D. 24 - Sacrament of holy orders

After the Master has examined the sacraments that are ordered to the remedy of one person, here he examines the sacraments that are ordered to the remedy of the whole Church. And this is divided into two parts: in the first, he examines the sacrament of holy orders, which is ordered to the spiritual multiplication and governance of the Church; in the second, marriage, which is ordered to the material multiplication of the faithful, at Distinction 26: while the other sacraments took their origin after sin and because of sin, we read that the sacrament of marriage was instituted by the Lord even before sin. (Sententiae IV, 26.1 (157). 1.)

The first is in two parts: in the first, he considers the sacrament of holy orders; in the second, those who confer this sacrament, at Distinction 25: it is usual to ask whether heretics . . . can confer sacred orders. (Sent. IV, 25.1 (150). 1.)

The first is in two parts: the first part, about holy orders; the second, about certain offices or dignities that result from holy orders, at: there are also other terms which designate not orders, but dignities or offices. (Sent. IV, 24.14 (144). 1.)

The first is in two parts: in the first he considers the distinct orders; in the second, what they have in common, at: but if it were asked what it is that here is called an order, it may be truly said that it is some mark. (Sent. IV, 24.13 (143). 1.)

The first is in two parts: in the first he sets down the number of distinct orders; in the second he describes them, at: and in the sacrament of the sevenfold Spirit, there are seven ecclesiastical degrees. (Sent. IV, 24.3 (133). 2.)

Concerning the first he does three things: first, he sets down the number of orders; second, the effect that they have on those receiving them, at: but when those in whose minds the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit is present come to ecclesiastical orders, they are believed to receive an increase of that grace in the very act of promotion to the spiritual degree; (Sent. IV, 24.2 (132). 1.) third, the conditions that are required for them, at: such are to be chosen as clerics for the spiritual ministry who can worthily administer the Lord’s sacraments. (Sent. IV, 24.3 (133). 1.)

And in the sacrament of the sevenfold Spirit, there are seven ecclesiastical degrees. Here he describes holy orders; and concerning this he does three things: first, he determines what is pre-required for holy orders, namely, a crown; second, he describes holy orders themselves, at: porters are the same as...door-keepers; (Sent. IV, 24.5 (135). 1 citing Isidore, Etymologiae, Bk. 7, ch. 12, n. 32.) third, he shows a certain difference between the orders mentioned, at: although all orders are spiritual and sacred, yet the canons rate only two as excellently to be called sacred orders. (Sent. IV, 24.12 (142). 1.) The second part is divided into seven parts, according as the seven orders are described, which parts are self-evident in the text.

There are also other terms which designate not orders, but dignities or offices. Here he determines the names by which no orders but dignities or offices are expressed; and concerning this he does two things: first, he examines the names of the dignities; second, the names of the offices, at: “a seer is so called from force of the mind.” (Sent. IV, 24.18 (148). 1.)

Concerning the first he does three things: first, he explains the name of the bishop, which pertains to a dignity; second, he sets down his distinction, at: the order of bishops is fourfold; (Sent. IV, 24.16 (147). 1 citing Isidore, Etymologiae, bk7 c12 n13.) third, he sets down the origin of the distinction, at: the distinction among these appears to have been introduced by the pagans. (Sent. IV, 24.17 (147). 3.)

A seer is so called from force of the mind. Here he sets down the different names of the offices; and concerning this he does three things: first, he explains the different names of the offices; second, he shows how those in the offices should carry themselves, at: after our brief treatment of these matters, Christ’s ministers are to be admonished; (Sent. IV, 24.19 (149). 2.) third, he explains the name of the Mass, for which distinct offices are required, at: and the Mass is so called, etc. (Sent. IV, 24.19 (149). 3.)

Here there are three questions. First, concerning holy orders in general. Second, the distinction of holy orders. Third, those things that are connected with holy orders.

Question 1

Holy orders in general

Concerning the first, three questions arise:

first, concerning holy orders itself;

• second, its effect;
• third, those who receive it.
• Article 1

Holy orders itself

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the first question we proceed thus. (Parallel: SCG IV, ch. 74.) It seems that there should not be an order in the Church. For order requires subjection and rule. But subjection seems opposed to liberty, into which we have been called by Christ. (See Galatians 5:13; cf. 2 Corinthians 3:17.) Therefore there should be no order in the Church.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, someone who is established in an order is made superior to another. But in the Church each person should consider himself the inferior of the others: regarding others as better than yourselves (Phil 2:3). Therefore, there should not be an order in the Church.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, order is found among the angels because of the distinction of their natural and gratuitous goods. But all men are of one nature, and if someone possesses more eminent gifts of grace, we do not know this. Therefore, there cannot be an order in the Church.

On the contrary (1), the things that are from God are ordered (Rom 13:1). But the Church is from God, for he built it up with his own blood. (Cf. Acts 20:28;) Therefore, there should be an order in the Church.

Furthermore (2), the state of the Church is a mean between the state of nature and the state of glory. But in nature an order is found, by which some things are above others; and likewise, in glory, as is seen among the angels. Therefore, there should be an order in the Church.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that order is inappropriately defined in the text, where it says, order is a certain mark of the Church, by which spiritual power is conferred on the one ordained. For a part of the whole should not be set down as the genus. But a character, which is explained by the mark in the resulting definition, is a part of holy orders, which is divided against the reality alone, or the sacrament alone, since it is the reality-and-sacrament. Therefore, a mark should not be set down as though it were the genus of holy orders.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, just as a character is imprinted in the sacrament of holy orders, so also in the sacrament of baptism. But the character was not included in the definition of baptism. Therefore, neither should it be included in the definition of holy orders.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, in baptism too a kind of spiritual power is given for approaching the sacraments; and again there is a certain seal, since it is a sacrament. Therefore, this definition applies to baptism, and so it is inappropriately assigned to holy orders.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, order is a kind of relation which is preserved in both extremes. But the extremes of this relation are superior and inferior. Therefore, inferiors have order just as superiors do. But in them there is no pre-eminent power, as is included here in the definition of orders, as is seen by the exposition that follows, where it says, increase in power. Therefore, holy orders is inappropriately defined here.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that holy orders is not a sacrament. (Parallels: ST III, q. 65, a. 1; SCG IV, ch. 74.) For a sacrament is a material element, as Hugh of St. Victor says. (Hugh of St. Victor, de Sacramentis fidei, Bk. 1, pt. 9, ch. 2 (PL 176:317).) But holy orders is not named from anything like this, but rather from a relation or power; for holy orders is a part of a power, according to the foregoing. (In the Supplement parallel to this questiuncula, the text is given as: “secundum Isidorum,” the reference being to Etymologies, Bk. 6, ch. 19.) Therefore, it is not a sacrament.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, sacraments do not belong to the Church Triumphant. But there is order there, as is seen in the case of the angels. (Indeed, we speak of the “orders” of angels for just this reason. Gregory and Dionysius deduce the hierarchy of angels from the mention of different orders and their varying functions in the Bible.) Therefore, holy orders is not a sacrament.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, just as spiritual governance, which is order, is given with a certain consecration, so also is secular governance; for kings are also anointed, as was said above in Distinction 23. But royal dignity is not a sacrament. Therefore, neither is the order that we are speaking of.

On the contrary (1), it is numbered among the seven sacraments of the Church by everyone.

Furthermore (2), what is the cause of something has that, and more. But because of holy orders man is made dispenser of the other sacraments. Therefore, orders has more the nature of a sacrament than the others.

Quaestiuncula 4

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the form of this sacrament is inappropriately expressed in the text. For the sacraments have efficacy from their form. But the efficacy of the sacraments is from divine power, which works salvation in them in a hidden way. Therefore, in the form of this sacrament mention should be made of divine power by the invocation of the Trinity, just as in the other sacraments.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, to command belongs to the one who has authority. But authority does not reside with the one who dispenses the sacraments, but only ministry. Therefore it should not use the imperative mood, so that it says, do thus; or receive this or that; or other things like this.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, in the form of the sacrament no mention should be made of anything but what is essential to the sacrament. But the use of the power received is not essential to the sacrament, but consequent upon it. Therefore mention should not be made of it in the form of this sacrament.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, all sacraments order one toward eternal reward. But in the form of the other sacraments no mention of reward is made. Therefore, neither should mention be made of it in the form of this sacrament, as is done when it says: if you faithfully fulfill your office, you will have a share with those who have ministered the word of God well. (This is from the ordination of lectors. See Peter Lombard, Sentences, Bk. 4, d. 34, ch. 6 (QR 2:895), and Hugh of St. Victor, de Sacramentis, Bk. 2, pt. 3, ch. 7 (PL 176:474); cf. Gratian, Decretals, pt. 1, d. 23, can. 18, Lector; Martene, De antiquis eccles. ritibus, Bk. 1, ch. 8, a. 11, ord. 2–4, 6–8, 10–11, 13–17 (2:33–83).)

Quaestiuncula 5

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that this sacrament does not have matter. For in every sacrament that has matter, the power working in the sacrament is in the matter. But in the material things that are employed here, such as keys, candlesticks, and the like, there does not seem to be any power of signifying. (Lombard speaks of all the minor orders and their functions, as well as of the priesthood and diaconate.) Therefore, it does not have matter.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, as it says in the text, in this sacrament the sevenfold fullness of grace is conferred, just like in confirmation. But the matter of confirmation requires previous sanctification. Therefore, since those things that seem to be material in this sacrament are not pre-sanctified, it seems that they are not the matter of this sacrament.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, in any sacrament that has matter, it is required that the matter contact the person who receives the sacrament. But, as some people have said, the materials mentioned make contact with the one who receives this sacrament, but it is not necessary to the sacrament, but only for its presentation. Therefore, the material things named are not the matter of this sacrament.

On the contrary (1), every sacrament consists in things and words. But the things in any sacrament are its matter. Therefore, the things that are employed in this sacrament are the matter of the sacrament.

Furthermore (2), more is required for administering the sacraments than for receiving them. But baptism, in which power is given for receiving the sacraments, needs matter. Therefore, so does holy orders, in which power is given for administering them.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that God wanted to lead his works into his own likeness, as much as was possible, so that they might be perfect and he could be known by them. And therefore so that he might be represented in his works not only as he is in himself, but also as he influences other things, he placed this natural law in all things, that the last things should be perfected by the middle things, and the middle things by the first things, as Dionysius says. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 4, n. 3 (PG 3:181); Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, pt. 1, n. 4 (PG 3:504).) And thus, so that this beauty would not be lacking from the Church, he placed his order in it, so that some people would hand on the sacraments to others, being likened in this to God by his own mode, as cooperators with God, as also in the natural body certain members influence others.

Reply Obj. 1: The subjection of slavery is opposed to liberty, for that servitude is when someone dominates by using those subject to him for his own benefit. Now that kind of subjection is not required in holy orders, by which those who are in charge should seek the salvation of those under them, not their own benefit.

Reply Obj. 2: Every person should consider himself inferior in merit, but not in office. Holy orders, however, are a kind of office.

Reply Obj. 3: The order among the angels is not found according to the distinction of nature, except incidentally, inasmuch as the distinction of grace results from the distinction of nature in them. However, it is found essentially according to the distinction in grace, for their orders have to do with the participation of divine things and their share in the state of glory, which is according to the measure of grace, as a kind of end and effect of grace in some way. But the orders of the Church Militant have to do with the partaking and sharing of the sacraments, which are the cause of grace, and in a certain way precede grace. And thus sanctifying grace is not necessary to our orders, but only the power of administering the sacraments. And for this reason holy orders also does not depend on the distinction of sanctifying grace, but on the distinction of power.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that the definition that the Master gives for holy orders applies to order according as it is a sacrament of the Church. And so he includes two things: an outward sign, at, a certain mark, that is, a certain sign; and an interior effect, at, by which spiritual power is granted to those ordained.

