title: Dist. 24, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 4

source_text:
<!-- page 626 -->

### QUAESTIO IV.
### *Quando character imprimatur in diversis ordinibus.*

Quarto quaeritur, quando imprimatur character in diversis ordinibus. Et cum in ordinibus sit ista quinque reperire, utpote in ordine sacerdotali, scilicet benedictionem, inunctionem, manuum impositionem et alicuius porrectionem, ut libri, vel clavis, vel vasis, et verbi expressionem; quaeritur, in quo istorum fiat characteris impressio.

Et primo videtur, quod non in benedictione:

1. Quoniam semper in ordinibus fuit characteris impressio[^1], et illud est ordini essentiale, in quo imprimitur character; sed benedictio non est de essentia ordinum, cum non legatur talis solemnitas fuisse in Ecclesia primitiva: ergo etc.

2. Item, illud, in quo imprimitur character interior, debet habere assimilationem cum interiori charactere; sed character ille respicit aliquam potestatem[^2], benedictio autem fit ad sanctitatem: ergo etc.

Item, quod non detur in unctione, videtur:

3. Quia si aliqua passio[^3] aliquibus inest, inest secundum aliquod commune; sed characteris impressio est in omnibus ordinibus, sed inunctio est in uno solo, scilicet in sacerdotio: ergo etc.

4. Item, ubicumque talis causa, ibi talis effectus; sed in episcopatu est nova inunctio, ergo novi characteris impressio; hoc autem est falsum, quia, si novus character imprimeretur, sicut sacerdos potest esse sine diaconatu, sic episcopus sine sacerdotio, cuius contrarium determinatum est in decretalium libro ultimo[^4].

<!-- page 627 -->

Item, quod non detur in manuum impositione, videtur:

1. Primo per consimilem rationem: quia, cum non fiat manuum impositio nisi in solis duobus ordinibus, non imprimeretur character nisi in his duobus solum; quod est manifeste falsum, sicut patet ex praecedentibus[^5].

2. Item, ordo traditur tantum ab episcopo; sed ordo traditur in impressione characteris: ergo si character imprimitur in impositione manuum, videtur, quod solus episcopus debeat manum imponere in ordinatione; quod est falsum, quia, ut dicit Canon, distinctione vigesima tertia[^6]: « Presbyter cum ordinatur » etc., omnes sacerdotes assistentes debent in ordinatione sacerdotis manus imponere.

Quod autem in libri, vel vasis traditione non imprimatur, videtur:

3. Quoniam, esto quod tales libri vel vasa deessent, sicut forte deerant in Ecclesia primitiva, nihilominus tales ordines dari possent: ergo etc.

4. Item, multa talia confert archidiaconus, ut ampullam et aqua-manile subdiacono, sicut in littera[^7] tangitur, et claves ipsi ostiario: si ergo solius episcopi est conferre ordines, videtur, quod in tali traditione non imprimatur character.

Quod autem in verbi expressione non imprimatur, videtur:

5. Primo, quia in verbis illis significatur recta potestatis exsecutio, ut patet, si quis inspiciat[^8]: ergo cum illud sequatur ordinis essentiam et characterem, videtur etc.

6. Item, character non potest imprimi nisi a Deo; sed verbi expressio est per verbum imperandi, cum dicitur: Accipe potestatem etc.: ergo in tali forma non est competens imprimi characterem.

Est igitur quaestio: quare hoc Sacramentum habet formam verbi per modum imperativum, cum alia habeant per indicativum, vel deprecativum[^9]?

Est etiam quaestio: unde ortum habuerunt haec circa ordinem, scilicet manuum impositio et benedictio et unctio?

Est etiam quaestio: quare impositio manuum est in duobus ordinibus, sed unctio in uno solo ordine, scilicet sacerdotio?

Est quarto quaestio: quare diacono solus episcopus manus imponit, sacerdotibus vero alii sacerdotes?

Est ultimo quaestio: in quo essentialiter consistit Sacramentum istud exterius? Et cum non habeat elementum nec formam statutam, videtur, quod nihil essentiale habeat. Et quod non habeat formam determinatam, videtur, cum antiqua ordinaria alium modum habeant.

### CONCLUSIO.

> Character imprimitur, cum datur principale instrumentum, sed adiuncta forma verbali et in duobus sacris ordinibus manuum impositione.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam habendam haec sunt praesupponenda, quod omne Sacramentum aliquod signum essentiale habet exterius; nullo enim modo accidit Sacramento esse signum, sed essentiale est simpliciter[^10]. — Amplius, supponendum est, quod in omni Sacramento, in quo imprimitur character, istud est essentiale Sacramento, in quo sive per quod character imprimitur. — Amplius, cum signum debeat habere similitudinem ad signatum, in eo imprimitur character, quod exterius magis est in Sacramento sibi simile.

Quoniam igitur in ordine imprimitur character, qui est signaculum ad aliquam potestatem spiritualem; hoc pro generali regula habendum est, quod in illo signo exteriori imprimitur character in quolibet ordine, in quo principalis potestas, quam respicit ordo, significatur tradi ordinato. Ad hanc autem significandam duo concurrunt exterius, scilicet traditio alicuius instrumenti et expressio verbi, ut sic in signo visibili simul et audibili significetur dari. Nec sufficit signum audibile sine visibili, propter hoc, quod aliud verbum, aliud debet respicere signum, ut patet in aliis Sacramentis[^11]; nec sufficit signum sine verbo, quia ad multa potest tale signum, scilicet liber vel illud vas dari, et ideo oportet per verbum arctari. Et haec duo sunt essentialia et intrinseca Sacramento et perficientia Sacramentum. Quoniam enim « manus est organum organorum[^12] » in operando et lingua in exprimendo, recte significatur conferri potestas in officio utriusque.

Et haec in quolibet ordine reperiuntur, secundum quod reperitur et characteris impressio. Sed quoniam characteres sunt diversi, habentes maiorem dignitatem et minorem secundum gradus potestatum[^13]; ideo tam signa quam verba diversificantur, maxime in ordinibus sacris et in minoribus. In ordinibus enim sacris, quoniam datur ibi nobilis potestas et excellens, fit manus impositio, <!-- page 628 --> non tantum instrumenti traditio; quoniam « manus est organum organorum », in quo scilicet principalius residet potestas operandi. Unde sic ordinabant in Ecclesia primitiva, ubi non nisi duo isti ordines explicite erant[^14]. — Sed in ordinibus minoribus fit traditio alicuius instrumenti, ut clavis, vel libri, vel exorcismi etc.; et si plura instrumenta tradantur uni, illud pro principali habendum est, quod episcopus tradit cum prolatione verbi: Accipe potestatem. Unde in omissione principalis debet ordo iterari, quia praesumitur, quod characterem non receperit; sed in aliis consequentibus, si fiat defectus vel negligentia, debet suppleri[^15].

Concedendum est igitur, quod in unctione non imprimitur character, sed tantum fit propter solemnitatem et dignitatem corporis dominici, quod non est contrectandum nisi manibus consecratis. Pontifici autem fit unctio in capite, in quo significatur abundantia gratiae, quae in praelatis debet in excellentia reperiri. Et hinc est, quod manus sacerdotis unguntur oleo sancto; sed caput pontificis chrismate, ut significetur, quod in eo debet esse excellentia vitae in conspectu Dei in conscientia, et in conspectu hominum quantum ad famam[^16]. — Concedendum est etiam, quod non fit characteris impressio in ipsa benedictione, sicut ostendunt illae rationes, quia potius est instituta ad devotionem excitandam et impetrandam gratiam, quam sit de Sacramenti substantia.

1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, de manuum impositione, quod non reperitur in omnibus; ratio iam dicta est; reperitur tamen aliquid simile, quia collatio alicuius instrumenti, in quo est protensio manus, et sic[^17] significatio collationis potestatis.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sacerdotes imponunt manus; dicendum, quod illa manus impositio non est ad ordinis collationem, sed ad significationem. Significatur enim gratia communionis, quae in ordine sacerdotali confertur et per sacerdotem debet administrari[^18]; ideo non imponunt manus sacerdotes diacono, sed solus episcopus, in cuius impositione manus non tantum est significatio, sed etiam potestatis collatio. — Praeterea, in hoc significatur, quod ille qui ordinatur, in illo ordine consecratur, cum sacerdotes manus sacratas imponunt. — Et nota, quod etsi multi sint assistentes, non sufficit tamen, quod tres[^19] manus imponant, aliud est ex abundanti, nec tamen illud est de necessitate Sacramenti.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de libri, vel vasis traditione, dicendum, quod sicut omne instrumentum sive armatura in virtute manus est; sic etiam per impositionem manuum, ubi deessent talia, possent significari; unde, sicut post[^20] videbitur, in impositione manuum in Ecclesia primitiva ceteri ordines implicabantur, qui postmodum processu temporis explicati sunt sive expliciti, et quantum ad verbum et quantum ad signum et quantum ad personas.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod archidiaconus confert multa talia; dicendum, quod hoc est ad potestatis explicationem; unde in tali traditione facta ab archidiacono non traditur nova potestas, sed tradita explicatur[^21].

