← Back to Distinction 37

Dist. 37, Art. 1, Q. 2

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 37

Textus Latinus
p. 803

Quaestio II. Utrum sacer ordo matrimonium impediat.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum sacer ordo matrimonium impediat. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per auctoritates multas, quas adducit Magister in littera2, et sumuntur plures de distinctione trigesima secunda.

2. Item, in Extra, de Clericis coniugatis3, Alexander tertius: «Si in subdiaconatu et aliis superioribus ordinibus uxores accepisse noscuntur, eos uxores dimittere compellere procuretis».

3. Item, omnis qui non vovet continentiam, est ineptus ad sacros ordines; sed qui habent uxores, sunt huiusmodi: ergo etc. Probatio maioris: Gregorius dicit, et habetur in littera4: «Nullum subdiaconum facere praesumant episcopi, nisi qui se promisit caste victurum»: ergo si qui promittit in manu episcopi continentiam, ipse vovet et tenetur, patet etc.

4. Item, in sacris ordinibus ministrant circa altare; sed sanctius est altare novae legis et sacrificium quam legis figurae; sed sacerdos, cum ingrediebatur sancta sanctorum, tenebatur a coniuge abstinere, sicut dicitur in Exodo5: ergo multo fortius ministri altaris nunc: ergo qui iugiter ministrant nunquam debent mulieribus adhaerere.

Contra: 1. Virtus nullam habet oppositionem cum virtute6, ergo nec Sacramentum cum Sacramento; sed quod non habet oppositionem cum alio non praestat ei impedimentum: ergo ordinis Sacramentum nullo modo impedit matrimonium.

2. Item, oppositio est relatio aequiparantiae7: ergo si unum Sacramentum repugnat et impedit susceptionem alterius, pari ratione et e converso; sed matrimonium non impedit susceptionem ordinis, quia multi coniugati promoti sunt in episcopos: ergo nec ordo sacer impedit matrimonium.

3. Item, idem est ordo apud nos et apud Ecclesiam orientalem; sed apud illos ordo non impedit matrimonium, nec e converso8: ergo nec apud

p. 804 nos. Si tu dicas, quod apud nos est superadiectum votum, ratione cuius impedit; tunc videtur, quod impedimentum ordinis non differat ab impedimento voti.

Conclusio. Sacer ordo impedit matrimonium contrahendum et dirimit contractum.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod absque dubio, sicut sacri canones dicunt, sacer ordo impedit matrimonium contrahendum et dirimit iam contractum.

Verumtamen quantum ad modum dicendi sive intelligendi inter doctores diversos diversitas opinionum resultat.

Quidam enim dicunt, quod ordo sacer impedit matrimonium propter votum annexum, ad quod obligatur qui suscipit ordinem sacrum. — Sed quoniam in susceptione ordinis non videtur voti emissio, aut si est emissio quantum ad factum, quamvis non sit quantum ad verbum; non videtur tunc differre ab impedimento voti; hoc falsum est, quia apud Graecos non est votum continentiae, quia illi sacerdotes licite utuntur uxoribus, et tamen nullus potuit nec potest in sacris ordinibus constitutus contrahere, sicut ex Synodo sexta1 habetur, quae celebrata fuit apud eos, in qua se huic statuto subiecerunt praeter votum continentiae.

Ideo aliorum est opinio, quod ordo praestat impedimentum ratione statuti ecclesiastici, quod ligat clericos suscipientes ordines ad nunquam contrahendum.

Sed quoniam auctoritates canonum inveniuntur, quae utrumque sonare videntur, et quod in susceptione ordinis est solemnizatio voti; ideo dicendum et melius, quod etsi apud Graecos impediat, hoc non est nisi ratione statuti; et sic impedivit, ut dicunt quidam, a tempore Apostolorum2; tamen apud Latinos impedit et ratione statuti et ratione voti. Sicut enim ordo monachorum et habitus continentiam habet annexam per illum qui habitum instituit et regulam edidit monachalem; et ideo qui profitetur et suscipit habitum dicitur emittere votum consequenter: sic ordo apud Latinos ex ecclesiastica institutione habet inseparabiliter continentiam annexam; et ideo qui illum suscipit spontanee se obligat, ita quod illa obligatio procedit ex statuto pariter et ex voto. — Et sic patet, quod impedit et qualiter impedit.

