Objection
3: Further, the power of orders is founded in the soul.
Summa Theologica
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?
(4) Whether homicide is?
(5) Whether illegitimate birth is?
(6) Whether lack of members is?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the female sex is an impediment to receiving Orders?
Objection 1: It would seem that the female sex is no impediment to
receiving Orders. For the office of prophet is greater than the office
of priest, since a prophet stands midway between God and priests, just
as the priest does between God and people. Now the office of prophet
was sometimes granted to women, as may be gathered from 4 Kings 22:14.
Therefore the office of priest also may be competent to them.
Objection 2: Further, just as Order pertains to a kind of pre-eminence,
so does a position of authority as well as martyrdom and the religious
state. Now authority is entrusted to women in the New Testament, as in
the case of abbesses, and in the Old Testament, as in the case of
Debbora, who judged Israel (Judges 2). Moreover martyrdom and the
religious life are also befitting to them. Therefore the Orders of the
Church are also competent to them.
Objection 3: Further, the power of orders is founded in the soul. But
sex is not in the soul. Therefore difference in sex makes no difference
to the reception of Orders.
On the contrary, It is said (1 Tim. 2:12): "I suffer not a woman to
teach (in the Church),* nor to use authority over the man. " [*The words
in parenthesis are from 1 Cor. 14:34, "Let women keep silence in the
churches. "]
Further, the crown is required previous to receiving Orders, albeit not
for the validity of the sacrament. But the crown or tonsure is not
befitting to women according to 1 Cor. 11. Neither therefore is the
receiving of Orders.
I answer that, Certain things are required in the recipient of a
sacrament as being requisite for the validity of the sacrament, and if
such things be lacking, one can receive neither the sacrament nor the
reality of the sacrament. Other things, however, are required, not for
the validity of the sacrament, but for its lawfulness, as being
congruous to the sacrament; and without these one receives the
sacrament, but not the reality of the sacrament. Accordingly we must
say that the male sex is required for receiving Orders not only in the
second, but also in the first way. Wherefore even though a woman were
made the object of all that is done in conferring Orders, she would not
receive Orders, for since a sacrament is a sign, not only the thing,
but the signification of the thing, is required in all sacramental
actions; thus it was stated above ([4913]Q[32], A[2]) that in Extreme
Unction it is necessary to have a sick man, in order to signify the
need of healing. Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female
sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of
subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order.
Some, however, have asserted that the male sex is necessary for the
lawfulness and not for the validity of the sacrament, because even in
the Decretals (cap. Mulieres dist. 32; cap. Diaconissam, 27, qu. i)
mention is made of deaconesses and priestesses. But deaconess there
denotes a woman who shares in some act of a deacon, namely who reads
the homilies in the Church; and priestess [presbytera] means a widow,
for the word "presbyter" means elder.
Reply to Objection 1: Prophecy is not a sacrament but a gift of God.
Wherefore there it is not the signification, but only the thing which
is necessary. And since in matters pertaining to the soul woman does
not differ from man as to the thing (for sometimes a woman is found to
be better than many men as regards the soul), it follows that she can
receive the gift of prophecy and the like, but not the sacrament of
Orders.
And thereby appears the Reply to the Second and Third Objections.
However, as to abbesses, it is said that they have not ordinary
authority, but delegated as it were, on account of the danger of men
and women living together. But Debbora exercised authority in temporal,
not in priestly matters, even as now woman may have temporal power.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether boys and those who lack the use of reason can receive Orders?
Objection 1: It would seem that boys and those who lack the use of
reason cannot receive Orders. For, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D,
25), the sacred canons have appointed a certain fixed age in those who
receive Orders. But this would not be if boys could receive the
sacrament of Orders. Therefore, etc.
Objection 2: Further, the sacrament of Orders ranks above the sacrament
of matrimony. Now children and those who lack the use of reason cannot
contract matrimony. Neither therefore can they receive Orders.
Objection 3: Further, act and power are in the same subject, according
to the Philosopher (De Somn. et Vigil. i). Now the act of Orders
requires the use of reason. Therefore the power of Orders does also.
On the contrary, one who is raised to Orders before the age of
discretion is sometimes allowed to exercise them without being
reordained, as appears from Extra. , De Cler. per salt. prom. But this
would not be the case if he had not received Orders. Therefore a boy
can receive Orders.
