Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Order
Chapter 7: That the Subdiaconate and the Minor Orders Are Sacraments; and That the Imposition of Hands Belongs to the Essence
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Ordinis, the fifth general controversy on the sacraments. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Now concerning the subdiaconate there is not so great a certainty as concerning the diaconate. For neither is mention made of it in the Scriptures, nor does its Ordination have the imposition of hands, as is plain from the Fourth Council of Carthage, canon 5; nor do subdeacons minister the Eucharist, or do the other things which deacons can do; and lastly they do not belong properly to the hierarchy, except as ministers of the hierarchs.
Yet it is very probable that this Order too is a sacrament: both because it seems to impress a character, since it cannot be repeated; and because it has annexed to it a solemn vow of continence; and lastly because this is the common opinion of the theologians, ancient and more recent, Durandus alone excepted, and Cajetan.
But there are two arguments against this opinion. The first is that the subdiaconate was formerly not a sacred Order, but was made so afterward by the popes, as Innocent III plainly testifies, in the chapter A multis, on the age, quality and order of those to be promoted; and the same Innocent III in the chapter Miramur, in the Extravagants, on slaves not to be ordained; and Urban II, canon Nullus, distinction 60. Whence the Master, book 4, distinction 24, says that the subdiaconate and the minor Orders were introduced by the Church, since they did not exist in the time of the apostles.
I answer that a sacred Order and a sacrament are not the same. For many think the minor Orders are sacraments, though yet they cannot call them sacred Orders. For, as the Master rightly teaches in the place noted, all the Orders are sacred, but the first three are called sacred by excellence, because they touch sacred things most nearly. For the presbyter consecrates and ministers the Eucharist; the deacon carries it; the subdeacon touches and presents the sacred vessels.
Formerly, however, subdeacons were not permitted to touch the sacred vessels, as is plain from the Council of Laodicea, chapter 21, and from the canon Nullus, distinction 23, which is taken from the decrees of Sylvester; and for that reason it was not called a sacred Order. Nor could a bishop be chosen from the order of subdeacons, but only from the order of presbyters and deacons. Yet afterward it was granted to subdeacons to touch the sacred vessels, as is plain from the canon Non liceat, distinction 23; and bishops began to be chosen from the subdeacons also, as is plain from Innocent and Urban in the places noted.
But what the Master says, that subdeacons were introduced by the Church, ought not to be understood as if the Church had instituted that order; but the Master seems to have thought that the use of these orders did not begin in the time of the apostles, but afterward, namely because before, on account of the fewness of the faithful, so many orders were not necessary. But neither does this seem to be true: for St. Ignatius, who flourished almost in the time of the apostles, mentions all the orders, in the letter to Hero and in another to the Antiochenes.
The second argument: subdeacons could be ordained by chorbishops, as is plain from the Council of Antioch, canon 10. But the chorbishops were simple presbyters, who cannot confer the sacrament of Order; therefore the subdiaconate is not the sacrament of Order.
I answer that there were two kinds of chorbishops (as we said in the disputation on clerics), of whom some were true bishops, but lived in another's diocese, as now the suffragans in Germany, and of these the Council of Antioch speaks; others were only presbyters, and by these Damasus, letter 4, denies that subdeacons can be ordained.
Chapter 8. That the Minor Orders Too Are Sacraments
Lastly, concerning the minor Orders, it is less probable that they are sacraments than concerning the subdiaconate; for neither is the opinion so common as concerning the diaconate and subdiaconate, and it is certain that the offices of these Orders are lighter than those of the higher ones.
Yet absolutely the opinion which teaches that all the Orders are sacraments is more probable than that which denies it. First, because all the old Scholastics assert it, Durandus excepted. And of the more recent all the weightiest, as Francis Victoria in the Summa on the Sacraments, Peter Soto, lecture 4 on the sacrament of Order, and others. Third, the Council of Florence seems to have held it. For where it said that the sacrament of Order is the sixth sacrament, and that the matter of this sacrament is that which is handed over in the Ordination, it at once gives examples concerning the Order of priest, deacon and subdeacon, and adds that the same is to be understood of the other Orders. Nor does the Council of Trent dissent: for in session 23, chapter 2, it numbers seven Orders, and afterward, chapter 3, says absolutely that Order is a sacrament. Fourth, the minor Orders cannot be repeated; therefore they impress a character; therefore they are sacraments.
There is one objection to the contrary: because if we lay down that there are as many sacraments as there are Orders, the sacraments will now be not seven but fourteen.
I answer: all the Orders, although each by itself is a sacrament, are yet reckoned one sacrament, because they are one, since all are referred to one end.
