title: Dist. 25

title_alt: Littera Magistri (Lombard), Distinctio XXV

title_alt: The text of the Master (Lombard), Distinction XXV

source_text:
> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. They are the Quaracchi editors' critical apparatus (*Notae ad Libr. Sententiarum*) to the Master's text (Peter Lombard). Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; here p.638 carries the Master's notes 1–2, p.639 carries notes 1–6 (suffixed *b* below to keep markers unique within this file), and p.640 carries notes 1–8 (suffixed *c*). Page 641 carries only the closing lines of the littera, with no apparatus of its own.

### DISTINCTIO XXV.

### Cap. I. *De ordinatis ab haereticis.*

Solet etiam quaeri, si haeretici ab Ecclesia praecisi et damnati possint tradere sacros ordines, et si ab eis ordinati, redeuntes ad Ecclesiae unitatem, debeant reordinari. — Hanc quaestionem perplexam ac pene insolubilem faciunt doctorum verba, qui plurimum dissentire videntur. — Videntur enim quidam tradere, haereticos sacros ordines dare non posse, nec illos qui ab eis ordinati videntur, gratiam recipere. Dicit enim Innocentius[^1]: «Arianorum clericos non videri suscipiendos cum sacerdotii vel ministerii alicuius dignitate; quibus solum baptisma ratum esse permittit, quod in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti percipitur». Dicit etiam, eos «non posse dare Spiritum sanctum, quem amiserunt»; et «ordinatos ab haereticis caput habere vulneratum; et eum qui honorem amisit, honorem dare non posse, nec illum aliquid accepisse, quoniam in dante nihil erat, quod ille posset accipere». Tradit etiam, «venientibus ab haereticis per manus impositionem laicam tantum tribuendam communionem, nec ex his aliquem in clericatus honorem vel exiguum subrogare». Gregorius[^2] etiam dicit, sacrilegam esse Arianorum consecrationem, cum ex eorum manu communio percipitur. Cyprianus etiam dicit, omnia quaecumque faciunt haeretici, carnalia, inania et sacrilega esse, et eorum «altaria falsa et illicita, sacerdotia et sacrificia sacrilega», qui «more simiarum, quae, cum homines non sint, formam imitantur humanam, vultum Ecclesiae catholicae et auctoritatem sibi vindicant, cum ipsi in Ecclesia non sint»; et cum sint sacrilegi, sacerdotium administrant et <!-- page 639 --> altare ponunt, cum nec sacrificari oblatio illic possit, ubi Spiritus sanctus non sit; nec cuidam Dominus per eius preces et orationes prosit, qui Deum ipsum violavit.

Hieronymus[^1b] quoque asserit, «omnia quae offeruntur ab haereticis, contaminata esse in conspectu Domini; quia, licet sancta videantur specie sui, tamen, quia contacta sunt ab illo qui pollutus est, polluuntur omnia». Idem: «Odit Deus sacrificia haereticorum et a se proiicit; et quoties in nomine eius congregati fuerint, detestatur foetorem eorum et claudit nares suas». Idem: «Illi offerunt panem sacrilegum» etc. Leo[^2b] etiam testatur, «extra Ecclesiam nec rata esse sacerdotia, nec vera esse sacrificia». Idem etiam dicit: «Per crudelissimam vesaniam in Alexandrina sede omnium Sacramentorum lumen exstinctum: intercepta est sacrificii oblatio, defecit chrismatis sanctificatio, et parricidalibus manibus impiorum omnia se subtraxere mysteria». — His aliisque testimoniis astrui videtur, Sacramenta ecclesiastica, praecipue corporis et sanguinis, ordinationis et confirmationis, per haereticos non posse ministrari.

Contra autem alii sentire videntur, quod ab haereticis etiam praecisis sacri ordines, sicut et baptismus, tradi valeant; nec ab haereticis redeuntes, qui illic ordinati sunt et baptizati, iterum ordinandi sunt, sicut nec baptizandi. Unde Augustinus[^3b]: «De haereticis etiam damnatis quod quidam dicunt: baptisma, quod accepit, non amittit qui recedit ab Ecclesia; ius dandi quod accepit amittit; multis modis apparet inaniter dici: primo, quia nulla ostenditur causa, cur ille qui illud baptisma amittere non potest, ius dandi possit amittere. Utrumque enim Sacramentum est, et quadam consecratione utrumque homini datur, illud, cum baptizatur, et istud, cum ordinatur. Ideo non licet in catholica Ecclesia utrumque iterari. Nam si quando ex ipsa parte venientes, etiam praepositi, pro bono pacis, correcto schismatis errore, suscepti sunt, et si visum est opus esse, ut eadem officia gererent, quae agebant; non sunt rursus ordinandi; sed sicut baptismus in eis, ita ordinatio mansit integra, quia in praecisione fuerat vitium, quod unitate pacis est correctum, non in Sacramentis, quae, ubicumque sunt, ipsa[^4b] sunt. Et cum ipsi expedire videtur Ecclesiae, ut praepositi eorum, venientes ad catholicam societatem, honores suos ibi non administrent; non eis tamen ipsa ordinationis Sacramenta detrahuntur, sed super eos manent; ideoque non eis manus imponitur, ne non homini, sed ipsi Sacramento fiat iniuria. Sicut autem in baptismo est ius, quod per eos dari possit; sic in ordinatione ius dandi est, utrumque quidem ad perniciem suam. Sed aliud est non habere, aliud perniciose habere, aliud salubriter habere». Idem[^5b]: «De his qui ab Ecclesiae unitate separati sunt, nulla iam quaestio, quin habeant et dare possint; sed perniciose habent pernicioseque dant, quia extra vinculum pacis sunt. Neutri Sacramento facienda est iniuria. Sicut non recte habet qui ab unitate recedit, sed tamen habet, et ideo redeunti non redditur; sic etiam non recte dat qui ab unitate recedit, sed tamen dat; et ideo, qui ab eo accipit, venienti ad unitatem non iteratur». Idem: «Aliud est non habere aliquid, aliud est non iure habere vel illicite usurpare. Non igitur ideo non sunt Sacramenta Christi et Ecclesiae, quia eis illicite utantur non modo haeretici, sed etiam omnes impii; sed illi corrigendi sunt et puniendi, illa autem agnoscenda et veneranda». Item Gregorius[^6b]: «Quod dicitis, ut qui ordinatus est iterum ordinetur, valde ridiculum est. Ut enim baptizatus semel iterum baptizari non debet; ita qui consecratus est semel in eodem ordine non valet iterum consecrari». — His aliisque auctoritatibus videtur asseri, in omnibus impiis, etiam in haereticis praecisis et damnatis, Christi Sacramenta permanere cum iure dandi; possunt enim dare, sed perniciose, et quibus dederint non sunt iterum ordinandi. Quae praemissis ex opposito obviare videntur.

Haec autem quidam ita determinant. Dicunt enim, haereticos, accepta sacerdotali vel episcopali unctione, ab Ecclesia recedentes baptismi quidem dandi ius retinere, sed non habere facultatem tribuendi sacros ordines, vel consecrandi dominicum corpus, postquam praecisi sunt et damnati ab Ecclesia; sicut degradatus episcopus non habet potestatem largiendi sacros ordines, facultatem tamen baptizandi non amisit. Quod vero Augustinus ait intelligitur dictum de haereticis, qui non sententia Ecclesiae, sed pravitate sensus sui a fidei veritate ac doctrinae unitate divisi sunt; qui, licet tales sint, ius tamen ordinandi et consecrandi habent. Et qui ab eis ordinantur ante manifestam praecisionem, etiam si cum eis aperte exierint et sententia Ecclesiae damnati fuerint, tamen si redierint, iterum ordinandi non sunt. Et ubicumque legitur de ordinatis ab haereticis, quod servatis eis ordinibus ministrare valeant, vel iterum ordinandi non sint; de huiusmodi accipiendum dicunt. Nam postquam praecisi fuerint et damnati iudicio Ecclesiae, ius ordinandi et consecrandi eis detractum asserunt, ut degradatis, vel excommunicatis.

— Alii vero dicunt, Sacramenta ab haereticis et praecisis secundum formam Ecclesiae celebrata vera esse et rata, quia recedentes ab Ecclesia ius dandi et consecrandi non perdiderunt; et qui sic ab haereticis ordinantur, cum redeunt, iterum ordinandi non sunt. Quae vero ab haereticis aliter quam in Ecclesia fiunt, falsa sunt et inania; et qui a talibus ordinari videntur non munus, sed vulnus accipiunt. Et secundum hanc <!-- page 640 --> differentiam varie de his loquuntur doctores.

— Quidam[^1c] vero dicunt, eadem Sacramenta ab haereticis praecisis posse celebrari, quae a catholicis, si ab illis forma Ecclesiae servetur; et ab eis celebrata vera esse et rata quantum ad se, quantum vero ad effectum falsa esse et inania et in his qui male tractant, et in his qui male suscipiunt; ideo irrita et falsa, quia quod promittunt et conferre creduntur non tribuunt; damnanda etiam dicuntur, quia illicite dantibus vel accipientibus sunt in iudicium; polluta etiam dicuntur, non quantum ad se, sed propter indignam haereticorum tractationem. Ideo Gregorius communionem Arii vocat exsecrationem, et Innocentius Bonosii ordinationem damnationem, non quod ita in se sint, sed quia male dantes vel accipientes tales facit; sicut etiam Hieronymus sacrificia eorum panem luctus vocat, non quantum ad se, sed quantum ad effectum. — Nonnulli[^2c] vero tradunt, illos haereticos, qui in Ecclesia ordinati sunt, ius ordinandi et consecrandi, etiam cum separati fuerint, habere; qui vero, in schismate vel haeresi positi, ab eis ordinati et inuncti fuerint, illo iure carent, ideoque, cum ordinare volunt, vulnus potius infigunt, quam gratiam conferant.

### Cap. II. *De simonia, unde dicitur, et quid sit.*

De simoniacis vero non est ambigendum, quin sint haeretici, qui tamen ante sententiam degradationis et ordinant et consecrant. Et licet simoniaci proprie dicantur qui instar Simonis[^3c] magi impretiabilem gratiam pretio conducere volunt, et qui pro ministerio sacro pretium recipiunt in modum Giezi Giezitae vocandi sunt; omnes tamen et dantes et accipientes simoniaci dicuntur, et utrique eadem sententia percelluntur.

### Cap. III. *De his qui a simoniacis ordinantur scienter, vel non.*

Differt tamen inter eos qui ordinantur a simoniacis scienter, et eos qui ignoranter. «Qui enim scienter a simoniacis se permiserint consecrari, immo exsecrari, eorum consecratio omnino irrita est. Qui vero ordinantur a simoniacis, quos, cum ordinantur, nesciunt esse simoniacos, qui et tunc pro catholicis habentur, eorum ordinatio misericorditer sustinetur[^4c]».

### Cap. IV. *De his qui dicunt, se emere corporalia et non spiritualia.*

«Si vero aliqui obiecerint, se non consecrationes emere, sed res ipsas, quae ex consecratione proveniunt; penitus desipere probantur. Nam quisquis horum alterum vendit, sine quo alterum non habetur, neutrum vendere derelinquit[^5c]».