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de verbi expressione, dicendum, quod semper intelligendum est fuisse verbum aliquod, in quo exprimeretur potestas talis dari; sed non fuerunt verba praefixa nisi in solis duobus Sacramentis, quibus Dominus verba specialia ore proprio praedixit; et ideo in aliis, etsi verba sint necessaria, non tamen sunt determinata vocabula; sed verba quaecumque sensum exprimentia, quantum est de ratione Sacramenti, sufficiunt, si quis in haeresim introducere non intendat. Sed nunc necessarium est servare formam ab Ecclesia statutam et approbatam[^22].

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur de modo imperativo, dicendum, quod pontifex summus gerit personam Christi et personam superioris, sicut dicit Isidorus in libro de Officiis[^23]; et quoniam potestas est secundum plus et minus et descendit, et secundum illam qui conferunt praesunt, quibus conferunt subsunt: <!-- page 629 --> ideo rectissime modo imperativo utitur. Et sic patet responsio ad primam quaestionem. — Omnes aliae quaestiones ex dictis patent, praeter illam quae est de ortu istorum: nam benedictio et manus impositio a Patriarchis, Genesis vigesimo septimo et Genesis quadragesimo octavo[^24], venit, sed inunctio figuram habuit in Lege, Levitici octavo, ubi inunctus est summus sacerdos[^25].

---

english:
<!-- page 626 -->

### QUESTION IV.
### *When the character is imprinted in the diverse orders.*

Fourthly it is asked, when the character is imprinted in the diverse orders. And since in the orders there are these five [things] to be found, as in the priestly order — namely, blessing, anointing, the imposition of hands, and the presentation of something, such as a book, or a key, or a vessel, and the utterance of a word; it is asked, in which of these the imprinting of the character comes about.

And first it seems that [it is] not in the blessing:

1. Because the imprinting of the character[^1] always existed in the orders, and that is essential to the order in which the character is imprinted; but the blessing is not of the essence of the orders, since such a solemnity is not read to have existed in the primitive Church: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, that in which the interior character is imprinted ought to have an assimilation to the interior character; but that character regards some power[^2], whereas the blessing is [directed] to sanctity: therefore etc.

Likewise, that it is not given in the anointing seems [so]:

3. Because if some attribute[^3] is in certain [subjects], it is [in them] according to something common; but the imprinting of the character is in all the orders, whereas the anointing is in one only, namely in the priesthood: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, wherever [there is] such a cause, there [is] such an effect; but in the episcopate there is a new anointing, therefore [there is] a new imprinting of a character; but this is false, because, if a new character were imprinted, then, just as a priest can be without the diaconate, so a bishop [could be] without the priesthood, the contrary of which is determined in the last book of the decretals[^4].

<!-- page 627 -->

Likewise, that it is not given in the imposition of hands seems [so]:

1. First, by a like reasoning: because, since the imposition of hands takes place only in two orders alone, the character would be imprinted only in these two alone; which is manifestly false, as is clear from the preceding [matters][^5].

2. Likewise, an order is handed on only by the bishop; but an order is handed on in the imprinting of the character: therefore if the character is imprinted in the imposition of hands, it seems that the bishop alone ought to impose the hand in the ordination; which is false, because, as the Canon says, in the twenty-third distinction[^6]: « When a presbyter is ordained » etc., all the assisting priests ought to impose hands in the ordination of a priest.

That the character is not imprinted in the handing-over of a book or a vessel seems [so]:

3. Because, granted that such books or vessels were lacking, as perhaps they were lacking in the primitive Church, nonetheless such orders could be given: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the archdeacon confers many such things, such as the cruet and the water-basin to the subdeacon, as is touched upon in the text[^7], and the keys to the ostiary himself: if therefore it belongs to the bishop alone to confer orders, it seems that in such a handing-over a character is not imprinted.

That the character is not imprinted in the utterance of a word seems [so]:

5. First, because in those words the right execution of the power is signified, as is clear if anyone examines [it][^8]: therefore, since that follows upon the essence of the order and the character, it seems etc.

6. Likewise, the character cannot be imprinted except by God; but the utterance of the word is by a word of commanding, when it is said: Receive the power etc.: therefore in such a form it is not fitting that the character be imprinted.

There is therefore a question: why does this Sacrament have the form of the word by way of the imperative, whereas the others have [it] by the indicative, or the deprecative[^9]?

There is also a question: whence did these [things] concerning the order take their origin, namely the imposition of hands and the blessing and the anointing?

There is also a question: why is the imposition of hands in two orders, but the anointing in one order only, namely the priesthood?

There is fourthly a question: why does the bishop alone impose hands on a deacon, but on priests the other priests [do so]?

There is lastly a question: in what does this exterior Sacrament essentially consist? And since it has neither an element nor an appointed form, it seems that it has nothing essential. And that it does not have a determinate form seems [so], since the ancient ordinaries had another manner.

### CONCLUSIO.

> The character is imprinted when the principal instrument is given, but with the verbal form adjoined, and, in the two sacred orders, [with] the imposition of hands.

**I respond:** For obtaining an understanding of the aforesaid, these [things] are to be presupposed: that every Sacrament has some essential exterior sign; for in no way is it accidental to a Sacrament to be a sign, but it is essential simply[^10]. — Further, it is to be supposed that in every Sacrament in which a character is imprinted, that is essential to the Sacrament, in which or by which the character is imprinted. — Further, since the sign ought to have a likeness to the thing signified, the character is imprinted in that which exteriorly is more like to itself in the Sacrament.

Since therefore the character is imprinted in the order — [the character] which is a seal [ordered] to some spiritual power — this is to be held as a general rule: that the character is imprinted in that exterior sign, in any order, in which the principal power that the order regards is signified to be handed on to the ordained. And for signifying this, two [things] concur exteriorly, namely the handing-over of some instrument and the expression of a word, so that thus in a sign visible and audible at once it may be signified to be given. Nor does an audible sign suffice without a visible one, because of this, that one word ought to regard one sign, another [word] another [sign], as is clear in the other Sacraments[^11]; nor does a sign suffice without a word, because such a sign — namely a book or that vessel — can be given for many [things], and therefore it must be restricted by the word. And these two are essential and intrinsic to the Sacrament and perfecting of the Sacrament. For since « the hand is the organ of organs[^12] » in operating, and the tongue in expressing, the conferral of power is rightly signified in the office of each.

And these are found in any order, according as the imprinting of the character is also found. But since the characters are diverse, having greater dignity and lesser according to the grades of powers[^13], therefore both the signs and the words are diversified, especially in the sacred orders and in the minor [ones]. For in the sacred orders, since there is given there a noble and excellent power, the imposition of hands takes place, <!-- page 628 --> not only the handing-over of an instrument; since « the hand is the organ of organs », in which namely the power of operating principally resides. Whence thus they ordained in the primitive Church, where there were explicitly only these two orders[^14]. — But in the minor orders there takes place the handing-over of some instrument, such as a key, or a book, or [the book] of exorcisms etc.; and if several instruments are handed over to one [person], that is to be held for the principal which the bishop hands over with the utterance of the word: Receive the power. Whence, in the omission of the principal [one], the order must be repeated, because it is presumed that he has not received the character; but in the other consequent [matters], if a defect or negligence occurs, it must be supplied[^15].

It is therefore to be conceded that in the anointing a character is not imprinted, but it takes place only for the solemnity and dignity of the Lord's body, which is not to be handled except by consecrated hands. But for the pontiff the anointing takes place on the head, in which is signified the abundance of grace which in prelates ought to be found in excellence. And hence it is that the hands of a priest are anointed with holy oil; but the head of the pontiff with chrism, so that it may be signified that in him there ought to be excellence of life in the sight of God, in conscience, and in the sight of men, as to reputation[^16]. — It is also to be conceded that the imprinting of the character does not take place in the blessing itself, as those reasonings show, because it is rather instituted for stirring up devotion and imploring grace than being of the substance of the Sacrament.

1. To that, then, which is objected — concerning the imposition of hands, that it is not found in all [orders] — the reason has already been stated; yet something similar is found, because [there is] the conferral of some instrument, in which there is an extending of the hand, and thus[^17] a signification of the conferral of power.

2. To that which is objected, that priests impose hands; it must be said that that imposition of hands is not for the conferral of the order, but for signification. For the grace of communion is signified, which is conferred in the priestly order and ought to be administered by the priest[^18]; therefore priests do not impose hands on a deacon, but the bishop alone, in whose imposition of hands there is not only signification but also conferral of power. — Moreover, in this it is signified that he who is ordained is consecrated in that order, when the priests impose their consecrated hands. — And note that although there be many assisting, it nevertheless does not suffice that three[^19] impose hands; [rather] it is [done] out of abundance, nor yet is that of the necessity of the Sacrament.

3. To that which is objected concerning the handing-over of a book or a vessel, it must be said that just as every instrument or armament is in the power of the hand, so too through the imposition of hands, where such [instruments] were lacking, [the orders] could be signified; whence, as will be seen afterward[^20], in the imposition of hands in the primitive Church the other orders were implied, which afterward, in the process of time, were unfolded or made explicit, both as to the word and as to the sign and as to the persons.

4. To that which is objected, that the archdeacon confers many such things; it must be said that this is for the unfolding of the power; whence in such a handing-over made by the archdeacon no new power is handed on, but that already handed on is unfolded[^21].