Reply Obj. 1: The mark is not included here for the interior character, but for what is done outwardly, which is the sign and cause of the inner power. And character is assumed in the same way in the other definition. Now, if it were taken for the interior character, it would not be unfitting, for the division of the sacrament into these three things is not a division into integral parts, properly speaking, for what is reality alone is not essential to the sacrament; also what is sacrament alone passes away; and the sacrament is said to remain. Therefore, the interior character itself is left as essentially and principally the very sacrament of orders.

Reply Obj. 2: Although in baptism a certain spiritual power is conferred of receiving other sacraments (by reason of which it imprints a character), nevertheless this is not its principal effect, but the interior cleansing, for the sake of which baptism is done, even if no prior cause exists. But holy orders conveys power principally. And therefore the character, which is a spiritual power, is included in the definition of orders, but not in the definition of baptism.

Reply Obj. 3: In baptism a certain spiritual power is given for receiving, and so it is in a way a passive power. But ‘power’ properly names an active power with a certain preeminence. And therefore this definition does not apply to baptism.

Reply Obj. 4: The word ‘order’ can be taken in two ways. For sometimes it signifies the very relation, and then it exists as much in the inferior as in the superior, as the objection states; and this is not how it is taken here. But sometimes it is taken for the degree itself that makes the order taken in the first way. And since the notion of order insofar as it is a relation is found wherever first something higher encounters another, the degree eminent through spiritual power is named ‘order’ here.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that a sacrament, as is clear from what was said above, is nothing other than a kind of sanctification of man displayed with a certain visible sign. Therefore, since in the reception of holy orders a certain consecration of a man is displayed by visible signs, it is evident that holy orders is a sacrament.

Reply Obj. 1: Although in its name holy orders does not express any material element, nevertheless holy orders is not conferred without a certain material element.

Reply Obj. 2: Powers should be proportionate to those things that they exist for. Now the sharing of divine things, for which spiritual power is given, is not done among the angels by any sensible signs, as occurs among men. And so the spiritual power that is holy orders is not presented to the angels with any visible signs, as it is to men. And so among men orders is a sacrament, but not among angels.

Reply Obj. 3: Not every blessing or consecration that is applied to a man is a sacrament, for both monks and abbots are blessed, and yet those blessings are not sacraments. And likewise, neither is royal anointing, for after blessings like these people are not ordered to administering divine sacraments, as by the blessing of holy orders; and therefore it is not the same.

Response to Quaestiuncula 4

To the fourth question, it should be said that this sacrament principally consists in power being conferred. Now power is given by power, just as like things by like. And again, power is recognized by its use, for powers are known through their acts. And thus in the form of orders the use of orders is expressed by the act that is commanded, and the conferral of power by the imperative mood.

Reply Obj. 1: Other sacraments are not principally ordered to effects like the power according to which sacraments are administered, as this sacrament is. And so in this sacrament there is something like a univocal communication. Therefore, in other sacraments something is expressed on the part of divine power, to which the effect of the sacrament is likened, but not in this sacrament.

Reply Obj. 2: For a special reason, this sacrament, above all others, is given with the imperative mode. For although in the bishop, who is the minister of this sacrament, there is no authority with regard to the conferral of this sacrament, nevertheless he has a certain authority with regard to the power of orders that is conferred by him, inasmuch as it is derived from his own power. (The manuscript tradition appears to lack any responses to the second and fourth objections. The present text of both responses has been supplied by Nicolaus, as given in the notes in the Vives edition.)

Reply Obj. 3: Use of power is the effect of power in the genus of efficient cause, and in this way it does not have to be included in the definition of orders. But it is a kind of cause in the genus of final cause, and therefore according to this account it can be included in the definition of orders.

Reply Obj. 4: Things stand differently in the other sacraments and in this one. For through this sacrament a certain office or power of doing something is conferred; and hence mention is fittingly made of a reward to be acquired if the office is faithfully administered; whereas in the other sacraments there is not conferred a like office or a like power; and hence in those, no mention is made of a reward. To the other sacraments therefore the recipient stands, as it were, in a passive relation, because he receives them for the sake of simply perfecting his proper state; but to this sacrament the recipient stands, as it were, in an active relation, because he receives it for the sake of hierarchical functions to be exercised in the Church. Hence, although the others, by the very fact that they confer grace, order one to salvation, nevertheless, properly speaking, they do not order one to a reward in the way that this sacrament does.

Response to Quaestiuncula 5

To the fifth question, it should be said that the matter outwardly employed in the sacraments signifies that the power working in the sacraments comes entirely from without. Therefore, since the more proper effect of this sacrament, namely the character, is not gained by any operation of the person who receives the sacrament, as was the case with penance, but it comes entirely from without, it befits it to have matter, although in a different way from the other sacraments that have matter. For what is conferred in a sacrament is derived only from God in the other sacraments, not from a minister who dispenses the sacrament; but what is conferred in this sacrament, namely, a spiritual power, is also derived from the one who gives the sacrament, as an imperfect power from a perfect one. And thus the efficacy of those sacraments chiefly consists in the matter which both signifies and contains divine power by the sanctification applied to it through its ministry, but the efficacy of this sacrament chiefly resides with the one who dispenses it. Now matter is employed more for determining the power that is conferred partially by someone who has it completely, rather than for causing the power; which is seen by the fact that the matter corresponds to the use of the power.

And by this the solution to the first objection is clear.

Reply Obj. 2: Matter in other sacraments must be sanctified because of the power that it contains; but that is not how it is in this case.

Reply Obj. 3: While agreeing with that statement, the reason behind it is apparent from what has been said. For that power of orders is not received from the matter, but from the minister principally; therefore the presentation of the matter is more essential to the sacrament than its touch. Nevertheless, the very words of the form seem to show that contact with the matter is essential to the sacrament, for it says: receive this or that.

Article 2

Effects of the sacrament of holy orders

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the second question we proceed thus. (Parallel: SCG IV, ch. 74.) It seems that in this sacrament of holy orders, sanctifying grace is not conferred. For it is commonly said that the sacrament of holy orders is directed against the defect of ignorance. But sanctifying grace is not given against ignorance, but gratuitous grace is, for sanctifying grace has more to do with the affections. Therefore, in the sacrament of orders sanctifying grace is not given.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, order implies distinction. But members of the Church are not distinguished by sanctifying grace, but according to gratuitous grace, which is spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12:4: there are varieties of graces. Therefore, sanctifying grace is not given in holy orders.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, no cause presupposes its own effect. But that someone should receive holy orders presupposes grace, by which he is rendered suitable for the exercise of orders. Therefore, this kind of grace is not conferred in the conferral of holy orders.

On the contrary (1), sacraments of the new law effect what they represent. But holy orders, by its sevenfold number, signifies the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, as it says in the text. Therefore, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which do not exist without sanctifying grace, are given in holy orders.

Furthermore (2), holy orders is a sacrament of the new law. But the definition of this kind of sacrament includes that it stands as a cause of grace. Therefore, it causes grace in the one who receives it.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that in the sacrament of holy orders, a character is not imprinted in every one of the orders. For the character of holy orders is a certain spiritual power. But some orders are only ordained to certain physical acts, like the orders of porter or acolyte. Therefore, in those no character is imprinted.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, every character is indelible. Therefore, by a character a man is established in a state that he cannot leave. But those who have certain orders can licitly return to the lay state. Therefore, a character is not imprinted in all orders.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, as was said above in Distinction 3, by a character, a person is appointed to giving or receiving a certain sacrament. But a person is sufficiently ordered to receive the sacraments by the baptismal character, while he is not established as a dispenser of the sacraments by anything but priestly orders. Therefore, in other orders no character is imprinted.

On the contrary (1), every sacrament in which a character is not imprinted is repeatable. But no holy orders are repeatable. Therefore, in every order a character is imprinted.

Furthermore (2), a character is a distinctive sign. But in every order there is some distinction. Therefore, all orders imprint a character.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that a character of holy orders does not presuppose a baptismal character. (Parallel: In IV Sent. d. 7, q. 2, a. 1, qa. 3.) For by the character of holy orders a man is made dispenser of the sacraments, but by the baptismal character he is able to receive them. But an active power does not necessarily presuppose a passive one, for it can exist without it, as is seen in God. Therefore, the character of holy orders does not necessarily presuppose a baptismal character.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, it can happen that someone is not baptized who thinks that he was probably baptized. Therefore, if a person like this received holy orders, he would not receive the character of orders, if the character of orders presupposes the baptismal character. And so those things that he does in consecrating or absolving will be nothing, and in this the Church will be deceived, which is unfitting.

On the contrary, baptism is the gateway to the sacraments. Therefore, since holy orders is one of the sacraments, it presupposes baptism.

Quaestiuncula 4

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it necessarily presupposes the character of confirmation. For among things that are ordered to each other, the last presupposes the middle just as the middle presupposes the first. But the character of confirmation presupposes a baptismal character as first. Therefore, the character of holy orders presupposes the character of confirmation as a middle.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, those who are set up to confirm others should be the most firm. But those who receive the sacrament of holy orders are the ones who confirm others. Therefore, they should have the sacrament of confirmation most of all.

On the contrary, the Apostles received the power of holy orders before the Ascension, where it was said to them, receive the Holy Spirit (John 20:22). But they were confirmed after the Ascension by the descent of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, holy orders does not presuppose confirmation.

Quaestiuncula 5

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the character of one order necessarily presupposes the character of another. (Parallel: In IV Sent. d. 7, q. 2, a. 1, qa. 3, ad 3.) For holy orders share more with each other than with other sacraments. But the character of holy orders presupposes the character of another sacrament, namely, baptism. Therefore, much more does the character of one degree of holy orders presuppose the character of another.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, holy orders are certain degrees or steps. But no one can arrive at a later step without first climbing a prior one. Therefore, no one can receive the character of a later level of orders unless he first receives the previous level of orders.

On the contrary, if anything were omitted in the sacrament that was necessary to the sacrament, the sacrament would have to be repeated. But if someone receives the later orders while omitting the first, he is not reordained. But whatever he lacked would be conferred on him, according to canon law. (Gratian, Decretals, pt. 1, d. 52, can. unic., ‘Sollicitudo’; Gregory IX, Decretals, Bk. 5, tit. 29, cap. unic. ‘Tuae nobis’.) Therefore, the previous degrees of holy orders are not necessary to the following degrees.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that God’s works are perfect, as it says in Deuteronomy 32:4; and thus to each person to whom some power is divinely given, those things are given by which the exercise of that power can most fittingly be made. And this is also seen among natural things, for members are given to animals in which the soul’s powers can exercise its acts, unless there is a defect on the part of the matter. (This is reminiscent of the argument made by Aristotle, Physics, Bk. 2, ch. 8, 199a8–11: “As a thing acts, so it is naturally apt to act; and as it is naturally apt to act, so each thing acts, unless something impedes it.” This is also implied in the definition of the soul worked out in On the Soul, Bk. 2, ch. 1, where the soul is defined as the primary act of a physical or organ-equipped body capable of life.) But just as sanctifying grace is necessary for a person to receive the sacraments worthily, so also for a person to dispense the sacraments worthily. And thus, just as in baptism, by which a person becomes capable of receiving the other sacraments, sanctifying grace is given, so in the sacrament of holy orders, by which a man is ordered to administering the other sacraments.

Reply Obj. 1: Holy orders is not given for the remedy of one person, but of the whole Church. Therefore, that it is said to be given against ignorance is not to be understood as though by receiving holy orders ignorance is expelled from the recipient, but that the one receiving holy orders is given charge of expelling ignorance from the people.

Reply Obj. 2: Although the gifts of sanctifying grace are common to all members of the Church, nevertheless a person cannot be a suitable manager by the acts of those gifts according to which distinction is found among the members of the Church, unless he has charity, which indeed cannot exist without sanctifying grace.

