Index [<< | >>]
Supplement [<< | >>]
Question: 34 [<< | >>]
St. Thomas Aquinas
The Summa Theologica
HOLY ORDERS (Questions [34]-40)
OF THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER AS TO ITS ESSENCE AND ITS PARTS (FIVE ARTICLES)
In the next place we must consider
the sacrament of Order: (1) Order in general; (2) the difference of Orders; (3) those who
confer Orders; (4) the impediments to receiving Orders; (5) things connected with Orders.
Concerning Order in general three
points have to be considered: (1) Its essence, quiddity, and parts; (2) Its effect; (3)
The recipients of Orders.
Under the first head there are five points of inquiry:
(1) Whether there should be Order in the Church?
(2) Whether it is fittingly defined?
(3) Whether it is a sacrament?
(4) Whether its form is expressed properly?
(5) Whether this sacrament has any matter?
Index [<< | >>]
Supplement [<< | >>]
Question: 34 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
Whether there should be Order in
the Church?
Objection 1: It would seem that there
should not be Order in the Church. For Order requires subjection and preeminence. But
subjection seemingly is incompatible with the liberty whereunto we are called by Christ.
Therefore there should not be Order in the Church.
Objection 2: Further, he who has
received an Order becomes another's superior. But in the Church everyone should deem
himself lower than another (Phil. 2:3): "Let each esteem
others better than themselves." Therefore Order should not be in the Church.
Objection 3: Further, we find order
among the angels on account of their differing in natural and gratuitous gifts. But all
men are one in nature, and it is not known who has the higher gifts of grace. Therefore
Order should not be in the Church.
On the contrary, "Those things
that are of God, are in order [*Vulg: 'Those (powers) that are, are ordained of
God.']." Now the Church is of God, for He Himself built it with His blood. Therefore
there ought to be Order in the Church.
Further, the state of the Church is between the state of nature and the state of glory. Now we find order in nature, in that some things are above others, and likewise in glory, as in the angels. Therefore there should be Order in the Church.
I answer that, God wished to produce
His works in likeness to Himself, as far as possible, in order that they might be perfect,
and that He might be known through them. Hence, that He might be portrayed in His works,
not only according to what He is in Himself, but also according as He acts on others, He
laid this natural law on all things, that last things should be reduced and perfected by
middle things, and middle things by the first, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v).
Wherefore that this beauty might not be lacking to the Church, He established Order in her
so that some should deliver the sacraments to others, being thus made like to God in their
own way, as co-operating with God; even as in the natural body, some members act on
others.
Reply to Objection 1: The subjection
of slavery is incompatible with liberty; for slavery consists in lording over others and
employing them for one's own profit. Such subjection is not required in Order, whereby
those who preside have to seek the salvation of their subjects and not their own profit.
Reply to Objection 2: Each one should
esteem himself lower in merit, not in office; and orders are a kind of office.
Reply to Objection 3: Order among the
angels does not arise from difference of nature, unless accidentally, in so far as
difference of grace results in them from difference of nature. But in them it results
directly from their difference in grace; because their orders regard their participation
of divine things, and their communicating them in the state of glory, which is according
to the measure of grace, as being the end and effect, so to speak, of grace. on the other
hand, the Orders of the Church militant regard the participation in the sacraments and the
communication thereof, which are the cause of grace and, in a way, precede grace; and
consequently our Orders do not require sanctifying grace, but only the power to dispense
the sacraments; for which reason order does not correspond to the difference of
sanctifying grace, but to the difference of power.
Index [<< | >>]
Supplement [<< | >>]
Question: 34 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
Whether Order is properly defined?
Objection 1: It would seem that order
is improperly defined by the Master (Sent. iv, D, 53), where it is said "Order is a
seal of the Church, whereby spiritual power is conferred on the person ordained." For
a part should not be described as the genus of the whole. Now the character which is
denoted by the seal in a subsequent definition is a part of order, since it is placed in
contradistinction with that which is either reality only, or sacrament only, since it is
both reality and sacrament. Therefore seal should not be mentioned as the genus of Order.
Objection 2: Further, just as a
character is imprinted in the sacrament of order, so is it in the sacrament of Baptism.
Now character was not mentioned in the definition of Baptism. Therefore neither should it
be mentioned in the definition of Order.
Objection 3: Further, in Baptism
there is also given a certain spiritual power to approach the sacraments; and again it is
a seal, since it is a sacrament. Therefore this definition is applicable to Baptism; and
consequently it is improperly applied to Order.
Objection 4: Further, Order is a kind
of relation, and relation is realized in both its terms. Now the terms of the relation of
order are the superior and the inferior. Therefore inferiors have order as well as
superiors. Yet there is no power of preeminence in them, such as is mentioned here in the
definition of Order, as appears from the subsequent explanation (Sent. iv, D, 53), where
promotion to power is mentioned. Therefore Order is improperly defined there.
