Objection 2: Further, "being always ready to satisfy
everyone
that
asketh you a reason of that faith and hope in you [*Vulg.
asketh you a reason of that faith and hope in you [*Vulg.
Summa Theologica
But in the
other sacraments no such office or power to act is conferred, and so no
mention of reward is made in them. Accordingly the recipient is
somewhat passive in relation to the other sacraments, because he
receives them for the perfecting of his own state only, whereas in
relation to this sacrament he holds himself somewhat actively, since he
receives it for the sake of exercising hierarchical duties in the
Church. Wherefore although the other sacraments, from the very fact
that they give grace, direct the recipient to salvation, properly
speaking they do not direct him to a reward, in the same way as this
sacrament does.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament has any matter?
Objection 1: It would seem that this sacrament has no matter. Because
in every sacrament that has a matter the power that works in the
sacrament is in the matter. But in the material objects which are used
here, such as keys, candlesticks, and so forth, there is not apparently
any power of sanctification. Therefore it has no matter.
Objection 2: Further, in this sacrament the fulness of sevenfold grace
is conferred, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24), just as in
Confirmation. But the matter of Confirmation requires to be consecrated
beforehand. Since then the things which appear to be material in this
sacrament are not consecrated beforehand, it would seem that they are
not the matter of the sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, in any sacrament that has matter there needs to
be contact of matter with the recipient of the sacrament. Now, as some
say, it is not essential to this sacrament that there be contact
between the aforesaid material objects and the recipient of the
sacrament, but only that they be presented to him. Therefore the
aforesaid material objects are not the matter of this sacrament.
On the contrary, Every sacrament consists of things and words. Now in
any sacrament the thing is the matter. Therefore the things employed in
this sacrament are its matter.
Further, more is requisite to dispense the sacraments than to receive
them. Yet Baptism, wherein the power is given to receive the
sacraments, needs a matter. Therefore order also does, wherein the
power is given to dispense them.
I answer that, The matter employed outwardly in the sacraments
signifies that the power which works in the sacraments comes entirely
from without. Wherefore, since the effect proper to this sacrament,
namely the character, is not received through any operation of the one
who approaches the sacrament, as was the case in Penance, but comes
wholly from without, it is fitting that it should have a matter, yet
otherwise than the other sacraments that have matter; because that
which is bestowed in the other sacraments comes from God alone, and not
from the minister who dispenses the sacrament; whereas that which is
conferred in this sacrament, namely the spiritual power, comes also
from him who gives the sacrament, as imperfect from perfect power.
Hence the efficacy of the other sacraments resides chiefly in the
matter which both signifies and contains the divine power through the
sanctification applied by the minister; whereas the efficacy of this
sacrament resides chiefly with him who dispenses the sacrament. And the
matter is employed to show the powers conferred in particular by one
who has it completely, rather than to cause power; and this is clear
from the fact that the matter is in keeping with the use of power. This
suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.
Reply to Objection 2: It is necessary for the matter to be consecrated
in the other sacraments, on account of the power it contains; but it is
not so in the case in point.
Reply to Objection 3: If we admit this assertion, the reason for it is
clear from what we have said; for since the power of order is received
from the minister and not from the matter, the presenting of the matter
is more essential to the sacrament than contact therewith. However, the
words themselves of the form would seem to indicate that contact with
the matter is essential to the sacrament, for it is said: "Receive"
this or that.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE EFFECT OF THIS SACRAMENT (FIVE ARTICLES)
We must next consider me effect of this sacrament. Under this head
there are five points of inquiry:
(1) Whether sanctifying grace is conferred in the sacrament of Order?
(2) Whether a character is imprinted in connection with all the Orders?
(3) Whether the character of Order presupposes of necessity the
character of Baptism?
(4) Whether it presupposes of necessity the character of Confirmation?
(5) Whether the character of one Order presupposes of necessity the
character of another Order?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether sanctifying grace is conferred in the sacrament of Order?
Objection 1: It would seem that sanctifying grace is not conferred in
the sacrament of Order. For it is commonly agreed that the sacrament of
Order is directed to counteract the defect of ignorance. Now not
sanctifying grace but gratuitous grace is given to counteract
ignorance, for sanctifying grace has more to do with the will.
Therefore sanctifying grace is not given in the sacrament of Order.
Objection 2: Further, Order implies distinction. Now the members of the
Church are distinguished, not by sanctifying but by gratuitous grace,
of which it is said (1 Cor. 12:4): "There are diversities of graces. "
Therefore sanctifying grace is not given in order.
Objection 3: Further, no cause presupposes its effect. But grace is
presupposed in one who receives orders, so that he may be worthy to
receive them. Therefore this same grace is not given in the conferring
of Orders.
On the contrary, The sacraments of the New Law cause what they signify.
Now Order by its sevenfold number signifies the seven gifts of the Holy
Ghost, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24). Therefore the gifts of
the Holy Ghost, which are not apart from sanctifying grace, are given
in Orders.
Further, Order is a sacrament of the New Law. Now the definition of a
sacrament of that kind includes the words, "that it may be a cause of
grace. " Therefore it causes grace in the recipient.
I answer that The works of God are perfect (Dt. 32:4); and consequently
whoever receives power from above receives also those things that
render him competent to exercise that power. This is also the case in
natural things, since animals are provided with members, by which their
soul's powers are enabled to proceed to their respective actions unless
there be some defect on the part of matter. Now just as sanctifying
grace is necessary in order that man receive the sacraments worthily,
so is it that he may dispense them worthily. Wherefore as in Baptism,
whereby a man is adapted to receive the other sacraments, sanctifying
grace is given, so is it in the sacrament of Order whereby man is
ordained to the dispensation of the other sacraments.
Reply to Objection 1: Order is given as a remedy, not to one person but
to the whole Church. Hence, although it is said to be given in order to
counteract ignorance, it does not mean that by receiving Orders a man
has his ignorance driven out of him, but that the recipient of Orders
is set in authority to expel ignorance from among the people.
Reply to Objection 2: Although the gifts of sanctifying grace are
common to all the members of the Church, nevertheless a man cannot be
the worthy recipient of those gifts, in respect of which the members of
the Church are distinguished from one another, unless he have charity,
and this cannot be apart from sanctifying grace.
Reply to Objection 3: The worthy exercise of Orders requires not any
kind of goodness but excellent goodness, in order that as they who
receive orders are set above the people in the degree of Order, so may
they be above them by the merit of holiness. Hence they are required to
have the grace that suffices to make them worthy members of Christ's
people, but when they receive Orders they are given a yet greater gift
of grace, whereby they are rendered apt for greater things.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in the sacrament of Order a character is imprinted in connection
with all the Orders?
Objection 1: It would seem that in the sacrament of Order a character
is not imprinted in connection with all the Orders. For the character
of Order is a spiritual power. Now some Orders are directed only to
certain bodily acts, for instance those of the doorkeeper or of the
acolyte. Therefore a character is not imprinted in these Orders.
