IV SENT D. 24, P. 1, A. 2, Q. 1
DISTINCTION TWENTY-FOUR

ON ORDERS

PART ONE
CONCERNING ORDERS IN GENERAL

ARTICLE TWO
CONCERNING ORDERS IN GENERAL

QUESTION ONE
WHETHER THERE IS ORDER¹ IN THE CHURCH

Concerning the first it is shown that there is order in the Church:

a. First is through what is said in 1 Corinthians,² that the Church is likened to an organic body. However, an organic body necessarily requires for its perfection an ordering; therefore, etc.

b. Again, this appears in Exodus 25:40: See that you make them according to the pattern shown you on the mountain. So the Church militant ought to imitate the Church in triumph. For, as the Apostle says, all of these are patterns of heavenly things.³ If therefore there is order in the Church triumphant, such as among the angels, it is clear, etc.

c. The Church is composed of two walls, namely the lay and the clerical. In the lay wall there is an order, such as emperor, king, duke, count, tribune, centurion and decurion; all of these speak of order. If, then, the Church goes into spiritual combat, it would seem that she ought to be, as an army set in array.⁴

d. Again, wherever there is a multitude, governance is either chaotic or ordered. If, then, confusion is necessarily to be avoided amidst the multitude in the Church, it is necessary that order be placed therein.

To the contrary: 1. Wherever there is order, there is distinction. However, what is said in Galatians 3:28, All are one in Christ, must be understood of all the faithful. Therefore there would seem to be no order there.

2. Again, wherever there is order there is a determined superior and subject. However, in the Church each person should consider himself or herself the lowest and others as better than themselves, as is said in Philippians 2:3. See also Luke 22:26: Let the greater among you become the younger.…

3. Again, where there is order, there is preference and dominion,⁵ and thus there is a certain subjection and servility. However, all the faithful are called to live in freedom, as is said in Galatians 5:13. Therefore among the faithful in the Church there is no order.

4. Again, if there is an order, it then follows the goods of nature, or the goods of fortune, or the gifts of grace. If it follows the goods of nature, then the one who is more industrious or stronger ought to be the superior, and this is false. If it follows the gifts of fortune, then the one who is richer and more powerful is the superior. If it follows the gifts of grace, then no one knows who has more or less of grace. Therefore no one knows who is the subject and who is the prelate. Thus it does not seem that there is any order.

I respond: It must be said that order is necessary in the Church for two reasons, namely for the sake of beauty and for the sake of rectitude.⁶ For since there is a great multitude in the Church, unless there were order, confusion would clearly appear, and this is the abomination of the multitude. Hence, any wise person, who, just because he is wise, is a lover of beauty, does not produce a multitude of things without order. Precisely in this does the wisdom of God so especially appear, and is manifest among all his works in the constitution of the Church. Order is also necessary for the sake of rectitude. For, the multitude is in a condition in which it can lose its way and go astray if it does not have a leader or ruler, as is said in 1 Kings 22:17: I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, like sheep that have no shepherd. Since, then, the multitude of the Church is in a condition to lose its way, it has need of a head and government. Furthermore, since one could not suffice for all things and for everybody, hence it was necessary to more or less distribute ecclesiastical offices and powers, so that the Church be ruled and directed without error. Thus the reasons for this are to be conceded.

To the objections 1. To the objection then concerning unity, it must be said that the nature of our own body must be considered, in which there is unity and agreement. The nature of our bodies must also be considered in which there is distinction and difference. The first is connection and the second is organization. So it is in the body that is the Church. By the power of charity we are all made one, but through the other gifts of grace which the Apostle enumerates in 1 Corinthians 12:4 we are distinguished and ordered.⁷

2. To the objection that each should consider himself inferior it must be said that to consider oneself inferior is understood in two ways: either with respect to the merit of his life, or with respect to his office. Regarding the merit of his life, because no one knows of what worth he is, so he ought to consider himself inferior. However, regarding his office that is not required, and it is to this that order is intent upon.

3. To the objection concerning freedom, it must be said that this freedom does not exclude subjection, since the Apostle himself says in Hebrews 13:17, Obey your leaders in everything. However this freedom excludes the ignominy of servitude, in which one is a slave to sin. Thus this freedom does not exclude order.⁸ Or it could be said that being subject to another is understood in two ways: namely out of fear or out of love. The one who is subject out of love walks in the freedom of the Spirit as a son. The one who does it out of fear is in some way a slave. Among the good and the just there is no subjection by way of fear, but by way of love. Thus such subjection, oversight, and order in no way excludes freedom.

4. To the question according to which gifts order deals with, it must be said that it is according to gifts of gratia gratus data,⁹ in which power is allotted for office. Concerning this we are certain with the assurance of probability, and this stands without variation, even when the gratia gratum faciens¹⁰ should recede. For even though the gratia gratum faciens renders one worthy, the gratia gratus data places one in order and station. Thus the whole matter is clear.¹¹

 

IV SENT D. 24, P. 1, A. 2, Q. 2
QUESTION TWO

WHETHER ORDER IS A SACRAMENT

The second question is whether Order is a sacrament. That it is can be shown:

a. Through the enumeration of the sacraments, which is set at seven, among which Order is numbered. That enumeration was dealt with above in distinction 2.¹²

b. Again, there is an ordered authority in the Church, which is apparent in certain signs and is confirmed through divine institution. This is a sacred res. These things point to the perfect rationale of a sacrament; therefore, etc.

c. Again, that which is the most proper sacrament is that which most greatly consecrates one to God in its very reception. This precisely is ecclesiastical Order. Whence those who are called priests are those who arrive at the highest station.¹³ Therefore Order is a sacrament at its fullest.

d. Again, something is most strictly a sacrament which is the means whereby the others are conferred and administered. Such is the sacrament of Order. Therefore, among some it would seem to be the principal sacrament.

To the contrary: 1. Every sacrament is an element or sign which is presented to the senses. Order, however, is something relative. Therefore Order is not a sacrament.

2. Again, every sacrament serves as medicine with respect to the state of fallen nature. Order, however, deals with bringing others to perfection. Hence only those who wish in some way to move others toward the works of perfection are ordained. Thus Order falls short of the reason of a sacrament.

3. Again, there is order among the angels. However, this still does not provide the reason for a sacrament. Neither, then, for the same reason, does it obtain this reason in an inferior hierarchy. If you should say that there is no similarity, because in the first case everything is spiritual, the objection is raised about the laity. They are of the Church and receive the sacraments and possess an order and authority and signs of that authority, such as the king who has a scepter and cloak and crown. Nonetheless such an order is not a sacrament.

4. Again, order has regard for what is beneath, just as for what is above. This is because if both were removed, order is destroyed. However, order with respect to subjects is not a sacrament. Neither, then, is it with respect to others. The minor assertion is proven because since all are either subjects or prelates, all would have the sacrament of Order. That is obviously false.

5. Again, in the Celestial Hierarchy, as blessed Dionysius states, there is “order, knowledge and action.”¹⁴ Therefore if the Church is to correspond to it, it would seem that there would be something similar in the human hierarchy. Since knowledge and action are not placed among the sacraments, therefore, neither is order.

I respond: To understand what is said above, it should be noted that order can be understood in two ways. In the first way, order is said to be the relation itself of or among those ordained, such as prelature and subjection. This is not called a sacrament, nor is it a sacrament. In the other way, order is said to be ordered power, according to which the subject has power to be ordered in two ways: to some work or ministry and to be ordered toward the other. This power [to be ordered toward the other] is what we call the sacrament of Order.¹⁵

It is necessary that this be realized in the Church for the sake of rule and beauty, which are considered attached to order, as was previously seen on why there must be Order in the Church.¹⁶ However, the principal reason why this power ought to be conferred in the manner of a sacrament is on account of the dignity of the sacraments, which are dispensed in the Church and in which God is worshipped. If these sacraments are not to be brought into contempt, they should not have been given to all for their dispensing, but to special persons. Thus so long as something is committed to these special persons that is not given to others, there is given to them a power by which they are placed in a special order within the Church of God. Further, because these special persons ought to be discernable to others through some signs, and such a sign is of a sacred thing, hence this power ought to be ordered by way of a sacrament.¹⁷ This is most fitting. For since it is for the orderly dispensing of the sacraments, the ministers ought to have been ordered for this through the reception of some sacrament, in which the power is given through which the ministers of God minister and are also ordered among themselves. Hence it is rightly called Order. With these assertions the objections to the contrary easily come to rest.

To the objections: 1. To the objections then concerning the element or sign, it must be said that in the transfer of this power there is an external sign, which is called the element in a broad sense.¹⁸ This is because it is taken in a broad and extended manner in the definition of the sacrament.

2. To the objection concerning medicinal value it must be said that Order serves as a medicine with respect to the recipient but also with respect to the others. Hence it retains the notion of sacrament to the utmost. Nor is what is said, that it ought to be given to the perfect, any obstacle. For, no one can be found so perfect that he cannot be perfected further. Hence anyone who receives this sacrament receives some grace, if he worthily receives it, through which the difficulty of ministering is removed in matters that pertain to the worship of God.

3. To the objection that there is order among the angels and among the laity, it must be said that the notion of sacrament is lacking in both cases. For, there are two things which make a sacrament integral, namely a sensible sign and a spiritual or sacred res signified. By reason of the first it falls short for angels, who are thoroughly spiritual. By reason of the second it fails for the laity, among whom order is considered with regard to earthly authority. This deals with the good things of nature, or fortune of a particular person or of the republic. However, in ecclesiastical hierarchy both have their place.

4. To the objection that order deals with what is inferior, etc., it must be said this objection deals with order inasmuch as it means a relation. Considered this way it is not a sacrament, but rather inasmuch as it means the authority upon which that relation is based. This locates something in the ones who are preferred through something given to them, but nothing in those who are subjected.

5. To the objection that knowledge and action do not make a sacrament, it must be said that knowledge and action are attached, and order is central. Hence it is asserted that Order is a sacrament. The other two are included together with it. This was treated above, when the question was the power of the keys.¹⁹

 

IV SENT D. 24, P. 1, A. 2, Q. 3
QUESTION THREE

WHETHER THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER IS PROPER TO THE NEW LAW

The third question is whether the sacrament of Order is proper to the New Law, and that it is not would appear:

1. Because in Psalm 109:4 it is said to Christ, You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. This is said of the priesthood of Christ, as the Apostle explains to the Hebrews. Therefore because the priesthood of Christ was preceded first by Melchizedek, therefore also Order. If you should say that it preceded as a figure, to the contrary: it preceded as a figure in the priesthood of Aaron. Therefore it ought to say according to the Order of Aaron, which however is not fitting to say, as the Apostle demonstrates.²⁰

2. Again, 1 Corinthians 10:3: All ate the same spiritual food. It was then truly a sacrifice. Order is for the administration of a sacrifice—therefore the same Order and the same sacrament.