5. To that which is objected concerning the utterance of the word, it must be said that it is always to be understood that there was some word, in which it was expressed that such a power was being given; but there were not words fixed beforehand except in the two Sacraments alone, in which the Lord foretold special words by his own mouth; and therefore in the others, although words are necessary, nevertheless the vocables are not determinate; but any words whatsoever expressing the sense, as far as pertains to the nature of the Sacrament, suffice, provided one does not intend to introduce heresy. But now it is necessary to observe the form appointed and approved by the Church[^22].

6. To that which is objected concerning the imperative mode, it must be said that the supreme pontiff bears the person of Christ and the person of a superior, as Isidore says in the book On the Offices[^23]; and since power is according to more and less and descends, and according to it those who confer are set over [those] to whom they confer, [who are] subject: <!-- page 629 --> therefore he most rightly uses the imperative mode. And thus the reply to the first question is clear. — All the other questions are clear from what has been said, except that one which is about the origin of these [things]: for the blessing and the imposition of hands came from the Patriarchs, in Genesis the twenty-seventh and Genesis the forty-eighth[^24], but the anointing had its figure in the Law, in Leviticus the eighth, where the high priest was anointed[^25].

---

la: Ut ostensum est supra q. 1. — Pro *fuit* cod. K *fit.*

en: As was shown above, q. 1. — For *fuit* codex K [reads] *fit.*

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 13.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 13.

la: Sive proprietas; cfr. supra pag. 142, nota 11, ubi eadem propos. explicatur.

en: Or a property; cf. above p. 142, note 11, where the same proposition is explained.

la: In C. *Ex litteris* (10.), de Excessibus praelatorum (lib. V. tit. 31.). Verba vide infra a. 2. q. 3. fundam. 3, ubi etiam de clerico sive sacerdote per saltum ordinato. — Plurimi codd. et edd. perperam *libro tertio.* — De *maiori* cfr. supra pag. 78, nota 8.

en: In the chapter *Ex litteris* (10.), on the Excesses of prelates (bk. V, tit. 31.). See the words below, a. 2. q. 3. fundam. 3, where [there is] also [treatment] of a cleric or priest ordained *per saltum.* — Very many codices and editions wrongly [read] *in the third book.* — On *maiori* cf. above p. 78, note 8.

la: Quaest. 1. — Impositio manuum fit in ordine presbyteratus et diaconatus; cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 10.

en: Question 1. — The imposition of hands takes place in the order of the presbyterate and the diaconate; cf. here the text of the Master, c. 10.

la: Can. 8.

en: Canon 8.

la: Hic c. 9, ubi de subdiacono; cfr. c. 8, ubi idem dicitur de acolytho.

en: Here c. 9, where [it treats] of the subdeacon; cf. c. 8, where the same is said of the acolyte.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5. seqq.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 5 ff.

la: Vide supra d. 23. a. 1. q. 4.

en: See above, d. 23. a. 1. q. 4.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 1. p. 1. q. 2. — Cod. P *ipsius.* — Pro *signum essentiale* cod. bb *signum sensibile,* non pauci codd. *signum rationale.*

en: As was shown above, d. 1. p. 1. q. 2. — Codex P [reads] *ipsius.* — For *signum essentiale* codex bb [reads] *signum sensibile,* [and] not a few codices *signum rationale.*

la: Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 38. (c. 8.). Cfr. IV. de Partib. animal. c. 10. Ibid. II. c. 16. seq. agit de lingua, de qua cfr. etiam II. de Anima, text. 88. (c. 8.).

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* III, text 38 (c. 8). Cf. *On the Parts of Animals* IV, c. 10. In the same [work], II, c. 16 f., he treats of the tongue, on which cf. also *On the Soul* II, text 88 (c. 8).

la: Ut monstratum est supra q. 2.

en: As was shown above, q. 2.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 12. — Inferius pro *exorcismi* [i. e. libri exorcismorum, ut notat Magister, hic in lit. c. 7.] cod. bb *urcei.*

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 12. — Below, for *exorcismi* [i. e. of the book of exorcisms, as the Master notes, here in the text c. 7.] codex bb [reads] *urcei.*

la: Cfr. C. *Pastoralis* (1.) et C. *Presbyter et diaconus* (3.), X. de Sacramentis non iterandis (lib. I. tit. 16.).

en: Cf. the chapter *Pastoralis* (1.) and the chapter *Presbyter et diaconus* (3.), X, on Sacraments not to be repeated (bk. I, tit. 16.).

la: Ut exponit Innocent. III. in C. *Cum venisset ad Apostolicam sedem* (1.), X. de Sacra unctione (lib. I. tit. 13.), ex quo plura supra pag. 593, nota 2. 3. relata sunt. Cfr. Hug. a S. Vict. II. de Sacram. p. III. c. 12. seq. Vide etiam infra a. 2. q. 3. ad 6.

en: As Innocent III explains in the chapter *Cum venisset ad Apostolicam sedem* (1.), X, on Sacred anointing (bk. I, tit. 13.), from which several [things] have been reported above on p. 593, notes 2 and 3. Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* II, p. III, c. 12 f. See also below, a. 2. q. 3. ad 6.

la: Ita codd. F I L aa, in aliis et edd. *fit.*

en: Thus codices F I L aa; in the others and in the editions [it reads] *fit.*

la: Richard. a Med., IV. Sent. d. 25. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1: Impositio manuum sacerdotum assistentium est ad concordiam et communionem ecclesiasticam significandam.

en: Richard of Middleton, IV *Sent.* d. 25. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1: The imposition of the hands of the assisting priests is for signifying concord and ecclesiastical communion.

la: Pontificale Romanum monet, quod ex assistentibus sacerdotibus « tres aut plures, planetis vel saltem cum stolis parati, si commode fieri potest, esse deberent ». Cfr. infra d. 25. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1. — Haec secunda ratio (*Praeterea... Sacramenti*) a codd. et ed. I transfertur in finem solut. ad 3, sed absque ullo fundamento. Secuti sumus ed. Vaticanam.

en: The Roman Pontifical advises that, of the assisting priests, « three or more, arrayed in chasubles or at least with stoles, if it can conveniently be done, ought to be [present] ». Cf. below, d. 25. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1. — This second reason (*Praeterea... Sacramenti*) is transposed by the codices and edition I to the end of the solution ad 3, but without any foundation. We have followed the Vatican edition.

en: Article 2. q. 1. ad 3 and 4.

la: Secunda manus in cod. Q addidit: Quod enim principale est traditur ab episcopo cum verbi prolatione, ut dictum est supra eodem problemate [scil. hic in corp.].

en: A second hand in codex Q added: For that which is principal is handed on by the bishop with the utterance of the word, as was said above in the same discussion [namely, here in the body].

la: Cfr. supra d. 3. p. 1. a. 2. q. 1. seqq.; d. 8. p. 1. dub. 4. et p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seq. nec non d. 23. a. 1. q. 4. — Superius pro *sufficiunt* et *intendat* edd. *sufficiebant* et *intendebat.*

en: Cf. above, d. 3. p. 1. a. 2. q. 1 ff.; d. 8. p. 1. dub. 4 and p. II. a. 1. q. 1 f., and also d. 23. a. 1. q. 4. — Above, for *sufficiunt* and *intendat* the editions [read] *sufficiebant* and *intendebat.*

la: Libr. II. c. 5, ubi ostendit, quod Aaron figuram gesserit summi pontificis, id est episcopi, sicut Moyses figuram Christi, qui est dominus pontificum seu episcoporum, qui Latine nominari possunt *superintendentes.* Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 15. seqq., ubi afferuntur verba Isidor., VII. Etymolog. c. 12. Vide etiam Dionys., de Eccles. Hierarch. c. 5. § 5. seq. — Mox pro *est secundum,* quod habent codd. M R S, codd. B D L U aa *sedet secundum,* alii tantum *secundum,* inter quos codd. A F G Y bb (E a secunda manu) subinde ante *descendit* omittunt *et* (codd. I K *ascendit et descendit*). Pro *quibus conferunt* codd. G N P Y *quibus confertur.* Edd. legunt: *et quoniam potestas superioris plus et minus traditur et descendit,* subinde omisso *praesunt, quibus conferunt.*

en: Book II, c. 5, where he shows that Aaron bore the figure of the high priest, that is, of the bishop, just as Moses [bore] the figure of Christ, who is the lord of the pontiffs or bishops, who in Latin can be named *superintendents.* Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 15 ff., where the words of Isidore, *Etymologies* VII, c. 12, are brought forward. See also Dionysius, *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy* c. 5, § 5 f. — Presently, for *est secundum,* which codices M R S have, codices B D L U aa [read] *sedet secundum,* others only *secundum,* among which codices A F G Y bb (E by a second hand) thereupon omit *et* before *descendit* (codices I K [read] *ascendit et descendit*). For *quibus conferunt* codices G N P Y [read] *quibus confertur.* The editions read: *and since the power of a superior is handed on and descends according to more and less,* thereupon, *praesunt* being omitted, *quibus conferunt.*

la: Primo loco (Gen. 27, 4. et 27.) agitur de Isaac, qui filio suo Iacob benedicit; secundo loco (Gen. 48, 13. seqq. et 49, 22. seqq.; codd. allegant Gen. *ultimo,* ubi tamen nihil occurrit) narratur, quod Iacob moriens filiis Ioseph manum imposuit et bis benedictionem dedit. Cfr. Num. 27, 18. et 23, ubi « Moyses, super caput Iosue manum suam imponens, dedit ei spiritum virtutis et ducatus in populo Israel », ut ait Isidor., II. de Offic. eccles. c. 5. n. 10, qui adducit etiam Luc. 24, 50. — Seq. locus est Lev. 8, 12, ubi Moyses, oleum « fundens super caput Aaron, unxit eum et consecravit ».