Ad argumenta: Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod virtus cum virtute non habet oppositionem; dicendum, quod verum est quantum ad habitum; sed tamen status aliquando sunt incompossibiles, ut coniugalis et virginalis3. Et quoniam Sacramenta diversa status diversos respiciunt, ut ordo statum continentiae virginalis vel vidualis, matrimonium statum continentiae coniugalis; hinc est, quod impedit, sicut status saecularis et religiosus suo modo opponuntur.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod matrimonium non impedit ordinem; dicendum, quod verum est, si uxor fuit virgo et vult continere; sed tamen non est simile: quia processus in virtutibus est a statu imperfectiori ad perfectiorem, sed non debet esse reditus; et quoniam matrimonium collocat in statu imperfectionis, ordo vero in statu perfectionis: ideo etc.; sicut de saeculo ad religionem licet ascendere, non descendere.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, iam patet responsio: quia statutum Ecclesiae abundantius arctat Latinos quam Graecos, licet illos aliquo modo arctet; et hoc, quia Latini voluerunt se subiicere et plicare, Graeci vero in sua ruditate remanere, et ideo usque hodie in suis faecibus remanserunt4. Patet etiam, quod non solum ratione voti impedit, sed etiam ratione statuti ecclesiastici5.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether sacred order impedes marriage.

Secondly it is asked whether sacred order impedes marriage. And that it does, it seems:

1. By the many authorities which the Master adduces in the text2, and more are taken from the thirty-second distinction.

2. Likewise, in the Decretals, On Married Clerics3, Alexander III: «If in the subdiaconate and the other higher orders they are known to have taken wives, see to it that you compel them to dismiss their wives».

3. Likewise, everyone who does not vow continence is unfit for the sacred orders; but those who have wives are of this kind: therefore etc. Proof of the major: Gregory says, and it is found in the text4: «Let bishops presume to make no one a subdeacon, except one who has promised to live chastely»: therefore if someone promises continence into the bishop's hand, he vows and is bound, it is evident, etc.

4. Likewise, in the sacred orders they minister at the altar; but the altar and sacrifice of the new law are holier than [those of] the figure of the law; but the priest, when he entered the holy of holies, was bound to abstain from his spouse, as is said in Exodus5: therefore much more the ministers of the altar now: therefore those who minister continually ought never to cleave to women.

On the contrary: 1. Virtue has no opposition to virtue6, therefore neither has Sacrament to Sacrament; but what has no opposition to another does not furnish it an impediment: therefore the Sacrament of order in no way impedes marriage.

2. Likewise, opposition is a relation of equiparance7: therefore if one Sacrament conflicts with and impedes the reception of the other, by equal reasoning also conversely; but marriage does not impede the reception of order, since many married men have been promoted to bishops: therefore neither does sacred order impede marriage.

3. Likewise, order is the same among us and in the Eastern Church; but among them order does not impede marriage, nor conversely8: therefore neither among

nos. If you say that among us a vow is superadded, by reason of which it impedes; then it seems that the impediment of order does not differ from the impediment of the vow.

Conclusion. Sacred order impedes the marriage to be contracted and dissolves the contracted one.

I respond: It must be said that without doubt, as the sacred canons say, sacred order impedes the marriage to be contracted and dissolves the one already contracted.

Nevertheless, as to the manner of speaking or of understanding, a diversity of opinions arises among the various doctors.

For some say that sacred order impedes marriage on account of the annexed vow, to which he who receives sacred order is bound. — But since in the reception of order there does not seem to be an emission of a vow, or if there is an emission as to the deed, although not as to the word; it does not then seem to differ from the impediment of the vow; this is false, because among the Greeks there is no vow of continence, since those priests lawfully make use of wives, and yet no one established in the sacred orders could nor can contract [marriage], as is had from the sixth Synod1, which was celebrated among them, in which they subjected themselves to this statute apart from a vow of continence.

