Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

← Back to Distinction 25

Dist. 25, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 25

Textus Latinus

p. 641

ARTICULUS I.

De potestate ordinandi.

QUAESTIO I.

Utrum solus episcopus possit ordinare.

Circa primum proceditur sic et ostenditur, quod solus episcopus possit ordinare.

1. Ad Hebraeos septimo³: Sine ulla contradictione quod minus est a maiore benedicitur; sed ordinum collatio est per benedictionem: ergo necesse est, quod ille qui ordines confert, eminentiam habeat ultra omnes ordines. Sed talis non est nisi episcopus: ergo etc.

2. Item, Isidorus in libro septimo Etymologiarum, capitulo duodecimo⁴, loquens de officio episcopi, dicit: «Ipse summus sacerdos, ipse et pontifex maximus nominatur; ipse enim efficit sacerdotes atque levitas, ipse omnes ecclesiasticos ordines disponit».

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia eius est in Ecclesia ordines constituere, cuius est Ecclesiam gubernare; sed gubernatio Ecclesiarum spectat ad episcopos, qui sunt superintendentes⁵: ergo et dispensatio ordinum.

p. 642

4. Item, eius est in Ecclesia ordines conferre, ad quem spectat ex Ecclesia filios generare perfectos, pro eo quod ordo collocat in statu perfectionis; sed hoc est illius solius, qui est sponsus, hic autem est episcopus¹: ergo etc.

5. Item, maioris dignitatis est ordines dispensare, quam sit Sacramentum confirmationis dare; sed secundum est episcoporum tantum: ergo et solus episcopus².

Contra: 1. Primae ad Timotheum quarto³: Noli negligere gratiam, quae est in te per impositionem manuum presbyteri: ergo in primitiva Ecclesia presbyterorum erat manus episcopis imponere, ergo et ordinare: ergo etc.

2. Item, ordinatio ordinum principalium fit per manuum impositionem: ergo cui competit manuum impositio, competit et potestas ordinandi; sed prima competit presbyteris: ergo etc. Probatio mediae: distinctione vigesima tertia⁴: «Presbyter cum ordinatur, episcopo eum benedicente et manum super caput eius tenente, etiam omnes presbyteri, qui praesentes sunt, manus suas iuxta manus episcopi teneant super caput illius»: ergo etc.

3. Item, quod perfectum est potest in tale, quale ipsum est⁵; sed ordo sacerdotalis est ordo perfectus: ergo potest in tale, quale est: ergo videtur, quod sacerdos sacerdotem possit facere.

4. Item, plus est corpus Domini conficere quam aliquem ordinare in aliquo gradu ecclesiastico; sed primum est non tantum episcopi, sed etiam sacerdotum: ergo pari ratione videtur, quod ordinatio clericorum.

5. Item, plus praestat sacerdos diacono, quam praesit episcopus episcopo; sed episcopus potest alium promovere et consecrare in episcopum: ergo multo fortius sacerdos potest facere diaconum.

Propter hoc est quaestio: cum minus a maiore benedicatur⁶, quomodo episcopus potest benedicere episcopum, et quod amplius est, archiepiscopum, immo quod adhuc maius est, Ostiensis benedicit Papam?

CONCLUSIO.

Soli episcopi possunt sacros ordines conferre.

Solutio: Dicendum, quod, sicut sacri canones dicunt, secundum ius commune non potest aliquis ordines dispensare, praesertim ordines sacros, nisi solus episcopus⁷. — Huius autem statutum ortum habet ex sacra Scriptura et Spiritus sancti ordinatione. Ex sacra Scriptura: quia, cum Dominus duo genera discipulorum habuit, quosdam in numero duodeno, quosdam in numero septuagesimo — primos Apostolos nominavit⁸, super quos etiam fundavit Ecclesiam, ipsos tamen primo fundando in se; alios simplices discipulos appellavit — et Apostolis primo collata fuit potestas imponendi manus et consecrandi, non autem simplicibus discipulis, sicut patet ex textu et ex Glossa Actuum octavo⁹; et quoniam Apostolis succedunt episcopi, discipulis vero sacerdotes simplices successerunt, sicut habetur distinctione vigesima prima, capitulo, In novo testamento: et ita patet, quod auctoritas ordinandi et manus imponendi secundum formam Ecclesiae primitivae episcopis approprietur. Unde et Apostolus, scribens Timotheo, primae ad Timotheum quinto¹⁰: Manus cito nemini imposueris.