Objection 2: Further, every character is indelible. Therefore a
character places a man in a state whence he cannot withdraw. Now those
who have certain Orders can lawfully return to the laity. Therefore a
character is not imprinted in all the Orders.
Objection 3: Further, by means of a character a man is appointed to
give or to receive some sacred thing. Now a man is sufficiently adapted
to the reception of the sacraments by the character of Baptism, and a
man is not appointed to dispense the sacraments except in the Order of
priesthood. Therefore a character is not imprinted in the other Orders.
On the contrary, Every sacrament in which a character is not imprinted
can be repeated. But no Order can be repeated. Therefore a character is
imprinted in each Order.
Further, a character is a distinctive sign. Now there is something
distinct in every Order. Therefore every Order imprints a character.
I answer that, There have been three opinions on this point. For some
have said that a character is imprinted only in the Order of
priesthood; but this is not true, since none but a deacon can exercise
the act of the diaconate, and so it is clear that in the dispensation
of the sacraments, he has a spiritual power which others have not. For
this reason others have said that a character is impressed in the
sacred, but not in the minor, Orders. But this again comes to nothing,
since each Order sets a man above the people in some degree of
authority directed to the dispensation of the sacraments. Wherefore
since a character is a sign whereby one thing is distinguished from
another, it follows that a character is imprinted in each Order. And
this is confirmed by the fact that they remain for ever and are never
repeated. This is the third and more common opinion.
Reply to Objection 1: Each Order either has an act connected with the
sacrament itself, or adapts a man to the dispensation of the
sacraments; thus doorkeepers exercise the act of admitting men to
witness the Divine sacraments, and so forth; and consequently a
spiritual power is required in each.
Reply to Objection 2: For all that a man may return to the laity, the
character always remains in him. This is evident from the fact that if
he return to the clerical state, he does not receive again the order
which he had already.
The Reply to the Third Objection is the same as to the First.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the character of Order presupposes the baptismal character?
Objection 1: It would seem that the character of Order does not
presuppose the character of Baptism. For the character of Order makes a
man a dispenser of the sacraments; while the character of Baptism makes
him a recipient of them. Now active power does not necessarily
presuppose passive power, for it can be without it, as in God.
Therefore the character of Order does not necessarily presuppose the
character of Baptism.
Objection 2: Further, it may happen that a man is not baptized, and yet
think with probability that he has been baptized. If therefore such a
person present himself for Orders, he will not receive the character of
Order, supposing the character of Order to presuppose the character of
Baptism; and consequently whatever he does by way of consecration or
absolution will be invalid, and the Church will be deceived therein,
which is inadmissible.
On the contrary, Baptism is the door of the sacraments. Therefore since
Order is a sacrament, it presupposes Baptism.
I answer that, No one can receive what he has not the power to receive.
Now the character of Baptism gives a man the power to receive the other
sacraments. Wherefore he that has not the baptismal character, can
receive no other sacrament; and consequently the character of Order
presupposes the character of Baptism.
Reply to Objection 1: In one who has active power of himself, the
active does not presuppose the passive power; but in one who has active
power from another, passive power, whereby he is enabled to receive the
active power, is prerequisite to active power.
Reply to Objection 2: Such a man if he be ordained to the priesthood is
not a priest, and he can neither consecrate, nor absolve in the
tribunal of Penance. Wherefore according to the canons he must be
baptized, and reordained (Extra De Presbyt. non Bapt. , cap. Si quis;
cap. Veniens). And even though he be raised to the episcopate, those
whom he ordains receive not the Order. Yet it may piously be believed
that as regards the ultimate effects of the sacraments, the High Priest
will supply the defect, and that He would not allow this to be so
hidden as to endanger the Church.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the character of Order necessarily presupposes the character of
Confirmation?
Objection 1: It would seem that the character of Order necessarily
presupposes the character of Confirmation. For in things subordinate to
one another, as the middle presupposes the first, so does the last
presuppose the middle. Now the character of Confirmation presupposes
that of Baptism as being the first. Therefore the character of Order
presupposes that of Confirmation as being in the middle.
Objection 2: Further, those who are appointed to confirm should
themselves be most firm. Now those who receive the sacrament of Order
are appointed to confirm others. Therefore they especially should have
received the sacrament of Confirmation.
On the contrary, The apostles received the power of order before the
Ascension (Jn. 20:22), where it is said: "Receive the Holy Ghost. " But
they were confirmed after the Ascension by the coming of the Holy
Ghost. Therefore order does not presuppose Confirmation.
I answer that, For the reception of Orders something is prerequisite
for the validity of the sacrament, and something as congruous to the
sacrament. For the validity of the sacrament it is required that one
who presents himself for Orders should be capable of receiving them,
and this is competent to him through Baptism; wherefore the baptismal
character is prerequisite for the validity of the sacrament, so that
the sacrament of Order cannot be conferred without it. On the other
hand, as congruous to the sacrament a man is required to have every
perfection whereby he becomes adapted to the exercise of Orders, and
one of these is that he be confirmed. Wherefore the character of Order
presupposes the character of Confirmation as congruous but not as
necessary.
Reply to Objection 1: In this case the middle does not stand in the
same relation to the last as the first to the middle, because the
character of Baptism enables a man to receive the sacrament of
Confirmation, whereas the character of Confirmation does not enable a
man to receive the sacrament of Order. Hence the comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 2: This argument considers aptness by way of
congruity.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the character of one Order necessarily presupposes the character of
another Order?
Objection 1: It would seem that the character of one Order necessarily
presupposes the character of another Order. For there is more in common
between one Order and another, than between Order and another
sacrament. But the character of Order presupposes the character of
another sacrament, namely Baptism. Much more therefore does the
character of one Order presuppose the character of another.
Objection 2: Further, the Orders are degrees of a kind. Now no one can
reach a further degree, unless he first mount the previous degree.
Therefore no one can receive the character of a subsequent Order unless
he has first received the preceding Order.
On the contrary, If anything necessary for a sacrament be omitted in
that sacrament, the sacrament must be repeated. But if one receive a
subsequent Order, without receiving a preceding Order, he is not
reordained, but he receives what was lacking, according to the
canonical statutes (cap. Tuae literae, De clerico per salt. prom. ).
Therefore the preceding Order is not necessary for the following.
I answer that, It is not necessary for the higher Orders that one
should have received the minor Orders, because their respective powers
are distinct, and one, considered in its essentials, does not require
another in the same subject. Hence even in the early Church some were
ordained priests without having previously received the lower Orders
and yet they could do all that the lower Orders could, because the
lower power is comprised in the higher, even as sense in understanding,
and dukedom in kingdom. Afterwards, however, it was decided by the
legislation of the Church that no one should present himself to the
higher orders who had not previously humbled himself in the lower
offices. And hence it is that according to the Canons (cap. Tuae
literae, De clerico per salt. prom. ) those who are ordained without
receiving a preceding Order are not reordained, but receive what was
lacking to them of the preceding Order.
Reply to Objection 1: Orders have more in common with one another as
regards specific likeness, than order has with Baptism. But as regards
proportion of power to action, Baptism has more in common with Order,
than one Order with another, because Baptism confers on man the passive
power to receive Orders, whereas a lower Order does not give him the
passive power to receive higher Orders.
