Dist. 24, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 24
Articulus I. De ordinibus quoad characteris impressionem.
Quaestio I. Utrum in omnibus ordinibus imprimatur character.
Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur primo, quod in omnibus imprimatur character:
1. Per definitionem ordinis1: « Ordo est signaculum, in quo spiritualis potestas traditur ordinato »: si ergo haec est recta ratio, competit omnibus ratio signaculi; sed non est signaculum materiale, sed spirituale, hoc autem est character: ergo etc.
2. Item, omne Sacramentum iterari potest, quod non imprimit characterem; sed nullus ordo potest iterari, sicut dicit Augustinus, et habetur in distinctione sequenti2: ergo in singulis imprimitur character.
3. Item, character est signaculum impressum, configurans nos Domino Iesu Christo; sed Dominus omnes ordines exhibuit, sicut Magister inducendo probat in littera3: si ergo in omnibus eidem configuramur, videtur, quod in omnibus character imprimatur.
4. Item, impressio characteris sive signaculi est ad distinctionem secundum aliquem statum; sed in omni ordine ponitur quis in statu ministrandi determinato: ergo in omni ordine imprimitur character.
Contra: 1. Character est signaculum spirituale: ergo in illis solis imprimitur, in quibus datur aliqua potestas nova et spiritualis; sed potestas omnium ordinum inferiorum est corporalis, ut aperire ostium sive custodire, prophetias dicere, candelabra deferre: ergo in his nullo modo imprimitur character.
2. Item, character est signaculum, quod respicit sive habet imprimi in imagine ad configurandam ipsam Deo; sed actus quorundam ordinum solum sunt circa ministeria inferiora: ergo si talia non spectant ad imaginem configurandam Deo, patet etc.
3. Item, character est signaculum indelebile: ergo si collocat hominem in aliquo statu, impossibile est ab illo statu recedere, quin fiat contumelia Sacramento4; sed qui sunt in minoribus ordinibus constituti possunt licite redire ad laicatum: ergo in eis character non imprimitur.
4. Item, character est signaculum perpetuum, quod manet in anima separata: ergo non debet imprimi nisi ad actum perpetuum; sed actus ministerialis istorum ordinum inferiorum non est perpetuus: ergo etc.
Conclusio. In omnibus ordinibus character imprimitur.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod aliqui voluerunt dicere, quod character in solo ordine sacerdotali imprimitur, sed in ordinibus inferioribus solum p. 622 disponitur quis ad talis characteris susceptionem. Propter suam enim nobilitatem de congruo exigit ordines inferiores habere praevios. — Sed cum ordines inferiores, saltem sacri5, sint de perfectione Sacramenti, et in his fiat segregatio perpetua clericorum a laicis; non videtur in solo sacerdotio character imprimi.
Et ideo dixerunt alii, quod character imprimitur in omnibus ordinibus sacris, sed non in minoribus. Et huius signum est, quia isti non possunt laicis commisceri, alii vero sic. — Sed cum nullus ordo iterari possit, et quilibet habeat aliquid de ratione Sacramenti; videtur, quod in quolibet sit aliquid, quod habet rationem rei et signi et rationem signaculi perpetui; hoc autem characterem dicimus: non igitur videtur, quod in illis solis imprimatur.
Et ideo est tertia opinio probabilior, quod in omnibus ordinibus character imprimatur, sicut rationes expresse ostendunt. Cum enim character sit signaculum distinctivum et perpetuum et Christo configurativum; et hoc est in omnibus ordinibus reperire: non est dubitandum, characterem in omnibus imprimi.
