Dist. 24, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 24
Articulus II. De ordinibus quoad numerum et distinctionem.
Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de ordinibus quantum ad numerum et distinctionem. Et circa hoc quaeruntur breviter quatuor.
Primo quaeritur de divisione ordinum in sacros et non sacros.
Secundo, utrum psalmistatus sit inter ordines minores.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum episcopatus sit ordo.
Quarto, utrum sint septem, aut plures, aut pauciores ordines.
Quaestio I. De divisione ordinum in sacros et non sacros.
Quaeritur igitur primo de hac divisione ordinum, et videtur, quod nulla sit:
1. Primo, quia ordo essentialiter et universaliter est Sacramentum1; sed omne Sacramentum dicit rem sacram: ergo ordo universaliter est res sacra: ergo omnis ordo est sacer.
2. Item, in inferioribus ordinibus datur potestas ministrandi circa altare, et ea quae pertinent ad Sacramentum Sacramentorum, scilicet corpus dominicum: ergo si in minoribus ministratur circa altare2, sicut in diaconatu et subdiaconatu, licet non ita de propinquo; videtur, quod sicut illi sunt sacri, sic et isti.
3. Item, in Ecclesia primitiva non fuerunt ordines nisi sacri, scilicet presbyteratus et diaconatus3: ergo vel illa Ecclesia fuit diminuta, vel ista superfluit.
4. Item, ea quae spectant ad substantiam Sacramenti, semper eadem perseverant: si ergo ordines minores vere ordines sunt, aut tunc esse debuerunt, aut vere ordines non sunt. Quod si tunc non fuerunt, sicut patere potest, videtur etc.
Contra: 1. In veteri testamento erant distincta officia ministrantium, ita quod alii ministrabant circa altare, alii circa custodiam templi4: si ergo maioris ordinis et dignitatis est nunc sacerdotium, et cultus divinus est ampliandus et ampliatus; videtur, quod alii debent ad haec, et ad illa deputari: ergo videtur, quod cum ordines penes officia maiora et minora distinguantur, quod ordines maiores et minores esse debent.
2. Item, sicut patebit, cum de matrimonio agetur5, et habetur distinctione trigesima secunda in Decretis, aliqui sunt ordines impedientes matrimonium, et aliqui non: si ergo in illo ordine corpus Domini consecratur, in quo homo ab actu libidinis per omnia removetur; videtur, quod aliqui sint ordines sacri, et aliqui non.
3. Item, quod ita debeat6 esse, probatur: primo, quia ordo est Sacramentum perfectorum; sed ad statum perfectionis non statim ascenditur, sed paulative pervenitur: ergo si sacer ordo collocat aliquo modo in statu perfectionis, videtur, quod aliquos ordines inferiores habere debeat, non sacros.
4. Item, videmus in curia regis terreni, quod ad hoc, quod sit sufficienter ordinata, ministri superiores indigent inferioribus, qui obediunt et subserviunt, et maiores indigent minoribus: ergo si p. 630 domus Dei ordinata debet esse, videtur, quod ibi debent esse ministri, et rursus ministri ministrantium et primi sunt in ordine superiori, secundi in minori: ergo minores et maiores.
Conclusio
Conclusio. Recte quidam ordines dicuntur sacri, quidam non sacri.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Sacramentum ordinis gradus habet plurimos; et prima quidem distinctio est per gradus inferiores et superiores, sive per gradus sacros et non sacros. — Ratio autem, quare hoc Sacramentum gradus habet, est, quia ordinat ad dispensandum Sacramentum dignissimum et ministrandum in templo Dei; ad ministerium autem illud concurrunt quaedam officia digniora, et quaedam minus digna. Etsi omnia requirant ministros sanctos, illa tamen, quae attenduntur circa altare et circa portationem vasorum sacrorum et circa oblationem sacrificii consummandam, potissime requirunt ministros sanctos, secundum illud Isaiae quinquagesimo secundo7: Mundamini qui fertis vasa Domini. Sanctitas autem vel sanctificatio potissime consistit in continentia; ideo sunt quidam ordines, qui requirunt continentiam in ministris, quidam vero minime. Ideo recte quidam ordines sacri dicuntur, quidam non sacri, non ratione sui, sed ratione ministerii, ad quod requiritur sanctitas in ministro. Et sic patet ratio huius distinctionis ordinum per sacros et non sacros; et concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc.