en: In the first place (Gen. 27:4 and 27) it treats of Isaac, who blesses his son Jacob; in the second place (Gen. 48:13 ff. and 49:22 ff.; the codices cite Genesis, the *last* [chapter], where however nothing occurs) it is narrated that Jacob, dying, imposed his hand on the sons of Joseph and twice gave a blessing. Cf. Num. 27:18 and 23, where « Moses, imposing his hand upon the head of Joshua, gave him the spirit of power and of leadership among the people of Israel », as Isidore says, *On the Ecclesiastical Offices* II, c. 5, n. 10, who also adduces Luke 24:50. — The following passage is Lev. 8:12, where Moses, « pouring oil upon the head of Aaron, anointed him and consecrated him ».

en: See the scholion on question 1 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
- **Printed pages / offset corrected.** The skeleton frontmatter placed this question on printed pp. 628–630 (pdf 648–650); page-verification against the 450 dpi bands (running heads and folio numbers 627 at raw L68179, 628 at L68261, 629 at L68406) shows it actually spans **pp. 626–629** (pdf 646–649, offset pdf = printed + 20). `printed_pages` / `pdf_pages` updated accordingly.
- **Title.** The skeleton's `title_la` ("De signo exteriore quod characteri respondet") was a placeholder; the printed descriptive title under the QUAESTIO IV heading (verified on both p. 626 columns) is **"Quando character imprimatur in diversis ordinibus."** — adopted. ("De signo exteriore quod characteri respondet" is the theme of the whole Article I, not of this quaestio.)
- **No scholion.** `has_scholion: false` is correct: this is Article I, Question IV, and Article I's scholion sits in Question I (its footer notes here — [^25] and page 626's note 5 — both read *"Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest."*). No garbled `SCHOLIOK` block appears anywhere in the raw range L68110–68413.
- **Shared-page footnote splits.** Page 626 is shared with Question III: its footer notes 1–5 (anchored in Q. III's tail — *proficiat, scripturam, supra, perfecte, ordinari*) belong to Q. III and are **not** claimed here; this question takes 626's notes 6–9. Page 629 is shared with the following Article II, Question I, which begins mid-page after this question's two-line conclusion; only 629's footer notes 1–2 are this question's (notes 3+ belong to Art. II, Q. I). Pages 627 and 628 are wholly this question's.
- **Apparatus renumbering.** The 25 claimed footer entries (626: notes 6–9; 627: 1–9; 628: 1–10; 629: 1–2) are renumbered as one continuous sequence [^1]–[^25]. [^23] (page 628's note 10) is unusually long; its variant tail continues, unnumbered, at the head of page 629's footer (it annotates the *est secundum … descendit … quibus conferunt* clause, whose body text straddles the 628/629 boundary), and is joined into [^23] here.
- **Band regeneration.** The two-column scans of pp. 626–629 are skewed, so a single `colcrop` split clips one column: split_x ≈ 2120 keeps the full **left** column (default 1660/1880 truncated it on the right), while split_x ≈ 1780 was needed to recover the **right** column's left edge. Both crops were read per page. No text or footnote was lost at the clip once both splits were consulted.
- **`[?]` readings.** None left unresolved. The one non-obvious reading — Respondeo "istud est essentiale Sacramento, **in quo sive per quod** character imprimitur" — was confirmed against two independent right-column band crops (split 2120 and 1780) and is not flagged.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 24, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 629 -->

### Articulus II. *De ordinibus quoad numerum et distinctionem.*

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de ordinibus quantum ad numerum et distinctionem. Et circa hoc quaeruntur breviter quatuor.

Primo quaeritur de divisione ordinum in sacros et non sacros.

Secundo, utrum psalmistatus sit inter ordines minores.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum episcopatus sit ordo.

Quarto, utrum sint septem, aut plures, aut pauciores ordines.

### Quaestio I. *De divisione ordinum in sacros et non sacros.*

Quaeritur igitur primo de hac divisione ordinum, et videtur, quod nulla sit:

1. Primo, quia ordo essentialiter et universaliter est Sacramentum[^1]; sed omne Sacramentum dicit rem sacram: ergo ordo universaliter est res sacra: ergo omnis ordo est sacer.

2. Item, in inferioribus ordinibus datur potestas ministrandi circa altare, et ea quae pertinent ad Sacramentum Sacramentorum, scilicet corpus dominicum: ergo si in minoribus ministratur circa altare[^2], sicut in diaconatu et subdiaconatu, licet non ita de propinquo; videtur, quod sicut illi sunt sacri, sic et isti.

3. Item, in Ecclesia primitiva non fuerunt ordines nisi sacri, scilicet presbyteratus et diaconatus[^3]: ergo vel illa Ecclesia fuit diminuta, vel ista superfluit.

4. Item, ea quae spectant ad substantiam Sacramenti, semper eadem perseverant: si ergo ordines minores vere ordines sunt, aut tunc esse debuerunt, aut vere ordines non sunt. Quod si tunc non fuerunt, sicut patere potest, videtur etc.

**Contra:** 1. In veteri testamento erant distincta officia ministrantium, ita quod alii ministrabant circa altare, alii circa custodiam templi[^4]: si ergo maioris ordinis et dignitatis est nunc sacerdotium, et cultus divinus est ampliandus et ampliatus; videtur, quod alii debent ad haec, et ad illa deputari: ergo videtur, quod cum ordines penes officia maiora et minora distinguantur, quod ordines maiores et minores esse debent.

2. Item, sicut patebit, cum de matrimonio agetur[^5], et habetur distinctione trigesima secunda in Decretis, aliqui sunt ordines impedientes matrimonium, et aliqui non: si ergo in illo ordine corpus Domini consecratur, in quo homo ab actu libidinis per omnia removetur; videtur, quod aliqui sint ordines sacri, et aliqui non.

3. Item, quod ita debeat[^6] esse, probatur: primo, quia ordo est Sacramentum perfectorum; sed ad statum perfectionis non statim ascenditur, sed paulative pervenitur: ergo si sacer ordo collocat aliquo modo in statu perfectionis, videtur, quod aliquos ordines inferiores habere debeat, non sacros.

4. Item, videmus in curia regis terreni, quod ad hoc, quod sit sufficienter ordinata, ministri superiores indigent inferioribus, qui obediunt et subserviunt, et maiores indigent minoribus: ergo si <!-- page 630 --> domus Dei ordinata debet esse, videtur, quod ibi debent esse ministri, et rursus ministri ministrantium et primi sunt in ordine superiori, secundi in minori: ergo minores et maiores.

### Conclusio

> **Conclusio.** Recte quidam ordines dicuntur sacri, quidam non sacri.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Sacramentum ordinis gradus habet plurimos; et prima quidem distinctio est per gradus *inferiores* et *superiores*, sive per gradus *sacros* et *non sacros*. — Ratio autem, quare hoc Sacramentum gradus habet, est, quia ordinat ad dispensandum Sacramentum dignissimum et ministrandum in templo Dei; ad ministerium autem illud concurrunt quaedam officia *digniora*, et quaedam *minus digna*. Etsi omnia requirant ministros sanctos, illa tamen, quae attenduntur circa altare et circa portationem vasorum sacrorum et circa oblationem sacrificii consummandam, potissime requirunt ministros sanctos, secundum illud Isaiae quinquagesimo secundo[^7]: *Mundamini qui fertis vasa Domini.* Sanctitas autem vel sanctificatio potissime consistit in continentia; ideo sunt quidam ordines, qui requirunt continentiam in ministris, quidam vero minime. Ideo recte quidam ordines *sacri* dicuntur, quidam *non sacri*, non ratione sui, sed ratione ministerii, ad quod requiritur sanctitas in ministro. Et sic patet ratio huius distinctionis ordinum per sacros et non sacros; et concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc.

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod omnis ordo est Sacramentum; dicendum, quod omnes ordines signa sunt sacra et rei sacrae; sed ab hac ratione non dicuntur ordines sacri, sicut visum est, sed a consecratione ministri, et quia ipsi ordines disponunt[^8] ad contingendum et ministrandum vasa consecrata.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in omnibus datur potestas ad ministrandum aliquid circa Sacramentum maximum; dicendum, quod verum est, tamen secundum plus et minus, secundum propinquum et remotum. Illis enim, qui sunt in inferioribus constituti, non licet vasa consecrata portare ex officio, quamvis propter inopiam ministrorum frequenter talibus permittatur.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in Ecclesia primitiva soli ordines sacri fuerunt; dicendum, quod falsum est, immo et alii fuerunt; sed implicite dabantur in impositione manuum, quoniam «manus est organum organorum[^9]». — Ratio autem, quare non distinguebantur, erat propter paucitatem ministrantium et propter paucitatem fidelium; ideo oportebat, quod omnia officia darentur uni; nunc autem multiplicatus est divinus cultus: ideo non est simile.

