Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 25, Art. 2, Q. 3

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 25

Textus Latinus

p. 653

Quaestio III. Utrum ad susceptionem ordinis sit necessaria indivisio carnis.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum ad ordinis susceptionem necessaria sit indivisio carnis. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Primae ad Timotheum tertio³: Oportet episcopum esse unius uxoris virum; et hoc ipsum dicitur de diacono.

2. Item, Ambrosius ad Vercellenses, et habetur trigesima quarta distinctione⁴: «Cognoscimus, non solum de episcopo et presbytero Apostolum statuisse, sed etiam Patres in Concilii Nicaeni tractatu addidisse, clericum quempiam non debere esse, qui secunda coniugia sit sortitus».

3. Item, ille non potest promoveri, qui habuit uxorem, cuius caro est divisa: ergo multo minus potest ille qui habuit plures uxores. Prima patet ex hoc quod dicit distinctione trigesima quarta⁵ Innocentius Papa: «Si quis viduam, licet laicus, duxerit uxorem, seu ante baptismum, seu post, non admittatur ad clerum».

4. Item, sacerdos sive episcopus gerit figuram Christi; sed Christus non fuit divisus, immo unitus unitate: ergo deficit in tali significatio ordinis: ergo et ordo, quoniam significatio est essentialis Sacramento⁶.

5. Item, bigamia est proprietas, quae nunquam relinquitur, nec potest ille qui est bigamus, fieri non bigamus: ergo si impedit Sacramentum, videtur, quod reddat se impossibilem ad ordinis susceptionem⁷.

Contra: 1. Carnis corruptio non impedit Sacramenti susceptionem: ergo nec divisio consimili ratione.

2. Item, si carnis divisio impedit, quae est cum uxore, cum multo vituperabilior sit illa quae est cum meretrice, multo fortius illa impediret; sed illa non impedit: ergo nec ista.

3. Item, si carnis divisio impedit, aut ratione alicuius, quod fit in carne, aut ratione eius quod fit in anima. Ratione alicuius, quod fit in carne; non videtur, quia non relinquit⁸ aliam dispositionem quam in cognitione unius. Ratione alicuius, quod fit in anima; non, quoniam, mortua uxore, nihil remanet de matrimonio.

4. Item, quaero: quare impedit? Si propter defectum Sacramenti; quaero: cuius? Si matrimonii; contra: plus deficit a Sacramento matrimonii qui nunquam contraxit, quam qui bis contraxit: ergo non deficit a Sacramento matrimonii. — Si a Sacramento ordinis; contra: bigamia non attenditur secundum Sacramentum ordinis, sed secundum matrimonium: ergo non deficit ordo.

Est igitur quaestio: quare divisio impedit, et non corruptio?

Et iterum: quare corruptio impedit in muliere, ut non consecretur⁹, quare non similiter et in episcopo?

p. 654

Et iterum: quare fornicatio uxoris potius facit virum irregularem^1b quam fornicatio viri, cum magis puniendus sit propter divisionem carnis suae quam alienae?

Conclusio.

Bigami propter defectum significationis inepti sunt ad susceptionem ordinis, praesertim sacri, ita tamen, ut valide ordinem recipiant.

Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod Sacramentum ordinis abundat ab aliis in ratione significandi, quoniam non solum illud quod adhibetur exterius, significat, immo ipse suscipiens signum est, et significat ipse episcopus consecratus vel presbyter ordinatus ipsum Christum, secundum quod superius^2b tactum est. Et in hac proprietate differt ab aliis Sacramentis, praeterquam a matrimonio, in quo ipse vir, qui est subiectum ipsius Sacramenti, signum est ipsius Christi, sicut mulier signum est Ecclesiae, et ita concurrunt ad idem significandum.

Quoniam ergo de significatione ordinis primaria est, quod ordinatus significet Christum ut sponsum Ecclesiae; et hoc non potest significare bigamus, qui habuit uxorem viduam, quoniam Ecclesia unicum habuit sponsum, et Christus unicam sponsam: hinc est, quod tales inepti sunt ad ordines, maxime principales et sacros, in quibus homo iam incipit expresse figurare Christum^3b. Unde bigamia reddit ineptum ad diaconatum et subdiaconatum et sacerdotium et potissime ad episcopatum; et ideo in his ordinibus nunquam legitur dispensatum nec dispensari debet^4b; non quia Sacramentum essentialiter deficiat, immo bigamus recipit characterem, sed quia perfectio Sacramenti in ipso deficit, quae nulla ratione potest suppleri per hominem nec recompensari. Tamen in ordinibus inferioribus ex causa necessitatis dispensationem recipit, sicut dicitur trigesima quarta distinctione^5b, Necessitate cogente; et iterum, Lector si viduam etc. — Ex his patet, quod divisio carnis impedit, et quare impedit, et quae divisio.