Reply Obj. 3: Not just any amount of goodness is sufficient for the suitable exercise of holy orders, but excelling goodness is required, in order that, just as those who receive holy orders are established in a degree of order above the people, so they may also be superior by the merit of holiness. And therefore the grace that sufficed for worthily counting them among Christ’s people is prerequisite. But the gift of grace is conferred further in the reception of holy orders itself, by which they are rendered suitable for greater things.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that there are three opinions about this. For some people have said that only in priestly orders is a character imprinted. But this does not seem true, for no one can exercise the action of a deacon licitly except a deacon; and so it is clear that he has a certain spiritual power in dispensing the sacraments that others do not have. And because of this others have said that in sacred orders a character is imprinted, but not in minor orders. But this again seems nothing: for by any holy orders a person is established above the people in some degree of power ordered to the dispensation of the sacraments. And so since a character is a sign that distinguishes from other people, a character must be imprinted in all of them. And the sign of this is that they remain forever, and are never repeated. And this is the third opinion, which is more common.

Reply Obj. 1: Any level of holy orders either has an act concerning a sacrament itself or ordered to the administering of the sacraments, as porters have the act of admitting people to seeing the divine sacraments, and likewise with the others. And therefore in all of them a special power is required.

Reply Obj. 2: Regardless of whether he shifts himself to the lay state, the character will still always remain in him: which is evident from the fact that if he should revert to the clerical state, he does not receive again the order that he had.

To the third objection the answer is the same as to the first.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that nothing can receive something that it does not have a receptive power for. Now a man is made receptive of the other sacraments by a baptismal character. Therefore, someone who does not have a baptismal character is able to receive no other sacrament; and this is how the character of orders presupposes the baptismal character.

Reply Obj. 1: In someone who has an active power in himself, the active power does not presuppose a passive one. But in someone who has an active power from another, a passive power which can receive the active power is prerequisite to the active power.

Reply Obj. 2: If such a person be promoted to the priesthood, he is not a priest, nor can he consecrate the Eucharist, nor absolve in the penitential forum; for which reason, according to the canons, he should be baptized and ordained again. (Gregory IX, Decretals, Bk. 3, tit. 43, ch. 1, ‘Si quis presbyter’ and ch. 3, ‘Veniens ad apostolicam’ (RF 2:684).) And if he were even promoted to the episcopate, those whom he ordained would not have holy orders. But nevertheless it can be piously believed that as to the ultimate effects of the sacraments, the High Priest would supply the defect, and that he would not permit this to remain so hidden that it could threaten danger to the Church.

Response to Quaestiuncula 4

To the fourth question, it should be said that there is something that is prerequisite to the reception of holy orders as necessary to the sacrament, and something that is for fittingness. For it is necessary to the sacrament that someone who receives holy orders be capable of receiving holy orders, which belongs to him by baptism. And therefore the baptismal character is presupposed as necessary to the sacrament, such that without it the sacrament of holy orders cannot be conferred. But for fittingness, every perfection is required by which someone is made suitable for the exercise of holy orders; and one of these is that he be confirmed; and therefore the character of holy orders presupposes the character of confirmation out of fittingness, but not out of necessity.

Reply Obj. 1: The relationship of the middle to the last and of the first to the middle are not the same: for by the baptismal character a man becomes capable of receiving the sacrament of confirmation; but by the sacrament of confirmation, a man is not made capable of receiving the sacrament of holy orders. And therefore the account is not the same.

Reply Obj. 2: That argument proceeds from suitability as to fittingness.

Response to Quaestiuncula 5

To the fifth question, it should be said that it is not from suitability for the higher orders that one has lower orders first, for the powers are distinct; and one, as far as its own nature is concerned, does not require another in the same person. And therefore also in the primitive Church some were ordained as priests who had not received lower orders beforehand. And yet they could do all the things that the lower orders can do, for lower power is comprehended in higher power, as sense in intellect, and a duke’s power in the king’s. But afterward, when the Church had been established more determinately, it became the case that no one was launched into a higher level of holy orders who had not first humbled himself in the lower orders. And this is why those who are ordained by a leap like this are not reordained according to the canons; (See Gratian, Decretals, pt. 1, d. 52, cap. unic. ‘Sollicitudo’; Gregory IX, Decretals, Bk. 5, tit. 29, cap. unic. ‘Tuae nobis’.) but what had been omitted from the previous orders is conferred on them.

Reply Obj. 1: The degrees of holy orders have more in common with each other according to the likeness of species than holy orders has with baptism. But according to the proportion of power to act, baptism has more in common with holy orders than orders with orders; for by baptism a man acquires a passive power for receiving orders, but by lower orders no passive power for receiving higher orders is given.

Reply Obj. 2: Holy orders are not steps that happen in one action, or in one motion, so that the last must be reached through the first. But rather they are like degrees established in different things, like the degrees between men and angels, and it is not necessary that someone who becomes an angel must first be a man. It is also like this with the degrees between the head and all the members of the body; nor is it necessary that what is a head must first be a foot; and it is like this in the case proposed.

Article 3

Who can receive holy orders

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the third question we proceed thus. It seems that in those receiving holy orders, goodness of life is not required. For by holy orders a person is ordained for the administering of the sacraments. But the sacraments can be administered by good men and bad. Therefore, a good life is not required.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the ministry that is presented to God in the sacraments is not greater than what was physically administered to him. But the Lord did not forbid the notorious sinful woman from ministering to him physically, as is seen in Luke 7. Therefore, neither should such people be barred from the ministry of the sacraments.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, by every grace a certain remedy is given against sin. But to those who have sin, no remedy should be denied that could help them. Therefore, since in the sacrament of holy orders grace is conferred, it seems that this sacrament should also be given to sinners.

On the contrary (1), no descendant of Aaron who has a blemish shall offer the breads before the Lord, nor approach his ministry (Lev 21:17–18). But by blemish, as the Gloss states, is understood every vice. (Glossa ordinaria on Leviticus 21:17 (1:252E). Cf. Hesychius, On Leviticus, Bk. 6, on 21:17 (PG 93:1062).) Therefore, someone who is entangled in some vice should not be employed in the ministry of holy orders.

Furthermore (2), Jerome says that not only the bishops and presbyters and deacons should provide most that they set an example in word and lifestyle for the whole people over whom they preside, but also the lower degrees, and all who devote themselves to the Lord’s message, because it violently tears down God’s Church when the lay people are better than the clerics. (Jerome, On the Epistle to Titus, ch. 2 (PL 26:625).) Therefore, sanctity of life is required in all holy orders.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that knowledge of all Sacred Scripture is required. For someone from whose mouth the law is required should have knowledge of the law. But they require the law from the priest’s mouth, as is clear from Malachi 2:6–7. Therefore, he should have knowledge of the whole law.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, always be ready to give an account of the hope and faith that is in you to the satisfaction of everyone who asks (1 Pet 3:15). But to give an account of the things that belong to faith and hope belongs to those who have perfect knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures. Therefore, those who are established in holy orders should have such knowledge as the aforesaid words bespeak.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, no one reads well who does not understand what he reads, for to read and not understand is to ‘mis-read’ or be ignorant, as Cato says. (Dionysius Cato, Disticha, prol. (CH 12).) But it pertains to lectors, who have the lowest holy orders as it were, to read the Old Testament, as it says in the text. Therefore, it pertains to them to have understanding of the whole Old Testament, and much more for the other higher orders.

On the contrary (1), many are promoted to the priesthood who hardly know anything of these things, and many are also in religious life. Therefore, it seems that such knowledge is not required.

Furthermore (2), we read in the Lives of the Fathers that certain simple monks were promoted to the priesthood, who had the holiest lives. (See Vitae Patrum, Bk. 4, ch. 49 (PL 73:844); Bk. 8, ch. 19 (PL 73:1109), ch. 20 (PL 73:1109), and ch. 89 (PL 73:1186).) Therefore, the knowledge referred to is not required in those to be ordained.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that someone obtains the degree of holy orders by the merit of his life. (Parallel: above, a. 1, qa. 1, ad 3.) For, as Chrysostom says, not every priest is a saint, but every saint is a priest. (Pseudo-Chrysostom, Opus Imperf. in Matth., Hom. 43, on 23:2 (PG 56:876).) But someone becomes a saint by the merit of his life. Therefore he also becomes a priest, and much more does he become someone possessing the other orders.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, among natural things some are established in a higher degree by the very fact that they are closer to God, and participate more in his goods, as Dionysius says in Chapter 4 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 4, p. 3, n. 5 (PG 3:480).) But from the merit of holiness and knowledge a person becomes closer to God, and receives more from his goodness. Therefore, he is established in a degree of holy orders by this very fact.

On the contrary, holiness once possessed can be lost. But holy orders, once possessed, is never lost. Therefore, holy orders does not consist in the merit of holiness itself.

Quaestiuncula 4

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that a person who promotes unworthy men to holy orders does not sin. For the bishop needs assistants in minor offices. But he could not find them in sufficient number if he required such qualifications in them as those described by the saints. Therefore, if he promotes some who are not qualified, it seems that this is excusable.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the Church does not only need ministers for the dispensation of spiritual things, but also for the governance of temporal things. But sometimes those who do not have knowledge or holiness of life can be useful for the governance of temporal things, either because of secular power, or because of natural diligence. Therefore, it seems that one could promote such people without sin.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, everyone is bound to avoid sin as much as possible. Therefore, if the bishop sins by ordaining unworthy men, he should apply the greatest diligence to knowing whether those who seek holy orders are worthy, so that a diligent inquiry would be made about their morals and knowledge; which does not seem to be observed anywhere.

On the contrary (1), it is worse to promote bad men to sacred ministry than not to correct those who are already promoted. But Eli sinned mortally by not correcting his own sons effectively for their wickedness, and for this he died, falling backward, as it says in 1 Samuel 4:18. Therefore, much more does a bishop sin mortally who promotes someone unworthy.

Furthermore (2), spiritual things are to be placed above temporal things in the Church. But anyone who knowingly puts the Church’s temporal belongings in danger would sin mortally. Therefore, much more would he sin who places spiritual things in danger. But anyone who promotes unworthy men does place spiritual things in danger: for the preaching of anyone whose life is despised must also be scorned, as Gregory says; (Gregory the Great, Homilies on the Gospel, Bk. 1, Hom. 12, par. 1 (CCSL 141:82).) and by the same argument all the spiritual things presented by them. Therefore, the one who ordains unworthy men sins mortally.

Quaestiuncula 5

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that someone still in sin can make use of the holy orders he has received without sin. For he would sin if he did not make use of them, since he is bound to by office. Therefore, if he sins by using them, he cannot avoid sinning, which is unfitting.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, a dispensation is a relaxation of the law. Therefore, although in law it would be illicit for him to use the holy orders he has received, nevertheless, he could be permitted by dispensation.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, everyone who shares with another in mortal sin, sins mortally. Therefore, if a sinner sins mortally in using his holy orders, then anyone who receives or demands any of the divine things from him also sins mortally, which seems absurd.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, if someone sinned by using his holy orders, then any act of holy orders that he does is a mortal sin; and so since many acts concur in one exercise of holy orders, it seems that he commits many sins, which seems extremely harsh.

On the contrary (1), Dionysius says: such a person, namely, one who is not illuminated, seems rash to apply his hand to priestly things; and he does not fear, nor is he ashamed to enact divine things beyond his dignity, and to think that God is unaware of what he himself knows lurks within him. And he thinks to deceive with a false name the father called upon by him; and he dares to speak the unclean defamations (for I do not call them prayers) of his very duties upon the divine signs in the form of Christ. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Epistle 8, to Demophilus, n. 2 (PG 3:1093).) Therefore, the priest is like a blasphemer, and he is called a deceiver who unworthily exercises his holy orders; and so he sins mortally, and by the same argument so does anyone else ordained.

Furthermore (2), holiness is required in the reception of holy orders, so that one may be fit to exercise them. But whoever approaches holy orders with mortal sin, sins mortally. Therefore much more does he sin mortally in any exercise of his orders.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that, as Dionysius says, as more subtle and bright essences filled by the influx of the sun’s splendors carry the surpassing light in them into other bodies to the resemblance of the sun, so no one should dare to be the leader of others into any divine thing unless he has become most staunchly God’s and most like God. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 3, p. 3, n. 14 (PG 3:445).) Therefore, since in any level of holy orders a man is established as a leader of others in divine matters, man sins mortally as though presumptuous who approaches holy orders conscious of mortal sin. And thus sanctity of life is required for holy orders by the necessity of a precept, but not for the necessity of the sacrament. For this reason if a wicked man is ordained, he nevertheless possesses holy orders, although with sin.