Further, boys can receive other sacraments in which a character is
imprinted, namely Baptism and Confirmation. Therefore in like manner
they can receive Orders.
I answer that, Boyhood and other defects which remove the use of reason
occasion an impediment to act. Wherefore the like are unfit to receive
all those sacraments which require an act on the part of the recipient
of the sacrament, such as Penance, Matrimony, and so forth. But since
infused powers like natural powers precede acts---although acquired
powers follow acts---and the removal of that which comes after does not
entail the removal of what comes first, it follows that children and
those who lack the use of reason can receive all the sacraments in
which an act on the part of the recipient is not required for the
validity of the sacrament, but some spiritual power is conferred from
above; with this difference, however, that in the minor orders the age
of discretion is required out of respect for the dignity of the
sacrament, but not for its lawfulness, nor for its validity. Hence some
can without sin be raised to the minor orders before the years of
discretion, if there be an urgent reason for it and hope of their
proficiency. and they are validly ordained; for although at the time
they are not qualified for the offices entrusted to them, they will
become qualified by being habituated thereto. For the higher Orders,
however, the use of reason is required both out of respect for, and for
the lawfulness of the sacrament, not only on account of the vow of
continency annexed thereto, but also because the handling of the
sacraments is entrusted to them [*See Acts of the Council of Trent: De
Reform. , Sess. xxii, cap. 4,11,12]. But for the episcopate whereby a
man receives power also over the mystical body, the act of accepting
the pastoral care of souls is required; wherefore the use of reason is
necessary for the validity of episcopal consecration. Some, however,
maintain that the use of reason is necessary for the validity of the
sacrament in all the Orders. but this statement is not confirmed either
by authority or by reason.
Reply to Objection 1: As stated in the Article, not all that is
necessary for the lawfulness of a sacrament is required for its
validity.
Reply to Objection 2: The cause of matrimony is consent, which cannot
be without the use of reason. Whereas in the reception of Orders no act
is required on the part of the recipients since no act on their part is
expressed in their consecration. Hence there is no comparison.
Reply to Objection 3: Act and power are in the same subject; yet
sometimes a power, such as the free-will, precedes its act; and thus it
is in the case in point.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the state of slavery is an impediment to receiving Orders?
Objection 1: It would seem that the state of slavery is not an
impediment to receiving Orders. For corporal subjection is not
incompatible with spiritual authority. But in a slave there is corporal
subjection. Therefore he is not hindered from receiving the spiritual
authority which is given in orders.
Objection 2: Further, that which is an occasion for humility should not
be an impediment to the reception of a sacrament. Now such is slavery,
for the Apostle counsels a man, if possible, rather to remain in
slavery (1 Cor. 7:21). Therefore it should not hinder him from being
raised to Orders.
Objection 3: Further, it is more disgraceful for a cleric to become a
slave than for a slave to be made a cleric. Yet a cleric may lawfully
be sold as a slave; for a bishop of Nola, Paulinus, to wit, sold
himself as a slave as related by Gregory (Dial. iii). Much more
therefore can a slave be made a cleric.
Objection 4: On the contrary, It would seem that it is an impediment to
the validity of the sacrament. For a woman, on account of her
subjection, cannot receive the sacrament of Orders. But greater still
is the subjection in a slave; since woman was not given to man as his
handmaid (for which reason she was not made from his feet). Therefore
neither can a slave receive this sacrament.
Objection 5: Further, a man, from the fact that he receives an Order,
is bound to minister in that Order. But he cannot at the same time
serve his carnal master and exercise his spiritual ministry. Therefore
it would seem that he cannot receive Orders, since the master must be
indemnified.
I answer that, By receiving Orders a man pledges himself to the Divine
offices. And since no man can give what is not his, a slave who has not
the disposal of himself, cannot be raised to Orders. If, however, he be
raised, he receives the Order, because freedom is not required for the
validity of the sacrament, although it is requisite for its lawfulness,
since it hinders not the power, but the act only. The same reason
applies to all who are under an obligation to others, such as those who
are in debt and like persons.
