|
Objection 1: It would seem that heretics and those who are cut off
from the Church cannot confer Orders. For to confer Orders is a
greater thing than to loose or bind anyone. But a heretic cannot loose
or bind. Neither therefore can he ordain.
Objection 2: Further, a priest that is separated from the Church
can consecrate, because the character whence he derives this power
remains in him indelibly. But a bishop receives no character when he
is raised to the episcopate. Therefore he does not necessarily retain
the episcopal power after his separation from the Church.
Objection 3: Further, in no community can one who is expelled
therefrom dispose of the offices of the community. Now Orders are
offices of the Church. Therefore one who is outside the Church
cannot confer Orders.
Objection 4: Further, the sacraments derive their efficacy from
Christ's passion. Now a heretic is not united to Christ's
passion; neither by his own faith, since he is an unbeliever, nor by
the faith of the Church, since he is severed from the Church.
Therefore he cannot confer the sacrament of Orders.
Objection 5: Further, a blessing is necessary in the conferring of
Orders. But a heretic cannot bless; in fact his blessing is turned
into a curse, as appears from the authorities quoted in the text
(Sent. iv, D, 25). Therefore he cannot ordain.
On the contrary, When a bishop who has fallen into heresy is
reconciled he is not reconsecrated. Therefore he did not lose the
power which he had of conferring Orders.
Further, the power to ordain is greater than the power of Orders.
But the power of Orders is not forfeited on account of heresy and the
like. Neither therefore is the power to ordain.
Further, as the one who baptizes exercises a merely outward ministry,
so does one who ordains, while God works inwardly. But one who is
cut off from the Church by no means loses the power to baptize.
Neither therefore does he lose the power to ordain.
I answer that, on this question four opinions are mentioned in the
text (Sent. iv, D, 25). For some said that heretics, so long
as they are tolerated by the Church, retain the power to ordain, but
not after they have been cut off from the Church; as neither do those
who have been degraded and the like. This is the first opinion. Yet
this is impossible, because, happen what may, no power that is given
with a consecration can be taken away so long as the thing itself
remains, any more than the consecration itself can be annulled, for
even an altar or chrism once consecrated remains consecrated for ever.
Wherefore, since the episcopal power is conferred by consecration, it
must needs endure for ever, however much a man may sin or be cut off
from the Church. For this reason others said that those who are cut
off from the Church after having episcopal power in the Church,
retain the power to ordain and raise others, but that those who are
raised by them have not this power. This is the fourth opinion. But
this again is impossible, for if those who were ordained in the Church
retain the power they received, it is clear that by exercising their
power they consecrate validly, and therefore they validly confer
whatever power is given with that consecration, and thus those who
receive ordination or promotion from them have the same power as they.
Wherefore others said that even those who are cut off from the Church
can confer Orders and the other sacraments, provided they observe the
due form and intention, both as to the first effect, which is the
conferring of the sacrament, and as to the ultimate effect which is the
conferring of grace. This is the second opinion. But this again is
inadmissible, since by the very fact that a person communicates in the
sacraments with a heretic who is cut off from the Church, he sins,
and thus approaches the sacrament insincerely and cannot obtain grace,
except perhaps in Baptism in a case of necessity. Hence others say
that they confer the sacraments validly, but do not confer grace with
them, not that the sacraments are lacking in efficacy, but on account
of the sins of those who receive the sacraments from such persons
despite the prohibition of the Church. This is the third and the true
opinion.
Reply to Objection 1: The effect of absolution is nothing else but
the forgiveness of sins which results from grace, and consequently a
heretic cannot absolve, as neither can he confer grace in the
sacraments. Moreover in order to give absolution it is necessary to
have jurisdiction, which one who is cut off from the Church has not.
Reply to Objection 2: When a man is raised to the episcopate he
receives a power which he retains for ever. This, however, cannot be
called a character, because a man is not thereby placed in direct
relation to God, but to Christ's mystical body. Nevertheless it
remains indelibly even as the character, because it is given by
consecration.
Reply to Objection 3: Those who are ordained by heretics, although
they receive an Order, do not receive the exercise thereof, so as to
minister lawfully in their Orders, for the very reason indicated in
the Objection.
Reply to Objection 4: They are united to the passion of Christ by
the faith of the Church, for although in themselves they are severed
from it, they are united to it as regards the form of the Church which
they observe.
Reply to Objection 5: This refers to the ultimate effect of the
sacraments, as the third opinion maintains.
|
|