Reply to Objection 2: Orders are not degrees combining in one action or
in one movement, so that it be necessary to reach the last through the
first; but they are like degrees consisting in things of different
kinds, such as the degrees between man and angel, and it is not
necessary that one who is an angel be first of all a man. Such also are
the degrees between the head and all members of the body; nor is it
necessary that that which is the head should be previously a foot; and
thus it is in the case in point.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE QUALITIES REQUIRED OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE THIS SACRAMENT (FIVE ARTICLES)
We must next consider the qualities required of those who receive the
sacrament of Order. Under this head there are five points of inquiry:
(1) Whether goodness of life is required of those who receive this
sacrament?
(2) Whether the knowledge of the whole of Sacred Writ is required?
(3) Whether the degree of Orders is obtained by mere merit of life?
(4) Whether he who raises the unworthy to Orders sins?
(5) Whether one who is in sin can without committing a sin exercise the
Order he has received?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether goodness of life is required of those who receive Orders?
Objection 1: It would seem that goodness of life is not required of
those who receive Orders. For by Orders a man is ordained to the
dispensation of the sacraments. But the sacraments can be administered
by good and wicked. Therefore goodness of life is not requisite.
Objection 2: Further, the service of God in the sacraments is no
greater than service offered to Him in the body. Now our Lord did not
cast aside the sinful and notorious woman from rendering Him a bodily
service (Lk. 7). Therefore neither should the like be debarred from His
service in the sacraments.
Objection 3: Further, by every grace a remedy is given against sin. Now
those who are in sin should not be refused a remedy that may avail
them. Since then grace is given in the sacrament of order, it would
seem that this sacrament ought also to be conferred on sinners.
On the contrary, "Whosoever of the seed of Aaron throughout their
families hath a blemish, he shall not offer bread to his God neither
shall he approach to minister to him [*Vulg. : 'Say to Aaron: Whosoever
of thy seed,'etc. ]" (Lev. 21:17,18). Now "blemish signifies all kinds
of vice" according to a gloss. Therefore he who is shackled by any vice
should not be admitted to the ministry of Orders.
Further, Jerome commenting on the words of Titus 2:15, "Let no man
despise thee," says that "not only should bishops, priests, and deacons
take very great care to be examples of speech and conduct to those over
whom they are placed, but also the lower grades, and without exception
all who serve the household of God, since it is most disastrous to the
Church if the laity be better than the clergy. " Therefore holiness of
life is requisite in all the Orders.
I answer that, As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), "even as the more
subtle and clear essences, being filled by the outpouring of the solar
radiance, like the sun enlighten other bodies with their brilliant
light, so in all things pertaining to God a man must not dare to become
a leader of others, unless in all his habits he be most deiform and
godlike. " Wherefore, since in every order a man is appointed to lead
others in Divine things, he who being conscious of mortal sin presents
himself for Orders is guilty of presumption and sins mortally.
Consequently holiness of life is requisite for Orders, as a matter of
precept, but not as essential to the sacrament; and if a wicked man be
ordained, he receives the Order none the less, and yet with sin withal.
Reply to Objection 1: Just as the sinner dispenses sacraments validly,
so does he receive validly the sacrament of Orders, and as he dispenses
unworthily, even so he receives unworthily.
Reply to Objection 2: The service in point consisted only in the
exercise of bodily homage, which even sinners can offer lawfully. It is
different with the spiritual service to which the ordained are
appointed, because thereby they are made to stand between God and the
people. Wherefore they should shine with a good conscience before God,
and with a good name before men.
Reply to Objection 3: Certain medicines require a robust constitution,
else it is mortally dangerous to take them; others can be given to the
weakly. So too in spiritual things certain sacraments are ordained as
remedies for sin, and the like are to be given to sinners, as Baptism
and Penance, while others, which confer the perfection of grace,
require a man made strong by grace.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether knowledge of all Holy Writ is required?
Objection 1: It would seem that knowledge of all Holy Writ is required.
For one from whose lips we seek the law, should have knowledge of the
law. Now the laity seek the law at the mouth of the priest (Malachi
2:7). Therefore he should have knowledge of the whole law.
Objection 2: Further, "being always ready to satisfy everyone that
asketh you a reason of that faith and hope in you [*Vulg. : 'Of that
hope which is in you; St. Thomas apparently took his reading from
Bede]. " Now to give a reason for things pertaining to faith and hope
belongs to those who have perfect knowledge of Holy Writ. Therefore the
like knowledge should be possessed by those who are placed in Orders,
and to whom the aforesaid words are addressed.
Objection 3: Further, no one is competent to read what he understands
not, since to read without intelligence is "negligence,"* as Cato
declares (Rudiment. ). [*"Legere et non intelligere est negligere. " The
play on the words is more evident in Latin. ] Now it belongs to the
reader (which is the lower Order) to read the Old Testament, as stated
in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24). Therefore he should understand the whole
of the Old Testament; and much more those in the higher Orders.
On the contrary, Many are raised to the priesthood even who know
nothing at all of these things, even in many religious Orders.
Therefore apparently this knowledge is not required.
Further, we read in the Lives of the Fathers that some who were monks
were raised to the priesthood, being of a most holy life. Therefore the
aforesaid knowledge is not required in those to be ordained.
I answer that, For any human act to be rightly ordered there must needs
be the direction of reason. Wherefore in order that a man exercise the
office of an Order, it is necessary for him to have as much knowledge
as suffices for his direction in the act of that Order. And
consequently one who is to be raised to Orders is required to have that
knowledge, and to be instructed in Sacred Scripture, not the whole, but
more or less, according as his office is of a greater or lesser
extent---to wit, that those who are placed over others, and receive the
care of souls, know things pertaining to the doctrine of faith and
morals, and that others know whatever concerns the exercise of their
Order.
Reply to Objection 1: A priest exercises a twofold action: the one,
which is principal, over the true body of Christ; the other, which is
secondary, over the mystical body of Christ. The second act depends on
the first, but not conversely. Wherefore some are raised to the
priesthood, to whom the first act alone is deputed, for instance those
religious who are not empowered with the care of souls. The law is not
sought at the mouth of these, they are required only for the
celebration of the sacraments; and consequently it is enough for them
to have such knowledge as enables them to observe rightly those things
that regard the celebration of the sacrament. Others are raised to
exercise the other act which is over the mystical body of Christ, and
it is at the mouth of these that the people seek the law; wherefore
they ought to possess knowledge of the law, not indeed to know all the
difficult points of the law (for in these they should have recourse to
their superiors), but to know what the people have to believe and
fulfill in the law. To the higher priests, namely the bishops, it
belongs to know even those points of the law which may offer some
difficulty, and to know them the more perfectly according as they are
in a higher position.
Reply to Objection 2: The reason that we have to give for our faith and
hope does not denote one that suffices to prove matters of faith and
hope, since they are both of things invisible; it means that we should
be able to give general proofs of the probability of both, and for this
there is not much need of great knowledge.
