Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Order
Chapter 10: On the Effect of This Sacrament; On the Minister; and On the Ceremonies
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 effect, it is agreed among Catholics that there is a twofold effect of this sacrament. First, a perpetual spiritual power, in sign of which a character is impressed. Second, sanctifying grace, by which those ordained may duly discharge their office.
The heretics of this time chiefly deny the character. For they will have the ecclesiastical ministry to be a simple office, which can be given and taken away; so that those who are ministers or pastors today become lay people tomorrow. Of this matter we have treated in the disputation on the sacraments in general; let two testimonies of the ancients suffice now.
Cyprian, in the sermon on the washing of the feet: “No one,” he says, “renews sacred Orders again,” and so on. Augustine, book 2 against the letter of Parmenian, chapter 13: “Each,” he says, “is a sacrament, and is given by a certain consecration: the one when a man is baptized, the other when he is ordained. Therefore in the Catholic Church it is not lawful to repeat either.” And in the book On the Good of Marriage, chapter 24: “If an ordination of clergy is made for gathering a people, even if the gathering of a people does not follow, yet the sacrament of Ordination remains in those ordained; and if anyone is removed from office for some fault, he will not be without the sacrament of the Lord once imposed, though it remain unto judgement.” And in the sermon on the proceedings with Emeritus he uses the very name of character, on account of which he says Ordination cannot be repeated. See also many decrees on this matter in Gratian, cause 1, question 7.
Chapter 11. On the Minister
Of the minister of ordination we have treated in the disputation on the sacraments in general. But the matter is clear, since the Church has never acknowledged presbyters or deacons except those ordained by bishops. See the Council of Ancyra, canon 12; of Antioch, canon 10; Epiphanius, heresy 75; Damasus, letter 4; Jerome, letter 85, to Evagrius; Chrysostom, Theodoret and others on chapters 3 and 4 of the first to Timothy.
Chapter 12. On the Ceremonies
There are two ceremonies which the adversaries find fault with, namely the anointing and the tonsure; whence in contempt they call Catholic priests the anointed and the shaven. But of the tonsure we have treated in the disputation on clerics: for although it is a ceremony of priests, yet it is not done in the priestly consecration itself, of which we now treat.
But the anointing is a truly sacramental ceremony, though accidental; for in the ordination itself the head is anointed in bishops and the hands in presbyters. Of this ceremony Chemnitz says, in the second part of the Examination, page 1171 and following: first, that Christ and the apostles did not use it; second, that no example of it exists in ecclesiastical history; third, that Ambrose and the other Fathers did not mention it, if we except the spurious books of Cyprian and Anacletus; fourth, that in the Greek Church this anointing was not received until the year 1200, nay that it even displeased the ancients, as is gathered from Innocent III, in the chapter Cum venisset, on sacred unction; fifth, that it is a Jewish rite, and so no more to be used than the sacrifices of sheep and oxen; which last he took from Calvin, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 19, sections 30 and 31.
I answer that all these things are lies. For as regards the examples of Christ and the apostles, Chemnitz does not prove that they did not use anointing; but we can prove the contrary. For Dionysius, chapter 4 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, says that the bishop uses the sacred oil in almost every episcopal consecration, and that this was handed down by the apostles; and it is certain that one, and the chief and most frequent, of the episcopal consecrations is the Ordination of priests.
Then: what he adds about ecclesiastical history is an express lie. For in book 10 of the History of Eusebius, chapter 4, according to the Greek text, there is open mention of priestly anointing. Likewise Symeon Metaphrastes, in the Life of St. John Chrysostom, which is had in tome 1 of Surius, writes that he was anointed when he was made bishop of Constantinople; and Peter Chrysologus, in the sermon on St. Severus, relates that he was anointed when he was ordained bishop of Ravenna.
Third: what Chemnitz writes about the Fathers is also a lie. For Pacian, a contemporary of Ambrose, in letter 3 to Sympronian: “Whence,” he says, “has your people the Spirit, which no anointed priest signs?” Likewise Gregory, book 4 on the books of Kings, chapter 5, says much of this anointing of priests. To whom I add, whether Chemnitz will or not, the author of the Cardinal Works of Christ, in the sermon on the Chrism; for although that author is not Cyprian, yet he is by the consent of all an ancient and learned author.