Reply Obj. 1: Just as the sacraments that a sinner dispenses are valid, so is the sacrament of orders that he receives. And just as he administers them unworthily, he also receives it unworthily.

Reply Obj. 2: That ministry was only in the exercise of bodily devotion, which sinners can also licitly perform. But it is different with the spiritual ministry that the ordained are engaged in, for by it they are made intermediaries between God and the people; and so they should shine with good conscience before men.

Reply Obj. 3: There are some medicines that require strength of nature, otherwise they are taken at risk of death, and there are others that can be given to the weak. In the same way in spiritual matters, some sacraments are ordered to the remedy of sin, and these must be given to sinners, like baptism and penance. But those that confer the perfection of grace require a man to be strengthened by grace.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that any act of a man, if it should be ordered, must be under the direction of his reason. Therefore, for a man to exercise the office of holy orders, he must have as much knowledge as suffices for him to be directed in the act of that level of holy orders. Therefore, such knowledge is required in someone who must be promoted to holy orders, and that he be completely instructed in the whole of Scripture, but more and less according as his office extends to more or fewer things, so that, namely, those who, undertaking the care of souls, are set above others, know those things that pertain to the teaching of faith and morals, and others know those things that have to do with the exercise of their degree of orders.

Reply Obj. 1: A priest has two acts: one principally toward the true body of Christ, and the other, secondary one, toward the mystical body of Christ. Now the second act depends on the first, but not vice versa. And so some men are promoted to the priesthood to whom the first act alone is committed, like religious to whom the care of souls is not committed; and the law is not required from the mouths of such as these, but only that they consecrate the sacraments. And therefore for such as these it is enough if they have enough knowledge that they can observe with due solemnity what has to do with completing the sacrament. Now others are promoted to another act, which is toward the mystical body of Christ, and from the mouths of these the people do require the law. Therefore, knowledge of the law should be in them, not indeed so that they may know all difficult questions of the law, for in those matters they have recourse to their superiors, but so that they know what the people should believe and observe from the law. But it pertains to higher priests, namely, bishops, that they also know those things that can cause difficulty in the law; and the higher degree they are established in, the more they should know.

Reply Obj. 2: The account to be rendered of the faith is not to be understood such that it suffices for proving what belongs to faith or hope, since both of these are about invisible things; but that one knows in general how to show the probability of both of these, for which great knowledge is not required.

Reply Obj. 3: It does not pertain to a lector to give understanding of the Sacred Scriptures to the people, for this belongs to the higher levels of orders, but only to pronounce it. And therefore it is not demanded of him that he have so much knowledge that he understand Sacred Scripture, but only that he know how to pronounce it correctly. And because such knowledge is easily learned, and by many, therefore it can be probably guessed that someone ordained would acquire this knowledge even if at that time he did not have it; especially if he seemed to be on the way to it.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that the cause should be proportionate to its effect. And therefore as in Christ, from whom grace comes down to all people, there had to be the fullness of grace, so in the Church’s ministers, to whom it does not belong to give grace but the sacraments of grace, the degrees of orders are not established from having grace, but from receiving some sacrament of grace.

Reply Obj. 1: Chrysostom takes the name of priest as to the interpretation of the name, according as ‘sacer-dotal’ means ‘giving sacred things’. For then any just person, to the extent that he gives sacred merits to help someone, has this interpretation of sacerdotal. But we are not speaking here according to the meaning of the name, for this noun ‘priest’ (sacerdos) was instituted to mean the one who gives sacred things in administering the sacraments.

Reply Obj. 2: Natural things are made in one degree above another according as they can act in them by their forms, and so by the very fact that they have a nobler form, they are constituted in a higher level. But the Church’s ministers are not set in charge of others so that they may give to them by the strength of their own holiness, for this belongs to God alone, but as ministers, and in a certain way, instruments of that overflow that happens from the head to the members. And so it is not the same as to the dignity of holy orders, although it is the same as to fittingness.

Response to Quaestiuncula 4

To the fourth question, it should be said that the Lord describes a faithful servant who is set over his household, so that he may give to them a measure of wheat; (Luke 12:42; cf. Matthew 24:45.) and for this reason he is guilty of infidelity who gives someone divine things above his measure. Now this is what someone does who promotes an unworthy person. And therefore he commits a mortal offense, as being unfaithful to the highest Lord. And especially because this tends to the detriment of the Church and divine honor, which is advanced by good ministers. For a person would be unfaithful to an earthly master, if he placed useless people in his service.

Reply Obj. 1: God never so deserts his Church that suitable ministers are not sufficiently found for the needs of the people, if worthy ones were promoted and unworthy ones rejected. And if not as many ministers can be found as now, it would be better to have a few good ministers than many bad ones, as blessed Clement says. (Gratian, Decretals, pt. 1, d. 23, can. 4, ‘Tales’; cf. Pseudo-Clement of Rome, Epistle to James (MA 1:127).)

Reply Obj. 2: Temporal things are not to be sought except for the sake of spiritual ones; and therefore temporal inconvenience should be disregarded and every profit spurned for the sake of advancing the spiritual good.

Reply Obj. 3: At least it is required that the person ordaining not know of anything contrary to sanctity in the person to be ordained. But it is also demanded further that according to the measure of holy orders or the office being bestowed, more diligent care be applied, so that a certitude may be had about the quality of those being ordained, at least by the testimony of others. And this is what the Apostle says: do not impose hands on anyone hastily (1 Tim 5:22).

Response to Quaestiuncula 5

To the fifth question, it should be said that the law commands that a man exercise justly those things that are just. (See Deuteronomy 16:20.) And therefore any man who does unworthily what pertains to him by holy orders executes unjustly what is just; and he acts against the precept of the law, and even sins mortally by this. Now, when anyone handles any sacred office with mortal sin, there is no doubt that he does it unworthily; and therefore it is evident that he sins mortally.

Reply Obj. 1: He is not entrapped such that he must necessarily sin, for he can abandon his sin or resign the office that obliged him to exercise his orders.

Reply Obj. 2: No dispensations can be given from the law of nature. But this is of natural law, that a man handle holy things with holiness; and therefore no one can give a dispensation from this.

Reply Obj. 3: As long as the Church’s minister who is in mortal sin is endured by the Church, his subjects must receive the sacraments from him, for they are bound to him for this. But still apart from an emergency it would not be safe that they require him to exercise any of his holy orders while conscious that he was in mortal sin—which nevertheless he could abandon, for a man may be amended by divine grace in an instant.

Reply Obj. 4: Whenever he presents himself in any act as the Church’s minister, he sins mortally; and he sins mortally every time he does that act. For as Dionysius says, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 1, p. 1, n. 5 (PG 3:377).) it is divine heaven’s command that the unclean not touch any of the symbols, that is, sacramental signs. Therefore, when they touch sacred things, as employing their office, they sin mortally. However, it would be different if in a certain necessity some sacred thing happened or was performed, in a case in which it was also permitted to lay people, as if he baptized in an emergency, or if he picked up the body of Christ that had fallen on the floor.

Question 2

Degrees of holy orders

Next we ask about the distinction between orders; and concerning this, three questions arise:

first, about their distinction;

• second, about the acts of each degree;
• third, when the character is imprinted in each degree of orders.
• Article 1

Distinction among degrees of holy orders

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the first question we proceed thus. (Parallel: SCG IV, ch. 75.) It seems that many levels of orders should not be distinguished. For the greater a certain power is, the less it is multiplied. But this sacrament is nobler than other sacraments, inasmuch as it constitutes the recipients on a level above others. Therefore, since other sacraments are not distinguished into many things that receive the predication of the whole, neither should this sacrament be distinguished into multiple orders.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, if it is divided, either it is a division of the whole into integral parts or into subjective parts. It is not into integral parts, for then they would not receive the predication of the whole. Therefore, it is a division into subjective parts. But subjective parts receive in the plural the predication of the remote genus as well as proximate genus, as man and donkey are several animals, and several animate bodies. Therefore the priesthood and diaconate, as they are several orders, so also are they several sacraments, since sacrament is as the genus for holy orders.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, according to the Philosopher in the Ethics 8, (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 8, ch. 10, 1160a35.) the form of rule in which one person alone governs is a nobler form of rule for a community than aristocracy, in which different people are constituted in different offices. But the Church’s rule should be the noblest of all. Therefore, there should not be a distinction of orders for different acts in the Church, but the whole power should reside with one person; and then there would be only one order.

On the contrary (1), the Church is the mystical body of Christ, like a natural body, according to the Apostle. (See Romans 12:4; 1 Corinthians 12:12; Ephesians 1:22, 4:15.) But in a natural body the members have different duties. Therefore, in the Church there should be different orders.

Furthermore (2), the ministry of the New Testament is more worthy than the ministry of the Old Testament, as is seen from 2 Corinthians 3. But in the Old Testament not only priests but also their Levite ministers were sanctified. (See Numbers 8:6.) Therefore, also in the New Testament not only priests but also their ministers should be consecrated by the sacrament of holy orders; and so there must be several orders.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that there are not seven orders. (Parallels: Contra impugn. 4; Super I Tim. 3, lec. 2; SCG IV, ch. 75.) For the Church’s orders are ordered to hierarchical acts. But there are only three hierarchical acts, namely, to purify, to illuminate, and to perfect, according to which Dionysius distinguishes three levels of orders in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Chapter 5. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, p. 1, n. 6 (PG 3:505).) Therefore, there are not seven.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, all sacraments have efficacy and authority from Christ’s institution, or at least that of his apostles. But in the teaching of Christ and the apostles, mention is made only of presbyters and deacons. Therefore, it seems that there are no other orders.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, by the sacrament of holy orders a person is constituted a dispenser of the other sacraments. But there are six other sacraments. Therefore, there should only be six levels of orders.

On the contrary (4), it seems that there should be more. For the higher a power is, the less it can be multiplied. But the hierarchical power exists in a higher way among the angels than in us, as Dionysius says. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 1, p. 1, n. 4 (PG 3:376).) Therefore, since in the angelic hierarchy there are nine orders, there should be the same number in the Church, or more.

Furthermore (5), the prophecy of the Psalms is the nobler among the other prophecies. But there is one order for announcing in the Church the other prophecies, namely, the office of lectors. Therefore, there should also be another order for announcing the Psalms; and particularly since in the Decretals the psalmist is listed second from the porter among the orders. (Gratian, Decretals, pt. 1, d. 21, can. 1, ‘Cleros’.)

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that holy orders should not be distinguished by sacred and non-sacred. (Parallel: In IV Sent. d. 7, a. 1, qa. 3; SCG IV, ch. 75.) For all the degrees of orders are certain sacraments. But all the sacraments are sacred. Therefore, all the orders are sacred.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, according to the Church’s orders a person is deputed to nothing but divine offices. But all such things are sacraments. Therefore, all orders are sacred.

On the contrary, sacred orders impede someone from contracting marriage, and render the contract null. But the four lower orders do not impede one from contracting, nor do they nullify the contract. Therefore, they are not sacred orders.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that a multitude of orders was introduced into the Church for three reasons. First, to emphasize God’s wisdom, which shines forth most in ordered distinction, both in natural things and in spiritual things, which is signified in the fact that the queen of Sheba, seeing the order of Solomon’s ministers, had no more spirit in her, fainting in admiration of his wisdom. (See 1 Kings 10:4–5.) Second, to come to the aid of human weakness, for all the things that pertained to divine mysteries could not be carried out by one person without great difficulty. And therefore different orders are distinguished for different offices. And this is seen by the fact that the Lord gave Moses seventy elders of the people to help him (Num 11:16–17). Third, so that a more ample path for advancement might be given to men when they distribute more people among different offices, so that all may be God’s cooperators, for nothing is more divine than this, as Dionysius says. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 3, n. 2 (PG 3:165).)

