Distinction 25: On Those Ordained by Heretics and Simoniacs
Distinctio Vigesima Quinta: De Ordinatis ab Haereticis et Simoniacis
Peter LombardDISTINCTIO XXV
256 Solet quaeri, si haeretici ab Ecclesia praecisi et damnati ad unitatem redeuntes possint sacros ordines tradere, et si ab eis ordinati, redeuntes ad Ecclesiae unitatem, debeant reordinari. Hanc quaestionem perplexam ac pene insolubilem faciunt doctorum verba, qui plurimum dissentire videntur. Videntur enim quidam haereticos sacros ordines dare non posse, nec illos qui ab eis ordinati videntur, gratiam recipere.
Dicit enim Innocentius: « Arianorum clericos non videri suscipiendos cum sacerdotii vel ministerii alicuius dignitate; quibus solum baptisma ratum esse permittit, quod in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti percipitur ». Dicit etiam, eos « non posse dare Spiritum sanctum, quem amiserunt »; et « ordinatos ab haereticis caput habere vulneratum; et eum qui honorem amiserit, honorem dare non posse, nec illum aliquid accepisse, quoniam in dante nihil erat, quod ille posset accipere ». Tradit etiam, « venientibus ab haereticis per manus impositionem laicam tantum tribuendam communionem, nec ex his aliquem in clericatus honorem vel exiguum subrogare ».
Gregorius etiam dicit, sacrilegam esse Arianorum consecrationem, cum ex eorum manu communio percipitur.
Cyprianus etiam dicit, omnia quaecumque faciunt haeretici, carnalia, inania et sacrilega esse, et eorum « altaria falsa et illicita, sacerdotia et sacrificia sacrilega », qui « more simiarum, quae cum sint homines non sint, formam imitantur humanam, vultum Ecclesiae catholicae et auctoritatem sibi vindicant, cum ipsi in Ecclesia non sint »; et cum sint sacrilegi, sacerdotium administrant et altare ponunt, cum nec sacrificari oblatio illic possit, nec Spiritus sanctus non sit, nec cuiquam Dominus per eius preces et orationes prosit, qui Deum ipse violavit.
Hieronymus quoque asserit, « omnia quae offeruntur ab haereticis, contaminata esse in conspectu Domini; quia, licet sancta videantur specie sui, tamen, qui contacta sunt ab illo qui pollutus est, polluuntur omnia ».
Idem: « Odit Deus sacrificia haereticorum et a se proiicit; et quoties in nomine eius congregati fuerint, detestatur foetorem eorum et claudit nares suas ».
Idem: « Illi offerunt panem sacrilegum », etc.
Leo testatur, « extra Ecclesiam nec rata esse sacerdotia, nec vera esse sacrificia ».
Idem etiam dicit: « Per crudelissimam vesaniam in Alexandrina sede omnium Sacramentorum lumen exstinctum: intercepa est sacrificii oblatio, defecit chrismatis sanctificatio et parricidialibus manibus impiorum omnia se subtraxere mysteria ».
His aliisque testimoniis astrui videtur, Sacramenta ecclesiastica, praecipue corporis et sanguinis, ordinationis et confirmationis, per haereticos non posse ministrari.
Econtra videntur alii sentire, quod ab haereticis etiam praecisis sacri ordines, sicut et baptismus, tradi valeant; nec ab haereticis redeuntes, qui illic ordinati sunt et baptizati, iterum ordinandi sunt, sicut nec baptizandi.
Unde Augustinus: « De haereticis etiam damnatis quod quidam dicunt: "baptisma quod accepit non amittit qui recedit ab Ecclesia; ius dandi quod accepit amittit", multis modis apparet inaniter dici: primo quia nulla ostenditur causa, cur ille qui illud baptisma amittere non potest, ius dandi possit amittere. Utrumque enim Sacramentum est, et quadam consecratione utrumque homini datur, illud, cum baptizatur, et illud, cum ordinatur. Ideo non licet in catholica Ecclesia utrumque iterari. Nam si quando ex ipsa parte venientes, etiam praepositi, pro bono pacis, correcto schismatis errore, suscepti sunt, et si visum est opus esse, ut eadem officia gererent quae agebant, non sunt rursus ordinandi; sed sicut baptismus in eis ita ordinatio mansit integra,
quia in praecisione fuerat vitium, quod unitate pacis est correctum, non in Sacramentis, quae, ubicumque sunt, ipsa sunt. Et cum ipsi expedire videtur Ecclesiae, ut praepositi eorum, venientes ad catholicam societatem, honores suos ibi non administrent, non eis tamen ipsa ordinationis Sacramenta detrahuntur, sed super eos manent; ideoque non eis manus imponitur, ne non homini, sed ipsi Sacramento fiat iniuria. Sicut autem in baptismo est, quod per eos dari possit, sic in ordinatione ius dandi est: utrumque quidem ad perniciem suam. Sed aliud est non habere, aliud perniciose habere, aliud salubriler habere.
