← Back to Distinction 25

Dist. 25, Art. 1, Q. 2

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 25

Textus Latinus
p. 644

Quaestio II. Utrum episcopus haereticus possit dare ordines.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum episcopus haereticus possit dare ordines. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Augustinus contra Parmenianum1 dicit: « Sicut dicimus in baptismo, quod per eos dari possit, ita et in ordinatione »; et ad hoc sunt plures auctoritates in littera.

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia, sicut se habet sacerdos ad potestatem conficiendi, sic se habet episcopus ad potestatem ordinandi; sed sacerdos, quantumcumque haereticus, si habeat intentionem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, vere conficit2: ergo et haereticus episcopus vere ordinat, si formam ecclesiasticam servat.

3. Item, si aliquis catholicus intra Ecclesiam ordinetur et post in haeresim labatur, si iterum revertatur, non reordinatur; ergo ordines labendo in haeresim non amisit, pari ratione nec episcopus dignitatem sive gradum episcopalem: ergo existens haereticus habet illam dignitatem sive excellentiam ordinis, ergo et operationem consequentem ipsam de facto: ergo si ordinat, ordinatum3 est.

4. Item, character aeque vere est in malis, ut in bonis, et aeque vere imprimitur malis, ut bonis: ergo pari ratione aeque bene datur a malis sive perversis, ut a bonis: ergo cum essentia ordinis in charactere consistat4, patet etc.

Contra: 1. Innocentius dicit, et habetur in littera5: « Constat, eum qui honorem amisit, honorem dare non posse »; sed talis est haereticus: ergo etc.

2. Item, Causa prima, quaestione prima6: « Benedictio illi in maledictionem convertitur, qui ad hoc, quod fiat haereticus, ordinatur »: ergo si per maledictionem nullus promovetur ad ordinem, patet etc.

3. Item, plus est aliquem ad ordinem promovere quam absolvere vel ligare; sed haereticus praecisus nullum potest absolvere vel ligare7: ergo nullum potest ad sacros ordines promovere.

4. Item, inferior potestas non potest agere nisi per continuationem cum superiori et propria potestate; sed potestatis plenitudo est in Summo Pontifice8, a quo separatus et disiunctus est haereticus praecisus: ergo videtur, quod nihil omnino possit dare de eis quae spectant ad ecclesiasticas potestates.

Conclusio.

Apud haereticos ordo potest dispensari quoad veritatem, non quoad utilitatem.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod etsi ista quaestio aliquando fuerit dubia multum apud praeclaros doctores de omnibus Sacramentis, tam de baptismo

p. 645

quam de aliis, quod non essent apud haereticos9; tamen per illustrissimum doctorem Augustinum aperte est nobis haec quaestio patefacta, quod Sacramenta ecclesiastica apud haereticos, qui formam Ecclesiae servant et intentionem habent faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, sunt quantum ad veritatem, quamvis non sint quantum ad utilitatem: quia Sacramenta dispensant, sed tamen fructum Sacramentorum non reportant, pro eo quod Spiritus sanctus non est extra catholicam Ecclesiam. Et ideo in omnibus Sacramentis, quae habent veritatem differentem ab utilitate, generaliter verum est, quod apud haereticos possunt esse; omnia autem Sacramenta sunt talia praeter Sacramentum poenitentiae, cuius res est interior contritio10, sine qua nulla vera est absolutio, et cum qua nulla absolutio est vana vel inutilis: ideo omnia possunt dispensare et dispensant veraciter praeter solam absolutionem poenitentiae; et ideo nulla iterantur praeter illam, nisi forte unctio extrema11. Et sic, cum ordo habeat characterem, qui praeter Spiritus sancti gratiam, qua peccata delentur, existit, dicendum, quod apud eos potest veraciter dispensari12.

1. 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Innocentio et de Gregorio, ad illas duas auctoritates dicendum, quod ideo dicitur recipere maledictionem, quia gratiam non recipit; ideo dicitur non recipere honorem, quia non recipit exsecutionem qui ordinatur ab haeretico praeciso; qui ideo dicitur ordinem amisisse, pro eo quod ordinis exsecutionem amisit, non quia amisit characterem, qui deleri non potest.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de potestate absolvendi, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia absolutio sacerdotalis aut nulla est, aut sine fictione est; nullus autem scienter ab haeretico absolvitur, qui careat fictione. — Aliter tamen potest dici, quod potestas quadruplex reperitur in ministris Ecclesiae. Quaedam namque est fundata super ordinem principaliter, ut potestas conficiendi; quaedam super iurisdictionem canonicam principaliter, ut potestas excommunicandi; quaedam super ordinem et eminentiam, ut potestas ordinandi; quaedam super ordinem et iurisdictionem, ut potestas absolvendi et ligandi in foro poenitentiali13. Et quoniam character auferri non potest, ideo potestas, quae consequitur characterem, de facto auferri non potest. Sed quoniam iurisdictio descendit ordinate a superiori ad inferius, ita quod plenitudo est in Summo Pontifice; ideo potest auferre eam et potestatem, quae consequitur ipsam. Unde potest excommunicando auferre potestatem absolvendi et excommunicandi, sed non ordinandi.

