Dist. 24, Part 2, Dubia
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/24/q/bon-sent-IV-d24-p2-dubia
----------------------------------------
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about that which is said: *He will have a share with those who have ministered the word of God well.* For it seems ill said, because, since such men have had the *aureole,* it seems that all lectors have the *aureole,* and thus all priests.

**I respond:** To this it can be said that the office of the lector is not only to *read* the bare prophecy, but also to *expound* it; and then the office is well evident, since he not only reads the bark of the letter, but also unfolds the secret of the prophecy; and then he is a preacher and doctor and merits the aureole. But if he should receive the office only and not fulfil it, he will not have the aureole from this, because the aureole is not rendered to the will, or  to the office by itself, but to the will joined with the act of someone's prerogative. — Yet it could be said that this is understood as regards *substantial* merit.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that *from the archdeacon they receive the candlestick,* etc. For it seems ill said: because the archdeacon cannot ordain, therefore neither can he give the vessels in which power is signified.

Likewise it is asked which is the *more principal* act of the acolytes, whether to minister with the *candle,* or to minister with the *cruet.* And it seems [to be] with the *cruet,* because according to this act it is in a certain way joined with the office of the subdeacon. — But on the contrary it stands, because each order is denominated from the more worthy and more principal; but the acolytes are called as it were *taper-bearers* (*ceroferarii*).

**I respond:** It must be said that *power* is handed over by the bishop, but the archdeacon hands over the cruet and candlestick, that it may be signified that such a one ministers to the subdeacon, and this first begins to minister about the altar. But the archdeacon is called the *prince of the ministry*.

As to the objection, which act is more principal; it must be said that [it is] the act from which they are denominated, which is to carry the candles, because this act they have in a certain completion; but the act of ministering they have in imperfection as regards the ministration of water. But the subdeacon has this act more completely. — Another reason is that in carrying the candles is signified the power which he has in giving *good example*; and because this is of a certain superposition, but in the ministration of water [is] subjection: therefore etc.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that *the levites are named from the name of their author.* For it seems ill said: because the priesthood of the new law abolishes the priesthood of the *old*, therefore by parity of reasoning the ministry abolishes the ministry: therefore they ought no longer to be called levites.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *To the deacon it belongs to assist the priests*: because, since of one order there is one act and one power, it seems that he wrongly assigns nine acts to the deacon, as is understood *from the text*: therefore either the deacon comprises nine orders and nine characters, or such acts are not well nor truly assigned to him.

**I respond:** It must be said that the *levites* are by their proper name called *deacons,* in which name is enclosed their proper and principal act, namely to minister to the priest specially and immediately in sacred things. For to the deacons it belongs to transfer the body of the Lord, and in the primitive Church also to dispense the blood; whence immediately these assist and minister to the priests. And when power is given them to this act, then it must be said that a character is imprinted. Hence, since nine or thereabouts are assigned in the text, it must be understood that the others are *annexed,* these [are] *principal.* — And if you should ask: why are they called levites? it must be said that they are not called *levites* because they have the office of the Levites, but because [it is] similar to it and through it the office was *prefigured*.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about the division which he sets down concerning the priestly acts, which are: *to confect the body of the Lord, to say the prayers, to bless the gifts of God.* For it seems that, since the act of binding and loosing is much nobler, the Master ought to assign it to the priest [himself].

**I respond:** It must be said that these acts are proper to priests and regard the priest according to himself; but the act of binding and loosing regards confession: therefore *above*, concerning this act in the Sacrament of penance or [its] treatise, it was determined; and therefore the Master does not repeat [it] here.

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that *they judge only two canons to be called sacred.* For it seems  false, because the subdiaconate also is a sacred order, which is evident, because there continence and *chastity* are vowed. Likewise, the subdeacon touches the sacred vessels: therefore it seems etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that orders are called sacred because they require a sacred minister, according to that [word] of Isaiah, chapter fifty-*two*: *Be cleansed, you who carry the vessels of the Lord*; whence, because they touch consecrated things, they ought to be sacred; and all these three are called sacred. In another way an order is strictly called sacred, because it dispenses the sacred thing and in a certain way handles [it], bearing [it] and administering [it] to others; and thus [the order of] presbyter and *deacon*. In a third way it is called sacred most properly, because it confects the sacred thing; and this belongs to the supreme order, and therefore he is called *priest.*

### Doubt VI.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that *an order is a sacred seal.* For it seems ill said, because a Sacrament is an *element*; but an order is a Sacrament: therefore an order is an *element,* [and] not therefore a spiritual seal. — Likewise, since in other *Sacraments* a character is imprinted, why is an order rather defined by a *seal*? — Likewise it is asked what is the *thing (res)* and what the *sign (signum)* in the Sacrament of order.

**I respond:** It must be said that in the conferral of an order there is a *conferral of power,* by which a man is placed in a defined state and grade; and since there is diversity in the *powers,* there is diversity in the *seals,* and consequently there is and ought to be diversity in the exterior signs; yet otherwise: because the *signs* are not simply diverse, but the *powers* converge in the same soul in this, that a uniform account of distinguishing is found in all the characters and ordered to one [end]. Since therefore an *order* ought to be defined by that which is common; and community is not on the side of the *exterior element,* but of the *impressed seal*: therefore it is rather defined by that than by the exterior element; and *again,* this Sacrament [is defined so] rather than another, because the character here has more its own account, that is, the account of *distinguishing,* than in the other *Sacraments*.

---