Reply to Objection 1: The reception of spiritual power involves also an
obligation to certain bodily actions, and consequently it is hindered
by bodily subjection.
Reply to Objection 2: A man may take an occasion for humility from many
other things which do not prove a hindrance to the exercise of Orders.
Reply to Objection 3: The blessed Paulinus did this out of the
abundance of his charity, being led by the spirit of God; as was proved
by the result of his action, since by his becoming a slave, many of his
flock were freed from slavery. Hence we must not draw a conclusion from
this particular instance, since "where the spirit of the Lord is, there
is liberty" (2 Cor. 3:17).
Reply to Objection 4: The sacramental signs signify by reason of their
natural likeness. Now a woman is a subject by her nature, whereas a
slave is not. Hence the comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 5: If he be ordained, his master knowing and not
dissenting, by this very fact he becomes a freedman. But if his master
be in ignorance, the bishop and he who presented him are bound to pay
the master double the slave's value, if they knew him to be a slave.
Otherwise if the slave has possessions of his own, he is bound to buy
his freedom, else he would have to return to the bondage of his master,
notwithstanding the impossibility of his exercising his Order.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a man should be debarred from receiving Orders on account of
homicide?
Objection 1: It would seem that a man ought not to be debarred from
receiving Orders on account of homicide. Because our Orders originated
with the office of the Levites, as stated in the previous Distinction
(Sent. iv, D, 24). But the Levites consecrated their hands by shedding
the blood of their brethren (Ex. 32:29). Therefore neither should
anyone in the New Testament be debarred from receiving Orders on
account of the shedding of blood.
Objection 2: Further, no one should be debarred from a sacrament on
account of an act of virtue. Now blood is sometimes shed for justice'
sake, for instance by a judge; and he who has the office would sin if
he did not shed it. Therefore he is not hindered on that account from
receiving Orders.
Objection 3: Further, punishment is not due save for a fault. Now
sometimes a person commits homicide without fault, for instance by
defending himself, or again by mishap. Therefore he ought not to incur
the punishment of irregularity.
On the contrary, Against this there are many canonical statutes [*Cap.
Miror; cap. Clericum; cap. De his Cler. , dist. 1; cap. Continebatur, De
homic. volunt. ], as also the custom of the Church.
I answer that, All the Orders bear a relation to the sacrament of the
Eucharist, which is the sacrament of the peace vouchsafed to us by the
shedding of Christ's blood. And since homicide is most opposed to
peace, and those who slay are conformed to Christ's slayers rather than
to Christ slain, to whom all the ministers of the aforesaid sacrament
ought to be conformed, it follows that it is unlawful, although not
invalid, for homicides to be raised to Orders.
Reply to Objection 1: The Old Law inflicted the punishment of blood,
whereas the New Law does not. Hence the comparison fails between the
ministers of the Old Testament and those of the New, which is a sweet
yoke and a light burden (Mat. 11:30).
Reply to Objection 2: Irregularity is incurred not only on account of
sin, but chiefly on account of a person being unfit to administer the
sacrament of the Eucharist. Hence the judge and all who take part with
him in a cause of blood, are irregular, because the shedding of blood
is unbecoming to the ministers of that sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: No one does a thing without being the cause
thereof, and in man this is something voluntary. Hence he who by mishap
slays a man without knowing that it is a man, is not called a homicide,
nor does he incur irregularity (unless he was occupying himself in some
unlawful manner, or failed to take sufficient care, since in this case
the slaying becomes somewhat voluntary). But this is not because he is
not in fault, since irregularity is incurred even without fault.
Wherefore even he who in a particular case slays a man in self-defense
without committing a sin, is none the less irregular [*St. Thomas is
speaking according to the canon law of his time. This is no longer the
case now. ].
__________________________________________________________________
Whether those of illegitimate birth should be debarred from receiving
Orders?
Objection 1: It would seem that those who are of illegitimate birth
should not be debarred from receiving Orders. For the son should not
bear the iniquity of the father (Ezech. 18:20); and yet he would if
this were an impediment to his receiving Orders. Therefore, etc.
Objection 2: Further, one's own fault is a greater impediment than the
fault of another. Now unlawful intercourse does not always debar a man
from receiving Orders. Therefore neither should he be debarred by the
unlawful intercourse of his father.
