No More Learning

Further, holiness of life is required in one who receives an order,
that he may be qualified to exercise it. Now a man sins mortally if he
present himself for orders in mortal sin. Much more therefore does he
sin mortally whenever he exercises his order.

I answer that, The law prescribes (Dt. 16:20) that "man should follow
justly after that which is just. " Wherefore whoever fulfills unworthily
the duties of his order follows unjustly after that which is just, and
acts contrary to a precept of the law, and thereby sins mortally. Now
anyone who exercises a sacred office in mortal sin, without doubt does
so unworthily. Hence it is clear that he sins mortally.

Reply to Objection 1: He is not perplexed as though he were in the
necessity of sinning; for he can renounce his sin, or resign his office
whereby he was bound to the exercise of his order.

Reply to Objection 2: The natural law allows of no dispensation; and it
is of natural law that man handle holy things holily. Therefore no one
can dispense from this.

Reply to Objection 3: So long as a minister of the Church who is in
mortal sin is recognized by the Church, his subject must receive the
sacraments from him, since this is the purpose for which he is bound to
him. Nevertheless, outside the case of necessity, it would not be safe
to induce him to an execution of his Order, as long as he is conscious
of being in mortal sin, which conscience, however, he can lay aside
since a man is repaired in an instant by Divine grace.

Reply to Objection 4: When any man performs an action as a minister of
the Church while in a state of mortal sin, he sins mortally, and as
often as he performs that action, since, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier.
i), "it is wrong for the unclean even to touch the symbols," i. e. the
sacramental signs. Hence when they touch sacred things in the exercise
of their office they sin mortally. It would be otherwise if they were
to touch some sacred thing or perform some sacred duty in a case of
necessity, when it would be allowable even to a layman, for instance if
they were to baptize in a case of urgency, or gather up the Lord's body
should it be cast to the ground.
__________________________________________________________________

OF THE DISTINCTION OF ORDERS, OF THEIR ACTS, AND THE IMPRINTING OF THE
CHARACTER (FIVE ARTICLES)

In the next place we must consider the distinction of the orders and
their acts, and the imprinting of the character. Under this head there
are five points of inquiry:

(1) Whether Order should be divided into several kinds?

(2) How many are there?

(3) Whether they ought to be divided into those that are sacred and
those that are not?

(4) Whether the acts of the Orders are rightly assigned in the text?

(5) When are the characters of the Orders imprinted?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether we ought to distinguish several Orders?

Objection 1: It would seem that we ought not to distinguish several
Orders. For the greater a power is, the less is it multiplied. Now this
sacrament ranks above the others in so far as it places its recipients
in a degree above other persons. Since then the other sacraments are
not divided into several of which the whole is predicated, neither
ought this sacrament to be divided into several Orders.

Objection 2: Further, if it be divided, the parts of the division are
either integral or subjective. But they are not integral, for then the
whole would not be predicated of them. Therefore it is a division into
subjective parts. Now subjective parts can have the remote genus
predicated of them in the plural in the same way as the proximate
genus; thus man and ass are several animals, and are several animated
bodies. Therefore also priesthood and diaconate, as they are several
Orders, even so are several sacraments, since sacrament is the genus,
so to speak, in respect of Orders.

Objection 3: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 10)
the form of authority in which one alone governs is a better government
of the common weal than aristocracy, where different persons occupy
different offices. But the government of the Church should be the best
of all. Therefore in the Church there should be no distinction of
Orders for different acts, but the whole power should reside in one
person; and consequently there ought to be only one Order.

On the contrary, The Church is Christ's mystical body, like to our
natural body, according to the Apostle (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:12, 27;
Eph. 1:22,23; Col. 1:24). Now in the natural body there are various
offices of the members. Therefore in the Church also there should be
various Orders.

Further, the ministry of the New Testament is superior to that of the
Old Testament (2 Cor. 3). Now in the Old Testament not only the
priests, but also their ministers, the Levites, were consecrated.
Therefore likewise in the New Testament not only the priests but also
their ministers should be consecrated by the sacrament of Order; and
consequently there ought to be several Orders.

I answer that, Multiplicity of Orders was introduced into the Church
for three reasons. First to show forth the wisdom of God, which is
reflected in the orderly distinction of things both natural and
spiritual. This is signified in the statement of 3 Kings 10:4,5 that
"when the queen of Saba saw . . . the order of" Solomon's "servants . .
. she had no longer any spirit in her," for she was breathless from
admiration of his wisdom. Secondly, in order to succor human weakness,
because it would be impossible for one man, without his being heavily
burdened, to fulfill all things pertaining to the Divine mysteries; and
so various orders are severally appointed to the various offices; and
this is shown by the Lord giving Moses seventy ancients to assist him.
Thirdly, that men may be given a broader way for advancing (to
perfection), seeing that the various duties are divided among many men,
so that all become the co-operators of God; than which nothing is more
God-like, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii).