Consilium etiam Spiritus sancti concordat, quo et Scripturae sunt editae et constitutiones ecclesiasticae. — Quia enim ordo potestas est sive in ordine traditur¹¹; ideo ab eo debet tradi, qui potestatem habet et in quantum habet potestatem. Posse autem gradus distribuere et conferre non est cuiuslibet potentis, sed eius qui in potentia supereminet, sicut patet etiam in regimine curiae saecularis. Ad hoc ergo, quod ordo recte tradatur, disponit¹² Spiritus sanctus, quod tradatur ab eo qui non solum ordinem habet, sed qui habet ordines, per quos est potens, sicut et alii, et eminentiam dignitatis, per quam potest super alios; hunc autem dicimus ordinem, qui dicit ordinem cum eminentia: ideo patet, quod duo requiruntur ad hoc, quod episcopus possit

p. 643

ordinem conferre, scilicet quod ille habeat illum ordinem, et quod habeat episcopalem dignitatem. — Alia ratio est, quia, si passim omnibus esset concessum, tot admitterentur ad ordines, quod non servaretur ordo, immo potius generaretur confusio; et ideo dispositum est Dei consilio, quod solis episcopis ordinum dispensatio et aliorum perfectorum, ut consecratio abbatum, monialium et ecclesiarum et consimilium, concedatur¹. — Posset etiam alia ratio assignari sive ex hoc, quod episcopus sponsus est, sive ex hoc, quod Sacramentum ordinis statum perfectionis dicit; ideo his qui habent potestatis eminentiam, debuit reservari, et episcopus tanquam sponsus filios, id est perfectos, et filias, id est imperfectos, debuit generare. — Prima tamen ratio multum valet.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de impositione manuum presbyteri, dicendum, quod presbyter vocatur ibi senior; et Apostolus intelligebat se ipsum per impositionem manus presbyteri — Glossa²: «presbyterum vocat episcopum» — vel presbyteri, id est «presbyterorum» — quia, sicut dicit ius, saltem tres sacerdotes debent manus imponere; sed tamen ipsi non imponunt ut dantes potestatem vel ordinem, quia ab uno solo dari potest et debet; unde ipsi non benedicunt, sed solus episcopus, sed hoc est in signum consecrationis suae³.

2. Et per hoc patet sequens, quia manuum impositio non facit ordinem, nisi illa quae iuncta est benedictioni.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de perfectione, dicendum quod est perfectio sufficientiae et redundantiae. Ad hoc autem, quod aliquid aliud faciat sibi simile vel perfectum, non sufficit, quod sit perfectum perfectione sufficientiae, sed redundantiae; et quoniam in sacerdote est perfectio sufficientiae, in episcopo ratione eminentiae superadditae est perfectio redundantiae: ideo haec perfectio sufficit ad generandum filios perfectos, non prima.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod plus est corpus Domini consecrare etc. dicendum, quod illud argumentum peccat dupliciter: primo, quia potestas ordinandi praesupponit ordinationem et superaddit⁴, per quam non solum est ordinatus, sed etiam ordinator, et ideo prima est falsa. Et iterum, consequentia non valet: quia non sequitur, si aliquis potest in maius, quod possit in minus, nisi maius includat illud minus⁵, ut ferre duos modios includit unum. Non sic est in proposito.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod magis superat sacerdos diaconum etc.; dicendum, quod verum est, quod magis superat, quam episcopus superat episcopum, qui est iam, et super illum non habet posse; sed non magis, quam superat ille qui est episcopus in actu, illum qui est episcopus in potentia. Praeterea, etsi magis superet in ordine, secundum quem accipitur ratio ordinati, non tamen in ordine, secundum quem accipitur ratio ordinantis, qualis est in episcopo, non in presbytero. Et ideo non valet illud.

