Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

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

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 24

Textus Latinus

p. 626

QUAESTIO IV.

Quando character imprimatur in diversis ordinibus.

Quarto quaeritur, quando imprimatur character in diversis ordinibus. Et cum in ordinibus sit ista quinque reperire, utpote in ordine sacerdotali, scilicet benedictionem, inunctionem, manuum impositionem et alicuius porrectionem, ut libri, vel clavis, vel vasis, et verbi expressionem; quaeritur, in quo istorum fiat characteris impressio.

Et primo videtur, quod non in benedictione:

1. Quoniam semper in ordinibus fuit characteris impressio¹, et illud est ordini essentiale, in quo imprimitur character; sed benedictio non est de essentia ordinum, cum non legatur talis solemnitas fuisse in Ecclesia primitiva: ergo etc.

2. Item, illud, in quo imprimitur character interior, debet habere assimilationem cum interiori charactere; sed character ille respicit aliquam potestatem², benedictio autem fit ad sanctitatem: ergo etc.

Item, quod non detur in unctione, videtur:

3. Quia si aliqua passio³ aliquibus inest, inest secundum aliquod commune; sed characteris impressio est in omnibus ordinibus, sed inunctio est in uno solo, scilicet in sacerdotio: ergo etc.

4. Item, ubicumque talis causa, ibi talis effectus; sed in episcopatu est nova inunctio, ergo novi characteris impressio; hoc autem est falsum, quia, si novus character imprimeretur, sicut sacerdos potest esse sine diaconatu, sic episcopus sine sacerdotio, cuius contrarium determinatum est in decretalium libro ultimo⁴.

p. 627

Item, quod non detur in manuum impositione, videtur:

1. Primo per consimilem rationem: quia, cum non fiat manuum impositio nisi in solis duobus ordinibus, non imprimeretur character nisi in his duobus solum; quod est manifeste falsum, sicut patet ex praecedentibus⁵.

2. Item, ordo traditur tantum ab episcopo; sed ordo traditur in impressione characteris: ergo si character imprimitur in impositione manuum, videtur, quod solus episcopus debeat manum imponere in ordinatione; quod est falsum, quia, ut dicit Canon, distinctione vigesima tertia⁶: « Presbyter cum ordinatur » etc., omnes sacerdotes assistentes debent in ordinatione sacerdotis manus imponere.

Quod autem in libri, vel vasis traditione non imprimatur, videtur:

3. Quoniam, esto quod tales libri vel vasa deessent, sicut forte deerant in Ecclesia primitiva, nihilominus tales ordines dari possent: ergo etc.

4. Item, multa talia confert archidiaconus, ut ampullam et aqua-manile subdiacono, sicut in littera⁷ tangitur, et claves ipsi ostiario: si ergo solius episcopi est conferre ordines, videtur, quod in tali traditione non imprimatur character.

Quod autem in verbi expressione non imprimatur, videtur:

5. Primo, quia in verbis illis significatur recta potestatis exsecutio, ut patet, si quis inspiciat⁸: ergo cum illud sequatur ordinis essentiam et characterem, videtur etc.

6. Item, character non potest imprimi nisi a Deo; sed verbi expressio est per verbum imperandi, cum dicitur: Accipe potestatem etc.: ergo in tali forma non est competens imprimi characterem.

Est igitur quaestio: quare hoc Sacramentum habet formam verbi per modum imperativum, cum alia habeant per indicativum, vel deprecativum⁹?

Est etiam quaestio: unde ortum habuerunt haec circa ordinem, scilicet manuum impositio et benedictio et unctio?

Est etiam quaestio: quare impositio manuum est in duobus ordinibus, sed unctio in uno solo ordine, scilicet sacerdotio?

Est quarto quaestio: quare diacono solus episcopus manus imponit, sacerdotibus vero alii sacerdotes?

Est ultimo quaestio: in quo essentialiter consistit Sacramentum istud exterius? Et cum non habeat elementum nec formam statutam, videtur, quod nihil essentiale habeat. Et quod non habeat formam determinatam, videtur, cum antiqua ordinaria alium modum habeant.

CONCLUSIO.

Character imprimitur, cum datur principale instrumentum, sed adiuncta forma verbali et in duobus sacris ordinibus manuum impositione.

Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam habendam haec sunt praesupponenda, quod omne Sacramentum aliquod signum essentiale habet exterius; nullo enim modo accidit Sacramento esse signum, sed essentiale est simpliciter¹⁰. — Amplius, supponendum est, quod in omni Sacramento, in quo imprimitur character, istud est essentiale Sacramento, in quo sive per quod character imprimitur. — Amplius, cum signum debeat habere similitudinem ad signatum, in eo imprimitur character, quod exterius magis est in Sacramento sibi simile.

Quoniam igitur in ordine imprimitur character, qui est signaculum ad aliquam potestatem spiritualem; hoc pro generali regula habendum est, quod in illo signo exteriori imprimitur character in quolibet ordine, in quo principalis potestas, quam respicit ordo, significatur tradi ordinato. Ad hanc autem significandam duo concurrunt exterius, scilicet traditio alicuius instrumenti et expressio verbi, ut sic in signo visibili simul et audibili significetur dari. Nec sufficit signum audibile sine visibili, propter hoc, quod aliud verbum, aliud debet respicere signum, ut patet in aliis Sacramentis¹¹; nec sufficit signum sine verbo, quia ad multa potest tale signum, scilicet liber vel illud vas dari, et ideo oportet per verbum arctari. Et haec duo sunt essentialia et intrinseca Sacramento et perficientia Sacramentum. Quoniam enim « manus est organum organorum¹² » in operando et lingua in exprimendo, recte significatur conferri potestas in officio utriusque.

Et haec in quolibet ordine reperiuntur, secundum quod reperitur et characteris impressio. Sed quoniam characteres sunt diversi, habentes maiorem dignitatem et minorem secundum gradus potestatum¹³; ideo tam signa quam verba diversificantur, maxime in ordinibus sacris et in minoribus. In ordinibus enim sacris, quoniam datur ibi nobilis potestas et excellens, fit manus impositio, p. 628 non tantum instrumenti traditio; quoniam « manus est organum organorum », in quo scilicet principalius residet potestas operandi. Unde sic ordinabant in Ecclesia primitiva, ubi non nisi duo isti ordines explicite erant¹⁴. — Sed in ordinibus minoribus fit traditio alicuius instrumenti, ut clavis, vel libri, vel exorcismi etc.; et si plura instrumenta tradantur uni, illud pro principali habendum est, quod episcopus tradit cum prolatione verbi: Accipe potestatem. Unde in omissione principalis debet ordo iterari, quia praesumitur, quod characterem non receperit; sed in aliis consequentibus, si fiat defectus vel negligentia, debet suppleri¹⁵.

Concedendum est igitur, quod in unctione non imprimitur character, sed tantum fit propter solemnitatem et dignitatem corporis dominici, quod non est contrectandum nisi manibus consecratis. Pontifici autem fit unctio in capite, in quo significatur abundantia gratiae, quae in praelatis debet in excellentia reperiri. Et hinc est, quod manus sacerdotis unguntur oleo sancto; sed caput pontificis chrismate, ut significetur, quod in eo debet esse excellentia vitae in conspectu Dei in conscientia, et in conspectu hominum quantum ad famam¹⁶. — Concedendum est etiam, quod non fit characteris impressio in ipsa benedictione, sicut ostendunt illae rationes, quia potius est instituta ad devotionem excitandam et impetrandam gratiam, quam sit de Sacramenti substantia.