On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 23:2): "A mamzer, that is to say,
one born of a prostitute, shall not enter into the Church of the Lord
until the tenth generation. " Much less therefore should he be ordained.
I answer that, Those who are ordained are placed in a position of
dignity over others. Hence by a kind of propriety it is requisite that
they should be without reproach, not for the validity but for the
lawfulness of the sacrament, namely that they should be of good repute,
bedecked with a virtuous life, and not publicly penitent. And since a
man's good name is bedimmed by a sinful origin, therefore those also
who are born of an unlawful union are debarred from receiving orders,
unless they receive a dispensation; and this is the more difficult to
obtain, according as their origin is more discreditable.
Reply to Objection 1: Irregularity is not a punishment due for sin.
Hence it is clear that those who are of illegitimate birth do not bear
the iniquity of their father through being irregular.
Reply to Objection 2: What a man does by his own act can be removed by
repentance and by a contrary act; not so the things which are from
nature. Hence the comparison fails between sinful act and sinful
origin.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether lack of members should be an impediment?
Objection 1: It would seem that a man ought not to be debarred from
receiving Orders on account of a lack of members. For one who is
afflicted should not receive additional affliction. Therefore a man
ought not to be deprived of the degree of Orders on account of his
suffering a bodily defect.
Objection 2: Further, integrity of discretion is more necessary for the
act of orders than integrity of body. But some can be ordained before
the years of discretion. Therefore they can also be ordained though
deficient in body.
On the contrary, The like were debarred from the ministry of the Old
Law (Lev. 21:18, seqq. ). Much more therefore should they be debarred in
the New Law.
We shall speak of bigamy in the treatise on Matrimony ([4914]Q[66]).
I answer that, As appears from what we have said above
([4915]AA[3],4,5), a man is disqualified from receiving Orders, either
on account of an impediment to the act, or on account of an impediment
affecting his personal comeliness. Hence he who suffers from a lack of
members is debarred from receiving Orders, if the defect be such as to
cause a notable blemish, whereby a man's comeliness is bedimmed (for
instance if his nose be cut off) or the exercise of his Order
imperilled; otherwise he is not debarred. This integrity, however, is
necessary for the lawfulness and not for the validity of the sacrament.
This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE THINGS ANNEXED TO THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER (SEVEN ARTICLES)
We must now consider the things that are annexed to the sacrament of
Order. Under this head there are seven points of inquiry:
(1) Whether those who are ordained ought to be shaven and tonsured in
the form of a crown?
(2) Whether the tonsure is an Order?
(3) Whether by receiving the tonsure one renounces temporal goods?
(4) Whether above the priestly Order there should be an episcopal
power?
(5) Whether the episcopate is an Order?
(6) Whether in the Church there can be any power above the episcopate?
(7) Whether the vestments of the ministers are fittingly instituted by
the Church?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether those who are ordained ought to wear the tonsure?
Objection 1: It would seem that those who are ordained ought not to
wear the tonsure in the shape of a crown. For the Lord threatened
captivity and dispersion to those who were shaven in this way: "Of the
captivity of the bare head of the enemies" (Dt. 32:42), and: "I will
scatter into every wind them that have their hair cut round" (Jer.
49:32). Now the ministers of Christ should not be captives, but free.
Therefore shaving and tonsure in the shape of a crown does not become
them.
Objection 2: Further, the truth should correspond to the figure. Now
the crown was prefigured in the Old Law by the tonsure of the
Nazarenes, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24). Therefore since the
Nazarenes were not ordained to the Divine ministry, it would seem that
the ministers of the Church should not receive the tonsure or shave the
head in the form of a crown. The same would seem to follow from the
fact that lay brothers, who are not ministers of the Church, receive a
tonsure in the religious Orders.
Objection 3: Further, the hair signifies superabundance, because it
grows from that which is superabundant. But the ministers of the Church
should cast off all superabundance. Therefore they should shave the
head completely and not in the shape of a crown.
On the contrary, According to Gregory, "to serve God is to reign"
(Super Ps. 101:23). Now a crown is the sign of royalty. Therefore a
crown is becoming to those who are devoted to the Divine ministry.