Chapter 9. That the Imposition of Hands Belongs to the Essence of the Sacrament of Order
There follows the third controversy, on the matter and form of this sacrament. It is agreed among all that the matter is some sensible sign, and the form the words which are said while that sign is shown. For although Scripture does not mention words, yet the most ancient Fathers write plainly that words are required, as Ambrose on chapter 4 of the first to Timothy, Jerome on chapter 58 of Isaiah, and Augustine in the sermon on the proceedings with Emeritus; and the same is plain from the ancient Roman Order, and from all who treat of this sacrament.
But because in the Ordination of a presbyter and a deacon twofold signs are shown, namely the imposition of hands and the handing over of an instrument, such as the chalice and paten in the presbyterate and the book of the Gospels in the diaconate, therefore the question arises which of these signs is the essential matter of the sacrament. And there are two opinions of the theologians.
For some think that the imposition of hands is accidental, and that only the handing over of the instruments is essential: so Dominic Soto, distinction 24, question 1, article 4, and certain others.
Their foundations are three. First, because in the Council of Florence no other matter is assigned but the handing over of the instruments.
Second: because Innocent III, in the chapter Pastoralis, on sacraments not to be repeated, and Gregory IX, in the chapter Presbyter, under the same title, say that an ordination made without the imposition of hands ought not to be repeated, but that what was omitted is to be supplied. In the same place Gregory adds also that the imposition of hands is a rite introduced by the apostles.
Third: priests are made when it is said to them, “Receive the power to offer sacrifice.” But then hands are not imposed, but only the chalice with wine and the paten with bread are handed over, as is plain from the ancient Roman Order and from the Pontifical which the Church now uses; therefore the imposition of hands, which comes afterward, does not belong to the essence of the sacrament. The major proposition is proved, because otherwise that granting of power would be deceptive, if it were not really received then. And moreover, the apostles were made priests at the last supper, as the Council of Trent has it, session 22, chapter 1; therefore now too priests are made when the power of consecrating and offering the Eucharist is given them. For it is the same thing, “Do this for a commemoration of me,” which the apostles heard at the last supper, and “Receive the power to offer,” and so on, which we hear when we are ordained priests.
The other opinion is far more probable and truer: namely that not only the handing over of the instruments, but also the imposition of hands, is essential matter. This is affirmed, of the more recent, by Peter Soto, lecture 5 on the sacrament of Order; Martin Ledesma on book 4, question 30, article 4, to the first; and Cardinal Hosius in the Polish Confession, chapter 50.
This opinion is proved, first, because the Scriptures everywhere hand down the imposition of hands as the external symbol of ordination, as is plain from the places brought forward, Acts 6, 13 and 14, 1 Timothy 4 and 5, and 2 Timothy 1.
They answer that the imposition of hands is required, but is not of the essence. Against this: if it is so, we cannot convince the heretics that ordination is a sacrament properly so called, because we cannot show in Scripture the external symbol of this sacrament. Then, if it is lawful so to expound, we shall be able to deny the matters of all the other sacraments: I shall say that in Baptism the washing is not of the essence, nor the oil in the sacred unction, nor the bread in the Eucharist. Moreover, Scripture does not usually hand down anything but the essential ceremonies in full: who then would persuade himself that in this sacrament an accidental rite is always named, the essential being left out? Lastly, Paul says that grace is given through the imposition of hands, 1 Timothy 4 and 2 Timothy 1. Therefore the imposition of hands is an essential part of the sacrament; for the promise of grace was not made to accidental ceremonies, but to essential ones.
Nor does what they object about Confirmation hold, which in Acts 8 is said to be given through the imposition of hands, and yet that is not the essential matter of that sacrament, but the chrism. For we have already dissolved this in the disputation on Confirmation, where we showed that the imposition of hands in Confirmation is of the essence, because through it the foreheads of the faithful are signed with chrism.
Second: I prove the same from the tradition of the popes and councils. Clement, book 8 of the Constitutions, chapter 2 and following; Damasus, letter 4; Innocent I, letter 22, to the bishops of Macedonia; Leo I, letter 87, to the bishops of Africa; and of the more recent, Pope Alexander II, canon Ex multis, cause 1, question 5; and Urban II, canon Daibertum, cause 1, question 7; and others everywhere.
Likewise from the councils: that of Nicaea, canon 9; of Antioch, canons 10 and 17; the Fourth of Carthage, canons 2, 3 and 4; and all the other ancient councils everywhere affirm that Orders are conferred by the imposition of hands.