### Cap. V. *De distinctione simoniacorum.*

Simoniacae autem haeresis tripartita est distinctio. Alii enim simoniace a simoniacis ordinantur; alii simoniace a non simoniacis; alii non simoniace a simoniacis. Unde Nicolaus Papa[^6c]: «Statuimus decretum de simoniaca tripartita haeresi, id est de simoniacis simoniace ordinatoribus vel ordinatis, et de simoniacis simoniace a non simoniacis, et de simoniacis non simoniace a simoniacis. Simoniaci simoniace ordinati vel ordinatores secundum canones a proprio gradu decidant; simoniaci etiam simoniace a non simoniacis ordinati similiter ab officio removeantur; simoniacos vero non simoniace a simoniacis ordinatos misericorditer per manus impositionem pro temporis necessitate in officio permittimus permanere». «Quod intelligendum est de his qui ordinantur a simoniacis ignorantes, eos esse simoniacos. Hos facit simoniacos non reatus criminis, sed ordinatio simoniaci».

### Cap. VI. *De his qui violenter ab haereticis vel simoniacis ordinantur.*

Similiter, cum decernit Alexander Papa[^7c], «simoniacos omnino damnandos ac deponendos», subintelligendum est: nisi violenter quis attractus fuerit. «De his enim et a quibuslibet haereticis violenter ordinatis dicit Innocentius, quod possunt habere aliquem colorem excusationis, si statim discedunt ab eis et pessimo eorum conciliabulo renuntiant». De aetate ordinandorum ita decrevit Nicolaus Papa[^8c]: «Sacri, inquit, canones sanxerunt, ut subdiaconus non ordinetur ante quatuordecim annos, nec diaconus ante viginti quinque, nec presbyter ante triginta. <!-- page 641 --> Deinde, si dignus fuerit, ad episcopatum eligi potest»; quod nos etiam pari modo servare iubemus. Item Fabianus: «Si quis triginta aetatis non impleverit annos, nullo modo presbyter ordinetur, etsi valde sit dignus»; «quia et ipse Dominus triginta annorum baptizatus est, et sic coepit docere».

---

english:
### DISTINCTION XXV.

### Chapter I. *On those ordained by heretics.*

It is also wont to be asked whether heretics who have been cut off from the Church and condemned can hand on the sacred orders, and whether those ordained by them, when they return to the unity of the Church, ought to be reordained. — This question, perplexing and almost insoluble, is made so by the words of the doctors, who seem to disagree greatly. — For certain ones seem to hand down that heretics cannot give the sacred orders, nor can those who seem to be ordained by them receive grace. For Innocent[^1] says: «The clerics of the Arians are not to be received with the dignity of the priesthood or of any ministry; to whom he permits only baptism to be valid, which is received in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit». He says also that they «cannot give the Holy Spirit, whom they have lost»; and that «those ordained by heretics have a wounded head; and that he who has lost honor cannot give honor, nor did that one receive anything, since in the giver there was nothing that the other could receive». He also hands down that «to those coming from heretics only lay communion is to be granted by the imposition of hands, nor is any of them to be subrogated into clerical honor, even the least». Gregory[^2] also says that the consecration of the Arians is sacrilegious, when communion is received from their hand. Cyprian also says that all things whatsoever the heretics do are carnal, empty, and sacrilegious, and that their «altars are false and unlawful, their priesthoods and sacrifices sacrilegious», who «after the manner of apes, which, though they are not men, imitate the human form, claim for themselves the face and authority of the Catholic Church, though they themselves are not in the Church»; and though they are sacrilegious, they administer the priesthood and set up <!-- page 639 --> an altar, though a sacrifice cannot be offered there, where the Holy Spirit is not; nor can the Lord be of profit to anyone through his prayers and supplications, who has himself violated God.

Jerome[^1b] also asserts that «all things which are offered by heretics are defiled in the sight of the Lord; because, although they may seem holy in their own appearance, yet, because they have been touched by him who is polluted, all are polluted». The same: «God hates the sacrifices of heretics and casts them from himself; and as often as they are gathered in his name, he detests their stench and closes his nostrils». The same: «They offer sacrilegious bread» etc. Leo[^2b] also testifies that «outside the Church neither are the priesthoods valid, nor the sacrifices true». The same also says: «Through a most cruel madness in the see of Alexandria the light of all the Sacraments has been extinguished: the oblation of the sacrifice has been cut off, the sanctification of the chrism has failed, and by the parricidal hands of the impious all the mysteries have withdrawn themselves». — By these and other testimonies it seems to be established that the ecclesiastical Sacraments, especially of the body and blood, of ordination and of confirmation, cannot be ministered through heretics.

But on the contrary others seem to hold that by heretics, even those cut off, the sacred orders, like baptism also, can be handed on; and that those returning from the heretics, who were ordained and baptized there, are not to be ordained again, just as they are not to be baptized again. Hence Augustine[^3b]: «As to what some say concerning heretics even condemned: that the baptism which he received he does not lose who withdraws from the Church, but the right of giving which he received he does lose; it appears in many ways to be said vainly: first, because no cause is shown why he who cannot lose that baptism should be able to lose the right of giving it. For each is a Sacrament, and by a certain consecration each is given to a man, the one when he is baptized, and the other when he is ordained. Therefore it is not lawful in the Catholic Church to repeat either. For if at any time those coming from that side, even prelates, for the good of peace, the error of schism being corrected, have been received, and if it seemed needful that they should carry out the same offices which they were performing; they are not to be ordained again; but as baptism remained whole in them, so did ordination, because the fault had been in the cutting-off, which is corrected by the unity of peace, not in the Sacraments, which, wherever they are, are themselves[^4b]. And when it seems expedient to the Church that their prelates, coming to the Catholic society, should not there administer their honors; yet the Sacraments of ordination are not taken away from them, but remain upon them; and therefore the hand is not laid upon them, lest an injury be done not to the man, but to the Sacrament itself. But as in baptism there is a right, whereby it can be given through them; so in ordination there is a right of giving, each indeed to their own ruin. But it is one thing not to have, another to have perniciously, another to have wholesomely». The same[^5b]: «Concerning those who are separated from the unity of the Church there is now no question that they both have and can give; but they have perniciously and give perniciously, because they are outside the bond of peace. To neither Sacrament is injury to be done. As he who withdraws from unity does not rightly have, yet he has, and therefore it is not restored to him when he returns; so also he who withdraws from unity does not rightly give, yet he gives; and therefore, to him who receives from him, when he comes to unity it is not repeated». The same: «It is one thing not to have anything, another not to have it by right or to usurp it unlawfully. Therefore they are not for that reason no Sacraments of Christ and of the Church, because not only heretics but also all the impious use them unlawfully; but these men are to be corrected and punished, while those things are to be acknowledged and venerated». Likewise Gregory[^6b]: «What you say, that he who has been ordained should be ordained again, is exceedingly ridiculous. For as one baptized once for all ought not to be baptized again; so he who has been consecrated once in the same order cannot be consecrated again». — By these and other authorities it seems to be asserted that in all the impious, even in heretics cut off and condemned, the Sacraments of Christ remain with the right of giving; for they can give, but perniciously, and those to whom they have given are not to be ordained again. Which things seem to run counter to the foregoing from the opposite side.

But some determine these matters thus. For they say that heretics, having received the priestly or episcopal unction, when they withdraw from the Church do indeed retain the right of giving baptism, but do not have the faculty of conferring the sacred orders, or of consecrating the dominical body, after they have been cut off and condemned by the Church; just as a degraded bishop does not have the power of bestowing the sacred orders, yet has not lost the faculty of baptizing. And what Augustine says is understood to be said of heretics who are divided from the truth of the faith and from the unity of doctrine not by the sentence of the Church, but by the depravity of their own understanding; who, although they are such, yet have the right of ordaining and consecrating. And those who are ordained by them before the manifest cutting-off, even if they have openly gone out with them and have been condemned by the sentence of the Church, nevertheless, if they return, are not to be ordained again. And wherever it is read concerning those ordained by heretics, that with those orders preserved they can minister, or are not to be ordained again; it is to be taken of such as these. For after they have been cut off and condemned by the judgment of the Church, they assert that the right of ordaining and consecrating is withdrawn from them, as from the degraded or the excommunicate.

— But others say that the Sacraments celebrated by heretics and by those cut off according to the form of the Church are true and valid, because in withdrawing from the Church they have not lost the right of giving and consecrating; and those who are thus ordained by heretics, when they return, are not to be ordained again. But those things which are done by heretics otherwise than in the Church are false and empty; and those who seem to be ordained by such receive not a gift, but a wound. And according to this <!-- page 640 --> difference the doctors speak variously concerning these matters.

— Some[^1c] say that the same Sacraments can be celebrated by heretics who have been cut off, which are celebrated by Catholics, if the form of the Church be preserved by them; and that, celebrated by them, they are true and valid as regards themselves, but as regards their effect false and empty, both in those who administer wickedly and in those who receive wickedly; therefore invalid and false, because what they promise and are believed to confer they do not bestow; they are also said to be condemnable, because they are unto judgment for those who unlawfully give or receive; they are also said to be polluted, not as regards themselves, but on account of the unworthy handling of the heretics. Therefore Gregory calls the communion of Arius an execration, and Innocent calls the ordination of Bonosus a condemnation, not that they are so in themselves, but because it makes wicked those who wickedly give or receive; just as Jerome also calls their sacrifices the bread of mourning, not as regards themselves, but as regards their effect. — Some[^2c] however hand down that those heretics who were ordained in the Church have the right of ordaining and consecrating, even when they have been separated; but those who, placed in schism or heresy, have been ordained and anointed by them, lack that right, and therefore, when they wish to ordain, they inflict a wound rather than confer grace.

### Chapter II. *On simony, whence it is named, and what it is.*

But concerning simoniacs there is no doubt that they are heretics, who nevertheless before the sentence of degradation both ordain and consecrate. And although those are properly called simoniacs who, after the manner of Simon[^3c] the magician, wish to purchase for a price the inestimable grace, and those who receive a price for a sacred ministry are to be called after the manner of Giezi the Giezite; yet all, both those who give and those who receive, are called simoniacs, and both are struck with the same sentence.

### Chapter III. *On those who are ordained by simoniacs knowingly, or not.*

Yet there is a difference between those who are ordained by simoniacs knowingly, and those who are ordained unknowingly. «For those who have knowingly permitted themselves to be consecrated by simoniacs, nay rather execrated, their consecration is wholly invalid. But those who are ordained by simoniacs, whom, when they are ordained, they do not know to be simoniacs, who at that time also are held as Catholics, their ordination is mercifully upheld[^4c]».

### Chapter IV. *On those who say that they buy corporeal and not spiritual things.*

«But if any object that they do not buy consecrations, but the very things which come from consecration; they are proved to be utterly out of their senses. For whoever of these sells the one, without which the other is not had, leaves neither unsold[^5c]».