Further, according to 1 Cor. 11:15, hair is given us "for a covering.
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?
(4) Whether homicide is?
(5) Whether illegitimate birth is?
(6) Whether lack of members is?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the female sex is an impediment to receiving Orders?
Objection 1: It would seem that the female sex is no impediment to
receiving Orders. For the office of prophet is greater than the office
of priest, since a prophet stands midway between God and priests, just
as the priest does between God and people. Now the office of prophet
was sometimes granted to women, as may be gathered from 4 Kings 22:14.
Therefore the office of priest also may be competent to them.
Objection 2: Further, just as Order pertains to a kind of pre-eminence,
so does a position of authority as well as martyrdom and the religious
state. Now authority is entrusted to women in the New Testament, as in
the case of abbesses, and in the Old Testament, as in the case of
Debbora, who judged Israel (Judges 2). Moreover martyrdom and the
religious life are also befitting to them. Therefore the Orders of the
Church are also competent to them.
Objection 3: Further, the power of orders is founded in the soul. But
sex is not in the soul. Therefore difference in sex makes no difference
to the reception of Orders.
On the contrary, It is said (1 Tim. 2:12): "I suffer not a woman to
teach (in the Church),* nor to use authority over the man. " [*The words
in parenthesis are from 1 Cor. 14:34, "Let women keep silence in the
churches. "]
Further, the crown is required previous to receiving Orders, albeit not
for the validity of the sacrament. But the crown or tonsure is not
befitting to women according to 1 Cor. 11. Neither therefore is the
receiving of Orders.
I answer that, Certain things are required in the recipient of a
sacrament as being requisite for the validity of the sacrament, and if
such things be lacking, one can receive neither the sacrament nor the
reality of the sacrament. Other things, however, are required, not for
the validity of the sacrament, but for its lawfulness, as being
congruous to the sacrament; and without these one receives the
sacrament, but not the reality of the sacrament. Accordingly we must
say that the male sex is required for receiving Orders not only in the
second, but also in the first way. Wherefore even though a woman were
made the object of all that is done in conferring Orders, she would not
receive Orders, for since a sacrament is a sign, not only the thing,
but the signification of the thing, is required in all sacramental
actions; thus it was stated above ([4913]Q[32], A[2]) that in Extreme
Unction it is necessary to have a sick man, in order to signify the
need of healing. Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female
sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of
subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order.
Some, however, have asserted that the male sex is necessary for the
lawfulness and not for the validity of the sacrament, because even in
the Decretals (cap. Mulieres dist. 32; cap. Diaconissam, 27, qu. i)
mention is made of deaconesses and priestesses. But deaconess there
denotes a woman who shares in some act of a deacon, namely who reads
the homilies in the Church; and priestess [presbytera] means a widow,
for the word "presbyter" means elder.
Reply to Objection 1: Prophecy is not a sacrament but a gift of God.
Wherefore there it is not the signification, but only the thing which
is necessary. And since in matters pertaining to the soul woman does
not differ from man as to the thing (for sometimes a woman is found to
be better than many men as regards the soul), it follows that she can
receive the gift of prophecy and the like, but not the sacrament of
Orders.
And thereby appears the Reply to the Second and Third Objections.
However, as to abbesses, it is said that they have not ordinary
authority, but delegated as it were, on account of the danger of men
and women living together. But Debbora exercised authority in temporal,
not in priestly matters, even as now woman may have temporal power.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether boys and those who lack the use of reason can receive Orders?
Objection 1: It would seem that boys and those who lack the use of
reason cannot receive Orders. For, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D,
25), the sacred canons have appointed a certain fixed age in those who
receive Orders. But this would not be if boys could receive the
sacrament of Orders. Therefore, etc.
Objection 2: Further, the sacrament of Orders ranks above the sacrament
of matrimony. Now children and those who lack the use of reason cannot
contract matrimony. Neither therefore can they receive Orders.
Objection 3: Further, act and power are in the same subject, according
to the Philosopher (De Somn. et Vigil. i). Now the act of Orders
requires the use of reason. Therefore the power of Orders does also.
On the contrary, one who is raised to Orders before the age of
discretion is sometimes allowed to exercise them without being
reordained, as appears from Extra. , De Cler. per salt. prom. But this
would not be the case if he had not received Orders. Therefore a boy
can receive Orders.
