Dist. 25, Art. 1, Q. 1
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/25/q/bon-sent-IV-d25-a1-q1
----------------------------------------
### 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: *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, 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: therefore also the dispensing of orders [pertains to them].

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: 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.

**On the contrary:** 1. First to Timothy, chapter four: *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: «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; 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, 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. — 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*, *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; 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: *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; 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 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

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. — 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: «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.

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 [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, 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 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». 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; *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 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].