1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, de manuum impositione, quod non reperitur in omnibus; ratio iam dicta est; reperitur tamen aliquid simile, quia collatio alicuius instrumenti, in quo est protensio manus, et sic¹⁷ significatio collationis potestatis.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sacerdotes imponunt manus; dicendum, quod illa manus impositio non est ad ordinis collationem, sed ad significationem. Significatur enim gratia communionis, quae in ordine sacerdotali confertur et per sacerdotem debet administrari¹⁸; ideo non imponunt manus sacerdotes diacono, sed solus episcopus, in cuius impositione manus non tantum est significatio, sed etiam potestatis collatio. — Praeterea, in hoc significatur, quod ille qui ordinatur, in illo ordine consecratur, cum sacerdotes manus sacratas imponunt. — Et nota, quod etsi multi sint assistentes, non sufficit tamen, quod tres¹⁹ manus imponant, aliud est ex abundanti, nec tamen illud est de necessitate Sacramenti.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de libri, vel vasis traditione, dicendum, quod sicut omne instrumentum sive armatura in virtute manus est; sic etiam per impositionem manuum, ubi deessent talia, possent significari; unde, sicut post²⁰ videbitur, in impositione manuum in Ecclesia primitiva ceteri ordines implicabantur, qui postmodum processu temporis explicati sunt sive expliciti, et quantum ad verbum et quantum ad signum et quantum ad personas.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod archidiaconus confert multa talia; dicendum, quod hoc est ad potestatis explicationem; unde in tali traditione facta ab archidiacono non traditur nova potestas, sed tradita explicatur²¹.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de verbi expressione, dicendum, quod semper intelligendum est fuisse verbum aliquod, in quo exprimeretur potestas talis dari; sed non fuerunt verba praefixa nisi in solis duobus Sacramentis, quibus Dominus verba specialia ore proprio praedixit; et ideo in aliis, etsi verba sint necessaria, non tamen sunt determinata vocabula; sed verba quaecumque sensum exprimentia, quantum est de ratione Sacramenti, sufficiunt, si quis in haeresim introducere non intendat. Sed nunc necessarium est servare formam ab Ecclesia statutam et approbatam²².

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur de modo imperativo, dicendum, quod pontifex summus gerit personam Christi et personam superioris, sicut dicit Isidorus in libro de Officiis²³; et quoniam potestas est secundum plus et minus et descendit, et secundum illam qui conferunt praesunt, quibus conferunt subsunt: p. 629 ideo rectissime modo imperativo utitur. Et sic patet responsio ad primam quaestionem. — Omnes aliae quaestiones ex dictis patent, praeter illam quae est de ortu istorum: nam benedictio et manus impositio a Patriarchis, Genesis vigesimo septimo et Genesis quadragesimo octavo²⁴, venit, sed inunctio figuram habuit in Lege, Levitici octavo, ubi inunctus est summus sacerdos²⁵.

---

English Translation

p. 626

QUESTION IV.

When the character is imprinted in the diverse orders.

Fourthly it is asked, when the character is imprinted in the diverse orders. And since in the orders there are these five [things] to be found, as in the priestly order — namely, blessing, anointing, the imposition of hands, and the presentation of something, such as a book, or a key, or a vessel, and the utterance of a word; it is asked, in which of these the imprinting of the character comes about.

And first it seems that [it is] not in the blessing:

1. Because the imprinting of the character¹ always existed in the orders, and that is essential to the order in which the character is imprinted; but the blessing is not of the essence of the orders, since such a solemnity is not read to have existed in the primitive Church: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, that in which the interior character is imprinted ought to have an assimilation to the interior character; but that character regards some power², whereas the blessing is [directed] to sanctity: therefore etc.

Likewise, that it is not given in the anointing seems [so]:

3. Because if some attribute³ is in certain [subjects], it is [in them] according to something common; but the imprinting of the character is in all the orders, whereas the anointing is in one only, namely in the priesthood: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, wherever [there is] such a cause, there [is] such an effect; but in the episcopate there is a new anointing, therefore [there is] a new imprinting of a character; but this is false, because, if a new character were imprinted, then, just as a priest can be without the diaconate, so a bishop [could be] without the priesthood, the contrary of which is determined in the last book of the decretals⁴.

p. 627

Likewise, that it is not given in the imposition of hands seems [so]:

1. First, by a like reasoning: because, since the imposition of hands takes place only in two orders alone, the character would be imprinted only in these two alone; which is manifestly false, as is clear from the preceding [matters]⁵.

2. Likewise, an order is handed on only by the bishop; but an order is handed on in the imprinting of the character: therefore if the character is imprinted in the imposition of hands, it seems that the bishop alone ought to impose the hand in the ordination; which is false, because, as the Canon says, in the twenty-third distinction⁶: « When a presbyter is ordained » etc., all the assisting priests ought to impose hands in the ordination of a priest.