Reply Obj. 1: Those sacraments are given for receiving certain effects, but this sacrament is given chiefly for certain acts to be done. And thus according to the diversity of acts it is necessary that the sacrament of holy orders be distinguished just as powers are distinguished by their acts.

Reply Obj. 2: The distinction of orders is not a distinction of an integral whole into parts, nor of a universal whole, but of a potestative whole. The nature of a potestative whole is that the whole is in one thing according to its complete notion, but it is in others as a certain participation of it. And this is how it is here, for all the plenitude of this sacrament is in one order, namely, the priesthood. But in the others there is a certain participation of orders, and this is signified in what the Lord says to Moses: I will take some of your spirit and put it on them, so that they may bear the burden of the people along with you (Num 11:17). And thus all orders are one sacrament.

Reply Obj. 3: Although in a kingdom the whole fullness of power resides with the king, nevertheless the powers of the ministers do not prevent that they are certain participations of royal power; and it is similar in holy orders. But in aristocracy the fullness of power resides with no one, but with all.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that some people gather the sufficiency of orders from a certain adaptation to the gratuitous graces, which are treated in 1 Corinthians 12. For they say that the word of wisdom relates to the bishop, for he is the orderer of the others, which pertains to wisdom; the word of knowledge pertains to the priest, for he must have the key of wisdom; faith to the deacon, who preaches the Gospel; works of power to the subdeacon, who applies himself to works of perfection by the vow of continence; interpretation of words to the acolyte, which is signified in the light that he carries; grace of healing to the exorcist; kinds of tongues to the psalmist; prophecy to the lector; discernment of spirits to the porter, who refuses some and admits others. But this is nothing, for gratuitous graces are not given to the same person, as the orders are given to the same person; for it says: there are diversities of graces (1 Cor 12:4). And again they list certain things that are not called orders, namely, the episcopate and the state of psalmist.

And so others assign them according to a certain likeness to the heavenly hierarchy, in which the orders are distinguished according to purification, illumination, and perfection. For they say that the porter purifies by outwardly separating the good from the bad even physically; the acolyte does this inside, for by the light that he carries, he signifies that he drives off interior darkness; but the exorcist does this in both ways, for the devil that he expels troubles us in both ways. But the illumination that happens by teaching as to the prophetic teaching is done by lectors; as to the evangelical teaching, by deacons; as to the apostolic teaching, by subdeacons. But general perfecting, as it belongs to penance, baptism, and things like this, is done by the priest; but excelling perfection is done by the bishop, like the consecration of priests and virgins; but the most excellent is done by the supreme pontiff, in whom the fullness of authority exists. But this is nothing: both because the orders of the heavenly hierarchy are not distinguished by the hierarchical actions mentioned, since each of them apply to each of the orders; and because, according to Dionysius, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, p. 1, n. 5 (PG 3:505); n. 6 (PG 3:508).) perfecting only applies to the bishop, while illuminating applies to priests, and purifying to all the ministers.

And therefore others connect the orders with the seven gifts, so that priesthood corresponds to the gift of wisdom, which feeds us the bread of life and understanding, as the priest refreshes us with the bread of heaven; but fear corresponds to the porter, for he separates us from evils; and then the intermediate orders correspond to the middle gifts. But again there is nothing in this: for in any degree of orders the sevenfold graces are given.

And thus it should rather be said that the sacrament of orders is ordered to the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is the sacrament of sacraments, as Dionysius says. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 3, p. 1 (PG 3:425).) For just as the temple and the altar and the vessels and the vestments need consecration, so do the ministries that are ordered to the Eucharist; and this consecration is the sacrament of holy orders. And therefore the distinction of orders should be taken according to their relation to the Eucharist; for the power of orders is either for the consecration of the Eucharist itself, or for some ministry to be directed to this.

If it is the first way, then it is the priestly order; and thus when they are ordained, they receive a chalice with wine and a paten with bread to receive the power of consecrating the body and blood of Christ.

But the cooperation of the ministers is either in an order to the sacrament itself, or in an order to those who receive it. If the first, then in three ways. For the first is the ministry by which the minister cooperates with the priest in the sacrament itself, as to its distribution, although not as to consecration, which the priest alone does; and this pertains to the deacon. Therefore, it says in the text that it pertains to the deacon to minister to priests in all things that are done in Christ’s sacraments, (Peter Lombard, Sentences, Bk. 4, d. 24, ch. 10 (QR 2:899).) which is why they distribute the precious blood.

Second is the ministry directed to the sacrament’s matter to be arranged in the sacred vessels of this sacrament: and this pertains to the subdeacon. Therefore, in the text (Peter Lombard, Sentences, Bk. 4, d. 24, ch. 9 (QR 2:898).) it says that they carry the vessels of the Lord’s body and blood, and they place the offerings on the altar; and so when they are ordained, they receive a chalice from the hand of the bishop, but an empty one.

Third is the ministry ordered to presenting the matter of the sacrament; and this belongs to the acolyte: for, as it says in the text, (Peter Lombard, Sentences, Bk. 4, d. 24, ch. 8 (QR 2:897).) he prepares the cruets with wine and water; and so he receives an empty cruet.

But the ministry ordered toward preparing the recipients can only be about those who are unclean; for the clean are already ready for receiving the sacraments. But there are three kinds of uncleanliness, as Dionysius says. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 3, p. 3, nn. 6–7 (PG 3:432).) For some people are entirely unbelievers, not wanting to believe, and these people are also completely restricted from the vision of divine things and assembly of the faithful; and this pertains to porters. But some want to believe but have not yet been instructed, namely, catechumens; and the order of lectors is directed to their instruction; and so the first rudiments for the teaching of the faith, namely, the Old Testament, is entrusted to them to read. But some people are believers and instructed, but have an impediment out of the power of a demon, namely, the possessed; and for this holy orders has the ministry of the exorcist. And in this way the reason and number and degrees of holy orders are explained.

Reply Obj. 1: Dionysius is speaking of holy orders not according as they are sacraments, but according as they are directed to hierarchical actions. And so according to those actions, he distinguishes three degrees of orders, the first of which, namely, the bishop, has all three; the second, namely, the priest, has two; but the third, namely, the deacon, has only one (namely, to purify). He is called minister, and under this all the lower orders are included. But the orders are sacraments only by their relation to the greatest of sacraments; and this is why the number of orders should be gathered in accord with this.

Reply Obj. 2: In the early Church, all the lower ministries were committed to deacons because of the scarcity of ministers, as is evident from what Dionysius says: other ministers stand at the closed gates of the temple; others work something else of their proper order; others set out the sacred bread and the chalice of blessing upon the altar with the priests. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 3, p. 2 (PG 3:425).) Nevertheless, all the powers mentioned were there, but implicitly in the one power of the diaconate. But later the divine worship was more widespread, and what the Church implicitly had in one order, she distributed explicitly over many; and according to this the Master says in the text that the Church instituted for herself other orders. (Peter Lombard, Sentences, Bk. 4, d. 24, ch. 12 (QR 2:902).)

Reply Obj. 3: Holy orders are chiefly directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist, and to the other sacraments consequently. For the other sacraments are also derived from what is contained in this sacrament. Therefore, it is not necessary that the orders be distinguished according to the sacraments.

Reply Obj. 4: Angels differ in species; and because of this there can be different modes of receiving divine things in them. And thus also different hierarchies are distinguished among them. But among men there is only one hierarchy, because of the one mode of receiving divine things which is consequent upon the human species, namely, by the likenesses of sensible things. And therefore the distinction of orders in angels cannot be in relation to any sacrament, as it is with us, but only in relation to the hierarchical actions that every order exercises over the lower ones. And according to this our orders correspond to them, for in our hierarchy there are three orders, distinguished according to the hierarchical actions, just as in every individual hierarchy of angels.

Reply Obj. 5: The state of psalmist is not an order, but an office attached to holy orders. For because the psalms are pronounced with singing, for this reason the psalmist is also called a cantor. Now a cantor is not the name of a specific degree of orders, both because singing pertains to the whole choir, and because it does not have any special relationship to the sacrament of the Eucharist; and because it is a certain office sometimes counted among the orders taken broadly.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that there are two ways that orders can be called sacred. In one way, essentially, and then every degree of orders is sacred, since it is a certain sacrament; in the other way, by reason of the matter about which it has an act, and then those orders are called sacred that have some act concerning some consecrated thing. And in this way there are only three sacred orders, namely, priest, and deacon, who has his act concerning the consecrated body and blood of Christ, and subdeacon, who has his act concerning sacred vessels. And this is why continence is also prescribed for them, so that the ones who handle holy things may be holy and clean.

And by this the answers to the objections are clear.

Article 2

The proper acts pertaining to each degree of holy orders

Obj. 1: To the second we proceed thus. (Parallel: SCG IV, ch. 75.) It seems that the acts of the orders are inappropriately assigned in the text. For a person is prepared to receive the body of Christ by cleansing. But the preparation of those receiving the sacrament pertains to the lower orders. Therefore, cleansing from sins is inappropriately included among the acts of a priest.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, by baptism a man is configured to God by receiving a configuring character. But to pray and offer oblations are acts immediately directed to God. Therefore, every baptized person can perform these acts, and not only priests.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the acts of different orders are different. But placing oblations on the altar and reading the epistle pertain to the subdeacon; subdeacons also bear the cross before the Pope. Therefore, these should not be listed as acts of a deacon.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, the same truth is contained in the New Testament as in the Old. But reading the Old Testament belongs to lectors. Therefore, by the same reasoning, reading the New Testament should belong to them and not to deacons.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, the apostles preached nothing but the Gospel of Christ, as is clear from Romans 1:1. But the teaching of the apostles is committed to subdeacons to be announced. Therefore, the teaching of the Gospel should be as well.

Obj. 6: Furthermore, what belongs to higher orders, according to Dionysius, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, p. 1, n. 7 (PG 3:508).) must not be shared with a lower order. But to administer the cruet is an act of subdeacons. Therefore, it should not be attributed to acolytes.

Obj. 7: Furthermore, spiritual acts should take precedence over physical ones. But an acolyte has no act but a physical one. Therefore, an exorcist should not have the act of expelling demons, since he is lower.

Obj. 8: Furthermore, things that have more in common should be listed next to each other. But to read the Old Testament should share most in common with the reading of the New Testament, which belongs to the higher ministers. Therefore, to read the Old Testament should not be listed as an act of the lector, but rather of the acolyte; and particularly since the physical light that the acolytes carry signifies the spiritual light of doctrine.

Obj. 9: Furthermore, in any act of spiritual orders there should be a certain spiritual power that the ordained have above others. But in the opening and closing of the doors, the porters have no spiritual power different from other men. Therefore, this should not be listed as one of their acts.

I answer that, since the consecration that is made in the sacrament of holy orders is directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist, as was said, the chief act of each and every degree of orders is the one according to which it is more closely ordered to the sacrament of the Eucharist. And also according to this, one degree of orders is more eminent than another according as one act is more closely directed to the aforesaid sacrament. But since many things are directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist as the most noble, this is why it is not inappropriate that beyond the principal act one level of orders might have many acts, and the more it has, the more eminent it is; for the higher the power, the more things it extends to.

Reply Obj. 1: There are two ways of preparing people to receive the sacrament. There is a remote way, and this is completed by ministers; and a proximate way, by which they are made immediately fit for the reception of the sacraments, and this pertains to priests. For even among natural things the matter is placed in its final disposition to the form, and it receives its form, from the same agent. And since someone is brought to his proximate disposition to the Eucharist by being purified of his sins, therefore the priest is the proper minister of all the sacraments that are chiefly instituted for the purification of sins, namely, baptism, penance, and extreme unction.

