Bonaventure

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. They are the Quaracchi editors' critical apparatus (Notae ad Libr. Sententiarum) to the Master's text (Peter Lombard). Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; here p.638 carries the Master's notes 1–2, p.639 carries notes 1–6 (suffixed b below to keep markers unique within this file), and p.640 carries notes 1–8 (suffixed c). Page 641 carries only the closing lines of the littera, with no apparatus of its own.

DISTINCTIO XXV.

Cap. I. De ordinatis ab haereticis.

Solet etiam quaeri, si haeretici ab Ecclesia praecisi et damnati possint tradere sacros ordines, et si ab eis ordinati, redeuntes ad Ecclesiae unitatem, debeant reordinari. — Hanc quaestionem perplexam ac pene insolubilem faciunt doctorum verba, qui plurimum dissentire videntur. — Videntur enim quidam tradere, haereticos sacros ordines dare non posse, nec illos qui ab eis ordinati videntur, gratiam recipere. Dicit enim Innocentius¹: «Arianorum clericos non videri suscipiendos cum sacerdotii vel ministerii alicuius dignitate; quibus solum baptisma ratum esse permittit, quod in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti percipitur». Dicit etiam, eos «non posse dare Spiritum sanctum, quem amiserunt»; et «ordinatos ab haereticis caput habere vulneratum; et eum qui honorem amisit, honorem dare non posse, nec illum aliquid accepisse, quoniam in dante nihil erat, quod ille posset accipere». Tradit etiam, «venientibus ab haereticis per manus impositionem laicam tantum tribuendam communionem, nec ex his aliquem in clericatus honorem vel exiguum subrogare». Gregorius² etiam dicit, sacrilegam esse Arianorum consecrationem, cum ex eorum manu communio percipitur. Cyprianus etiam dicit, omnia quaecumque faciunt haeretici, carnalia, inania et sacrilega esse, et eorum «altaria falsa et illicita, sacerdotia et sacrificia sacrilega», qui «more simiarum, quae, cum homines non sint, formam imitantur humanam, vultum Ecclesiae catholicae et auctoritatem sibi vindicant, cum ipsi in Ecclesia non sint»; et cum sint sacrilegi, sacerdotium administrant et p. 639 altare ponunt, cum nec sacrificari oblatio illic possit, ubi Spiritus sanctus non sit; nec cuidam Dominus per eius preces et orationes prosit, qui Deum ipsum violavit.

Hieronymus^1b quoque asserit, «omnia quae offeruntur ab haereticis, contaminata esse in conspectu Domini; quia, licet sancta videantur specie sui, tamen, quia contacta sunt ab illo qui pollutus est, polluuntur omnia». Idem: «Odit Deus sacrificia haereticorum et a se proiicit; et quoties in nomine eius congregati fuerint, detestatur foetorem eorum et claudit nares suas». Idem: «Illi offerunt panem sacrilegum» etc. Leo^2b etiam testatur, «extra Ecclesiam nec rata esse sacerdotia, nec vera esse sacrificia». Idem etiam dicit: «Per crudelissimam vesaniam in Alexandrina sede omnium Sacramentorum lumen exstinctum: intercepta est sacrificii oblatio, defecit chrismatis sanctificatio, et parricidalibus manibus impiorum omnia se subtraxere mysteria». — His aliisque testimoniis astrui videtur, Sacramenta ecclesiastica, praecipue corporis et sanguinis, ordinationis et confirmationis, per haereticos non posse ministrari.