Reply to Objection 3: The reader has not to explain Holy Writ to the
people (for this belongs to the higher orders), but merely to voice the
words. Therefore he is not required to have so much knowledge as to
understand Holy Writ, but only to know how to pronounce it correctly.
And since such knowledge is obtained easily and from many persons, it
may be supposed with probability that the ordained will acquire that
knowledge even if he have it not already, especially if it appear that
he is on the road to acquire it.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a man obtains the degrees of Order by the merit of one's life?
Objection 1: It would seem that a man obtains the degrees of order by
the mere merit of his life. For, according to Chrysostom [*Hom. xliii
in the Opus Imperfectum, wrongly ascribed to St. John Chrysostom], "not
every priest is a saint, but every saint is a priest. " Now a man
becomes a saint by the merit of his life. Consequently he thereby also
becomes a priest, and "a fortiori" has he the other Orders.
Objection 2: Further, in natural things, men obtain a higher degree
from the very fact that they are near God, and have a greater share of
His favors, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iv). Now it is by merit of
holiness and knowledge that a man approaches nearer to God and receives
more of His favors. Therefore by this alone he is raised to the degree
of Orders.
On the contrary, Holiness once possessed can be lost. But when once a
man is ordained he never loses his order. Therefore order does not
consist in the mere merit of holiness.
I answer that, A cause should be proportionate to its effect. And
consequently as in Christ, from Whom grace comes down on all men, there
must needs be fulness of grace; so in the ministers of the Church, to
whom it belongs, not to give grace, but to give the sacraments of
grace, the degree of order does not result from their having grace, but
from their participating in a sacrament of grace.
Reply to Objection 1: Chrysostom is speaking of the priest in reference
to the reason for which he is so called, the word "sacerdos" signifying
dispenser of holy things [sacra dans]: for in this sense every
righteous man, in so far as he assists others by the sacraments, may be
called a priest. But he is not speaking according to the actual meaning
of the words; for this word "sacerdos" [priest] is employed to signify
one who gives sacred things by dispensing the sacraments.
Reply to Objection 2: Natural things acquire a degree of superiority
over others, from the fact that they are able to act on them by virtue
of their form; wherefore from the very fact that they have a higher
form, they obtain a higher degree. But the ministers of the Church are
placed over others, not to confer anything on them by virtue of their
own holiness (for this belongs to God alone), but as ministers, and as
instruments, so to say, of the outpouring from the Head to the members.
Hence the comparison fails as regards the dignity of Order, although it
applies as to congruity.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether he who raises the unworthy to Orders commits a sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that he who raises the unworthy to orders
commits no sin. For a bishop needs assistants appointed to the lesser
offices. But he would be unable to find them in sufficient number, if
he were to require of them such qualifications as the saints enumerate.
Therefore if he raise some who are not qualified, he would seem to be
excusable.
Objection 2: Further, the Church needs not only ministers for the
dispensation of things spiritual, but also for the supervision of
temporalities. But sometimes men without knowledge or holiness of life
may be useful for the conduct of temporal affairs, either because of
their worldly power, or on account of their natural industry. Therefore
seemingly the like can be promoted without sin.
Objection 3: Further, everyone is bound to avoid sin, as far as he can.
If therefore a bishop sins in promoting the unworthy, he is bound to
take the utmost pains to know whether those who present themselves for
Orders be worthy, by making a careful inquiry about their morals and
knowledge, and yet seemingly this is not done anywhere.
On the contrary, It is worse to raise the wicked to the sacred
ministry, than not to correct those who are raised already. But Heli
sinned mortally by not correcting his sons for their wickedness;
wherefore "he fell backwards . . . and died" (1 Kings 4:18). Therefore
he who promotes the unworthy does not escape sin.
Further, spiritual things must be set before temporal things in the
Church. Now a man would commit a mortal sin were he knowingly to
endanger the temporalities of the Church. Much more therefore is it a
mortal sin to endanger spiritual things. But whoever promotes the
unworthy endangers spiritual things, since according to Gregory (Hom.
xii in Evang. ) "if a man's life is contemptible, his preaching is
liable to be despised"; and for the same reason all the spiritual
things that he dispenses. Therefore he who promotes the unworthy sins
mortally.
I answer that, Our Lord describes the faithful servant whom He has set
"over His household to give them their measure of wheat. " Hence he is
guilty of unfaithfulness who gives any man Divine things above his
measure: and whoso promotes the unworthy does this. Wherefore he
commits a mortal crime, as being unfaithful to his sovereign Lord,
especially since this is detrimental to the Church and to the Divine
honor which is promoted by good ministers. For a man would be
unfaithful to his earthly lord were he to place unworthy subjects in
his offices.
Reply to Objection 1: God never so abandons His Church that apt
ministers are not to be found sufficient for the needs of the people,
if the worthy be promoted and the unworthy set aside. And though it
were impossible to find as many ministers as there are now, it were
better to have few good ministers than many bad ones, as the blessed
Clement declares in his second epistle to James the brother of the
Lord.
Reply to Objection 2: Temporal things are not to be sought but for the
sake of spiritual things. Wherefore all temporal advantage should count
for nothing, and all gain be despised for the advancement of spiritual
good.
Reply to Objection 3: It is at least required that the ordainer know
that nothing contrary to holiness is in the candidate for ordination.
But besides this he is required to take the greatest care, in
proportion to the Order or office to be enjoined, so as to be certain
of the qualifications of those to be promoted, at least from the
testification of others. This is the meaning of the Apostle when he
says (1 Tim. 5:22): "Impose not hands lightly on any man. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a man who is in sin can without sin exercise the Order he has
received? [*Cf. TP, Q[64], A[6]]
Objection 1: It would seem that one who is in sin can without sin
exercise the order he has received. For since, by virtue of his office,
he is bound to exercise his order, he sins if he fails to do so. If
therefore he sins by exercising it, he cannot avoid sin: which is
inadmissible.
Objection 2: Further, a dispensation is a relaxation of the law.
Therefore although by rights it would be unlawful for him to exercise
the order he has received, it would be lawful for him to do so by
dispensation.
Objection 3: Further, whoever co-operates with another in a mortal sin,
sins mortally. If therefore a sinner sins mortally by exercising his
order, he who receives or demands any Divine thing from him also sins
mortally: and this seems absurd.
Objection 4: Further, if he sins by exercising his order, it follows
that every act of his order that he performs is a mortal sin; and
consequently since many acts concur in the one exercise of his order,
it would seem that he commits many mortal sins: which seems very hard.
On the contrary, Dionysius says (Ep. ad Demophil. ): "It seems
presumptuous for such a man, one to wit who is not enlightened, to lay
hands on priestly things; he is not afraid nor ashamed, all unworthy
that he is to take part in Divine things, with the thought that God
does not see what he sees in himself; he thinks, by false pretense, to
cheat Him Whom he falsely calls his Father; he dares to utter in the
person of Christ, words polluted by his infamy, I will not call them
prayers, over the Divine symbols. " Therefore a priest is a blasphemer
and a cheat if he exercises his order unworthily, and thus he sins
mortally: and in like manner any other person in orders.