Reply Obj. 2: Certain acts are ordered to God immediately in two ways. In one way on the part of only one person, like making individual prayers and making a vow and things like this; and such acts belong to any baptized person. In another way on the part of the whole Church; and then only a priest has the acts immediately ordered to God, for the only one who can bear the acts of the whole Church is the one who consecrates the Eucharist, which is the sacrament of the universal Church.

Reply Obj. 3: The offerings offered by the people are offered through the priest; and therefore two kinds of ministry surrounding the offerings are necessary: 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 on the part of the priest, and this belongs to the deacon, who supplies the oblations to the priest himself; and in this is the principal act of either order; and because of this the order of deacons is higher. But to read the epistle is not an act of the deacon, except according as acts of the lower orders are attributed to the higher ones; and likewise regarding carrying the cross. And this is according to the custom of particular churches, for in secondary acts it is not unfitting that there be different customs.

Reply Obj. 4: Teaching is a remote preparation for receiving the sacrament; and thus to pronounce the teaching is committed to ministers. But the teaching of the Old Testament is still more remote than the teaching of the New Testament, for it does not instruct about this sacrament except in figures. And so the New Testament is committed to higher ministers to be announced, while the Old Testament is committed to lower ones. Moreover, the teaching of the New Testament that the Lord himself handed down is more perfect than the manifestation of it by the apostles. And therefore the Gospel is committed to the deacon, the epistle to the subdeacon.

And according to this the answer to the fifth objection is clear.

Reply Obj. 6: Acolytes have their act only over the cruet, not over what is contained in the cruet. But the subdeacon has his act over what is contained in the cruet, for he uses the water and wine for placing in the chalice, and again he brings the water for the hands of the priest and deacon. Likewise the subdeacon also has his act only over the chalice, not its contents, but the priest acts over its contents. And this is why, just as the subdeacon receives an empty chalice at his ordination, the priest a full one; so also the acolyte receives an empty cruet, but the subdeacon a full one. And this is how there is a certain intertwining among the orders.

Reply Obj. 7: The physical acts of the acolyte are more closely directed to the act of sacred orders than the act of exorcists, although it is in a certain way a spiritual act. For the acolytes have their ministry over the vessels in which the sacrament’s matter is contained as to wine, which needs a containing vessel because of its wetness. And therefore the order of acolytes is higher among the minor orders.

Reply Obj. 8: The act of the acolytes is related more closely to the principal acts of the higher ministers than the acts of other minor orders, as is evident in itself. And likewise also as to secondary acts, by which they dispose the people by teaching; for the acolyte visibly represents the teaching of the New Testament by carrying the light, but the lector by reciting other figures; and thus the acolyte is higher. Similarly too the exorcist: for just as the act of the lector is related to the secondary act of the deacon and subdeacon, so is the act of the exorcist related to the secondary act of the priest, namely, to bind and loose, by which a person is completely freed from slavery to the devil. And in this the progression of the orders is seen to be most perfectly ordered, for the three higher orders cooperate with the priest as to his principal act, namely, consecrating the body of Christ, but as to his secondary act, which is to absolve and bind, the higher and lower orders cooperate.

Reply Obj. 9: Some people say that in the reception of holy orders, the porter is given a certain divine power, so that he can restrict others from entering the temple, just as existed in Christ when he threw the merchants out of the temple. But this pertains more to gratuitous grace than to the grace of the sacrament. And so it should be said that he receives a power so that he can do this by his office, although this could also be done by others, but not by their office. And it is this way in all the acts of the minor orders, that they can licitly be done by others, although others do not have the office for this, just as a Mass can also be said in a non-consecrated building, although the consecration of a church is ordered to Mass being said there.

Article 3

When the character is imprinted in each degree of orders

Obj. 1: To the third question we proceed thus. It seems that the priest’s character is not imprinted in the very presentation of the chalice. For the priest’s consecration happens by an anointing, just like confirmation. But in confirmation a character is imprinted in the anointing itself. Therefore, also in the priesthood, and not at the presentation of the chalice.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the Lord gave priestly power to his disciples when he said, receive the Holy Spirit: what sins you have forgiven, are forgiven them (John 20:22–23). But the Spirit is given by the imposition of hands. Therefore, in the imposition of hands the character of orders is imprinted.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, just as a minister is consecrated, so are the ministers’ vestments. But only the benediction consecrates the vestments. Therefore, in the bishop’s benediction the consecration of the priest is completed.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, just as the chalice is given to the priest, so are the priestly vestments. Therefore, if the character is imprinted in the giving of the chalice, by the same reasoning, it is also in the giving of the chasuble; and in this way he would have two characters, which is false.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, the order of deacons resembles more the priestly order than the order of subdeacons. But if a character were imprinted in the priest at the presentation of the chalice, the subdeacon would be more like the priest than the deacon is: for the subdeacon receives his character in the presentation of the chalice, but the deacon does not. Therefore, the priestly character is not imprinted in the presentation of the chalice.

Obj. 6: Furthermore, the order of acolytes is closer to the priestly act by having its act over the cruet than by having its act over the candelabra. But the character is more imprinted in the acolytes when they receive the candelabra than when they receive the cruet, for the name ‘acolyte’ means ‘carrying a candle’. (See, in addition to Lombard’s text, Gratian, Decretals, pt. 1, d. 21, can. 1, ‘Cleros’; Isidore, Etymologies (OCT, ed. Lindsay), Bk. 7, ch. 12, par. 29: “Acolythi Graece, Latine ceroferarii dicuntur, a deportandis cereis, quando legendum est Euangelium, aut sacrificium offerendum.”) Therefore, neither in the priesthood is the character imprinted when he receives the chalice.

On the contrary, the principal act of the priest is to consecrate the body of Christ. But the power for this is given to him in the reception of the chalice. Therefore, that is when the character is imprinted.

I answer that, as has been said, it belongs to the same one to introduce the form and to most closely prepare the matter for the form. Therefore in conferring holy orders, the bishop does two things: for he prepares the ordinands for receiving holy orders and he gives them the power of holy orders. Now he prepares them both by instructing them about the office itself and by doing something to them so that they may be fit to receive this power. And this preparation consists in three things, namely, benediction, imposition of hands, and anointing. By the benediction one is dedicated to divine service; and so the benediction is given to all. But by the imposition of hands a fullness of grace is given, by which they are suitable for greater offices; and so the imposition of hands is only done to deacons and priests, for the administering of the sacraments belongs to them, although principally to the one and to the other as his minister. But by the anointing they are consecrated to handling a sacrament; and therefore the anointing is only done to priests, who touch the body of Christ with their own hands, just as the chalice that contains his blood is also anointed, and the paten that contains his body. But the conferral of power happens by the fact that they are given something pertaining to their proper acts; and since the principal act of the priest is to consecrate the body and blood of Christ, this is why the priestly character is imprinted in the very giving of the chalice under the determined form of words.

Reply Obj. 1: In confirmation the office of working upon an external matter is not given; and therefore the character is not imprinted there in any presentation of a certain thing, but only in the imposition of hands and anointing. But in the priestly order it is otherwise, and so it is not the same thing.

Reply Obj. 2: The Lord gave priestly power to his disciples as to its principal act before his Passion, at the Last Supper, when he said, take and eat (Matt 26:26), which is why he adds do this in memory of me (Luke 22:19). (Cf. 1 Corinthians 11:24.) But after the resurrection he gave them the priestly power as to its secondary act, which is to bind and loose.

Reply Obj. 3: In vestments no other consecration is required, except that they be dedicated to divine worship. And so a benediction is enough for them as consecration. But it is different with ordained men, as is clear from what has been said.

Reply Obj. 4: Priestly vestments do not signify the priestly power given, but the suitability that is required in them in exercising the act of this power. And so a character is not imprinted on the priest nor on any other person by the giving of the vestments.

Reply Obj. 5: The power of the deacon is a mean between the power of the subdeacon and of the priest. For the priest directly has power over the body of Christ, but the subdeacon only over the vessels, while the deacon has power over the body contained in the vessel. Therefore, it does not belong to him to touch the body of Christ but to carry the body of Christ on the paten, and to distribute the blood with the chalice. And so his power could not be expressed for its principal act by giving the vessels alone, nor by giving the matter, but his power is expressed as to its secondary act in giving him the book of the Gospels; and in this power the others are understood. And therefore in that giving his character is imprinted.

Reply Obj. 6: The act of the acolyte is more principally ministering in the cruet than ministering in the candelabra, although he is named from the secondary act, since it is more recognizable and more proper to him. And therefore his character is imprinted in the giving of the cruet by the power of the words pronounced by the bishop.

Question 3

Things associated with holy orders

Next we ask about some things that are attached to holy orders; and concerning this, three questions arise:

first, about the crown-shaped tonsure;

• second, about the episcopate;
• third, about sacred vestments.
• Article 1

The crown-shaped tonsure

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the first question we proceed thus. It seems that the ordained should not be tonsured with a crown. For the Lord threatens captivity and dispersion to those who are so groomed, as is clear from Deuteronomy 32:42: and of the captivity of the bare-headed enemies; and Jeremiah 49:32: I will scatter to every wind those who have their temples shaved. But captivity is not due to Christ’s ministers, but liberty. Therefore the crown, tonsure, and shaving does not befit them.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the truth should correspond to the figure. But the figure of the crown came first in the Old Testament in the tonsure of the Nazarites, as it says in the text. (Peter Lombard, in ch. 4 of this distinction, states that originally Nazarites did not cut their hair, but later they cut it all.) Therefore, since the Nazarites were not ordained for divine ministry, it seems that a tonsure or crown-shaped haircut should not be given to the Church’s ministers; and this is also seen by the fact that lay-brothers, who are not the Church’s ministers, are tonsured in religious life.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, hair represents superfluous things, for hair is generated by that which is superfluous. But the ministers of the altar should rid themselves of all superfluities. Therefore, they should completely shave their heads, and not in a crown-shaped tonsure.

On the contrary (1), according to Gregory, to serve God is to rule. (Gregory the Great, On the Seven Penitential Psalms, on Ps 101:23 (PL 79:623). Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, de Sacramentis, Bk. 2, pt. 3, ch. 1 (PL 176:421).) But a crown is a sign of rule. Therefore, a crown befits those who are devoted to the divine ministry.

Furthermore (2), hair is given as a veil, as is clear from 1 Corinthians 11:15. But the ministers of the altar should have their minds unveiled. Therefore, a crown-shaped shaving does befit them.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the crown is holy orders. For in the Church’s actions spiritual things correspond to physical ones. But the crown is a certain physical sign that the Church employs. Therefore, it seems that an interior sign corresponds to it; and so the character would be imprinted in the crowning, and this will be holy orders.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, just as confirmation and the different orders are given only by the bishop, so too is the crown. But in confirmation and the different orders a character is imprinted. Therefore, also in the crown, and thus the same thing as before.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, holy orders carry a certain degree of dignity. But by the fact that someone is a cleric, he is constituted in a level above the people. Therefore, the crown by which he is made a cleric is a degree in holy orders.

On the contrary (1), orders are only given in the celebration of Mass. But the crown is also given without the office of Mass. Therefore, it is not holy orders.

Furthermore (2), in the conferral of any level of holy orders, mention is made of some power given; but not in the conferral of the crown. Therefore, it is not holy orders.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that by receiving the crown a person renounces temporal goods. For they say when they are crowned, the Lord is the portion of my inheritance (cf. Ps 16:5). But as Jerome says, the Lord disdains to become a portion with those temporal things. (Jerome, Epistle 52, to Nepotian (PL 22:531).) Therefore, he renounces temporal things.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the righteousness of the ministers of the New Testament should exceed that of ministers of the Old Testament, as is clear from Matthew 5:20. But ministers of the Old Testament, namely, the Levites, did not receive a portion of their inheritance with their brothers. (See Numbers 18:20; Deut 10:9 and 18:1.) Therefore, neither should the ministers of the New Testament.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, Hugh says that after someone becomes a cleric, from then on he should be supported by the Church’s stipends. (Hugh of St. Victor, de Sacramentis, Bk. 2, pt. 3, ch. 2 (PL 176:421).) But this would not be the case if he retained his patrimony. Therefore, it seems that he renounces it in becoming a cleric.