Further, boys can receive other sacraments in which a character is
imprinted, namely Baptism and Confirmation. Therefore in like manner
they can receive Orders.
I answer that, Boyhood and other defects which remove the use of reason
occasion an impediment to act. Wherefore the like are unfit to receive
all those sacraments which require an act on the part of the recipient
of the sacrament, such as Penance, Matrimony, and so forth. But since
infused powers like natural powers precede acts---although acquired
powers follow acts---and the removal of that which comes after does not
entail the removal of what comes first, it follows that children and
those who lack the use of reason can receive all the sacraments in
which an act on the part of the recipient is not required for the
validity of the sacrament, but some spiritual power is conferred from
above; with this difference, however, that in the minor orders the age
of discretion is required out of respect for the dignity of the
sacrament, but not for its lawfulness, nor for its validity. Hence some
can without sin be raised to the minor orders before the years of
discretion, if there be an urgent reason for it and hope of their
proficiency. and they are validly ordained; for although at the time
they are not qualified for the offices entrusted to them, they will
become qualified by being habituated thereto. For the higher Orders,
however, the use of reason is required both out of respect for, and for
the lawfulness of the sacrament, not only on account of the vow of
continency annexed thereto, but also because the handling of the
sacraments is entrusted to them [*See Acts of the Council of Trent: De
Reform. , Sess. xxii, cap. 4,11,12]. But for the episcopate whereby a
man receives power also over the mystical body, the act of accepting
the pastoral care of souls is required; wherefore the use of reason is
necessary for the validity of episcopal consecration. Some, however,
maintain that the use of reason is necessary for the validity of the
sacrament in all the Orders. but this statement is not confirmed either
by authority or by reason.
Reply to Objection 1: As stated in the Article, not all that is
necessary for the lawfulness of a sacrament is required for its
validity.
Reply to Objection 2: The cause of matrimony is consent, which cannot
be without the use of reason. Whereas in the reception of Orders no act
is required on the part of the recipients since no act on their part is
expressed in their consecration. Hence there is no comparison.
Reply to Objection 3: Act and power are in the same subject; yet
sometimes a power, such as the free-will, precedes its act; and thus it
is in the case in point.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the state of slavery is an impediment to receiving Orders?
Objection 1: It would seem that the state of slavery is not an
impediment to receiving Orders. For corporal subjection is not
incompatible with spiritual authority. But in a slave there is corporal
subjection. Therefore he is not hindered from receiving the spiritual
authority which is given in orders.
Objection 2: Further, that which is an occasion for humility should not
be an impediment to the reception of a sacrament. Now such is slavery,
for the Apostle counsels a man, if possible, rather to remain in
slavery (1 Cor. 7:21). Therefore it should not hinder him from being
raised to Orders.
Objection 3: Further, it is more disgraceful for a cleric to become a
slave than for a slave to be made a cleric. Yet a cleric may lawfully
be sold as a slave; for a bishop of Nola, Paulinus, to wit, sold
himself as a slave as related by Gregory (Dial. iii). Much more
therefore can a slave be made a cleric.
Objection 4: On the contrary, It would seem that it is an impediment to
the validity of the sacrament. For a woman, on account of her
subjection, cannot receive the sacrament of Orders. But greater still
is the subjection in a slave; since woman was not given to man as his
handmaid (for which reason she was not made from his feet). Therefore
neither can a slave receive this sacrament.
Objection 5: Further, a man, from the fact that he receives an Order,
is bound to minister in that Order. But he cannot at the same time
serve his carnal master and exercise his spiritual ministry. Therefore
it would seem that he cannot receive Orders, since the master must be
indemnified.
I answer that, By receiving Orders a man pledges himself to the Divine
offices. And since no man can give what is not his, a slave who has not
the disposal of himself, cannot be raised to Orders. If, however, he be
raised, he receives the Order, because freedom is not required for the
validity of the sacrament, although it is requisite for its lawfulness,
since it hinders not the power, but the act only. The same reason
applies to all who are under an obligation to others, such as those who
are in debt and like persons.
Reply to Objection 1: The reception of spiritual power involves also an
obligation to certain bodily actions, and consequently it is hindered
by bodily subjection.