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.
other sacraments no such office or power to act is conferred, and so no
mention of reward is made in them. Accordingly the recipient is
somewhat passive in relation to the other sacraments, because he
receives them for the perfecting of his own state only, whereas in
relation to this sacrament he holds himself somewhat actively, since he
receives it for the sake of exercising hierarchical duties in the
Church. Wherefore although the other sacraments, from the very fact
that they give grace, direct the recipient to salvation, properly
speaking they do not direct him to a reward, in the same way as this
sacrament does.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament has any matter?
Objection 1: It would seem that this sacrament has no matter. Because
in every sacrament that has a matter the power that works in the
sacrament is in the matter. But in the material objects which are used
here, such as keys, candlesticks, and so forth, there is not apparently
any power of sanctification. Therefore it has no matter.
Objection 2: Further, in this sacrament the fulness of sevenfold grace
is conferred, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24), just as in
Confirmation. But the matter of Confirmation requires to be consecrated
beforehand. Since then the things which appear to be material in this
sacrament are not consecrated beforehand, it would seem that they are
not the matter of the sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, in any sacrament that has matter there needs to
be contact of matter with the recipient of the sacrament. Now, as some
say, it is not essential to this sacrament that there be contact
between the aforesaid material objects and the recipient of the
sacrament, but only that they be presented to him. Therefore the
aforesaid material objects are not the matter of this sacrament.
On the contrary, Every sacrament consists of things and words. Now in
any sacrament the thing is the matter. Therefore the things employed in
this sacrament are its matter.
Further, more is requisite to dispense the sacraments than to receive
them. Yet Baptism, wherein the power is given to receive the
sacraments, needs a matter. Therefore order also does, wherein the
power is given to dispense them.
I answer that, The matter employed outwardly in the sacraments
signifies that the power which works in the sacraments comes entirely
from without. Wherefore, since the effect proper to this sacrament,
namely the character, is not received through any operation of the one
who approaches the sacrament, as was the case in Penance, but comes
wholly from without, it is fitting that it should have a matter, yet
otherwise than the other sacraments that have matter; because that
which is bestowed in the other sacraments comes from God alone, and not
from the minister who dispenses the sacrament; whereas that which is
conferred in this sacrament, namely the spiritual power, comes also
from him who gives the sacrament, as imperfect from perfect power.
Hence the efficacy of the other sacraments resides chiefly in the
matter which both signifies and contains the divine power through the
sanctification applied by the minister; whereas the efficacy of this
sacrament resides chiefly with him who dispenses the sacrament. And the
matter is employed to show the powers conferred in particular by one
who has it completely, rather than to cause power; and this is clear
from the fact that the matter is in keeping with the use of power. This
suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.
Reply to Objection 2: It is necessary for the matter to be consecrated
in the other sacraments, on account of the power it contains; but it is
not so in the case in point.
Reply to Objection 3: If we admit this assertion, the reason for it is
clear from what we have said; for since the power of order is received
from the minister and not from the matter, the presenting of the matter
is more essential to the sacrament than contact therewith. However, the
words themselves of the form would seem to indicate that contact with
the matter is essential to the sacrament, for it is said: "Receive"
this or that.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE EFFECT OF THIS SACRAMENT (FIVE ARTICLES)
We must next consider me effect of this sacrament. Under this head
there are five points of inquiry:
(1) Whether sanctifying grace is conferred in the sacrament of Order?
(2) Whether a character is imprinted in connection with all the Orders?
(3) Whether the character of Order presupposes of necessity the
character of Baptism?
(4) Whether it presupposes of necessity the character of Confirmation?
(5) Whether the character of one Order presupposes of necessity the
character of another Order?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether sanctifying grace is conferred in the sacrament of Order?
Objection 1: It would seem that sanctifying grace is not conferred in
the sacrament of Order. For it is commonly agreed that the sacrament of
Order is directed to counteract the defect of ignorance. Now not
sanctifying grace but gratuitous grace is given to counteract
ignorance, for sanctifying grace has more to do with the will.
Therefore sanctifying grace is not given in the sacrament of Order.
Objection 2: Further, Order implies distinction. Now the members of the
Church are distinguished, not by sanctifying but by gratuitous grace,
of which it is said (1 Cor. 12:4): "There are diversities of graces. "
Therefore sanctifying grace is not given in order.
Objection 3: Further, no cause presupposes its effect. But grace is
presupposed in one who receives orders, so that he may be worthy to
receive them. Therefore this same grace is not given in the conferring
of Orders.
On the contrary, The sacraments of the New Law cause what they signify.
Now Order by its sevenfold number signifies the seven gifts of the Holy
Ghost, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24). Therefore the gifts of
the Holy Ghost, which are not apart from sanctifying grace, are given
in Orders.
Further, Order is a sacrament of the New Law. Now the definition of a
sacrament of that kind includes the words, "that it may be a cause of
grace. " Therefore it causes grace in the recipient.
I answer that The works of God are perfect (Dt. 32:4); and consequently
whoever receives power from above receives also those things that
render him competent to exercise that power. This is also the case in
natural things, since animals are provided with members, by which their
soul's powers are enabled to proceed to their respective actions unless
there be some defect on the part of matter. Now just as sanctifying
grace is necessary in order that man receive the sacraments worthily,
so is it that he may dispense them worthily. Wherefore as in Baptism,
whereby a man is adapted to receive the other sacraments, sanctifying
grace is given, so is it in the sacrament of Order whereby man is
ordained to the dispensation of the other sacraments.
Reply to Objection 1: Order is given as a remedy, not to one person but
to the whole Church. Hence, although it is said to be given in order to
counteract ignorance, it does not mean that by receiving Orders a man
has his ignorance driven out of him, but that the recipient of Orders
is set in authority to expel ignorance from among the people.
Reply to Objection 2: Although the gifts of sanctifying grace are
common to all the members of the Church, nevertheless a man cannot be
the worthy recipient of those gifts, in respect of which the members of
the Church are distinguished from one another, unless he have charity,
and this cannot be apart from sanctifying grace.
Reply to Objection 3: The worthy exercise of Orders requires not any
kind of goodness but excellent goodness, in order that as they who
receive orders are set above the people in the degree of Order, so may
they be above them by the merit of holiness. Hence they are required to
have the grace that suffices to make them worthy members of Christ's
people, but when they receive Orders they are given a yet greater gift
of grace, whereby they are rendered apt for greater things.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in the sacrament of Order a character is imprinted in connection
with all the Orders?
Objection 1: It would seem that in the sacrament of Order a character
is not imprinted in connection with all the Orders. For the character
of Order is a spiritual power. Now some Orders are directed only to
certain bodily acts, for instance those of the doorkeeper or of the
acolyte. Therefore a character is not imprinted in these Orders.
Objection 2: Further, every character is indelible. Therefore a
character places a man in a state whence he cannot withdraw. Now those
who have certain Orders can lawfully return to the laity. Therefore a
character is not imprinted in all the Orders.
