Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum haeretici et ab Ecclesia praecisi possint ordines conferre Whether heretics and those who are cut off from the Church can confer holy orders? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod haeretici et ab Ecclesia praecisi non possint ordines conferre. Maius est enim conferre ordines quam aliquem absolvere vel ligare. Sed haereticus non potest absolvere aut ligare. Ergo nec ordines conferre. Objection 1: It would seem that heretics and those who are cut off from the Church cannot confer orders. For to confer orders is a greater thing than to loose or bind anyone. But a heretic cannot loose or bind. Neither, therefore, can he ordain. Praeterea, sacerdos ab Ecclesia separatus conficere potest quia in eo character indelebiliter manet, per quem hoc potest. Sed episcopus non accipit aliquem characterem in sui promotione. Ergo non est necesse quod episcopalis potestas remaneat in eo post separationem eius ab Ecclesia. Obj. 2: Further, a priest that is separated from the Church can consecrate, because the character whence he derives this power remains in him indelibly. But a bishop receives no character when he is raised to the episcopate. Therefore, he does not necessarily retain the episcopal power after his separation from the Church. Praeterea, in nulla communitate ille qui a communitate expellitur potest officia communitatis disponere. Sed ordines sunt quaedam officia Ecclesiae. Ergo ille qui extra Ecclesiam ponitur non potest ordines conferre. Obj. 3: Further, in no community can one who is expelled therefrom dispose of the offices of the community. Now orders are offices of the Church. Therefore, one who is outside the Church cannot confer orders. Praeterea, sacramenta habent efficaciam ex passione Christi. Sed haereticus non continuatur, passioni Christi: neque per propriam fidem, cum sit infidelis; neque per fidem Ecclesiae, cum sit ab Ecclesia separatus. Ergo non potest sacramentum ordinis conferre. Obj. 4: Further, the sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ’s Passion. Now a heretic is not united to Christ’s Passion: neither by his own faith, since he is an unbeliever, nor by the faith of the Church, since he is severed from the Church. Therefore, he cannot confer the sacrament of orders. Praeterea, in ordinis collatione exigitur benedictio. Sed haereticus non potest benedicere: quinimmo benedictio sua in maledictionem convertitur, ut patet per auctoritates in littera inductas. Ergo non potest ordines conferre. Obj. 5: Further, a blessing is necessary in the conferring of orders. But a heretic cannot bless; in fact, his blessing is turned into a curse, as appears from the authorities quoted in the text (Sentences IV, D. 25). Therefore, he cannot ordain. Sed contra: Est quod aliquis episcopus in haeresim lapsus, quando reconciliatur, non iterum consecratur. Ergo non amisit potestatem quam habebat ordines conferendi. On the contrary, When a bishop who has fallen into heresy is reconciled, he is not reconsecrated. Therefore, he did not lose the power which he had of conferring orders. Praeterea, maior est potestas conferendi ordines quam potestas ordinum. Sed potestas ordinum non amittitur propter haeresim vel aliquod huiusmodi. Ergo nec potestas conferendi ordines. Further, The power to ordain is greater than the power of orders. But the power of orders is not forfeited on account of heresy and the like. Neither, therefore, is the power to ordain. Praeterea, sicut baptizans exhibet tantum ministerium exterius, ita et conferens ordines, Deo interius operante. Sed nulla ratione aliquis ab Ecclesia praecisus amittit baptizandi potestatem. Ergo nec ordines conferendi. Further, As the one who baptizes exercises a merely outward ministry, so does one who ordains, while God works inwardly. But one who is cut off from the Church by no means loses the power to baptize. Neither, therefore, does he lose the power to ordain. Respondeo dicendum quod circa hoc ponuntur in littera quattuor opiniones. Quidam enim dixerunt quod haeretici, quandiu ab Ecclesia tolerantur, habent potestatem ordines conferendi, non autem postquam fuerunt praecisi: similiter nec degradati et alii huiusmodi. Et haec est prima opinio. I answer that, On this question four opinions are mentioned in the