That the character is not imprinted in the handing-over of a book or a vessel seems [so]:

3. Because, granted that such books or vessels were lacking, as perhaps they were lacking in the primitive Church, nonetheless such orders could be given: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the archdeacon confers many such things, such as the cruet and the water-basin to the subdeacon, as is touched upon in the text⁷, and the keys to the ostiary himself: if therefore it belongs to the bishop alone to confer orders, it seems that in such a handing-over a character is not imprinted.

That the character is not imprinted in the utterance of a word seems [so]:

5. First, because in those words the right execution of the power is signified, as is clear if anyone examines [it]⁸: therefore, since that follows upon the essence of the order and the character, it seems etc.

6. Likewise, the character cannot be imprinted except by God; but the utterance of the word is by a word of commanding, when it is said: Receive the power etc.: therefore in such a form it is not fitting that the character be imprinted.

There is therefore a question: why does this Sacrament have the form of the word by way of the imperative, whereas the others have [it] by the indicative, or the deprecative⁹?

There is also a question: whence did these [things] concerning the order take their origin, namely the imposition of hands and the blessing and the anointing?

There is also a question: why is the imposition of hands in two orders, but the anointing in one order only, namely the priesthood?

There is fourthly a question: why does the bishop alone impose hands on a deacon, but on priests the other priests [do so]?

There is lastly a question: in what does this exterior Sacrament essentially consist? And since it has neither an element nor an appointed form, it seems that it has nothing essential. And that it does not have a determinate form seems [so], since the ancient ordinaries had another manner.

CONCLUSIO.

The character is imprinted when the principal instrument is given, but with the verbal form adjoined, and, in the two sacred orders, [with] the imposition of hands.

I respond: For obtaining an understanding of the aforesaid, these [things] are to be presupposed: that every Sacrament has some essential exterior sign; for in no way is it accidental to a Sacrament to be a sign, but it is essential simply¹⁰. — Further, it is to be supposed that in every Sacrament in which a character is imprinted, that is essential to the Sacrament, in which or by which the character is imprinted. — Further, since the sign ought to have a likeness to the thing signified, the character is imprinted in that which exteriorly is more like to itself in the Sacrament.

Since therefore the character is imprinted in the order — [the character] which is a seal [ordered] to some spiritual power — this is to be held as a general rule: that the character is imprinted in that exterior sign, in any order, in which the principal power that the order regards is signified to be handed on to the ordained. And for signifying this, two [things] concur exteriorly, namely the handing-over of some instrument and the expression of a word, so that thus in a sign visible and audible at once it may be signified to be given. Nor does an audible sign suffice without a visible one, because of this, that one word ought to regard one sign, another [word] another [sign], as is clear in the other Sacraments¹¹; nor does a sign suffice without a word, because such a sign — namely a book or that vessel — can be given for many [things], and therefore it must be restricted by the word. And these two are essential and intrinsic to the Sacrament and perfecting of the Sacrament. For since « the hand is the organ of organs¹² » in operating, and the tongue in expressing, the conferral of power is rightly signified in the office of each.

And these are found in any order, according as the imprinting of the character is also found. But since the characters are diverse, having greater dignity and lesser according to the grades of powers¹³, therefore both the signs and the words are diversified, especially in the sacred orders and in the minor [ones]. For in the sacred orders, since there is given there a noble and excellent power, the imposition of hands takes place, p. 628 not only the handing-over of an instrument; since « the hand is the organ of organs », in which namely the power of operating principally resides. Whence thus they ordained in the primitive Church, where there were explicitly only these two orders¹⁴. — But in the minor orders there takes place the handing-over of some instrument, such as a key, or a book, or [the book] of exorcisms etc.; and if several instruments are handed over to one [person], that is to be held for the principal which the bishop hands over with the utterance of the word: Receive the power. Whence, in the omission of the principal [one], the order must be repeated, because it is presumed that he has not received the character; but in the other consequent [matters], if a defect or negligence occurs, it must be supplied¹⁵.