3. Again, from Abel until the end of the world the Church is one. Thus, in such a singular unity there should be one Order. Therefore in the New and Old Testaments the sacrament of Order is one.

4. Again, the sacrament of Order is a precept of natural law. This is apparent, because there were priests from the beginning, as the example of Melchizedek²¹ shows and as Jerome says.²² Whatever is a precept of nature always remains the same, and this is apparent in the case of Matrimony.

Therefore Order must be the same both in the Old and the New Testaments. Therefore this sacrament is common, and not proper to the New Law.

To the contrary: a. Hebrews 7:12: When there is a change of priesthood there is necessarily change of law. If, then, the Apostle proves the diversity of law through the diversity of priesthood, then since the law is one and another, it would seem that Order is one and another.

b. Again, Order is a spiritual seal in which spiritual power is handed over to the one ordained. Such is in the highest Order to which the power to confect the body of Christ is conferred. This is proper to the New Law alone; therefore, etc.

c. Again, the sacraments of the New Law are distinct and new. Therefore to administer them, since they are greater and of greater dignity, a greater and more worthy power is required. If, then, the sacraments that are administered, are different, so likewise the sacrament through which they are administered is different. This is Order; therefore, etc.

d. Again, the same Order is not repeated. However, one ordained under the Law, if he should come to the Gospel, is ordained again. Therefore it would seem that Order is different and that the sacrament is different.

I respond: It must be said that just as a sign shares the name of what is signified, and vice versa, and nevertheless the sign and what is signified are different, so a figure shares the name of the reality. The one is said to be in the other like a wheel within a wheel.²³ Still the figure is one thing and the truth is another thing. In this same way is it to be understood that the New Law differs form the Old, and its sacrifice from that of the other, and its Order from that of the other. Hence just as the sacrament of the Eucharist is proper to the New Law, even though there was in the Old Law a sacrifice that was a sign of this, so also is the spiritual power—following which power the sacrament of Order is directed, and is proper to the New Law. Likewise the priesthood is proper to the New Law, although a figurative sign of inferior Order and an inferior priesthood preceded. Hence just as there is a great difference between the true lamb and the type of it, so also is there a great difference, although not as much, between the power to offer the one lamb and the other. Therefore it is to be conceded that just as Baptism and the Eucharist are sacraments proper to the New Law, even though they were prefigured in what preceded them, so is it with sacred ordination.

To the objections: 1. To the objection that it is according to the order of Melchizedek, it must be said that this is understood according to the express prefiguration, as the same Apostle demonstrates,²⁴ because he prefigured Christ with respect to his origins and with respect to his dignity and with respect to his rite: with respect to his origins, because he lacked genealogy, as put forth in the Scripture; with respect to his dignity, because he was priest and king and he blessed Abraham; with respect to his rite, because he offered bread and wine. This is not true of the priesthood of Aaron. Therefore most fittingly did the Holy Spirit adopt it in the Psalm, as the Apostle so elegantly explained it.

2-3. To the objection that they ate the same food, it must be said that this is to be understood not of sacramental eating but of spiritual eating, which is through faith and charity.²⁵ Thus, because they believed and loved the same as we do, hence they ate of the same food and were of the same Church. However they did not have the same sensible signs nor the same sacraments. The reason for this was examined above, when the question was the difference among the sacraments.²⁶ This also explains the other argument from ecclesiastical unity, because that follows the fittingness of the faith, and not the lack of distinction between the sacraments.²⁷

4. To the objection that this is a precept of nature, it must be said that this is true in the universal case, but not in the special case. For, right reason well commands that God is to be worshipped, and that special ministers be constituted, but he is to be worshipped in a particular way: that such a sacrifice is to be offered, and that such power be given to human beings. This belongs not to nature but to grace.

 

IV SENT D. 24, P. 1, A. 2, Q. 4
QUESTION FOUR

WHETHER ORDER IS ONE SACRAMENT OR SEVERAL

The fourth and last question is whether Order is one sacrament or several. That it is one would appear:

a. Through the enumeration of the sacraments, which are numbered seven. If, then, the others are not subdivided, it appears that Order is one sacrament.

b. Again, the sacrament of union, that is communion, is one sacrament.²⁸ Therefore for the same reason the sacrament of Order is too.

c. Again, wherever something has its perfection and completion, there is its unity. The sacrament of Order has one completion, namely the priesthood, which fulfills all the preceding Orders. Therefore it is one sacrament.

d. Again, the stronger a virtue is, the greater the unity. Therefore insofar as this sacrament is greater and more excellent, the more is it one. The sacrament of Order is excellent and places the ordained in an elevated status; therefore, etc.

To the contrary: 1. When a subordinate is multiplied, the higher thing is also multiplied. This sacrament is superior to Order. Therefore since there are several Orders, then there are several sacraments.

2. Again, when the sacrament of Order divided, it is either into integral parts or into subjective parts. It is not into integral parts, because no integral part takes on the predicate of the whole. However, any ecclesiastical grade takes on the predicate of its whole. If it is divided into subjective parts, it then has the same result as before, that that sacrament is multiplied.

3. Again, this sacrament is ordered to the administration of the other sacraments. The other sacraments differ in kind; therefore the powers ordered to them must differ in kind. Thus it appears that this sacrament is multiplied due to the differing kinds.

4. Again, a priest shares agreement with another priest in the sacrament of Order. However, a priest is distinct and different from a deacon. It is clear that he has not only a material but a specific difference. Therefore since both of these are sacraments, it appears that the sacrament of Order has diverse species of sacraments.

I respond: It must be said that the sacrament of Order is one, but it has many parts. These parts do not multiply the sacrament for the reason that they are not altogether subjective parts.²⁹ Nevertheless, each of these parts receives the predication of the whole. This is because the differing parts all have in some manner the nature of subjective parts, and each of these pertains to the authority contained therein. All of these in large part befit order. This is because order means an ordered authority, in which through the ordination of many to one end the whole becomes perfect. By reason of authority, all of these parts share in the sacrament of Order, even if not all do so by reason of its perfection. Order takes account of the distinction into parts, just as number does. In the same way, the parts of a number have in some manner the nature of integrating parts insofar as they are all brought together through order, thereby resulting in the perfect number. For example, parts of six constitute six, and still any part of that number is a number.

To the objections: 1. To the objection that when the inferior is multiplied, etc., it must be said that this is true to the extent that they have the nature of a species or of a subjective part only. That is not the case here.

2. To the question whether Order is divided into integral or subjective parts, it must be said that the parts of Order are divided with respect to the extent that the differing parts bear authority, which divisions have the nature of both integral and subjective parts. This is just like the division of analogy which holds middle ground between a division of univocal and equivocal. In the same way, this division, into parts with respect to authority, holds the middle ground between a division of the universal whole and the integral whole.

3. To the objection that this sacrament is ordered to the administration of the other sacraments, it must be said that it is principally ordered to the ministry of the sacrament of the altar, which is one.

4. To the objection concerning the difference, it must be said that in one manner it is specific, and in another manner it is not. For, one kind does not dispose to another, as one Order disposes to another. Hence there is no specific difference there, but yet they are in some manner distinguished. However, because they are still ordered toward one completion, they constitute one sacrament.

 

IV SENT D. 24, P. 2, A. 1, Q. 1
PART TWO

CONCERNING ORDERS IN PARTICULAR

ARTICLE ONE
ORDERS AND CHARACTER

QUESTION ONE
WHETHER A CHARACTER IS IMPRESSED IN ALL ORDERS

We proceed to the first by showing that character is impressed in all Orders:

a. Through the definition of Order: Order is the seal in which spiritual authority is handed down to the one ordained.³⁰ If, then, this definition is correct, the notion of seal applies to all of them. However, this is not a material seal, but a spiritual one, and that is character; therefore, etc.

b. Again, every sacrament that does not impress character can be repeated. None of the Orders can be repeated, as Augustine says.³¹ This point is also mentioned in the following distinction.³² Therefore, character is imprinted in each one of the orders.

c. Again, character is an imprinted seal that configures us to the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord demonstrated all the Orders, as the Master proves by introducing them in his text.³³ If, then, by all of the orders we are configured to the same Lord Jesus, it would seem that character is impressed in all of them.

d. Again, the impression of character or a seal serves to distinguish according to a certain status. In each Order one is placed in a particular status of ministry. Therefore character is imprinted in every Order.

To the contrary: 1. Character is a spiritual seal. Therefore it is imprinted only upon those in whom some new and spiritual authority is given. The authority of all the inferior Orders is corporeal, such as to open the door or to guard it, to speak prophecies, or to carry candles. Therefore in these inferior orders character is in no way imprinted.

2. Again, character is a seal [signaculum] that pertains to or impresses a likeness for the purpose of configuring one to God. The acts of some Orders concern only lesser ministries. Therefore, if these do not deal with configuring one toward the image of God, it follows, etc.

3. Again, character is an indelible seal. Therefore if it places a person in a certain state, it is impossible to withdraw from that state without contempt for the sacrament. Those who are set in minor Orders can licitly return to the lay state. Therefore character is not imprinted upon them.

4. Again, character is a perpetual seal and remains in the separated soul. Therefore it should not be imprinted except for perpetual activity. However, the acts of the inferior Orders are not perpetual; therefore, etc.

I respond: It must be said that some have chosen to say that character is impressed only in the priestly Order, and that in the minor Orders someone is only disposed for the reception of such character. For the sake of nobility of the priestly order, it rightly requires that the minor Orders precede it. However, since the minor Orders, at least the sacred ones, belong to the perfection of the sacrament, and in these the lasting separation of clerics from the laity takes place, it would not seem that character is imprinted only in the priesthood.

So others have stated that character is impressed in all sacred Orders, but not in the minor orders. The sign of this is that those in sacred Orders cannot be mixed with the laity, but the others can. However, since no Order can be repeated, and each one has something of the notion of a sacrament, it would seem that in any of them there is something that contains the notion of res and of sign and of perpetual seal. We, however, call this character. For this reason it would not seem that character is imprinted only in the sacred orders.