Ad illud quod ultimo quaeritur, quomodo episcopus benedicit episcopum; dicendum, quod hoc⁶ nullum inconveniens est, quia non benedicitur, nisi in quantum caret ordine sive dignitate episcopali; et sic maior est. — Sed tunc adhuc restat quaestio, quomodo benedicit archiepiscopum, cum ille superior sit, et «non possit dare quod non habet⁷». Si tu dicas, quod hoc facit auctoritate Summi Pontificis, qui superest; tunc non minor restat quaestio de ipso, qualiter Summus Pontifex benedicitur ab episcopo Ostiensi. Si tu dicas, quod Christus dedit ei hanc potestatem auctoritate⁸; contra: esto quod ipse non esset, nec esset commissa alteri; nunquid non posset Summus Pontifex consecrari? — Et propter hoc dicendum, quod infallibiliter verum est quod dicit Apostolus, quod minus a maiore benedicitur, pro statu, in quo benedicitur; sine contradictione⁹ verum est, quod nullus dat alii maiorem dignitatem, quam habeat, nec minimum ordinem dare potest, quem non habet: et ideo episcopus, consecrans archiepiscopum vel Papam, omnino non tribuit ei nisi consecrationem episcopalem. Sed ille ampliorem habet auctoritatem et iurisdictionem a subditorum electione, suo consensu et Domini institutione, qui ordinavit Petrum et eius successores super totam Ecclesiam, volens, ut omnes, qui canonice electi fuerint, eandem quam et Petrus habeant potestatem.

p. 644

Scholion

I. Quoad 1. quaestionem notanda sunt verba Concilii Tridentini (Sess. XXIII. can. 7.) superius (in scholio ad d. 24. p. II. a. 2. q. 3.) relata, quod potestas confirmandi et ordinandi episcopis non sit communis cum presbyteris. Haec specialis potestas episcoporum, saltem quoad collationem sacerdotii ipsis prorsus reservata, a catholicis nunquam vocata est in controversiam. Cfr. etiam hic dub. 1. — De hac 1. quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; Suppl. q. 38. a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — De hac et seqq. qq. Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

II. Circa 2. quaestionem diffuse disputat Magister, hic c. 1. De erroribus et dubiis quoad validitatem quorundam Sacramentorum ab haereticis et praecisis collatorum (a quibus etiam Petr. Lombardus se prorsus expedire non potuit) vide scholia supra d. 5. a. 1. q. 2. quoad baptismum, d. 13. a. 1. q. 1. quoad eucharistiam; cfr. etiam lit. Magistri, d. XIX. c. 2, et Comment. II. a. 1. q. 2. — De 2. quaestione: Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. 1, ubi etiam multa de poenis ecclesiasticis affert. — S. Thom., locis citt. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. 3.

III. Quid sit simonia, aliaque de eadem explicantur infra dub. 2-6. Haec et plura alia simul cum seqq. 2. qq. (3. et 4.) a S. Thoma (hic q. 3. a. 1-3.) distinctis quaestionibus explicantur, melius etiam in S. II. II. q. 100. a. 1-6; item ab Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 169. per totam. — De utraque (3. 4.) quaestione aliisque annexis praeter S. Thomam: Scot., loc. cit. — B. Albert., hic a. 2-6. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1-3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1-3, a. 3. q. 1-3. — Durand., hic q. 3-5. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

---

English Translation

p. 641

ARTICLE I.

On the power of ordaining.

QUESTION I.

Whether only a bishop can ordain.

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus, and it is shown that only a bishop can ordain.

1. To the Hebrews, chapter seven³: Without any contradiction, that which is less is blessed by the greater; but the collation of orders is through a blessing: therefore it is necessary that he who confers orders should have an eminence beyond all orders. But such a one is none but a bishop: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Isidore in the seventh book of the Etymologies, chapter twelve⁴, speaking of the office of a bishop, says: «He is named the highest priest, he too the supreme pontiff; for he himself makes priests and levites, he disposes all the ecclesiastical orders».

3. Likewise, it seems [so] by reason: because it belongs to him to establish orders in the Church, to whom it belongs to govern the Church; but the governance of the Churches pertains to the bishops, who are the overseers⁵: therefore also the dispensing of orders [pertains to them].

p. 642

4. Likewise, the conferring of orders in the Church belongs to him to whom it belongs to beget perfect sons out of the Church, inasmuch as order places [one] in the state of perfection; but this belongs to him alone who is the spouse, and this one is the bishop¹: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, it is of greater dignity to dispense orders than it is to give the Sacrament of confirmation; but the latter belongs to bishops only: therefore also [the former belongs to] the bishop alone².