I answer that, The Master's
definition of Order applies to Order as a sacrament of the Church. Hence he mentions two
things, namely the outward sign, a "kind of seal," i.e. a kind of sign, and the
inward effect, "whereby spiritual power," etc.
Reply to Objection 1: Seal stands
here, not for the inward character, but for the outward action, which is the sign and
cause of inward power; and this is also the sense of character in the other definition.
If, however, it be taken for the inward character, the definition would not be unsuitable;
because the division of a sacrament into those three things is not a division into
integral parts, properly speaking; since what is reality only is not essential to the
sacrament, and that which is the sacrament is transitory; while that which is sacrament
and reality is said to remain. Wherefore it follows that inward character itself is
essentially and principally the sacrament of Order.
Reply to Objection 2: Although in
Baptism there is conferred a spiritual power to receive the other sacraments, for which
reason it imprints a character, nevertheless this is not its principal effect, but the
inward cleansing; wherefore Baptism would be given even though the former motive did not
exist. On the other hand, order denotes power principally. Wherefore the character which
is a spiritual power is included in the definition of Order, but not in that of Baptism.
Reply to Objection 3: In Baptism
there is given a certain spiritual potentiality to receive, and consequently a somewhat
passive potentiality. But power properly denotes active potentiality, together with some
kind of preeminence. Hence this definition is not applicable to Baptism.
Reply to Objection 4: The word
"order" is used in two ways. For sometimes it denotes the relation itself, and
thus it is both in the inferior and in the superior, as the objection states; but it is
not thus that we use the word here. On the other hand, it denotes the degree which results
in the order taken in the first sense. And since the notion of order as relation is
observed where we first meet with something higher than another, it follows that this
degree of pre-eminence by spiritual power is called Order.
Index [<< | >>]
Supplement [<< | >>]
Question: 34 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
Whether Order is a sacrament?
Objection 1: It would seem that Order
is not a sacrament. For a sacrament, according to Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacram. i)
"is a material element." Now Order denotes nothing of the kind, but rather
relation or power; since Order is a part of power according to Isidore. Therefore it is
not a sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, the sacraments
do not concern the Church triumphant. Yet Order is there, as in the angels. Therefore it
is not a sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, just as
spiritual authority, which is Order, is given by means of consecration, so is secular
authority, since kings also are anointed, as stated above (Question [19],
Article [3],
ad 2). But the kingly power is not a sacrament. Therefore neither is order of which we
speak now.
On the contrary, It is mentioned by
all among the seven sacraments of the Church.
Further, "the cause of a thing
being such, is still more so." Now Order is the cause of man being the dispenser of
the other sacraments. Therefore Order has more reason for being a sacrament than the
others.
I answer that, As stated above (Question [29],
Article [1];
TP, Question [60]),
a sacrament is nothing else than a sanctification conferred on man with some outward sign.
Wherefore, since by receiving orders a consecration is conferred on man by visible signs,
it is clear that Order is a sacrament.
Reply to Objection 1: Although Order
does not by its name express a material element, it is not conferred without some material
element.
Reply to Objection 2: Power must
needs be proportionate to the purpose for which it is intended. Now the communication of
divine things, which is the purpose for which spiritual power is given, is not effected
among the angels by means of sensible signs, as is the case among men. Hence the spiritual
power that is Order is not bestowed on the angels by visible signs, as on men. Wherefore
Order is a sacrament among men, but not among angels.
Reply to Objection 3: Not every
blessing or consecration given to men is a sacrament, for both monks and abbots are
blessed, and yet such blessings are not sacraments, and in like manner neither is the
anointing of a king; because by such blessings men are not ordained to the dispensing of
the divine sacraments, as by the blessing of Order. Hence the comparison fails.
Index [<< | >>]
Supplement [<< | >>]
Question: 34 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
Whether the form of this sacrament
is suitably expressed?
Objection 1: It would seem that the
form of this sacrament is unsuitably set forth in the text (Sent. iv, D, 24). Because the
sacraments take their efficacy from their form. Now the efficacy of the sacraments is from
the divine power, which works our salvation in them in a most hidden manner. Therefore the
form of this sacrament should include a mention of the divine power by the invocation of
the Trinity, as in the other sacraments.
Objection 2: Further, to command
pertains to one who has authority. Now the dispenser of the sacrament exercises no
authority, but only ministry. Therefore he should not use the imperative mood by saying:
"Do" or "Receive" this or that, or some similar expression.
Objection 3: Further, mention should
not be made in the sacramental form, except of such things as are essential to the
sacrament. But the use of the power received is not essential to this sacrament, but is
consequent upon it. Therefore it should not be mentioned in the form of this sacrament.
Objection 4: Further, all the
sacraments direct us to an eternal reward. But the forms of the other sacraments make no
mention of a reward. Therefore neither should any mention be made thereof in the form of
this sacrament, as in the words: "Since thou wilt have a share, if faithfully,"
etc.