Ad argumenta:
Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod omnis ordo est Sacramentum; dicendum, quod omnes ordines signa sunt sacra et rei sacrae; sed ab hac ratione non dicuntur ordines sacri, sicut visum est, sed a consecratione ministri, et quia ipsi ordines disponunt8 ad contingendum et ministrandum vasa consecrata.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in omnibus datur potestas ad ministrandum aliquid circa Sacramentum maximum; dicendum, quod verum est, tamen secundum plus et minus, secundum propinquum et remotum. Illis enim, qui sunt in inferioribus constituti, non licet vasa consecrata portare ex officio, quamvis propter inopiam ministrorum frequenter talibus permittatur.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in Ecclesia primitiva soli ordines sacri fuerunt; dicendum, quod falsum est, immo et alii fuerunt; sed implicite dabantur in impositione manuum, quoniam «manus est organum organorum9». — Ratio autem, quare non distinguebantur, erat propter paucitatem ministrantium et propter paucitatem fidelium; ideo oportebat, quod omnia officia darentur uni; nunc autem multiplicatus est divinus cultus: ideo non est simile.
Ad 4. Et per hoc patet ultimum. Quod enim dicit, quod substantialia semper fuerunt eadem; dicendum, quod verum est; et semper isti ordines et gradus in Ecclesia fuerunt, licet non essent explicati10 et distincti, ut nunc. Non solum enim nunc debent distingui propter ministrantium amplificationem, sed etiam propter manuductionem, quia ab ipsis cunabulis ordinantur nunc qui debent esse clerici. Ideo secundum profectum aetatis in susceptione graduum debent et possunt promoveri, nec statim ad supremum gradum provehi11.
I. Antiqua divisio ordinum in sacros sive maiores, et non sacros sive minores ex ipsis legibus Ecclesiae probatur et recepta est a Concilio Trident. (Sess. XXIII. c. 2. et can. 2.). Cfr. infra dub. 5. — Quaestio 2. ab aliis vix tangitur, a S. Thoma vero paucis verbis solvitur hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2. ad 5. (Suppl. q. 37. a. 2. ad 5.); similiter a Richardo a Med., hic a. 3. q. 3. ad 1.
De 1. quaestione: Scot., hic q. unica n. 12. — S. Thom., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3; Suppl. loc. cit. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 28. 36. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2. — Durand., hic q. 2. n. 15. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.
II. Quaestiones 3. et 4. intime cohaerent, et circa utramque breviter haec observamus. 1. Numerus septenarius ordinum, prout in saepe laudato Decreto pro Armenis recensetur, in Ecclesia Latina perantiquus est, immo ipsum saltem de iure ab origine fuisse, a Scholasticis aliisque passim docetur (cfr. hic q. 1. ad 3.). Graeca autem Ecclesia a multis saeculis non habet alios ordines minores nisi lectoratum; et controvertitur, utrum antiquitus alii veri ordines minores ibi in usu fuerint, et speciatim, utrum iidem minores, quibus utitur Ecclesia Latina. — 2. Supposito numero septenario ordinum, quaestio duplex discutienda est de episcopatu, utrum sit ordo et Sacramentum. Haeresis est enim dicere, «in Ecclesia catholica non esse hierarchiam divina ordinatione institutam, quae constat ex episcopis, presbyteris et ministris»; item, «episcopos non esse presbyteris superiores, vel non habere potestatem confirmandi et ordinandi, vel eam quam habent, illis esse cum presbyteris communem» (Concil. Trident. ibid. can. 6. et 7.). Hinc negari non posse videtur, quod episcopatus, qui tanta dignitate distincta supereminet ceteris ordinibus, sit et ordo distinctus et Sacramentum, scilicet ordinatio illa, qua confertur. — 3. Inter notos antiquiores Scholasticos solus, ut