text (Sentences IV, D. 25). For some said that heretics, so long as they are tolerated by the Church, retain the power to ordain, but not after they have been cut off from the Church; as neither do those who have been degraded and the like. This is the first opinion. Sed hoc non potest esse. Quia omnis potestas quae datur cum aliqua consecratione, nullo casu contingente tolli potest, sicut nec ipsa consecratio annullari: quia etiam altare vel chrisma semel consecrata perpetuo consecrata manent. Unde, cum episcopalis potestas cum quadam consecratione detur, oportet quod perpetuo maneat, quantumcumque aliquis peccet, vel ab Ecclesia praecidatur. Yet this is impossible, because, happen what may, no power that is given with a consecration can be taken away so long as the thing itself remains, any more than the consecration itself can be annulled, for even an altar or chrism once consecrated remains consecrated forever. Wherefore, since the episcopal power is conferred by consecration, it must endure forever, however much a man may sin or be cut off from the Church. Et ideo alii dixerunt quod praecisi ab Ecclesia qui in Ecclesia episcopalem potestatem habuerunt, retinent potestatem alios ordinandi et promovendi, sed promoti ab eis hoc non habent. Et haec est quarta opinio. For this reason others said that those who are cut off from the Church after having episcopal power in the Church retain the power to ordain and raise others, but that those who are raised by them have not this power. This is the fourth opinion. Sed hoc non potest esse. Quia si illi qui fuerunt in Ecclesia promoti, retinent potestatem quam acceperunt, patet quod, exequendo suam potestatem veram consecrationem faciunt. Et ideo vere tribuunt omnem potestatem quae cum consecratione datur. Et sic ordinati ab eis, vel promoti, habent eandem potestatem quam et ipsi. But this again is impossible, for if those who were ordained in the Church retain the power they received, it is clear that by exercising their power they consecrate validly, and therefore they validly confer whatever power is given with that consecration, and thus those who receive ordination or promotion from them have the same power as they. Et ideo alii dixerunt quod etiam praecisi ab Ecclesia possunt ordines conferre et alia sacramenta, dummodo formam debitam et intentionem servent, et quantum ad primum effectum, qui est collatio sacramenti, et quantum ad ultimum, qui est collatio gratiae. Et haec est secunda opinio. Therefore, others said that even those who are cut off from the Church can confer orders and the other sacraments, provided they observe the due form and intention, both as to the first effect, which is the conferring of the sacrament, and as to the ultimate effect, which is the conferring of grace. This is the second opinion. Sed hoc etiam non potest stare. Quia ex hoc ipso quod aliquis haeretico praeciso ab Ecclesia, in sacramentis communicat, peccat. Et ita fictus accedit, et gratiam consequi non potest: nisi forte in baptismo in articulo necessitatis. But this again is inadmissible, since by the very fact that a person communicates in the sacraments with a heretic who is cut off from the Church, he sins, and thus approaches the sacrament insincerely and cannot obtain grace, except perhaps in baptism in a case of necessity. Et ideo alii dicunt quod vera sacramenta conferunt, sed cum eis gratiam non dant: non propter inefficaciam sacramentorum, sed propter peccata recipientium ab eis sacramenta contra prohibitionem Ecclesiae. Et haec est tertia opinio, quae vera est. Hence others say that they confer the sacraments validly, but do not confer grace with them, not that the sacraments are lacking in efficacy, but on account of the sins of those who receive the sacraments from such persons despite the prohibition of the Church. This is the third and the true opinion. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod effectus absolutionis non est aliud quam remissio peccatorum, quae per gratiam fit. Et ideo haereticus non potest absolvere: sicut nec gratiam in sacramentis conferre. Et iterum ad absolutionem requiritur iurisdictio, quam non habet ab Ecclesia praecisus. Reply Obj. 1: The effect of absolution is nothing else but the forgiveness of sins which results from grace, and consequently a heretic cannot absolve, as neither can he confer grace in the sacraments. Moreover, in order to give absolution it is necessary to have jurisdiction, which one who is cut off from the Church has not. Ad secundum dicendum quod in promotione episcopi datur sibi potestas quae perpetuo manet in eo: quamvis dici non possit character, quia per eam non ordinatur homo directe ad Deum, sed ad corpus Christi mysticum. Et tamen indelebilitem manet sicut character, et per consecrationem datur. Reply Obj. 2: When a man is raised to the episcopate he receives a power which he retains forever. This, however, cannot be called a character, because a man is not thereby placed in direct relation to God, but to Christ’s mystical body. Nevertheless it remains indelibly, even as would the character, because it is given by consecration. Ad tertium dicendum quod illi qui promoventur ab haereticis, quamvis accipiant ordinem, non tamen recipiunt executionem, ut licite possint in suis ordinibus ministrare, ratione illa quam obiectio tangit. Reply Obj. 3: Those who are ordained by heretics, although they receive an order, do not receive the exercise thereof so as to minister lawfully in their orders, for the very reason indicated in the objection. Ad quartum dicendum quod per fidem Ecclesiae continuatur passioni Christi. Quia, quamvis in ea non sint secundum se, sunt tamen in ea secundum formam Ecclesiae, quam servant. Reply Obj. 4: They are united to the passion of Christ by the faith of the Church, for although in themselves they are severed from it, they are united to it as regards the form of the Church which they observe. Ad quintum dicendum quod hoc est referendum ad ultimum effectum sacramentorum, ut tertia opinio dicit. Reply Obj. 5: This refers to the ultimate effect of the sacraments, as the third opinion maintains. Quaestio 39 Question 39 De impedimentis huius sacramenti The Impediments to Holy Orders Deinde considerandum est de impedimentis huius sacramenti. We must next consider the impediments to this sacrament. Circa quod quaeruntur sex. Under this head there are six points of inquiry: Primo: utrum sexus femineus impediat huius sacramenti susceptionem. (1) Whether the female sex is an impediment to receiving this sacrament? Secundo: utrum carentia usus rationis. (2) Whether lack of the use of reason is? Tertio: utrum servitus. (3) Whether the state of slavery is? Quarto: utrum homicidium. (4) Whether homicide is? Quinto: utrum illegitima nativitas. (5) Whether illegitimate birth is? Sexto: utrum defectus membrorum. (6) Whether lack of members is? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum sexus femineus impediat ordinis susceptionem Whether the female sex is an impediment to receiving holy orders? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sexus femineus non impediat ordinis susceptionem. Quia officium prophetiae est maius quam officium sacerdotis: quia propheta est medium inter Deum et sacerdotes, sicut sacerdos est inter Deum et populum. Sed prophetiae officium aliquando mulieribus est concessum: ut patet IV Reg. Ergo et sacerdotii officium eis competere potest. Objection 1: It would seem that the female sex is no impediment to receiving orders. For the office of prophet is greater than the office of priest, since a prophet stands midway between God and priests, just as the priest does between God and people. Now the office of prophet was sometimes granted to women, as may be gathered from 2 Kgs 22:14. Therefore, the office of priest also may be competent to them. Praeterea, sicut ordo ad quandam perfectionem pertinet, ita et praelationis officium, et martyrium, et religionis status. Sed praelatio committitur mulieribus in novo Testamento, ut patet de abbatissis: et in veteri, ut patet de Debbora, quae iudicavit Israel, Iudic. 4. Competit etiam eis martyrium, et religionis status. Ergo et ordo Ecclesiae. Obj. 2: Further, just as order pertains to a kind of preeminence, so does a position of authority, as well as martyrdom and the religious state. Now authority is entrusted to women in the New Testament, as in the case of abbesses, and in the Old Testament, as in the case of Deborah, who judged Israel (Judg 2). Moreover, martyrdom and the religious life are also befitting to them. Therefore, the orders of the Church are also competent to them.