It is therefore to be conceded that in the anointing a character is not imprinted, but it takes place only for the solemnity and dignity of the Lord's body, which is not to be handled except by consecrated hands. But for the pontiff the anointing takes place on the head, in which is signified the abundance of grace which in prelates ought to be found in excellence. And hence it is that the hands of a priest are anointed with holy oil; but the head of the pontiff with chrism, so that it may be signified that in him there ought to be excellence of life in the sight of God, in conscience, and in the sight of men, as to reputation¹⁶. — It is also to be conceded that the imprinting of the character does not take place in the blessing itself, as those reasonings show, because it is rather instituted for stirring up devotion and imploring grace than being of the substance of the Sacrament.

1. To that, then, which is objected — concerning the imposition of hands, that it is not found in all [orders] — the reason has already been stated; yet something similar is found, because [there is] the conferral of some instrument, in which there is an extending of the hand, and thus¹⁷ a signification of the conferral of power.

2. To that which is objected, that priests impose hands; it must be said that that imposition of hands is not for the conferral of the order, but for signification. For the grace of communion is signified, which is conferred in the priestly order and ought to be administered by the priest¹⁸; therefore priests do not impose hands on a deacon, but the bishop alone, in whose imposition of hands there is not only signification but also conferral of power. — Moreover, in this it is signified that he who is ordained is consecrated in that order, when the priests impose their consecrated hands. — And note that although there be many assisting, it nevertheless does not suffice that three¹⁹ impose hands; [rather] it is [done] out of abundance, nor yet is that of the necessity of the Sacrament.

3. To that which is objected concerning the handing-over of a book or a vessel, it must be said that just as every instrument or armament is in the power of the hand, so too through the imposition of hands, where such [instruments] were lacking, [the orders] could be signified; whence, as will be seen afterward²⁰, in the imposition of hands in the primitive Church the other orders were implied, which afterward, in the process of time, were unfolded or made explicit, both as to the word and as to the sign and as to the persons.

4. To that which is objected, that the archdeacon confers many such things; it must be said that this is for the unfolding of the power; whence in such a handing-over made by the archdeacon no new power is handed on, but that already handed on is unfolded²¹.

5. To that which is objected concerning the utterance of the word, it must be said that it is always to be understood that there was some word, in which it was expressed that such a power was being given; but there were not words fixed beforehand except in the two Sacraments alone, in which the Lord foretold special words by his own mouth; and therefore in the others, although words are necessary, nevertheless the vocables are not determinate; but any words whatsoever expressing the sense, as far as pertains to the nature of the Sacrament, suffice, provided one does not intend to introduce heresy. But now it is necessary to observe the form appointed and approved by the Church²².

6. To that which is objected concerning the imperative mode, it must be said that the supreme pontiff bears the person of Christ and the person of a superior, as Isidore says in the book On the Offices²³; and since power is according to more and less and descends, and according to it those who confer are set over [those] to whom they confer, [who are] subject: p. 629 therefore he most rightly uses the imperative mode. And thus the reply to the first question is clear. — All the other questions are clear from what has been said, except that one which is about the origin of these [things]: for the blessing and the imposition of hands came from the Patriarchs, in Genesis the twenty-seventh and Genesis the forty-eighth²⁴, but the anointing had its figure in the Law, in Leviticus the eighth, where the high priest was anointed²⁵.