Objection 3: Further, by means of a character a man is appointed to
give or to receive some sacred thing. Now a man is sufficiently adapted
to the reception of the sacraments by the character of Baptism, and a
man is not appointed to dispense the sacraments except in the Order of
priesthood. Therefore a character is not imprinted in the other Orders.
On the contrary, Every sacrament in which a character is not imprinted
can be repeated. But no Order can be repeated. Therefore a character is
imprinted in each Order.
Further, a character is a distinctive sign. Now there is something
distinct in every Order. Therefore every Order imprints a character.
I answer that, There have been three opinions on this point. For some
have said that a character is imprinted only in the Order of
priesthood; but this is not true, since none but a deacon can exercise
the act of the diaconate, and so it is clear that in the dispensation
of the sacraments, he has a spiritual power which others have not. For
this reason others have said that a character is impressed in the
sacred, but not in the minor, Orders. But this again comes to nothing,
since each Order sets a man above the people in some degree of
authority directed to the dispensation of the sacraments. Wherefore
since a character is a sign whereby one thing is distinguished from
another, it follows that a character is imprinted in each Order. And
this is confirmed by the fact that they remain for ever and are never
repeated. This is the third and more common opinion.
Reply to Objection 1: Each Order either has an act connected with the
sacrament itself, or adapts a man to the dispensation of the
sacraments; thus doorkeepers exercise the act of admitting men to
witness the Divine sacraments, and so forth; and consequently a
spiritual power is required in each.
Reply to Objection 2: For all that a man may return to the laity, the
character always remains in him. This is evident from the fact that if
he return to the clerical state, he does not receive again the order
which he had already.
The Reply to the Third Objection is the same as to the First.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the character of Order presupposes the baptismal character?
Objection 1: It would seem that the character of Order does not
presuppose the character of Baptism. For the character of Order makes a
man a dispenser of the sacraments; while the character of Baptism makes
him a recipient of them. Now active power does not necessarily
presuppose passive power, for it can be without it, as in God.
Therefore the character of Order does not necessarily presuppose the
character of Baptism.
Objection 2: Further, it may happen that a man is not baptized, and yet
think with probability that he has been baptized. If therefore such a
person present himself for Orders, he will not receive the character of
Order, supposing the character of Order to presuppose the character of
Baptism; and consequently whatever he does by way of consecration or
absolution will be invalid, and the Church will be deceived therein,
which is inadmissible.
On the contrary, Baptism is the door of the sacraments. Therefore since
Order is a sacrament, it presupposes Baptism.
I answer that, No one can receive what he has not the power to receive.
Now the character of Baptism gives a man the power to receive the other
sacraments. Wherefore he that has not the baptismal character, can
receive no other sacrament; and consequently the character of Order
presupposes the character of Baptism.
Reply to Objection 1: In one who has active power of himself, the
active does not presuppose the passive power; but in one who has active
power from another, passive power, whereby he is enabled to receive the
active power, is prerequisite to active power.
Reply to Objection 2: Such a man if he be ordained to the priesthood is
not a priest, and he can neither consecrate, nor absolve in the
tribunal of Penance. Wherefore according to the canons he must be
baptized, and reordained (Extra De Presbyt. non Bapt. , cap. Si quis;
cap. Veniens). And even though he be raised to the episcopate, those
whom he ordains receive not the Order. Yet it may piously be believed
that as regards the ultimate effects of the sacraments, the High Priest
will supply the defect, and that He would not allow this to be so
hidden as to endanger the Church.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the character of Order necessarily presupposes the character of
Confirmation?
Objection 1: It would seem that the character of Order necessarily
presupposes the character of Confirmation. For in things subordinate to
one another, as the middle presupposes the first, so does the last
presuppose the middle. Now the character of Confirmation presupposes
that of Baptism as being the first. Therefore the character of Order
presupposes that of Confirmation as being in the middle.
Objection 2: Further, those who are appointed to confirm should
themselves be most firm. Now those who receive the sacrament of Order
are appointed to confirm others. Therefore they especially should have
received the sacrament of Confirmation.
On the contrary, The apostles received the power of order before the
Ascension (Jn. 20:22), where it is said: "Receive the Holy Ghost. " But
they were confirmed after the Ascension by the coming of the Holy
Ghost. Therefore order does not presuppose Confirmation.
I answer that, For the reception of Orders something is prerequisite
for the validity of the sacrament, and something as congruous to the
sacrament. For the validity of the sacrament it is required that one
who presents himself for Orders should be capable of receiving them,
and this is competent to him through Baptism; wherefore the baptismal
character is prerequisite for the validity of the sacrament, so that
the sacrament of Order cannot be conferred without it. On the other
hand, as congruous to the sacrament a man is required to have every
perfection whereby he becomes adapted to the exercise of Orders, and
one of these is that he be confirmed. Wherefore the character of Order
presupposes the character of Confirmation as congruous but not as
necessary.
Reply to Objection 1: In this case the middle does not stand in the
same relation to the last as the first to the middle, because the
character of Baptism enables a man to receive the sacrament of
Confirmation, whereas the character of Confirmation does not enable a
man to receive the sacrament of Order. Hence the comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 2: This argument considers aptness by way of
congruity.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the character of one Order necessarily presupposes the character of
another Order?
Objection 1: It would seem that the character of one Order necessarily
presupposes the character of another Order. For there is more in common
between one Order and another, than between Order and another
sacrament. But the character of Order presupposes the character of
another sacrament, namely Baptism. Much more therefore does the
character of one Order presuppose the character of another.
Objection 2: Further, the Orders are degrees of a kind. Now no one can
reach a further degree, unless he first mount the previous degree.
Therefore no one can receive the character of a subsequent Order unless
he has first received the preceding Order.
On the contrary, If anything necessary for a sacrament be omitted in
that sacrament, the sacrament must be repeated. But if one receive a
subsequent Order, without receiving a preceding Order, he is not
reordained, but he receives what was lacking, according to the
canonical statutes (cap. Tuae literae, De clerico per salt. prom. ).
Therefore the preceding Order is not necessary for the following.
I answer that, It is not necessary for the higher Orders that one
should have received the minor Orders, because their respective powers
are distinct, and one, considered in its essentials, does not require
another in the same subject. Hence even in the early Church some were
ordained priests without having previously received the lower Orders
and yet they could do all that the lower Orders could, because the
lower power is comprised in the higher, even as sense in understanding,
and dukedom in kingdom. Afterwards, however, it was decided by the
legislation of the Church that no one should present himself to the
higher orders who had not previously humbled himself in the lower
offices. And hence it is that according to the Canons (cap. Tuae
literae, De clerico per salt. prom. ) those who are ordained without
receiving a preceding Order are not reordained, but receive what was
lacking to them of the preceding Order.
Reply to Objection 1: Orders have more in common with one another as
regards specific likeness, than order has with Baptism. But as regards
proportion of power to action, Baptism has more in common with Order,
than one Order with another, because Baptism confers on man the passive
power to receive Orders, whereas a lower Order does not give him the
passive power to receive higher Orders.
