Articulus 5 Article 5 Utrum episcopatus sit ordo Whether the episcopate is an order? Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod episcopatus sit ordo. Primo, per hoc quod Dionysius assignat hos tres ordines ecclesiasticae hierarchiae, episcopum, sacerdotem et ministrum. In littera etiam dicitur quod est ordo episcoporum quadripartitus. Objection 1: It would seem that the episcopate is an order. First of all, because Dionysius (On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchies 5) assigns these three orders to the ecclesiastical hierarchy: the bishop, the priest, and the minister. In the text also (Sentences IV, D. 24) it is stated that the episcopal order is fourfold. Praeterea, ordo nihil aliud est quam quidam potestatis gradus in spiritualibus dispensandis. Sed episcopi possunt dispensare aliqua sacramenta quae non possunt dispensare sacerdotes: sicut confirmationem et ordinem. Ergo episcopatus est ordo. Obj. 2: Further, order is nothing else but a degree of power in the dispensing of spiritual things. Now bishops can dispense certain sacraments which priests cannot dispense, namely, confirmation and holy orders. Therefore, the episcopate is an order. Praeterea, in Ecclesia non est aliqua spiritualis potestas nisi ordinis vel iurisdictionis. Sed ea quae pertinent ad episcopalem potestatem non sunt iurisdictionis: alias possent committi non-episcopo, quod falsum est. Ergo sunt potestatis ordinis. Ergo episcopus habet aliquem ordinem quem non habet sacerdos simplex. Et sic episcopatus est ordo. Obj. 3: Further, in the Church there is no spiritual power other than of order or jurisdiction. But things pertaining to the episcopal power are not matters of jurisdiction, else they might be committed to one who is not a bishop, which is false. Therefore, they belong to the power of order. Therefore, the bishop has an order which a simple priest has not; and thus the episcopate is an order. Sed contra: Est quod unus ordo non dependet a praecedenti, quantum ad necessitatem sacramenti. Sed episcopalis potestas dependet a sacerdotali: quia nullus potest recipere episcopalem potestatem nisi prius habeat sacerdotalem. Ergo episcopatus non est ordo. On the contrary, One order does not depend on a preceding order as regards the validity of the sacrament. But the episcopal power depends on the priestly power, since no one can receive the episcopal power unless he have previously the priestly power. Therefore, the episcopate is not an order. Praeterea, maiores ordines non conferuntur nisi in sabbatis. Sed episcopalis potestas traditur in Dominicis. Ergo non est ordo. Further, The greater orders are not conferred except on Saturdays. But the episcopal power is bestowed on Sundays (Dist. lxxv, can. Ordinationes). Therefore, it is not an order. Respondeo dicendum quod ordo potest accipi dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum quod est sacramentum. Et sic, ut prius dictum est, ordinatur omnis ordo ad Eucharistiae sacramentum. Unde, cum episcopus non habeat potestatem superiorem sacerdote quantum ad hoc, episcopatus non erit ordo. I answer that, Order may be understood in two ways. In one way as a sacrament, and thus, as already stated (Q. 37, A. 2, 4), every order is directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist. Wherefore, since the bishop has not a higher power than the priest, in this respect the episcopate is not an order. Alio modo potest considerari ordo secundum quod est officium quoddam respectu quarundam actionum sacrarum. Et sic, cum episcopus habeat potestatem in actionibus hierarchicis respectu corporis mystici supra sacerdotem, episcopatus erit ordo. Et secundum hoc loquuntur auctoritates inductae. In another way, order may be considered as an office in relation to certain sacred actions: and thus, since in hierarchical actions a bishop has in relation to the mystical body a higher power than the priest, the episcopate is an order. It is in this sense that the authorities quoted speak. Unde patet solutio ad primum. Hence the reply to the first objection is clear. Ad secundum dicendum quod ordo, prout est sacramentum imprimens characterem, ordinatur specialiter ad sacramentum Eucharistiae, in quo ipse Christus continetur: quia per characterem ipsi Christo configuramur. Et ideo, licet detur aliqua potestas spiritualis episcopo in sui promotione respectu aliquorum sacramentorum, non tamen illa potestas habet rationem characteris. Et propter hoc episcopatus non est ordo, secundum quod ordo est sacramentum quoddam. Reply Obj. 2: Order, considered as a sacrament which imprints a character, is specially directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist, in which Christ himself is contained, because by a character we are made like to Christ himself (III, Q. 63, A. 3). Hence, although at his promotion a bishop receives a spiritual power in respect of certain sacraments, this power nevertheless has not the nature of a character. For this reason the episcopate is not an order, in the sense in which an order is a sacrament. Ad tertium dicendum quod potestas episcopalis non est tantum iurisdictionis, sed etiam ordinis, ut ex dictis patet, secundum quod ordo communiter accipitur. Reply Obj. 3: The episcopal power is one not only of jurisdiction but also of order, as stated above, taking order in the sense in which it is generally understood. Articulus 6 Article 6 Utrum supra episcopos possit esse aliquis superior in Ecclesia Whether in the Church there can be anyone above the bishops? Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod supra episcopos non possit esse aliquis superior in Ecclesia. Quia omnes episcopi sunt Apostolorum successores. Sed potestas quae est data uni Apostolorum, scilicet Petro, Matth. 16, est data omnibus Apostolis Ioan. 20. Ergo episcopi sunt pares, et unus non est supra alium. Objection 1: It would seem that there cannot be anyone in the Church higher than the bishops. For all the bishops are the successors of the apostles. Now the power so given to one of the apostles, namely Peter (Matt 16:19), was given to all the apostles (John 20:23). Therefore, all bishops are equal, and one is not above another. Praeterea, ritus Ecclesiae magis debet esse conformis ritui Iudaeorum quam ritui gentilium. Sed distinctio episcopalis dignitatis, et ordinatio unius super alium, ut in littera dicitur, est a gentilibus introducta: in veteri autem lege non erat. Ergo nec in Ecclesia episcopus unus super alium esse debet. Obj. 2: Further, the rite of the Church ought to be more conformed to the Jewish rite than to that of the gentiles. Now the distinction of the episcopal dignity and the appointment of one over another, were introduced by the gentiles, as stated in the text (Sentences IV, D. 24); and there was no such thing in the old law. Therefore, neither in the Church should one bishop be above another. Praeterea, superior potestas non potest conferri per inferiorem, neque aequalis per aequalem: quia, sine ulla contradictione, quod minus est a maiori benedicitur, Heb. 7. Unde etiam sacerdos non promovet episcopum neque sacerdotem: sed episcopus sacerdotem. Sed episcopus potest quemlibet episcopum promovere: quia etiam Ostiensis episcopus consecrat Papam. Ergo episcopalis dignitas in omnibus est aequalis. Et sic unus episcopus non debet aliis subesse, ut in littera dicitur. Obj. 3: Further, a higher power cannot be conferred by a lower, nor equal by equal, because without all contradiction that which is less is blessed by the greater; hence a priest does not consecrate a bishop or a priest, but a bishop consecrates a priest. But a bishop can consecrate any bishop, since the bishop of Ostia consecrates even the Pope. Therefore, the episcopal dignity is equal in all matters, and consequently one bishop should not be subject to another, as stated in the text (Sentences IV, D. 24). Sed contra: Est quod legitur in Concilio Constantinopolitano: veneramur, secundum Scripturas et secundum canonum definitiones, sanctissimum antiquae Romae Episcopum primum esse et maximum episcoporum, et post ipsum Constantinopolitanum episcopum. Ergo unus episcopus est super alium. On the contrary, We read in the council of Constantinople: in accordance with the Scriptures and the statutes and definitions of the canons, we venerate the most holy bishop of ancient Rome, the first and greatest of bishops, and after him the bishop of Constantinople. Therefore, one bishop is above another. Praeterea, beatus Cyrillus, episcopus Alexandrinus, dicit: ut membra maneamus in capite nostro Apostolico throno Romanorum Pontificum, a quo nostrum est quaerere quid credere et quid tenere debeamus, ipsum venerantes, ipsum rogantes prae omnibus. Quoniam ipsius solius est reprehendere, corripere, statuere, disponere; solvere et ligare, loco illius qui ipsum aedificavit, et nulli alii quod suum est plenum, sed ipsi soli dedit; cui omnes iure divino caput inclinant, et primates mundi tanquam ipsi Domino Iesu Christo obediunt. Ergo episcopi alicui subsunt etiam de iure divino. Further, The blessed Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, says: that we may remain members of our apostolic head, the throne of the Roman Pontiffs, of whom it is our duty to seek what we are to believe and what we are to hold, venerating him, beseeching him above others; for his it is to reprove, to correct, to appoint, to loose, and to bind in place of him who set up that very throne, and who gave the fullness of his own to no other, but to him alone, to whom by divine right all bow the head, and the primates of the world are obedient as to our Lord Jesus Christ himself. Therefore, bishops are subject to someone even by divine right. Respondeo dicendum quod, ubicumque sunt multa regimina ordinata in unum, oportet esse aliquod universale regimen super particularia regimina. Quia in omnibus virtutibus et actibus, ut dicitur in I Ethic., est ordo secundum ordinem finium. Bonum autem commune est divinius quam bonum speciale. Et ideo supra potestatem regitivam quae coniectat bonum speciale, oportet esse potestatem universalem respectu boni communis: alias non posset esse colligatio ad unum. Et ideo, cum tota Ecclesia sit unum corpus, oportet, si ista unitas debet conservari, quod sit aliqua potestas regitiva respectu totius Ecclesiae, supra potestatem episcopalem, qua unaquaeque specialis ecclesia regitur. Et haec est potestas Papae. Et ideo illi qui hanc potestatem