The Council of Trent itself also (which is to be observed on account of those who, after the council was celebrated, think otherwise), session 14, chapter 3, on extreme unction, says that the minister of extreme unction is the bishop, or a presbyter duly ordained by the imposition of hands. And in session 23, canon 4, on the sacrament of Order, it has these words: “If anyone shall say that through sacred Ordination the Holy Spirit is not given, and that therefore the bishop says in vain, Receive the Holy Spirit, let him be anathema.” There the council declares that presbyters are ordained, and the grace of the Holy Spirit is given them, then when it is said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” But when this is said, hands are imposed, as is plain from the Pontifical and the custom of the Church; therefore the council held that that imposition of hands is of the essence.
Lastly, the same can be proved from the Fathers also. For the Greeks call ordination cheirotonia, that is, the imposition of hands; and Symeon Metaphrastes writes in the Life of St. John Chrysostom that when the bishop of Antioch laid hands on him to create him a presbyter, the Holy Spirit at once descended upon him visibly in the form of a dove.
Ambrose, in the book On the Priestly Dignity, chapter 5, says that Ordination is completed by this ceremony: “Man,” he says, “lays on the hand, and God bestows the grace.” Jerome on chapter 58 of Isaiah: “Ordination,” he says, “is fulfilled not only by the invocation of the voice, but also by the imposition of hands.” Augustine, in the book on the proceedings with Emeritus, and elsewhere, says that priests are ordained by the imposition of hands; which all the ancients likewise everywhere teach.
But to say that all the councils, popes and Fathers speak of an accidental ceremony is ridiculous, since they nowhere lay down another ceremony, and often treat expressly of the rite of Ordination. For who would believe that so many Fathers and councils, since they treat nothing more often than the Ordinations of priests, never once touched that which belongs to the essence of the sacrament?
Third: the same is proved from the Scholastics, lest our opinion seem new in the schools. Certainly St. Thomas, on book 4, distinction 24, question 1, article 1, says that in the imposition of hands sacramental grace is given; from which it follows that that imposition is a part of the sacrament. St. Bonaventure, on book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 24, article 1, question 4, to the third, says that if the instruments were lacking, the imposition of the hand would suffice, because the hand is the organ of organs, in which all instruments are contained in power; and he adds that in the primitive Church all the orders were handed on implicitly through the imposition of hands alone; which he repeats in the same distinction, article 2, question 1, to the third. Scotus, Paludanus, distinction 24, and William of Auxerre in his Summa, part 4, say plainly that the imposition of hands is of the essence.
That we may answer the arguments, then, it is to be observed, first, that in the Ordination of presbyters, about which the dispute chiefly is, two powers are conferred: one, of consecrating the Eucharist, which is called the power over the true body of Christ; the other, of absolving from sins, which is called the power over the mystical body of Christ.
Second, note that on account of these two powers there are two chief ceremonies in the Ordination of presbyters: one, in which the bishop hands to the future presbyter the paten with the host and the chalice with the wine, and says, “Receive the power to offer sacrifice,” and so on; the other, when after the Mass the bishop imposes hands and says, “Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins thou shalt forgive,” and so on. And both ceremonies are not only had in the Pontifical and are in the use of the Church, but are had also in the ancient Roman Order.
Third, note that both ceremonies are essential, as Scotus rightly teaches and explains. For by the one is conferred the one power, by the other the other; whether there be two characters, or one which is extended in the second ceremony. Nor is it probable, what some say, that the whole is given in the one, and that in the other only what was given in the first is unfolded. For, first, those words, “Receive the power,” and “Receive the Holy Spirit,” do not signify an unfolding, but signify that it is really given then. Then, by the consent of all, Christ divided these two powers when he ordained the apostles, and gave the one at the supper, when he said, “Do this,” the other after the resurrection, when he said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” Why then may not the Church also, nay why ought she not, divide them and give the one after the other?
Fourth, note that the Fathers and councils were not accustomed to explain the whole rite of the sacraments, for they were not writing books of ritual; but only to touch one essential part, from which all the rest would be understood; for such rites were very well known to all from frequent use.
From these things, then, to the first I answer: the Council of Florence did not explain the whole rite, but only one part; just as formerly the Council of Carthage, which mentions only the imposition of hands, did not explain the whole rite, but only that part which the Council of Florence afterward left out. But each council teaches rightly, and the one does not fight with the other.
Why the Council of Florence chose to express, of the two parts, the handing over of the instruments rather than the imposition of hands, there could be a twofold reason. One, because it intended to assign for the matter some subsisting thing, as it did in Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist and extreme unction; but the imposition of hands is not a subsisting thing, whereas the chalice and paten are. The other cause is that perhaps the Armenians, who were being instructed by the council, erred in this matter and not in the other.