---

Apparatus Criticus

1
Ut ostensum est supra q. 1. — Pro fuit cod. K fit.
As was shown above, q. 1. — For fuit codex K [reads] fit.
2
Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 13.
See here the text of the Master, c. 13.
3
Sive proprietas; cfr. supra pag. 142, nota 11, ubi eadem propos. explicatur.
Or a property; cf. above p. 142, note 11, where the same proposition is explained.
4
In C. Ex litteris (10.), de Excessibus praelatorum (lib. V. tit. 31.). Verba vide infra a. 2. q. 3. fundam. 3, ubi etiam de clerico sive sacerdote per saltum ordinato. — Plurimi codd. et edd. perperam libro tertio. — De maiori cfr. supra pag. 78, nota 8.
In the chapter Ex litteris (10.), on the Excesses of prelates (bk. V, tit. 31.). See the words below, a. 2. q. 3. fundam. 3, where [there is] also [treatment] of a cleric or priest ordained per saltum. — Very many codices and editions wrongly [read] in the third book. — On maiori cf. above p. 78, note 8.
5
Quaest. 1. — Impositio manuum fit in ordine presbyteratus et diaconatus; cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 10.
Question 1. — The imposition of hands takes place in the order of the presbyterate and the diaconate; cf. here the text of the Master, c. 10.
6
Can. 8.
Canon 8.
7
Hic c. 9, ubi de subdiacono; cfr. c. 8, ubi idem dicitur de acolytho.
Here c. 9, where [it treats] of the subdeacon; cf. c. 8, where the same is said of the acolyte.
8
Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5. seqq.
Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 5 ff.
9
Vide supra d. 23. a. 1. q. 4.
See above, d. 23. a. 1. q. 4.
10
Ut ostensum est supra d. 1. p. 1. q. 2. — Cod. P ipsius. — Pro signum essentiale cod. bb signum sensibile, non pauci codd. signum rationale.
As was shown above, d. 1. p. 1. q. 2. — Codex P [reads] ipsius. — For signum essentiale codex bb [reads] signum sensibile, [and] not a few codices signum rationale.
11
Cfr. supra d. 1. p. 1. dub. 2; d. 3. p. 1. a. 1. q. 1. seq. et d. 6. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.
Cf. above, d. 1. p. 1. dub. 2; d. 3. p. 1. a. 1. q. 1 f. and d. 6. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.
12
Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 38. (c. 8.). Cfr. IV. de Partib. animal. c. 10. Ibid. II. c. 16. seq. agit de lingua, de qua cfr. etiam II. de Anima, text. 88. (c. 8.).
Aristotle, On the Soul III, text 38 (c. 8). Cf. On the Parts of Animals IV, c. 10. In the same [work], II, c. 16 f., he treats of the tongue, on which cf. also On the Soul II, text 88 (c. 8).
13
Ut monstratum est supra q. 2.
As was shown above, q. 2.
14
Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 12. — Inferius pro exorcismi [i. e. libri exorcismorum, ut notat Magister, hic in lit. c. 7.] cod. bb urcei.
See here the text of the Master, c. 12. — Below, for exorcismi [i. e. of the book of exorcisms, as the Master notes, here in the text c. 7.] codex bb [reads] urcei.
15
Cfr. C. Pastoralis (1.) et C. Presbyter et diaconus (3.), X. de Sacramentis non iterandis (lib. I. tit. 16.).
Cf. the chapter Pastoralis (1.) and the chapter Presbyter et diaconus (3.), X, on Sacraments not to be repeated (bk. I, tit. 16.).
16
Ut exponit Innocent. III. in C. Cum venisset ad Apostolicam sedem (1.), X. de Sacra unctione (lib. I. tit. 13.), ex quo plura supra pag. 593, nota 2. 3. relata sunt. Cfr. Hug. a S. Vict. II. de Sacram. p. III. c. 12. seq. Vide etiam infra a. 2. q. 3. ad 6.
As Innocent III explains in the chapter Cum venisset ad Apostolicam sedem (1.), X, on Sacred anointing (bk. I, tit. 13.), from which several [things] have been reported above on p. 593, notes 2 and 3. Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments II, p. III, c. 12 f. See also below, a. 2. q. 3. ad 6.
17
Ita codd. F I L aa, in aliis et edd. fit.
Thus codices F I L aa; in the others and in the editions [it reads] fit.
18
Richard. a Med., IV. Sent. d. 25. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1: Impositio manuum sacerdotum assistentium est ad concordiam et communionem ecclesiasticam significandam.
Richard of Middleton, IV Sent. d. 25. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1: The imposition of the hands of the assisting priests is for signifying concord and ecclesiastical communion.
19
Pontificale Romanum monet, quod ex assistentibus sacerdotibus « tres aut plures, planetis vel saltem cum stolis parati, si commode fieri potest, esse deberent ». Cfr. infra d. 25. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1. — Haec secunda ratio (Praeterea... Sacramenti) a codd. et ed. I transfertur in finem solut. ad 3, sed absque ullo fundamento. Secuti sumus ed. Vaticanam.