Reply to Objection 2: Orders are not degrees combining in one action or
in one movement, so that it be necessary to reach the last through the
first; but they are like degrees consisting in things of different
kinds, such as the degrees between man and angel, and it is not
necessary that one who is an angel be first of all a man. Such also are
the degrees between the head and all members of the body; nor is it
necessary that that which is the head should be previously a foot; and
thus it is in the case in point.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE QUALITIES REQUIRED OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE THIS SACRAMENT (FIVE ARTICLES)
We must next consider the qualities required of those who receive the
sacrament of Order. Under this head there are five points of inquiry:
(1) Whether goodness of life is required of those who receive this
sacrament?
(2) Whether the knowledge of the whole of Sacred Writ is required?
(3) Whether the degree of Orders is obtained by mere merit of life?
(4) Whether he who raises the unworthy to Orders sins?
(5) Whether one who is in sin can without committing a sin exercise the
Order he has received?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether goodness of life is required of those who receive Orders?
Objection 1: It would seem that goodness of life is not required of
those who receive Orders. For by Orders a man is ordained to the
dispensation of the sacraments. But the sacraments can be administered
by good and wicked. Therefore goodness of life is not requisite.
Objection 2: Further, the service of God in the sacraments is no
greater than service offered to Him in the body. Now our Lord did not
cast aside the sinful and notorious woman from rendering Him a bodily
service (Lk. 7). Therefore neither should the like be debarred from His
service in the sacraments.
Objection 3: Further, by every grace a remedy is given against sin. Now
those who are in sin should not be refused a remedy that may avail
them. Since then grace is given in the sacrament of order, it would
seem that this sacrament ought also to be conferred on sinners.
On the contrary, "Whosoever of the seed of Aaron throughout their
families hath a blemish, he shall not offer bread to his God neither
shall he approach to minister to him [*Vulg. : 'Say to Aaron: Whosoever
of thy seed,'etc. ]" (Lev. 21:17,18). Now "blemish signifies all kinds
of vice" according to a gloss. Therefore he who is shackled by any vice
should not be admitted to the ministry of Orders.
Further, Jerome commenting on the words of Titus 2:15, "Let no man
despise thee," says that "not only should bishops, priests, and deacons
take very great care to be examples of speech and conduct to those over
whom they are placed, but also the lower grades, and without exception
all who serve the household of God, since it is most disastrous to the
Church if the laity be better than the clergy. " Therefore holiness of
life is requisite in all the Orders.
I answer that, As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), "even as the more
subtle and clear essences, being filled by the outpouring of the solar
radiance, like the sun enlighten other bodies with their brilliant
light, so in all things pertaining to God a man must not dare to become
a leader of others, unless in all his habits he be most deiform and
godlike. " Wherefore, since in every order a man is appointed to lead
others in Divine things, he who being conscious of mortal sin presents
himself for Orders is guilty of presumption and sins mortally.
Consequently holiness of life is requisite for Orders, as a matter of
precept, but not as essential to the sacrament; and if a wicked man be
ordained, he receives the Order none the less, and yet with sin withal.
Reply to Objection 1: Just as the sinner dispenses sacraments validly,
so does he receive validly the sacrament of Orders, and as he dispenses
unworthily, even so he receives unworthily.
Reply to Objection 2: The service in point consisted only in the
exercise of bodily homage, which even sinners can offer lawfully. It is
different with the spiritual service to which the ordained are
appointed, because thereby they are made to stand between God and the
people. Wherefore they should shine with a good conscience before God,
and with a good name before men.
Reply to Objection 3: Certain medicines require a robust constitution,
else it is mortally dangerous to take them; others can be given to the
weakly. So too in spiritual things certain sacraments are ordained as
remedies for sin, and the like are to be given to sinners, as Baptism
and Penance, while others, which confer the perfection of grace,
require a man made strong by grace.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether knowledge of all Holy Writ is required?
Objection 1: It would seem that knowledge of all Holy Writ is required.
For one from whose lips we seek the law, should have knowledge of the
law. Now the laity seek the law at the mouth of the priest (Malachi
2:7). Therefore he should have knowledge of the whole law.
Objection 2: Further, "being always ready to satisfy everyone that
asketh you a reason of that faith and hope in you [*Vulg. : 'Of that
hope which is in you; St. Thomas apparently took his reading from
Bede]. " Now to give a reason for things pertaining to faith and hope
belongs to those who have perfect knowledge of Holy Writ. Therefore the
like knowledge should be possessed by those who are placed in Orders,
and to whom the aforesaid words are addressed.
Objection 3: Further, no one is competent to read what he understands
not, since to read without intelligence is "negligence,"* as Cato
declares (Rudiment. ). [*"Legere et non intelligere est negligere. " The
play on the words is more evident in Latin. ] Now it belongs to the
reader (which is the lower Order) to read the Old Testament, as stated
in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24). Therefore he should understand the whole
of the Old Testament; and much more those in the higher Orders.
On the contrary, Many are raised to the priesthood even who know
nothing at all of these things, even in many religious Orders.
Therefore apparently this knowledge is not required.
Further, we read in the Lives of the Fathers that some who were monks
were raised to the priesthood, being of a most holy life. Therefore the
aforesaid knowledge is not required in those to be ordained.
I answer that, For any human act to be rightly ordered there must needs
be the direction of reason. Wherefore in order that a man exercise the
office of an Order, it is necessary for him to have as much knowledge
as suffices for his direction in the act of that Order. And
consequently one who is to be raised to Orders is required to have that
knowledge, and to be instructed in Sacred Scripture, not the whole, but
more or less, according as his office is of a greater or lesser
extent---to wit, that those who are placed over others, and receive the
care of souls, know things pertaining to the doctrine of faith and
morals, and that others know whatever concerns the exercise of their
Order.
Reply to Objection 1: A priest exercises a twofold action: the one,
which is principal, over the true body of Christ; the other, which is
secondary, over the mystical body of Christ. The second act depends on
the first, but not conversely. Wherefore some are raised to the
priesthood, to whom the first act alone is deputed, for instance those
religious who are not empowered with the care of souls. The law is not
sought at the mouth of these, they are required only for the
celebration of the sacraments; and consequently it is enough for them
to have such knowledge as enables them to observe rightly those things
that regard the celebration of the sacrament. Others are raised to
exercise the other act which is over the mystical body of Christ, and
it is at the mouth of these that the people seek the law; wherefore
they ought to possess knowledge of the law, not indeed to know all the
difficult points of the law (for in these they should have recourse to
their superiors), but to know what the people have to believe and
fulfill in the law. To the higher priests, namely the bishops, it
belongs to know even those points of the law which may offer some
difficulty, and to know them the more perfectly according as they are
in a higher position.
Reply to Objection 2: The reason that we have to give for our faith and
hope does not denote one that suffices to prove matters of faith and
hope, since they are both of things invisible; it means that we should
be able to give general proofs of the probability of both, and for this
there is not much need of great knowledge.