Therefore it is the opinion of others that order furnishes the impediment by reason of the ecclesiastical statute, which binds clerics receiving orders never to contract.

But since authorities of the canons are found which seem to sound both ways, and [since] in the reception of order there is a solemnization of a vow; therefore it must be said, and better, that although among the Greeks it impedes, this is only by reason of the statute; and thus it has impeded, as some say, from the time of the Apostles2; yet among the Latins it impedes both by reason of the statute and by reason of the vow. For just as the order of monks and the habit has continence annexed through him who instituted the habit and issued the monastic rule; and therefore he who professes and receives the habit is said to emit a vow consequently: so order among the Latins, by ecclesiastical institution, has continence inseparably annexed; and therefore he who receives it binds himself spontaneously, so that that obligation proceeds from the statute equally and from the vow. — And thus it is evident that it impedes, and how it impedes.

To the arguments: To 1. To that then which is objected, that virtue has no opposition to virtue; it must be said that this is true as to the habit; but nevertheless states are sometimes incompossible, as the conjugal and the virginal3. And since diverse Sacraments regard diverse states—as order [regards] the state of virginal or widowed continence, marriage the state of conjugal continence—hence it is that it impedes, just as the secular and the religious state are in their own way opposed.

To 2. To that which is objected, that marriage does not impede order; it must be said that this is true, if the wife was a virgin and wishes to be continent; but nevertheless it is not similar: because progress in the virtues is from a more imperfect state to a more perfect, but there ought not to be a return; and since marriage places [one] in a state of imperfection, but order in a state of perfection: therefore etc.; just as it is permitted to ascend from the world to religion, not to descend.