1, 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de corruptione, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia non repugnat necessitati^6b Sacramenti nec significationi, ut bigamia. Similiter divisio per fornicationem non impedit, quia non est divisio per significationem; sed haec est divisio significans.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, aut hoc est ex parte animae, aut ex parte carnis; dicendum, quod ratio sumitur ex parte totius hominis, cuius est matrimonium contrahere, et quod est subiectum matrimonii; in quo quidem est impedimentum non ratione immunditiae vel qualitatis absolutae, quae fit in carne, sed propter significationem deficientem. Quia enim contraxit cum una, significavit Christum; quia vero ab una recessit et contraxit cum secunda, recessit a significatione; et ita est defectus Sacramenti, scilicet unitatis, quae in Sacramento matrimonii et ordinis debebat significari.

4. Et per hoc patet sequens, quod obiicitur de defectu Sacramenti; dico enim, quod in eo deficit Sacramentum unitatis, quod sive deficiat ex parte sua, sive ex parte uxoris, reddit ipsum minus idoneum ad ordinis Sacramentum^7b. Si ergo quaeras: quod Sacramentum deficit, utrum ordinis, vel matrimonii? dico, quod Sacramentum ordinis deficit, quia non est perfectio, quae possit significare quod exigit ordo. Praeterea, est defectus Sacramenti matrimonii, defectus, inquam, non simplicis negationis, sicut est in eo qui nunquam fuit uxoratus, sed defectus privationis, ubi aliquid est de significatione, aliquid de privatione, quae generat quandam enormitatem sive deformitatem, ratione cuius ad tam nobile Sacramentum non debet admitti.

Ex his patent quaestiones sequentes, quare scilicet impedit divisio, non corruptio, quia non privatur Sacramentum aliquod, nec efficitur defectivum propter corruptionem, sicut propter divisionem.

Ad illud quod quaeritur: quare non impedit corruptio consecrationem viri, sicut et mulieris? dicunt aliqui iuristae, quod episcopus significat Ecclesiam militantem, sed virgo significat Christum, qui fuit virgo. Sed illud non capit ratio recta. — Et ideo aliter dicendum, quod episcopus significat Christum, sed mulier significat Ecclesiam triumphantem, sive ipsam Ecclesiam, quae virgo est et nunquam fuit nisi uxor Christi; Christus autem, etsi virgo fuit, tamen Synagogam habuit non ut uxorem, sed ut concubinam^8b.

Et per hoc patet ultimum, quare ille qui desponsat corruptam ab alio et cognoscit, est ineptus p. 655 et bigamus iudicatur. Dicendum, quod quia non est unicus unicae; ista enim non est unica^1c, et maiorem oportet significari unitatem ex parte uxoris quam viri, quoniam Ecclesia non fuit copulata nisi Christo, nec matrimonialiter nec alio modo. Christus autem copulatus fuit Synagogae, quamvis non insolubiliter, et ita non matrimonialiter. — Et sic patet, quod omnia talia statuta sunt valde rationabilia, quia in eorum constitutione non pensatur culpa, sed potius significatio congrua^2c.

---

English Translation

p. 653

Question III. Whether integrity of the flesh is necessary for receiving an order.

Thirdly it is asked whether, for the reception of an order, integrity of the flesh is necessary. And that it is, seems [to be the case].

1. First to Timothy, chapter three³: A bishop must be the husband of one wife; and the same is said of a deacon.

2. Likewise, Ambrose to the Vercellenses, and it is found in the thirty-fourth distinction⁴: «We recognize that not only concerning a bishop and a presbyter did the Apostle so establish, but that the Fathers also, in the tract of the Council of Nicaea, added that no cleric ought to be one who has obtained a second marriage».