Idem: «De his qui ab unitate Ecclesiae separati sunt, nulla iam quaestio est, quin habeant et dare possint; sed perniciose habent pernicioseque dant, quia extra vinculum pacis sunt. Neutri Sacramento facienda est iniuria. Sicut non recte habet qui ab unitate recedit, sed tamen habet, et ideo reddenti non redditur; sic etiam non recte dat qui ab unitate recedit, sed tamen dat; et ideo qui ab eo accipit, venienti ad unitatem non iteratur».
Idem: «Aliud est non habere aliquid, aliud est non iure habere vel illicite usurpare. Non igitur ideo non sunt Sacramenta Christi et Ecclesiae, quia eis illicite utantur non modo haeretici, sed etiam omnes impii; sed illi corrigendi sunt et puniendi, illa autem agnoscenda et veneranda».
Item Gregorius: «Quod dicitis, ut qui ordinati sunt iterum ordinentur, ridiculosum valde est. Ut enim baptizatus semel, iterum baptizari non debet, ita qui consecratus est semel, in eodem ordine non valet iterum consecrari».
His aliisque auctoritatibus videtur asseri, in omnibus impis, etiam in haereticis praecisis et damnatis, Christi Sacramenta permanere cum iure dandi: possunt enim dare, sed perniciose; et quibus dederint, non sunt iterum ordinandi. Quae praemissis ex opposito obviare videntur.
Haec autem quidam ita determinant. Dicunt enim, haereticos, accepta sacerdotali vel episcopali unctione, ab Ecclesia recedentes, baptismi quidem dandi ius retinere, sed non habere facultatem tribuendi sacros ordines, vel consecrandi dominicum corpus, postquam praecisi sunt et damnati ab Ecclesia; sicut degradatus episcopus non habet potestatem largiendi sacros ordines, facultatem tamen baptizandi non amisit.
Quod vero Augustinus ait, intelligunt de haereticis, qui non sententia Ecclesiae, sed pravitate sensus sui a fidei veritate ac doctrinae unitate divisi sunt; qui, licet tales sint, ius tamen consecrandi et ordinandi habent. Et qui ab eis ordinantur ante manifestam praecisionem, etiam si cum eis aperte exierint, et sententia Ecclesiae damnati fuerint, tamen si redierint, iterum ordinandi non sunt. Et ubicumque legitur de ordinatis ab haereticis, quod servatis eis ordinibus ministrare valeant, vel iterum ordinandi non sint, de huiusmodi accipiendum dicunt. Nam postquam praecisi fuerint et damnati iudicio Ecclesiae, ius ordinandi et consecrandi eis detractum asserunt, ut degradatis, vel excommunicatis.
Alii vero dicunt, Sacramenta ab haereticis et praecisis secundum formam Ecclesiae celebrata vera esse et rata, quia recedentes ab Ecclesia ius dandi et consecrandi non perdiderunt; et qui sic ab haereticis ordinantur, cum redeunt, iterum ordinandi non sunt. Quae vero ab haereticis aliter quam in Ecclesia fiunt, falsa sunt et inania; et qui a talibus ordinari videntur non munus, sed vulnus accipiunt. Et secundum hanc differentiam varie de his loquuntur doctores.
Quidam vero dicunt, eadem Sacramenta ab haereticis praecisis posse celebrari, quae a catholicis, si ab illis forma Ecclesiae servetur; et ab eis celebrata vera esse et rata quantum ad se, quantum vero ad effectum falsa et inania et in his qui male tractant, et in his qui male suscipiunt; ideo irrita et falsa, quia quod promittunt et conferre creduntur, non tribuunt; damnanda etiam dicuntur, quia illicite dantibus vel accipientibus sunt in iudicium; polluta etiam dicuntur, non quantum ad se, sed propter indignam
haereticorum tractationem. Ideo Gregorius communionem Arii vocat exsecrationem, et Innocentius, Bonosii ordinationem damnationem, non quod ita in se sint, sed quia male dantes vel accipientes tales facit; sicut etiam Hieronymus sacrificia eorum panem luctus vocat, non quantum ad se, sed quantum ad effectum.
Nonnulli vero tradunt, illos haereticos, qui in Ecclesia ordinati sunt, ius ordinandi et consecrandi, etiam cum separati fuerint, habere; qui vero, in schismate vel haeresi positi, ab eis ordinati et inuncti fuerint, illo iure carent, ideoque, cum ordinare volunt, vulnus potius infigunt, quam gratiam conferant.
De simoniacis vero non est ambigendum, quin sint haeretici, qui tamen ante sententiam degradationis ordinant et consecrant. Et licet simoniaci proprie dicantur qui in instar Simonis magi impretiabilem gratiam pretio conducere volunt; et qui pro ministerio sacro pretium recipiunt in modum Giezi, Giezitae vocandi sunt; omnes tamen et dantes et accipientes simoniaci dicuntur, et utrique eadem sententia percelluntur.