*Ad 4.* Et per hoc patet ultimum. Quod enim dicit, quod substantialia semper fuerunt eadem; dicendum, quod verum est; et semper isti ordines et gradus in Ecclesia fuerunt, licet non essent explicati[^10] et distincti, ut nunc. Non solum enim nunc debent distingui propter ministrantium *amplificationem*, sed etiam propter *manuductionem*, quia ab ipsis cunabulis ordinantur nunc qui debent esse clerici. Ideo secundum profectum aetatis in susceptione graduum debent et possunt promoveri, nec statim ad supremum gradum provehi[^11].

english:
### Article II. *On the orders, as to their number and distinction.*

Next, as to the second article, inquiry is made concerning the orders as to their number and distinction. And concerning this, four things are asked in brief.

First, inquiry is made concerning the division of orders into sacred and non-sacred.

Second, whether the office of psalmist is among the minor orders.

Third, inquiry is made whether the episcopate is an order.

Fourth, whether there are seven, or more, or fewer orders.

### Question I. *On the division of orders into sacred and non-sacred.*

Inquiry therefore is made first concerning this division of the orders, and it seems that there is none:

1. First, because an order is essentially and universally a Sacrament[^1]; but every Sacrament bespeaks a sacred thing: therefore an order is universally a sacred thing: therefore every order is sacred.

2. Likewise, in the lower orders there is given a power of ministering about the altar, and about those things which pertain to the Sacrament of Sacraments, namely the body of the Lord: therefore if in the minor [orders] one ministers about the altar[^2], as in the diaconate and subdiaconate, though not so closely; it seems that just as those are sacred, so also are these.

3. Likewise, in the primitive Church there were no orders except sacred ones, namely the presbyterate and the diaconate[^3]: therefore either that Church was defective, or this one is superfluous.

4. Likewise, those things which pertain to the substance of a Sacrament always remain the same: if therefore the minor orders are truly orders, either they ought to have existed then, or they are not truly orders. But if they did not then exist, as can be clear, it seems [so], etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. In the Old Testament the offices of those ministering were distinct, in such wise that some ministered about the altar, others about the custody of the temple[^4]: if therefore the priesthood is now of a greater order and dignity, and divine worship is to be enlarged and has been enlarged; it seems that some ought to be deputed to these things, and others to those: therefore it seems that, since the orders are distinguished according to greater and lesser offices, there ought to be greater and lesser orders.

2. Likewise, as will be clear when marriage is treated[^5], and is had in the thirty-second distinction in the Decretals, some orders are impediments to marriage, and some are not: if therefore in that order the body of the Lord is consecrated, in which a man is wholly removed from the act of lust; it seems that some orders are sacred, and some are not.

3. Likewise, that it ought[^6] to be so is proved: first, because an order is the Sacrament of the perfect; but one does not ascend to the state of perfection at once, but arrives gradually: therefore if a sacred order places one in some manner in the state of perfection, it seems that it ought to have certain lower orders, which are not sacred.

4. Likewise, we see in the court of an earthly king, that in order that it be sufficiently ordered, the higher ministers need the lower ones, who obey and serve, and the greater need the lesser: therefore if <!-- page 630 --> the house of God ought to be ordered, it seems that there ought to be ministers there, and again ministers of the ministers, and the first are in a higher order, the second in a lower: therefore lesser and greater [orders].

### Conclusion

> **Conclusion.** Rightly are certain orders called sacred, and certain ones non-sacred.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Sacrament of order has very many grades; and the first distinction indeed is by *lower* and *higher* grades, or by *sacred* and *non-sacred* grades. — And the reason why this Sacrament has grades is because it ordains to the dispensing of the most worthy Sacrament and to ministering in the temple of God; and to that ministry there concur certain *more worthy* offices, and certain *less worthy* ones. And although all of them require holy ministers, yet those which are directed about the altar and about the carrying of the sacred vessels and about the completion of the offering of the sacrifice, most of all require holy ministers, according to that word of Isaiah, chapter fifty-two[^7]: *Be cleansed, you who carry the vessels of the Lord.* But holiness or sanctification consists most of all in continence; therefore there are certain orders which require continence in their ministers, and certain ones by no means. Therefore rightly are certain orders called *sacred*, and certain ones *non-sacred*, not by reason of themselves, but by reason of the ministry, for which holiness is required in the minister. And thus is clear the ground of this distinction of the orders into sacred and non-sacred; and the reasons for it are to be granted.

**To the arguments:**

*To 1.* To that then which is objected, that every order is a Sacrament; it must be said that all orders are sacred signs and [signs] of a sacred thing; but by this account they are not called sacred orders, as has been seen, but from the consecration of the minister, and because the orders themselves dispose[^8] toward the touching and the ministering of the consecrated vessels.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that in all of them there is given a power of ministering something about the greatest Sacrament; it must be said that this is true, yet according to more and less, according to near and remote. For to those who are placed in the lower [orders] it is not permitted to carry the consecrated vessels by office, although on account of a scarcity of ministers it is frequently permitted to such.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that in the primitive Church there were only sacred orders; it must be said that this is false, indeed there were others too; but they were given implicitly in the imposition of hands, since «the hand is the organ of organs[^9]». — And the reason why they were not distinguished was on account of the fewness of those ministering and on account of the fewness of the faithful; therefore it was fitting that all the offices be given to one; but now the divine worship has been multiplied: therefore the case is not similar.

*To 4.* And by this the last [argument] is clear. For as to what it says, that the substantials were always the same; it must be said that this is true; and these orders and grades were always in the Church, although they were not *unfolded*[^10] and distinct, as now. For not only now must they be distinguished on account of the *enlargement* of those ministering, but also on account of *guidance by the hand*, because from their very cradle those who are to be clerics are now ordained. Therefore according to the advance of age in the receiving of grades they ought and can be promoted, and not at once be raised to the highest grade[^11].

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 13, et de seq. propos. supra d. I. c. 2.

en: See the Master's text here, c. 13, and on the following proposition, above, d. I, c. 2.

la: Edd. cum aliquot codd. omittunt *ergo* [plures codd. *sed*] *si in minoribus ministratur circa altare*, pro quo edd. in maiori post *ordinibus* addunt *sic*.

en: The editions, with some codices, omit *ergo* [several codices, *sed*] *si in minoribus ministratur circa altare* ("if in the minor [orders] one ministers about the altar"); in place of which the editions, in the greater [text], add *sic* ("thus") after *ordinibus*.

la: Ut insinuat Magister, hic in lit. c. 12.

en: As the Master intimates, here in his text, c. 12.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 504, nota 4. — Inferius pro *et ad illa* cod. K (I a secunda manu) *quam ad illa*, edd. alii *ad illa*.

en: Cf. above, p. 504, note 4. — Below, for *et ad illa* ("and to those"), codex K (I by a second hand) reads *quam ad illa* ("than to those"), the editions and others *ad illa* ("to those").

la: Infra d. 37, ubi tam in lit. Magistri quam in Comment. a. 1. q. 1. seq., ex Gratiani d. 32. et aliis dist. decreta allegantur.

en: Below, d. 37, where both in the Master's text and in the Commentary, a. 1, q. 1 f., decrees are cited from Gratian's d. 32 and other distinctions.

la: Permulti codd. et ed. 1 perperam *non debeat*. — Gregor., II. Homil. in Ezech. homil. n. 3: Nemo enim repente fit summus.

en: Very many codices and edition 1 read wrongly *non debeat* ("ought not"). — Gregory [the Great], Homilies on Ezekiel, book II, homily [3?], n. 3: "For no one becomes highest suddenly."

la: Vers. 11. — Inferius pro *recte* non pauci codd. *certe*.

en: Verse 11. — Below, for *recte* ("rightly") not a few codices read *certe* ("certainly").

la: Multi codd. *disponuntur*.

en: Many codices read *disponuntur* ("are disposed").

la: Ut dicit Aristot. supra pag. 627, nota 8. relatus. — Inferius pro *darentur* plures codd. *darent*.

en: As Aristotle says, cited above, p. 627, note 8. — Below, for *darentur* several codices read *darent*.

la: Cod. aa *expliciti*.

en: Codex aa reads *expliciti*.

la: Cfr. Gratian. d. 77. et d. 78. — Pro *graduum* cod. aa *ordinum*.

en: Cf. Gratian, d. 77 and d. 78. — For *graduum* ("of the grades") codex aa reads *ordinum* ("of the orders"). ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Antiqua divisio ordinum in *sacros* sive maiores, et *non sacros* sive minores ex ipsis legibus Ecclesiae probatur et recepta est a Concilio Trident. (Sess. XXIII. c. 2. et can. 2.). Cfr. infra dub. 5. — Quaestio 2. ab aliis vix tangitur, a S. Thoma vero paucis verbis solvitur hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2. ad 5. (Suppl. q. 37. a. 2. ad 5.); similiter a Richardo a Med., hic a. 3. q. 3. ad 1.

De 1. quaestione: Scot., hic q. unica n. 12. — S. Thom., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3; Suppl. loc. cit. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 28. 36. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2. — Durand., hic q. 2. n. 15. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.