Hence there is the third more probable opinion that character is imprinted in all the Orders, as the reasons above expressly demonstrate. For, since character is a distinctive and perpetual seal and configures one to Christ, and this is found in all the Orders, there should be no doubt that character is imprinted in all the Orders.

To the objections: 1. To the objection that it is a spiritual seal, it must be said that in all the Orders there is given some authority that is spiritual in itself or which is directed toward the spiritual. Hence the authority of the porter is to admit people to the divine sacrifice. The authority of the lector is not only to arouse exterior hearing, but interior hearing as well. So it is with the others, as will be more clear when the distinction of Order is dealt with.³⁴

2. To the objection concerning configuration, it must be said that the character of Order such that it brings to perfection, configures the soul to God according to the image as assimilated to God. This happens in the highest Order. Or, it could be said more properly that this seal configures one to Christ. Hence, since Christ had a threefold office—namely, ministry in action, fighting in his suffering, redeeming in his dying—thus the sacrament according to which a person is configured to Christ is threefold and in these same three offices. Hence there are only three sacraments in which character is impressed.

Baptism configures one to the dying and redeeming Christ by which a person is buried with him in death. Confirmation configures him to the suffering and fighting Christ; hence a sign of the cross is imprinted on the forehead. Order configures one to the ministering and laboring Christ, as is rightly put forth in the text.³⁵ Thus because all of these³⁶ are configured to Christ more or less, character is imprinted in all of them.

3-4. To the objection concerning the indelibility and perpetuity, it must be said that the character of all the Orders remains in the soul, whether of one who returns to the lay state, or of one who dies, as a distinctive seal. This is to his glory if he has used it well, or to his disgrace, if badly. It makes no difference that it remains forever in the exercise of ministry, because that use is in some manner exchanged for a reward. Thus with this the final one is made clear.

 

IV SENT D. 24, P. 2, A. 1, Q. 2
QUESTION TWO

WHETHER DIFFERENT CHARACTERS ARE IMPRINTED IN THE DIVERSE ORDERS

The second question is whether different characters are imprinted in the diverse Orders. That there are would appear:

a. Because every Order, naturally speaking, is a seal. Therefore, since there are several Orders, there are, then, several seals. But these spiritual seals are called characters; therefore, etc.

b. Again, the powers of Orders are quite simply diverse, as is apparent between porter and acolyte. To close a door and to carry a candle, whether they are understood bodily or spiritually, are altogether different acts. If, then, powers are distinguished by their acts, and the distinctive seals according to the diversity of powers, then they are diverse characters.

c. Again, a sign ought to correspond to what is signified, and the signified to the sign. If, then, a sevenfold grace is given, which is its full and final form, and the external signs in the diverse Orders are simply diverse, it would seem from this that the characters, which are both signs and signified, are diverse.³⁷

d. Again, if in all the Orders one and the same character is imprinted, since it is imprinted in every Order, as was shown above,³⁸ then the same character is repeated. But this is impossible and to do this is an affront to the sacrament. It would seem, then, that after the first Order, anyone who receives another receives nothing, but offers an affront to the sacrament. This is not fitting; therefore, etc.

To the contrary: 1. In the sacrament of Baptism only one character is imprinted, and likewise in the sacrament of Confirmation. Therefore for the same reason in the sacrament of Order only one character is imprinted.

2. Again, the sacrament of Order pertains to character more centrally than any other sacrament in which a character is imprinted. If, then, Order is one sacrament, however much it is divided, it would seem that one character is imprinted in it.

3. Again, if several and different characters are imprinted, it is then either by reason of specific or numerical diversity. It is not numerical, because it is impossible for several accidents of the same species to be in the same subject. If it is by specific diversity, which means differing in form and species, while the differences remain, it cannot be unified unless it is materially one with respect to the other. If, then, one character with respect to another character is not material, then it differs in species, and thus if they are diverse they can never make one sacrament.

4. Again, if a lower nature does not accomplish by many things what it can do through one, then neither does a superior nature. If, then, those ordained can be distinguished through one character, just as the baptized, it would seem that only one character is imprinted in Order.

The question arises, then, why it is necessary for several characters to be imprinted.

I respond: It must be said that among those who hold that there is character in all Orders there have traditionally been two opinions:

For, some have chosen to say that all of the Orders are united in one character, but differ according to the greater or lesser completion, as if a seal is imprinted lightly on wax and then more strongly and fully, little by little proceeding and adding more and more until it arrives at its perfect state. If you should ask, What is the rationale for such an impression? they reply briefly that this is on account of the imperfection of character. However, if this were so, then it would be impossible to be promoted to a succeeding Order without having been in the prior one. This is contrary to law. If this were true, there would be no difference between the Orders except a greater or lesser degree of the impression of character. That is obviously false since the powers in the different Orders are directed to different functions. Finally, if this were so, character would receive an increase. Yet the question arises, Why should it not receive decrease? for if this were so, then character would be delible. Why, then, do the characters of the other sacraments not receive increase and decrease, so that one would be said to be baptized or confirmed more or less? Since it is not fitting to say that, it is no less fitting to hold this position.

Therefore it is otherwise and more probably held that diverse characters are imprinted in the diverse Orders. The reason for this is the following: those who are designated for the worship³⁹ of God are not only distinguished from others, but also there is an order and distinction among the ministers themselves. Furthermore those degrees and powers of ministry, if once given, are never taken away, even if someone who ministered in a minor office is raised to a higher ministry. Hence in the diverse Orders diverse seals must be imprinted, and it is according to those seals that the diversity of powers of ministry and their perpetuity become known to us. Character is such a seal, and hence diverse characters are imprinted in diverse Orders. Thus the reasons that demonstrate this are to be conceded.

To the objections: 1. To the objection, then, concerning the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, the clear response is that there is no similarity. This is due to the extent that these do not result in diversity as the sacrament of Order does, which sacrament of its own nature involves a diversity of ranks.

2. To the objection that character is essentially the sacrament, it must be said that this is true, but only if it is matched with the thing signified of another. This is the same as when one line is a composition, as well as two and three and four lines, yet still the adding of many lines to express one assertion is nothing less than one composition. So is it to be understood in this case, because every such configuration of the soul is ordered to the end that the seal be inscribed upon it, according to which the minister of God be judged perfect. Thus, since one sacrament says something about another sacrament, and since characters are united in something else with reference to another, therefore many characters constitute one sacrament.

3. To the question whether Order differs in species or in number, it must be said that characters can be discussed in two ways: either each in itself or insofar as they are united in the unity and integrity of the sacrament. If considered each in itself, then they differ like the diverse species of a number, such as the numbers, two and three. If they are considered as they are joined in the unity of the sacrament, then this is much in the same way as two and three constitute something sixfold and play the role of constitutive parts. Thus a complement takes its place in six, and so ought to be understood in this case, in its own way, and thus they are not altogether similar.

4. To the final objection, the answer is already clear, because that is true and has its place when it can happen through one as through several. But that is not so in this case, for the reason that it must distinguish not only the ordained from others, but also among themselves.

 

IV SENT D. 24, P. 2, A. 1, Q. 3
QUESTION THREE

WHETHER THE CHARACTERS OF THE DIVERSE ORDERS ARE ESSENTIALLY ORDERED

The third question is whether the characters of the diverse Orders are essentially ordered. And that they are appears:

1. Because there is a greater connection of one Order to another Order than there is between Order and Baptism, and of the character of one Order to the character of another than to baptismal character. However, there is an essential ordering of the character of Orders to baptismal character, as it says in the decretal De presbytero non baptizato, in book III: the non-baptized cannot be ordained.⁴⁰ Hence if in fact a non-baptized is ordained, he must be baptized and then again be ordained through Order. Therefore the character of Order essentially presupposes baptismal character; therefore, etc.

2. Again, order belongs more to Order than to a number. Yet so it is in numbers that a latter number necessarily requires a prior one, and similarly in (geometric) shapes, the latter requires the prior one. Hence there is never a four without a three nor a quadrangle without a triangle. Therefore there is never a second rank without a first, nor a third without a second, and so on.

3. Again, one cannot formally be made from diverse things unless they are ordered to one another. But all Orders provide one complete ministry. Therefore it is necessary that they be ordered to one another.

4. Again, if someone is knowingly promoted to a subsequent Order having omitted the prior, by this very fact he is suspended from its execution, as it says in a decretal.⁴¹ However, this would not be so unless it were required in order to preserve the order; therefore, etc.

5. Again, wherever there are degrees it is necessary to provide order. Yet in the sacrament of Order there are diverse orders. As is said in the text, “there are degrees of spiritual offices.”⁴² If, then, they are placed in those degrees by way of character, it would seem that there is present an essential order.

To the contrary: a. In cases in which there is an essential order, when a prior is destroyed, the subsequent is also destroyed. But without having a prior Order one nevertheless has the latter. This is apparent in those ordained who leapt over a previous order, and are not re-ordained; therefore etc. The major is obvious on its own; the minor is proven by what is said in distinction 52, Sollicitudo⁴³ and beyond this in De clerico per saltum ordinato, Tuae litterae,⁴⁴ and other places.

b. Again, characters have similarities with the powers and acts of Orders by which Orders are compared. Nevertheless in those powers there is absolutely no order, such as the power to expel demons and to carry candles. Therefore there is no order in such characters.

c. Again, in matters that pertain to the corporeal and the spiritual, the corporeal comes before the spiritual. Exorcism means liberation from the agitation of spirits, but the acolyte deals with the office of lighting candles. Therefore the Order of acolyte should be prior to exorcist. Therefore they are not properly ordered, since the exorcist is called the third Order, and the acolyte the fourth.

d. Again, what frees from evil comes before what makes one apt for good. Yet in the second there is enabling for good,⁴⁵ and in the third there is freedom from evil.⁴⁶ Therefore it would seem that the third Order ought to be prior to the second. This shows that there is no certain order among the degrees.

I respond: It must be said that there is an order of necessity and an order of congruity. If, then, we speak of an order among these ecclesiastical degrees, it must be said that there is no necessary or essential order, from the fact that a later Order can be obtained and received without the prior order.

If, however, we are speaking of an ordering of congruity, there is then order there. This is shown from the fact that for the well being of the following ministry there is required the Order or power of the preceding ministry. In the same manner, then, if one wishes to proceed in orderly fashion, he should begin with an introduction, then the narrative, then the reasoning and finally the conclusion. Nevertheless, if he should wish, he can begin from a later element, although it would then not be well ordered. Thus it should be understood in Orders. For, since the inferior Orders minister in sacred things, and the sacred Orders minister in the priesthood; and the lower grade is prior in advancing, and the ministerial power is inferior, it is clear that there is order there. This is not, however, order of necessity, because the powers are diverse and can be obtained and held in and of themselves, though not so perfectly without the others.

