|
Objection 1: It would seem that there ought not to be an episcopal
power above the priestly Order. For as stated in the text (Sent.
iv, D, 24) "the priestly Order originated from Aaron." Now
in the Old Law there was no one above Aaron. Therefore neither in
the New Law ought there to be any power above that of the priests.
Objection 2: Further, powers rank according to acts. Now no
sacred act can be greater than to consecrate the body of Christ,
whereunto the priestly power is directed. Therefore there should not
be an episcopal above the priestly power.
Objection 3: Further, the priest, in offering, represents Christ
in the Church, Who offered Himself for us to the Father. Now no
one is above Christ in the Church, since He is the Head of the
Church. Therefore there should not be an episcopal above the priestly
power.
On the contrary, A power is so much the higher according as it
extends to more things. Now the priestly power, according to
Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v), extends only to cleansing and
enlightening, whereas the episcopal power extends both to this and to
perfecting. Therefore the episcopal should be above the priestly
power.
Further, the Divine ministries should be more orderly than human
ministries. Now the order of human ministries requires that in each
office there should be one person to preside, just as a general is
placed over soldiers. Therefore there should also be appointed over
priests one who is the chief priest, and this is the bishop.
Therefore the episcopal should be above the priestly power.
I answer that, A priest has two acts: one is the principal, namely
to consecrate the body of Christ. the other is secondary, namely to
prepare God's people for the reception of this sacrament, as stated
above (Question 37, Articles 2,4). As regards the first
act, the priest's power does not depend on a higher power save
God's; but as to the second, it depends on a higher and that a human
power. For every power that cannot exercise its act without certain
ordinances, depends on the power that makes those ordinances. Now a
priest cannot loose and bind, except we presuppose him to have the
jurisdiction of authority, whereby those whom he absolves are subject
to him. But he can consecrate any matter determined by Christ, nor
is anything else required for the validity of the sacrament; although,
on account of a certain congruousness, the act of the bishop is
pre-required in the consecration of the altar, vestments, and so
forth. Hence it is clear that it behooves the episcopal to be above
the priestly power, as regards the priest's secondary act, but not as
regards his primary act.
Reply to Objection 1: Aaron was both priest and pontiff, that is
chief priest. Accordingly the priestly power originated from him, in
so far as he was a priest offering sacrifices, which was lawful even to
the lesser priests; but it does not originate from him as pontiff, by
which power he was able to do certain things; for instance, to enter
once a year the Holy of Holies, which it was unlawful for the other
priests to do.
Reply to Objection 2: There is no higher power with regard to this
act, but with regard to another, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 3: Just as the perfections of all natural things
pre-exist in God as their exemplar, so was Christ the exemplar of
all ecclesiastical offices. Wherefore each minister of the Church
is, in some respect, a copy of Christ, as stated in the text
(Sent. iv, D, 24). Yet he is the higher who represents
Christ according to a greater perfection. Now a priest represents
Christ in that He fulfilled a certain ministry by Himself, whereas a
bishop represents Him in that He instituted other ministers and
founded the Church. Hence it belongs to a bishop to dedicate a thing
to the Divine offices, as establishing the Divine worship after the
manner of Christ. For this reason also a bishop is especially called
the bridegroom of the Church even as Christ is.
|
|