**II.** Quaestiones 3. et 4. intime cohaerent, et circa utramque breviter haec observamus. 1. Numerus septenarius ordinum, prout in saepe laudato Decreto pro Armenis recensetur, in Ecclesia Latina perantiquus est, immo ipsum saltem de *iure* ab origine fuisse, a Scholasticis aliisque passim docetur (cfr. hic q. 1. ad 3.). Graeca autem Ecclesia a multis saeculis non habet alios ordines *minores* nisi lectoratum; et controvertitur, utrum antiquitus alii veri ordines minores ibi in usu fuerint, et speciatim, utrum iidem minores, quibus utitur Ecclesia Latina. — 2. Supposito numero septenario ordinum, quaestio duplex discutienda est de episcopatu, utrum sit ordo et Sacramentum. Haeresis est enim dicere, «in Ecclesia catholica non esse hierarchiam *divina ordinatione* institutam, quae constat ex episcopis, presbyteris et ministris»; item, «episcopos non esse presbyteris superiores, vel non habere potestatem confirmandi et ordinandi, vel eam quam habent, illis esse cum presbyteris communem» (Concil. Trident. ibid. can. 6. et 7.). Hinc negari non posse videtur, quod episcopatus, qui tanta dignitate distincta supereminet ceteris ordinibus, sit et ordo distinctus et Sacramentum, scilicet ordinatio illa, qua confertur. — 3. Inter notos antiquiores Scholasticos solus, ut videtur, Guliel. Antissiod. (S. p. V. tr. 8. q. 1.) docet, novem esse ordines, septem illis adiungens episcopatum et archidiaconatum (!); postea Scot. (hic q. unica n. 5. seqq.), licet non audeat improbare opinionem aliam, quam vocat *communem*, tamen ea proclamat principia, quae monstrant, <!-- page 631 --> eum considerare episcopatum ut *distinctum ordinem*: quod etiam disertis verbis asserit Durand. (hic q. 6. n. 8.), addens, eundem esse etiam «Sacramentum, non quidem praecise distinctum a sacerdotio simplici; sed est unum Sacramentum cum ipso, sicut perfectum et imperfectum». Rationem autem, quare hic ordo non numeretur ut *octavus*, Durand. inde petit (n. 11.), quia «non est de *communibus* ordinibus, sed est supremus, quasi dux et princeps aliorum», vel «quia sub sacerdotio includitur». — S. Thom. (hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2. ad 2; Suppl. q. 40. a. 5.) sequitur opinionem illam antiquis communem et docet, quod episcopatus non est ordo proprie, id est, «secundum quod ordo est Sacramentum», sed tantum «secundum quod est *officium* quoddam respectu quarundam actionum sacrarum». Idem tamen in genuino opusculo de Perfectione vitae spiritualis (c. 23.), ubi probat, episcopos esse presbyteris superiores, simpliciter dicit, quod non sit idem «*ordo* vel *status* episcoporum et presbyterorum». — Post Concil. Trident. (cfr. loc. cit. c. 4. et can. 4.) antiquus ille loquendi modus factus est obsoletus, cum communiter tanquam certum doceatur, ordinationem episcopi vere esse *Sacramentum* et conferre verum et *distinctum ordinem* et characterem; multi autem auctores simul docent, hunc ordinem distingui quidem a presbyteratu, sed tantum *inadaequate*, tanquam sit extensio, complementum apexque ordinis sacerdotalis; qua determinatione antiquus ille modus loquendi aliquatenus salvari potest. Pro antiqua illa opinione afferri potest etiam Alex. Hal., rem tangens S. p. IV. q. 20. m. 8. a. 1, q. 21. m. 4. ad 5. — 4. Quod in 3. fundam. asseritur, episcopatum scilicet non posse valide dari, omisso sacerdotio, non vocatum est in dubium nisi a paucis, inter quos est Mabillonius (Comment. ad *Ordinem Romanum* § 18.). Omissis diaconatu, vel subdiaconatu, vel ordinibus minoribus, consecratio episcopi valida reputatur ab omnibus; sed S. Bonav. cum multis antiquis, ut S. Raymundo et S. Antonino, censuit, tunc eum non posse conferre ordinem, ipsi non collatum (ita infra d. 28. dub. 1.). — Sed haec opinio a recentioribus communiter non probatur, si agitur de *validitate* ordinis sic collati.

De 3. quaestione praeter citatos: B. Albert., hic a. 39. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 7.

**III.** De 4. quaestione: Scot., q. cit. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. 2; Suppl. q. 37. a. 1. 2. — B. Albert. hic a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 3. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The ancient division of orders into *sacred* or major, and *non-sacred* or minor, is proved from the very laws of the Church and was received by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, c. 2 and can. 2). Cf. below, doubt 5. — Question 2 is scarcely touched by others, but is solved in a few words by St. Thomas here, q. 2, a. 1, little-question 2, ad 5 (Suppl. q. 37, a. 2, ad 5); similarly by Richard of Middleton, here, a. 3, q. 3, ad 1.

On the 1st question: Scotus, here, the single question, n. 12. — St. Thomas, loc. cit., little-question 3; Suppl., loc. cit., a. 3. — Blessed Albert, here, a. 28, 36. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 2, a. 3, little-question 2. — Durandus, here, q. 2, n. 15. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 5.

**II.** Questions 3 and 4 are intimately connected, and concerning both we observe these things briefly. 1. The sevenfold number of orders, as it is reckoned in the oft-praised Decree for the Armenians, is very ancient in the Latin Church—indeed that it was so at least by *right* from the beginning is taught everywhere by the Scholastics and others (cf. here, q. 1, ad 3). But the Greek Church for many centuries has had no other *minor* orders except the lectorate; and it is disputed whether in antiquity there were other true minor orders in use there, and specifically, whether the same minor [orders] which the Latin Church uses. — 2. Supposing the sevenfold number of orders, a twofold question is to be discussed concerning the episcopate, whether it is an order and a Sacrament. For it is heresy to say, «that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy instituted by *divine ordinance*, which consists of bishops, presbyters, and ministers»; likewise, «that bishops are not superior to presbyters, or do not have the power of confirming and ordaining, or that the [power] which they have is common to them with presbyters» (Council of Trent, ibid., can. 6 and 7). Hence it seems that it cannot be denied that the episcopate, which by so great a distinct dignity is preeminent above the other orders, is both a distinct order and a Sacrament, namely that ordination by which it is conferred. — 3. Among the more ancient known Scholastics, only, as it seems, William of Auxerre (Summa, p. V, tr. 8, q. 1) teaches that there are nine orders, adjoining to the seven the episcopate and the archidiaconate (!); afterward Scotus (here, the single question, n. 5 ff.), although he does not dare to disapprove the other opinion, which he calls the *common* one, nevertheless proclaims those principles which show <!-- page 631 --> that he considers the episcopate as a *distinct order*: which Durandus also asserts in express words (here, q. 6, n. 8), adding that it is also «a Sacrament, not indeed precisely distinct from the simple priesthood; but it is one Sacrament with it, as the perfect and the imperfect». And the reason why this order is not numbered as the *eighth*, Durandus draws from this (n. 11), that «it is not among the *common* orders, but is the supreme one, as it were the leader and prince of the others», or «because it is included under the priesthood». — St. Thomas (here, q. 3, a. 2, little-question 2, ad 2; Suppl. q. 40, a. 5) follows that opinion common to the ancients and teaches that the episcopate is not an order properly, that is, «according to that whereby an order is a Sacrament», but only «according to that whereby it is a certain *office* with respect to certain sacred actions». Yet the same [Thomas] in his genuine little work on the Perfection of the spiritual life (c. 23), where he proves that bishops are superior to presbyters, says plainly that «the *order* or *state* of bishops and of presbyters» is not the same. — After the Council of Trent (cf. loc. cit., c. 4 and can. 4) that ancient manner of speaking became obsolete, since it is commonly taught as certain that the ordination of a bishop is truly a *Sacrament* and confers a true and *distinct order* and character; but many authors at the same time teach that this order is indeed distinguished from the presbyterate, yet only *inadequately*, as being an extension, a completion, and the apex of the priestly order; by which determination that ancient manner of speaking can in some measure be preserved. In favor of that ancient opinion Alexander of Hales can also be adduced, touching the matter in Summa, p. IV, q. 20, m. 8, a. 1, q. 21, m. 4, ad 5. — 4. As for what is asserted in the 3rd fundament, namely that the episcopate cannot be validly given when the priesthood is omitted, this has not been called into doubt except by a few, among whom is Mabillon (Commentary on the *Roman Order*, § 18). When the diaconate, or subdiaconate, or the minor orders are omitted, the consecration of a bishop is reckoned valid by all; but St. Bonaventure with many of the ancients, such as St. Raymond and St. Antoninus, held that such a one then cannot confer an order not conferred upon himself (thus below, d. 28, doubt 1). — But this opinion is not commonly approved by more recent [authors], if the matter concerns the *validity* of an order so conferred.

On the 3rd question, besides those cited: Blessed Albert, here, a. 39. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 4, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here, a. 5, q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 7.