Reply to Objection 1: The other sacraments are given that certain
effects may be received; but this sacrament is given chiefly that
certain acts may be performed. Hence it behooves the sacrament of Order
to be differentiated according to the diversity of acts, even as powers
are differentiated by their acts.

Reply to Objection 2: The division of Order is not that of an integral
whole into its parts, nor of a universal whole, but of a potential
whole, the nature of which is that the notion of the whole is found to
be complete in one part, but in the others by some participation
thereof. Thus it is here: for the entire fulness of the sacrament is in
one Order, namely the priesthood, while in the other sacraments there
is a participation of Order. And this is signified by the Lord saying
(Num. 11:17): "I will take of thy spirit and give to them, that they
may bear with thee the burden of the people. " Therefore all the Orders
are one sacrament.

Reply to Objection 3: In a kingdom, although the entire fulness of
power resides in the king, this does not exclude the ministers having a
power which is a participation of the kingly power. It is the same in
Order. In the aristocratic form of government, on the contrary, the
fulness of power resides in no one, but in all.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether there are seven Orders?

Objection 1: It would seem that there are not seven Orders. For the
Orders of the Church are directed to the hierarchical acts. But there
are only three hierarchical acts, namely "to cleanse, to enlighten, and
to perfect," for which reason Dionysius distinguishes three Orders
(Eccl. Hier. v). Therefore there are not seven.

Objection 2: Further, all the sacraments derive their efficacy and
authenticity from their institution by Christ, or at least by His
apostles. But no mention except of priests and deacons is made in the
teaching of Christ and His apostles. Therefore seemingly there are no
other Orders.

Objection 3: Further, by the sacrament of Order a man is appointed to
dispense the other sacraments. But there are only six other sacraments.
Therefore there should be only six Orders.

Objection 4: On the other hand, It would seem that there ought to be
more. For the higher a power is, the less is it subject to
multiplication. Now the hierarchical power is in the angels in a higher
way than in us, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. i). Since then there are
nine Orders in the angelic hierarchy, there should be as many, or more,
in the Church.

Objection 5: Further, the prophecy of the Psalms is the most noble of
all the prophecies. Now there is one Order, namely of readers, for
reading the other prophecies in the Church. Therefore there ought to be
another Order for reading the Psalms, especially since (Decretals,
Dist. xxi, cap. Cleros) the "psalmist" is reckoned as the second Order
after the doorkeeper.