There is therefore order in these degrees according to their approach to the last office, namely the priesthood. Hence a person is introduced into the Church through the porter; second, he is led through the reading of the prophets; he is, third, helped through exorcist, that he be freed from evil; he is, fourth, aroused by acolyte, that he advance in good; and last come the other two Orders which minister with the priest in the offering of the sacrifice.

Thus it is clear that there is an order of congruity, and not of necessity. Nor are those reasons to the contrary concerning exorcist and acolyte valid, for the reason that all Orders deal with a spiritual power and for the reason that instruction precedes freeing from evil. Hence it is to be granted that there is order among the characters, but it is not an essential order. This is the same as order between the elements of a composition. The last element or letter can be written first and the first letter last in a backwards order of writing, but nevertheless, after one is finished writing, the composition is in order. So it is with Orders that can also be received in ascending or reverse order.

To the objections: 1. To the objections, then, concerning Baptism, it must be said that there is no similarity because, as was touched upon above in the section on Baptism,⁴⁷ and as was also determined in the Council according to the Compendium,⁴⁸ and as the decretal of Innocent “Concerning a priest who was not baptized”⁴⁹ confirms, Baptism is the foundation of and door to all the sacraments. Thus, because, there is no foundation, nothing can be built upon it. Hence baptismal character precedes the others in essential order, but it is not so in the others.

2. To the objection concerning numbers, it should be said that there is no similarity, because the following number contains the previous one as part of itself. Yet the following degree does not thus contain the preceding one as party of itself, but as something that fittingly disposes to it.

3. To the objection that several different things cannot become one, it must be said that it is true that they do not become one in essence. Nevertheless, they do become one in the sacrament. In this sacrament there is unity in relationship, in view of signifying oneness in a perfect manner. The sacrament of Order does not altogether have an absolute unity. But through the relation of its parts one is constituted a unity, which does not require an essential dependence in its parts.

4-5. To the final objection concerning leaping over and degree, it must be said those two reasons do not refute the assertion that there is only an order of fittingness with respect to the integrity of the sacrament. Still there is an order of necessity with respect to the obligation of precept, because everyone is held to be ordained in orderly progression, and not by leaping over prior orders.

 

IV SENT D. 24, P. 2, A. 1, Q. 4
QUESTION FOUR

WHEN CHARACTER IS IMPRINTED IN THE SEVERAL ORDERS

The fourth question asks when character is imprinted in the diverse Orders. And since in Orders these five things are to be found, such as in the priestly Order, namely a blessing, an anointing, the laying on of hands, and the handing over of something—such as a book or a key or a vase—and an expression of a word, it is asked in which of these five the impression of character actually occurs. And first it would appear that it does not occur in the blessing:

a. Because there was always the impression of the character in Orders, and that is essential to the Order in which character is imprinted. But blessing is not of the essence of Orders, since such solemnity is not found in the primitive Church; therefore, etc.

b. Again, that in which the interior character is imprinted ought to have similarity to the interior character. But character deals with some power, while a blessing is done for sanctity; therefore, etc.

Again, that it is not given in anointing would appear:

c. Because if some characteristic feature is present in several things, it is present according to something they have in common. But the impression of the character is present in all of the Orders, but anointing is in only one, namely in the priesthood; therefore, etc.

d. Again, wherever there is some cause, there is its effect; but in the bishopric there is a new anointing, and therefore a new impression of character; but this is false because, if a new character were imprinted, just as one can become a priest without diaconate, so could a bishop without priesthood, the opposite of what was determined in the last book of the Decretals.⁵⁰

Again, that character is not given in the imposition of hands would appear:

1. First of all, for a similar reason, because, since the imposition of hands is not done except in only two Orders, character would not be imprinted except in only those two; that is clearly wrong, as was made clear above.⁵¹

2. Again, Order is conferred only by the bishop. But Order is conferred in the impression of the character. Therefore if the character is imprinted in the laying on of hands, it would seem that only the bishop should lay his hands during ordination; that is false because as the Canon says in distinction 23, “When a priest is ordained…” all the assistant priests should impose their hands in the ordination of a priest.⁵²

And it would seem that in the handing over of a book or vase, character is not imprinted:

3. Because, supposing that such books or vases were lacking, as they were likely lacking in the primitive Church, nonetheless such Orders were able to be conferred; therefore, etc.

4. Again, many such things are handled by the archdeacon, such as the cruet or maniple to a subdeacon, as is mentioned in a text, and the keys to a porter.⁵³ If, then, it is only the bishop who confers Order, it would seem that character is not imprinted in such handing over.

That the character is not imprinted by the expression of words would appear:

5. First because the correct use of power is expressed in those words, as is clear to anyone who inspects them. Therefore, the fact that character is not imprinted by the expression of words follows upon the essence of the Order and character, it would seem.⁵⁴

6. Again, character can be imprinted only by God. But the expression of words is through a verb of commanding, as when it says, “Receive the power.…” Therefore such a form is not competent to impress the character.

So the question arises, Why does this sacrament have the form of words in the imperative mood, while the others have one with the indicative or deprecatory?

There is another question, Whence did these originate with respect to Order, namely the imposition of hands, blessing, and anointing?

A further question, Why is there an imposition of hands only in two Orders, while there is anointing in only one, namely the priesthood?

And a fourth question, Why does only the bishop impose his hands upon a deacon, while other priests do it for priests?

And a final question, In what does this sacrament essentially consist outwardly? And since it does not have an element or fixed form, it would seem that it has nothing essential. And that it does not have a fixed form would appear since the ancient formularies have another mode.

I respond: To gain understanding of what has been said, some things have to be presupposed: first, that every sacrament has some essential external sign; for in no way does it just happen that a sacrament is a sign, but sign is simply essential. Furthermore, it is to be supposed that in every sacrament in which character is impressed, it is essential to the sacrament in which or through which character is impressed. Further, since a sign ought to have some similarity to what is signified, character is impressed in that which is externally more like itself in the sacrament.

Since, then, character is imprinted in Order, such that it is a seal for some spiritual power,⁵⁵ it can be held as a general rule that character is impressed in that external sign in any Order in which the principal power which concerns that Order is signified, as given over to the one ordained. Toward this signification two elements concur externally, namely the handing over of some sort of instrument and an expression of words, so that in a visible and at the same time audible way it be signified as given. Nor does the audible sign suffice without the visible, for the reason that among words there must be a reference to the sign, as is clear in the other sacraments. Nor does the sign without the words suffice, because such a sign could refer to many things, namely for the book or some vase to be given, and hence it must be focused through the words. And these two are essential and intrinsic to the sacrament, and they effect the sacrament. For since the hand is the organ of organs in activity as the tongue is in expression, that the power is conferred is rightly signified in the employment of both of them. And these are found in any Order whatsoever according to which is found the impression of character as well.

But since the characters are diverse, having more or less dignity according to the degree of the powers, so both the signs and the words are diverse, especially in sacred Orders and in the minor Orders. For in the sacred Orders, since a noble and surpassing power is there given, it is done with the imposition of hands, and not just the handing over of instruments, for the hand is the organ of organs, in which namely the power of activity most centrally resides. In this way, then, did they ordain in the primitive Church, in which only those two Orders explicitly existed.

But in the minor Orders it takes place through the handing over of some instrument, such as a key or a book or an instrument of exorcism. And if several instruments are given, the principal instrument is considered to be the one the bishop hands over with the pronunciation of the words “Receive the power.…” Hence in the omission of the principal one, the Order must be repeated, because it is presumed that he did not receive character. But in the other instruments, if there is a defect or negligence, it ought to be supplied for.

It is to be conceded, then, that character is not impressed in the anointing, but that it is done for the sake of the dignity of the Lord’s body, which is not to be handled except by consecrated hands. For bishops [pontifici] the anointing is done on the head, by which is signified the abundance of grace which ought to be found in abundance in prelates. And it is for this reason that the hands of priests are anointed with holy oil, but the head of a bishop is anointed with chrism to signify that there ought to be in him an excellence of life in the sight of God in his conscience and in the sight of men and women with regard to his reputation. It is to be conceded also that the impression of the character does not take place in the blessing, as the reasons above demonstrate, but, rather than belonging to the substance of the sacrament, character is based upon the arousing of devotion and the requesting of grace.

To the objections: 1. To the objection concerning the laying on of hands, which is not found in them all, the reason was already given. There is still found something similar, because there is the giving of some instrument, in which the extension of the hand is found, and thus the sign of the handing over of power.

2. To the objection that the priests impose their hands it must be said that that imposition of hands is not for the bestowal of Order, but for its signification. What is signified is the communion in grace which is conferred in the priestly Order and must be administered by the priest. Hence priests do not lay their hands on a deacon, but only the bishop, in whose imposition not only is there signification, but also the conferral of power.

Moreover, when priests lay on [someone] their consecrated hands, it signifies that the one who is ordained, is consecrated in that Order. And note that, although the assistants may be many, it suffices that three impose their hands; anything more is out of abundance, not out of necessity for the sacrament.

3. To the objection concerning the handing over of a book or vase, it must be said just as any instrument or armor is under control of the hand, so thus through the imposition of hands when such things are lacking they can be signified. Hence, as we shall later see,⁵⁶ with the imposition of hands in the primitive Church the other Orders were implied. Later they were, with the passing of time, made explicit or spelled out with respect to the words, and with respect to the sign and with respect to persons.

4. To the objection that the archdeacon confers many such things, it must be said that this is for the explanation of the power. Hence in such a conferral performed by the archdeacon no new power is given, but what is given is explained.

5. To the objection concerning the expression of words, it must be said it was always understood that there would be some word in which it would be expressed that a certain power is given. But there were not preset words except in only two sacraments for which the Lord set down special words from his own mouth; and hence in the others, although words are necessary, they are not fixed words. Any words that express the sense, as far as the rationale of the sacrament is concerned, suffice, as long as one does not intend to lead others into heresy. But now it is necessary to keep to the form that is set out and approved by the Church.

6. To the objection concerning the imperative mood, it must be said that the Supreme Pontiff bears the person of Christ and the person of a superior, as Isidore says in the book De Officiis.⁵⁷ And because power is of more or less and descends, and accordingly those who confer it preside, and the ones on whom they confer it are subject, therefore it is more apt that he uses the imperative mood. And thus the response to the first question is clear.