### Chapter V. *On the distinction of simoniacs.*

But the distinction of the simoniacal heresy is threefold. For some are ordained simoniacally by simoniacs; others simoniacally by non-simoniacs; others non-simoniacally by simoniacs. Hence Pope Nicholas[^6c]: «We have established a decree concerning the threefold simoniacal heresy, that is, concerning simoniacs who ordain or are ordained simoniacally, and concerning simoniacs ordained simoniacally by non-simoniacs, and concerning simoniacs ordained non-simoniacally by simoniacs. Let simoniacs simoniacally ordained, or the ordainers, fall from their proper grade according to the canons; let simoniacs also who have been ordained simoniacally by non-simoniacs likewise be removed from office; but simoniacs ordained non-simoniacally by simoniacs we mercifully permit to remain in office through the imposition of hands, for the necessity of the time». «Which is to be understood of those who are ordained by simoniacs without knowing that they are simoniacs. It is not the guilt of the crime that makes these simoniacs, but the ordination of the simoniac».

### Chapter VI. *On those who are ordained by force by heretics or simoniacs.*

Likewise, when Pope Alexander[^7c] decrees «that simoniacs are wholly to be condemned and deposed», it is to be understood by implication: unless someone has been drawn in by force. «For concerning these, and those ordained by force by any heretics whatsoever, Innocent says that they can have some color of excuse, if they immediately depart from them and renounce their most wicked conventicle». Concerning the age of those to be ordained Pope Nicholas[^8c] decreed thus: «The sacred canons, he says, have ordained that a subdeacon be not ordained before fourteen years, nor a deacon before twenty-five, nor a presbyter before thirty. <!-- page 641 --> Then, if he be worthy, he can be chosen to the episcopate»; which we also command to be observed in like manner. Likewise Fabian: «If anyone has not completed thirty years of age, let him in no way be ordained presbyter, even if he be very worthy»; «because the Lord himself also was baptized at thirty years, and so began to teach».

---

la: Can. *Arianos* (73.), C. 1. q. 1. Seq. locus est C. *Qui perfectionem* (17.), ibid.; tertius C. *Ventum est* (18.), ibid.; quartus, ibid. § 2.

en: Canon *Arianos* (73), C. 1, q. 1. The next passage is the Canon *Qui perfectionem* (17), ibid.; the third, the Canon *Ventum est* (18), ibid.; the fourth, ibid. § 2.

la: Libr. III. *Dialog.* c. 31; C. *Superveniente* (72.), ibid.; locus Cypriani est Epist. ad Magnum de baptizandis Novatianis, n. 1; et Gratian. super C. *Manus impositio* (74.), ibid., et deinde Cyprian., Epist. ad Iubaianum (de haereticis baptizand.) n. 2; uterque in C. *Si quis, inquit* (70.), ibid. Pro seqq. cfr. eiusd. Epist. ad Magnum, n. 9. seqq.

en: Book III of the *Dialogues*, c. 31; the Canon *Superveniente* (72), ibid.; the passage of Cyprian is his *Letter to Magnus*, on the baptizing of the Novatianists, n. 1; and Gratian on the Canon *Manus impositio* (74), ibid., and then Cyprian, *Letter to Iubaianus* (on the baptizing of heretics) n. 2; both in the Canon *Si quis, inquit* (70), ibid. For what follows cf. the same author's *Letter to Magnus*, n. 9 ff.

la: Comment. in Aggaeum 2, 15; C. *Sic populus* (61.), ibid.; seq. locus est eiusdem In Amos 5, 22; C. *Odit Deus* (62.), ibid.; tertius in Oseam 6, 7; C. *Illi offerunt* (63.), ibid.

en: Commentary on Haggai 2:15; the Canon *Sic populus* (61), ibid.; the next passage is the same author's *On Amos* 5:22; the Canon *Odit Deus* (62), ibid.; the third, *on Hosea* 6:7; the Canon *Illi offerunt* (63), ibid.

la: Epist. 80. (alias 60.) ad Anatolium, c. 2; C. *In Ecclesia* (68.), ibid.; seq. locus est Epist. 156. (alias 125.) ad Leonem, c. 5; C. *Manifestum est* (69.), ibid.

en: Letter 80 (otherwise 60) to Anatolius, c. 2; the Canon *In Ecclesia* (68), ibid.; the next passage is Letter 156 (otherwise 125) to Leo, c. 5; the Canon *Manifestum est* (69), ibid.

la: Libr. II. contra epist. Parmeniani, c. 13. n. 28; C. *Quod quidam* (97.), ibid.

en: Book II *Against the Letter of Parmenianus*, c. 13, n. 28; the Canon *Quod quidam* (97), ibid.

la: Edd. 6, 8 et Val. addunt *vera*, sed refragante etiam editione Maurina originalis.

en: Editions 6, 8 and the Vatican add *vera*, but with the Maurist edition of the original also opposing.

la: Ibid., et C. cit. § 6, variatis nonnullis. Respicitur Eph. 4, 3. — Seq. locus eiusd. III. *de Baptismo* contra Donatist. c. 10. n. 13.

en: Ibid., and in the cited Canon § 6, with some variations. Ephesians 4:3 is referred to. — The next passage is the same author's Book III *On Baptism*, against the Donatists, c. 10, n. 13.

la: Libr. II. Registr. indict. 10, epist. 46. (alias 22.) ad Ioan. episc. Ravennat.; C. *Sicut semel* (1.), d. 68.

en: Book II of the *Register*, indiction 10, letter 46 (otherwise 22) to John, bishop of Ravenna; the Canon *Sicut semel* (1), d. 68.

la: Cfr. Gratian. super C. cit. *Quod quidam*, § 5. 7.

en: Cf. Gratian on the cited Canon *Quod quidam*, § 5, 7.

la: Cfr. Gratian. super C. *Per illicitam* (3.), C. 9. q. 1. — Pro *inuncti* Vat. et plurimae edd. *iuncti,* et pro *infigunt* edd. 2, 4, 6 et Vat. *infligunt.*

en: Cf. Gratian on the Canon *Per illicitam* (3), C. 9, q. 1. — For *inuncti* the Vatican and most editions read *iuncti,* and for *infigunt* editions 2, 4, 6 and the Vatican read *infligunt.*

la: Cfr. Act. 8, 18 seqq.; de Giezi IV. Reg. 5, 25. seqq.

en: Cf. Acts 8:18 ff.; concerning Giezi, IV Kings [2 Kings] 5:25 ff.

la: Can. *Si qui a simoniacis* (108.), C. 1. q. 1.

en: Canon *Si qui a simoniacis* (108), C. 1, q. 1.

la: Can. *Si quis obiecerit* (7.), C. 1. q. 3; in quo et in originali pro *vendere* melius *invenditum.*

en: Canon *Si quis obiecerit* (7), C. 1, q. 3; in which, and in the original, for *vendere* the reading *invenditum* is better.

la: Can. *Statuimus decretum* (107.), C. 1. q. 1. Seq. locus et Gratian. super hunc can.

en: Canon *Statuimus decretum* (107), C. 1, q. 1. The next passage also, and Gratian on this canon.

la: Locus collectus ex C. *Erga simoniacos* (110.), ibid. et C. *Constat multos* (111.), ibid., et Gratian. ibid.

en: A passage gathered from the Canon *Erga simoniacos* (110), ibid., and the Canon *Constat multos* (111), ibid., and Gratian, ibid.

la: Can. *In singulis gradibus* (2.), d. 77; et verbotenus apud Hug. II. *de Sacram.* p. 11. c. 21. Seq. locus est C. *Si quis triginta* (1.), d. 78. Ultima verba leguntur in C. *Presbyter* (4.), ibid., ubi respicitur Luc. 3, 21. seqq. — Verba *De aetate ordinandorum... Papa* codd. et edd., excepta Vat., ponunt ut rubricam supra textum, quem incipiunt sic: *De aetate sacri canones,* inquit etc. Sed rubrica non invenitur inter ista capitula ab ipso Magistro ordinata; unde exemplum Vaticanae secuti sumus. — Circa aetatem ordinandorum novum ius constitutum est a Concilio Trident. (Sess. XXIII. de Reform.), quod nemo ante annum 22. ad subdiaconatum, ante an. 23. ad diaconatum, ante an. 25. ad presbyteratum promoveatur.

en: Canon *In singulis gradibus* (2), d. 77; and word for word in Hugh, Book II *On the Sacraments*, part 11, c. 21. The next passage is the Canon *Si quis triginta* (1), d. 78. The last words are read in the Canon *Presbyter* (4), ibid., where Luke 3:21 ff. is referred to. — The words *De aetate ordinandorum... Papa* the manuscripts and editions, except the Vatican, place as a rubric above the text, which they begin thus: *De aetate sacri canones,* he says, etc. But the rubric is not found among these chapters as arranged by the Master himself; hence we have followed the exemplar of the Vatican. — Concerning the age of those to be ordained a new law was established by the Council of Trent (Session XXIII on Reform), that no one be promoted before his 22nd year to the subdiaconate, before the 23rd to the diaconate, before the 25th to the presbyterate. ---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from the Quaracchi Vol. IV two-column page images at 450 dpi (`colcrop` bands, split 2120 for the left column / 1780 for the right; vol4 offset pdf = printed + 20). The IA djvu OCR (raw lines 69353–69540) was used only as a spelling base and for footnote-marker spacing; the two-column cascade merged the columns out of reading order, so the body was reflowed column-by-column from the bands. Raw range: `DISTINCTIO XXV.` (L69353) through the last littera line on p.641, just before `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXV.` (OCR `C0MMENTARIU8`, L69541).

- **Page layout.** The littera opens mid-p.638 (in the lower half of the page, after the close of d.24's commentary and its Dub. VI) and runs left-column-then-right-column across pp.638–641. On p.638 it occupies only the lower portion of both columns; pp.639–640 are entirely littera; on p.641 it fills only the top few lines of each column before `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXV.` begins. The `DISTINCTIO XXV.` head is printed at the top of the right column of p.638. Chapter divisions (Cap. I–VI) are the Master's own. No **DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM** is included (per scope); there is no scholion in a littera.

- **Apparatus source and numbering.** The Master's apparatus is printed under the heading **NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM.** (visible in the right footer of p.638), distinct from the d.24 commentary's own footer notes (p.638 notes 1–5, which belong to the preceding chunk and are *not* claimed here). Quaracchi restarts the littera's footnote numbering on each printed page: p.638 = notes 1–2 (rendered `[^1]`, `[^2]`); p.639 = notes 1–6 (`[^1b]`–`[^6b]`); p.640 = notes 1–8 (`[^1c]`–`[^8c]`). p.641 carries no littera apparatus. Total: 16 entries, all anchored to markers in this body.

- **Editorial marginalia trimmed.** The printed running side-notes (`Sacrum sumitur tripliciter.`, `Innocentius.`, `Gregorius.`, `Cyprianus.`, `Augustinus.`, `Modus loquendi 1. et falsus` … `Modus 4. et verus`, `Dubium 2. 3.`, `Dubium 4.`, etc.) are the Quaracchi editors' marginal glosses, not part of Lombard's text, and are omitted.