Reply to Objection 2: A man may take an occasion for humility from many
other things which do not prove a hindrance to the exercise of Orders.
Reply to Objection 3: The blessed Paulinus did this out of the
abundance of his charity, being led by the spirit of God; as was proved
by the result of his action, since by his becoming a slave, many of his
flock were freed from slavery. Hence we must not draw a conclusion from
this particular instance, since "where the spirit of the Lord is, there
is liberty" (2 Cor. 3:17).
Reply to Objection 4: The sacramental signs signify by reason of their
natural likeness. Now a woman is a subject by her nature, whereas a
slave is not. Hence the comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 5: If he be ordained, his master knowing and not
dissenting, by this very fact he becomes a freedman. But if his master
be in ignorance, the bishop and he who presented him are bound to pay
the master double the slave's value, if they knew him to be a slave.
Otherwise if the slave has possessions of his own, he is bound to buy
his freedom, else he would have to return to the bondage of his master,
notwithstanding the impossibility of his exercising his Order.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a man should be debarred from receiving Orders on account of
homicide?
Objection 1: It would seem that a man ought not to be debarred from
receiving Orders on account of homicide. Because our Orders originated
with the office of the Levites, as stated in the previous Distinction
(Sent. iv, D, 24). But the Levites consecrated their hands by shedding
the blood of their brethren (Ex. 32:29). Therefore neither should
anyone in the New Testament be debarred from receiving Orders on
account of the shedding of blood.
Objection 2: Further, no one should be debarred from a sacrament on
account of an act of virtue. Now blood is sometimes shed for justice'
sake, for instance by a judge; and he who has the office would sin if
he did not shed it. Therefore he is not hindered on that account from
receiving Orders.
Objection 3: Further, punishment is not due save for a fault. Now
sometimes a person commits homicide without fault, for instance by
defending himself, or again by mishap. Therefore he ought not to incur
the punishment of irregularity.
On the contrary, Against this there are many canonical statutes [*Cap.
Miror; cap. Clericum; cap. De his Cler. , dist. 1; cap. Continebatur, De
homic. volunt. ], as also the custom of the Church.
I answer that, All the Orders bear a relation to the sacrament of the
Eucharist, which is the sacrament of the peace vouchsafed to us by the
shedding of Christ's blood. And since homicide is most opposed to
peace, and those who slay are conformed to Christ's slayers rather than
to Christ slain, to whom all the ministers of the aforesaid sacrament
ought to be conformed, it follows that it is unlawful, although not
invalid, for homicides to be raised to Orders.
Reply to Objection 1: The Old Law inflicted the punishment of blood,
whereas the New Law does not. Hence the comparison fails between the
ministers of the Old Testament and those of the New, which is a sweet
yoke and a light burden (Mat. 11:30).
Reply to Objection 2: Irregularity is incurred not only on account of
sin, but chiefly on account of a person being unfit to administer the
sacrament of the Eucharist. Hence the judge and all who take part with
him in a cause of blood, are irregular, because the shedding of blood
is unbecoming to the ministers of that sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: No one does a thing without being the cause
thereof, and in man this is something voluntary. Hence he who by mishap
slays a man without knowing that it is a man, is not called a homicide,
nor does he incur irregularity (unless he was occupying himself in some
unlawful manner, or failed to take sufficient care, since in this case
the slaying becomes somewhat voluntary). But this is not because he is
not in fault, since irregularity is incurred even without fault.
Wherefore even he who in a particular case slays a man in self-defense
without committing a sin, is none the less irregular [*St. Thomas is
speaking according to the canon law of his time. This is no longer the
case now. ].
__________________________________________________________________
Whether those of illegitimate birth should be debarred from receiving
Orders?
Objection 1: It would seem that those who are of illegitimate birth
should not be debarred from receiving Orders. For the son should not
bear the iniquity of the father (Ezech. 18:20); and yet he would if
this were an impediment to his receiving Orders. Therefore, etc.
Objection 2: Further, one's own fault is a greater impediment than the
fault of another. Now unlawful intercourse does not always debar a man
from receiving Orders. Therefore neither should he be debarred by the
unlawful intercourse of his father.
