|
Objection 1: It would seem that order is improperly defined by the
Master (Sent. iv, D, 53), where it is said "Order is a seal
of the Church, whereby spiritual power is conferred on the person
ordained." For a part should not be described as the genus of the
whole. Now the character which is denoted by the seal in a subsequent
definition is a part of order, since it is placed in contradistinction
with that which is either reality only, or sacrament only, since it is
both reality and sacrament. Therefore seal should not be mentioned as
the genus of Order.
Objection 2: Further, just as a character is imprinted in the
sacrament of order, so is it in the sacrament of Baptism. Now
character was not mentioned in the definition of Baptism. Therefore
neither should it be mentioned in the definition of Order.
Objection 3: Further, in Baptism there is also given a certain
spiritual power to approach the sacraments; and again it is a seal,
since it is a sacrament. Therefore this definition is applicable to
Baptism; and consequently it is improperly applied to Order.
Objection 4: Further, Order is a kind of relation, and relation
is realized in both its terms. Now the terms of the relation of order
are the superior and the inferior. Therefore inferiors have order as
well as superiors. Yet there is no power of preeminence in them, such
as is mentioned here in the definition of Order, as appears from the
subsequent explanation (Sent. iv, D, 53), where promotion to
power is mentioned. Therefore Order is improperly defined there.
I answer that, The Master's definition of Order applies to Order
as a sacrament of the Church. Hence he mentions two things, namely
the outward sign, a "kind of seal," i.e. a kind of sign, and the
inward effect, "whereby spiritual power," etc.
Reply to Objection 1: Seal stands here, not for the inward
character, but for the outward action, which is the sign and cause of
inward power; and this is also the sense of character in the other
definition. If, however, it be taken for the inward character, the
definition would not be unsuitable; because the division of a sacrament
into those three things is not a division into integral parts, properly
speaking; since what is reality only is not essential to the
sacrament, and that which is the sacrament is transitory; while that
which is sacrament and reality is said to remain. Wherefore it follows
that inward character itself is essentially and principally the
sacrament of Order.
Reply to Objection 2: Although in Baptism there is conferred a
spiritual power to receive the other sacraments, for which reason it
imprints a character, nevertheless this is not its principal effect,
but the inward cleansing; wherefore Baptism would be given even though
the former motive did not exist. On the other hand, order denotes
power principally. Wherefore the character which is a spiritual power
is included in the definition of Order, but not in that of Baptism.
Reply to Objection 3: In Baptism there is given a certain
spiritual potentiality to receive, and consequently a somewhat passive
potentiality. But power properly denotes active potentiality,
together with some kind of preeminence. Hence this definition is not
applicable to Baptism.
Reply to Objection 4: The word "order" is used in two ways. For
sometimes it denotes the relation itself, and thus it is both in the
inferior and in the superior, as the objection states; but it is not
thus that we use the word here. On the other hand, it denotes the
degree which results in the order taken in the first sense. And since
the notion of order as relation is observed where we first meet with
something higher than another, it follows that this degree of
pre-eminence by spiritual power is called Order.
|
|