- **[?] flags.**
  - `[^2b]` (p.639 n.2): the Leo letter number reads **156** on the 450 dpi band (the djvu OCR gave *136*); rendered as `156. (alias 125.)` per the band, but the digit (136 vs 156) is not fully certain at this resolution. `[?]`
  - `[^8c]` (p.640 n.8): the Hugh of St. Victor locus reads `p. 11. c. 21` on the band (djvu OCR `p. 111`); rendered `part 11` but the part-number is an ambiguous OCR spot. `[?]`


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 25, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 641 -->

## Commentarius in Distinctionem XXV
### *De dispensatione sacri ordinis.*

*Solet etiam quaeri, si haeretici ab Ecclesia praecisi etc.*

> Numeri infra positi footnotarum respondent notis quae inveniuntur tam in textu latino supra quam in versione anglica infra; sequuntur apparatum criticum Quaracchi ad calcem paginae 641.

### Divisio textus.

Supra egit Magister de ordine; hic agit de potestate conferendi ordines. Et quoniam potestas exigit materiam debitam et[^1] debitam ordinationem, ideo primo agit Magister de potestate conferendi ordines. Secundo vero de vitio, quod incidit circa ordinis dationem et susceptionem, quod est simonia, ibi: *De simoniacis vero non est ambigendum*. Tertio vero de idoneitate ordinandorum, maxime quantum ad aetatem, ibi: *De aetate ordinandorum*, ultimo capitulo.

Prima pars habet tres. In prima arguit ad partem falsam, ostendens, quod haeretici non possunt ordines dare. In secunda ad partem veram, ibi: *Contra autem alii sentire videntur etc.* In tertia solvit[^2], ibi: *Haec autem quidam ita determinant etc.*

*De simoniacis vero non est ambigendum etc.* Haec est secunda pars, in qua agit de vitio, quod incidit circa ordinum dationem et susceptionem, quod quidem est simonia; et habet haec pars duas. In prima agit de culpa. In secunda vero agit de poena, ibi: *Differt tamen inter eos qui ordinantur etc.*

### Tractatio quaestionum.

Ad intelligentiam praesentis distinctionis duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de potestate ordinandi.

Secundo, de possibilitate ordinandorum.

Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor.

Primo, utrum solus episcopus possit ordinare.

Secundo, utrum episcopus haereticus possit ordines dare.

Tertio, utrum simoniacus episcopus aliquem valeat ordinem vendere.

Quarto, utrum ordines dans simoniace ex hoc ipso fiat haereticus.

---

english:
## Commentary on Distinction XXV
### *On the dispensation of sacred order.*

*It is also asked whether heretics cut off from the Church etc.*

### Division of the text.

The Master above treated of order; here he treats of the power of conferring orders. And since the power requires due matter and[^1] due ordination, therefore the Master first treats of the power of conferring orders. Second, of the vice that occurs concerning the giving and receiving of order, which is simony, at: *Concerning simoniacs, however, there is no doubt*. Third, of the fitness of those to be ordained, especially as regards age, at: *On the age of those to be ordained*, in the last chapter.

The first part has three [sections]. In the first he argues to the false position, showing that heretics cannot give orders. In the second, to the true position, at: *But others seem to think the contrary etc.* In the third he resolves [the matter][^2], at: *But certain ones determine these matters thus etc.*

*Concerning simoniacs, however, there is no doubt etc.* This is the second part, in which he treats of the vice that occurs concerning the giving and receiving of orders, which indeed is simony; and this part has two [sections]. In the first he treats of the fault. In the second he treats of the penalty, at: *Yet there is a difference between those who are ordained etc.*

### Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of the present distinction, two things are principally asked.

First it is asked concerning the power of ordaining.

Second, concerning the possibility of those to be ordained.

Concerning the first, four things are asked.

First, whether the bishop alone can ordain.

Second, whether a heretical bishop can give orders.

Third, whether a simoniacal bishop can sell an order to anyone.

Fourth, whether one who gives orders simoniacally becomes by that very fact a heretic.

---

la: Pro *materiam debitam et*, quod habent codd. A Q R S T, quodque edd. omittunt, cod. E *naturam debitam et*, codd. L U *modum debitum et*, cod. O *modo debito*, alii *modo*.

en: In place of *due matter and*, which codices A Q R S T have, and which the editions omit, codex E has *due nature and*, codices L U *due manner and*, codex O *by a due manner*, others *by a manner*.

la: Pro *solvit* edd. *autem praedictas contrarietates ad concordantiam reducit*. Eaedem edd. in fine addunt *Tertia pars remanet indivisa*.

en: In place of *he resolves* the editions read *reduces the aforesaid contrarieties to concord*. The same editions add at the end *The third part remains undivided*.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 25, Art. 1, Q. 1

title_alt:
Utrum solus episcopus possit ordinare
Whether only a bishop can ordain

source_text:
<!-- page 641 -->

### ARTICULUS I.
### *De potestate ordinandi.*

### QUAESTIO I.
### *Utrum solus episcopus possit ordinare.*

Circa primum proceditur sic et ostenditur, quod solus episcopus possit ordinare.

1. Ad Hebraeos septimo[^p641-3]: *Sine ulla contradictione quod minus est a maiore benedicitur*; sed ordinum collatio est per benedictionem: ergo necesse est, quod ille qui ordines confert, eminentiam habeat ultra omnes ordines. Sed talis non est nisi episcopus: ergo etc.

2. Item, Isidorus in libro septimo Etymologiarum, capitulo duodecimo[^p641-4], loquens de officio episcopi, dicit: «Ipse summus sacerdos, ipse et pontifex maximus nominatur; ipse enim efficit sacerdotes atque levitas, ipse omnes ecclesiasticos ordines disponit».

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia eius est in Ecclesia ordines constituere, cuius est Ecclesiam gubernare; sed gubernatio Ecclesiarum spectat ad episcopos, qui sunt superintendentes[^p641-5]: ergo et dispensatio ordinum.

<!-- page 642 -->

4. Item, eius est in Ecclesia ordines conferre, ad quem spectat ex Ecclesia filios generare perfectos, pro eo quod ordo collocat in statu perfectionis; sed hoc est illius solius, qui est sponsus, hic autem est episcopus[^p642-1]: ergo etc.

5. Item, maioris dignitatis est ordines dispensare, quam sit Sacramentum confirmationis dare; sed secundum est episcoporum tantum: ergo et solus episcopus[^p642-2].

**Contra:** 1. Primae ad Timotheum quarto[^p642-3]: *Noli negligere gratiam, quae est in te per impositionem manuum presbyteri*: ergo in primitiva Ecclesia presbyterorum erat manus episcopis imponere, ergo et ordinare: ergo etc.

2. Item, ordinatio ordinum principalium fit per manuum impositionem: ergo cui competit manuum impositio, competit et potestas ordinandi; sed prima competit presbyteris: ergo etc. Probatio *mediae*: distinctione vigesima tertia[^p642-4]: «Presbyter cum ordinatur, episcopo eum benedicente et manum super caput eius tenente, etiam omnes presbyteri, qui praesentes sunt, manus suas iuxta manus episcopi teneant super caput illius»: ergo etc.

3. Item, quod perfectum est potest in tale, quale ipsum est[^p642-5]; sed ordo sacerdotalis est ordo perfectus: ergo potest in tale, quale est: ergo videtur, quod sacerdos sacerdotem possit facere.

4. Item, plus est corpus Domini conficere quam aliquem ordinare in aliquo gradu ecclesiastico; sed primum est non tantum episcopi, sed etiam sacerdotum: ergo pari ratione videtur, quod ordinatio clericorum.

5. Item, plus praestat sacerdos diacono, quam praesit episcopus episcopo; sed episcopus potest alium promovere et consecrare in episcopum: ergo multo fortius sacerdos potest facere diaconum.

Propter hoc est quaestio: cum minus a maiore benedicatur[^p642-6], quomodo episcopus potest benedicere episcopum, et quod amplius est, archiepiscopum, immo quod adhuc maius est, Ostiensis benedicit Papam?

### CONCLUSIO.

> Soli episcopi possunt sacros ordines conferre.

**Solutio:** Dicendum, quod, sicut sacri canones dicunt, secundum ius commune non potest aliquis ordines dispensare, praesertim ordines sacros, nisi solus episcopus[^p642-7]. — Huius autem statutum ortum habet ex *sacra Scriptura* et *Spiritus sancti ordinatione*. Ex *sacra Scriptura*: quia, cum Dominus duo genera discipulorum habuit, quosdam in numero duodeno, quosdam in numero septuagesimo — primos *Apostolos nominavit*[^p642-8], *super quos* etiam fundavit Ecclesiam, ipsos tamen primo fundando *in se*; alios simplices *discipulos appellavit* — et Apostolis primo collata fuit potestas imponendi manus et consecrandi, non autem simplicibus discipulis, sicut patet ex textu et ex Glossa Actuum octavo[^p642-9]; et quoniam Apostolis succedunt episcopi, discipulis vero sacerdotes simplices successerunt, sicut habetur distinctione vigesima prima, capitulo, *In novo testamento*: et ita patet, quod auctoritas ordinandi et manus imponendi secundum formam Ecclesiae primitivae episcopis approprietur. Unde et Apostolus, scribens Timotheo, primae ad Timotheum quinto[^p642-10]: *Manus cito nemini imposueris.*

*Consilium* etiam *Spiritus sancti* concordat, quo et Scripturae sunt editae et constitutiones ecclesiasticae. — Quia enim ordo potestas est sive in ordine traditur[^p642-11]; ideo ab eo debet tradi, qui potestatem habet et in quantum habet potestatem. Posse autem gradus distribuere et conferre non est cuiuslibet potentis, sed eius qui in potentia supereminet, sicut patet etiam in regimine curiae saecularis. Ad hoc ergo, quod ordo recte tradatur, disponit[^p642-12] Spiritus sanctus, quod tradatur ab eo qui non solum ordinem habet, sed qui habet *ordines*, per quos est potens, sicut et alii, et *eminentiam dignitatis*, per quam potest super alios; hunc autem dicimus ordinem, qui dicit *ordinem cum eminentia*: ideo patet, quod duo requiruntur ad hoc, quod episcopus possit

<!-- page 643 -->

ordinem conferre, scilicet quod ille habeat illum *ordinem*, et quod habeat *episcopalem dignitatem*. — Alia ratio est, quia, si passim omnibus esset concessum, tot admitterentur ad ordines, quod non servaretur ordo, immo potius generaretur confusio; et ideo dispositum est Dei consilio, quod solis episcopis ordinum dispensatio et aliorum perfectorum, ut consecratio abbatum, monialium et ecclesiarum et consimilium, concedatur[^p643-1]. — Posset etiam alia ratio assignari sive ex hoc, quod episcopus *sponsus* est, sive ex hoc, quod Sacramentum ordinis *statum perfectionis* dicit; ideo his qui habent *potestatis eminentiam*, debuit reservari, et episcopus tanquam *sponsus* filios, id est perfectos, et filias, id est imperfectos, debuit generare. — Prima tamen ratio multum valet.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de impositione manuum presbyteri, dicendum, quod presbyter vocatur ibi senior; et Apostolus intelligebat *se ipsum* per impositionem manus presbyteri — Glossa[^p643-2]: «presbyterum vocat episcopum» — vel *presbyteri*, id est «*presbyterorum*» — quia, sicut dicit ius, saltem tres sacerdotes debent manus imponere; sed tamen ipsi non imponunt ut dantes potestatem vel ordinem, quia ab uno solo dari potest et debet; unde ipsi non benedicunt, sed solus episcopus, sed hoc est in signum consecrationis suae[^p643-3].

