfect Sacrament, and yet each grade is called an order9. — And the arguments showing this Sacrament to be one are to be conceded, although some are not very cogent.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that when the inferior is multiplied etc.; it must be said that that is true in what has the nature of a species or of a subjective part only; it is not so in the matter at hand.

2. To that which is asked, whether it is divided into integral parts or subjective; it must be said that it is divided into potestative parts, which have the nature of both [kinds of] parts; whence, just as the division of the analogous10 holds a middle between the division of the equivocal and of the univocal: so such a division holds a middle between the division of the universal whole and of the integral whole.

3. To that which is objected, that it is ordained to the dispensing of the others; it must be said that it is principally ordained to the dispensing of the Sacrament of the altar, which is one11.

4. To that which is objected concerning difference, it must be said that in a certain way it is specific, in a certain way not. For one species does not dispose to another, as one order disposes to another; and therefore there is not there a specific distinction, but nevertheless they are in some way distinguished; yet because they are ordained to one completion, therefore they make one Sacrament12.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Vide supra d. 2. a. 1. q. 3. et dub. 1. — Verba in septem Vat. transponit post subdividuntur.
    See above, d. 2, a. 1, q. 3, and dub. 1. — The words in septem ("into seven") the Vatican [edition] transposes after subdividuntur.
  2. 2
    Ut ostensum est supra d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 2.
    As was shown above, d. 8, p. II, a. 2, q. 2.
  3. 3
    Quod in naturalibus est forma substantialis; cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 7. (c. 1.); V. Metaph. text. 11, et X. text. 1. (IV. c. 6. et IX. c. 1.).
    Which in natural things is the substantial form; cf. Aristotle, On the Soul II, text 7 (c. 1); Metaphysics V, text 11, and X, text 1 (IV, c. 6, and IX, c. 1).
  4. 4
    Secundum auctorem libri de Causis, propos. 17. Cfr. supra pag. 508, nota 11.
    According to the author of the Book of Causes, proposition 17. Cf. above, p. 508, note 11.
  5. 5
    Cfr. supra pag. 197, nota 6. et pag. 412, nota 1.
    Cf. above, p. 197, note 6, and p. 412, note 1.
  6. 6
    Vide supra pag. 382, nota 1. et pag. 397, nota 1. — Inferius post sui totius cod. A addit quia dicitur ordo, edd. vero cum nonnullis codd. substituunt est ordo pro recipit praedicationem sui totius.
    See above, p. 382, note 1, and p. 397, note 1. — Below, after sui totius, codex A adds quia dicitur ordo ("because it is called order"), while the editions, with some codices, substitute est ordo ("it is order") for recipit praedicationem sui totius ("receives the predication of its whole").
  7. 7
    Nam secundum Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 33. (c. 4.), potentiae specificantur per obiecta. Cfr. de hoc etiam tom. II. pag. 561, nota 3.
    For according to Aristotle, On the Soul II, text 33 (c. 4), powers are specified through their objects. Cf. on this also tom. II, p. 561, note 3.
  8. 8
    Cfr. supra d. 16. p. I. dub. I. — Superius verbis et tamen in cod. bb secunda manus praemisit non omnino integrales. Subinde non pauci codd. omittunt totius. Inferius pro perfectionis Vat. perfecte.
    Cf. above, d. 16, p. I, dub. I. — Above, before the words et tamen, in codex bb a second hand has prefixed non omnino integrales ("not wholly integral"). Thereupon not a few codices omit totius. Below, for perfectionis the Vatican [edition reads] perfecte.
  9. 9
    Cfr. infra p. II. a. I. q. 2. ad 3.
    Cf. below, p. II, a. I, q. 2, ad 3.
  10. 10
    Vide tom. II. pag. 626, nota 7. — Superius post potestativas cod. Z addit vel virtuales, et post naturam subiungit sed non totaliter.
    See tom. II, p. 626, note 7. — Above, after potestativas, codex Z adds vel virtuales ("or virtual"), and after naturam it appends sed non totaliter ("but not wholly").
  11. 11
    Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. II.
    Cf. here the text of the Master, c. II.
  12. 12
    Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.
    See the scholion on question I of this article. ---
Cited by

1 further reference addresses the article or printed page this question belongs to, rather than the question itself.

← Dist. 24, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 3Dist. 24, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1→