I answer that, Some show the sufficiency of the orders from their
correspondence with the gratuitous graces which are indicated 1 Cor.
12. For they say that the "word of wisdom" belongs to the bishop,
because he is the ordainer of others, which pertains to wisdom; the
"word of knowledge" to the priest, for he ought to have the key of
knowledge; "faith" to the deacon, for he preaches the Gospel; the
"working of miracles" to the subdeacon, who sets himself to do deeds of
perfection by the vow of continency; "interpretation of speeches" to
the acolyte, this being signified by the light which he bears; the
"grace of healing" to the exorcist; "diverse kinds of tongues" to the
psalmist; "prophecy" to the reader; and the "discerning of spirits" to
the doorkeeper, for he excludes some and admits others. But this is of
no account, for the gratuitous graces are not given, as the Orders are,
to one same man. For it is written (1 Cor. 12:4): "There are
distributions [Douay: 'diversities'] of graces. " Moreover the
episcopate [*Cf. [4908] Q[40], A[5]] and the office of psalmist are
included, which are not Orders. Wherefore others account for the Orders
by likening them to the heavenly hierarchy, where the Orders are
distinguished in reference to cleansing, enlightening, and perfecting.
Thus they say that the doorkeeper cleanses outwardly, by separating
even in the body the good from the wicked; that the acolyte cleanses
inwardly, because by the light which he bears, he signifies that he
dispels inward darkness; and that the exorcist cleanses both ways, for
he casts out the devil who disturbs a man both ways. But enlightening,
which is effected by teaching, is done by readers as regards prophetic
doctrine; by subdeacons as to apostolic doctrine; and by deacons as to
the gospel doctrine; while ordinary perfection, such as the perfection
of Penance, Baptism, and so forth is the work of the priest; excellent
perfection, such as the consecration of priests and virgins, is the
work of the bishop; while the most excellent perfection is the work of
the Sovereign Pontiff in whom resides the fulness of authority. But
this again is of no account; both because the orders of the heavenly
hierarchy are not distinguished by the aforesaid hierarchical actions,
since each of them is applicable to every Order; and because, according
to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v), perfecting belongs to the bishops alone,
enlightening to the priests, and cleansing to all the ministers.
Wherefore others suit the orders to the seven gifts, so that the
priesthood corresponds to the gift of wisdom, which feeds us with the
bread of life and understanding, even as the priest refreshes us with
the heavenly bread; fear to the doorkeeper, for he separates us from
the wicked; and thus the intermediate Orders to the intermediate gifts.
But this again is of no account, since the sevenfold grace is given in
each one of the Orders. Consequently we must answer differently by
saying that the sacrament of Order is directed to the sacrament of the
Eucharist, which is the sacrament of sacraments, as Dionysius says
(Eccl. Hier. iii). For just as temple, altar, vessels, and vestments
need to be consecrated, so do the ministers who are ordained for the
Eucharist; and this consecration is the sacrament of Order. Hence the
distinction of Orders is derived from their relation to the Eucharist.
For the power of Order is directed either to the consecration of the
Eucharist itself, or to some ministry in connection with this sacrament
of the Eucharist. If in the former way, then it is the Order of
priests; hence when they are ordained, they receive the chalice with
wine, and the paten with the bread, because they are receiving the
power to consecrate the body and blood of Christ. The co-operation of
the ministers is directed either to the sacrament itself, or to the
recipients. If the former, this happens in three ways. For in the first
place, there is the ministry whereby the minister co-operates with the
priest in the sacrament itself, by dispensing, but not by consecrating,
for this is done by the priest alone; and this belongs to the deacon.
Hence in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24) it is said that it belongs to the
deacon to minister to the priests in whatever is done in Christ's
sacraments, wherefore he dispenses Christ's blood. Secondly, there is
the ministry directed to the disposal of the sacramental matter in the
sacred vessels of the sacrament. and this belongs to subdeacons.
Wherefore it is stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24) that they carry
the vessels of our Lord's body and blood, and place the oblation on the
altar; hence, when they are ordained, they receive the chalice, empty
however, from the bishop's hands. Thirdly, there is the ministry
directed to the proffering of the sacramental matter, and this belongs
to the acolyte. For he, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24),
prepares the cruet with wine and water; wherefore he receives an empty
cruet. The ministry directed to the preparation of the recipients can
be exercised only over the unclean, since those who are clean are
already apt for receiving the sacraments. Now the unclean are of three
kinds, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii). For some are absolute
unbelievers and unwilling to believe; and these must be altogether
debarred from beholding Divine things and from the assembly of the
faithful; this belongs to the doorkeepers. Some, however, are willing
to believe, but are not as yet instructed, namely catechumens, and to
the instruction of such persons the Order of readers is directed, who
are therefore entrusted with the reading of the first rudiments of the
doctrine of faith, namely the Old Testament. But some are believers and
instructed, yet lie under an impediment through the power of the devil,
namely those who are possessed: and to this ministry the order of
exorcists is directed. Thus the reason and number of the degrees of
Orders is made clear.

Reply to Objection 1: Dionysius is speaking of the orders not as
sacraments, but as directed to hierarchical actions. Wherefore he
distinguishes three Orders corresponding to those actions. The first of
these Orders, namely the bishop, has all three actions; the second,
namely the priest, has two; while the third has one, namely to cleanse;
this is the deacon who is called a minister: and under this last all
the lower Orders are comprised. But the Orders derive their sacramental
nature from their relation to the greatest of the sacraments, and
consequently the number of Orders depends on this.

Reply to Objection 2: In the early Church, on account of the fewness of
ministers, all the lower ministries were entrusted to the deacons, as
Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), where he says: "Some of the ministers
stand at the closed door of the Church, others are otherwise occupied
in the exercise of their own order; others place the sacred bread and
the chalice of benediction on the altar and offer them to the priests. "
Nevertheless all the power to do all these things was included in the
one power of the deacon, though implicitly. But afterwards the Divine
worship developed, and the Church committed expressly to several
persons that which had hitherto been committed implicitly in one Order.
This is what the Master means, when He says in the text (Sent. iv, D,
24) that the Church instituted other Orders.

Reply to Objection 3: The orders are directed to the sacrament of the
Eucharist chiefly, and to the other sacraments consequently, for even
the other sacraments flow from that which is contained in that
sacrament. Hence it does not follow that the orders ought to be
distinguished according to the sacraments.

Reply to Objection 4: The angels differ specifically [*Cf. [4909]FP,
Q[50], A[4]]: for this reason it is possible for them to have various
modes of receiving Divine things, and hence also they are divided into
various hierarchies. But in men there is only one hierarchy, because
they have only one mode of receiving Divine things, which results from
the human species, namely through the images of sensible objects.
Consequently the distinction of orders in the angels cannot bear any
relation to a sacrament as it is with us, but only a relation to the
hierarchical actions which among them each Order exercises on the
Orders below. In this respect our Orders correspond to theirs; since in
our hierarchy there are three Orders, distinguished according to the
three hierarchical actions, even as in each angelic hierarchy.