Reply to Objection 3: The reader has not to explain Holy Writ to the
people (for this belongs to the higher orders), but merely to voice the
words. Therefore he is not required to have so much knowledge as to
understand Holy Writ, but only to know how to pronounce it correctly.
And since such knowledge is obtained easily and from many persons, it
may be supposed with probability that the ordained will acquire that
knowledge even if he have it not already, especially if it appear that
he is on the road to acquire it.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a man obtains the degrees of Order by the merit of one's life?
Objection 1: It would seem that a man obtains the degrees of order by
the mere merit of his life. For, according to Chrysostom [*Hom. xliii
in the Opus Imperfectum, wrongly ascribed to St. John Chrysostom], "not
every priest is a saint, but every saint is a priest. " Now a man
becomes a saint by the merit of his life. Consequently he thereby also
becomes a priest, and "a fortiori" has he the other Orders.
Objection 2: Further, in natural things, men obtain a higher degree
from the very fact that they are near God, and have a greater share of
His favors, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iv). Now it is by merit of
holiness and knowledge that a man approaches nearer to God and receives
more of His favors. Therefore by this alone he is raised to the degree
of Orders.
On the contrary, Holiness once possessed can be lost. But when once a
man is ordained he never loses his order. Therefore order does not
consist in the mere merit of holiness.
I answer that, A cause should be proportionate to its effect. And
consequently as in Christ, from Whom grace comes down on all men, there
must needs be fulness of grace; so in the ministers of the Church, to
whom it belongs, not to give grace, but to give the sacraments of
grace, the degree of order does not result from their having grace, but
from their participating in a sacrament of grace.
Reply to Objection 1: Chrysostom is speaking of the priest in reference
to the reason for which he is so called, the word "sacerdos" signifying
dispenser of holy things [sacra dans]: for in this sense every
righteous man, in so far as he assists others by the sacraments, may be
called a priest. But he is not speaking according to the actual meaning
of the words; for this word "sacerdos" [priest] is employed to signify
one who gives sacred things by dispensing the sacraments.
Reply to Objection 2: Natural things acquire a degree of superiority
over others, from the fact that they are able to act on them by virtue
of their form; wherefore from the very fact that they have a higher
form, they obtain a higher degree. But the ministers of the Church are
placed over others, not to confer anything on them by virtue of their
own holiness (for this belongs to God alone), but as ministers, and as
instruments, so to say, of the outpouring from the Head to the members.
Hence the comparison fails as regards the dignity of Order, although it
applies as to congruity.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether he who raises the unworthy to Orders commits a sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that he who raises the unworthy to orders
commits no sin. For a bishop needs assistants appointed to the lesser
offices. But he would be unable to find them in sufficient number, if
he were to require of them such qualifications as the saints enumerate.
Therefore if he raise some who are not qualified, he would seem to be
excusable.
Objection 2: Further, the Church needs not only ministers for the
dispensation of things spiritual, but also for the supervision of
temporalities. But sometimes men without knowledge or holiness of life
may be useful for the conduct of temporal affairs, either because of
their worldly power, or on account of their natural industry. Therefore
seemingly the like can be promoted without sin.
Objection 3: Further, everyone is bound to avoid sin, as far as he can.
If therefore a bishop sins in promoting the unworthy, he is bound to
take the utmost pains to know whether those who present themselves for
Orders be worthy, by making a careful inquiry about their morals and
knowledge, and yet seemingly this is not done anywhere.
On the contrary, It is worse to raise the wicked to the sacred
ministry, than not to correct those who are raised already. But Heli
sinned mortally by not correcting his sons for their wickedness;
wherefore "he fell backwards . . . and died" (1 Kings 4:18). Therefore
he who promotes the unworthy does not escape sin.
Further, spiritual things must be set before temporal things in the
Church. Now a man would commit a mortal sin were he knowingly to
endanger the temporalities of the Church. Much more therefore is it a
mortal sin to endanger spiritual things. But whoever promotes the
unworthy endangers spiritual things, since according to Gregory (Hom.
xii in Evang. ) "if a man's life is contemptible, his preaching is
liable to be despised"; and for the same reason all the spiritual
things that he dispenses. Therefore he who promotes the unworthy sins
mortally.
I answer that, Our Lord describes the faithful servant whom He has set
"over His household to give them their measure of wheat. " Hence he is
guilty of unfaithfulness who gives any man Divine things above his
measure: and whoso promotes the unworthy does this. Wherefore he
commits a mortal crime, as being unfaithful to his sovereign Lord,
especially since this is detrimental to the Church and to the Divine
honor which is promoted by good ministers. For a man would be
unfaithful to his earthly lord were he to place unworthy subjects in
his offices.
Reply to Objection 1: God never so abandons His Church that apt
ministers are not to be found sufficient for the needs of the people,
if the worthy be promoted and the unworthy set aside. And though it
were impossible to find as many ministers as there are now, it were
better to have few good ministers than many bad ones, as the blessed
Clement declares in his second epistle to James the brother of the
Lord.
Reply to Objection 2: Temporal things are not to be sought but for the
sake of spiritual things. Wherefore all temporal advantage should count
for nothing, and all gain be despised for the advancement of spiritual
good.
Reply to Objection 3: It is at least required that the ordainer know
that nothing contrary to holiness is in the candidate for ordination.
But besides this he is required to take the greatest care, in
proportion to the Order or office to be enjoined, so as to be certain
of the qualifications of those to be promoted, at least from the
testification of others. This is the meaning of the Apostle when he
says (1 Tim. 5:22): "Impose not hands lightly on any man. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a man who is in sin can without sin exercise the Order he has
received? [*Cf. TP, Q[64], A[6]]
Objection 1: It would seem that one who is in sin can without sin
exercise the order he has received. For since, by virtue of his office,
he is bound to exercise his order, he sins if he fails to do so. If
therefore he sins by exercising it, he cannot avoid sin: which is
inadmissible.
Objection 2: Further, a dispensation is a relaxation of the law.
Therefore although by rights it would be unlawful for him to exercise
the order he has received, it would be lawful for him to do so by
dispensation.
Objection 3: Further, whoever co-operates with another in a mortal sin,
sins mortally. If therefore a sinner sins mortally by exercising his
order, he who receives or demands any Divine thing from him also sins
mortally: and this seems absurd.
Objection 4: Further, if he sins by exercising his order, it follows
that every act of his order that he performs is a mortal sin; and
consequently since many acts concur in the one exercise of his order,
it would seem that he commits many mortal sins: which seems very hard.
On the contrary, Dionysius says (Ep. ad Demophil. ): "It seems
presumptuous for such a man, one to wit who is not enlightened, to lay
hands on priestly things; he is not afraid nor ashamed, all unworthy
that he is to take part in Divine things, with the thought that God
does not see what he sees in himself; he thinks, by false pretense, to
cheat Him Whom he falsely calls his Father; he dares to utter in the
person of Christ, words polluted by his infamy, I will not call them
prayers, over the Divine symbols. " Therefore a priest is a blasphemer
and a cheat if he exercises his order unworthily, and thus he sins
mortally: and in like manner any other person in orders.
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.