videtur, Guliel. Antissiod. (S. p. V. tr. 8. q. 1.) docet, novem esse ordines, septem illis adiungens episcopatum et archidiaconatum (!); postea Scot. (hic q. unica n. 5. seqq.), licet non audeat improbare opinionem aliam, quam vocat communem, tamen ea proclamat principia, quae monstrant, p. 631 eum considerare episcopatum ut distinctum ordinem: quod etiam disertis verbis asserit Durand. (hic q. 6. n. 8.), addens, eundem esse etiam «Sacramentum, non quidem praecise distinctum a sacerdotio simplici; sed est unum Sacramentum cum ipso, sicut perfectum et imperfectum». Rationem autem, quare hic ordo non numeretur ut octavus, Durand. inde petit (n. 11.), quia «non est de communibus ordinibus, sed est supremus, quasi dux et princeps aliorum», vel «quia sub sacerdotio includitur». — S. Thom. (hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2. ad 2; Suppl. q. 40. a. 5.) sequitur opinionem illam antiquis communem et docet, quod episcopatus non est ordo proprie, id est, «secundum quod ordo est Sacramentum», sed tantum «secundum quod est officium quoddam respectu quarundam actionum sacrarum». Idem tamen in genuino opusculo de Perfectione vitae spiritualis (c. 23.), ubi probat, episcopos esse presbyteris superiores, simpliciter dicit, quod non sit idem «ordo vel status episcoporum et presbyterorum». — Post Concil. Trident. (cfr. loc. cit. c. 4. et can. 4.) antiquus ille loquendi modus factus est obsoletus, cum communiter tanquam certum doceatur, ordinationem episcopi vere esse Sacramentum et conferre verum et distinctum ordinem et characterem; multi autem auctores simul docent, hunc ordinem distingui quidem a presbyteratu, sed tantum inadaequate, tanquam sit extensio, complementum apexque ordinis sacerdotalis; qua determinatione antiquus ille modus loquendi aliquatenus salvari potest. Pro antiqua illa opinione afferri potest etiam Alex. Hal., rem tangens S. p. IV. q. 20. m. 8. a. 1, q. 21. m. 4. ad 5. — 4. Quod in 3. fundam. asseritur, episcopatum scilicet non posse valide dari, omisso sacerdotio, non vocatum est in dubium nisi a paucis, inter quos est Mabillonius (Comment. ad Ordinem Romanum § 18.). Omissis diaconatu, vel subdiaconatu, vel ordinibus minoribus, consecratio episcopi valida reputatur ab omnibus; sed S. Bonav. cum multis antiquis, ut S. Raymundo et S. Antonino, censuit, tunc eum non posse conferre ordinem, ipsi non collatum (ita infra d. 28. dub. 1.). — Sed haec opinio a recentioribus communiter non probatur, si agitur de validitate ordinis sic collati.
De 3. quaestione praeter citatos: B. Albert., hic a. 39. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 7.
III. De 4. quaestione: Scot., q. cit. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. 2; Suppl. q. 37. a. 1. 2. — B. Albert. hic a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 3. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.
---
Article II. On the orders, as to their number and distinction.
Next, as to the second article, inquiry is made concerning the orders as to their number and distinction. And concerning this, four things are asked in brief.
First, inquiry is made concerning the division of orders into sacred and non-sacred.
Second, whether the office of psalmist is among the minor orders.
Third, inquiry is made whether the episcopate is an order.
Fourth, whether there are seven, or more, or fewer orders.
Question I. On the division of orders into sacred and non-sacred.
Inquiry therefore is made first concerning this division of the orders, and it seems that there is none:
1. First, because an order is essentially and universally a Sacrament1; but every Sacrament bespeaks a sacred thing: therefore an order is universally a sacred thing: therefore every order is sacred.