Reply to Objection 5: The office of psalmist is not an Order, but an
office annexed to an Order. For the psalmist is also styled precentor
because the psalms are recited with chant. Now precentor is not the
name of a special Order, both because it belongs to the whole choir to
sing, and because he has no special relation to the sacrament of the
Eucharist. Since, however, it is a particular office, it is sometimes
reckoned among the Orders, taking these in a broad sense.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the Order should be divided into those that are sacred and those
that are not?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Orders ought not to be divided into
those that are sacred and those that are not. For all the Orders are
sacraments, and all the sacraments are sacred. Therefore all the Orders
are sacred.

Objection 2: Further, by the Orders of the Church a man is not
appointed to any other than Divine offices. Now all these are sacred.
Therefore all the Orders also are sacred.

On the contrary, The sacred Orders are an impediment to the contracting
of marriage and annul the marriage that is already contracted. But the
four lower orders neither impede the contracting nor annul the
contract. Therefore these are not sacred Orders.

I answer that, An Order is said to be sacred in two ways. First, in
itself, and thus every order is sacred, since it is a sacrament.
Secondly, by reason of the matter about which it exercises an act, and
thus an Order is called sacred, if it exercises an act about some
consecrated thing. In this sense there are only three sacred Orders,
namely the priesthood and diaconate, which exercise an act about the
consecrated body and blood of Christ, and the subdiaconate, which
exercises an act about the consecrated vessels. Wherefore continency is
enjoined them, that they who handle holy things may themselves be holy
and clean.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the acts of the Orders are rightly assigned in the text?

Objection 1: It would seem that the acts of the Orders are not rightly
assigned in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24). Because a person is prepared by
absolution to receive Christ's body. Now the preparation of the
recipients of a sacrament belongs to the lower Orders. Therefore
absolution from sins is unfittingly reckoned among the acts of a
priest.

Objection 2: Further, man is made like to God immediately in Baptism,
by receiving the character which causes this likeness. But prayer and
the offering of oblations are acts directed immediately to God.
Therefore every baptized person can perform these acts, and not priests
alone.

Objection 3: Further, different Orders have different acts. But it
belongs to the subdeacon to place the oblations on the altar, and to
read the epistle; and subdeacons carry the cross before the Pope.
Therefore these acts should not be assigned to the deacon.

Objection 4: Further, the same truth is contained in the Old and in the
New Testament. But it belongs to the readers to read the Old Testament.
Therefore it should belong to them likewise, and not to deacons, to
read the New Testament.

Objection 5: Further, the apostles preached naught else but the gospel
of Christ (Rom. 1:15). But the teaching of the apostles is entrusted to
subdeacons to be read by them. Therefore the Gospel teaching should be
also.

Objection 6: Further, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier.
v) that which
belongs to a higher Order should not be applicable to a lower Order.
But it is an act of subdeacons to minister with the cruets. Therefore
it should not be assigned to acolytes.

Objection 7: Further, spiritual actions should rank above bodily
actions. But the acolyte's act is merely corporeal. Therefore the
exorcist has not the spiritual act of casting out devils, since he is
of inferior rank.

Objection 8: Further, things that have most in common should be placed
beside one another. Now the reading of the Old Testament must needs
have most in common with the reading of the New Testament, which latter
belongs to the higher ministers. Therefore the reading of the Old
Testament should be reckoned the act, not of the reader, but rather of
the acolyte; especially since the bodily light which the acolytes carry
signifies the light of spiritual doctrine.

Objection 9: Further, in every act of a special Order, there should be
some special power, which the person ordained has to the exclusion of
other persons. But in opening and shutting doors the doorkeeper has no
special power that other men have not. Therefore this should not be
reckoned their act.

I answer that, Since the consecration conferred in the sacrament of
orders is directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist, as stated above
[4910](A[2]), the principal act of each order is that whereby it is
most nearly directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist. In this
respect, too, one order ranks above another, in so far as one act is
more nearly directed to that same sacrament. But because many things
are directed to the Eucharist, as being the most exalted of the
sacraments, it follows not unfittingly that one Order has many acts
besides its principal act, and all the more, as it ranks higher, since
a power extends to the more things, the higher it is.

Reply to Objection 1: The preparation of the recipients of a sacrament
is twofold. One is remote and is effected by the ministers: another is
proximate, whereby they are rendered apt at once for receiving the
sacraments. This latter belongs to priests, since even in natural
things matter receives from one and the same agent both the ultimate
disposition to the form, and the form itself. And since a person
acquires the proximate disposition to the Eucharist by being cleansed
from sin, it follows that the priest is the proper minister of all
those sacraments which are chiefly instituted for the cleansing of
sins, namely Baptism, Penance, and Extreme Unction.