All the other questions are answered from what has been said, except the one about their origin; for the blessing and imposition of hands comes from the Patriarchs, in Genesis 27:4 and Genesis 48:13, and anointing had its figure in the Law, Leviticus 8:12, where the high priest is anointed.

 

IV SENT D. 24, P. 2, A. 2, Q. 1
ARTICLE TWO

THE TYPES OF ORDERS

QUESTION ONE
THE DIVISION OF ORDERS INTO SACRED AND NON-SACRED

The first question concerns the division of Orders, and it would seem that there is no division:

1. First, because Order is essentially and universally a sacrament. Every sacrament deals with a sacred res. Therefore Order is universally a sacred res. Therefore every Order is sacred.

2. Again, power of ministering at the altar in matters that pertain to the sacrament of sacraments, namely the Lord’s body is given in the inferior Orders. Therefore if in the minor orders there is ministry at the altar, as in the diaconate and the subdiaconate, although not quite as closely, it would seem that just as the latter are sacred, so are the former.

3. Again, in the primitive Church there were no Orders but the sacred, namely the presbyterate and diaconate. Therefore either the primitive Church was deprived or the later one is overabundant.

4. Again, whatever concerns the substance of a sacrament always remains the same. If, then, minor Orders are truly Orders, either they should have been at that [earlier] time, or they are not truly Orders. If, then, they did not then exist, as seems to be the case, it would seem, etc.

To the contrary: a. In the Old Testament there were distinct offices of ministry, in such a way that some ministered at the altar and others for the care of the temple. If, then, the priesthood is now of a higher order and dignity, and if the divine cult is to be extended and increased, it would seem that others ought to be appointed to both of these ends. Therefore, since Orders are distinguished with regard to major and minor offices, there ought to be major and minor Orders.

b. Again, as will be made clear when Marriage is treated,⁵⁸ and as is contained in distinction 32 in the Decrees,⁵⁹ there are some Orders that are impediments to Marriage, and others that are not. If, then, the body of the Lord is consecrated in that Order in which a person is in every way removed from any lustful act, it would seem that some Orders are sacred and others are not.

c. Again, this can be demonstrated by the following: first, because Orders is a sacrament of the perfect. Yet one does not immediately ascend to the state of perfection, but arrives only little by little. Therefore if a sacred Order somehow puts one in a state of perfection, it would seem that it ought to have some lesser and not sacred Orders.

d. Again, we see in the court of an earthly king that it is sufficiently ordered. The higher ministers need lesser ones who obey and give service, and the greater require the lesser. If therefore the house of God ought to be orderly it would seem that there ought to be ministers there, and further, ministers of those who minister. The first are in a higher Order, and the second in a lesser one, therefore minor and major Orders.

I respond: It must be said that the sacrament of Order has many grades. The first distinction is between the lower and higher degrees, or between the sacred and non-sacred. Now the reason why this sacrament has grades is because it provides order for the dispensation of the most worthy sacrament and for ministering in the Temple of God. Thus there are both more worthy offices along with those that are less worthy that work together in that ministry.⁶⁰ Though all of these ministries require sacred ministers, still those that have to do with the altar and with the carrying of sacred vessels and with completing the offering of the sacrifice most especially require holy ministers. This is according to Isaiah 52:11, Purify yourselves, you who carry the vessels of the Lord. Now sanctity or sanctification consists especially in continence. Hence there are certain Orders that require continence in its ministers, and others much less so. Hence certain Orders are said to be sacred, and some not sacred. This is not by reason of the nature of the order itself, but by reason of the ministry of that order for which sanctity is required in the minister. This is clarified by the distinction of Orders into sacred and non-sacred. Thus the reasons for are to be conceded.

To the objections: 1. To the objection, then, that every Order is a sacrament, it must be said that all Orders are sacred signs, and sacred signs of a sacred res. Yet it is not for this reason that Orders are called sacred, as we have seen, but by reason of the consecration of the minister, and because these Orders dispose one for handling and ministering consecrated vessels.⁶¹

2. To the objection that the power to minister the greatest sacrament somehow and in some way is given to all of them, it must be said this is true. Yet the power is restricted to more or less, according to either the proximity or to the remoteness to the altar. For to those in minor orders it is not permitted by virtue of their office to carry consecrated vessels, although by reason of the lack of ministers it is frequently permitted.

3. To the objection that in the primitive Church there were only sacred Orders, it must be said that that is false; indeed others did exist. They were implicitly given in the imposition of hands, for the hand is the organ of organs. The reason they were not distinguished was because of the scarcity of ministers and because there were few faithful. Hence it was necessary that all the offices be given to a single person. Now the divine cult has been multiplied. Therefore there is no similarity.⁶²

4. The previous clarifies the last objection. For, when it says that the substantial things were always the same, it must be said that this is true. These Orders and degrees were always in the Church, even though they were not so explicit and distinct as they are now. Not only ought they now be distinguished on account of the amplification of ministries, but also for the formation of those to be ordained into the sacred orders.⁶³ This is because now those who are ordained ought to be clerics from their cradles. Hence as they grow in perfection with age and the reception of the grades, they ought and are able to be promoted, and not immediately to the highest grade.

 

IV SENT D. 24, P. 2, A. 2, Q. 2
QUESTION TWO

WHETHER PSALM CHANTER IS AN ORDER

The second question is whether psalm chanter is an Order. That it is would appear:

1. In distinction 21, Cleros et clericos: “Generally all who serve in the Church of Christ are called clerics, whose degrees and names are these: porter, psalm chanter, and lector,” and again in distinction 25:3, Perlectis, where it numbers the office of psalm chanter among the others.⁶⁴ Isidore also expressly says so in book VII of the Etymologies.⁶⁵

2. Again, it seems that this can be proven by reason, because the prophecy of the psalms is no less noble than others. Therefore, just as there is an Order in the Church for the recitation of other prophecies, namely the Order of lector, so it would seem there ought to be one Order for the recitation of the psalms. Such is the psalm chanter; therefore, etc.

3. Again, it is a more noble and worthy office to recite psalms in Church than to care for the doors. Therefore if an Order is designated for that office, even more so, it would seem, for the reciting of the psalms.

To the contrary: a. In Ddistinction 77, illud nos: “If someone deserves to be a bishop, let him first be doorkeeper, then lector, afterwards exorcist, then let him be ordained acolyte, and then subdeacon, then deacon and after that a priest.”⁶⁶ Here the grades and Orders are clearly distinguished, and the Order of psalm chanter is not among them; therefore, etc.

b. Again, all Orders, as will be made clear, are given by the bishop, and not by a simple priest. Yet the office of psalm chanter is given by a simple priest. Hence in distinction 23: “The psalm chanter can, without the knowledge of the bishop, receive the office of chanting by order of a priest alone.”⁶⁷

c. Again, there should not be an Order specially directed for something that commonly falls to the whole choir. Yet psalmody belongs to all in the choir as well as to the chanting of antiphons and responses; therefore, etc.

I respond: It must be said that psalmist/chanter is not properly an Order, but it is an office conjoined to an Order. The reason it does not qualify as an office to which a special degree of Orders ought to be dedicated is that it is only conjoined to another Order. The psalmist and cantor are considered the same, as becomes clear from what is said in distinction 23, “the psalmist, that is the cantor.” The psalmist’s role is not only to chant the psalms, but also to intersperse other harmonious chants among the readings to the end that the hearts of the listeners be aroused to the praise of God and to the instruction of the lector and that they not be struck by boredom in their hearing of the divine word. For the reason that it contributes to the praise of God and because that belongs to all the faithful and is shared together, it is not necessary to designate an Order for this. Yet to the extent that it arouses hearts and contributes to grasping the meaning that the lector proclaims, it is an office conjoined to the Order of lector. Thus it is clear that strictly speaking of Orders and grades, the psalmist ought not be counted among the Orders. Nevertheless if the name “Order” is more broadly extended to an office conjoined to an Order, and which mainly and principally belongs to those ordained, then the psalmist/cantor can be counted among the Orders, and this is the way Isidore accepts that the psalmist is numerated among the orders.

To the objections: l. The respondeo explains the authorities cited to argue that it is an Order, for they are speaking in this sense.

2. To the objection that the prophecy of the psalms is more worthy or equally worthy, it must be said that it is worthy with respect to its understanding and meaning just as the others. Yet, the psalmist does not only instruct through the meaning of the words. The psalmist also arouses minds through the singing of musical pieces and through the projection of resounding voices. The latter pertains also to everyone, but the other prophecies belong to one person, [the lector], to recite. To this one person the attention of all is turned. Hence, it is necessary that the one who reads must be more advanced. This is not by reason of what is proclaimed, but by reason of his manner of proclaiming. Thus, that is clear.

3. To the objection concerning the porter and the psalm chanter, it must be said that it is of greater authority and dignity to keep out the unworthy and to admit the worthy to divine worship than to be present and chant psalms. This is for the reason that the first indicates some authority and power; nor does it belong to anyone else unless it be given by the one who has overriding authority, namely by the bishop. Yet psalmody concerns knowledge and the voice; and the one who has these possesses them without conferral of authority, and is able to perform this with just the mandate of the priest, as has been said. Thus although the latter office might seem the greater, nevertheless if the authority is considered in either case, the former is greater than the latter.

 

IV SENT D. 24, P. 2, A. 2, Q. 3
QUESTION THREE

WHETHER THE EPISCOPACY IS AN ORDER

The third question is whether the episcopacy is an Order. That it is would appear:

1. In distinction 77:2, Pope Gelasius distinguishes the grades of Orders and concludes, “Then a subdeacon, then diaconate, and afterwards priest, and subsequently, if he deserves it, let him be ordained bishop.”⁶⁸

2. Again, Isidore in book VII of the Etymologies: “The Order of Bishops is fourfold.” Therefore the episcopacy is an Order.⁶⁹

3. Again, it stands to reason, because no one is rightly said to be ordained except by reception of an Order. Yet the one who is promoted to bishop is rightly said to be ordained bishop, as all the canons which speak of this matter suggest; therefore, etc.

4. Again, among the virtues is the principal one which rules the other virtues and gives them commands. Therefore by the same token in Order, that which will be the more outstanding administers and rules the others. This is the episcopal Order; therefore, etc.