On the contrary: 1. First to Timothy, chapter four³: Neglect not the grace that is in thee through the imposition of the hands of the presbyter: therefore in the primitive Church it belonged to presbyters to impose hands together with the bishops, therefore also to ordain: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the ordination of the principal orders is done through the imposition of hands: therefore to whom the imposition of hands belongs, there belongs also the power of ordaining; but the first belongs to presbyters: therefore etc. Proof of the minor: [in] distinction twenty-three⁴: «When a presbyter is ordained, while the bishop blesses him and holds his hand upon his head, let all the presbyters also who are present hold their hands beside the bishop's hand upon his head»: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, what is perfect can [act] into such as itself is⁵; but the priestly order is a perfect order: therefore it can [act] into such as it is: therefore it seems that a priest can make a priest.

4. Likewise, it is more to confect the Body of the Lord than to ordain someone in some ecclesiastical grade; but the first belongs not only to a bishop, but also to priests: therefore by parity of reasoning it seems that the ordination of clerics [belongs to priests too].

5. Likewise, a priest bestows more upon a deacon than a bishop is set over a bishop; but a bishop can promote and consecrate another into a bishop: therefore much more strongly can a priest make a deacon.

On account of this there is a question: since the less is blessed by the greater⁶, how can a bishop bless a bishop, and — what is more — an archbishop, nay — what is still greater — [how does] the [bishop] of Ostia bless the Pope?

CONCLUSION.

Only bishops can confer the sacred orders.

Solution: It must be said that, as the sacred canons say, according to the common law no one can dispense orders, especially the sacred orders, save the bishop alone⁷. — But this statute has its origin from sacred Scripture and from the ordinance of the Holy Spirit. From sacred Scripture: because, since the Lord had two kinds of disciples, some in the number of twelve, some in the number of seventy — the first he named Apostles⁸, upon whom he also founded the Church, yet founding them first in himself; the others he called simple disciples — and to the Apostles first was conferred the power of imposing hands and consecrating, but not to the simple disciples, as is plain from the text and from the Gloss on Acts, chapter eight⁹; and since bishops succeed the Apostles, while simple priests have succeeded the disciples, as is had in distinction twenty-one, chapter In the New Testament: and so it is plain that the authority of ordaining and of imposing hands, according to the form of the primitive Church, is appropriated to bishops. Whence also the Apostle, writing to Timothy, First to Timothy, chapter five¹⁰: Impose hands hastily on no one.

The counsel also of the Holy Spirit is in agreement, by which both the Scriptures were issued and the ecclesiastical constitutions. — For since order is a power, or is handed on in [the conferring of] order¹¹; therefore it ought to be handed on by him who has the power and insofar as he has the power. But to be able to distribute and confer grades is not [the prerogative] of just any powerful person, but of him who is preeminent in power, as is plain also in the governance of a secular court. To this end, therefore, that order be rightly handed on, the Holy Spirit disposes¹² that it be handed on by him who not only has order, but who has orders, through which he is powerful, as are others also, and the eminence of dignity, through which he can [prevail] over others; and this one we call [the bearer of] order who denotes order with eminence: therefore it is plain that two things are required for a bishop to be able

p. 643

to confer order, namely that he have that order, and that he have the episcopal dignity. — Another reason is that, if it were granted indiscriminately to all, so many would be admitted to orders that order would not be preserved, but rather confusion would be generated; and therefore it has been disposed by God's counsel that to bishops alone be granted the dispensing of orders and of other perfect things, such as the consecration of abbots, of nuns, and of churches and the like¹. — Yet another reason could be assigned either from this, that the bishop is a spouse, or from this, that the Sacrament of order denotes the state of perfection; therefore it had to be reserved to those who have eminence of power, and the bishop as spouse had to beget sons, that is the perfect, and daughters, that is the imperfect. — Yet the first reason avails much.

1. To that which is objected concerning the imposition of the hands of the presbyter, it must be said that "presbyter" there means an elder; and the Apostle understood himself [to be meant] by the imposition of the hand of a presbyter — the Gloss²: «it calls the bishop a presbyter» — or of the presbyter, that is «of the presbyters» — because, as the law says, at least three priests ought to impose hands; but nevertheless they do not impose [hands] as giving power or order, since it can and ought to be given by one alone; hence they do not bless, but the bishop alone [blesses], but this is as a sign of his [the presbyter's] consecration³.

2. And through this the following is clear, that the imposition of hands does not make order, except that [imposition] which is joined to the blessing.