Reply to Objection 2: Acts are directed immediately to God in two ways;
in one way on the part of one person only, for instance the prayers of
individuals, vows, and so forth: such acts befit any baptized person.
In another way on the part of the whole Church, and thus the priest
alone exercises acts immediately directed to God; because to
impersonate the whole Church belongs to him alone who consecrates the
Eucharist, which is the sacrament of the universal Church.

Reply to Objection 3: The offerings made by the people are offered
through the priest. Hence a twofold ministry is necessary with regard
to offerings. One on the part of the people: and this belongs to the
subdeacon who receives the offerings from the people and places them on
the altar or offers them to the deacon. the other is on the part of the
priest, and belongs to the deacon, who hands the offerings to the
priest. This is the principal act of both Orders, and for this reason
the deacon's Order is the higher. But to read the epistle does not
belong to a deacon, except as the acts of lower Orders are ascribed to
the higher; and in like manner to carry the cross. Moreover, this
depends on the customs of Churches, because in secondary acts it is not
unfitting for customs to vary.

Reply to Objection 4: Doctrine is a remote preparation for the
reception of a sacrament; wherefore the announcement of doctrine is
entrusted to the ministers. But the doctrine of the Old Testament is
more remote than that of the New Testament, since it contains no
instruction about this sacrament except in figures. Hence announcing of
the New Testament is entrusted to the higher ministers, and that of the
Old Testament to the lower ministers. Moreover the doctrine of the New
Testament is more perfect as delivered by our Lord Himself, than as
made known by His apostles. Wherefore the Gospel is committed to
deacons and the Epistle to subdeacons.

This suffices for the Reply to the Fifth Objection.

Reply to Objection 6: Acolytes exercise an act over the cruet alone,
and not over the contents of the cruet; whereas the subdeacon exercises
an act over the contents of the cruet, because he handles the water and
wine to the end that they be put into the chalice,* and again he pours
the water over the hands of the priest; and the deacon, like the
subdeacon, exercises an act over the chalice only, not over its
contents, whereas the priest exercises an act over the contents. [*The
wording of St. Thomas is sufficiently vague to refer either to the
Roman rite, where the priest pours the wine and water into the chalice,
or to the Dominican rite, where this is done by the subdeacon. ]
Wherefore as the subdeacon at his ordination receives an empty chalice,
while the priest receives a full chalice, so the acolyte receives an
empty cruet, but the subdeacon a full one. Thus there is a certain
connection among the Orders.

Reply to Objection 7: The bodily acts of the acolyte are more
intimately connected with the act of Holy orders than the act of the
exorcist, although the latter is, in a fashion, spiritual. For the
acolytes exercise a ministry over the vessels in which the sacramental
matter is contained, as regards the wine, which needs a vessel to hold
it on account of its humidity. Hence of all the minor orders the Order
of acolytes is the highest.

Reply to Objection 8: The act of the acolyte is more closely connected
with the principal acts of the higher ministers, than the acts of the
other minor Orders, as is self-evident; and again as regards the
secondary acts whereby they prepare the people by doctrine. For the
acolyte by bearing a light represents the doctrine of the New Testament
in a visible manner, while the reader by his recital represents it
differently, wherefore the acolyte is of higher rank. It is the same
with the exorcist, for as the act of the reader is compared with the
secondary act of the deacon and subdeacon, so is the act of the
exorcist compared with the secondary act of the priest, namely to bind
and to loose, by which man is wholly freed from the slavery of the
devil. This, too, shows the degrees of Order to be most orderly. since
only the three higher Orders co-operate with the priest in his
principal act which is to consecrate the body of Christ, while both the
higher and lower Orders co-operate with him in his secondary act, which
is to loose and bind.

Reply to Objection 9: Some say that in receiving the Order the
doorkeeper is given a Divine power to debar others from entering the
Church, even as Christ had, when He cast out the sellers from the
Temple. But this belongs to a gratuitous grace rather than to a
sacramental grace. Wherefore we should reply that he receives the power
to do this by virtue of his office, although others may do so, but not
officially. It is the case in all the acts of the minor Orders, that
they can be lawfully exercised by others, even though these have no
office to that effect: just as Mass may be said in an unconsecrated
building, although the consecration of a church is directed to the
purpose that Mass be said there.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the character is imprinted on a priest when the chalice is handed to
him?

Objection 1: It would seem that the character is not imprinted on the
priest at the moment when the chalice is handed to him. For the
consecration of a priest is done by anointing as in Confirmation. Now
in Confirmation the character is imprinted at the moment of anointing;
and therefore in the priesthood also and not at the handing of the
chalice.

Objection 2: Further, our Lord gave His disciples the priestly power
when He said (Jn. 20:22,23): "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins you
shall forgive," etc. Now the Holy Ghost is given by the imposition of
hands. Therefore the character of order is given at the moment of the
imposition of hands.