Contra autem alii sentire videntur, quod ab haereticis etiam praecisis sacri ordines, sicut et baptismus, tradi valeant; nec ab haereticis redeuntes, qui illic ordinati sunt et baptizati, iterum ordinandi sunt, sicut nec baptizandi. Unde Augustinus^3b: «De haereticis etiam damnatis quod quidam dicunt: baptisma, quod accepit, non amittit qui recedit ab Ecclesia; ius dandi quod accepit amittit; multis modis apparet inaniter dici: primo, quia nulla ostenditur causa, cur ille qui illud baptisma amittere non potest, ius dandi possit amittere. Utrumque enim Sacramentum est, et quadam consecratione utrumque homini datur, illud, cum baptizatur, et istud, cum ordinatur. Ideo non licet in catholica Ecclesia utrumque iterari. Nam si quando ex ipsa parte venientes, etiam praepositi, pro bono pacis, correcto schismatis errore, suscepti sunt, et si visum est opus esse, ut eadem officia gererent, quae agebant; non sunt rursus ordinandi; sed sicut baptismus in eis, ita ordinatio mansit integra, quia in praecisione fuerat vitium, quod unitate pacis est correctum, non in Sacramentis, quae, ubicumque sunt, ipsa^4b sunt. Et cum ipsi expedire videtur Ecclesiae, ut praepositi eorum, venientes ad catholicam societatem, honores suos ibi non administrent; non eis tamen ipsa ordinationis Sacramenta detrahuntur, sed super eos manent; ideoque non eis manus imponitur, ne non homini, sed ipsi Sacramento fiat iniuria. Sicut autem in baptismo est ius, quod per eos dari possit; sic in ordinatione ius dandi est, utrumque quidem ad perniciem suam. Sed aliud est non habere, aliud perniciose habere, aliud salubriter habere». Idem^5b: «De his qui ab Ecclesiae unitate separati sunt, nulla iam quaestio, quin habeant et dare possint; sed perniciose habent pernicioseque dant, quia extra vinculum pacis sunt. Neutri Sacramento facienda est iniuria. Sicut non recte habet qui ab unitate recedit, sed tamen habet, et ideo redeunti non redditur; sic etiam non recte dat qui ab unitate recedit, sed tamen dat; et ideo, qui ab eo accipit, venienti ad unitatem non iteratur». Idem: «Aliud est non habere aliquid, aliud est non iure habere vel illicite usurpare. Non igitur ideo non sunt Sacramenta Christi et Ecclesiae, quia eis illicite utantur non modo haeretici, sed etiam omnes impii; sed illi corrigendi sunt et puniendi, illa autem agnoscenda et veneranda». Item Gregorius^6b: «Quod dicitis, ut qui ordinatus est iterum ordinetur, valde ridiculum est. Ut enim baptizatus semel iterum baptizari non debet; ita qui consecratus est semel in eodem ordine non valet iterum consecrari». — His aliisque auctoritatibus videtur asseri, in omnibus impiis, etiam in haereticis praecisis et damnatis, Christi Sacramenta permanere cum iure dandi; possunt enim dare, sed perniciose, et quibus dederint non sunt iterum ordinandi. Quae praemissis ex opposito obviare videntur.

Haec autem quidam ita determinant. Dicunt enim, haereticos, accepta sacerdotali vel episcopali unctione, ab Ecclesia recedentes baptismi quidem dandi ius retinere, sed non habere facultatem tribuendi sacros ordines, vel consecrandi dominicum corpus, postquam praecisi sunt et damnati ab Ecclesia; sicut degradatus episcopus non habet potestatem largiendi sacros ordines, facultatem tamen baptizandi non amisit. Quod vero Augustinus ait intelligitur dictum de haereticis, qui non sententia Ecclesiae, sed pravitate sensus sui a fidei veritate ac doctrinae unitate divisi sunt; qui, licet tales sint, ius tamen ordinandi et consecrandi habent. Et qui ab eis ordinantur ante manifestam praecisionem, etiam si cum eis aperte exierint et sententia Ecclesiae damnati fuerint, tamen si redierint, iterum ordinandi non sunt. Et ubicumque legitur de ordinatis ab haereticis, quod servatis eis ordinibus ministrare valeant, vel iterum ordinandi non sint; de huiusmodi accipiendum dicunt. Nam postquam praecisi fuerint et damnati iudicio Ecclesiae, ius ordinandi et consecrandi eis detractum asserunt, ut degradatis, vel excommunicatis.