Fourth: it is a lie that in the Greek Church there was no use of anointing until the year 1200. For the testimonies brought forward of Dionysius, Eusebius and Metaphrastes teach the contrary. Nor does Innocent oppose them; for he only reproves the Greeks of his own time because they neglected this ceremony, and does not say that the rite displeased the ancients. For those words, “The Church does not judaize, as the ancients lie, who knew neither the Scriptures nor the power of God,” are without doubt corruptly read, and in place of “the ancients” we must read “some”; for he would not so absolutely reprove the ancients, especially since he himself proves his opinion from the ancients.
Lastly, what Calvin and Chemnitz say, that it is Judaism to use anointing, has often been refuted by us. For it is not Judaism to use things which the Jews used, if it be done with another form of words, and another rite, and for another end; otherwise it would also be Judaism to use water in Baptism and bread in the Eucharist, since the Jews also had the waters of expiation and the loaves of proposition.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT X.
De effeclu hujus sacramenti.
Jam vero de effcclu convenit inler calholicos ,
duplicern esse cffeclum hujus sacramenli. Primo.
poleslalem spirilualem perpeluam,in cujus signuin
imprimilur character. Secundo , gratiam gralum
facienlem, qua possinl ordinali rile fungi suo mu-
nere.
Ilacrelici hnjus temporis,characlerem praecipue
negant. Volunt enim minisleriura ecclcsiasticum
esse simplox officium, quod possit dari et auferri;
proinde cras fieri laicos, qui sunt hodie ministri ,
vel pastores. De qua re disseruimus in disputalio-
ne de sacraraenlis in genere, sufTiciant nunc duo
teslimonia velcrum.
Cyprianus in scrra. de ablutione pedum: Nemo,
LIBEU PIUMUS
773
iiiquit, sacros Ordines ilerum renoval etc. Aiigu-
slinus lib. 2. conlr.i episl. Pnrmeniani, cap. 13.
mrumque, in(|iiil. sacramcnlwii esl . et quadam
consecralione datur: illud cum baplizalur, istud
cum ordinalur.Idco in Ecclesia calholica utrum-
quenon licetiterare; c[ lib. d(3 bono conjuiiaii,
cap. 24. Si fial, in^inil. ordinatio cleri ad plel^em
confjregandam, etiamsi plebis congreqatio noti
subscqualv.r . manct tamen in iltis ordinatis sa-
cramenlum Ordinationis, et si aliqua culpa quis-
que ab olficio removeatur . sacramcnto Domini
semel imposilo non carcbil.quamvis adjudicium
permanente. In sermone aulcm de geslis cum E-
merilo, i|jsnrn eliani nomen characleris ponil. ob
queni dicil non posse ilerari Ordinalionem. Vide
etiam mulla decrela de hac re, apud Gralianum, 1.
quaesl. 7.
r.vpuT XI.
De ministro.
De minislro ordinalionis disseruimus in disputa-
tione de sacramenlis in genere. Res aulem perspi-
cua esl, cum numquam Ecciesia agnoveril presby-
teros, vei diaconos, nisi ab episcopis ordinalos.
Vide concilium ancyranum. can. 12. anlioche-
num, can. 10. Epiplianium haer. 73. Damasutn e-
pist. 4. Ilieronymum in epist. 85. ad Evagrium,
Clirysostomum, Tlieodoreluin , el alios in 3. el 4.
caput prioris ad Timotheum.
CAPUT XII.
Dc caeremonis.
Duae sunt caeremoniae, quas advcrsarii repre-
heiuiunl, vid(!licet unclio el rasuraiunde per con-
tcmptum vocanl calholicos saccrdolf^s. unclos et
rasos. Sed de rasiira disseruimus in dispulalione
de clericis: ilia cnim ctsi cst cacremonia sacerdo-
tuin, non lamen fit in ipsa consccratione sacerdo-
lali, de qua modo agimus.
Unctio autcm esl caeremonia vere sacramcnlalis
quamquam accidentaria: siquidein in ipsa ordina-
lionc ungiltir capiit episcopis el inanus [)resbytcris.