On the contrary (1), Jeremiah was of the priestly order, as is clear from Jeremiah 1:1. But he had property by the law of inheritance, as is evident from Jeremiah 32:8ff. Therefore, clerics can possess their patrimonial goods.

Furthermore (2), if they could not do this, there would seem to be no difference btween secular clerics and religious.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that for those who are employed in the divine ministry, a tonsure and shaving in the shape of a crown are fitting, both by reason of the figure, for a crown is a sign of rule and also a sign of perfection, since it is circular. Now those who are employed in the divine ministry gain royal dignity, and they should be perfect in virtue. It also befits them by reason of removing their hair, both on the higher part through shaving, lest their minds be hampered from the contemplation of divine things by temporal concerns; and on the lower part by the tonsure, lest their senses be clouded by temporal things.

Reply Obj. 1: The Lord threatens those who were doing this for the worship of demons.

Reply Obj. 2: Those things that were done in the Old Testament imperfectly represented what is in the New Testament; and so those things that pertain to the ministers of the New Testament are not only signified by the offices of the Levites, but by all those who professed any perfection. Now the Nazarites did profess a certain perfection in giving up their hair, signifying their contempt for temporal things; although they did not give it up in the shape of a crown, but in its entirety, for it was not yet then the time of the royal and perfect priesthood. And likewise also lay-brothers cut their hair because of their renunciation of temporal goods, but they do not shave the tops of their heads, for they are not occupied with divine ministries, in which they would have to contemplate divine things with their minds.

Reply Obj. 3: Not only the abandonment of temporal things should be signified, but also the royal dignity in the form of the crown, and that is why the hair should not be entirely removed; and also so that it does not seem unsightly.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that the Church’s ministers are separated from the people in order to be free for divine worship. Now in divine worship there are some things that are to be practiced through specific powers, and the spiritual power of holy orders is given for these things. But there are some things that are done together by the whole company of ministers, like saying the divine praises, and no power of holy orders is required for this, but only a certain assignment to such an office, and this is done by the crown. And therefore it is not holy orders, but a forerunner to holy orders.

Reply Obj. 1: The crown has something spiritual that corresponds to it interiorly, as a sign corresponds to the thing signified, but this is not a spiritual power. And thus a character is not imprinted with the crown, nor is holy orders.

Reply Obj. 2: Although by the crown no character is imprinted, nevertheless a man is appointed to the divine worship. And therefore such an appointment should be done by the highest of ministers, namely, the bishop, who also blesses the vestments and vessels and all the things that are employed in divine worship.

Reply Obj. 3: By the fact that someone is a cleric, he is in a higher state than a layperson; but he does not have the greater degree of power that is required for holy orders.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that in receiving the crown, clerics do not renounce their patrimony nor other temporal things: for earthly possessions are not contrary to the divine worship that clerics are appointed for. But excessive concern for possessions is, for, as Gregory says, it is the love of wealth that is sinful. (Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob (CCSL 143), Bk. 10, par. 30.)

Reply Obj. 1: The Lord disdains to become a portion and be loved as one thing equal with others, namely, so that someone should place his end in God and in the things of the world. Yet he does not disdain to become the portion of those who possess the things of the world in such a way that they are not hampered from divine worship by them.

Reply Obj. 2: Levites in the Old Testament had the right to a paternal inheritance, but the reason they did not receive their portion with the other tribes was because they were to be dispersed throughout the other tribes, which could not have happened if they had received one particular portion of land, like the other tribes.

Reply Obj. 3: If the clerics promoted to sacred orders are needy, the bishop who promotes them must provide for them; otherwise, he is not bound to. They, however, since they received holy orders, are bound to minister to the Church. However, the words of Hugh are understood when they do not have the means to support themselves.

Article 2

On the episcopate

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the second question we proceed thus. (Parallels: above, d. 23, q. 1, a. 3, qa. 3, ad 1; ST III, q. 82, a. 1, ad 4; SCG IV, ch. 76.) It seems that there should not be a certain episcopal power above the priestly order. For as is said in the text, (Peter Lombard, ch. 11 of this distinction.) priestly orders took their beginning from Aaron. But in the old law no one was above Aaron. Therefore, neither in the new law should there be any power above the priestly power.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, powers are ordered according to acts. But no sacred act can be greater than consecrating the body of Christ, which is what priestly power is for. Therefore, there should not be episcopal power above priestly power.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the priest, in offering, bears in the Church the figure of Christ, who offered himself to the Father for us. But in the Church no one is greater than Christ, who is himself the Church’s head. (Colossians 1:18.) Therefore, no power should be above priestly power.

On the contrary (1), the higher the power, the more things it extends to. But priestly power, as Dionysius says, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, p. 1, n. 7 (PG 3:508).) extends only to purifying and illuminating, while episcopal power extends to these and to perfecting. Therefore, episcopal power must be above priestly power.

Furthermore (2), divine ministries should be more ordered than human ones. But the order of human offices requires that in any office one person be in charge who is the leader of that office, as the general is in charge of the army. Therefore, someone should also be set over priests who is the head of the priests, and this is the bishop. Therefore, there should be episcopal power over priests.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the episcopate is an order. (Parallels: In IV Sent. d. 7, q. 3, a. 1, qa. 2, ad 3; d. 23, q. 1, a. 3, qa. 3, ad 1; de Perfectione, ch. 23; Quodl. III, q. 6, a. 3, ad 5.) First, by the fact that Dionysius (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, p. 1, n. 6 (PG 3:505).) assigns three orders to the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the bishop, the priest, and the minister. It also says in the text that there is a four-part order of bishops. (Lombard, ch. 17 in the present distinction.)

Obj. 2: Furthermore, holy orders is nothing other than a certain degree of power for distributing spiritual things. But bishops can administer some sacraments that priests cannot administer, like confirmation and holy orders. Therefore, the episcopate is an order.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, in the Church there is no spiritual power except holy orders or the power of jurisdiction. But those things that pertain to the episcopal power do not belong to jurisdiction; otherwise they could be committed to a non-bishop, which is false. Therefore, they belong to the power of orders: therefore, the bishop has a certain order that a simple priest does not have; and thus the episcopate is an order.

On the contrary (1), one order does not depend on the previous one as necessary to the sacrament. But the episcopal power does depend on priestly power, for no one can receive episcopal power unless he first has priestly power. Therefore, the episcopate is not an order.

Furthermore (2), major orders are only conferred on Saturdays. (Gratian, Decretals, pt. 1, d. 75, can. 4, ‘Quod a patribus’.) But episcopal power is conferred on Sundays. (Ibid., can. 1, ‘Ordinationes episcoporum.’) Therefore, it is not an order.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that there cannot be anyone higher than a bishop in the Church. (Parallels: SCG IV, ch. 76; Contra errores Graec., pt. 2, chs. 32–38.) For all bishops are successors of the apostles. But the power that was given to one of the apostles, namely, Peter, in Matthew 16:19, was also given to all the apostles in John 20:23. (Cf. Matthew 18:18.) Therefore, all bishops are equals, and one is not above another.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the Church’s rites should be more like the rites of the Jews than the rites of the gentiles. But the distinction of episcopal dignity and the ordination of one over another, as it says in the text, (See Lombard, ch. 17 in this distinction.) was introduced by the gentiles; it did not exist in the Old Testament. Therefore, neither should one bishop be over another in the Church.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, higher power cannot be conferred by someone below, nor equal power by an equal: for without any contradiction, the lower is blessed by his superior (Heb 7:7). Therefore, neither can a priest promote a bishop, nor another priest, but a bishop can promote a priest. And a bishop can promote any bishop, for the bishop of Ostia consecrates the pope. Therefore, episcopal dignity is equal among all, and so one bishop should not have others under him, as it says in the text. (Ibid.)

On the contrary (1), we read in the Council of Constantinople: according to the Scriptures and definitions of the most holy canons let us revere the first bishop of ancient Rome to be also the greatest of bishops; and after him the bishop of Constantinople. (This quotation, up to “et post ipsum,” may be found in the Canones Nicoeno Arabici (see MA 2:965 and 995); for the latter part, see MA 3:559. Cf. Thomas, Contra errores Graecorum, pt. 2, ch. 21, n. 1.) Therefore, one bishop is above another.

Furthermore (2), blessed Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria, says: so that we may remain members in our head by the apostolic throne of Roman pontiffs, of whom we may ask what to believe and what we should hold, venerating him, asking him above all others: since it belongs to him alone to reproach, to correct, to rule, to dispose, to bind and loose, in the place of the one who established him, but he gave to him alone and to no other what was his own fully, to whom all bow their heads by divine law, and the primates of the world give obedience to him as to the Lord Jesus himself. (Cf. Thomas, Contra errores Graecorum, pt. 2, ch. 21, n. 5. The Editiones Paulinae Summa theologiae, at Suppl. q. 40, a. 5, implies that this quotation is not found verbatim in Cyril.) Therefore, some bishops are also lower by divine law.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that a priest has two acts: one principal act, namely, to consecrate the true body of Christ; and another secondary act, namely, to prepare the people for the reception of this sacrament, as was said above. (In this distinction, q. 2, a. 1, qa. 2, and a. 2.) Now as to the first act, the acts of a priest do not depend on any higher power except divine power; but as to the second, they do depend on a certain higher human power. For every power that cannot issue in act without the presupposition of certain things being set in order depends on the power that caused those things to be set in order. Now, a priest cannot absolve and bind except by the previously established jurisdiction of his superior, by which those whom he absolves are placed under him. But he can consecrate any matter determined by Christ; nor is anything else required as necessary to the sacrament, although by a certain fittingness an episcopal act is presupposed in the consecration of an altar and its cloths. And so it is evident that there must be episcopal power above the priestly power as to the secondary act of a priest, but not as to the first.

Reply Obj. 1: As a priest, Aaron was priest and pontiff, (See Exodus 25:19.) that is, the prince of priests. (See Isidore, Etymologies (OCT, ed. Lindsay), Bk. 7, ch. 12, par. 13; cf. Leviticus 21:10.) Therefore, the priestly power took its beginning from him insofar as he was a priest who offered sacrifices, which was also permitted to lower priests; (See Hebrews 9:9.) but not from him insofar as he was pontiff, by which power he was able to do certain things which were not permitted to others, like entering once per year into the holy of holies. (See Hebrews 9:7, Exodus 30:10, Leviticus 16:2.)

Reply Obj. 2: With regard to that act there is no higher power, but only with regard to the other, as was said.

Reply Obj. 3: Just as the perfections of all natural things pre-exist in an exemplary way in God, so Christ was the exemplar of the ecclesiastical offices. Therefore, every minister of the Church bears the type of Christ in some respect, as is clear from the text. (See Peter Lombard, ch. 1 of the present distinction.) And yet that person is superior who represents Christ according to greater perfection. Now the priest represents Christ in that in himself he fulfilled a certain ministry; but the bishop in the fact that he established other ministers, and founded the Church. Therefore, it pertains to the bishop to dedicate something to divine services, as establishing divine worship in a likeness to Christ; and because of this the bishop is also specially called the bridegroom of the Church, like Christ.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that order can be taken in two ways. In one way according as it is a sacrament; and then, as was said above, (In this distinction, q. 2, a. 2.) every order is directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist; therefore, since the bishop does not have a higher power than a priest with respect to it, there will be no episcopal order. In another way orders can be considered according as they are certain offices regarding certain sacred actions; and then, since the bishop has power over a priest in hierarchical actions regarding the mystical body, there will be an episcopal order. And it is according to this that the authorities quoted are speaking.

Therefore, the answer to the first objection is clear.

Reply Obj. 2: Orders, according as it is a sacrament imprinting a character, is specially directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist, in which Christ himself is contained, for by the character we are configured to Christ himself. And therefore although a certain spiritual power is given to the bishop in his promotion with regard to the other sacraments, nevertheless that power does not have the nature of a character. And because of this the episcopate is not an order, according as orders are a certain sacrament.