2. Likewise, in the lower orders there is given a power of ministering about the altar, and about those things which pertain to the Sacrament of Sacraments, namely the body of the Lord: therefore if in the minor [orders] one ministers about the altar2, as in the diaconate and subdiaconate, though not so closely; it seems that just as those are sacred, so also are these.
3. Likewise, in the primitive Church there were no orders except sacred ones, namely the presbyterate and the diaconate3: therefore either that Church was defective, or this one is superfluous.
4. Likewise, those things which pertain to the substance of a Sacrament always remain the same: if therefore the minor orders are truly orders, either they ought to have existed then, or they are not truly orders. But if they did not then exist, as can be clear, it seems [so], etc.
On the contrary: 1. In the Old Testament the offices of those ministering were distinct, in such wise that some ministered about the altar, others about the custody of the temple4: if therefore the priesthood is now of a greater order and dignity, and divine worship is to be enlarged and has been enlarged; it seems that some ought to be deputed to these things, and others to those: therefore it seems that, since the orders are distinguished according to greater and lesser offices, there ought to be greater and lesser orders.
2. Likewise, as will be clear when marriage is treated5, and is had in the thirty-second distinction in the Decretals, some orders are impediments to marriage, and some are not: if therefore in that order the body of the Lord is consecrated, in which a man is wholly removed from the act of lust; it seems that some orders are sacred, and some are not.
3. Likewise, that it ought6 to be so is proved: first, because an order is the Sacrament of the perfect; but one does not ascend to the state of perfection at once, but arrives gradually: therefore if a sacred order places one in some manner in the state of perfection, it seems that it ought to have certain lower orders, which are not sacred.
4. Likewise, we see in the court of an earthly king, that in order that it be sufficiently ordered, the higher ministers need the lower ones, who obey and serve, and the greater need the lesser: therefore if p. 630 the house of God ought to be ordered, it seems that there ought to be ministers there, and again ministers of the ministers, and the first are in a higher order, the second in a lower: therefore lesser and greater [orders].
Conclusion
Conclusion. Rightly are certain orders called sacred, and certain ones non-sacred.
I respond: It must be said that the Sacrament of order has very many grades; and the first distinction indeed is by lower and higher grades, or by sacred and non-sacred grades. — And the reason why this Sacrament has grades is because it ordains to the dispensing of the most worthy Sacrament and to ministering in the temple of God; and to that ministry there concur certain more worthy offices, and certain less worthy ones. And although all of them require holy ministers, yet those which are directed about the altar and about the carrying of the sacred vessels and about the completion of the offering of the sacrifice, most of all require holy ministers, according to that word of Isaiah, chapter fifty-two7: Be cleansed, you who carry the vessels of the Lord. But holiness or sanctification consists most of all in continence; therefore there are certain orders which require continence in their ministers, and certain ones by no means. Therefore rightly are certain orders called sacred, and certain ones non-sacred, not by reason of themselves, but by reason of the ministry, for which holiness is required in the minister. And thus is clear the ground of this distinction of the orders into sacred and non-sacred; and the reasons for it are to be granted.
To the arguments:
To 1. To that then which is objected, that every order is a Sacrament; it must be said that all orders are sacred signs and [signs] of a sacred thing; but by this account they are not called sacred orders, as has been seen, but from the consecration of the minister, and because the orders themselves dispose8 toward the touching and the ministering of the consecrated vessels.
To 2. To that which is objected, that in all of them there is given a power of ministering something about the greatest Sacrament; it must be said that this is true, yet according to more and less, according to near and remote. For to those who are placed in the lower [orders] it is not permitted to carry the consecrated vessels by office, although on account of a scarcity of ministers it is frequently permitted to such.
To 3. To that which is objected, that in the primitive Church there were only sacred orders; it must be said that this is false, indeed there were others too; but they were given implicitly in the imposition of hands, since «the hand is the organ of organs9». — And the reason why they were not distinguished was on account of the fewness of those ministering and on account of the fewness of the faithful; therefore it was fitting that all the offices be given to one; but now the divine worship has been multiplied: therefore the case is not similar.