Objection 3: Further, as the ministers are consecrated, even so are the
ministers' vestments. Now the blessing alone consecrates the vestments.
Therefore the consecration of the priest also is effected by the mere
blessing of the bishop.

Objection 4: Further, as a chalice is handed to the priest, even so is
the priestly vestment. Therefore if a character is imprinted at the
giving of the chalice, so likewise is there at the giving of the
chasuble, and thus a priest would have two characters: but this is
false.

Objection 5: Further, the deacon's order is more closely allied to the
priest's Order than is the subdeacon's. But if a character is imprinted
on the priest at the moment of the handing of the chalice, the
subdeacon would be more closely allied to the priest than the deacon;
because the subdeacon receives the character at the handing of the
chalice and not the deacon. Therefore the priestly character is not
imprinted at the handing of the chalice.

Objection 6: Further, the Order of acolytes approaches nearer to the
priestly act by exercising an act over the cruet than by exercising an
act over the torch. Yet the character is imprinted on the acolytes when
they receive the torch rather than when they receive the cruet, because
the name of acolyte signifies candle-bearer. Therefore the character is
not imprinted on the priest when he receives the chalice.

On the contrary, The principal act of the priest's Order is to
consecrate Christ's body. Now he receives the power to this effect at
the handing of the chalice. Therefore the character is imprinted on him
then.

I answer that, As stated above (A[4], ad 1), to cause the form and to
give the matter its proximate preparation for the form belong to the
same agent. Wherefore the bishop in conferring orders does two things;
for he prepares the candidates for the reception of orders, and
delivers to them the power of order. He prepares them, both by
instructing them in their respective offices and by doing something to
them, so that they may be adapted to receive the power. This
preparation consists of three things, namely blessing, imposition of
hands, and anointing. By the blessing they are enlisted in the Divine
service, wherefore the blessing is given to all. By the imposition of
hands the fulness of grace is given, whereby they are qualified for
exalted duties, wherefore only deacons and priests receive the
imposition of hands, because they are competent to dispense the
sacraments, although the latter as principal dispensers, the former as
ministers. But by the anointing they are consecrated for the purpose of
handling the sacrament, wherefore the anointing is done to the priests
alone who touch the body of Christ with their own hands; even as a
chalice is anointed because it holds the blood, and the paten because
it holds the body.

The conferring of power is effected by giving them something pertaining
to their proper act. And since the principal act of a priest is to
consecrate the body and blood of Christ, the priestly character is
imprinted at the very giving of the chalice under the prescribed form
of words.

Reply to Objection 1: In Confirmation there is not given the office of
exercising an act on an exterior matter, wherefore the character is not
imprinted in that sacrament at the handing of some particular thing,
but at the mere imposition of hands and anointing. But it is otherwise
in the priestly Order, and consequently the comparison fails.

Reply to Objection 2: Our Lord gave His disciples the priestly power,
as regards the principal act, before His passion at the supper when He
said: "Take ye and eat" (Mat. 26:26), wherefore He added: "Do this for
a commemoration of Me" (Lk. 22:19). After the resurrection, however, He
gave them the priestly power, as to its secondary act, which is to bind
and loose.

Reply to Objection 3: Vestments require no other consecration except to
be set aside for the Divine worship, wherefore the blessing suffices
for their consecration. But it is different with those who are
ordained, as explained above.

Reply to Objection 4: The priestly vestment signifies, not the power
given to the priest, but the aptitude required of him for exercising
the act of that power. Wherefore a character is imprinted neither on
the priest nor on anyone else at the giving of a vestment.

Reply to Objection 5: The deacon's power is midway between the
subdeacon's and the priest's. For the priest exercises a power directly
on Christ's body, the subdeacon on the vessels only, and the deacon on
Christ's body contained in a vessel. Hence it is not for him to touch
Christ's body, but to carry the body on the paten, and to dispense the
blood with the chalice. Consequently his power, as to the principal
act, could not be expressed, either by the giving of the vessel only,
or by the giving of the matter; and his power is expressed as to the
secondary act alone, by his receiving the book of the Gospels, and this
power is understood to contain the other; wherefore the character is
impressed at the handing of the book.

Reply to Objection 6: The act of the acolyte whereby he serves with the
cruet ranks before his act of carrying the torch; although he takes his
name from the secondary act, because it is better known and more proper
to him. Hence the acolyte receives the character when he is given the
cruet, by virtue of the words uttered by the bishop.
__________________________________________________________________

OF THOSE WHO CONFER THIS SACRAMENT (TWO ARTICLES)

We must now consider those who confer this sacrament. Under this head
there are two points of inquiry:

(1) Whether a bishop alone can confer this sacrament?

(2) Whether a heretic or any other person cut off from the Church can
confer this sacrament?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether a bishop alone confers the sacrament of Order?