3. To that which is objected concerning perfection, it must be said that there is a perfection of sufficiency and [a perfection] of redundance. But for this, that something make another like itself or perfect, it does not suffice that it be perfect with the perfection of sufficiency, but [it must be perfect with the perfection] of redundance; and since in a priest there is the perfection of sufficiency, [while] in a bishop, by reason of a superadded eminence, there is the perfection of redundance: therefore this [latter] perfection suffices for begetting perfect sons, not the first.

4. To that which is objected, that it is more to consecrate the Body of the Lord, etc., it must be said that that argument errs in two ways: first, because the power of ordaining presupposes ordination and superadds⁴ [that] through which one is not only ordained, but also an ordainer, and therefore the first [premiss] is false. And again, the consequence is not valid: for it does not follow, if someone can [do] the greater, that he can [do] the lesser, unless the greater include that lesser⁵, as to carry two measures includes [carrying] one. It is not so in the matter at hand.

5. To that which is objected, that a priest surpasses [a deacon] more, etc.; it must be said that it is true that he surpasses more than a bishop surpasses a bishop who already is, and over whom he has no power; but not more than he who is a bishop in act surpasses him who is a bishop in potency. Moreover, even if he surpasses more in the order according to which the account of the ordained is taken, nevertheless [he does] not [surpass more] in the order according to which the account of the ordainer is taken, such as is in a bishop, not in a presbyter. And therefore that [argument] is not valid.

To that which is asked last, how a bishop blesses a bishop; it must be said that this⁶ is no impropriety, because he is not blessed except insofar as he lacks the episcopal order or dignity; and thus [the ordaining bishop] is greater. — But then there still remains the question, how he blesses an archbishop, since the latter is superior, and «he cannot give what he does not have⁷». If you say that he does this by the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, who is above [him]; then no lesser question remains concerning him, how the Supreme Pontiff is blessed by the bishop of Ostia. If you say that Christ gave him this power by [his own] authority⁸; on the contrary: granted that he [the Ostian bishop] did not exist, nor had it been committed to another; could the Supreme Pontiff not be consecrated? — And on account of this it must be said that it is infallibly true what the Apostle says, that the less is blessed by the greater, in respect of the state in which he is blessed; without contradiction⁹ it is true that no one gives to another a greater dignity than he has, nor can he give the least order which he does not have: and therefore a bishop, consecrating an archbishop or a Pope, in no way bestows on him anything but the episcopal consecration. But the latter has a fuller authority and jurisdiction from the election of his subjects, from his own consent, and from the institution of the Lord, who ordained Peter and his successors over the whole Church, willing that all who shall have been canonically elected should have the same power that Peter also [had].

p. 644

Scholion

I. As to the 1st question, there are to be noted the words of the Council of Trent (Session XXIII, canon 7), reported above (in the scholion at d. 24, p. II, a. 2, q. 3), that the power of confirming and of ordaining is not common to bishops with presbyters. This special power of bishops, at least as regards the collation of the priesthood altogether reserved to them, has never been called into controversy by catholics. Cf. also here dubium 1. — On this 1st question: St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1; Supplement q. 38, a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1, 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1. — On this and the following questions Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

II. Concerning the 2nd question the Master disputes at length, here c. 1. On the errors and doubts as to the validity of certain Sacraments conferred by heretics and by those cut off [from the Church] (from which even Peter Lombard could not entirely extricate himself) see the scholia above d. 5, a. 1, q. 2 as to baptism, d. 13, a. 1, q. 1 as to the Eucharist; cf. also the Master's text, d. 19, c. 2, and the Commentary II, a. 1, q. 2. — On the 2nd question: Scotus, in both Scripta here q. 1, where he also brings forward much concerning ecclesiastical penalties. — St. Thomas, in the places cited, a. 2. — B. Albert, here a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2, 3.

III. What simony is, and other things concerning it, are explained below in dubia 2–6. These and many other things, together with the following two questions (3 and 4), are explained by St. Thomas (here q. 3, a. 1–3) in distinct questions, better also in Summa II-II, q. 100, a. 1–6; likewise by Alexander of Hales, Summa p. II, q. 169, throughout. — On both (3, 4) questions and other annexed matters, besides St. Thomas: Scotus, loc. cit. — B. Albert, here a. 2–6. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1–3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1–3, a. 3, q. 1–3. — Durandus, here q. 3–5. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.