negant, schismatici dicuntur, quasi divisores ecclesiasticae unitatis. Et inter episcopum simplicem et Papam sunt alii gradus dignitatum, correspondentes gradibus unionis, secundum quos una congregatio vel communitas includit aliam: sicut communitas provinciae includit communitatem civitatis, et communitas regni communitatem unius provinciae, et communitas totius mundi communitatem unius regni. I answer that, Wherever there are several authorities directed to one purpose, there must be one universal authority over the particular authorities, because in all virtues and acts the order is according to the order of their ends (Ethics 1.1–2). Now the common good is more divine than the particular good. Therefore, above the governing power which aims at a particular good there must be a universal governing power in respect of the common good, otherwise there would be no cohesion towards the one object. Hence, since the whole Church is one body, it is necessary, if this unity is to be preserved, that there be a governing power in respect of the whole Church above the episcopal power whereby each particular Church is governed, and this is the power of the Pope. Consequently, those who deny this power are called schismatics as causing a division in the unity of the Church. Again, between a simple bishop and the Pope, there are other degrees of rank corresponding to the degrees of union, in respect of which one congregation or community includes another; thus the community of a 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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quamvis omnibus Apostolis data sit communiter potestas ligandi et solvendi, tamen, ut in hac potestate ordo aliquis significaretur, primo soli Petro data est, ut ostendatur quod ab eo in alios ista potestas debeat descendere. Propter quod etiam ei dixit singulariter, confirma fratres tuos, et, pasce oves meas, idest: loco mei, ut dicit Chrysostomus, praepositus et caput esto fratrum: ut ipsi te in loco meo assumentes, ubique terrarum te in throno tuo sedentem praedicent et confirment. Reply Obj. 1: Although the power of binding and loosing was given to all the apostles in common, nevertheless in order to indicate some order in this power it was given first of all to Peter alone, to show that this power must come down from him to the others. For this reason Christ said to him in the singular: confirm your brethren (Luke 22:32), and, feed my sheep (John 21:17), as though to say, according to Chrysostom: 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. Ad secundum dicendum quod ritus Iudaeorum non erat diffusus in diversis regnis et provinciis, sed tantum in una gente. Et ideo non oportebat quod sub eo qui habebat potestatem principalem alii pontifices distinguerentur. Sed Ecclesiae ritus, sicut et gentilium ritus, per diversas nationes diffunditur. Et ideo oportet quod, quantum ad hoc, magis gentilium ritui quam Iudaeorum status Ecclesiae conformetur. Reply Obj. 2: The Jewish rite was not spread abroad in various kingdoms and provinces, but was confined to one nation; hence there was no need to distinguish various pontiffs under the one who had the chief power. But the rite of the Church, like that of the gentiles, is spread abroad through various nations; and consequently in this respect it is necessary for the constitution of the Church to be like the rite of the gentiles rather than that of the Jews. Ad tertium dicendum quod potestas sacerdotis exceditur a potestate episcopi quasi a potestate alterius generis. Sed potestas episcopi exceditur a potestate Papae quasi a potestate eiusdem generis. Et ideo omnem actum hierarchicum quem potest facere Papa in ministratione sacramentorum, potest facere episcopus: non autem omnem actum quem potest facere episcopus, potest facere sacerdos in sacramentorum collatione. Et ideo, quantum ad ea quae sunt episcopalis ordinis, omnes episcopi sunt aequales. Et propter hoc quilibet alium potest consecrare. Reply Obj. 3: The priestly power is surpassed by the episcopal power, as by a power of a different kind; but the episcopal is surpassed by the papal power as by a power of the same kind. Hence a bishop can perform every hierarchical act that the Pope can; whereas a priest cannot perform every act that a bishop can in conferring the sacraments. Wherefore, as regards matters pertaining to the episcopal order, all bishops are equal, and for this reason any bishop can consecrate another bishop. Articulus 7 Article 7 Utrum vestes ministrorum convenienter sint in Ecclesia institutae Whether the vestments of the ministers are fittingly instituted in the Church? Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod vestes ministrorum non convenienter sint in Ecclesia institutae. Ministri enim novi Testamenti magis tenentur ad castitatem quam ministri veteris. Sed inter alias vestes ministrorum veteris Testamenti erant feminalia, in signum castitatis. Ergo multo fortius nunc esse debent inter vestes ministrorum Ecclesiae. Objection 1: It would seem that the vestments of the ministers are not fittingly instituted in the Church. For the ministers of the New Testament are more bound to chastity than were the ministers of the Old Testament. Now among the vestments of the Old Testament there were the thigh coverings as a sign of chastity. Much more, therefore, should they have a place among the vestments of the Church’s ministers. Praeterea, sacerdotium novi Testamenti est dignius quam sacerdotium veteris. Sed veteres sacerdotes habebant mitras, quod est signum dignitatis. Ergo sacerdotes novae legis eas debent habere. Obj. 2: Further, the priesthood of the New Testament is more worthy than the priesthood of the Old. But the priests of the Old Testament had mitres, which are a sign of dignity. Therefore, the priests of the New Testament should also have them. Praeterea, sacerdos est propinquior ordinibus ministrorum quam ordo episcopalis. Sed episcopi utuntur vestibus ministrorum: scilicet dalmatica, quae est vestis diaconi; et tunica, quae est vestis subdiaconi. Ergo multo fortius debent uti eis simplices sacerdotes. Obj. 3: Further, the priest is nearer than the episcopal order to the orders of ministers. Now the bishop uses the vestments of the ministers, namely, the dalmatic, which is the deacon’s vestment, and the tunic, which is the subdeacon’s. Much more, therefore, should simple priests use them. Praeterea, in veteri lege pontifex deferebat superhumerale: quod significabat onus Evangelii, ut dicit Beda. Hoc autem maxime pontificibus nostris incumbit. Ergo debent habere superhumerale. Obj. 4: Further, in the old law the pontiff wore the ephod, which signified the burden of the Gospel, as Bede observes (On the Tabernacle 3). Now this is especially incumbent on our pontiffs. Therefore, they ought to wear the ephod. Praeterea, in rationali, quo utebantur pontifices veteris legis, scribebatur doctrina et veritas. Sed veritas maxime in nova lege declarata est. Ergo pontificibus novae legis competit. Obj. 5: Further, doctrine and truth were inscribed on the breastpiece which the pontiffs of the Old Testament wore. Now truth was made known especially in the new law. Therefore, it is becoming to the pontiffs of the new law. Praeterea, lamina aurea, in qua scriptum erat dignissimum nomen Dei, erat dignissimum ornamentum legis veteris. Ergo illud maxime debuit transferri in novam legem. Obj. 6: Further, the golden plate on which was written the most admirable name of God was the most admirable of the adornments of the old law. Therefore, it should especially have been transferred to the new law. Praeterea, ea quae exterius geruntur in ministris Ecclesiae, sunt signa interioris potestatis. Sed archiepiscopus non habet alterius generis potestatem quam episcopus, ut dictum est. Ergo non debet habere pallium, quod non habent episcopi. Obj. 7: Further, the things which the ministers of the Church wear outwardly are signs of inward power. Now the archbishop has no other kind of power than a bishop, as stated above (A. 6). Therefore, he should not have the pallium which other bishops have not. Praeterea, potestatis plenitudo residet penes Romanum Pontificem. Sed ipse non habet baculum. Ergo nec alii episcopi debent habere. Obj. 8: Further, the fullness of power resides in the Roman Pontiff. But he has not a crozier. Therefore, other bishops should not have one. Respondeo dicendum quod vestes ministrorum designant idoneitatem quae in eis requiritur ad tractandum divina. Et quia quaedam sunt quae in omnibus requiruntur, et quaedam requiruntur in superioribus quae non ita exiguntur in inferioribus; ideo quaedam vestes sunt omnibus ministris communes, quaedam autem superiorum tantum. I answer that, The vestments of the ministers denote the qualifications required of them for handling divine things. And since certain things are required of all, and some are required of the higher that are not so exacted of the lower ministers, therefore certain vestments are common to all the ministers, while some pertain to the higher ministers only. Et ideo omnibus ministris competit amictus humeros tegens, quo significatur fortitudo ad divina officia exequenda, quibus mancipatur; et similiter alba, quae significat puritatem vitae; et cingulum, quod significat repressionem carnis. Accordingly, it is becoming to all the ministers to wear the amice which covers the shoulders, thereby signifying courage in the exercise of the divine offices to which they are deputed, and the alb, which signifies a pure life, and the cincture, which signifies restraint of the flesh. Sed subdiaconus ulterius habet manipulum, quo significatur extersio minimarum macularum, quia manipulus est quasi sudarium ad extergendum vultum: ipsi enim primo ad sacra tractanda admittuntur. Habent etiam tunicam strictam, per quam doctrina Christi significatur: unde et in veteri lege in ipsa tintinnabula pendebant. Subdiaconi enim primo admittuntur ad doctrinam novae legis annuntiandam. But the subdeacon wears in addition the maniple on the left arm: this signifies the wiping away of the least stains (since a maniple is a kind of handkerchief for wiping the face) for they are the first to be admitted to the handling of sacred things. They also have the narrow tunic, signifying the doctrine of Christ; wherefore in the old law little bells hung therefrom, and subdeacons are the first admitted to announce the doctrine of the new law.