Objection 1: It would seem that not only a bishop confers the sacrament
of Order. For the imposition of hands has something to do with the
consecration. Now not only the bishop but also the assisting priests
lay hands on the priests who are being ordained. Therefore not only a
bishop confers the sacrament of Order.

Objection 2: Further, a man receives the power of Order, when that
which pertains to the act of his Order is handed to him. Now the cruet
with water, bowl* and towel, are given to the subdeacon by the
archdeacon; as also the candlestick with candle, and the empty cruet to
the acolyte. [*"Bacili. " The rubric has "aquamanili. " Some texts of the
Summa have "mantili" ("maniple"), but the archdeacon does not give the
maniple to the subdeacon. ] Therefore not only the bishop confers the
sacrament of Order.

Objection 3: Further, that which belongs to an Order cannot be
entrusted to one who has not the Order. Now the conferring of minor
Orders is entrusted to certain persons who are not bishops, for
instance to Cardinal priests. Therefore the conferring of Orders does
not belong to the episcopal Order.

Objection 4: Further, whoever is entrusted with the principal is
entrusted with the accessory also. Now the sacrament of Order is
directed to the Eucharist, as accessory to principal. Since then a
priest consecrates the Eucharist, he can also confer Orders.

Objection 5: Further, there is a greater distinction between a priest
and a deacon than between bishop and bishop. But a bishop can
consecrate a bishop. Therefore a priest can ordain a deacon.

On the contrary, Ministers are applied by their Orders to the Divine
worship in a more noble way than the sacred vessels. But the
consecration of the vessels belongs to a bishop only. Much more
therefore does the consecration of ministers.

Further, the sacrament of Order ranks higher than the sacrament of
Confirmation. Now a bishop alone confirms. Much more therefore does a
bishop alone confer the sacrament of Order.

Further, virgins are not placed in a degree of spiritual power by their
consecration, as the ordained are. Yet a bishop alone can consecrate a
virgin. Therefore much more can he alone ordain.

I answer that, The episcopal power stands in the same relation to the
power of the lower Orders, as political science, which seeks the common
good, to the lower acts and virtues which seek some special good, as
appears from what was said above ([4911]Q[37], A[1]). Now political
science, as stated in Ethic. i, 2, lays down the law to lower sciences,
namely what science each one ought to cultivate, and how far he should
pursue it and in what way. Wherefore it belongs to a bishop to assign
others to places in all the Divine services. Hence he alone confirms,
because those who are confirmed receive the office, as it were, of
confessing the faith; again he alone blesses virgins who are images of
the Church, Christ's spouse, the care of which is entrusted chiefly to
him; and he it is who consecrates the candidates for ordination to the
ministry of Orders, and, by his consecration, appoints the vessels that
they are to use; even as secular offices in various cities are allotted
by him who holds the highest power, for instance by the king.

Reply to Objection 1: As stated above ([4912]Q[37], A[5]), at the
imposition of hands there is given, not the character of the priestly
Order, but grace which makes a man fit to exercise his Order. And since
those who are raised to the priesthood need most copious grace, the
priests together with the bishop lay hands on them, but the bishop
alone lays hands on deacons.

Reply to Objection 2: Since the archdeacon is as it were
minister-in-chief, all things pertaining to the ministry are handed by
him, for instance the candle with which the acolyte serves the deacon
by carrying it before him at the Gospel, and the cruet with which he
serves the subdeacon; and in like manner he gives the subdeacon the
things with which the latter serves the higher Orders. And yet the
principal act of the subdeacon does not consist in these things, but in
his co-operation as regards the matter of the sacrament; wherefore he
receives the character through the chalice being handed to him by the
bishop. On the other hand, the acolyte receives the character by virtue
of the words of the bishop when the aforesaid things---the cruet rather
than the candlestick---are handed to him by the archdeacon. Hence it
does not follow that the archdeacon ordains.

Reply to Objection 3: The Pope, who has the fulness of episcopal power,
can entrust one who is not a bishop with things pertaining to the
episcopal dignity, provided they bear no immediate relation to the true
body of Christ. Hence by virtue of his commission a simple priest can
confer the minor Orders and confirm; but not one who is not a priest.
Nor can a priest confer the higher Orders which bear an immediate
relation to Christ's body, over the consecration of which the Pope's
power is no greater than that of a simple priest.

Reply to Objection 4: Although the Eucharist is in itself the greatest
of the sacraments, it does not place a man in an office as does the
sacrament of Order. Hence the comparison fails.

Reply to Objection 5: In order to bestow what one has on another, it is
necessary not only to be near him but also to have fulness of power.
And since a priest has not fulness of power in the hierarchical
offices, as a bishop has, it does not follow that he can raise others
to the diaconate, although the latter Order is near to his.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether heretics and those who are cut off from the Church can confer
Orders? [*Cf. TP, Q[64], AA[5],9]

Objection 1: It would seem that heretics and those who are cut off from
the Church cannot confer Orders. For to confer Orders is a greater
thing than to loose or bind anyone. But a heretic cannot loose or bind.
Neither therefore can he ordain.