2. Et per hoc patet sequens, quia manuum impositio non facit ordinem, nisi illa quae iuncta est benedictioni.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de perfectione, dicendum quod est perfectio sufficientiae et redundantiae. Ad hoc autem, quod aliquid aliud faciat sibi simile vel perfectum, non sufficit, quod sit perfectum perfectione sufficientiae, sed redundantiae; et quoniam in sacerdote est perfectio sufficientiae, in episcopo ratione eminentiae superadditae est perfectio redundantiae: ideo haec perfectio sufficit ad generandum filios perfectos, non prima.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod plus est corpus Domini consecrare etc. dicendum, quod illud argumentum peccat dupliciter: primo, quia potestas ordinandi *praesupponit* ordinationem et superaddit[^p643-4], per quam non solum est ordinatus, sed etiam ordinator, et ideo prima est falsa. Et iterum, *consequentia non valet*: quia non sequitur, si aliquis potest in maius, quod possit in minus, nisi maius includat illud minus[^p643-5], ut ferre duos modios includit unum. Non sic est in proposito.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod *magis superat* sacerdos diaconum etc.; dicendum, quod verum est, quod *magis superat*, quam episcopus superat episcopum, qui est iam, et super illum non habet *posse*; sed *non magis*, quam superat ille qui est episcopus in *actu*, illum qui est episcopus in *potentia*. Praeterea, etsi magis superet in ordine, secundum quem accipitur ratio *ordinati*, non tamen in ordine, secundum quem accipitur ratio *ordinantis*, qualis est in episcopo, non in presbytero. Et ideo non valet illud.

Ad illud quod ultimo quaeritur, quomodo episcopus benedicit episcopum; dicendum, quod hoc[^p643-6] nullum inconveniens est, quia non benedicitur, nisi in quantum caret ordine sive dignitate episcopali; et sic maior est. — Sed tunc adhuc restat quaestio, quomodo benedicit archiepiscopum, cum ille superior sit, et «non possit dare quod non habet[^p643-7]». Si tu dicas, quod hoc facit auctoritate Summi Pontificis, qui superest; tunc non minor restat quaestio de ipso, qualiter Summus Pontifex benedicitur ab episcopo Ostiensi. *Si tu dicas*, quod Christus dedit ei hanc potestatem auctoritate[^p643-8]; *contra*: esto quod ipse non esset, nec esset commissa alteri; nunquid non posset Summus Pontifex consecrari? — Et propter hoc dicendum, quod infallibiliter verum est quod dicit Apostolus, *quod minus a maiore benedicitur*, pro statu, in quo benedicitur; sine contradictione[^p643-9] verum est, quod nullus dat alii maiorem dignitatem, quam habeat, nec minimum ordinem dare potest, quem non habet: et ideo episcopus, consecrans archiepiscopum vel Papam, omnino non tribuit ei nisi consecrationem episcopalem. Sed ille ampliorem habet auctoritatem et iurisdictionem a subditorum electione, suo consensu et Domini institutione, qui ordinavit Petrum et eius successores super totam Ecclesiam, volens, ut omnes, qui canonice electi fuerint, eandem quam et Petrus habeant potestatem.

<!-- page 644 -->

english:
<!-- page 641 -->

### ARTICLE I.
### *On the power of ordaining.*

### QUESTION I.
### *Whether only a bishop can ordain.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus, and it is shown that only a bishop can ordain.

1. To the Hebrews, chapter seven[^p641-3]: *Without any contradiction, that which is less is blessed by the greater*; but the collation of orders is through a blessing: therefore it is necessary that he who confers orders should have an eminence beyond all orders. But such a one is none but a bishop: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Isidore in the seventh book of the *Etymologies*, chapter twelve[^p641-4], speaking of the office of a bishop, says: «He is named the highest priest, he too the supreme pontiff; for he himself makes priests and levites, he disposes all the ecclesiastical orders».

3. Likewise, it seems [so] by reason: because it belongs to him to establish orders in the Church, to whom it belongs to govern the Church; but the governance of the Churches pertains to the bishops, who are the overseers[^p641-5]: therefore also the dispensing of orders [pertains to them].

<!-- page 642 -->

4. Likewise, the conferring of orders in the Church belongs to him to whom it belongs to beget perfect sons out of the Church, inasmuch as order places [one] in the state of perfection; but this belongs to him alone who is the spouse, and this one is the bishop[^p642-1]: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, it is of greater dignity to dispense orders than it is to give the Sacrament of confirmation; but the latter belongs to bishops only: therefore also [the former belongs to] the bishop alone[^p642-2].

**On the contrary:** 1. First to Timothy, chapter four[^p642-3]: *Neglect not the grace that is in thee through the imposition of the hands of the presbyter*: therefore in the primitive Church it belonged to presbyters to impose hands together with the bishops, therefore also to ordain: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the ordination of the principal orders is done through the imposition of hands: therefore to whom the imposition of hands belongs, there belongs also the power of ordaining; but the first belongs to presbyters: therefore etc. Proof of the *minor*: [in] distinction twenty-three[^p642-4]: «When a presbyter is ordained, while the bishop blesses him and holds his hand upon his head, let all the presbyters also who are present hold their hands beside the bishop's hand upon his head»: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, what is perfect can [act] into such as itself is[^p642-5]; but the priestly order is a perfect order: therefore it can [act] into such as it is: therefore it seems that a priest can make a priest.

4. Likewise, it is more to confect the Body of the Lord than to ordain someone in some ecclesiastical grade; but the first belongs not only to a bishop, but also to priests: therefore by parity of reasoning it seems that the ordination of clerics [belongs to priests too].

5. Likewise, a priest bestows more upon a deacon than a bishop is set over a bishop; but a bishop can promote and consecrate another into a bishop: therefore much more strongly can a priest make a deacon.

On account of this there is a question: since the less is blessed by the greater[^p642-6], how can a bishop bless a bishop, and — what is more — an archbishop, nay — what is still greater — [how does] the [bishop] of Ostia bless the Pope?

### CONCLUSION.

> Only bishops can confer the sacred orders.

**Solution:** It must be said that, as the sacred canons say, according to the common law no one can dispense orders, especially the sacred orders, save the bishop alone[^p642-7]. — But this statute has its origin from *sacred Scripture* and from *the ordinance of the Holy Spirit*. From *sacred Scripture*: because, since the Lord had two kinds of disciples, some in the number of twelve, some in the number of seventy — the first he named *Apostles*[^p642-8], *upon whom* he also founded the Church, yet founding them first *in himself*; the others he called simple *disciples* — and to the Apostles first was conferred the power of imposing hands and consecrating, but not to the simple disciples, as is plain from the text and from the Gloss on Acts, chapter eight[^p642-9]; and since bishops succeed the Apostles, while simple priests have succeeded the disciples, as is had in distinction twenty-one, chapter *In the New Testament*: and so it is plain that the authority of ordaining and of imposing hands, according to the form of the primitive Church, is appropriated to bishops. Whence also the Apostle, writing to Timothy, First to Timothy, chapter five[^p642-10]: *Impose hands hastily on no one.*

The *counsel* also of *the Holy Spirit* is in agreement, by which both the Scriptures were issued and the ecclesiastical constitutions. — For since order is a power, or is handed on in [the conferring of] order[^p642-11]; therefore it ought to be handed on by him who has the power and insofar as he has the power. But to be able to distribute and confer grades is not [the prerogative] of just any powerful person, but of him who is preeminent in power, as is plain also in the governance of a secular court. To this end, therefore, that order be rightly handed on, the Holy Spirit disposes[^p642-12] that it be handed on by him who not only has order, but who has *orders*, through which he is powerful, as are others also, and *the eminence of dignity*, through which he can [prevail] over others; and this one we call [the bearer of] order who denotes *order with eminence*: therefore it is plain that two things are required for a bishop to be able

<!-- page 643 -->

to confer order, namely that he have that *order*, and that he have the *episcopal dignity*. — Another reason is that, if it were granted indiscriminately to all, so many would be admitted to orders that order would not be preserved, but rather confusion would be generated; and therefore it has been disposed by God's counsel that to bishops alone be granted the dispensing of orders and of other perfect things, such as the consecration of abbots, of nuns, and of churches and the like[^p643-1]. — Yet another reason could be assigned either from this, that the bishop is a *spouse*, or from this, that the Sacrament of order denotes *the state of perfection*; therefore it had to be reserved to those who have *eminence of power*, and the bishop as *spouse* had to beget sons, that is the perfect, and daughters, that is the imperfect. — Yet the first reason avails much.

1. To that which is objected concerning the imposition of the hands of the presbyter, it must be said that "presbyter" there means an elder; and the Apostle understood *himself* [to be meant] by the imposition of the hand of a presbyter — the Gloss[^p643-2]: «it calls the bishop a presbyter» — or *of the presbyter*, that is «*of the presbyters*» — because, as the law says, at least three priests ought to impose hands; but nevertheless they do not impose [hands] as giving power or order, since it can and ought to be given by one alone; hence they do not bless, but the bishop alone [blesses], but this is as a sign of his [the presbyter's] consecration[^p643-3].

2. And through this the following is clear, that the imposition of hands does not make order, except that [imposition] which is joined to the blessing.

3. To that which is objected concerning perfection, it must be said that there is a perfection of sufficiency and [a perfection] of redundance. But for this, that something make another like itself or perfect, it does not suffice that it be perfect with the perfection of sufficiency, but [it must be perfect with the perfection] of redundance; and since in a priest there is the perfection of sufficiency, [while] in a bishop, by reason of a superadded eminence, there is the perfection of redundance: therefore this [latter] perfection suffices for begetting perfect sons, not the first.

4. To that which is objected, that it is more to consecrate the Body of the Lord, etc., it must be said that that argument errs in two ways: first, because the power of ordaining *presupposes* ordination and superadds[^p643-4] [that] through which one is not only ordained, but also an ordainer, and therefore the first [premiss] is false. And again, the *consequence is not valid*: for it does not follow, if someone can [do] the greater, that he can [do] the lesser, unless the greater include that lesser[^p643-5], as to carry two measures includes [carrying] one. It is not so in the matter at hand.

5. To that which is objected, that a priest *surpasses* [a deacon] more, etc.; it must be said that it is true that he *surpasses more* than a bishop surpasses a bishop who already is, and over whom he has no *power*; but *not more* than he who is a bishop in *act* surpasses him who is a bishop in *potency*. Moreover, even if he surpasses more in the order according to which the account of the *ordained* is taken, nevertheless [he does] not [surpass more] in the order according to which the account of the *ordainer* is taken, such as is in a bishop, not in a presbyter. And therefore that [argument] is not valid.