5. Again, this seems so because of the definition of Order. “Order is,” as the Master says, “the seal by which spiritual power is given to the one ordained.”⁷⁰ Yet all this is found in the episcopacy, as is apparent; therefore, etc. The minor argument is clear through the ordination itself of the bishop. In this ordination the staff is given to him, which signifies spiritual power. Hence it is said to him when the staff is given to him, “Receive the staff of pastoral office, that is, the power of binding and loosing, and may you be piously ferocious in correcting vices, a softener of the minds of your listeners in promoting virtues, not incurring in tranquility the judgment of severity.”⁷¹

6. Again, in the consecration of a bishop there takes place a more solemn anointing, a more solemn blessing, and a more solemn imposition of hands than in that of a priest. Such an anointing cannot be void of significance and efficacy, since it is of the New Law. Therefore it is of broader effect. If, then, priesthood is an Order, so much the more would appear that episcopacy is likewise.

To the contrary: a. Master Hugh of Saint Victor, distinguishing the grades of Order, says, “The first is porter, the second lector, the third exorcist, the fourth acolyte, the fifth subdeacon, the sixth deacon, and the seventh is that of priests. These unequal grades in the same Order contain dignities, namely bishops.”⁷² Therefore the episcopacy is only a dignity, not an Order; therefore, etc.

b. Again, all this distinction of grades and Orders exists for the sake of the ministry of the altar, namely for the sake of the sacrifice in which all the divine cult is consummated. Therefore, when one has arrived at that, that should be the fullness.⁷³ This is reached in priesthood; therefore, etc.

c. Again, ecclesiastical ranks have such an order that it is possible to receive the later one and omit the earlier. This is clear by what is said in distinction 52, Sollicitudo⁷⁴ and Extra, De clerico per saltum ordinato, Tuae litterae, etc.⁷⁵ Yet it is impossible for someone to be promoted to episcopacy without receiving priesthood, as is said in Extra, De excressibus praelatorum, Ex litteris, where Innocent says, “The Pontifical office cannot be fulfilled without ministry at the altar.”⁷⁶ Therefore it seems that the episcopacy is none other than the Order of priest.

d. Again, one who is promoted to a sacred Order on a Saturday ought not receive another sacred Order on the following day. Yet one who is promoted to the priesthood can on the following day, namely Sunday, be promoted to bishop. Therefore it would seem that the episcopacy is not a sacred Order.

I respond: It must be said, as has been mentioned,⁷⁷ that since the power of Order is principally ordered to the dispensation of the sacraments, and most especially of that noblest of sacraments, namely of the body of the Lord, there is ascending ranking of steps and Orders, and thus beyond priesthood there is no grade of Orders. Nevertheless within this rank and Order, there happens to be a distinction of dignities and offices which, however, do not constitute a new grade or Order. These are archpriest, bishop, archbishop, patriarch, and Supreme Pontiff, which add neither an Order nor a new grade beyond the priesthood, but only dignity and office. Thus the episcopacy, as it pertains to the Order of priesthood, can well be said to be an Order. To the extent it is distinguished from priesthood, it speaks of a certain dignity or office conjoined to it. Yet it is not properly speaking an Order, nor is a new character imprinted, nor any new power given, but rather the power given is simply amplified.⁷⁸ Hence just as he does not receive new keys, likewise neither is there another Order. This was the sense of Master Hugh’s understanding, and also the Master of the Sentences, as is apparent in his text, which states that they are not names of Orders but of dignities.⁷⁹ Common opinion also holds this, that in the episcopacy no new character is imprinted, but a certain eminence is conferred. This eminence always remains along with character itself, when all jurisdiction is removed. Supporting this opinion, then, let us say that the episcopacy, strictly speaking, is not an Order but the eminence or dignity of an Order.

To the objections: 1-3. To the first objection then from Isidore and Gelasius, it must be said that it can be answered with a single response to their authority and ones like them, that they broaden the name of Orders to offices and dignities. Yet our masters take it more strictly, namely for a rank of power. This is clear from the fact that Isidore says, “the order of bishops is fourfold.” For after one is ordained a bishop, if he is promoted to archbishop he is not newly consecrated, but he simply accepts the pallium. Thus it is clear that it cannot be understood that there is in that a new Order, but only a higher dignity. If he then says that those are diverse orders, it is plain that he has extended the name of Orders to offices and dignities. This also clarifies the following one. For just as the name and significance of Order is broadened so also the verb when one says, “one is ordained a bishop”; hence it is less proper to say that someone is ordained when he is promoted to bishop than when one is promoted to priesthood. It is more proper to say that one is consecrated. So too the Apostle speaking properly says in Acts 20:28, He has made you bishops, and 1 Timothy 3:1, Whoever wants to be a bishop aspires to a noble task.

4. To the objection that Orders are dispensed through the episcopacy, it must be said that they would never be dispensed through the bishop unless he possessed those that he dispenses, especially unless he possessed the priesthood. Hence I gladly concede that the episcopacy necessarily includes the highest Order, namely the priesthood, and adds on to it some eminence, which its very name suggests. This is because episcopus comes from epi- which means “over.”

5. To the objection that Order is a seal in which spiritual power is given, etc., it must be said that the episcopacy comes up short on both parts of the definition. First off it lacks by reason of Order inasmuch as it is called a seal. This is because “seal” there stands for character, and such is not imprinted in the episcopacy, whose sign is that one cannot be consecrated a bishop unless he is already a priest. Thus it does not per se imprint new character. It further falls short because no new power is given there, but only the power of binding and loosing is broadened. Hence as a sign of this the pastoral staff is handed over. Thus just as the conferral of the pallium gives no new Order to an archbishop over a bishop, so neither does the conferral of the staff, ring, miter or anything similar give to a bishop Order beyond priesthood. These things are more sacramentals than sacraments. Sacramentals not only precede the sacrament, but they can also follow.

6. To the objection that the anointing is more solemn, it must be said that this is true for the reason that one is taken up to the highest pontificacy and there is given the eminence of pastoral office and dignity. In this there ought to be the eminence of sanctity. Thus eminence in sanctity ought to be signified in the superabundant anointing according to what is said of the high priest Aaron, It is like when the precious ointment upon the head runs down over the beard, the beard of Aaron.⁸⁰ For that office a greater sanctity is required than is required for Orders, and that is the reason for the greater anointing. This is because kings and princes are accustomed to being anointed as a sign of the dignity, which not Orders but the royal dignity confers. So too bishops on whom the priestly Order is conferred. For this reason that argument is not valid, because the anointing does not pertain to Order, insofar as it is an Order, but rather to the dignity. Hence a priest is not anointed out of the necessity of the Order but rather for the sake of the solemnity, so that he might worthily consecrate the most sacred body of Christ.

 

IV SENT D. 24, P. 2, A. 2, Q. 4
QUESTION FOUR

WHETHER THERE ARE SEVEN ORDERS OR MORE OR FEWER

The fourth question is whether there are seven Orders or more or fewer. That there are only seven:

a. Master Hugh expressly affirms this, and the Master also says so in his text.⁸¹

b. Again, it would appear from reason, because a sign ought to respond to the truth. In this sacrament the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit is given. Therefore it seems, although ranks are assigned in Order, there ought to be seven of them.

But that there ought to be only three would appear:

1. On the authority of Dionysius in The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, where he lays down only three grades, namely, ministers, priests and bishops.⁸²

2. Again, this appears from reason, because the distinction in ranks ought to be according to hierarchical acts. Those acts are only three, namely to cleanse, to illumine and to perfect. Therefore it appears that there are only three ranks or Orders.

But that there are more would appear:

3. Because the Church militant imitates the Church triumphant, according to what is written in Exodus 25:40: See that you make them according to the pattern shown you on the mountain. In that Church there is a distinction and rank according to the number nine; therefore, etc.

4. Again, the greater the distance from the origin, so much greater is the tendency toward multiplication. The ecclesiastical hierarchy is at a greater distance from the origin of all things, the highest God, than the angel hierarchy.⁸³ Therefore, it ought to be distinguished by more ranks and orders than the angelic. Hence there ought to be more Orders than nine.

The question therefore is, For what reason is there more distinction of ranks in this sacrament than in any other, and for what reason does the distinction rest on the number seven?

I respond: It must be said that all agree on this: that a distinction of ranks belongs to this sacrament. This is due to several reasons. One is because through it the members of the Church are ordered in the Mystical Body according to their diverse functions and graces, according to the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 12:4. Another is for the reason that through this sacrament the beauty of the Church militant is configured and conformed to the Church triumphant. Still another is for the reason that this sacrament at its highest places disposes a person to the grace of perfection, and perfect grace consists in the plurality of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Yet another is for the reason that this sacrament ordains for the most worthy of ministries, which is the consecration of the Lord’s body, to which one must not dash immediately, but must ascend gradually, since that sacrament must have, for its nobility and reverence, many inferior ministries. In all of these ways the reason for a plurality among the ranks of Orders is acknowledged. In all these ways, the sufficiency for plurality in the ecclesiastical ranks is differently undertaken by different authors.

For, some start with the distinction of the Church members which results from the gifts of graces, which the Apostle defines in 1 Corinthians 12:8: To one the Spirit gives wisdom in discourse. These say that there are nine Orders according to the types of graces that are mentioned there, which are nine. They adapt them in this way: To one the Spirit gives wisdom in discourse, namely to the bishop; to another the power to express knowledge, namely to the priest, who must know how to bind and loose; to another faith, namely to the deacon, who must proclaim the Gospel in which our faith is contained; the work of virtues to the subdeacon, who sets out for works of perfection; the interpretation of tongues to the acolyte, whose job is to light up others and dispel darkness; the gift of healing to the exorcist; diverse types of tongues to the psalm chanter. Prophecy to the lector; discernment of spirits to the porter, who admits the good and rejects the evil. Yet this manner of interpreting is not altogether fitting, because those gifts of graces belong not to the same but to different members; but all Orders are given to the same persons, albeit in succession.