Objection 2: Further, a priest that is separated from the Church can
consecrate, because the character whence he derives this power remains
in him indelibly. But a bishop receives no character when he is raised
to the episcopate. Therefore he does not necessarily retain the
episcopal power after his separation from the Church.

Objection 3: Further, in no community can one who is expelled therefrom
dispose of the offices of the community. Now Orders are offices of the
Church. Therefore one who is outside the Church cannot confer Orders.

Objection 4: Further, the sacraments derive their efficacy from
Christ's passion. Now a heretic is not united to Christ's passion;
neither by his own faith, since he is an unbeliever, nor by the faith
of the Church, since he is severed from the Church. Therefore he cannot
confer the sacrament of Orders.

Objection 5: Further, a blessing is necessary in the conferring of
Orders. But a heretic cannot bless; in fact his blessing is turned into
a curse, as appears from the authorities quoted in the text (Sent. iv,
D, 25). Therefore he cannot ordain.

On the contrary, When a bishop who has fallen into heresy is reconciled
he is not reconsecrated. Therefore he did not lose the power which he
had of conferring Orders.

Further, the power to ordain is greater than the power of Orders. But
the power of Orders is not forfeited on account of heresy and the like.
Neither therefore is the power to ordain.

Further, as the one who baptizes exercises a merely outward ministry,
so does one who ordains, while God works inwardly. But one who is cut
off from the Church by no means loses the power to baptize. Neither
therefore does he lose the power to ordain.

I answer that, on this question four opinions are mentioned in the text
(Sent. iv, D, 25). For some said that heretics, so long as they are
tolerated by the Church, retain the power to ordain, but not after they
have been cut off from the Church; as neither do those who have been
degraded and the like. This is the first opinion. Yet this is
impossible, because, happen what may, no power that is given with a
consecration can be taken away so long as the thing itself remains, any
more than the consecration itself can be annulled, for even an altar or
chrism once consecrated remains consecrated for ever. Wherefore, since
the episcopal power is conferred by consecration, it must needs endure
for ever, however much a man may sin or be cut off from the Church. For
this reason others said that those who are cut off from the Church
after having episcopal power in the Church, retain the power to ordain
and raise others, but that those who are raised by them have not this
power. This is the fourth opinion. But this again is impossible, for if
those who were ordained in the Church retain the power they received,
it is clear that by exercising their power they consecrate validly, and
therefore they validly confer whatever power is given with that
consecration, and thus those who receive ordination or promotion from
them have the same power as they. Wherefore others said that even those
who are cut off from the Church can confer Orders and the other
sacraments, provided they observe the due form and intention, both as
to the first effect, which is the conferring of the sacrament, and as
to the ultimate effect which is the conferring of grace. This is the
second opinion. But this again is inadmissible, since by the very fact
that a person communicates in the sacraments with a heretic who is cut
off from the Church, he sins, and thus approaches the sacrament
insincerely and cannot obtain grace, except perhaps in Baptism in a
case of necessity. Hence others say that they confer the sacraments
validly, but do not confer grace with them, not that the sacraments are
lacking in efficacy, but on account of the sins of those who receive
the sacraments from such persons despite the prohibition of the Church.
This is the third and the true opinion.

Reply to Objection 1: The effect of absolution is nothing else but the
forgiveness of sins which results from grace, and consequently a
heretic cannot absolve, as neither can he confer grace in the
sacraments. Moreover in order to give absolution it is necessary to
have jurisdiction, which one who is cut off from the Church has not.

Reply to Objection 2: When a man is raised to the episcopate he
receives a power which he retains for ever. This, however, cannot be
called a character, because a man is not thereby placed in direct
relation to God, but to Christ's mystical body. Nevertheless it remains
indelibly even as the character, because it is given by consecration.

Reply to Objection 3: Those who are ordained by heretics, although they
receive an Order, do not receive the exercise thereof, so as to
minister lawfully in their Orders, for the very reason indicated in the
Objection.

Reply to Objection 4: They are united to the passion of Christ by the
faith of the Church, for although in themselves they are severed from
it, they are united to it as regards the form of the Church which they
observe.

Reply to Objection 5: This refers to the ultimate effect of the
sacraments, as the third opinion maintains.
__________________________________________________________________

OF THE IMPEDIMENTS TO THIS SACRAMENT (SIX ARTICLES)

We must next consider the impediments to this sacrament. Under this
head there are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the female sex is an impediment to receiving this
sacrament?

(2) Whether lack of the use of reason is?

(3) Whether the state of slavery is?