— Alii vero dicunt, Sacramenta ab haereticis et praecisis secundum formam Ecclesiae celebrata vera esse et rata, quia recedentes ab Ecclesia ius dandi et consecrandi non perdiderunt; et qui sic ab haereticis ordinantur, cum redeunt, iterum ordinandi non sunt. Quae vero ab haereticis aliter quam in Ecclesia fiunt, falsa sunt et inania; et qui a talibus ordinari videntur non munus, sed vulnus accipiunt. Et secundum hanc p. 640 differentiam varie de his loquuntur doctores.

— Quidam^1c vero dicunt, eadem Sacramenta ab haereticis praecisis posse celebrari, quae a catholicis, si ab illis forma Ecclesiae servetur; et ab eis celebrata vera esse et rata quantum ad se, quantum vero ad effectum falsa esse et inania et in his qui male tractant, et in his qui male suscipiunt; ideo irrita et falsa, quia quod promittunt et conferre creduntur non tribuunt; damnanda etiam dicuntur, quia illicite dantibus vel accipientibus sunt in iudicium; polluta etiam dicuntur, non quantum ad se, sed propter indignam haereticorum tractationem. Ideo Gregorius communionem Arii vocat exsecrationem, et Innocentius Bonosii ordinationem damnationem, non quod ita in se sint, sed quia male dantes vel accipientes tales facit; sicut etiam Hieronymus sacrificia eorum panem luctus vocat, non quantum ad se, sed quantum ad effectum. — Nonnulli^2c vero tradunt, illos haereticos, qui in Ecclesia ordinati sunt, ius ordinandi et consecrandi, etiam cum separati fuerint, habere; qui vero, in schismate vel haeresi positi, ab eis ordinati et inuncti fuerint, illo iure carent, ideoque, cum ordinare volunt, vulnus potius infigunt, quam gratiam conferant.

Cap. II. De simonia, unde dicitur, et quid sit.

De simoniacis vero non est ambigendum, quin sint haeretici, qui tamen ante sententiam degradationis et ordinant et consecrant. Et licet simoniaci proprie dicantur qui instar Simonis^3c magi impretiabilem gratiam pretio conducere volunt, et qui pro ministerio sacro pretium recipiunt in modum Giezi Giezitae vocandi sunt; omnes tamen et dantes et accipientes simoniaci dicuntur, et utrique eadem sententia percelluntur.

Cap. III. De his qui a simoniacis ordinantur scienter, vel non.

Differt tamen inter eos qui ordinantur a simoniacis scienter, et eos qui ignoranter. «Qui enim scienter a simoniacis se permiserint consecrari, immo exsecrari, eorum consecratio omnino irrita est. Qui vero ordinantur a simoniacis, quos, cum ordinantur, nesciunt esse simoniacos, qui et tunc pro catholicis habentur, eorum ordinatio misericorditer sustinetur^4c».

Cap. IV. De his qui dicunt, se emere corporalia et non spiritualia.

«Si vero aliqui obiecerint, se non consecrationes emere, sed res ipsas, quae ex consecratione proveniunt; penitus desipere probantur. Nam quisquis horum alterum vendit, sine quo alterum non habetur, neutrum vendere derelinquit^5c».

Cap. V. De distinctione simoniacorum.

Simoniacae autem haeresis tripartita est distinctio. Alii enim simoniace a simoniacis ordinantur; alii simoniace a non simoniacis; alii non simoniace a simoniacis. Unde Nicolaus Papa^6c: «Statuimus decretum de simoniaca tripartita haeresi, id est de simoniacis simoniace ordinatoribus vel ordinatis, et de simoniacis simoniace a non simoniacis, et de simoniacis non simoniace a simoniacis. Simoniaci simoniace ordinati vel ordinatores secundum canones a proprio gradu decidant; simoniaci etiam simoniace a non simoniacis ordinati similiter ab officio removeantur; simoniacos vero non simoniace a simoniacis ordinatos misericorditer per manus impositionem pro temporis necessitate in officio permittimus permanere». «Quod intelligendum est de his qui ordinantur a simoniacis ignorantes, eos esse simoniacos. Hos facit simoniacos non reatus criminis, sed ordinatio simoniaci».