To that which is asked last, how a bishop blesses a bishop; it must be said that this[^p643-6] is no impropriety, because he is not blessed except insofar as he lacks the episcopal order or dignity; and thus [the ordaining bishop] is greater. — But then there still remains the question, how he blesses an archbishop, since the latter is superior, and «he cannot give what he does not have[^p643-7]». If you say that he does this by the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, who is above [him]; then no lesser question remains concerning him, how the Supreme Pontiff is blessed by the bishop of Ostia. *If you say* that Christ gave him this power by [his own] authority[^p643-8]; *on the contrary*: granted that he [the Ostian bishop] did not exist, nor had it been committed to another; could the Supreme Pontiff not be consecrated? — And on account of this it must be said that it is infallibly true what the Apostle says, *that the less is blessed by the greater*, in respect of the state in which he is blessed; without contradiction[^p643-9] it is true that no one gives to another a greater dignity than he has, nor can he give the least order which he does not have: and therefore a bishop, consecrating an archbishop or a Pope, in no way bestows on him anything but the episcopal consecration. But the latter has a fuller authority and jurisdiction from the election of his subjects, from his own consent, and from the institution of the Lord, who ordained Peter and his successors over the whole Church, willing that all who shall have been canonically elected should have the same power that Peter also [had].

<!-- page 644 -->

la: Vers. 7. Vulgata *meliore* pro *maiore*. — Inferius pro *omnes* multi codd. *tres*.

en: Verse 7. The Vulgate [reads] *meliore* (by the better) for *maiore* (by the greater). — Below, for *omnes* (all) many codices [read] *tres* (three).

la: Num. 13. Pro *ipse et pontifex maximus* codd. *ipse pontifex et maximus*.

en: [Isidore, Etym. VII, c. 12,] n. 13. For *ipse et pontifex maximus* (he too the supreme pontiff) the codices [read] *ipse pontifex et maximus* (he pontiff and supreme).

la: Ut dicit Isidor. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXIV. c. 15.

en: As Isidore says, above [in] the Master's text, d. 24, c. 15.

la: Vide supra d. 20. p. II. q. 3. in corp. — Cod. aa addit: *in signum hoc datur ei anulus*. — Superius pro *ex Ecclesia* cod. A a secunda manu et ed. I *in Ecclesia*, codd. RST *et Ecclesiae*.

en: See above d. 20, p. II, q. 3, in the body. — Codex aa adds: *in signum hoc datur ei anulus* (as a sign of this a ring is given to him). — Above, for *ex Ecclesia* (out of the Church) codex A (by a second hand) and ed. I [read] *in Ecclesia* (in the Church), codices R, S, T *et Ecclesiae* (and of the Church).

la: Codd. et edd. perperam, terminis transpositis, *sed primum est... ergo et secundum*.

en: The codices and editions wrongly, with the terms transposed, [read] *sed primum est... ergo et secundum* (but the first is... therefore also the second).

la: Vers. 14. Vulgata: *Noli... in te est, quae data est tibi per prophetiam cum impositione manuum presbyterii.*

en: Verse 14. The Vulgate: *Noli... in te est, quae data est tibi per prophetiam cum impositione manuum presbyterii* (Neglect not... which is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the imposition of the hands of the presbytery).

la: Can. 8.

en: Canon 8.

la: Aristot., IV. Meteor. text. 19. (c. 3.); cfr. II. de Anima text. 34. (c. 4.): *Naturalissimum enim operum, quae in viventibus, quaecumque perfecta et non mutilata sunt... est facere aliud quale ipsum.*

en: Aristotle, *Meteorology* IV, text 19 (c. 3); cf. *On the Soul* II, text 34 (c. 4): *For the most natural of works, among those in living things — whatever are perfect and not mutilated... — is to make another such as itself.*

la: Respiciuntur verba Apostoli posita in fundam. 1.

en: The words of the Apostle set down in fundamentum 1 are regarded.

la: Cfr. Gratian., d. 67. et d. 69; X. *de Ordinatis ab episcopo, qui renuntiavit episcopatui* (lib. 1. tit. 13.), ubi dicitur, quod ordines minores «a non-episcopis quandocumque conferuntur», et C. *Cum contingat* (11.), X. *de Aetate et qualitate et ordine praeficiendorum* (lib. 1. tit. 14.), ubi decernitur, quod abbas, si est presbyter et benedictus, conferre potest ordinem clericalem (minorem). — Superius pro *dicunt* codd. E F *determinant*, alii codd. *bene dicunt*. Pro *commune* cod. F *Ecclesiae*.

en: Cf. Gratian, d. 67 and d. 69; the Decretals (X), *On those ordained by a bishop who has renounced the episcopate* (book 1, tit. 13), where it is said that minor orders «are at times conferred by non-bishops», and the chapter *Cum contingat* (11), X, *On the age and quality and rank of those to be promoted* (book 1, tit. 14), where it is decreed that an abbot, if he is a presbyter and blessed, can confer the clerical (minor) order. — Above, for *dicunt* (they say) codices E, F [read] *determinant* (they determine), other codices *bene dicunt* (they say well). For *commune* (common) codex F [reads] *Ecclesiae* (of the Church).

la: Luc. 6, 13. Cfr. 10, 1, ubi de septuaginta duobus discipulis. — Forma huius longae propositionis aliquatenus a regula deficit.

en: Luke 6:13. Cf. 10:1, where [it speaks] of the seventy-two disciples. — The form of this long sentence somewhat falls short of the [grammatical] rule.

la: Vers. 17. Cfr. supra pag. 58, nota 7, ubi Glossa Bedae exhibetur, de qua vide etiam supra d. 7. a. 1. q. 3. fundam. 3. — Seq. locus est apud Gratian., d. 21. c. 2.

en: Verse 17. Cf. above p. 58, note 7, where the Gloss of Bede is set out, on which see also above d. 7, a. 1, q. 3, fundamentum 3. — The following passage is in Gratian, d. 21, c. 2.

la: Vers. 22.

en: Verse 22.

la: Respicitur definitio ordinis a Magistro, supra d. XXIV. c. 13, data. — Edd. *in ordines potestas traditur*.

en: The definition of order given by the Master above, d. 24, c. 13, is regarded. — The editions [read] *in ordines potestas traditur* (power is handed over into orders).

la: Cod. K *disposuit*. Mox pro *tradatur* plures codd. *traderetur*. Subinde Vat., posito *habet ordines* pro *ordinem habet*, omittit *sed qui habet ordines*.

en: Codex K [reads] *disposuit* (disposed). Presently, for *tradatur* (be handed on) several codices [read] *traderetur* (would be handed on). Thereupon the Vatican [edition], having put *habet ordines* (has orders) for *ordinem habet* (has order), omits *sed qui habet ordines* (but who has orders).

la: Cfr. C. *Perfectis* (I.), d. 23. § 9. et C. *Si iubet* (I.), C. 26. q. 6, ex quo supra lit. Magistri, d. XX. c. 6, nonnulla allegantur. — Superius pro *perfectorum* ed. I *officiorum*. In fine corp. pro *multum valet* edd. *melius valet*.

en: Cf. the chapter *Perfectis* (I), d. 23, § 9, and the chapter *Si iubet* (I), C. 26, q. 6, from which some things are alleged above [in] the Master's text, d. 20, c. 6. — Above, for *perfectorum* (of the perfect) ed. I [reads] *officiorum* (of offices). At the end of the body, for *multum valet* (avails much) the editions [read] *melius valet* (avails better).

la: Glossa *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum sic dicit: *Presbyteri* pro *presbyterorum*, quia minus tribus esse non possunt [cfr. supra pag. 628, nota 6.]. Et vocat *presbyterum*, episcopum; vel quia unus manus imponit, ceteris assentientibus.

en: The *ordinary* Gloss in Strabo and Lyra says thus: *Presbyteri* (of the presbyter) for *presbyterorum* (of the presbyters), because they cannot be fewer than three [cf. above p. 628, note 6]. And it calls the *presbyter* a bishop; or because one imposes hands, the rest assenting.

la: Cfr. supra d. 24. p. II. a. 1. q. 4. ad 2.

en: Cf. above d. 24, p. II, a. 1, q. 4, ad 2.

la: Codd. MU supplent *eminentiam*, codd. RSTX *dignitatem*, cod. O *potentiam*. Pro *ordinationem* cod. F *ordinem*, cod. K (I a secunda manu) *ordinationem sive ordinem* (cfr. infra dub. 1. in fine).

en: Codices M, U supply *eminentiam* (eminence), codices R, S, T, X *dignitatem* (dignity), codex O *potentiam* (power). For *ordinationem* (ordination) codex F [reads] *ordinem* (order), codex K (and I, by a second hand) *ordinationem sive ordinem* (ordination or order) (cf. below dubium 1, at the end).

la: Cfr. supra pag. 143, nota 5.

en: Cf. above p. 143, note 5.

la: Non pauci codd. *hic*.

en: Not a few codices [read] *hic* (here) [for *hoc*].

la: Secundum Aristot. II. Elench. c. 3. (c. 22.).

en: According to Aristotle, *Sophistical Refutations* II, c. 3 (c. 22).

la: Cod. G addit *sua*, omisso *contra*, codd. FL substituunt *auctoritatem*, omisso *potestatem*, in cod. E a secunda manu ponitur *potestatem et auctoritatem*, ed. I *potestatem auctoritative*, Vat. omittit *auctoritate*. Pro *contra, esto* permulti codd. perperam *qua est*.

en: Codex G adds *sua* (his own), omitting *contra*; codices F, L substitute *auctoritatem* (authority), omitting *potestatem* (power); in codex E, by a second hand, is put *potestatem et auctoritatem* (power and authority); ed. I [reads] *potestatem auctoritative* (power authoritatively); the Vatican [edition] omits *auctoritate* (by authority). For *contra, esto* (on the contrary, granted) very many codices wrongly [read] *qua est*.

la: Ex codd. L Z et ed. I (respicientes ad verbum Apostoli relatum in fundam.) substituimus *contradictione*, pro *cunctatione*; cod. bb (a secunda manu) *dubitatione*. Ante *sine* edd. addunt *tam*, codd. AG *et*, codd. F bb *nec non*, denique cod. aa *item*.

en: From codices L, Z and ed. I (which regard the word of the Apostle reported in the fundamentum) we have substituted *contradictione* (contradiction) for *cunctatione* (delay); codex bb (by a second hand) [reads] *dubitatione* (doubt). Before *sine* (without) the editions add *tam* (so), codices A, G *et* (and), codices F, bb *nec non* (and also), finally codex aa *item* (likewise).

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quoad 1. quaestionem notanda sunt verba Concilii Tridentini (Sess. XXIII. can. 7.) superius (in scholio ad d. 24. p. II. a. 2. q. 3.) relata, quod potestas *confirmandi* et *ordinandi* episcopis non sit communis cum presbyteris. Haec specialis potestas episcoporum, saltem quoad collationem sacerdotii ipsis prorsus reservata, a *catholicis* nunquam vocata est in controversiam. Cfr. etiam hic dub. 1. — De hac 1. quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; Suppl. q. 38. a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — De hac et seqq. qq. Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

**II.** Circa 2. quaestionem diffuse disputat Magister, hic c. 1. De erroribus et dubiis quoad validitatem quorundam Sacramentorum ab haereticis et praecisis collatorum (a quibus etiam Petr. Lombardus se prorsus expedire non potuit) vide scholia supra d. 5. a. 1. q. 2. quoad baptismum, d. 13. a. 1. q. 1. quoad eucharistiam; cfr. etiam lit. Magistri, d. XIX. c. 2, et Comment. II. a. 1. q. 2. — De 2. quaestione: Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. 1, ubi etiam multa de poenis ecclesiasticis affert. — S. Thom., locis citt. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. 3.