De liac caeremonia dicil Kemnilius in 2. par.<'-
xaminis, pag. 1171. et sequcnli. Primo, Ciirisluin
el aposlolos ca usos non fuisse. Sccundojn liislo-
ria ecclesiastica nulliim cxslarc cxcmplum. Tertio,
Ambrosium cl alios Palros cjus iion intuninisse ;
si excipiamus supposilitios libros Cy[)riani el Ana-
cleti. Quarto, iti Ecclcsia gracca non fuissc rccc-
plani islam unclion(!m,us(|ue ad ai)tniin 120().iinmo
eliani aiiti([iiis displicuisse, ut colligilur cx Inno-
centio III. cap. Cum venisset, de sacra Unclione.
Qtiiiito, rilum csse judaicum, proinde non magis
usurpandum , quam sacrificia ovium et boum :
quod ultimum accepit ev Calvino, lib. 4.1nslilut.
cap. 19. § 30. cl 31.
Uespondco: Isla omnia csse mcndacia.INam quod
atlinct ad cxcmpla Cliristi et apostoloruni, Rcin-
nitius non probat cos non fuisse usos unctione ;
nos aulcm conlrarium probarc possumus. Nam
Dionysius,cap.4.liierarchiae ecclcsiast. dicit: Pon-
tifioem uli sacro oleo in orani ferc consecrationc
pontificali. idquc Iraditum csse ab apostolis: con-
stel aulem unam ct praecipuam et frcquentis-
simam ex ponlificalibus consecralionibus, esse
Ordinaliones sacerdotum.
Deinde: Quod addit dc hisloria ecclcsiaslica, est
expressum mcndacium, Nam lib. 1j). hislor. Euse-
hii, cap. 4. sccundum graecam fidem, fil aperta
racntio unclionis sacerdotalis. Item Simeon Mela-
phrasles in vita sancli Joannis chrysostomi, quac
habelur in tom. l.Surii,scribit eum inunclum luis-
se, cum cpiscopus fierct constantinopolitanus; el
Petrus chrysologus in scrinonc de sancto Sevcro,
refert cum inunclum , cum ordinarctur episco-
pus Ravennae.
Tertio: Quod scribit Remnitius dc Palribus, est
etiam mendacium. Nam Pacianus Ambrosii acqua-
lis, in cpist. 3. ad Sympronianum: IHcbi vestrae ,
inquit, unde Spiritus. quam non consignat un-
cfas sacercios.'* Ilein Gregorius, lib. 4. in libros
Regum, cap. 5. inulla dicil de isla unclione saccr-
dolum. Quibus addo, velit nolil Remnilius, aucto-
rctn de operibus cardinalibus Cliristi, in serinonft
de Chrismale: clsi cnim is auctor non cst Cypria-
nus, est tamen auctor omnium consensu antiquus
et doctus.
Quarto: Mendacium csl, in Ecclcsia gracca noii
fuisse usum unctionis,usquc ad annuin 1200. Con-
trarium cnim docenl lcstimonia allala Dionysii,Eu-
scbii, Mclaphraslae. Ncque Iniioccntius iis rcpu-
gnat, solum cnim rcprehendit Graecos sui tempo-
ris,quod hanc caercmoniam negligerent: neqiic di-
cil, antiquis cum ritum displicuissc. Illa cnitn ver-
ha: Nonjudaizal Ecclesia,sicut anliquimentiun-
tur, qui neque Scripluras, nequc Dei novcrc rir-
lutcm; sine dubio corruptc higuntur, cl [)ro [anli-
qui) Icgcndum c<,[{aliqui) nec cniin ila absolutc
repreliendcret antiqtios, |)raeserlim cum ipse cx
anliqi]is suam stinfciitiam prohel.
Dcniquc quod Calvinus ct Remnilius dicunl:Ju-
daismiim esse, uli unctione, saepi; a nobis refuta-
tum cst. Non cnim csl judaismus, uti robus qui-
bus ulcbantur Jii(laei,si id fiat ctim alia forma ver-
borutn, ctalio nlu, alquc ad alitim fineni; alioqui
cliam judaisintis csset, uti aqua in naplistno;el pa-
ne in Eucliaristia, cum ctiam Judac habucrinl a-
quas cxi»ialionis ct pancs proposilionis.
BfLLlKVll.Xl \'ul. ill.
Utf