Cap. VI. De his qui violenter ab haereticis vel simoniacis ordinantur.

Similiter, cum decernit Alexander Papa^7c, «simoniacos omnino damnandos ac deponendos», subintelligendum est: nisi violenter quis attractus fuerit. «De his enim et a quibuslibet haereticis violenter ordinatis dicit Innocentius, quod possunt habere aliquem colorem excusationis, si statim discedunt ab eis et pessimo eorum conciliabulo renuntiant». De aetate ordinandorum ita decrevit Nicolaus Papa^8c: «Sacri, inquit, canones sanxerunt, ut subdiaconus non ordinetur ante quatuordecim annos, nec diaconus ante viginti quinque, nec presbyter ante triginta. p. 641 Deinde, si dignus fuerit, ad episcopatum eligi potest»; quod nos etiam pari modo servare iubemus. Item Fabianus: «Si quis triginta aetatis non impleverit annos, nullo modo presbyter ordinetur, etsi valde sit dignus»; «quia et ipse Dominus triginta annorum baptizatus est, et sic coepit docere».

---

DISTINCTION XXV.

Chapter I. On those ordained by heretics.

It is also wont to be asked whether heretics who have been cut off from the Church and condemned can hand on the sacred orders, and whether those ordained by them, when they return to the unity of the Church, ought to be reordained. — This question, perplexing and almost insoluble, is made so by the words of the doctors, who seem to disagree greatly. — For certain ones seem to hand down that heretics cannot give the sacred orders, nor can those who seem to be ordained by them receive grace. For Innocent¹ says: «The clerics of the Arians are not to be received with the dignity of the priesthood or of any ministry; to whom he permits only baptism to be valid, which is received in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit». He says also that they «cannot give the Holy Spirit, whom they have lost»; and that «those ordained by heretics have a wounded head; and that he who has lost honor cannot give honor, nor did that one receive anything, since in the giver there was nothing that the other could receive». He also hands down that «to those coming from heretics only lay communion is to be granted by the imposition of hands, nor is any of them to be subrogated into clerical honor, even the least». Gregory² also says that the consecration of the Arians is sacrilegious, when communion is received from their hand. Cyprian also says that all things whatsoever the heretics do are carnal, empty, and sacrilegious, and that their «altars are false and unlawful, their priesthoods and sacrifices sacrilegious», who «after the manner of apes, which, though they are not men, imitate the human form, claim for themselves the face and authority of the Catholic Church, though they themselves are not in the Church»; and though they are sacrilegious, they administer the priesthood and set up p. 639 an altar, though a sacrifice cannot be offered there, where the Holy Spirit is not; nor can the Lord be of profit to anyone through his prayers and supplications, who has himself violated God.

Jerome^1b also asserts that «all things which are offered by heretics are defiled in the sight of the Lord; because, although they may seem holy in their own appearance, yet, because they have been touched by him who is polluted, all are polluted». The same: «God hates the sacrifices of heretics and casts them from himself; and as often as they are gathered in his name, he detests their stench and closes his nostrils». The same: «They offer sacrilegious bread» etc. Leo^2b also testifies that «outside the Church neither are the priesthoods valid, nor the sacrifices true». The same also says: «Through a most cruel madness in the see of Alexandria the light of all the Sacraments has been extinguished: the oblation of the sacrifice has been cut off, the sanctification of the chrism has failed, and by the parricidal hands of the impious all the mysteries have withdrawn themselves». — By these and other testimonies it seems to be established that the ecclesiastical Sacraments, especially of the body and blood, of ordination and of confirmation, cannot be ministered through heretics.