**III.** On the 4th question: Scotus, the question cited. — St. Thomas, here, q. 2, a. 1, little-questions 1, 2; Suppl. q. 37, a. 1, 2. — Blessed Albert, here, a. 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 2, a. 3, little-question 1. — Richard of Middleton, here, a. 3, q. 3. — Durandus, here, q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 5.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 68414–68633) corrected verbatim against the 450 dpi PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{629,630,631}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`. Bands regenerated at `split_x=2120` for all three pages (the default 1660 clipped the left column, and a first pass at 1780 for p. 630 still clipped it). Content read column-by-column: p. 629 (Art. II opener + Quaest. I fundamenta + Contra), p. 630 (Conclusio, Respondeo, replies ad 1–4, scholion opening), p. 631 top (scholion tail, above QUAESTIO II).

**Page span.** Printed pp. 629–631 (pdf 649–651, offset +20). Running heads verify: "DIST. XXIV. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. I. … 629" (raw L68406) and verso "630 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (L68484); page 631's running head reads "… QUAEST. II. … 631" (L68598), but QUAESTIO II's body does not begin until L68638 — the Art. II scholion runs across the top of p. 631 first. The skeleton's `printed_pages: [630, 631]` was corrected to `[629, 630, 631]`.

**Chunking.** Per the locked convention, the short Art. II opener (*Consequenter … quaeruntur breviter quatuor*) is folded into this q1; no standalone divisio chunk.

**Scholion disposition.** This is the **Article II scholion** (OCR garbles the header `SCHOLIOK`, raw ~L68552; printed at the bottom of p. 630 spanning both columns and continuing across the top of p. 631). It is rendered here IN FULL as the last subsection. It covers **all four questions of Article II**: §I = the *antiqua divisio* (q1) plus the note that q2 "is scarcely touched" and the "De 1. quaestione" citation list; §II = questions 3 and 4 ("intime cohaerent"), with the sevenfold number, the episcopate discussion, and the "De 3. quaestione" citation list; §III = the "De 4. quaestione" citation list. Therefore **siblings q2, q3, q4 render no scholion** — set `has_scholion: false` on those chunks when they are built.

**Shared-page footer split (p. 629).** Page 629's footer notes 1 and 2, plus the unnumbered head-variant (`Ybb (E a secunda manu) subinde ante *descendit* omittunt … Edd. legunt: et quoniam potestas superioris plus et minus traditur et descendit … *praesunt, quibus conferunt*`), all gloss the **Article I tail** that shares the top of p. 629 ("… benedictio et manus impositio a Patriarchis, Genesis 27 & 48[¹], venit, sed inunctio in Lege, Levitici 8, ubi inunctus est summus sacerdos[²]"). Note 1 = the Isaac/Jacob/Moses (Gen. 27; 48; Num. 27; Lev. 8) source note; note 2 = "Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest." Both belong to the **preceding Art. I chunk** and are NOT claimed here. This Art. II body's own markers begin at printed n. 3. When the prior Art. I chunk is (re)built, it must pick up p. 629 nn. 1–2 and the head-variant.

**Shared-page footer split (p. 631).** All of page 631's numbered footer notes belong to the following chunk (QUAESTIO II); this chunk takes only the scholion tail from p. 631, which carries inline citations only (no numbered apparatus).

**Apparatus count.** 11 footnotes claimed: p. 629 nn. 3–8 (6) + p. 630 nn. 1–5 (5). Rendered continuously as [^1]–[^11].

**[?] flags.** No inline `[?]` markers remain in the Latin or English body. One minor apparatus uncertainty is bracketed in the English of [^6]: the Gregory reference "II. Homil. in Ezech. homil. n. 3" abbreviates the homily number within book II; the citation is Gregory the Great, *Homiliae in Ezechielem* (the *Nemo repente fit summus* dictum), rendered with a `[3?]` at the homily-number slot.

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. 24, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 631 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum psalmistatus sit ordo.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum psalmistatus sit ordo. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Distinctione vigesima prima[^1]: *Cleros* et *clericos,* et infra: «Generaliter clerici dicti sunt omnes qui in Ecclesia Christi deserviunt, quorum gradus et nomina haec sunt: ostiarius, psalmista et lector» etc.; et *iterum,* distinctione vigesima quinta, *Perlectis,* et infra, ubi enumerat officium psalmistae inter alios; et hoc expresse dicit Isidorus septimo libro Etymologiarum.

2. Item, ratione videtur hoc ipsum probari: quia prophetia Psalmorum non est minus nobilis quam aliae: ergo, sicut est ordo in Ecclesia deputatus ad recitandum alias prophetias, scilicet ordo lectoris[^2], ita videtur, quod debeat aliquis ordo ordinari ad recitandum Psalmos; sed iste est psalmistae: ergo etc.

3. Item, nobilius et dignius officium est Psalmos in Ecclesia recitare, quam sit ostia custodire: ergo si ordo deputatus est ad illud officium[^3], multo fortius videtur, quod ad dicendum Psalmos.

**Contra:**
1. Distinctione septuagesima septima[^4], *Illud nos,* et infra: «Si quis episcopus esse meretur, sit primum *ostiarius,* deinde *lector,* postea *exorcista,* deinde sacretur *acolythus,* deinde vero *subdiaconus,* deinde *diaconus,* postea *presbyter*»: hic sufficienter gradus et ordines distinguuntur, et non ponitur ordo psalmistae: ergo etc.

2. Item, omnes ordines, sicut melius patebit, ab episcopo dantur, non a simplici sacerdote; sed psalmistatus datur a simplici sacerdote; unde distinctione vigesima tertia[^5]: «Psalmista potest absque scientia episcopi sola iussione presbyteri officium suscipere cantandi».

3. Item, ad illud quod communiter spectat ad totum chorum, non debet aliquis ordo ordinari[^6] specialiter; sed psalmodia spectat ad omnes qui sunt in choro, et cantus antiphonarum et responsoriorum: ergo etc.

### Conclusio.

> Psalmistatus proprie non est ordo, sed officium ordini annexum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod psalmistatus proprie non est ordo, sed officium ordini annexum. — Et ratio huius est, quia non dicit officium, cui debeat specialis gradus ordinis deputari, sed solum est annexum ordini.

<!-- page 632 -->

Psalmista enim et cantor pro eodem reputantur, sicut patet ex his quae dicuntur distinctione vigesima tertia[^7]: *Psalmista, id est cantor* etc. Psalmistae enim est non solum Psalmos cantare, sed etiam alios cantus harmonicos lectionibus interserere; et hoc, ut audientium corda excitentur ad Dei laudem et ad eruditionem lectoris et non afficiantur taedio in auditu verbi divini. In hoc ergo, quod est ad laudem Dei, cum illud sit omnium fidelium et communiter insimul[^8], non oportet ad hoc ordinem deputari. In hoc enim, quod excitat corda ad eruditionem et ad percipiendum sensum, quem praedicat lector, est officium annexum ordini lectoris. Et sic patet, quod stricte accipiendo ordines et gradus, psalmistatus non debet inter ordines computari; sed si largius extendatur nomen ordinis ad officium etiam annexum ordini et quod specialiter et principaliter convenit ordinatis[^9], sic psalmistatus potest inter ordines computari, et ita accipit Isidorus.

**Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**

1. Et per hoc patent auctoritates inductae ad hoc, quod sit ordo; loquuntur enim secundum hanc viam.

2. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod prophetia Psalmorum est dignior, vel aeque digna; dicendum, quod *digna* est quantum ad intellectum et sensum ita, sicut aliae. Sed quia psalmista non tantum erudit per sensum verborum, quantum etiam excitat mentes per cantum musicorum et per emissionem vocum resonantium; et hoc competit *multitudini,* alias vero prophetias competit *uni* recitare, cui alii sint intenti: ideo oportet, illum qui legit, esse provectiorem, non ratione eius *quod* recitatur, sed ratione *modi* recitandi. Et sic patet illud.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de custodia ostiorum et psalmodia, dicendum, quod maioris auctoritatis et dignitatis est excludere indignos et admittere dignos ad divinum officium[^10], quam interesse et Psalmos cantare, pro eo quod primum dicit quandam auctoritatem et potestatem, nec competit alicui, nisi detur ab eo qui habet auctoritatem eminentem, scilicet ab episcopo. Sed psalmodia respicit scientiam et vocem; et qui habet haec sine donatione auctoritatis potest hoc facere sola iussione sacerdotis, ut praedictum est. Quamvis ergo istud officium maius videatur, tamen si consideratur auctoritas utrobique, illud est maius quam hoc[^11].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the office of psalmist is an order.*

Secondly it is asked whether the office of psalmist (*psalmistatus*) is an order. And that it is, seems [to be the case]:

1. Distinction twenty-one[^1]: *Cleros* and *clericos,* and below: «Generally all who serve in the Church of Christ are called clerics, whose ranks and names are these: doorkeeper, psalmist, and reader» etc.; and *again,* distinction twenty-five, *Perlectis,* and below, where it enumerates the office of the psalmist among the others; and Isidore says this expressly in the seventh book of the *Etymologies.*

2. Likewise, this same thing seems to be proved by reason: because the prophecy of the Psalms is not less noble than the others: therefore, just as there is an order in the Church appointed for reciting the other prophecies, namely the order of reader[^2], so it seems that some order ought to be ordained for reciting the Psalms; but this is [the order] of the psalmist: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, it is a nobler and more worthy office to recite the Psalms in the Church than to guard the door: therefore, if an order has been appointed for that office[^3], much more does it seem [there should be one] for saying the Psalms.