3. Likewise, he who has had a wife whose flesh is divided cannot be promoted: therefore much less can he who has had several wives. The first is clear from what Pope Innocent says in the thirty-fourth distinction⁵: «If anyone, even a layman, has married a widow, whether before baptism or after, let him not be admitted to the clergy».

4. Likewise, a priest or bishop bears the figure of Christ; but Christ was not divided, but rather united by unity: therefore the signification of the order is deficient in such a one: therefore the order also [is deficient], since signification is essential to the Sacrament⁶.

5. Likewise, bigamy is a property which is never relinquished, nor can he who is a bigamist become a non-bigamist: therefore, if it impedes the Sacrament, it seems that it renders him incapable of the reception of an order⁷.

On the contrary: 1. The corruption of the flesh does not impede the reception of the Sacrament: therefore neither does division, by a like reasoning.

2. Likewise, if the division of the flesh which is with a wife impedes, since that which is with a harlot is much more blameworthy, it would impede much more strongly; but that does not impede: therefore neither does this.

3. Likewise, if the division of the flesh impedes, [it does so] either by reason of something that occurs in the flesh, or by reason of that which occurs in the soul. By reason of something that occurs in the flesh: this does not seem [so], because it leaves⁸ no other disposition than [that found] in the knowledge of one [woman]. By reason of something that occurs in the soul: not [so], since, the wife having died, nothing remains of the marriage.

4. Likewise, I ask: why does it impede? If on account of a defect of the Sacrament; I ask: of which? If of matrimony; on the contrary: he who has never contracted [marriage] is more deficient in the Sacrament of matrimony than he who has contracted twice: therefore he is not deficient in the Sacrament of matrimony. — If [a defect] of the Sacrament of order; on the contrary: bigamy is not considered according to the Sacrament of order, but according to matrimony: therefore the order is not deficient.

There is therefore the question: why does division impede, and not corruption?

And again: why does corruption impede in a woman, so that she is not consecrated⁹, [and] why not likewise also in a bishop?

p. 654

And again: why does the fornication of a wife rather make the husband irregular^1b than the fornication of the husband, since he is the more to be punished on account of the division of his own flesh than of another's?

Conclusion.

Bigamists, on account of the defect of signification, are unfit for the reception of an order, especially a sacred one; yet in such wise that they validly receive the order.

I respond: For the understanding of the aforesaid it must be noted that the Sacrament of order abounds beyond the others in the character of signifying, since not only does that which is applied externally signify, but rather the very one receiving is a sign, and the very bishop consecrated or presbyter ordained signifies Christ himself, according to what was touched on above^2b. And in this property it differs from the other Sacraments, except from matrimony, in which the man himself, who is the subject of the Sacrament itself, is a sign of Christ himself, just as the woman is a sign of the Church, and thus they concur unto the same signification.

Since therefore it belongs to the primary signification of order that the ordained signify Christ as the spouse of the Church; and a bigamist cannot signify this, who has had a widow to wife, since the Church has had a single spouse, and Christ a single bride: hence it is that such persons are unfit for the orders, especially the principal and sacred ones, in which a man now begins expressly to figure Christ^3b. Hence bigamy renders one unfit for the diaconate and subdiaconate and priesthood and most of all for the episcopate; and therefore in these orders one never reads of a dispensation being granted, nor ought one to be granted^4b; not because the Sacrament is essentially deficient — rather the bigamist receives the character — but because the perfection of the Sacrament is deficient in him, which can in no way be supplied or compensated by a man. Yet in the lesser orders, by reason of necessity, he does receive a dispensation, as is said in the thirty-fourth distinction^5b, Necessity compelling; and again, A lector, if [he has married] a widow, etc. — From these things it is clear that division of the flesh impedes, and why it impedes, and what division [impedes].

1, 2. To that, then, which is objected concerning corruption, it must be said that it is not similar: because it is not repugnant to the necessity^6b of the Sacrament nor to its signification, as bigamy is. Likewise division by fornication does not impede, because it is not a division by signification; but this [bigamy] is a division signifying.

3. To that which is objected — [namely, whether] this is on the part of the soul, or on the part of the flesh — it must be said that the reason is taken on the part of the whole man, whose it is to contract matrimony, and who is the subject of matrimony; in which indeed there is an impediment, not by reason of uncleanness or of an absolute quality which occurs in the flesh, but on account of the deficient signification. For because he contracted with one [woman], he signified Christ; but because he withdrew from the one and contracted with a second, he withdrew from the signification; and thus there is a defect of the Sacrament, namely of unity, which ought to be signified in the Sacrament of matrimony and of order.