A second group takes as their starting point, a little more aptly, the conformity of the example (i.e., the angelic hierarchy) to the exemplified (i.e., the ecclesiastical hierarchy). For they say that just as there is in the angelic hierarchy a distinction of orders for cleansing, for illumination and perfecting, so likewise in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Hence there are nine Orders, the triple of these three acts. To the first act of cleansing correspond three because to be cleansed pertains to the exterior or to the interior, or partly one and partly the other. If externally, through the bodily segregation from the evil ones, so there is the porter who admits the good and excludes the evil. If internally, such is the last among the lesser orders, namely the acolyte, because he does not purge corporeal darkness when he carries the light in daytime, but spiritual darkness. If partly one and partly the other, such is the exorcist, who cleanses diabolical agitation, which is in some manner within with respect to the body, but somewhat external with respect to the soul, because the demon does not penetrate the soul though it obsesses the body. Similarly, with respect to the act of illumination, three Orders are related, after the threefold light, namely the full, the subsequent and the antecedent. The full light consists in the doctrine of Christ, which falls to deacons. The subsequent light consists of apostolic doctrine, which falls to subdeacons. The preceding light belongs to prophecy, which belongs to lectors. Similarly, according to the work of perfection or consummation, there are three Orders, because one thing is the first perfection—that through the grace of Baptism and Penance—which belongs to priests; then a more excellent way, and this belongs to bishops, whose task is to ordain and to consecrate abbots and virgins; finally the most excellent, that is to consecrate bishops and archbishops, and this belongs to the Supreme Pontiff, for he is the father of fathers, in whom resides the fullness of authority. Thus the stature of his ordination is consummated in unity and descends through nine ranks, and thus is conformed to the heavenly Jerusalem. That chain of nine is reduced to the threefold acts, that it might ascend and be configured to the most blessed Trinity, namely, cleansing for goodness, illumination for wisdom, and perfection for power. Thus the kingdom of the Church is handed over through the Holy Spirit and the Son to the God and Father,⁸⁴ while it is reduced to that supreme and paternal unity beyond which there is no thought of further ascent. This explanation is probable enough; still it nonetheless misses what is right and proper when the distinction of Orders is not derived from what is proper and intrinsic to it.

Still those in a third group somewhat more aptly take their starting point from the grace toward which Order is ordered. For since they order in view of perfect grace, which is sevenfold, it therefore is fitting that there be seven ranks of ecclesiastical Orders. Thus the Order of porter corresponds to the gift of fear, through which a person becomes distant from evil. The Order of priesthood corresponds to the gift of wisdom, because it delights in and administers the very tree of life, the very heavenly bread, in which there is every delight. The intermediate Orders correspond to the intermediate gifts. This treatment is still probable enough and comes closer to grounding the sufficiency of Order than does any of the preceding.

Although all of these treatments are drawn from the explanations of the masters—for the first is from the writings of Isidore, the second from Dionysius, and the third from Hugh and the Master—it still seems that something more reasonable can be said.

A fourth way of treating the matter is from the viewpoint of that to which the Order is ordered, namely, this is precisely toward the administration of the true body of Christ to the benefit of the Mystical Body of Christ. Hence there is in the priesthood the status in which there is the consummation of power, and both powers concur in it, namely of celebrating the true body of Christ and absolving the Mystical Body. This most outstanding Order ought to have ministries under it according to requirements of this twofold power. Thus some minister with respect to the true body of Christ, and these are the Orders that are closer to the priesthood. For, there are two ways of ministering: either by receiving the hosts from the people, and this is for the subdeacon; or by offering them to the priest, and this belongs to the deacon. This is their principal function, as Isidore expressly suggests, and it is for this reason that they get their names accordingly, the deacon as like a minister, and the subdeacon as like a sub-minister.⁸⁵ The other lesser Orders sub-minister or serve by preparing the Mystical Body of Christ to the end that it be conducted to the worthy reception of his true body. These are four Orders following the four ways in which the Mystical Body can be prepared for worthy reception: in the first way by admitting to the sacred place, and this belongs to porters; in the second by displaying the founding document, and this belongs to lectors; in the third by offering aid, and this belongs to exorcists; in the fourth by showing good example, and this belongs to the candle bearers or acolytes, to whom it refers that “their light shine before men and women, that they may see.”⁸⁶

Thus it is apparent that in a marvelous way Order proceeds from a multitude into unity. For, the principal rank is one, to which the ones that serve it must be two, because they are insufficient before the first and fall into a duality. Again the ones that serve these two are four, because they are insufficient before them. Thus the perfection and consummation of Order is revealed, and the distinction into the number seven according to ranks of powers that are essential to Order, whose number and sufficiency are fulfilled by way of that to which they are directed. With that the objections are easily answered. The objection that they are seven is conceded.

To the objections: 1. To the objection that there are three, citing Dionysius, it must be said that Dionysius includes seven ranks as ministers, and all of them minister to the priest.

2. To the objection concerning the triple act, it must be said that the distinction of Orders is not gathered from that triple act, but rather according to the act of ministering. Yet even if it were gathered from it, it would still not be valid, because those are multiplied, as is apparent in angels.

3-4. To the objection that it imitates the Jerusalem above, it must be said that this is true to the extent that it is compatible with its condition. Now in that Jerusalem above, orders are assigned that are highest, lower and medium according to differing aspects, as is apparent in the distinction of hierarchies of angels. Yet ecclesiastical Orders are gathered through comparison principally with one, because that is why they exist. Hence it is that they are not multiplied in that manner, nor into so many members as there are angelic orders.

_______________

¹ The Latin word here is ordo which is singular. Therefore we will translate this “order” and not “orders.”

² 1 Cor 12:12.

³ Hebr 8:5, 9:23-24.

⁴ Cant 6:3 (6:4).

⁵ Latin: Ibi est praelatio et dominium.

⁶ Latin: …propter pulchritudinem et propter rectitudinem.

⁷ Cf. 1 Cor 12:1-31.

⁸ Thus, Bonaventure is arguing that the Apostle is saying that we are free from sin and not from order.

⁹ Grace freely given.

¹⁰ Grace that makes gracious [before God].

¹¹ Bonaventure argues that the two graces must be held in distinction, such that the grace given for office does not necessarily include the grace of one’s worthiness before God.

¹² Cf. above, d. 2, a. 1, q. 3.

¹³ Latin: …qui ad gradum supremum perveniunt.

¹⁴ Dionysius, De caelesti hierarchia, c. 3 (PG 3, 163D): Est hierarchia, meo quidem judicio, sacer ordo, et scientia, et actio….

¹⁵ Latin: Alio modo dicitur ordo ordinata potestas secundum quam ipsum subjectum potens habet ordinari dupliciter, scilicet ad opus vel ad ministrium, et habet etiam ordinari ad alterum; hanc autem potestatem dicimus Ordinis sacramentum.

¹⁶ Latin: …regimen et decorum. See the previous question, where Bonaventure argues for ordo in the church from the standpoint of pulchritude and rectitude. This seems to be parallel even though different words are used.

¹⁷ Latin: Et quoniam hi debebant ab aliis per signa aliqua secerni, et signum istud est rei sacrae: ideo potestas haec debuit ordinari per modum sacramenti; et illud convenientissimum est. Cum enim sit ad sacramentorum ordinatam distributionem, debuerunt ministri ad hoc ordinari per alicuius sacramenti susceptionem, in quo datur potestas per quam ministri Dei ad ministrandum et inter se etiam ordinantur; ideo recte Ordo appellatur. This statement appears to be at the heart of Bonaventure’s understanding of the sacrament of Order, and thus the full Latin text is here presented.

¹⁸ The conferring of this power would be the laying on of hands.

¹⁹ Cf. d. 18, p. 1, a. 3, q. 1.

²⁰ Hebr 7:11.

²¹ Gen 14:17-24.

²² Jerome, Quaestionum in Genesim, c. 14, v. 14 (PL 23, 961A): “Et persecutus est eos usque Dan.” Ad Phoenicis oppidum, quod nunc Paneas dicitur. Dan autem unus e fontibus est Jordanis. Nam et alter vocatur Jor, quod interpretatur ῥεῖθρον: id est, rivus. Duobus ergo fontibus, qui haud procul a se distant, in unum rivulum foederatis, Jordanis deinceps appellatur.

²³ Ezek 1:16 and 10:10.

²⁴ Cf. Hebr 7.

²⁵ Cf. above, d. 9, a. 1, q. 2.

²⁶ Cf. d. 1, p. 1, q. 5 and d. 2, a. 1, q. 2.

²⁷ To paraphrase Bonaventure, that argument follows the unity of the faith, but not the fact that the sacraments of the Old and New Laws are different.

²⁸ Here, Bonaventure means the Eucharist. Cf. above, page 209, d. 8, p. 2, a. 2, q. 2 on the unity of the sacrament of the Eucharist.

²⁹ For Bonaventure’s understanding on the difference between subjective parts and integral parts, see immediately above, sed contra 2, in this question.

³⁰ Latin: Per definitionem Ordinis: Ordo est signaculum, in quo spiritualis potestas traditur ordinato. This is similar to what Peter Lombard teaches. Cf. Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 24, c. 13: …sane dici potest signaculum quoddam esse, id est sacrum quiddam, quo spiritualis potestas traditur ordinato et officium. Character igitur spiritualis, ubi fit promotio potestatis, ordo vel gradus vocatur.

³¹ Augustine, Contra epistolam Parmeniani, II, c. 13, n. 28 (PL 43,70): Utrumque enim Sacramentum est; et quadam consecratione utrumque homini datur: illud, cum baptizatur; istud, cum ordinatur; ideoque in Catholica utrumque non licet iterari.

³² Cf. below, res. of this question, p. 406.

³³ Cf. Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 24, c. 5-11, 396-405.

³⁴ Cf. below, d. 24, a. 2, q. 1 and 4.

³⁵ Cf. Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 24, c. 5-11, 396-405.

³⁶ In the Latin, it is unclear whether this omnibus refers to the three sacraments which impress character or to the seven components of the sacrament of Order. Latin: Et quia in omnibus configuratur quis Christo secundum plus et minus, ideo in omnibus character imprimitur.

³⁷ Latin: …qui sunt signata et signa sint diversi.

³⁸ Cf. above, d. 24, p. 2, a. 1, q. 1.

³⁹ Latin: …cultus.

⁴⁰ Gregory IX, Decretals, III, t. 43, c. 1 (II, 648): Si quis presbyter ordinatus deprehenderit, se non esse baptizatum, baptizetur, et iterum ordinetur.

⁴¹ Ap. Gratian, Decretum, I, d. 52, c. 1 (I, 205-6). This decretal deals with someone who skipped the order of subdiaconate and was ordained deacon and priest: Unde nos consulendo carititate tuae mandamus, ut ab officio sacerdotali eum prohibeas, donec proximo quatuor temporum jejunio subdiaconatus ministerium sibi rite imponens, et sic deinceps ad maiora officia eum redire concedas.

⁴² Cf. Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 24, c. 1, n. 2, 393.

⁴³ Cf. Ap. Gratian, I, d. 52, c. 1 (I, 205-6).

⁴⁴ Gregory IX, Decretals, V, t. 29, c. un. (II, 833-34). This decretal deals with someone who leapt over the diaconate and moved from subdeacon to priest: Mandamus, quatenus condignam poenitentiam pro huiusmodi negligentia iniungas eidem; qua peracts, quia non intelligitur iteratum quod factum esse nescitur,ipsum in diaconum ordinare procures, et sic de misericordia eundem ministrare permittas in ordine sacerdotis.