**On the contrary:**
1. Distinction seventy-seven[^4], *Illud nos,* and below: «If anyone deserves to be a bishop, let him first be a *doorkeeper,* then a *reader,* afterward an *exorcist,* then let him be consecrated an *acolyte,* then indeed a *subdeacon,* then a *deacon,* afterward a *presbyter*»: here the ranks and orders are sufficiently distinguished, and no order of psalmist is posited: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, all orders, as will better appear, are given by the bishop, not by a simple priest; but the office of psalmist is given by a simple priest; whence distinction twenty-three[^5]: «A psalmist can, without the bishop's knowledge, by the mere command of a presbyter, undertake the office of singing».

3. Likewise, for that which pertains commonly to the whole choir, no order ought to be ordained[^6] specially; but psalmody pertains to all who are in the choir, and the singing of antiphons and responsories: therefore etc.

### Conclusion.

> The office of psalmist is properly not an order, but an office annexed to an order.

**I respond:** It must be said that the office of psalmist is properly not an order, but an office annexed to an order. — And the reason for this is that it does not denote an office to which a special grade of order ought to be assigned, but [one] that is only annexed to an order.

<!-- page 632 -->

For psalmist and cantor are reckoned as the same, as is clear from what is said in distinction twenty-three[^7]: *A psalmist, that is, a cantor,* etc. For it belongs to the psalmist not only to sing the Psalms, but also to interweave other harmonious chants with the readings; and this, so that the hearts of the hearers may be roused to the praise of God and to the instruction of the reader, and not be afflicted with weariness in hearing the divine word. In this, therefore, which is unto the praise of God — since that belongs to all the faithful and in common together[^8] — it is not necessary to appoint an order for it. For in this, that it rouses the hearts to instruction and to the perceiving of the sense which the reader proclaims, it is an office annexed to the order of reader. And thus it is clear that, taking orders and grades strictly, the office of psalmist ought not to be counted among the orders; but if the name of order be extended more broadly to an office also annexed to an order and which belongs specially and principally to those ordained[^9], then the office of psalmist can be counted among the orders, and thus Isidore takes it.

**To the arguments for the affirmative side:**

1. And by this the authorities adduced to [show] that it is an order are made clear; for they speak according to this way.

2. To that which is objected, that the prophecy of the Psalms is more worthy, or equally worthy; it must be said that it is *worthy* as regards the understanding and the sense, just as the others are. But because the psalmist not only instructs through the sense of the words, but as much also rouses minds through the chant of musical [tones] and through the emission of resounding voices; and this belongs to the *multitude,* whereas reciting the other prophecies belongs to *one* [person], to whom the others are attentive: therefore it is necessary that the one who reads be more advanced, not by reason of *that which* is recited, but by reason of the *manner* of reciting. And thus that [argument] is clear.

3. To that which is objected concerning the guarding of doors and psalmody, it must be said that it is of greater authority and dignity to exclude the unworthy and to admit the worthy to the divine office[^10] than to be present and to sing the Psalms, for the reason that the first bespeaks a certain authority and power, and belongs to no one unless it be given by him who has eminent authority, namely by the bishop. But psalmody regards knowledge and voice; and he who has these, without the bestowal of authority, can do this by the mere command of a priest, as has been said. Although, therefore, that office may seem greater, nevertheless, if the authority on both sides is considered, the former is greater than the latter[^11].

---

la: Can. 1. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. — Seq. locus est dist. 25. c. 1. § 4: «Ad psalmistam pertinet officium canendi, dicere benedictiones, laudes» etc. Sicut hic locus sumtus est ex Epist. Isidori ad Ludifredum, ita primus ex Isidor., VII. Etymolog. c. 12, ubi etiam n. 24. dicit: *Lectores a legendo, psalmistae a psalmis canendis vocati* etc. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 6.

en: Canon 1. See here the text of the Master, c. 4. — The following passage is dist. 25, c. 1, § 4: «To the psalmist pertains the office of singing, of saying blessings and praises» etc. As this passage is taken from the Letter of Isidore to Ludifredus, so the first is from Isidore, *Etymologies* VII, c. 12, where also at n. 24 he says: *Readers [are so called] from reading, psalmists from the singing of psalms,* etc. Compare here the text of the Master, c. 6.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 6. — Mox pro *recitandum* cod. bb *cantandum.*

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 6. — Shortly after, for *recitandum* codex bb [reads] *cantandum.*

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5.

en: Compare here the text of the Master, c. 5.

la: Can. 1.

en: Canon 1.

la: Can. 20: *Psalmista, id est cantor, potest absque* licentia *episcopi... suscipere cantandi, dicente sibi presbytero: Vide, ut quod ore cantas corde credas, et quod corde credis operibus comprobes.* — Maior ostenditur infra d. 25. a. 1. q. 1.

en: Canon 20: *A psalmist, that is, a cantor, can without* the bishop's leave *... take up [the office] of singing, the presbyter saying to him: See that what you sing with your mouth you believe in your heart, and what you believe in your heart you prove by your works.* — The major [premise] is shown below, d. 25, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Cod. Q *denominari,* cod. X *deputari,* edd. omittunt *ordo.*

en: Codex Q [reads] *denominari,* codex X *deputari;* the editions omit *ordo.*

la: In penultima nota allegatus. — De seq. propos. cfr. C. *Cantantes* (1.) et C. *In sancta Romana Ecclesia* (2.), d. 92.

en: Cited in the penultimate note. — On the following proposition compare the Canon *Cantantes* (1) and the Canon *In sancta Romana Ecclesia* (2), d. 92.

la: Codd. non conveniunt inter se; non pauci enim codd. legunt *et communiter simul,* codd. T U X bb *et communiter insimul* (codd. E L *et insimul,* cod. O *non singulariter*), edd. *communiter simul.* Superius pro *et non* cod. K (1 a secunda manu) *et ut non,* edd. *ut non.*

en: The codices do not agree among themselves; for not a few codices read *et communiter simul,* codices T U X bb *et communiter insimul* (codices E L *et insimul,* codex O *non singulariter*), the editions *communiter simul.* Above, for *et non* codex K (the first [reading] by a second hand) [reads] *et ut non,* the editions *ut non.*

la: Vat. *quod tamen specialiter et principaliter non convenit ordinatis.* Mox pro *potest* non pauci codd. *debet.*

en: The Vatican [edition reads]: *quod tamen specialiter et principaliter non convenit ordinatis.* Shortly after, for *potest* not a few codices [read] *debet.*

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5, et supra pag. 503, nota 7, ubi haec auctoritas tribuitur ostiariis.

en: Compare here the text of the Master, c. 5, and above p. 503, note 7, where this authority is attributed to the doorkeepers.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p631..632-{L,R}-*.png`; p.632 regenerated at split_x=2120 because the default 1880 split clipped the right edge of the left column). Raw OCR L68598–L68731 used only as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing (Vol IV two-column cascade-shatter — PDF authoritative).

**Page span corrected.** Auto-chunker frontmatter listed printed pp. 631–633; page-verified to **631–632** only. Question II's body ends on p.632 (right column) at *illud est maius quam hoc*; QUAESTIO III (*Utrum episcopatus sit ordo*) begins immediately after on p.632 and runs onto 633, so p.633 carries no q2 content.

**q1/q2 boundary.** The QUAESTIO II semantic header is OCR-garbled (`QU.\ESTIO II.`); the running head `DIST. XXIV. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. II.` at raw L68598 is the p.631 page-top, not the question start. The true boundary is mid-page: the top of p.631 (left + right columns) is the tail of the article-II SCHOLION (discussing episcopatus, qq. 3–4) which belongs to **a2-q1**; q2 proper begins at the centered `Utrum psalmistatus sit ordo` / *Secundo quaeritur, utrum psalmistatus sit ordo.* Confirmed against the band.

**No scholion.** `has_scholion: false`. The article-II scholion (including its q2-specific line *"Quaestio 2. ab aliis vix tangitur, a S. Thoma vero paucis verbis solvitur..."*) sits in a2-q1's page 630 and covers all four questions. Independent confirmation: this q2's own final footnote (p.632 n.5, rendered [^11]) reads *"Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest."* — pointing back to q1's scholion. No scholion text anchored to q2 alone falls in this range.

**Shared-page footer split (p.632).** Page 632's footer runs a single 1–10 series. Notes **1–5** anchor to q2 markers (632-n1 *vigesima tertia*→[^7]; n2 *insimul*→[^8]; n3 *ordinatis*→[^9]; n4 *divinum officium*→[^10]; n5 *illud est maius quam hoc*→[^11]). Notes **6–10** anchor to QUAESTIO III markers (*Gelasius*, *Etymologiarum*, *loquuntur*, *imperat*, *definitionem ordinis*) and belong to that chunk. Page 631's footer (notes 1–6) is entirely q2's.

**Marginalia trimmed.** Quaracchi margin glosses bleeding into the OCR (*Conclusio.*, *Ratio.*, *Nota*, *Solutio oppositorum.*) removed from the body per convention.

**No `[?]` flags** — all readings resolved against the bands.