But on the contrary others seem to hold that by heretics, even those cut off, the sacred orders, like baptism also, can be handed on; and that those returning from the heretics, who were ordained and baptized there, are not to be ordained again, just as they are not to be baptized again. Hence Augustine^3b: «As to what some say concerning heretics even condemned: that the baptism which he received he does not lose who withdraws from the Church, but the right of giving which he received he does lose; it appears in many ways to be said vainly: first, because no cause is shown why he who cannot lose that baptism should be able to lose the right of giving it. For each is a Sacrament, and by a certain consecration each is given to a man, the one when he is baptized, and the other when he is ordained. Therefore it is not lawful in the Catholic Church to repeat either. For if at any time those coming from that side, even prelates, for the good of peace, the error of schism being corrected, have been received, and if it seemed needful that they should carry out the same offices which they were performing; they are not to be ordained again; but as baptism remained whole in them, so did ordination, because the fault had been in the cutting-off, which is corrected by the unity of peace, not in the Sacraments, which, wherever they are, are themselves^4b. And when it seems expedient to the Church that their prelates, coming to the Catholic society, should not there administer their honors; yet the Sacraments of ordination are not taken away from them, but remain upon them; and therefore the hand is not laid upon them, lest an injury be done not to the man, but to the Sacrament itself. But as in baptism there is a right, whereby it can be given through them; so in ordination there is a right of giving, each indeed to their own ruin. But it is one thing not to have, another to have perniciously, another to have wholesomely». The same^5b: «Concerning those who are separated from the unity of the Church there is now no question that they both have and can give; but they have perniciously and give perniciously, because they are outside the bond of peace. To neither Sacrament is injury to be done. As he who withdraws from unity does not rightly have, yet he has, and therefore it is not restored to him when he returns; so also he who withdraws from unity does not rightly give, yet he gives; and therefore, to him who receives from him, when he comes to unity it is not repeated». The same: «It is one thing not to have anything, another not to have it by right or to usurp it unlawfully. Therefore they are not for that reason no Sacraments of Christ and of the Church, because not only heretics but also all the impious use them unlawfully; but these men are to be corrected and punished, while those things are to be acknowledged and venerated». Likewise Gregory^6b: «What you say, that he who has been ordained should be ordained again, is exceedingly ridiculous. For as one baptized once for all ought not to be baptized again; so he who has been consecrated once in the same order cannot be consecrated again». — By these and other authorities it seems to be asserted that in all the impious, even in heretics cut off and condemned, the Sacraments of Christ remain with the right of giving; for they can give, but perniciously, and those to whom they have given are not to be ordained again. Which things seem to run counter to the foregoing from the opposite side.

But some determine these matters thus. For they say that heretics, having received the priestly or episcopal unction, when they withdraw from the Church do indeed retain the right of giving baptism, but do not have the faculty of conferring the sacred orders, or of consecrating the dominical body, after they have been cut off and condemned by the Church; just as a degraded bishop does not have the power of bestowing the sacred orders, yet has not lost the faculty of baptizing. And what Augustine says is understood to be said of heretics who are divided from the truth of the faith and from the unity of doctrine not by the sentence of the Church, but by the depravity of their own understanding; who, although they are such, yet have the right of ordaining and consecrating. And those who are ordained by them before the manifest cutting-off, even if they have openly gone out with them and have been condemned by the sentence of the Church, nevertheless, if they return, are not to be ordained again. And wherever it is read concerning those ordained by heretics, that with those orders preserved they can minister, or are not to be ordained again; it is to be taken of such as these. For after they have been cut off and condemned by the judgment of the Church, they assert that the right of ordaining and consecrating is withdrawn from them, as from the degraded or the excommunicate.

— But others say that the Sacraments celebrated by heretics and by those cut off according to the form of the Church are true and valid, because in withdrawing from the Church they have not lost the right of giving and consecrating; and those who are thus ordained by heretics, when they return, are not to be ordained again. But those things which are done by heretics otherwise than in the Church are false and empty; and those who seem to be ordained by such receive not a gift, but a wound. And according to this p. 640 difference the doctors speak variously concerning these matters.