To 3. To that which is objected last, the response is already evident: because the statute of the Church binds the Latins more abundantly than the Greeks, although it binds the latter in some way; and this, because the Latins willed to subject and bend themselves, but the Greeks to remain in their crudeness, and therefore to this day they have remained in their dregs4. It is also evident that it impedes not only by reason of the vow, but also by reason of the ecclesiastical statute5.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 2
    Hic c. 1.
    Here, ch. 1.
  2. 3
    Libr. III. tit. 3. C. Si qui (I.). — Post dimittere cod. Z addit et poenitentiam de commisso agere, quod etiam textus originalis habet, subiiciens insuper per suspensionis et excommunicationis sententiam.
    Book III, tit. 3, canon Si qui (1.). — After dimittere codex Z adds et poenitentiam de commisso agere ("and to do penance for what was committed"), which the original text also has, adding besides per suspensionis et excommunicationis sententiam ("by a sentence of suspension and excommunication").
  3. 4
    Hic c. 1. — Pro Probatio maioris codd. communiter, sed male Probatio minoris.
    Here, ch. 1. — For Probatio maioris ("Proof of the major") the codices commonly, but wrongly, [read] Probatio minoris ("Proof of the minor").
  4. 5
    Respicere videtur [Exod.] 19, 22; cfr. v. 15. et 29, 30 cum Lev. 8, 33.: C. Tenere debet (4.), d. 31, in quo dicitur: Nam si priscis temporibus anno vicis suae de templo Dei sacerdotes non discedebant [Lev. 21, 12.], sicut de Zacharia legimus [Luc. 1, 8.]... quanto magis hi sacerdotes vel levitae pudicitiam ex die ordinationis suae servare debent etc. — Mox post altaris eodd. R S — V bb addunt alterius, cod. U nostri.
    It seems to refer to [Exod.] 19, 22; cf. v. 15 and 29, 30 with Lev. 8, 33: the canon Tenere debet (4.), d. 31, in which it is said: For if in ancient times the priests did not depart from the temple of God during the year of their turn [Lev. 21, 12], as we read concerning Zacharias [Luke 1, 8]... how much more ought these priests or levites to keep chastity from the day of their ordination, etc. — Just after altaris codices R S — V bb add alterius; codex U [reads] nostri.
  5. 6
    Vide supra pag. 753, nota 7.
    See above, p. 753, note 7.
  6. 7
    Cfr. supra pag. 492, nota 2.
    Cf. above, p. 492, note 2.
  7. 8
    Vide C. Aliter se orientalium (14.), d. 31.
    See the canon Aliter se orientalium (14.), d. 31.
  8. 1
    Sive potius Quinisexta (πενθέκτη, quia ipsa ex intentione Graecorum complementum quintae et sextae Synodi universalis constituebatur); eadem etiam Trullana (a palatio imperiali Constantinopolitano) vocatur et habita fuit an. 692. Cfr. C. Quoniam in Romani (13.), d. 31; C. Si quis eorum (7.), d. 32; C. A multis (9.), X. de Aetate et qualitate et ordine praeficiendorum (lib. I. tit. 14.), in quo Innocent. III. dicit: Et ad similitudinem diaconi et presbyteri subdiaconus debet continentiam observare, sicut et in sexta Synodo constitutum est etc. Idem in C. Cum olim (6.), X. de Clericis coniugatis (lib. III. tit. 3.), ait: Nos igitur attendentes, quod orientalis Ecclesia votum continentiae non admisit, quoniam orientales in minoribus ordinibus contrahunt et in superioribus utuntur matrimonio iam contracto etc. — Edd. cum nonnullis codd. septima.
    Or rather the Quinisext (πενθέκτη, because it was itself, by the Greeks' intention, constituted as the completion of the fifth and sixth universal Synods); the same is also called Trullan (from the imperial palace at Constantinople) and was held in the year 692. Cf. the canon Quoniam in Romani (13.), d. 31; the canon Si quis eorum (7.), d. 32; the canon A multis (9.), X, On the age and quality and order of those to be promoted (bk. I, tit. 14), in which Innocent III says: And after the likeness of the deacon and the priest, the subdeacon ought to observe continence, as was also established in the sixth Synod, etc. The same, in the canon Cum olim (6.), X, On married clerics (bk. III, tit. 3), says: We therefore, considering that the Eastern Church did not admit a vow of continence, since the Orientals contract [marriage] in the minor orders and in the higher [orders] make use of a marriage already contracted, etc. — The editions, with some codices, [read] seventh.
  9. 2
    Inter canones sanctorum Apostolorum, quos Graeci in praedicta sexta Synodo observandos statuerunt (cfr. praeallegatus C. Quoniam in Romani), canon 25. praescribit: Ex his qui caelibes in clerum pervenerunt, iubemus, ut lectores tantum et cantores, si velint, nuptias contrahant. — Superius pro impediat, hoc non est nisi ratione edd. non impediat, hoc est ratione, multi codd. omittunt perperam nisi.
    Among the canons of the holy Apostles, which the Greeks decreed to be observed in the aforesaid sixth Synod (cf. the previously cited canon Quoniam in Romani), canon 25 prescribes: Of those who have come into the clergy unmarried, we command that only lectors and cantors, if they wish, may contract marriage. — Above, for impediat, hoc non est nisi ratione the editions [read] non impediat, hoc est ratione; many codices wrongly omit nisi.
  10. 3
    Cfr. supra d. 33. a. 2. q. 1. — Inferius post vidualis edd. addunt: matrimonium statum continentiae virginalis vel vidualis.
    Cf. above, d. 33, a. 2, q. 1. — Below, after vidualis the editions add: matrimonium statum continentiae virginalis vel vidualis ("marriage [regards] the state of virginal or widowed continence").
  11. 4
    Ier. 48, 11: Requievit in faecibus suis. — Pro et plicare cod. K (1 a secunda manu) melius et forte primitus et obligare, cod. A explicite.
    Jer. 48, 11: He hath rested upon his lees. — For et plicare codex K (1, by a second hand) [reads], better and perhaps originally, et obligare; codex A [reads] explicite.
  12. 5
    Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    See the scholion on the preceding question. ---
← Dist. 37, Art. 1, Q. 1Dist. 37, Art. 1, Q. 3→