---

Apparatus Criticus

3
Vers. 7. Vulgata meliore pro maiore. — Inferius pro omnes multi codd. tres.
Verse 7. The Vulgate [reads] meliore (by the better) for maiore (by the greater). — Below, for omnes (all) many codices [read] tres (three).
4
Num. 13. Pro ipse et pontifex maximus codd. ipse pontifex et maximus.
[Isidore, Etym. VII, c. 12,] n. 13. For ipse et pontifex maximus (he too the supreme pontiff) the codices [read] ipse pontifex et maximus (he pontiff and supreme).
5
Ut dicit Isidor. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXIV. c. 15.
As Isidore says, above [in] the Master's text, d. 24, c. 15.
1
Vide supra d. 20. p. II. q. 3. in corp. — Cod. aa addit: in signum hoc datur ei anulus. — Superius pro ex Ecclesia cod. A a secunda manu et ed. I in Ecclesia, codd. RST et Ecclesiae.
See above d. 20, p. II, q. 3, in the body. — Codex aa adds: in signum hoc datur ei anulus (as a sign of this a ring is given to him). — Above, for ex Ecclesia (out of the Church) codex A (by a second hand) and ed. I [read] in Ecclesia (in the Church), codices R, S, T et Ecclesiae (and of the Church).
2
Codd. et edd. perperam, terminis transpositis, sed primum est... ergo et secundum.
The codices and editions wrongly, with the terms transposed, [read] sed primum est... ergo et secundum (but the first is... therefore also the second).
3
Vers. 14. Vulgata: Noli... in te est, quae data est tibi per prophetiam cum impositione manuum presbyterii.
Verse 14. The Vulgate: Noli... in te est, quae data est tibi per prophetiam cum impositione manuum presbyterii (Neglect not... which is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the imposition of the hands of the presbytery).
4
Can. 8.
Canon 8.
5
Aristot., IV. Meteor. text. 19. (c. 3.); cfr. II. de Anima text. 34. (c. 4.): Naturalissimum enim operum, quae in viventibus, quaecumque perfecta et non mutilata sunt... est facere aliud quale ipsum.
Aristotle, Meteorology IV, text 19 (c. 3); cf. On the Soul II, text 34 (c. 4): For the most natural of works, among those in living things — whatever are perfect and not mutilated... — is to make another such as itself.
6
Respiciuntur verba Apostoli posita in fundam. 1.
The words of the Apostle set down in fundamentum 1 are regarded.
7
Cfr. Gratian., d. 67. et d. 69; X. de Ordinatis ab episcopo, qui renuntiavit episcopatui (lib. 1. tit. 13.), ubi dicitur, quod ordines minores «a non-episcopis quandocumque conferuntur», et C. Cum contingat (11.), X. de Aetate et qualitate et ordine praeficiendorum (lib. 1. tit. 14.), ubi decernitur, quod abbas, si est presbyter et benedictus, conferre potest ordinem clericalem (minorem). — Superius pro dicunt codd. E F determinant, alii codd. bene dicunt. Pro commune cod. F Ecclesiae.
Cf. Gratian, d. 67 and d. 69; the Decretals (X), On those ordained by a bishop who has renounced the episcopate (book 1, tit. 13), where it is said that minor orders «are at times conferred by non-bishops», and the chapter Cum contingat (11), X, On the age and quality and rank of those to be promoted (book 1, tit. 14), where it is decreed that an abbot, if he is a presbyter and blessed, can confer the clerical (minor) order. — Above, for dicunt (they say) codices E, F [read] determinant (they determine), other codices bene dicunt (they say well). For commune (common) codex F [reads] Ecclesiae (of the Church).
8
Luc. 6, 13. Cfr. 10, 1, ubi de septuaginta duobus discipulis. — Forma huius longae propositionis aliquatenus a regula deficit.
Luke 6:13. Cf. 10:1, where [it speaks] of the seventy-two disciples. — The form of this long sentence somewhat falls short of the [grammatical] rule.
9
Vers. 17. Cfr. supra pag. 58, nota 7, ubi Glossa Bedae exhibetur, de qua vide etiam supra d. 7. a. 1. q. 3. fundam. 3. — Seq. locus est apud Gratian., d. 21. c. 2.
Verse 17. Cf. above p. 58, note 7, where the Gloss of Bede is set out, on which see also above d. 7, a. 1, q. 3, fundamentum 3. — The following passage is in Gratian, d. 21, c. 2.