**III.** Quid sit *simonia*, aliaque de eadem explicantur infra dub. 2-6. Haec et plura alia simul cum seqq. 2. qq. (3. et 4.) a S. Thoma (hic q. 3. a. 1-3.) distinctis quaestionibus explicantur, melius etiam in S. II. II. q. 100. a. 1-6; item ab Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 169. per totam. — De utraque (3. 4.) quaestione aliisque annexis praeter S. Thomam: Scot., loc. cit. — B. Albert., hic a. 2-6. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1-3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1-3, a. 3. q. 1-3. — Durand., hic q. 3-5. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** As to the 1st question, there are to be noted the words of the Council of Trent (Session XXIII, canon 7), reported above (in the scholion at d. 24, p. II, a. 2, q. 3), that the power of *confirming* and of *ordaining* is not common to bishops with presbyters. This special power of bishops, at least as regards the collation of the priesthood altogether reserved to them, has never been called into controversy by *catholics*. Cf. also here dubium 1. — On this 1st question: St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1; *Supplement* q. 38, a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1, 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1. — On this and the following questions Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

**II.** Concerning the 2nd question the Master disputes at length, here c. 1. On the errors and doubts as to the validity of certain Sacraments conferred by heretics and by those cut off [from the Church] (from which even Peter Lombard could not entirely extricate himself) see the scholia above d. 5, a. 1, q. 2 as to baptism, d. 13, a. 1, q. 1 as to the Eucharist; cf. also the Master's text, d. 19, c. 2, and the Commentary II, a. 1, q. 2. — On the 2nd question: Scotus, in both *Scripta* here q. 1, where he also brings forward much concerning ecclesiastical penalties. — St. Thomas, in the places cited, a. 2. — B. Albert, here a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2, 3.

**III.** What *simony* is, and other things concerning it, are explained below in dubia 2–6. These and many other things, together with the following two questions (3 and 4), are explained by St. Thomas (here q. 3, a. 1–3) in distinct questions, better also in *Summa* II-II, q. 100, a. 1–6; likewise by Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 169, throughout. — On both (3, 4) questions and other annexed matters, besides St. Thomas: Scotus, loc. cit. — B. Albert, here a. 2–6. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1–3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1–3, a. 3, q. 1–3. — Durandus, here q. 3–5. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp. 641–644 (PDF pp. 661–664; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`) under the VOL II OVERRIDE, with the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 69576–69909) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Existing `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p64*` bands had been cut at the default split `x=1660` (clips the two-column gutter for Vol IV, whose page is 3719 px wide); regenerated at `split_x=1880` before reading. Marginal side-glosses (*Ad oppositum*, *Quaestio incidens*, *Confirmatio 2/3*, *Concl.*, *Ratio*, *Contradictio*, *Resp.*, *Notandum*, *Ad quaest. incid.*) were trimmed per house rule as editorial marginalia.

**This chunk is Distinction XXV, Articulus I (*De potestate ordinandi*), Quaestio I** — *Utrum solus episcopus possit ordinare*. Per the locked Vol II/IV chunking convention, the short `ARTICULUS I / De potestate ordinandi` opener that immediately precedes `QUAESTIO I` is folded into this q1 (no standalone article-opener chunk). The preceding `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXV / De dispensatione sacri ordinis / DIVISIO TEXTUS / TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM` (top of printed p. 641) belongs to the d.25 divisio chunk, **not** here.

**Opener alignment verified.** The TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (p. 641 R-col) lists the article's four questions in order — "Primo, utrum solus episcopus possit ordinare; Secundo, utrum episcopus haereticus possit ordinare; Tertio, utrum simoniacus episcopus aliquem valeat ordinem vendere; Quarto, utrum ordines dans simoniace ex hoc ipso fiat haereticus" — and this chunk is the **first** (utrum solus episcopus). No q-swap. The OCR-garbled argument labels `h.`/`b.` (raw) are the printed **4.** and **5.** (pro-arguments), confirmed against the bands.

**Page-split map (running heads verified eyes-on):**
- **p. 641** (running head "DIST. XXV. ART. I. QUAEST. I. — 641"): ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I opener + *videtur* args 1–3 (arg 3 ends the page). Footer note-series has five entries; **notes 1–2 belong to the preceding divisio** (*materiam debitam et* variant; *solvit* variant), and **notes 3–5 are this quaestio's** (Heb 7; Isid. Etym. VII.12; Isid. via lit. Magistri d.24) — rendered here as `p641-3…5`.
- **p. 642** (running head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. — 642"): *videtur* args 4–5, *Contra* args 1–5, the incidental question (*Propter hoc est quaestio*), CONCLUSIO, and the SOLUTIO (Scripture + Holy-Spirit reasons) running to the foot. Footer note-series **1–12**, all this quaestio's (`p642-1…12`).
- **p. 643** (running head "DIST. XXV. ART. I. QUAEST. I. — 643"): tail of the Solutio (*duo requiruntur*), the two supplementary *rationes*, and replies 1–5 + the reply to the incidental question, closing the body. Footer note-series **1–9**, all this quaestio's (`p643-1…9`).
- **p. 644** (running head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. — 644"): the ARTICLE I **SCHOLION** fills both columns; **QUAESTIO II** (*Utrum episcopus haereticus possit dare ordines*) begins at the foot of the L-column → next chunk `bon-sent-IV-d25-a1-q2`. p. 644 carries no footnote series belonging to this quaestio.

**Scholion disposition — this is the Article I scholion (owned here).** Its header glyph OCR-garbles to `SGHOLION` (a plain `SCHOLION` grep and a wide `SCHOLIOK` grep both miss it); located by content ("De 1./2. quaestione…", "De utraque (3. 4.) quaestione…", raw ~L69850–69909). It is placed LAST in each language block per the parser gotcha. It has **three numbered sections and covers all four questions of Article I**: **§ I → q. 1** (Trent Sess. XXIII can. 7, on the episcopal power of ordaining reserved from presbyters); **§ II → q. 2** (heretical/severed ministers; validity of Sacraments they confer); **§ III → q. 3 and q. 4** (*simonia*, with the combined "De utraque (3. 4.) quaestione" author-register). It carries no keyed `[^N]` markers (unkeyed editorial prose).

**Apparatus count: 24 footnotes** — p. 641 notes 3–5 (3), p. 642 notes 1–12 (12), p. 643 notes 1–9 (9). Per-page numbering restarts (Quaracchi convention), so markers are page-prefixed (`p641-`, `p642-`, `p643-`) to stay unique in-file. Shared-page split: p. 641's footer notes **1–2 are claimed by the d.25 divisio chunk**, not here (verify at the seam when that chunk is promoted).

**[?] flags:** none. All formulae, codex sigla, canon/Decretal citations, and scripture references resolved cleanly against the PDF bands. Minor notes (not flagged inline): the scholion cross-ref "supra d. 5. a. 1. q. 2. quoad baptismum" reads d. 5 on the band and is content-confirmed (Bk IV d. 5 = *De ministris baptismi*); the scholion's "Comment. II." (before "a. 1. q. 2") is partly clipped in the R-band but supported by the OCR base; p. 643 note 5's self-reference reads "pag. 143, nota 5" on the authoritative band (the IA OCR had "nota 3").


title: Dist. 25, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 644 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum episcopus haereticus possit dare ordines.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum episcopus haereticus possit dare ordines. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Augustinus contra Parmenianum[^1] dicit: « Sicut dicimus in baptismo, quod per eos dari possit, ita et in ordinatione »; et ad hoc sunt plures auctoritates in littera.

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia, sicut se habet sacerdos ad potestatem conficiendi, sic se habet episcopus ad potestatem ordinandi; sed sacerdos, quantumcumque haereticus, si habeat intentionem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, vere conficit[^2]: ergo et haereticus episcopus vere ordinat, si formam ecclesiasticam servat.

3. Item, si aliquis catholicus intra Ecclesiam ordinetur et post in haeresim labatur, si iterum revertatur, non reordinatur; ergo ordines labendo in haeresim non amisit, pari ratione nec episcopus dignitatem sive gradum episcopalem: ergo existens haereticus habet illam dignitatem sive excellentiam ordinis, ergo et operationem consequentem ipsam de facto: ergo si ordinat, ordinatum[^3] est.

4. Item, character aeque vere est in malis, ut in bonis, et aeque vere imprimitur malis, ut bonis: ergo pari ratione aeque bene datur a malis sive perversis, ut a bonis: ergo cum essentia ordinis in charactere consistat[^4], patet etc.

**Contra:** 1. Innocentius dicit, et habetur in littera[^5]: « Constat, eum qui honorem amisit, honorem dare non posse »; sed talis est haereticus: ergo etc.

2. Item, Causa prima, quaestione prima[^6]: « Benedictio illi in maledictionem convertitur, qui ad hoc, quod fiat haereticus, ordinatur »: ergo si per maledictionem nullus promovetur ad ordinem, patet etc.

3. Item, plus est aliquem ad ordinem promovere quam absolvere vel ligare; sed haereticus praecisus nullum potest absolvere vel ligare[^7]: ergo nullum potest ad sacros ordines promovere.

4. Item, inferior potestas non potest agere nisi per continuationem cum superiori et propria potestate; sed potestatis plenitudo est in Summo Pontifice[^8], a quo separatus et disiunctus est haereticus praecisus: ergo videtur, quod nihil omnino possit dare de eis quae spectant ad ecclesiasticas potestates.

### Conclusio.

> *Apud haereticos ordo potest dispensari quoad veritatem, non quoad utilitatem.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod etsi ista quaestio aliquando fuerit dubia multum apud praeclaros doctores de omnibus Sacramentis, tam de baptismo

<!-- page 645 -->

quam de aliis, quod non essent apud haereticos[^9]; tamen per illustrissimum doctorem Augustinum aperte est nobis haec quaestio patefacta, quod Sacramenta ecclesiastica apud haereticos, qui formam Ecclesiae servant et intentionem habent faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, sunt quantum ad *veritatem*, quamvis non sint quantum ad *utilitatem*: quia Sacramenta dispensant, sed tamen fructum Sacramentorum non reportant, pro eo quod Spiritus sanctus non est extra catholicam Ecclesiam. Et ideo in omnibus Sacramentis, quae habent *veritatem* differentem ab *utilitate*, generaliter verum est, quod apud haereticos possunt esse; omnia autem Sacramenta sunt talia praeter Sacramentum poenitentiae, cuius *res* est interior contritio[^10], sine qua nulla vera est absolutio, et cum qua nulla absolutio est vana vel inutilis: ideo omnia possunt dispensare et dispensant veraciter praeter solam absolutionem poenitentiae; et ideo nulla iterantur praeter illam, nisi forte unctio extrema[^11]. Et sic, cum ordo habeat characterem, qui praeter Spiritus sancti gratiam, qua peccata delentur, existit, dicendum, quod apud eos potest veraciter dispensari[^12].