4. Et per hoc patet responsio ad multa et ad sequens etiam. Quod enim obiicitur, quod in Summo Pontifice est plenitudo potestatis; verum est, secundum quod potestas consequitur iurisdictionem, quae maxima et in termino est in eo, sed non in quantum sequitur characterem, quia ille immediate a Deo imprimitur et est in omnibus aequalis; tamen exsecutio omnis potestatis debet fieri secundum eius regimen; et ideo, si ipse prohibeat, non potest talis potestas licite exire in actum; tamen, quia ab ipso non dependet secundum rem de facto, facit, sicut et alius. Et sic patet totum14.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether a heretical bishop can confer orders.

Secondly it is asked whether a heretical bishop can confer orders. And that he can, seems [to be shown].

1. Augustine, Against Parmenianus1, says: "Just as we say in baptism that [a sacrament] can be given through them [the heretics], so also in ordination"; and to this there are several authorities in the text [of the Master].

2. Likewise, it seems [so] by reason: for, as a priest stands to the power of consecrating, so a bishop stands to the power of ordaining; but a priest, however much a heretic, if he has the intention of doing what the Church does, truly consecrates2: therefore also a heretical bishop truly ordains, if he preserves the ecclesiastical form.

3. Likewise, if some catholic is ordained within the Church and afterward lapses into heresy, if he again returns, he is not reordained; therefore by lapsing into heresy he did not lose his orders, and by parity of reasoning neither does a bishop lose his episcopal dignity or grade: therefore while existing as a heretic he has that dignity or excellence of order, and therefore also the operation that follows upon it in fact: therefore if he ordains, [the man] is ordained3.

4. Likewise, the character is equally truly in the wicked as in the good, and is equally truly imprinted on the wicked as on the good: therefore by parity of reasoning it is equally well given by the wicked or the perverse as by the good: therefore since the essence of order consists in the character4, it is evident, etc.

On the contrary: 1. Innocent says, and it is held in the text5: "It is established that he who has lost the honor cannot give the honor"; but the heretic is such a one: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Cause I, Question I6: "The blessing is turned into a curse for him who is ordained to the end that he become a heretic": therefore if by a curse no one is promoted to an order, it is evident, etc.

3. Likewise, it is more to promote someone to an order than to absolve or bind; but a heretic who is cut off can absolve or bind no one7: therefore he can promote no one to sacred orders.

4. Likewise, a lower power cannot act except by continuation with a superior and proper power; but the fullness of power is in the Supreme Pontiff8, from whom the heretic who is cut off is separated and disjoined: therefore it seems that he can confer nothing at all of those things that pertain to the ecclesiastical powers.

Conclusion.

Among heretics an order can be dispensed as to its truth, not as to its usefulness.

I respond: It must be said that, although this question was once much in doubt among illustrious doctors concerning all the Sacraments — as much concerning baptism

as concerning the others, [namely] that they would not exist among heretics9 — nevertheless through the most illustrious doctor Augustine this question has been clearly opened up to us, [namely] that the ecclesiastical Sacraments among heretics, who preserve the form of the Church and have the intention of doing what the Church does, do exist as to their truth, although they do not exist as to their usefulness: because they dispense the Sacraments, yet do not obtain the fruit of the Sacraments, for the reason that the Holy Spirit is not outside the catholic Church. And therefore in all the Sacraments which have a truth distinct from their usefulness, it is generally true that they can exist among heretics; but all the Sacraments are of this kind except the Sacrament of penance, whose reality is interior contrition10, without which no absolution is genuine, and with which no absolution is empty or useless: therefore all can be dispensed and are truly dispensed except the absolution of penance alone; and therefore none are repeated except that one, unless perhaps extreme unction11. And thus, since order has a character which exists apart from the grace of the Holy Spirit by which sins are blotted out, it must be said that among them [the heretics] it can be truly dispensed12.

To 1 and 2. To that, then, which is objected concerning Innocent and Gregory, to those two authorities it must be said that [the heretic] is said to receive a curse because he does not receive grace; he is said not to receive the honor because he who is ordained by a heretic that is cut off does not receive the execution [of the office]; who is therefore said to have lost the order for the reason that he lost the execution of the order, not because he lost the character, which cannot be blotted out.