10
Vers. 22.
Verse 22.
11
Respicitur definitio ordinis a Magistro, supra d. XXIV. c. 13, data. — Edd. in ordines potestas traditur.
The definition of order given by the Master above, d. 24, c. 13, is regarded. — The editions [read] in ordines potestas traditur (power is handed over into orders).
12
Cod. K disposuit. Mox pro tradatur plures codd. traderetur. Subinde Vat., posito habet ordines pro ordinem habet, omittit sed qui habet ordines.
Codex K [reads] disposuit (disposed). Presently, for tradatur (be handed on) several codices [read] traderetur (would be handed on). Thereupon the Vatican [edition], having put habet ordines (has orders) for ordinem habet (has order), omits sed qui habet ordines (but who has orders).
1
Cfr. C. Perfectis (I.), d. 23. § 9. et C. Si iubet (I.), C. 26. q. 6, ex quo supra lit. Magistri, d. XX. c. 6, nonnulla allegantur. — Superius pro perfectorum ed. I officiorum. In fine corp. pro multum valet edd. melius valet.
Cf. the chapter Perfectis (I), d. 23, § 9, and the chapter Si iubet (I), C. 26, q. 6, from which some things are alleged above [in] the Master's text, d. 20, c. 6. — Above, for perfectorum (of the perfect) ed. I [reads] officiorum (of offices). At the end of the body, for multum valet (avails much) the editions [read] melius valet (avails better).
2
Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum sic dicit: Presbyteri pro presbyterorum, quia minus tribus esse non possunt [cfr. supra pag. 628, nota 6.]. Et vocat presbyterum, episcopum; vel quia unus manus imponit, ceteris assentientibus.
The ordinary Gloss in Strabo and Lyra says thus: Presbyteri (of the presbyter) for presbyterorum (of the presbyters), because they cannot be fewer than three [cf. above p. 628, note 6]. And it calls the presbyter a bishop; or because one imposes hands, the rest assenting.
3
Cfr. supra d. 24. p. II. a. 1. q. 4. ad 2.
Cf. above d. 24, p. II, a. 1, q. 4, ad 2.
4
Codd. MU supplent eminentiam, codd. RSTX dignitatem, cod. O potentiam. Pro ordinationem cod. F ordinem, cod. K (I a secunda manu) ordinationem sive ordinem (cfr. infra dub. 1. in fine).
Codices M, U supply eminentiam (eminence), codices R, S, T, X dignitatem (dignity), codex O potentiam (power). For ordinationem (ordination) codex F [reads] ordinem (order), codex K (and I, by a second hand) ordinationem sive ordinem (ordination or order) (cf. below dubium 1, at the end).
5
Cfr. supra pag. 143, nota 5.
Cf. above p. 143, note 5.
6
Non pauci codd. hic.
Not a few codices [read] hic (here) [for hoc].
7
Secundum Aristot. II. Elench. c. 3. (c. 22.).
According to Aristotle, Sophistical Refutations II, c. 3 (c. 22).
8
Cod. G addit sua, omisso contra, codd. FL substituunt auctoritatem, omisso potestatem, in cod. E a secunda manu ponitur potestatem et auctoritatem, ed. I potestatem auctoritative, Vat. omittit auctoritate. Pro contra, esto permulti codd. perperam qua est.
Codex G adds sua (his own), omitting contra; codices F, L substitute auctoritatem (authority), omitting potestatem (power); in codex E, by a second hand, is put potestatem et auctoritatem (power and authority); ed. I [reads] potestatem auctoritative (power authoritatively); the Vatican [edition] omits auctoritate (by authority). For contra, esto (on the contrary, granted) very many codices wrongly [read] qua est.
9
Ex codd. L Z et ed. I (respicientes ad verbum Apostoli relatum in fundam.) substituimus contradictione, pro cunctatione; cod. bb (a secunda manu) dubitatione. Ante sine edd. addunt tam, codd. AG et, codd. F bb nec non, denique cod. aa item.
From codices L, Z and ed. I (which regard the word of the Apostle reported in the fundamentum) we have substituted contradictione (contradiction) for cunctatione (delay); codex bb (by a second hand) [reads] dubitatione (doubt). Before sine (without) the editions add tam (so), codices A, G et (and), codices F, bb nec non (and also), finally codex aa item (likewise).