To the second I answer: those places of Innocent and Gregory favor our opinion. For that the pontiffs will not have ceremonies duly performed repeated, and yet will have what was omitted supplied, indicates that those ceremonies can be divided and given at different times, and are effective at whatever time they are given. And what Gregory says, that the imposition of hands is a rite introduced by the apostles, ought not to be taken as if the apostles instituted it, but because they first began to use it in ordinations.
To the third I answer: priests are ordained when it is said to them, “Receive the power to offer sacrifice”; but they are ordained also afterward, when it is said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” For through various ceremonies they receive various powers.
And hence the argument about deacons is solved, which we made in the question above. For the first deacons were ordained chiefly to certain ministries by the imposition of hands, but were not ordained to read the Gospel, because there was no need; but now through various ceremonies they are ordained to various ministries. And it is credible that the Lord instituted all these matters of the Orders, not indeed in particular, but in general, by admonishing the apostles to confer the Orders through a ceremony of instruments by which their power would be signified.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VII.
Sabdiaconalum essc cliam sacramciilum.
Jam vero de subiliacoualu noii esl lanla cerlilu-
do, (|uanla de (iiaconalu. iNam noc in Scripluris cic
eo lil menlio, nec ejus Orciinalio habel manus im-
posilionem. ul palel cx concilio IV. carlluii^in. ca-
iion. 5. nec subiliaconi minislranl eucliarisliam,
.mi aliu facere possunl. quae diaconi: el denuiue
iinn perlineiit luoprie ad liierarchiam, nisi ul nnni-
.^lri hierarcliiarum.
Ksl lanuMi valde probabile, eliam liunc Ordirietii
esse sacramenlum : tuni quia videlur imprimere
characlcMcm. cum sit inilcrabilis: lum (|uia liabet
aiinexum solemne voluin coiilincnliae; lum deni-
que, quia haec esl communis Ihelogorum senlcn-
lia. anli(iuoruin et rccenliorum, uno Durando ex-
(Cplo el (l.ijelano.
Sunl uulem conlia hanc senlenliam quo argu-
menta. Primum esl, quia subdiaconatus oliin non
erat Ordo sacer , sed postea Jaclus est a pontifici-
biis, ut apcrlc testalur Innoccnlius 111. cap. .1 iiiuL-
tis, de aelale, el qualilate. el ordine praoncicndo-
rnm. el idcm Innoccnlius III. cap. Miramur, ox-
ira dc servis non ordinandis: el Urbanus ll.canon.
yallus. ilistincl. GO.Unde Magisler, lib. 4 distinol.
2 5-. dicil: Subdiaconalum el Ordines minores ab
Kcclcsia introduclos, cum aposlolorum tempore
iion fuisscnl.
Respondeo: Non esse idem, Ordinem sacrum et
sacramentum: multi enim existimant, Ordines mi-
norcs esse sacrauienla. cum tamen non possinteos
vncare Ordines sacros.Ui enim rccie docel Magister
loco notalo, omnes Ordincs sunl sacri, sed primi
Iros dicunlur per cxccllenliam sacri, (]uia proxime
conliiigunl res sacras.Presbylcr cnim Eucharisliani
consecral el minislral. Diaconus dcfert eam: Sub-
diaconus Siicra vasa conlingil cl pracbet.
Olim tamen subdiaconis non licebat tangerc sa-
cra vasa. ul patet cx concilio laodiceno, cap. 21. et
cx can. i\ji//tfs,disl. 24. qiv ex decretis Sylvestri
sumplus esl:f;t ea raliono non dicebalur Ordo sacer,
Nec ex ordinc subiliacunorum poteral cligi cpi-
scopus , sed lanlum ex ordine presbylerorum et
diaconorum: lamcn poslea concessum csl subdia-
conis, langore sacra vasa, ul palcl cx can. ISonli-
ceat, dist. 23. et cocperunl eliam ex subdiaconis
oligi episcopi, ut palct ex Innocenlio et Urbano
locis nolatis.
Quod autcm Magislcr dicil: Subdiaconos ab P]c-
< lesia inlroductns,non sic debct inlclligi,quasi Ec-
«lesia eum ordinem instililucril; sed videtur 3Ia-
gisler existimasse, usuin horura ordinum non coe-
pisse lemporc aposlolorum, sed poslea, quod vi-
delicel anlea ob fidelium |)aucitatem, non essent tol
ordines necessarii. Sed neque hoc videlur esse ve-
lum: nam s. Iguatius qui tempore aposlolorum
floruit fore, omnium ordinum mominil, iii episl. lui
Ilcronem. ct in alia ad Antiochcnos.