To 3. To that which is objected concerning the power of absolving, it must be said that the case is not similar: because sacerdotal absolution is either null or is without pretense; but no one is knowingly absolved by a heretic who is free of pretense. — Yet it can be put otherwise, [namely] that a fourfold power is found in the ministers of the Church. For a certain [power] is founded chiefly upon order, such as the power of consecrating; a certain [power] chiefly upon canonical jurisdiction, such as the power of excommunicating; a certain [power] upon order and eminence, such as the power of ordaining; a certain [power] upon order and jurisdiction, such as the power of absolving and binding in the penitential forum13. And since the character cannot be taken away, therefore the power which follows upon the character cannot in fact be taken away. But since jurisdiction descends in ordered fashion from the superior to the inferior, so that the fullness is in the Supreme Pontiff, therefore he can take away that [jurisdiction] and the power which follows upon it. Hence by excommunicating he can take away the power of absolving and of excommunicating, but not of ordaining.

To 4. And through this the reply is evident to many [objections] and also to the following one. For as to what is objected, that in the Supreme Pontiff there is the fullness of power: this is true according as power follows upon jurisdiction, which is greatest and at its term in him, but not insofar as it follows upon the character, because that is imprinted immediately by God and is equal in all; nevertheless the execution of every power must be carried out according to his governance; and therefore, if he prohibits it, such a power cannot lawfully go forth into act; yet, since in reality it does not in fact depend on him, [the heretic] acts, just as another does. And thus the whole matter is evident14.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Libr. II. c. 13. n. 28, ubi sententialiter occurrit. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1, in quo etiam alia testimonia August. et Gregor. afferuntur.
    Book II, c. 13, n. 28, where it occurs in substance. Cf. here the text of the Master (Lombard), c. 1, in which other testimonies of Augustine and Gregory are also adduced.
  2. 2
    Ut ostensum est supra d. 13. a. 1. q. 1.
    As was shown above, d. 13, a. 1, q. 1.
  3. 3
    Plurimi codd. ordinatus.
    Very many codices read ordinatus (ordained).
  4. 4
    Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XXIV. c. 13. — Pro essentia permulti codd. excellentia.
    See above the text of the Master, d. XXIV, c. 13. — For essentia very many codices read excellentia.
  5. 5
    Hic c. 1.
    Here, c. 1.
  6. 6
    Can. 4, et est Gregor., Regest. IX. epist. indict. 2. epist. 106. ad Syagrium. Textus originalis promovetur pro ordinatur.
    Canon 4, and it is Gregory, Register IX, letter of indiction 2, epistle 106, to Syagrius. The original text has promovetur (is promoted) for ordinatur.
  7. 7
    Cfr. supra d. 19. a. 2. q. 2.
    Cf. above, d. 19, a. 2, q. 2.
  8. 8
    Ut dicit Bernard. supra pag. 508, nota 11. et pag. 535, nota 2. allegatus. — Superius pro propria codd. A E primaria. Conclusionem arg. edd. sic exhibent: ergo uterque [quod etiam plures codd. perperam ponunt] nihil omnino potest de his quae etc.
    As Bernard says, cited above p. 508, note 11, and p. 535, note 2. — Above, for propria codices A E read primaria. The editions present the conclusion of the argument thus: ergo uterque [which also many codices wrongly place] nihil omnino potest de his quae etc.
  9. 9
    Cfr. supra d. 5. et d. 13. tam in lit. Magistri quam in Comment. — Mox pro illustrissimum plures codd. superillustrissimum.
    Cf. above, d. 5 and d. 13, both in the text of the Master and in the Commentary. — Shortly after, for illustrissimum several codices read superillustrissimum.
  10. 10
    Ut ostensum est supra d. 22. a. 2. q. 2. — Aliquanto superius pro non est edd. non confert gratiam.
    As was shown above, d. 22, a. 2, q. 2. — Somewhat above, for non est the editions read non confert gratiam.
  11. 11
    Scil. quia necessaria benedictio olei dubia esse potest. — Superius pro praeter illam cod. U praeter illud.
    That is, because the requisite blessing of the oil can be doubtful. — Above, for praeter illam codex U reads praeter illud.
  12. 12
    Cfr. C. Secundum Ecclesiae catholicae (8.), d. 19.
    Cf. the chapter Secundum Ecclesiae catholicae (8), d. 19.
  13. 13
    Vide supra d. 13. a. 1. q. 1. ad 7, d. 18. p. II. q. 3. et d. 19. a. 2. q. 2.
    See above, d. 13, a. 1, q. 1, ad 7; d. 18, p. II, q. 3; and d. 19, a. 2, q. 2.
  14. 14
    Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    See the scholion to the preceding question. ---
Cited by

4 places in the Opera Omnia citethis question. Derived from Quaracchi’s own apparatus, never tagged by hand.

Whether the power of the keys inseparably accompanies the priestly order
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 19
infra d. 25. a. 1. q. 2.
Whether the sacrament of marriage can be contracted between infidels
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 39 · 2×
supra d. 25. a. 1. q. 2.
Whether the marriage of infidels excuses intercourse, so that there is no sin in it
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 39
supra d. 25. a. 1. q. 2.
Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Dist. VII)
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 7
d. 25. a. 1. q. 2.

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

← Dist. 25, Art. 1, Q. 1Dist. 25, Art. 1, Q. 3→