1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est signaculum spirituale; dicendum, quod in omnibus ordinibus datur potestas vel spiritualis de se, vel ad spiritualem ordinans. Unde potestas ostiarii est ad admittendum homines ad divinum sacrificium; potestas lectoris non solum ad excitandum auditum exteriorem, verum etiam interiorem; et sic de aliis, sicut melius patebit, quando agetur de distinctione ordinum6.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de configuratione, dicendum, quod character ordinis, ut est consummativus7, animam configurat Deo secundum imaginem ut assimilatam Deo; et hoc fit in ordine supremo. — Vel dicendum, quod magis proprie configurat tale signaculum Christo; unde cum Christus triplex habuerit officium, scilicet ministri in agendo, pugilis in patiendo, redemptoris in moriendo; triplex fuit Sacramentum, secundum quod homo Christo configuratur his tribus modis; unde tantum triplex est Sacramentum, in quo fit characteris impressio. Nam baptismus configurat morienti et redimenti, unde consepelitur homo in mortem8; confirmatio configurat patienti et pugnanti, ideo signum crucis fit in fronte; sed ordo configurat ministranti et operanti, sicut recte in littera9 ostenditur. Et quia in omnibus configuratur quis Christo secundum plus et minus, ideo in omnibus character imprimitur.
3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de indelebilitate et perpetuitate, dicendum, quod character omnium ordinum manet in anima sive revertentis ad laicatum, sive morientis ut signaculum distinctivum; et hoc vel ad gloriam, si bene usus est, vel ad ignominiam, si male; nec oportet, quod maneat semper quantum ad usum ministerii, quia iste usus quodam modo convertitur in praemium10. Et per hoc patet ultimum.
I. Haec quaestio intime cohaeret cum alia quaestione, scilicet: utrum omnes ordines sint Sacramenta. Antiqui doctores, excepto Durando (hic q. I. n. 9.), hoc affirmarunt « probabilius » etiam quoad ordines minores; unde cum S. Bonav. S. Thom. (hic q. I. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2; Suppl. q. 35. a. 2.) reprobat 2. opinionem hic in corp. relatam. Durand. vero docet, quod « ordo proprie et simpliciter dictus, et qui est Sacramentum, est solum sacerdotium, comprehendendo sub sacerdotio episcopatum, qui est sacerdotium completum et perfectum; ceteri autem dicuntur ordines secundum quid nec sunt Sacramenta, sed potius quaedam sacramentalia, antecedentia ad sacerdotium de congruitate et non de necessitate ». — Sed de numero ordinum quaestio redit infra a. 2. q. 1, et ibid. q. 3. specialiter de episcopatu ut est ordo et Sacramentum. — Nostra autem aetate plerique docent, quatuor ordines minores et probabilius etiam subdiaconatum non imprimere characterem nec esse Sacramenta; tamen presbyteratum et episcopatum certo habere rationem Sacramenti, et probabilius etiam diaconatum. De hac 1. quaestione praeter citatos: Scot., hic q. unica n. 8. — B. Albert., hic a. 17. 25. 26. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 2. — Durand., loc. cit. et praecipue q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.
II. De 2. quaestione Scot. (loc. cit. n. 11.) resolvit, « plures esse characteres, et probabilius, quod alterius speciei ». Omnes tamen ad unum finem ordinantur et unum Sacramentum constituunt, ut supra p. I. a. 2. q. 4. probatum est. Rem tangit S. Thom. locis citt. et q. 2. a. 1; Suppl. q. 37. a. 2. De eadem: B. Albert., de hac et seq. q. hic a. 23. 34. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. ad 2. — Durand., loc. cit. — Dionys. Carth. rem tangit hic q. 3. 5.
III. Solutio 3. quaestionis est communis; non autem hic comprehenditur etiam episcopatus, de quo cfr. infra a. 2. q. 3. fundam. 3. Cfr. S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 2. quaestiunc. 5; Suppl. q. 35. a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 3. — Durand., hic q. 3. n. 9.