1. 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Innocentio et de Gregorio, ad illas duas auctoritates dicendum, quod ideo dicitur *recipere maledictionem*, quia gratiam non recipit; ideo dicitur *non recipere honorem*, quia non recipit exsecutionem qui ordinatur ab haeretico praeciso; qui ideo dicitur *ordinem amisisse*, pro eo quod ordinis exsecutionem amisit, non quia amisit characterem, qui deleri non potest.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de potestate absolvendi, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia absolutio sacerdotalis aut nulla est, aut sine fictione est; nullus autem scienter ab haeretico absolvitur, qui careat fictione. — Aliter tamen potest dici, quod potestas quadruplex reperitur in ministris Ecclesiae. Quaedam namque est fundata super *ordinem principaliter*, ut potestas conficiendi; quaedam super *iurisdictionem canonicam principaliter*, ut potestas excommunicandi; quaedam super *ordinem et eminentiam*, ut potestas ordinandi; quaedam super *ordinem et iurisdictionem*, ut potestas absolvendi et ligandi in foro poenitentiali[^13]. Et quoniam character auferri non potest, ideo potestas, quae *consequitur characterem*, de facto auferri non potest. Sed quoniam iurisdictio descendit ordinate a superiori ad inferius, ita quod plenitudo est in Summo Pontifice; ideo potest auferre eam et potestatem, quae *consequitur ipsam*. Unde potest excommunicando auferre potestatem absolvendi et excommunicandi, sed non ordinandi.

4. Et per hoc patet responsio ad multa et ad sequens etiam. Quod enim obiicitur, quod in Summo Pontifice est plenitudo potestatis; verum est, secundum quod potestas *consequitur iurisdictionem*, quae maxima et in termino est in eo, sed non in quantum *sequitur characterem*, quia ille immediate a Deo imprimitur et est in omnibus aequalis; tamen *exsecutio* omnis potestatis debet fieri secundum eius regimen; et ideo, si ipse prohibeat, non potest talis potestas licite exire in actum; tamen, quia ab ipso non dependet secundum rem de facto, facit, sicut et alius. Et sic patet totum[^14].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether a heretical bishop can confer orders.*

Secondly it is asked whether a heretical bishop can confer orders. And that he can, seems [to be shown].

1. Augustine, *Against Parmenianus*[^1], says: "Just as we say in baptism that [a sacrament] can be given through them [the heretics], so also in ordination"; and to this there are several authorities in the text [of the Master].

2. Likewise, it seems [so] by *reason*: for, as a priest stands to the power of consecrating, so a bishop stands to the power of ordaining; but a priest, however much a heretic, if he has the intention of doing what the Church does, truly consecrates[^2]: therefore also a heretical bishop truly ordains, if he preserves the ecclesiastical form.

3. Likewise, if some catholic is ordained within the Church and afterward lapses into heresy, if he again returns, he is not reordained; therefore by lapsing into heresy he did not lose his orders, and by parity of reasoning neither does a bishop lose his episcopal dignity or grade: therefore while existing as a heretic he has that dignity or excellence of order, and therefore also the operation that follows upon it in fact: therefore if he ordains, [the man] is ordained[^3].

4. Likewise, the character is equally truly in the wicked as in the good, and is equally truly imprinted on the wicked as on the good: therefore by parity of reasoning it is equally well given by the wicked or the perverse as by the good: therefore since the essence of order consists in the character[^4], it is evident, etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Innocent says, and it is held in the text[^5]: "It is established that he who has lost the honor cannot give the honor"; but the heretic is such a one: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, *Cause* I, *Question* I[^6]: "The blessing is turned into a curse for him who is ordained to the end that he become a heretic": therefore if by a curse no one is promoted to an order, it is evident, etc.

3. Likewise, it is more to promote someone to an order than to absolve or bind; but a heretic who is cut off can absolve or bind no one[^7]: therefore he can promote no one to sacred orders.

4. Likewise, a lower power cannot act except by continuation with a superior and proper power; but the fullness of power is in the Supreme Pontiff[^8], from whom the heretic who is cut off is separated and disjoined: therefore it seems that he can confer nothing at all of those things that pertain to the ecclesiastical powers.

### Conclusion.

> *Among heretics an order can be dispensed as to its truth, not as to its usefulness.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, although this question was once much in doubt among illustrious doctors concerning all the Sacraments — as much concerning baptism

as concerning the others, [namely] that they would not exist among heretics[^9] — nevertheless through the most illustrious doctor Augustine this question has been clearly opened up to us, [namely] that the ecclesiastical Sacraments among heretics, who preserve the form of the Church and have the intention of doing what the Church does, do exist as to their *truth*, although they do not exist as to their *usefulness*: because they dispense the Sacraments, yet do not obtain the fruit of the Sacraments, for the reason that the Holy Spirit is not outside the catholic Church. And therefore in all the Sacraments which have a *truth* distinct from their *usefulness*, it is generally true that they can exist among heretics; but all the Sacraments are of this kind except the Sacrament of penance, whose *reality* is interior contrition[^10], without which no absolution is genuine, and with which no absolution is empty or useless: therefore all can be dispensed and are truly dispensed except the absolution of penance alone; and therefore none are repeated except that one, unless perhaps extreme unction[^11]. And thus, since order has a character which exists apart from the grace of the Holy Spirit by which sins are blotted out, it must be said that among them [the heretics] it can be truly dispensed[^12].

To 1 and 2. To that, then, which is objected concerning Innocent and Gregory, to those two authorities it must be said that [the heretic] is said to *receive a curse* because he does not receive grace; he is said *not to receive the honor* because he who is ordained by a heretic that is cut off does not receive the execution [of the office]; who is therefore said *to have lost the order* for the reason that he lost the execution of the order, not because he lost the character, which cannot be blotted out.

To 3. To that which is objected concerning the power of absolving, it must be said that the case is not similar: because sacerdotal absolution is either null or is without pretense; but no one is knowingly absolved by a heretic who is free of pretense. — Yet it can be put otherwise, [namely] that a fourfold power is found in the ministers of the Church. For a certain [power] is founded chiefly upon *order*, such as the power of consecrating; a certain [power] chiefly upon *canonical jurisdiction*, such as the power of excommunicating; a certain [power] upon *order and eminence*, such as the power of ordaining; a certain [power] upon *order and jurisdiction*, such as the power of absolving and binding in the penitential forum[^13]. And since the character cannot be taken away, therefore the power which *follows upon the character* cannot in fact be taken away. But since jurisdiction descends in ordered fashion from the superior to the inferior, so that the fullness is in the Supreme Pontiff, therefore he can take away that [jurisdiction] and the power which *follows upon it*. Hence by excommunicating he can take away the power of absolving and of excommunicating, but not of ordaining.

To 4. And through this the reply is evident to many [objections] and also to the following one. For as to what is objected, that in the Supreme Pontiff there is the fullness of power: this is true according as power *follows upon jurisdiction*, which is greatest and at its term in him, but not insofar as it *follows upon the character*, because that is imprinted immediately by God and is equal in all; nevertheless the *execution* of every power must be carried out according to his governance; and therefore, if he prohibits it, such a power cannot lawfully go forth into act; yet, since in reality it does not in fact depend on him, [the heretic] acts, just as another does. And thus the whole matter is evident[^14].

---

la: Libr. II. c. 13. n. 28, ubi *sententialiter* occurrit. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1, in quo etiam alia testimonia August. et Gregor. afferuntur.

en: Book II, c. 13, n. 28, where it occurs in substance. Cf. here the text of the Master (Lombard), c. 1, in which other testimonies of Augustine and Gregory are also adduced.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 13. a. 1. q. 1.

en: As was shown above, d. 13, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Plurimi codd. *ordinatus*.

en: Very many codices read *ordinatus* (ordained).

la: Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XXIV. c. 13. — Pro *essentia* permulti codd. *excellentia*.

en: See above the text of the Master, d. XXIV, c. 13. — For *essentia* very many codices read *excellentia*.

la: Hic c. 1.

en: Here, c. 1.

la: Can. 4, et est Gregor., Regest. IX. epist. indict. 2. epist. 106. ad Syagrium. Textus originalis *promovetur* pro *ordinatur*.

en: Canon 4, and it is Gregory, *Register* IX, letter of indiction 2, epistle 106, to Syagrius. The original text has *promovetur* (is promoted) for *ordinatur*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 19. a. 2. q. 2.

la: Ut dicit Bernard. supra pag. 508, nota 11. et pag. 535, nota 2. allegatus. — Superius pro *propria* codd. A E *primaria*. Conclusionem arg. edd. sic exhibent: *ergo uterque* [quod etiam plures codd. perperam ponunt] *nihil omnino potest de his quae* etc.

en: As Bernard says, cited above p. 508, note 11, and p. 535, note 2. — Above, for *propria* codices A E read *primaria*. The editions present the conclusion of the argument thus: *ergo uterque* [which also many codices wrongly place] *nihil omnino potest de his quae* etc.

la: Cfr. supra d. 5. et d. 13. tam in lit. Magistri quam in Comment. — Mox pro *illustrissimum* plures codd. *superillustrissimum*.

en: Cf. above, d. 5 and d. 13, both in the text of the Master and in the Commentary. — Shortly after, for *illustrissimum* several codices read *superillustrissimum*.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 22. a. 2. q. 2. — Aliquanto superius pro *non est* edd. *non confert gratiam*.

en: As was shown above, d. 22, a. 2, q. 2. — Somewhat above, for *non est* the editions read *non confert gratiam*.

la: Scil. quia necessaria benedictio olei dubia esse potest. — Superius pro *praeter illam* cod. U *praeter illud*.

en: That is, because the requisite blessing of the oil can be doubtful. — Above, for *praeter illam* codex U reads *praeter illud*.

la: Cfr. C. *Secundum Ecclesiae catholicae* (8.), d. 19.

en: Cf. the chapter *Secundum Ecclesiae catholicae* (8), d. 19.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Shared-page footer splits (verified against 450dpi column bands, split_x L=2120 / R=1780):**
- **p.644** is shared with `a1-q1` (Articulus I scholion §§ I–II sits at the top of the left column). Footnote numbering restarts on p.644; the scholion carries no numbered footers here, so **all eight of p.644's footnotes (1–8) belong to this q2** and are rendered as `[^1]`–`[^8]`.
- **p.645** is shared with `a1-q3` (*Utrum simoniacus episcopus aliquem ordinem possit vendere*), which begins at the foot of the left column. On p.645 this q2 claims footnotes **1–6** (rendered `[^9]`–`[^14]`); **footnotes 7, 8, 9 belong to q3** and must be claimed by that chunk. (p.645 running head reads `DIST. XXV. ART. I. QUAEST. III.` because q3 begins on the page — expected, not an error.)

**No scholion (`has_scholion: false`).** Articulus I's scholion is held whole by `a1-q1`. NOTE for the a1-q1 promoter: the Art. I scholion has TWO anchored sections on p.644 — **§ I** (`Quoad 1. quaestionem…`, Concil. Trident. Sess. XXIII can. 7) anchored to q1, and **§ II** (`Circa 2. quaestionem diffuse disputat Magister…`, on the errors/doubts about validity of sacraments conferred by heretics) **anchored specifically to THIS q2**. Flagged here per instruction rather than dropped; it should live in the a1-q1 chunk's `### Scholion`, not be lost.

**No `[?]` flags.** All fourteen footnotes and both pages read cleanly from the column bands. (One minor OCR-vs-band divergence resolved to the band: `[^8]` reads `pag. 535` per two independent band reads — the raw IA djvu OCR had `pag. 538`; bands are authoritative under the VOL II/IV override.)