The Roman Pontifical advises that, of the assisting priests, « three or more, arrayed in chasubles or at least with stoles, if it can conveniently be done, ought to be [present] ». Cf. below, d. 25. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1. — This second reason (Praeterea... Sacramenti) is transposed by the codices and edition I to the end of the solution ad 3, but without any foundation. We have followed the Vatican edition.
20
Art. 2. q. 1. ad 3. et 4.
Article 2. q. 1. ad 3 and 4.
21
Secunda manus in cod. Q addidit: Quod enim principale est traditur ab episcopo cum verbi prolatione, ut dictum est supra eodem problemate [scil. hic in corp.].
A second hand in codex Q added: For that which is principal is handed on by the bishop with the utterance of the word, as was said above in the same discussion [namely, here in the body].
22
Cfr. supra d. 3. p. 1. a. 2. q. 1. seqq.; d. 8. p. 1. dub. 4. et p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seq. nec non d. 23. a. 1. q. 4. — Superius pro sufficiunt et intendat edd. sufficiebant et intendebat.
Cf. above, d. 3. p. 1. a. 2. q. 1 ff.; d. 8. p. 1. dub. 4 and p. II. a. 1. q. 1 f., and also d. 23. a. 1. q. 4. — Above, for sufficiunt and intendat the editions [read] sufficiebant and intendebat.
23
Libr. II. c. 5, ubi ostendit, quod Aaron figuram gesserit summi pontificis, id est episcopi, sicut Moyses figuram Christi, qui est dominus pontificum seu episcoporum, qui Latine nominari possunt superintendentes. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 15. seqq., ubi afferuntur verba Isidor., VII. Etymolog. c. 12. Vide etiam Dionys., de Eccles. Hierarch. c. 5. § 5. seq. — Mox pro est secundum, quod habent codd. M R S, codd. B D L U aa sedet secundum, alii tantum secundum, inter quos codd. A F G Y bb (E a secunda manu) subinde ante descendit omittunt et (codd. I K ascendit et descendit). Pro quibus conferunt codd. G N P Y quibus confertur. Edd. legunt: et quoniam potestas superioris plus et minus traditur et descendit, subinde omisso praesunt, quibus conferunt.
Book II, c. 5, where he shows that Aaron bore the figure of the high priest, that is, of the bishop, just as Moses [bore] the figure of Christ, who is the lord of the pontiffs or bishops, who in Latin can be named superintendents. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 15 ff., where the words of Isidore, Etymologies VII, c. 12, are brought forward. See also Dionysius, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy c. 5, § 5 f. — Presently, for est secundum, which codices M R S have, codices B D L U aa [read] sedet secundum, others only secundum, among which codices A F G Y bb (E by a second hand) thereupon omit et before descendit (codices I K [read] ascendit et descendit). For quibus conferunt codices G N P Y [read] quibus confertur. The editions read: and since the power of a superior is handed on and descends according to more and less, thereupon, praesunt being omitted, quibus conferunt.
24
Primo loco (Gen. 27, 4. et 27.) agitur de Isaac, qui filio suo Iacob benedicit; secundo loco (Gen. 48, 13. seqq. et 49, 22. seqq.; codd. allegant Gen. ultimo, ubi tamen nihil occurrit) narratur, quod Iacob moriens filiis Ioseph manum imposuit et bis benedictionem dedit. Cfr. Num. 27, 18. et 23, ubi « Moyses, super caput Iosue manum suam imponens, dedit ei spiritum virtutis et ducatus in populo Israel », ut ait Isidor., II. de Offic. eccles. c. 5. n. 10, qui adducit etiam Luc. 24, 50. — Seq. locus est Lev. 8, 12, ubi Moyses, oleum « fundens super caput Aaron, unxit eum et consecravit ».
In the first place (Gen. 27:4 and 27) it treats of Isaac, who blesses his son Jacob; in the second place (Gen. 48:13 ff. and 49:22 ff.; the codices cite Genesis, the last [chapter], where however nothing occurs) it is narrated that Jacob, dying, imposed his hand on the sons of Joseph and twice gave a blessing. Cf. Num. 27:18 and 23, where « Moses, imposing his hand upon the head of Joshua, gave him the spirit of power and of leadership among the people of Israel », as Isidore says, On the Ecclesiastical Offices II, c. 5, n. 10, who also adduces Luke 24:50. — The following passage is Lev. 8:12, where Moses, « pouring oil upon the head of Aaron, anointed him and consecrated him ».
25
Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.
See the scholion on question 1 of this article. ---