IV. Quoad 4. quaestionem plurimi coaevi strictius quam Bonav. sustinent, quod tantum in porrectione instrumentorum cum verbis eam comitantibus imprimatur character. Plerique hoc generaliter intelligunt de omnibus ordinibus, etiam de sacerdotio, quod scilicet tradatur per calicis cum vino et patenae p. 623 cum pane porrectionem, diaconatus autem per dationem libri Evangeliorum. Hoc disertis verbis etiam in Decreto pro Armenis ponitur. Sed iam amicus S. Bonaventurae Petr. a Tar. a generali regula excipit diaconatum et presbyteratum, quos tradi asserit impositione manuum. Hoc Durand. restringit ad diaconatum. — Cum autem orientalis Ecclesia utrumque sacrum Ordinem sola manuum impositione conferat, et Decretum pro Armenis quoad tradita de ritibus in Sacramentorum administratione observandis videatur esse potius instructio practica quam nova definitio dogmatica; recentiores theologi potius sententiae Petri a Tar. favent quoad ordines, quibus ratio Sacramenti certo competit. Hinc speculative loquendo, nunc valde probabile esse censetur, in collatione sacerdotii manuum impositionem cum forma essentialiter requiri, non vero unctionem manuum; multi etiam dicunt, contradicentibus aliis, ritum tangendi instrumenta esse tantum loco materiae accidentalis. De eadem 4. quaestione: Scot., hic q. unica n. 8. seq. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3; Suppl. q. 37. a. 5. — B. Albert., hic a. 38. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 3. — Durand., hic q. 3. n. 6. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 6.
---
Article I. On the orders as regards the impression of a character.
Question I. Whether a character is impressed in all orders.
Concerning the first point one proceeds thus, and it is shown first that a character is impressed in all [orders]:
1. From the definition of order1: « An order is a seal, in which spiritual power is handed over to the one ordained »: if therefore this is the correct account, the account of a seal befits all [orders]; but it is not a material seal, but a spiritual one, and this is a character: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, every Sacrament that does not impress a character can be repeated; but no order can be repeated, as Augustine says, and as is had in the following distinction2: therefore in each single [order] a character is impressed.
3. Likewise, a character is an impressed seal, configuring us to the Lord Jesus Christ; but the Lord displayed all the orders, as the Master proves by adducing [them] in the text3: if therefore in all of them we are configured to the same [Christ], it seems that in all of them a character is impressed.
4. Likewise, the impression of a character or seal is for distinction according to some state; but in every order one is placed in a determinate state of ministering: therefore in every order a character is impressed.
On the contrary: 1. A character is a spiritual seal: therefore it is impressed only in those [orders] in which some new and spiritual power is given; but the power of all the lower orders is bodily, such as to open the door or to guard [it], to recite prophecies, to carry the candelabra: therefore in these a character is in no way impressed.
2. Likewise, a character is a seal which regards, or is to be impressed upon, the image so as to configure it to God; but the acts of certain orders are only about the lower ministries: therefore if such [acts] do not pertain to configuring the image to God, it is evident etc.
3. Likewise, a character is an indelible seal: therefore if it places a man in some state, it is impossible to withdraw from that state without an affront being done to the Sacrament4; but those who are constituted in the minor orders can lawfully return to the lay state: therefore in them a character is not impressed.
4. Likewise, a character is a perpetual seal, which remains in the separated soul: therefore it ought not to be impressed except for a perpetual act; but the ministerial act of those lower orders is not perpetual: therefore etc.
Conclusion. In all orders a character is impressed.
I respond: It must be said that some wished to say that a character is impressed only in the sacerdotal order, but that in the lower orders one is only p. 622 disposed to the reception of such a character. For on account of its nobility [the sacerdotal order] by congruity requires that the lower orders precede [it]. — But since the lower orders, at least the sacred ones5, belong to the perfection of the Sacrament, and in these there occurs a perpetual segregation of the clergy from the laity, it does not seem that a character is impressed in the priesthood alone.
And therefore others said that a character is impressed in all the sacred orders, but not in the minor ones. And a sign of this is that these [in sacred orders] cannot mingle with the laity, whereas the others can. — But since no order can be repeated, and each has something of the account of a Sacrament, it seems that in each there is something which has the account of thing and sign and the account of a perpetual seal; and this we call a character: therefore it does not seem that it is impressed in those [sacred orders] alone.