To 4. And by this the last [argument] is clear. For as to what it says, that the substantials were always the same; it must be said that this is true; and these orders and grades were always in the Church, although they were not unfolded10 and distinct, as now. For not only now must they be distinguished on account of the enlargement of those ministering, but also on account of guidance by the hand, because from their very cradle those who are to be clerics are now ordained. Therefore according to the advance of age in the receiving of grades they ought and can be promoted, and not at once be raised to the highest grade11.
I. The ancient division of orders into sacred or major, and non-sacred or minor, is proved from the very laws of the Church and was received by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, c. 2 and can. 2). Cf. below, doubt 5. — Question 2 is scarcely touched by others, but is solved in a few words by St. Thomas here, q. 2, a. 1, little-question 2, ad 5 (Suppl. q. 37, a. 2, ad 5); similarly by Richard of Middleton, here, a. 3, q. 3, ad 1.
On the 1st question: Scotus, here, the single question, n. 12. — St. Thomas, loc. cit., little-question 3; Suppl., loc. cit., a. 3. — Blessed Albert, here, a. 28, 36. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 2, a. 3, little-question 2. — Durandus, here, q. 2, n. 15. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 5.
II. Questions 3 and 4 are intimately connected, and concerning both we observe these things briefly. 1. The sevenfold number of orders, as it is reckoned in the oft-praised Decree for the Armenians, is very ancient in the Latin Church—indeed that it was so at least by right from the beginning is taught everywhere by the Scholastics and others (cf. here, q. 1, ad 3). But the Greek Church for many centuries has had no other minor orders except the lectorate; and it is disputed whether in antiquity there were other true minor orders in use there, and specifically, whether the same minor [orders] which the Latin Church uses. — 2. Supposing the sevenfold number of orders, a twofold question is to be discussed concerning the episcopate, whether it is an order and a Sacrament. For it is heresy to say, «that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy instituted by divine ordinance, which consists of bishops, presbyters, and ministers»; likewise, «that bishops are not superior to presbyters, or do not have the power of confirming and ordaining, or that the [power] which they have is common to them with presbyters» (Council of Trent, ibid., can. 6 and 7). Hence it seems that it cannot be denied that the episcopate, which by so great a distinct dignity is preeminent above the other orders, is both a distinct order and a Sacrament, namely that ordination by which it is conferred. — 3. Among the more ancient known Scholastics, only, as it seems, William of Auxerre (Summa, p. V, tr. 8, q. 1) teaches that there are nine orders, adjoining to the seven the episcopate and the archidiaconate (!); afterward Scotus (here, the single question, n. 5 ff.), although he does not dare to disapprove the other opinion, which he calls the common one, nevertheless proclaims those principles which show p. 631 that he considers the episcopate as a distinct order: which Durandus also asserts in express words (here, q. 6, n. 8), adding that it is also «a Sacrament, not indeed precisely distinct from the simple priesthood; but it is one Sacrament with it, as the perfect and the imperfect». And the reason why this order is not numbered as the eighth, Durandus draws from this (n. 11), that «it is not among the common orders, but is the supreme one, as it were the leader and prince of the others», or «because it is included under the priesthood». — St. Thomas (here, q. 3, a. 2, little-question 2, ad 2; Suppl. q. 40, a. 5) follows that opinion common to the ancients and teaches that the episcopate is not an order properly, that is, «according to that whereby an order is a Sacrament», but only «according to that whereby it is a certain office with respect to certain sacred actions». Yet the same [Thomas] in his genuine little work on the Perfection of the spiritual life (c. 23), where he proves that bishops are superior to presbyters, says plainly that «the order or state of bishops and of presbyters» is not the same. — After the Council of Trent (cf. loc. cit., c. 4 and can. 4) that ancient manner of speaking became obsolete, since it is commonly taught as certain that the ordination of a bishop is truly a Sacrament and confers a true and distinct order and character; but many authors at the same time teach that this order is indeed distinguished from the presbyterate, yet only inadequately, as being an extension, a completion, and the apex of the priestly order; by which determination that ancient manner of speaking can in some measure be preserved. In favor of that ancient opinion Alexander of Hales can also be adduced, touching the matter in Summa, p. IV, q. 20, m. 8, a. 1, q. 21, m. 4, ad 5. — 4. As for what is asserted in the 3rd fundament, namely that the episcopate cannot be validly given when the priesthood is omitted, this has not been called into doubt except by a few, among whom is Mabillon (Commentary on the Roman Order, § 18). When the diaconate, or subdiaconate, or the minor orders are omitted, the consecration of a bishop is reckoned valid by all; but St. Bonaventure with many of the ancients, such as St. Raymond and St. Antoninus, held that such a one then cannot confer an order not conferred upon himself (thus below, d. 28, doubt 1). — But this opinion is not commonly approved by more recent [authors], if the matter concerns the validity of an order so conferred.