Secundiim argumonlum: Subdiaconos polorat or-
dinari a choropisropis, ut |)atol ex concilio anlio-
chcno, can. 10. At chorcpiscopi erant simplices
prosbylori. (iiii Ordinis sacramenlum coiiforr»! noii
possiint;igilursubdiaconalus noii est sacramentum
Ordinis.
Hespondeo: Duo fuisse genera chorcpiscoporum
(ut (liximus in dispul.itioiie de clericis) quorum
alii cranlvori cpisco|)i, sod in alicMia dioecosi mo-
rabantur, ul luinc inGermania suITraganei,el de his
huiiiilur concilium antiochcnum; alii eranl solum
prosbyleri. ot ab his negat Damasus epist. 4. |)osj>e
ordinari subdiaconos.
CAPUT VIU.
Minores cliam Ordincs sacramcnla cssc.
Denique, de minoribus Ordiiiibus, minus proba-
bile esl quod sacrameiUa sinl, (luam de subdiaco-
natu; nam neque est ita communis senlentia, sicut
dc diaconatu et subdiaconatii: et certum est, le-
viora esse munera horum Ordinum quam supe-
riorum.
Absolute tamcn probabilior scnlentia esl, quac
Ordines omnes sacramenla esse docet , quam ea ,
(juae id negat. Primo, quia id asserunl oinnes ve-
leres Scholaslici, Durando exceplo.Et ex rccenlio-
ribus gravissimi quique, ul Franciscus Vicloria in
summa de sacramenlis, Pclrus a Solo , lecl. 4. de
sacramcnto Ordinis, et alii. Tertio,, id videtur sen-
sisse concilium florentinum. Ubi enim dixit, sacra-
mentum Ordinis esse sextum sacramentum, etma-
leriam hujus sacramenli esse id , quod porrigilur
in Ordinalione: continuo ponit exempla (Jc Ordino
sacerdolis, diaconi el subdiaconi ; et addit. idem
de aliis Ordinibus intelligendura. INeque dissentit
concilium Iridcnlinum: nam sess. 23.cap.2.seplem
Oidincs numerat;et postoa cap. 3. absolule Oidi-
nem sacramentum esse dicit. Quarlo, minores Or-
dines non possuiit iterari, igilur imprimunt chara-
clerem, igitur sacramenla sunt.
Una esl objcctio in conlrarium, quia si quot Or-
dines sunt, lol sacramenta esse ponamus ; jam sa-
cramenta non crunl septem, sed quatuordecim.
Respondeo: Omnes Ordines licel sinl per se
singuli sacramenta,tamen unum sacramentum cen-
seri, quia unum sunt, quia ad unum fmem omnes
referuntur.
CAPUT IX.
Jlanus imposilioncm ad cssentiam sacrameuH
Ordinispertinere.
Sequilur Tertia cnnlroversia, de materia et for-
ma hujus sacramenti. Convenit autem intor omnes,
materiam esse aliquod signum sensibile, formam
aulcm esse verba,(puie dicunlur,dum iliud signum
I
Lincis
cxhibclur. Quamvis cnim Soriplura nnn meminoril
v(>rbormn; lumcn aperic scribunl verba requiri
imlKiuissimi Palres, nl Ambrosius in cap. 4. 1. ad
Timoili.llicronymus in cap. 58. Isaiac, el Augusli-
uus in scrm. de, i.;estis cum Emerito: ct idcm palcl
e.x auliquo ordine romanOj el ex omnibus, qui de
lioc sacramento Iractanl.
Scd quia in Ordinalione presbylcri cl diaconi ,
duplicia signa cxlnbentur: nimirucn impositio ma-
iiuum cl purreclio inslrumenli , ut calicis el pali-
nac in presbylcratu; el libri evange!iorum in dia-
conatu; idco quacstio existil , utium horum si-
gnorum sil essenlialis maleria sacramenti. Duae
sunl aulem tlieologorum senlcntiae.
Abi cnim existimanl, manus imposilionem esse
accidcntariam el solam insirumcntorum porreclio-
nem esse cssenlialem: ita Dominicus a Solo, di-
slinct. 2i. quaest. 1. art. 4. ct alii quidam.
Fundamenta eorum sunl Iria. Primum . quia in
concilio llorenlino non alia assignalur matcria, ni-
si instrumenlorum porrectio.
Sccundum: Quia Innocentius III. cap. Paslora-
lis, de sacramentis non ilcrandis, ct Gregorius IX.
cap. Prcsbyter, eodera lilulo, dicunl non debere
itcrari ordinationem factam sine rnanus imposilio-
ne. sed supplendum esse, quod omissum est. Ibi-
dem eliam addil Gregorius manus imposilionem
csse rilum ab apnslolis introductum.