And therefore there is a third, more probable opinion, that a character is impressed in all orders, as the arguments expressly show. For since a character is a distinctive and perpetual seal that configures to Christ, and this is to be found in all the orders, it is not to be doubted that a character is impressed in all.
1. To that which is objected, that it is a spiritual seal, it must be said that in all orders a power is given, either spiritual in itself or ordering to the spiritual. Hence the power of the doorkeeper is for admitting men to the divine sacrifice; the power of the lector is not only for stirring up the exterior hearing, but also the interior; and so of the others, as will better appear when the distinction of the orders is treated6.
2. To that which is objected concerning configuration, it must be said that the character of order, insofar as it is consummative7, configures the soul to God according to the image as assimilated to God; and this occurs in the highest order. — Or it must be said that such a seal more properly configures to Christ; whence, since Christ had a threefold office, namely of minister in acting, of fighter in suffering, of redeemer in dying, there was a threefold Sacrament, according to which man is configured to Christ in these three modes; whence there is only a threefold Sacrament in which the impression of a character takes place. For baptism configures to the dying and redeeming one, whence a man is buried together [with Christ] into death8; confirmation configures to the suffering and fighting one, and therefore the sign of the cross is made on the forehead; but order configures to the ministering and working one, as is rightly shown in the text9. And because in all [three] one is configured to Christ according to more and less, therefore in all a character is impressed.
3. 4. To that which is objected concerning indelibility and perpetuity, it must be said that the character of all the orders remains in the soul, whether of one returning to the lay state or of one dying, as a distinctive seal; and this either for glory, if he has used it well, or for ignominy, if badly; nor is it necessary that it remain always as regards the use of the ministry, because that use is in a certain manner converted into reward10. And by this the last [objection] is evident.
I. This question is intimately connected with another question, namely: whether all the orders are Sacraments. The ancient doctors, with the exception of Durandus (here q. I. n. 9.), affirmed this « as more probable » even as regards the minor orders; whence, together with St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas (here q. I. a. 2. subquestion 2; Supplement q. 35. a. 2.) rejects the 2nd opinion related here in the body. But Durandus teaches that « an order properly and simply so called, and which is a Sacrament, is the priesthood alone, comprehending under the priesthood the episcopate, which is the complete and perfect priesthood; but the rest are called orders in a qualified sense and are not Sacraments, but rather certain sacramentals, antecedent to the priesthood by congruity and not by necessity ». — But the question about the number of the orders recurs below in a. 2. q. 1, and in the same place q. 3. specially concerning the episcopate as it is an order and a Sacrament. — In our age, however, most [theologians] teach that the four minor orders and, more probably, also the subdiaconate do not impress a character nor are Sacraments; but that the presbyterate and episcopate certainly have the account of a Sacrament, and, more probably, also the diaconate. On this 1st question, besides those cited: Scotus, here q. unica n. 8. — B. Albert, here a. 17. 25. 26. — Peter of Tarantasia, here q. 3. a. 2. subquestion 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 4. q. 2. — Durandus, loc. cit. and especially q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3.
II. On the 2nd question Scotus (loc. cit. n. 11.) resolves « that there are several characters, and, more probably, that they are of a different species ». Yet all are ordered to one end and constitute one Sacrament, as was proved above p. I. a. 2. q. 4. St. Thomas touches on the matter in the places cited and q. 2. a. 1; Supplement q. 37. a. 2. On the same: B. Albert, on this and the following question, here a. 23. 34. — Peter of Tarantasia, loc. cit. subquestion 2. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit. ad 2. — Durandus, loc. cit. — Dionysius the Carthusian touches on the matter here q. 3. 5.
III. The solution of the 3rd question is the common one; here, however, the episcopate is not also comprehended, concerning which cf. below a. 2. q. 3. fundamentum 3. Cf. St. Thomas, here q. I. a. 2. subquestion 5; Supplement q. 35. a. 5. — Peter of Tarantasia, here q. 2. a. 3. subquestion 3. — Durandus, here q. 3. n. 9.