⁴⁵ The second order is a lector.

⁴⁶ The third order is an exorcist.

⁴⁷ Cf. above, d. 2, a. 1, q. 3.

⁴⁸ Gregory IX, Decretals, III, t. 43, c. 1 (II, 648): Si quis presbyter ordinatus deprehenderit, se non esse baptizatum, baptizetur, et iterum ordinetur.

⁴⁹ Gregory IX, Decretals, III, t. 43, c. 3 (II, 648): … quum baptismus sit fundamentum omnium sacramentorum, ante susceptionem baptismi non suscipiatur aliud sacramentum, quoniam, ubi fundamentum non est, superaedificari non potest.

⁵⁰ Gregory IX, Decretals, V, t. 31, c. 10 (II, 838): … quum igitur pontificale officium sine altaris ministerio non valeat adimpleri, discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus, ut episcopatui cedat, moneatis eundem….

⁵¹ Cf. above, d. 24, p. 2, a. 1, q. 1.

⁵² Ap. Gratian, Decretum, I, d. 23, c. 8 (I, 82): Presbiter cum ordinatur, episcopo eum benedicente et manum super caput eius tenente, etiam omnes presbiteri, qui presentes sunt, manus suas iuxta manus episcopi super caput illius teneant.

⁵³ Cf. Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 24, c. 9, n. 4, 400. The point seems to be that not only does the bishop hand “symbols” over, but also the archdeacon, who is not ordaining prelate, hands over “symbols” to the subdiaconate and therefore also imprints character.

⁵⁴ Latin: Primo, quia in verbis illis significatur recta potestatis exsecutio, ut, patet, si quis inspiciat. Ergo, cum illud sequatur Ordinis essentiam et characterem, videtur etc.

⁵⁵ Latin: …qui est signaculum ad aliquam potestatem spiritualem.

⁵⁶ Cf. below, a. 2, q. 1, ad 3 & 4.

⁵⁷ Cf. Isidore, De officiis, II, c. 5-6 (PL 83,78, Sancti Isidori Episcopi Hispalensis, De ecclesiasticis officiis. Ed. Christopher M. Lawson. CCSL 113 [Turnholt: Brepols, 1989], 57-58).

⁵⁸ Cf. below, d. 37.

⁵⁹ Ap. Gratian, Decretum, d. 31, c. 1 (I, 116): Cum enim extra clericorum ordinem constitutuis nuptiarum societati et filiorum procreationi studere sit liberum, ad exhibendam tamen perfectae continentiae puritatem nec subdiaconibus carnale quidem conubium conceditur….

⁶⁰ Latin: …ad ministerium autem illud concurrunt quaedam officia digniora et quaedam minus.

⁶¹ Bonaventure here emphasizes the distinction that he makes at the end of the respondeo, that the orders themselves are not what are more sacred, but the ministry that the order provides. This is especially so in the handling of sacred things in the ministry of the Lord’s Table. Bonaventure notes that all the orders are sacred signs of sacred things. However, the distinction between the sacred and inferior orders rests not in the nature of the orders themselves, but in the specific ministry provided, e.g., those that touch the consecrated vessels are for this reason called sacred.

⁶² Here and in the subsequent response, Bonaventure utilizes the idea he developed in d. 24, p. 2, a. 1, q. 3, where those who skip orders receive the substance of those orders in the reception of the higher orders.

⁶³ The phrase “the formation of those to be ordained into the sacred orders,” is not in the Latin text, but we inserted it in order to make sense of the word manuductio, which refers to one leading another by the hand.

⁶⁴ Ap. Gratian, Decretum, I, d. 21, c. 1 (I, 67): Generaliter autem clerici nuncupantur omnes, qui in ecclesia Christi deserviunt, quorum gradus et nomina sunt hec: Hostiarius, psalmista, lector, exorcista, acolithus, subdiaconus, diaconus, presbiter, episcopus. Cf. Ap. Gratian, Decretum, d. 25, c. 1, n. 4 (I, 90): Ad psalmistam pertinet officium canendi, dicere benedictiones, laudes, sacrificium, responsoria, et quicquid pertinet ad canendi peritiam….

⁶⁵ Isidore, Etymologiarum, VII, c. 12, n. 24 (PL 82, 292C): Lectores a legendo; Psalmistae, a psalmis canendis vocati; illi enim praedicant populis quid sequantur; isti canunt ut excitent ad compunctionem animos audientium, licet et quidam lectores ita miseranter pronuntient, ut quosdam ad luctum lamentationemque compellant. Given the significance of Isidore’s explicit recognition of the chanter as an order equal to that of lector, the English translation is provided here. Cf. The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville. Stephen A. Barney et al. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 171: “Readers (lector) are named from ‘reading’ (legere, ppl lectus) and psalmists (psalmista) from singing psalms, for the former pronounce to the people what they should follow, and the latter sing to kindle the spirit of their audience to compunction - although some readers also proclaim in so heart-rending a way that they drive some people to sorrow and lamentation.”

⁶⁶ Ap. Gratian, Decretum, d. 77, c. 1 (I, 272): …si quis episcopus esse meretur, sit primo hostirarius, deinde lector, preterea exorcista, inde sacretur acolitus, demum vero subdiaconos, deinde diaconus, et postea presbiter, exinde, si meretur, episcopus ordinetur.

⁶⁷ Ap. Gratian, Decretum, d. 23, c. 20 (I, 85): Psalmista, id est cantor, potest absque scientia episcopi, sola jussione presbiteri officium suscipere cantandi, dicente sibi presbitero: ‘Vide, ut, quod ore cantas, corde credas, et quod corde credis, operibus comprobes.’

⁶⁸ Ap. Gratian, Decretum, I, d. 77, c. 1 (I, 272): … demum vero subdiaconus, deinde diaconus, et postea presbiter, exinde, si meretur, episcopus ordinetur.

⁶⁹ Isidore, Etymologiarum, c. 12, n. 4 (PL 82, 290D-291A): Ordo episcoporum quadripertitus est, id est, in patriarchis, archiepiscopis, metropolitis atque episcopis.

⁷⁰ Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 24, c. 13, n. 2, 405: Si autem quaeritur quid sit quod hic vocatur ordo, sane dici potest signaculum quoddam esse, id est, sacrum quiddam, quo spiritualis potestas traditur ordinato et officium.

⁷¹ Pontificale Romanum Summorum Pontificum …Editio typica. Ratisbon, New York, Cincinnati: Friderici Pustet, 1888, Pars I, 83: Accipe baculum Pastoralis officii: ut sis in corrigendis vitiis pie saeviens, judicium sine ira tenens, in fovendis virtutibus auditorum animos demulcens, in tranquillitate severitatis censuram non deserens. Amen.

⁷² Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis, II, p. 3, c. 5 (PL 176, 423AB; Corpus Victorinum, 345): Sequuntur deinde septem graduum promotiones, in quibus per spiritualem potestatem altius semper ad sacra tractanda conscendit. primus gradus est ostiariorum; secundus lectorum; tertius exorcistarum; quartus acolytharum; quintus subdiaconorum; sextus diaconorum; septimus sacerdotum. Hic gradus dispares in eodem ordine habet dignitates. Nam post sacerdotes altiores sunt principes sacerdotum, id est episcopi.

⁷³ Latin: Ibi debet esse status. Priesthood serves as the status of all the orders. That is, the priesthood is the foundation or root purpose for the sacrament of order.

⁷⁴ Ap. Gratian, Decretum, I, d. 52, c. 1 (I, 205): … unde nos consulendo caritate tuae mandamus, ut ab officio sacerdotali eum prohibeas, donec proximo quatuor temporum jejunio subdiaconatus ministerium sibi rite inponas, et sic deinceps ad maiora officia eum redire concedas.

⁷⁵ Cf. Gregory IX, Decretals, V, t. 29, c. un. (II, 833). This deals with an individual who out of ignorance ‘leapt’ from subdiaconate to priesthood. After doing penance, he is ordained to the diaconate. After that he can take upon himself sacerdotal ministry.

⁷⁶ Gregory IX, Decretals, V, t. 31, c. 10 (II, 838): Quum igitur pontifcale officium sine altaris ministerio non valeat adimpleri….

⁷⁷ Cf. above, this distinction, b.

⁷⁸ Latin: Et non est proprie nomen Ordinis nec novus character imprimitur nec nova potestas datur, sed potestas data ampliatur.

⁷⁹ Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 24, c. 14, 405: Sunt et alia quaedam non ordinum, sed dignitatum vel officiorum nomina.

⁸⁰ Ps 133:2.

⁸¹ Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 24, c. 1, 393: Septem sunt spiritualium officiorum gradus sive ordines….

⁸² Cf. Dionysius, De caelesti hierarchia, c. 6 (PG 3, 506C-507B). In context, by “ministers” Dionysius means “deacons.”

⁸³ Bonaventure is working with an inherited vision of a triple angelic hierarchy composed of nine choirs as follows: Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Archangels, and Angels. Cf. Dionysius, De caelesti hierarchia, c. 3.2-3 (PG 3, 166CD). See also Bonaventure, Sentence Commentary, II, d. 5, c. 3.1-2 (II, 154-58). For a more succinct description of the choirs of angels as the angelic hierarchy, see Bonaventure, Breviloquium, p. 2, c. 8, n.1, 81-82.

⁸⁴ 1 Cor 15:24.

⁸⁵ Isidore, Epistola prima ad Leudefredum Episcopum, n. 7 and 8 (PL 83, 895BC): Ad subdiaconum pertinet calicem et patenam ad altarium Christi deferre, et Levitis tradere, eisque administrare; urceolum quoque, et aquamanilem, et manutergium tenere, et episcopo, et presbyteris, et Levitis pro lavandis ante altarium manibus aquam praebere. Ad diaconum pertinet assistere sacerdotibus, et ministrare in omnibus quae aguntur in sacramentis Christi, in baptismo scilicet, in chrismate, in patena et calice; oblationes inferre, et disponere in altario, componere mensam Domini, atque vestire, crucem ferre, praedicare Evangelium et Apostolum. Nam sicut lectoribus Vetus Testamentum, ita diaconibus Novum praedicare praeceptum est: ad ipsum quoque pertinet officium precum, recitatio nominum; ipse praemonet aures ad Dominum habere, ipse hortatur clamore, pacem ipse annuntiat.

⁸⁶ Matt 5:16.