Tertium Sacerdolcs fiunt, cum eis dicilur: Acci-
j)C jiolcslatem ofjcrendisacrificium. Sed tunc non
imponuntur manus, sed tantuin porrigilnr calix
cnm vino cl patina cum pane, ul palcl cx ordine
romano antiquo, el ex puntificali,quo miuc Kcclc-
sia utitur; crgo manus impositio, (juae poslea ac-
ocdil, ad essenliam Siicramcnli non porlinel. Ma-
jor propositio proi)atur, quia alio(iui cssct lallax il-
la cuncessio potcslatis, si tunc ca revera nonacci-
pcrelur. El Praelerea aposloli in ultiraa coena lacli
sunl sacerdotes, ut Iiabel concilium Iridentinum,
sess. 22. cap. l.crgo cl nunc s;icerdolcs liunt,cum
datur cis potestas consccrandi ct orCerendi Euclia-
risliam. Idcm cnim cst: Huc fuciic in vieam com-
memoralioiicm, quod aurlierunt aposloli in uilinia
coena; el. Accipc -poleslalcm oljcrendi clc. quud
nos audimus, cum ordinamur sacerdolcs.
Allcra senicnlia esl longe probabilior et vciior,
vidclicel,nun solum instrnmentorum porreclioncm.
bcd cttam manus impositioncm essc malcriatn (;S-
scnlialem. Id quod aflirmal ex reconlioribus: Pe-
Irus a Sol(j, lecl. .">. de sacramenlo Ordinis; Marli-
nus Ledcbmius in 4. quaest ;j(). art. 4. ad 1. car-
dinalis llosius in confessione polonica, cap. "iO.
Probalur hacc sent(mtia. Prini(),quia Sciipturae,
passim liadiinl pro synibolo cxlcrno ordinalionis.
irianus imposilioncm, nl palel cx hicis adductis,
Aclor. (i. I."). cl 14. 1. Timolli. 4. cl ."i. cl 2. Ti-
molli. 1.
liespondent: Imposilioncm mamium re(iuiri,scd
non esse de essentia. Conlra. si ila csl, non pos-
sumus convincere Iiaerelicos, ordinalionem csse
sacramcnluin proprie dictuni, (piia non possumus
in Scriptiira demonslrarc symbolum cxlernum liu-
jus sacramenli. Deindc, si ila liccl cxponcrc,pole-
rimus nciinre materias omnium aliorum sacranicn-
PIW.MUS
773
torum: dicam e. ,., ■ , , ,, .■
in Baptismo secunf."^ '^^msscl, de sacra Unclione.
Euchiristia. nec oleiidP'^^'";/ P''^"\''« non magis
PraCerea Scriptnra, x\ox{V^^^''\ "^••"''^ el boum :
tradorc nisi cssentiales caercl.^'"'^' ^'"- ^-Anstilul.
integre: quis ergo sibi persuadea,,^ .
mento sempcr nominari rilnm accR?''^ '^*^-^';'^^
misso essenliali? Denique Pauliis dicil,';';^"^^'. '"^*
impositionem dari gratiain. 1. Timolh. 4. (-"r^"'^ '
moth.l.Ergo manus impositio est pars sacrame'1"^
esscnlialis: non enim gratiae promissio facta est
caeremoniis accidentariis, scd cssentialibus.
Neque valel, quod objiciunl de Conlirmatione;
quae Actor. 8. dicilur dari per manus impositio-
nem, el tamen non est illa materia essentialis ejus
sacramenli, scd Chrisma. Jam eniin Iioc dissolvi-
mus in disi)ulatione de Confirmatiotie. ubi ostendi -
mus,manus impositionem in Confirmalione csse do
essenlia, quia pcr illam signanlur Chrismatc fron-
les fidclinm.
Secundo:Idem probo ex Iraditione pontificnm cl
conciliorum. Clemens lib. 8. conslitul. cap. 2. cl
sequentib. Damasns episl. 4. Innocentius I. episl.
22. ad cpiscopos Macedoniae, Leo I. episl. 87. ad
episcopos Africae, et ex rocentioribus Alex^indcr
papa II. canon. Ex mullis, I. quaesl. .'i. et Urba-
nus II. canon. Daibcrtum, 1. quaest. 7. el alii
passim.
Ilem cx conciliis. Nicaenum, can. 9. antioche-
num, can. 10. et 17. carthaginiense IV. can. 2. 3.
el 4. cl omnia alia antiqna concilia passim alTir-
mant. manus impositione conferri Ordincs.