On the 3rd question, besides those cited: Blessed Albert, here, a. 39. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 4, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here, a. 5, q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 7.
III. On the 4th question: Scotus, the question cited. — St. Thomas, here, q. 2, a. 1, little-questions 1, 2; Suppl. q. 37, a. 1, 2. — Blessed Albert, here, a. 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 2, a. 3, little-question 1. — Richard of Middleton, here, a. 3, q. 3. — Durandus, here, q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 5.
---
- 1Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 13, et de seq. propos. supra d. I. c. 2.See the Master's text here, c. 13, and on the following proposition, above, d. I, c. 2.
- 2Edd. cum aliquot codd. omittunt ergo [plures codd. sed] si in minoribus ministratur circa altare, pro quo edd. in maiori post ordinibus addunt sic.The editions, with some codices, omit ergo [several codices, sed] si in minoribus ministratur circa altare ("if in the minor [orders] one ministers about the altar"); in place of which the editions, in the greater [text], add sic ("thus") after ordinibus.
- 3Ut insinuat Magister, hic in lit. c. 12.As the Master intimates, here in his text, c. 12.
- 4Cfr. supra pag. 504, nota 4. — Inferius pro et ad illa cod. K (I a secunda manu) quam ad illa, edd. alii ad illa.Cf. above, p. 504, note 4. — Below, for et ad illa ("and to those"), codex K (I by a second hand) reads quam ad illa ("than to those"), the editions and others ad illa ("to those").
- 5Infra d. 37, ubi tam in lit. Magistri quam in Comment. a. 1. q. 1. seq., ex Gratiani d. 32. et aliis dist. decreta allegantur.Below, d. 37, where both in the Master's text and in the Commentary, a. 1, q. 1 f., decrees are cited from Gratian's d. 32 and other distinctions.
- 6Permulti codd. et ed. 1 perperam non debeat. — Gregor., II. Homil. in Ezech. homil. n. 3: Nemo enim repente fit summus.Very many codices and edition 1 read wrongly non debeat ("ought not"). — Gregory [the Great], Homilies on Ezekiel, book II, homily [3?], n. 3: "For no one becomes highest suddenly."
- 7Vers. 11. — Inferius pro recte non pauci codd. certe.Verse 11. — Below, for recte ("rightly") not a few codices read certe ("certainly").
- 8Multi codd. disponuntur.Many codices read disponuntur ("are disposed").
- 9Ut dicit Aristot. supra pag. 627, nota 8. relatus. — Inferius pro darentur plures codd. darent.As Aristotle says, cited above, p. 627, note 8. — Below, for darentur several codices read darent.
- 10Cod. aa expliciti.Codex aa reads expliciti.
- 11Cfr. Gratian. d. 77. et d. 78. — Pro graduum cod. aa ordinum.Cf. Gratian, d. 77 and d. 78. — For graduum ("of the grades") codex aa reads ordinum ("of the orders"). ---