IV. As regards the 4th question, very many of [Bonaventure's] contemporaries hold, more strictly than Bonaventure, that a character is impressed only in the handing over of the instruments with the words accompanying it. Most understand this generally of all the orders, even of the priesthood, namely that it is conferred by the handing over of the chalice with wine and of the paten p. 623 with bread, but the diaconate by the giving of the book of the Gospels. This is put in express words also in the Decree for the Armenians. But already the friend of St. Bonaventure, Peter of Tarantasia, excepts from the general rule the diaconate and the presbyterate, which he asserts are conferred by the imposition of hands. Durandus restricts this to the diaconate. — But since the Eastern Church confers both sacred Orders by the imposition of hands alone, and the Decree for the Armenians, as regards what is handed down about the rites to be observed in the administration of the Sacraments, seems to be rather a practical instruction than a new dogmatic definition, more recent theologians rather favor the opinion of Peter of Tarantasia as regards the orders to which the account of a Sacrament certainly belongs. Hence, speculatively speaking, it is now held to be highly probable that in the collation of the priesthood the imposition of hands with the form is essentially required, but not the anointing of the hands; many also say, with others contradicting, that the rite of touching the instruments is only in place of an accidental matter. On the same 4th question: Scotus, here q. unica n. 8. f. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 3; Supplement q. 37. a. 5. — B. Albert, here a. 38. — Peter of Tarantasia, here q. 3. a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 4. q. 3. — Durandus, here q. 3. n. 6. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 6.
---
- 1Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 13.Here in the text of the Master, c. 13.
- 2Cap. 1, ubi adducuntur verba August., II. contra Epist. Parmeniani, c. 13. n. 28. — De charactere cfr. supra d. 6. p. I. per totam.Chapter 1, where the words of Augustine are adduced, Against the Letter of Parmenianus Book II, c. 13. n. 28. — On the character cf. above d. 6. p. I. throughout.
- 3Hic c. 5. seqq. — Verbo exhibuit Vat. praemittit in semelipso, cod. E a secunda manu in se.Here c. 5 ff. — To the word exhibuit [displayed] the Vatican [edition] prefixes in semelipso [in himself], codex E by a second hand [reads] in se [in himself].
- 4Cfr. supra pag. 600, nota 7.Cf. above p. 600, note 7.
- 5Scilicet subdiaconatus et diaconatus; qui non vocantur minores, sed cum sacerdotio maiores. Cfr. infra dub. 5.Namely the subdiaconate and the diaconate; which are not called minor [orders], but, together with the priesthood, major [orders]. Cf. below dubium 5.
- 6Art. 2. q. 1. et 4.Article 2. q. 1 and 4.
- 7Ita cod. E, alii codd. male conservativus, edd. conservantis.Thus codex E; the other codices wrongly [read] conservativus, the editions conservantis.
- 8Rom. 6, 4: Consepulti enim sumus cum illo per baptismum in mortem. Cfr. Col. 2, 12. — Post unde Vat. addit in ipso et inferius voci fronte cum ed. I praemittit media.Romans 6, 4: For we are buried together with him by baptism into death. Cf. Colossians 2, 12. — After unde [whence] the Vatican [edition] adds in ipso [in him], and lower down, to the word fronte [forehead], together with edition I, it prefixes media [middle].
- 9Hic c. 5. seqq. — De principio huius solut. (configurat Christo) cfr. supra d. 6. p. I. q. 2. ad quaest. incid. 2. — Mox post in omnibus secunda manus in cod. bb addidit ordinibus.Here c. 5 ff. — On the beginning of this solution (it configures to Christ) cf. above d. 6. p. I. q. 2. in reply to incidental question 2. — Just after in omnibus [in all] a second hand in codex bb added ordinibus [orders].
- 10Edd. praemium vel supplicium.The editions [read] praemium vel supplicium [reward or punishment]. ---