Ipsum ctiain Iridentinum concilium (qiiod esl
observaridum propler eos, qui posl concilium ccle-
bralum, aliler scntiunt) scss. 14. rap. ;i de exlre-
ma Unclinne dicil. minislriim cxtreinae Uriclionis
csse episcopuin, ant [)resbytcriiin rile ordinaiiim ,
pcr manus imposilionem. El sess. 23. canon. 4.de
sacramcnto Ordinis habcl Iiacc verba: Si qnis di-
xcrilper sacram Ordinationemnon dari Spiri-
lum sanclum. ac jwoindc frustra cjyiscopnm di-
cerc: Accipc Spirilum sanclnm. a,nalhemasit.\]h'\
concilium doclaral, tunc ordinari prcshyleros, el
tunc dari illis gratiam Spiritus sancti, cum eis di-
citur: Accipitc Spiritum sanctum. Al cum hoo di-
citur, manus imponunlur . ut |)atcl cx pontificali
el Ecclesiae consuetudinc; ergo senliebal conci-
liuni, illam impositionem nianiis csse dc esscnlia.
Dcniquc idem tliam ex Palrihus prohari polcsl.
NamGraeci ordinationem vocant /oipoTcviav.idc.vl.
manus imposilionem: ct scrihit Simcon Mctaphra-
slcs in vila s. .loannis clirysoslomi, cum ei rnanus
imponorcl C|)iscopus antiochoiiii^. ul cum crcarol
presbylerum, conlinuo (losc(Mi(iisse in oiim visibi-
litor Spirilum sanclum in lorma colnmbao.
.\mbrosius lib. dc dignilalo saoerdolali . cap. ."».
hac ca(M"cni(U!ia dicit pcrlici Ordinaiioiicm: lltnna,
iii(|iiil.7//(rn(/?H. imjionil.cl Dcus larijiluv (jraliani.
Hi(M'onymns in cap. r>8. isaiao: Ordinalio. in^piit .
?io;i, solum ad iinjn-ccalioncmvocis.scd etiam ad
iniposilioncm im])lcturinanuuni. Augustinus lib.
de gcstis cuni EiikmiIo, ol alibi. manus imposi-
lione ordinari dicil sacerdoles : quod idem omnes
veleres passim docenl.
772
DE SA(:i;\MK>TO OHDIMS
Dicero aiilfiin: Omnia concilia. poniiliccs ot l*,i-
lrt»s lo(iui «ie accitlontaria caeroinonia , ridicuhiin
est: cuin nus(|uain ponaiit aiiam catirenioniain, oL
saepe ex professo IraclcMt dc rilu Ortiinalionis.
Ouis cniin crcilal lol Palros ot concilia , cuin niliil
frotiucnlius traclcnt, tiuain Ortlinaliones sacortio-
luin, ne seinel tiuitloin atli-jisse itl,t]uoti ad esseu-
liain Siicrainenli perlinel?
Tortio: iiloin probalur ex Scholaslicis: nc vitlea-
Uir noslra sonlonlia nova in scIidIis. Corte s. Tlio-
mas in 4. dislincl. 15. quaest. l. art. 1. dicil, in
iinptisilione numuuin dari j:;raliain savrainonialiMn:
e\ tpu) sequilur eain impositionem esse parlein
sacramonli. S. Bonavenl. in 4. sent. dist. 24. art.
i. quaest. 4. atl 3. dicit.quod si inslrumenla dees-
scnt. sullicorol manus im()osilio . tjuia maiius ost
or^anum ori^auorum , in (pio omnia inslrumonla
virtute conlinentur; ed addil^quod in primiliva lCo-
clesia por solaiii maniuim imposilionom imphcilo
tradobaniur omnes onlinos: tpiod idem repolit ca-
doin disl. arl. 2. quaest. \. ad 3. Scolus , Paluda-
nus, distinct.24. el Allisiodorensis in sua sumina,
par. 4. aporlc dicunl, de esscnlia esse manuin im-
posilionoin.
Ul igitur argumentis rcsnondeamus, Observan-
dum csl. Primo in Ordinalioiic prcsbylerorum, dc
quibus praecipuc tlisputalur , duas conrerri pole-
sliites. l'n;un, consccrandi iuicluirisliam, qiiae di-
cilur puteslas in corpus Christi verum. Alleram ,
absolventli a pcccalis,quac dicitur poleslas in cor-
pus Clirisli myslicuin.