4. And by this the following is made clear, which is objected concerning the defect of the Sacrament; for I say that in him is deficient the Sacrament of unity, which, whether it be deficient on his own part, or on the part of the wife, renders him less suitable for the Sacrament of order^7b. If therefore you ask: which Sacrament is deficient, whether of order or of matrimony? I say that the Sacrament of order is deficient, because there is not the perfection which could signify what the order requires. Moreover, there is a defect of the Sacrament of matrimony — a defect, I say, not of simple negation, as is the case in one who was never married, but a defect of privation, where there is something of signification, something of privation, which begets a certain enormity or deformity, by reason of which he ought not to be admitted to so noble a Sacrament.

From these things the following questions are made clear, namely why division impedes, [and] not corruption, because no Sacrament is deprived, nor is [the Sacrament] made defective on account of corruption, as [it is] on account of division.

To that which is asked: why does corruption not impede the consecration of a man, as [it does] of a woman? some jurists say that a bishop signifies the Church militant, but a virgin signifies Christ, who was a virgin. But right reason does not accept that. — And therefore it must be said otherwise, that a bishop signifies Christ, but a woman signifies the Church triumphant, or the Church herself, who is a virgin and never was [anything] except the bride of Christ; but Christ, although he was a virgin, nevertheless had the Synagogue not as a wife, but as a concubine^8b.

And by this the last [question] is made clear, why he who betroths a woman corrupted by another and knows her is unfit, p. 655 and is judged a bigamist. It must be said that [this is] because he is not one [man] of one [woman]; for she is not one [woman] of one^1c, and the greater unity ought to be signified on the part of the wife than of the husband, since the Church was joined to none save Christ, neither matrimonially nor in any other way. But Christ was joined to the Synagogue, though not indissolubly, and thus not matrimonially. — And thus it is clear that all such statutes are exceedingly reasonable, because in their establishment fault is not weighed, but rather fitting signification^2c.