On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 23:2): "A mamzer, that is to say,
one born of a prostitute, shall not enter into the Church of the Lord
until the tenth generation. " Much less therefore should he be ordained.
I answer that, Those who are ordained are placed in a position of
dignity over others. Hence by a kind of propriety it is requisite that
they should be without reproach, not for the validity but for the
lawfulness of the sacrament, namely that they should be of good repute,
bedecked with a virtuous life, and not publicly penitent. And since a
man's good name is bedimmed by a sinful origin, therefore those also
who are born of an unlawful union are debarred from receiving orders,
unless they receive a dispensation; and this is the more difficult to
obtain, according as their origin is more discreditable.
Reply to Objection 1: Irregularity is not a punishment due for sin.
Hence it is clear that those who are of illegitimate birth do not bear
the iniquity of their father through being irregular.
Reply to Objection 2: What a man does by his own act can be removed by
repentance and by a contrary act; not so the things which are from
nature. Hence the comparison fails between sinful act and sinful
origin.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether lack of members should be an impediment?
Objection 1: It would seem that a man ought not to be debarred from
receiving Orders on account of a lack of members. For one who is
afflicted should not receive additional affliction. Therefore a man
ought not to be deprived of the degree of Orders on account of his
suffering a bodily defect.
Objection 2: Further, integrity of discretion is more necessary for the
act of orders than integrity of body. But some can be ordained before
the years of discretion. Therefore they can also be ordained though
deficient in body.
On the contrary, The like were debarred from the ministry of the Old
Law (Lev. 21:18, seqq. ). Much more therefore should they be debarred in
the New Law.
We shall speak of bigamy in the treatise on Matrimony ([4914]Q[66]).
I answer that, As appears from what we have said above
([4915]AA[3],4,5), a man is disqualified from receiving Orders, either
on account of an impediment to the act, or on account of an impediment
affecting his personal comeliness. Hence he who suffers from a lack of
members is debarred from receiving Orders, if the defect be such as to
cause a notable blemish, whereby a man's comeliness is bedimmed (for
instance if his nose be cut off) or the exercise of his Order
imperilled; otherwise he is not debarred. This integrity, however, is
necessary for the lawfulness and not for the validity of the sacrament.
This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE THINGS ANNEXED TO THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER (SEVEN ARTICLES)
We must now consider the things that are annexed to the sacrament of
Order. Under this head there are seven points of inquiry:
(1) Whether those who are ordained ought to be shaven and tonsured in
the form of a crown?
(2) Whether the tonsure is an Order?
(3) Whether by receiving the tonsure one renounces temporal goods?
(4) Whether above the priestly Order there should be an episcopal
power?
(5) Whether the episcopate is an Order?
(6) Whether in the Church there can be any power above the episcopate?
(7) Whether the vestments of the ministers are fittingly instituted by
the Church?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether those who are ordained ought to wear the tonsure?
Objection 1: It would seem that those who are ordained ought not to
wear the tonsure in the shape of a crown. For the Lord threatened
captivity and dispersion to those who were shaven in this way: "Of the
captivity of the bare head of the enemies" (Dt. 32:42), and: "I will
scatter into every wind them that have their hair cut round" (Jer.
49:32). Now the ministers of Christ should not be captives, but free.
Therefore shaving and tonsure in the shape of a crown does not become
them.
Objection 2: Further, the truth should correspond to the figure. Now
the crown was prefigured in the Old Law by the tonsure of the
Nazarenes, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24). Therefore since the
Nazarenes were not ordained to the Divine ministry, it would seem that
the ministers of the Church should not receive the tonsure or shave the
head in the form of a crown. The same would seem to follow from the
fact that lay brothers, who are not ministers of the Church, receive a
tonsure in the religious Orders.
Objection 3: Further, the hair signifies superabundance, because it
grows from that which is superabundant. But the ministers of the Church
should cast off all superabundance. Therefore they should shave the
head completely and not in the shape of a crown.
On the contrary, According to Gregory, "to serve God is to reign"
(Super Ps. 101:23). Now a crown is the sign of royalty. Therefore a
crown is becoming to those who are devoted to the Divine ministry.
Further, according to 1 Cor. 11:15, hair is given us "for a covering.