— Some^1c say that the same Sacraments can be celebrated by heretics who have been cut off, which are celebrated by Catholics, if the form of the Church be preserved by them; and that, celebrated by them, they are true and valid as regards themselves, but as regards their effect false and empty, both in those who administer wickedly and in those who receive wickedly; therefore invalid and false, because what they promise and are believed to confer they do not bestow; they are also said to be condemnable, because they are unto judgment for those who unlawfully give or receive; they are also said to be polluted, not as regards themselves, but on account of the unworthy handling of the heretics. Therefore Gregory calls the communion of Arius an execration, and Innocent calls the ordination of Bonosus a condemnation, not that they are so in themselves, but because it makes wicked those who wickedly give or receive; just as Jerome also calls their sacrifices the bread of mourning, not as regards themselves, but as regards their effect. — Some^2c however hand down that those heretics who were ordained in the Church have the right of ordaining and consecrating, even when they have been separated; but those who, placed in schism or heresy, have been ordained and anointed by them, lack that right, and therefore, when they wish to ordain, they inflict a wound rather than confer grace.

Chapter II. On simony, whence it is named, and what it is.

But concerning simoniacs there is no doubt that they are heretics, who nevertheless before the sentence of degradation both ordain and consecrate. And although those are properly called simoniacs who, after the manner of Simon^3c the magician, wish to purchase for a price the inestimable grace, and those who receive a price for a sacred ministry are to be called after the manner of Giezi the Giezite; yet all, both those who give and those who receive, are called simoniacs, and both are struck with the same sentence.

Chapter III. On those who are ordained by simoniacs knowingly, or not.

Yet there is a difference between those who are ordained by simoniacs knowingly, and those who are ordained unknowingly. «For those who have knowingly permitted themselves to be consecrated by simoniacs, nay rather execrated, their consecration is wholly invalid. But those who are ordained by simoniacs, whom, when they are ordained, they do not know to be simoniacs, who at that time also are held as Catholics, their ordination is mercifully upheld^4c».

Chapter IV. On those who say that they buy corporeal and not spiritual things.

«But if any object that they do not buy consecrations, but the very things which come from consecration; they are proved to be utterly out of their senses. For whoever of these sells the one, without which the other is not had, leaves neither unsold^5c».

Chapter V. On the distinction of simoniacs.

But the distinction of the simoniacal heresy is threefold. For some are ordained simoniacally by simoniacs; others simoniacally by non-simoniacs; others non-simoniacally by simoniacs. Hence Pope Nicholas^6c: «We have established a decree concerning the threefold simoniacal heresy, that is, concerning simoniacs who ordain or are ordained simoniacally, and concerning simoniacs ordained simoniacally by non-simoniacs, and concerning simoniacs ordained non-simoniacally by simoniacs. Let simoniacs simoniacally ordained, or the ordainers, fall from their proper grade according to the canons; let simoniacs also who have been ordained simoniacally by non-simoniacs likewise be removed from office; but simoniacs ordained non-simoniacally by simoniacs we mercifully permit to remain in office through the imposition of hands, for the necessity of the time». «Which is to be understood of those who are ordained by simoniacs without knowing that they are simoniacs. It is not the guilt of the crime that makes these simoniacs, but the ordination of the simoniac».

Chapter VI. On those who are ordained by force by heretics or simoniacs.

Likewise, when Pope Alexander^7c decrees «that simoniacs are wholly to be condemned and deposed», it is to be understood by implication: unless someone has been drawn in by force. «For concerning these, and those ordained by force by any heretics whatsoever, Innocent says that they can have some color of excuse, if they immediately depart from them and renounce their most wicked conventicle». Concerning the age of those to be ordained Pope Nicholas^8c decreed thus: «The sacred canons, he says, have ordained that a subdeacon be not ordained before fourteen years, nor a deacon before twenty-five, nor a presbyter before thirty. p. 641 Then, if he be worthy, he can be chosen to the episcopate»; which we also command to be observed in like manner. Likewise Fabian: «If anyone has not completed thirty years of age, let him in no way be ordained presbyter, even if he be very worthy»; «because the Lord himself also was baptized at thirty years, and so began to teach».

---