---

Apparatus Criticus

3
Vers. 2: Oportet ergo, episcopum irreprehensibilem esse, unius uxoris virum. Ibid. v. 12: Diaconi sint unius uxoris viri. Cfr. Gratian., d. 26-34.
Verse 2: A bishop therefore must be blameless, the husband of one wife. Ibid. v. 12: Let deacons be the husbands of one wife. Cf. Gratian, dd. 26–34.
4
Can. 14: Cognoscamus, non solum hoc de episcopo etc. (ex Ambros. Epist. 63. n. 64.). Pro in Concilii Nicaeni tractatu plurimi codd. et ed. 1 in Conciliis invicem [cod. K omittit invicem] tractatum, ed. Maur. operum Ambros. in Concilii Nicaeni tractatus.
Canon 14: We recognize, not only this concerning a bishop, etc. (from Ambrose, Letter 63, n. 64). For in the tract of the Council of Nicaea very many codices and edition 1 [read] in the Councils mutually [codex K omits mutually] the tract; the Maurist edition of the works of Ambrose [reads] in the tract of the Council of Nicaea.
5
Can. 13. — Pro dicit plurimi codd. (plures omittunt Innocentius Papa) dicitur.
Canon 13. — For he says very many codices (many omit Pope Innocent) [read] it is said.
6
Ut ostensum est supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2. — Superius post unitus [cod. Z addit in] unitate Vat. subiungit naturae.
As was shown above at d. 1, p. I, q. 2. — Above, after united [codex Z adds in] by unity, the Vatican [manuscript] appends of nature.
7
Cfr. Ambros., 1. de Offic. minist. c. 50. n. 257, et Epist. 63. n. 62, allegatus a Gratiano C. Una tantum (4.) et C. Qui sine crimine (5.), d. 26.
Cf. Ambrose, book 1 of On the Duties of Ministers, c. 50, n. 257, and Letter 63, n. 62, cited by Gratian at C. Una tantum (4) and C. Qui sine crimine (5), d. 26.
8
Ita codd. E F I L N aa, in aliis et edd. quod relinquat.
Thus codices E F I L N aa; in the others and in the editions, that it may leave.
9
Cfr. C. Acutius (2.), d. 26, C. Si quis non iratus (13.), C. 15. q. 1. § 1. et C. De pudicitia (6.), C. 32. q. 5. § 2. — Superius post quaestio codd. L P Z addunt difficilis.
Cf. C. Acutius (2), d. 26; C. Si quis non iratus (13), C. 15, q. 1, § 1; and C. De pudicitia (6), C. 32, q. 5, § 2. — Above, after question, codices L P Z add difficult.
1b
Vide C. Curandum (9.), seqq., d. 34.
See C. Curandum (9) and following, d. 34.
2b
Dist. 24. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. ad 2. et q. 4. in fine. — Inferius respicitur Eph. 5, 22. seqq.
Distinction 24, p. II, a. 1, q. 1, reply to 2, and q. 4 at the end. — Below there is reference to Eph. 5:22 ff.
3b
Cfr. C. Acutius (2.), d. 26. (qui est August., de Bono coniugali, c. 18. n. 21.), et Petr. Damian., lib. inscriptus «Dominus vobiscum», c. 12.
Cf. C. Acutius (2), d. 26 (which is Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, c. 18, n. 21), and Peter Damian, the book entitled «Dominus vobiscum», c. 12.
4b
In C. Super eo (2.), X. de Bigamis non dispensandis (lib. I. tit. 21.) dicitur: Quia in bigamis contra Apostolum dispensare non licet, ut debeant ad sacros ordines promoveri vel in eis, si promoti fuerint, remanere.
In C. Super eo (2), X, On Bigamists Not To Be Dispensed (book I, tit. 21), it is said: Since in the case of bigamists it is not permitted to dispense against the Apostle, so that they should be promoted to sacred orders, or, if they have been promoted, remain in them.
5b
Gratian., C. Lector, si viduam (18.), d. 34, haec verba praemittit: Necessitate tamen exigente, bigamus usque ad subdiaconatum potest promoveri. Unde Martinus Papa ait.
Gratian, C. Lector, si viduam (18), d. 34, prefaces these words: Yet, necessity demanding, a bigamist may be promoted as far as the subdiaconate. Whence Pope Martin says.
6b
Ita codd. et edd. Fortasse legendum integritati.
Thus the codices and editions. Perhaps it should be read integritati (to the integrity).
7b
Cfr. C. Debitum pastoralis (5.), X. de Bigamis non ordinandis (lib. I. tit. 21.). — Inferius pro perfectio non pauci codd. perfecta, codd. F bb persona, cod. L persona perfecta, codd. K X (I a secunda manu) perfecta significatio.
Cf. C. Debitum pastoralis (5), X, On Bigamists Not To Be Ordained (book I, tit. 21). — Below, for perfection not a few codices [read] perfect, codices F bb person, codex L perfect person, codices K X (I by a second hand) perfect signification.
8b
Duplex haec expositio insinuatur in Glossa super C. Debitum pastoralis in nota praecedente allegatum.
This twofold exposition is suggested in the Gloss on C. Debitum pastoralis, cited in the preceding note.
1c
In praeallegato C. Debitum pastoralis dicitur: Quoniam nec illa est unica unici, nec iste unus unius. — Vat. dicendum enim, quod ratio est, quia etc. Mox pro significari codd. et ed. 1 significare.
In the aforecited C. Debitum pastoralis it is said: Since neither is she the one [wife] of one [husband], nor is he the one [husband] of one [wife]. — The Vatican [manuscript reads] for it must be said that the reason is, because, etc. Presently, for to be signified the codices and edition 1 [read] to signify.
2c
Praeter hanc principalem rationem in iure canonico aliae secundariae afferuntur, quare bigamus ad sacros ordines non promoveatur, scil. propter praerogativam sacerdotalis dignitatis, et quia talis non potest esse hortator castitatis (cfr. C. Una tantum (4.), seq. d. 26.), et propter suspicionem futurae incontinentiae (cfr. C. Proposuisti (2.), d. 82.). Vide infra d. 42. a. 3. q. 3. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.
Besides this principal reason, other secondary ones are brought forward in canon law as to why a bigamist should not be promoted to sacred orders, namely on account of the prerogative of the sacerdotal dignity, and because such a one cannot be an exhorter to chastity (cf. C. Una tantum (4) and following, d. 26), and on account of the suspicion of future incontinence (cf. C. Proposuisti (2), d. 82). See below at d. 42, a. 3, q. 3. — See the scholion to question 1 of this article. ---