Secundo. Nola, propler has duas poteslales ,
duas esse in Ordinalione prcsbylcroruin praeci-
puas cacremonias. L'n;im, qua episcopus porrigit
fuluro prosbylero palinam cuin hostia ol calicein
euin vino. ac dicil: Acc.ipe j)olef^tatem offerendi
sucrilicium c/c. Altoram, cuin posl miss;im cpi-
scopus manus iinponit. el dicil: Accipe Spirilum
sanctum, quorum remiscris peccala elc. Ulraque
aulem caeromonia. non soluin Inibeiur in ponlili-
cnli, et csl in usu tcclesiae, scd habelur eliam in
antiquo ortlinc roinano.
Tcrtio.Nola, utramque cacremoniam esse essen-
lialem, ul rccle docct, atqnc explicat Scotus. Wam
per unam conferlur una polesliis, per alleram alle-
ra: sive sint duo cbaracleres, sive unus, qui in se-
cunda caeremonia cxtendalur.INcque est probabile,
quod quidam dicunf, in una tolum dari, et in alle-
ra tanlum explicari, quotl est d;ilom in alia. Nara
in primis verba illa: Accipe potestalem , et ^cczpe
Spiritumsanctum, non significanl explicari, sed
significant revcra tunc dari. Dcinde, omnium con-
sensu. Cbristus divisit has duas potestalcs, cura
ordiiiavit aposlolos, et unam tradidit in coena,cum
ail: i/oc facite. alleram post rcsurrectionom, cum
ait: Accipile Spirilum sancluni.Cur e\'E^o non pos-
sil. iramo el debeat eiiam Ecclesia dividore el da-
re unam posl aliam?
Quarto. Nola, Palrcs et concilia non consucvisse
cxplicare tolum ritum sacramenlorum , non enira
scribebant libros riluales; sed solum alligisse u-
iiain parlem essenliiilem. cx qua caetcra omnia in-
lelligorentur: erant enim ritus ejusmodi nolissimi
omnibus ex frequenti usn.
I]v liis orgo nd Primum Uespondco: Conciliorn
llorcnlinum non explicuisso toliim rilum, sod so-
lum uniim piirtcm^tpioiiiiidmoduin oli;im ooncilium
ciirtlniginicnse, quod lantuin meminil impositionis
maniium, non oxplicuit toluiii rilnin , sod laiitum
cam parloin, quani postea omisil concilium noron-
liiuiin: ulriiiiKiuo ;iuloin coinilium recte tlocet,ne-
quc unuin ciim altcro pugnat.
Cur autcm concilium floronlinum cx diiabus
partibus m;igis (>xprimorc voluil i)orrcclionom in-
slrumentorum, quiiin iinpositionein m;inuum, du-
plcx ratio esse potuit. Uiia, quia inlondob;il assi-
giKirc pro nniloria rom ali^iuain subsislcnloin,sicul
focil in nii|)lismo,Coiilirmalioiic, Uucliarislia el ex-
trcma Unclione: res aulem subsislens non esl im-
positio miuiuum, sod calixcl paliuii elc. Allera
caussa csl, (pjiii forlassc Arineiii , qui a concilio
inslruebanlur, in hac rc errabanlel non in alia.
Ad Socundum Ucspondeo: Ea loca Innocentii el
Grogorii fiivorc nostrae senlenliae.Quod enim pon-
tifices nolinl rcpcti caeromonias rile peraclas, ct
tamcn supplcri,quod esl omissnm; indical eas cac-
remonias possc dividi ol dari diverso tcmporc, ct
essc ciricaces quocuinque lcihpore dcnlur. Quod
aulcm Gregorius dicit, manus imposilionem esse
riluin ab aposlolis inlroductum; non sic dcbel ac-
ci[)i, quasi aposloli hunc insliluerinl,sed quia ipsi
primi coeperunl illum usurparc in ordinationibus.
Ad Tcrlium Respondeo: Saccrdoles ordinari,cum
illis dicilur:/lcctpe j^olestalem sacrificium offeren-
di\ sod ordinari eliam poslca. cum illis dicitur :
Accipe Spiritum sanclum. Nam accipiunl pcr va-
rias caeremonias, varias poteslales.
Al(]ue hinc solvilur argumenlum de diaconis,
quod focimus quaeslione superiore.IVam primi dia-
coni fuerunl fcre ordinali, ad quaedam ruinisteria,
pcr manus imposilioncm, non aulem fuerunl ordi-
nali ad logondum cvangclium, quia non erat opus:
iiunc aulcm per varias cacrcmonias, ordinantur ad
varia minisleria. Crcdibile aulem est , Dominum
instiluisse islas omncs malerias Ordinum.non qui-
d(!m in parliculari, scd generalira , monendo apo-
slolos, ut Ordines conferrenl pcr cacremoniam in-
slrumentorura , quibus significarelur eorura pole-
slas.