I answer that, This sacrament
consists chiefly in the power conferred. Now power is conferred by power, as like proceeds
from like; and again power is made known by its use, since powers are manifested by their
acts. Wherefore in the form of order the use of order is expressed by the act which is
commanded; and the conferring of power is expressed by employing the imperative mood.
Reply to Objection 1: The other
sacraments are not ordained chiefly to effects similar to the power whereby the sacraments
are dispensed, as this sacrament is. Hence in this sacrament there is a kind of universal
communication. Wherefore in the other sacraments something is expressed on the part of the
divine power to which the effect of the sacrament is likened, but not in this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 2: [There is a
special reason why this sacrament, rather than the others, is conferred by employing the
imperative mood. For]* although the bishop who is the minister of this sacrament has no
authority in respect of the conferring of this sacrament, nevertheless he has some power
with regard to the power of Order, which power he confers, in so far as it is derived,
from his. [*The sentence in brackets is not in the Leonine edition.]
Reply to Objection 3: The use of
power is the effect of power in the genus of efficient cause, and from this point of view
it has no reason to be mentioned in the definition of Order. But it is somewhat a cause in
the genus of final cause, and from this point of view it can be placed in the definition
of order.
Reply to Objection 4: There is here a
difference between this and the other sacraments. Because by this sacrament an office or
the power to do something is conferred; and so it is fitting that mention be made of the
reward to be obtained if it be administered faithfully. But in the other sacraments no
such office or power to act is conferred, and so no mention of reward is made in them.
Accordingly the recipient is somewhat passive in relation to the other sacraments, because
he receives them for the perfecting of his own state only, whereas in relation to this
sacrament he holds himself somewhat actively, since he receives it for the sake of
exercising hierarchical duties in the Church. Wherefore although the other sacraments,
from the very fact that they give grace, direct the recipient to salvation, properly
speaking they do not direct him to a reward, in the same way as this sacrament does.
Index [<< | >>]
Supplement [<< | >>]
Question: 34 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
Whether this sacrament has any
matter?
Objection 1: It would seem that this
sacrament has no matter. Because in every sacrament that has a matter the power that works
in the sacrament is in the matter. But in the material objects which are used here, such
as keys, candlesticks, and so forth, there is not apparently any power of sanctification.
Therefore it has no matter.
Objection 2: Further, in this
sacrament the fulness of sevenfold grace is conferred, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D,
24), just as in Confirmation. But the matter of Confirmation requires to be consecrated
beforehand. Since then the things which appear to be material in this sacrament are not
consecrated beforehand, it would seem that they are not the matter of the sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, in any
sacrament that has matter there needs to be contact of matter with the recipient of the
sacrament. Now, as some say, it is not essential to this sacrament that there be contact
between the aforesaid material objects and the recipient of the sacrament, but only that
they be presented to him. Therefore the aforesaid material objects are not the matter of
this sacrament.
On the contrary, Every sacrament
consists of things and words. Now in any sacrament the thing is the matter. Therefore the
things employed in this sacrament are its matter.
Further, more is requisite to
dispense the sacraments than to receive them. Yet Baptism, wherein the power is given to
receive the sacraments, needs a matter. Therefore order also does, wherein the power is
given to dispense them.
I answer that, The matter employed
outwardly in the sacraments signifies that the power which works in the sacraments comes
entirely from without. Wherefore, since the effect proper to this sacrament, namely the
character, is not received through any operation of the one who approaches the sacrament,
as was the case in Penance, but comes wholly from without, it is fitting that it should
have a matter, yet otherwise than the other sacraments that have matter; because that
which is bestowed in the other sacraments comes from God alone, and not from the minister
who dispenses the sacrament; whereas that which is conferred in this sacrament, namely the
spiritual power, comes also from him who gives the sacrament, as imperfect from perfect
power. Hence the efficacy of the other sacraments resides chiefly in the matter which both
signifies and contains the divine power through the sanctification applied by the
minister; whereas the efficacy of this sacrament resides chiefly with him who dispenses
the sacrament. And the matter is employed to show the powers conferred in particular by
one who has it completely, rather than to cause power; and this is clear from the fact
that the matter is in keeping with the use of power. This suffices for the Reply to the
First Objection.
Reply to Objection 2: It is necessary
for the matter to be consecrated in the other sacraments, on account of the power it
contains; but it is not so in the case in point.
Reply to Objection 3: If we admit
this assertion, the reason for it is clear from what we have said; for since the power of
order is received from the minister and not from the matter, the presenting of the matter
is more essential to the sacrament than contact therewith. However, the words themselves
of the form would seem to indicate that contact with the matter is essential to the
sacrament, for it is said: "Receive" this or that.
Electronic Format and
Graphics Copyright © by The Kolbe Foundation August 14, 1999 |
 |
|
www.kolbefoundation.org |