Reply Obj. 3: Episcopal power is not only about jurisdiction but also a degree of orders, according as orders is commonly taken, as is clear from what has been said.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that wherever there are many directors ordered into one, there must be a certain universal director above the particular directors; for in all virtues and arts, as it says in the Ethics 1, (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 1, ch. 1, 1094a9, and ch. 2, 1094b4.) the ordering is according to the order of ends. Now the common good is more divine than the specific good; and therefore above the ruling power that aims for the specific good, there must be a universal ruling power with respect to the common good, otherwise there could be no binding together in one. And therefore since the whole Church is one body, it is necessary, if this unity should be conserved, that there be some ruling power with respect to the whole Church above episcopal power, by which each individual church is ruled. And this is the power of the pope. And for this reason, those who deny this power are called ‘schismatics,’ as dividing the ecclesiastical unity. And between a simple bishop and the pope there are other degrees of dignity corresponding to the degrees of the union according to which one congregation or community includes another, as the community of one province includes the community of a city, and the community of a kingdom includes the community of one province; and the community of the whole world includes the community of one kingdom.

Reply Obj. 1: Although the power of binding and loosing was given to all apostles in common, nevertheless so that in this power a certain order might be signified, it was first given to Peter alone, so that it might be shown that from him this power should descend to the others, which is also why it was said to him in the singular, strengthen your brothers (Luke 22:32), and feed my sheep (Jn 21:17), that is, in my place, about which Chrysostom says: be the head and leader of brothers, so that they accepting you in my place, may preach and confirm your seat on your throne, everywhere in the world. (Homilies on John, Hom. 88 (PG 59:479); cf. Thomas, Contra errores Graecorum, pt. 2, ch. 21, n. 4.)

Reply Obj. 2: The rite of the Jews was not diffused in different kingdoms and provinces, but only in one nation; and so it was not necessary that the other high priests be distinguished under one who had the principal power. But the Church’s rite, like that of the gentiles, is spread over different nations. And therefore the state of the Church must be more like the rites of the gentiles than the Jews in this respect.

Reply Obj. 3: The power of a priest is surpassed by the power of a bishop as by a power of another kind; but the power of a bishop is surpassed by the power of the pope as by a power of the same kind; and therefore every hierarchical act that the pope can do in the administering of the sacraments, can also be done by a bishop, but not every act that a bishop can do in the conferral of the sacraments can be done by a priest. And therefore as to those things that belong to episcopal orders, all bishops are equal; and because of this any one of them can consecrate another.

Article 3

On sacred vestments

Obj. 1: To the third question we proceed thus. It seems that the vestments of the ministers were not appropriately instituted in the Church. For the ministers of the New Testament are more bound to chastity than the ministers of the Old Testament. But among the different vestments of the Old Testament ministers there were thigh coverings as a sign of chastity. (Exodus 28:42.) Therefore, much more should there be now among the vestments of the ministers.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the priesthood of the New Testament is nobler than the priesthood of the Old Testament. But the old priests had mitres, which is a sign of dignity. (Exodus 29:9.) Therefore, the priests of the new law should have them.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, a priest is closer to the orders of the ministers than the episcopal order. But bishops use the vestments of the ministers, namely, a dalmatic, which is the vestment of a deacon, and a tunic, which is the vestment of a subdeacon. Therefore, much more should simple priests use these.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, in the old law the high priest bore an ephod, (Exodus 28:4.) which signified the burden of the Gospel, as Bede says. (Bede, On the Tabernacle, Bk. 3, ch. 4 (PL 91:467).) But this burden presses down most of all on our pontiffs. Therefore, they should have ephods.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, in the breastpiece that the high priests of the old law used, there was written, teaching and truth. (Exodus 28:30.) But truth is declared most in the new law. Therefore, it befits the pontiffs of the new law.

Obj. 6: Furthermore, golden sheets on which the name of God was written were the highest ornament of the old law. (Exodus 28:36.) Therefore, that should have been transferred to the new law more than anything.

Obj. 7: Furthermore, the outward things that are worn by the Church’s ministers are signs of inward power. But an archbishop does not have another kind of power than a bishop, as has been said. Therefore, he should not have a pallium, which bishops do not have.

Obj. 8: Furthermore, fullness of power resides with the Roman pontiff. But he does not have a scepter. Therefore, neither should other bishops have one.

I answer that, the vestments of the ministers, as was said above, designate the suitability required in them for handling divine things. And since there are some things that are required for everyone, and some that are required for superiors, which are not so needed in inferiors, this is why some vestments are common to all ministers, but some are only for superiors. And therefore the amice applies to all ministers, covering the shoulders, by which is signified fortitude for executing divine offices, to which they are dedicated. (See Innocent III, de Sacro altaris mysterio, Bk. 1, ch. 50 (PL 217:792).) And likewise the alb, which signifies purity of life, (Ibid., ch. 51 (PL 217:793).) and the cincture, which signifies the repression of the flesh. (Ibid., ch. 52 (PL 217:793).)

But the subdeacon has as well a maniple on his left arm, which signifies the wiping away of the smallest stains, (Ibid., ch. 59 (PL 217:795).) because a maniple is like a napkin for wiping the face, for they are the first admitted to handling sacred things. They also have a straight tunic, by which Christ’s teaching is signified, (Ibid., ch. 39 (PL 217:788).) which is why even under the old law they swung the bell. (Exodus 28:33.) For subdeacons are the first admitted to the teaching of the new law.

But the deacon also has a stole on his left shoulder as a sign that he is employed for the ministry in the sacraments themselves; as well as a dalmatic, which is a large garment, as was said, for it was first used in the regions of Dalmatia, (See Isidore, Etymologies (OCT, ed. Lindsay), Bk. 19, ch. 22; Pseudo-Alcuin, On the Divine Offices, ch. 39 (PL 101:1242); cf. Du Cange, Glossarium, ‘Dalmatica’ (2:1222).) to signify that he is considered the dispenser of the sacraments first, (Innocent III, de Sacro altaris mysterio, Bk. 1, ch. 56 (PL 217:794).) for he distributes the blood, and largesse is required for a distribution.

But a stole is placed on both shoulders of the priest, so that it may be shown that the full power of administering the sacraments is given to him, not as another’s minister, which is why the stole descends all the way to the lower parts. He also has a chasuble, which signifies charity, (Ibid., ch. 58 (PL 217:795).) for he consecrates the sacrament of charity, namely, the Eucharist.

But a bishop adds nine ornaments above a priest, which are the boots, sandals, subcingulum, tunic, dalmatic, mitre, gloves, ring, and crozier, for he can do nine things that are above a priest, namely, ordain clerics, bless virgins, dedicate basilicas, depose clerics, celebrate synods, consecrate chrism, confirm, consecrate vestments and consecrate vessels. Or, by the boots, rectitude of steps is signified; by sandals, which cover the feet, contempt for earthly things; (Ibid., ch. 48 (PL 217:792).) by the subcingulum with which the stole is tied to the alb, love of integrity; (Ibid., ch. 52 (PL 217:793).) by the tunic, perseverance, (Ibid., ch. 55 (PL 217:794).) for Joseph is read (Genesis 37:23.) to have had an ankle-length tunic hanging to his ankles, by which the end of life is signified; by the dalmatic, abundance in works of mercy; (Innocent III, de Sacro altaris mysterio, Bk. 1, ch. 56 (PL 217:794).) by the gloves, cautiousness in works; (Ibid., ch. 57 (PL 217:795).) by the mitre, knowledge of both Testaments, and this is also why it has two horns; (Ibid., ch. 60 (PL 217:796).) by the crozier, pastoral care, by which he should gather the wandering, which the curve at the top of the crozier signifies, sustain the weak, which the very staff of the crozier signifies, but to jab at the slow, which the spur at the foot of the crozier signifies, hence the verse: collect, support, spur on, wanderers, the sick, the slow. (Ibid., ch. 62 (PL 217:796).) By the ring, the sacrament of faith by which the Church is espoused to Christ, (Ibid., ch. 61 (PL 217:796).) for bishops are the Church’s bridegrooms in the place of Christ.

But archbishops have further a pallium as a sign of privileged power; for it signifies the golden collar that contestants used to receive by right. (Ibid., ch. 63 (PL 217:797).)

Reply Obj. 1: Continence was indicated for priests of the old law only at the time that they were fulfilling their ministry. And therefore as a sign of their keeping chastity at that moment, they used thigh coverings in the offering of sacrifices. But perpetual continence is indicated for the ministers of the New Testament; and so it is not the same.

Reply Obj. 2: That mitre was not a sign of any dignity, for it was like a kind of ceremonial hat, as Jerome says. (Jerome, Epistle 64, to Fabiola (PL 22:614).) But the turban, which was a sign of dignity, was given only to high priests, (See Exodus 28:4; Leviticus 8:9.) as now a mitre is.

Reply Obj. 3: The power of the ministers is in the bishop as in its origin, but not in the priest, for he does not confer those orders. And therefore the bishop uses the vestments of the ministers more than the priest does.

Reply Obj. 4: A stole is used in place of an overcape, for it has the same signification.

Reply Obj. 5: The pallium takes the place of the breastpiece.

Reply Obj. 6: In place of that plate the pontiff has a cross, as Innocent says, (Innocent III, de Sacro altaris mysterio, Bk. 1, ch. 53 (PL 217:793).) just as he has sandals in place of thigh-coverings, an alb in place of a linen robe, a cincture in place of a girdle, a tunic in place of a robe, an amice in place of an ephod, a pallium in place of a breastpiece, and a mitre in place of a turban.

Reply Obj. 7: Although he does not have a different kind of power, nevertheless he has the same power more fully. And therefore to designate this perfection he is given a pallium, by which he is surrounded on all sides.

Reply Obj. 8: The Roman pontiff does not use a crozier because Peter sent it to revive a certain one of his followers, who later became the bishop of Trier. And this is why the Pope carries a crozier in the diocese of Trier, and not in others; (Ibid., ch. 62 (PL 217:796); see Gregory IX, Decretals, Bk. 1, tit. 15, ch. 1, ‘Cum venisset,’ n. 9 (RF 2:134).) or also as a sign that he does not have restricted power, which the curve of the crozier represents.

Exposition of the Text

Now let us proceed to the consideration of sacred ordination. (Sententiae IV, 24.1 (131). 1.) It seems that this is poorly ordered; for this sacrament is for administering the other sacraments, and so it should be ordered before the others. And it should be said that the Master orders according to what it is ordered to; and since the common good to which this sacrament is ordered presupposes the good of the person to which the previous ones are ordered, therefore he could not have considered this one earlier.

And in the sacrament of the sevenfold spirit, there are seven ecclesiastical degrees. (Sent. IV, 24.3 (133). 2.) A certain interpretation is that in any order all the gifts of the Holy Spirit are given, for Matthias was chosen by lot, about which Dionysius says, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, pt. 3, n. 5.) some people have said some things, others have said other things about the divine lot given to Matthias, nor correctly, in my view. I myself will state my sense. For it seems to me that the Scriptures named the divine lot as a certain gift declaring Matthias as revealed by divine choice.

You shall have a share with those who have administered the word of God well. (Sent. IV, 24.6 (136). 2 citing Statuta ecclesiae antiqua, n 97.) Therefore, every lector has a lesser crown. (As Thomas explains elsewhere (e.g., In IV Sent., d. 49, q. 5, a. 1), the aurea or corona refers to the essential reward, beatitude itself, while the aureola refers to an added reward, a special distinction awarded to some of the blessed for special heroism, such as virginity or martyrdom.) And it should be said that this is true, if he fulfills the office and does not only read, but also interprets by preaching, which nevertheless does not seem to be his office. And so he also does not simply say that he has the merits of them, but of those inasmuch as he partakes of their act somewhat.

The canons rate only two as excellently to be called sacred orders: (Sent. IV, 24.12 (142). 1.) because of the fact that only these two orders have their act over the sacrament itself; but a subdeacon only over the sacred vessels.