Differt tamen inter eos qui ordinantur a simoniacis scienter, et eos qui ignoranter.
«Qui enim scienter a simoniacis se permiserint consecrari, immo exsecrari, eorum consecratio omnino irrita est. Qui vero ordinantur a simoniacis, quos, cum ordinantur, nesciunt esse simoniacos, qui et tunc pro catholicis habentur, eorum ordinatio misericorditer sustinetur».
264 «Si vero aliqui obiecerint, se non consecrationes emere, sed ipsas res, quae ex consecratione proveniunt, penitus desipere probantur. Nam quisquis horum alterum vendit, sine quo alterum non habetur, neutrum vendere derelinquit ».
265 Simoniacae autem haeresis tripartita est distinctio. Alii enim simoniace a simoniacis ordinantur; alii simoniace a non simoniacis; alii non simoniace a simoniacis.
Unde Nicolaus Papa: «Statuimus decretum de simoniaca tripartita haeresi, id est de simoniacis simoniace ordinatoribus vel ordinatis, et de simoniacis simoniace a non simoniacis, et simoniace non simoniacis. Simoniaci simoniace ordinatores secundum canones a proprio gradu decidant; simoniaci etiam simoniace a non simoniacis ordinati similiter ab officio removeantur; simoniacos vero non simoniace a simoniacis ordinatos misericorditer per manus impositionem pro temporis necessitate in officio permittimus permanere». «Quod intelligendum est de his qui ordinantur a simoniacis, ignorantes eos esse simoniacos. Hos facit simoniacos non reatus criminis, sed ordinatio simonaci ».
Similiter, cum decernit Alexander, « simoniacos omnino damnandos ac deponendos », subintelligendum est: nisi violenter quis attractus fuerit. De his enim et a quibuslibet haereticis violenter ordinatis dicit Innocentius, quod possunt habere aliquem colorem excusationis, si statim discedunt ab eis, et pessimo eorum conciliabulo renuntiant ».
De aetate ordinandorum ita decrevit Nicolaus Papa: « Sa- cri, inquit, canones sanxerunt, ut subdiaconus non ordinetur ante quatuordecim annos, nec diaconus ante quinque, nec presbyter ante triginta. Deinde, si dignus fuerit, ad episcopatum elegi potest »; quod nos etiam pari modo servare iubemus.
Item Fabianus: « Si quis triginta aetatis annos non impleverit, nullo modo presbyter ordinetur, etiamsi valde sit dignus »; « quia et ipse Dominus triginta annorum baptizatus est, et sic coepit docere ».
DISTINCTION XXV
256 A question commonly arises: whether heretics who have been cut off and condemned by the Church can confer holy orders upon returning to unity, and whether those ordained by them ought to be re-ordained upon returning to the unity of the Church. The words of the Doctors, who seem to disagree considerably, render this question tangled and nearly insoluble. For some appear to hold that heretics cannot confer holy orders, and that those who seem to have been ordained by them receive no grace.
For Innocentius says that “the clerics of the Arians are not to be received with the dignity of the priesthood or any ministry; to them alone is baptism held valid, which is received in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” He also says that they “cannot give the Holy Spirit, whom they have lost”; and that “those ordained by heretics have their head wounded; and he who has lost his honor cannot confer honor, nor has the recipient received anything, since there was nothing in the giver that he could receive.” He further holds that “those coming from heretics are to be granted only lay communion by the imposition of hands, and that none of them is to be appointed to the honor of the clerical state, however minor.”
Gregorius also says that the consecration of the Arians is sacrilegious, when communion is received from their hand.
Cyprianus likewise says that all things whatsoever heretics do are carnal, empty, and sacrilegious, and that their “altars are false and unlawful, their priesthoods and sacrifices sacrilegious” — men who, “after the manner of apes, which, though they be men, are not men, and imitate human form, claim for themselves the appearance of the Catholic Church and its authority, while they themselves are not within the Church”; and though they are sacrilegious, they exercise a priesthood and set up an altar, although no oblation can be sacrificed there, nor is the Holy Spirit present, nor does the Lord profit anyone through the prayers and petitions of one who has himself violated God.
Hieronymus also affirms that “all things offered by heretics are defiled in the sight of the Lord; for though they may appear holy by their outward form, yet all things that have been touched by one who is polluted are themselves polluted.”
The same [Hieronymus]: “God abhors the sacrifices of heretics and casts them away from himself; and as often as they gather in his name, he detests their stench and stops his nostrils.”
The same: “They offer sacrilegious bread,” etc.
Leo attests that “outside the Church, priesthoods are not valid, nor are sacrifices true.”
The same says further: “Through the most savage madness, in the Alexandrian see the light of all the Sacraments has been extinguished: the offering of sacrifice has been cut off, the consecration of chrism has ceased, and all the mysteries have withdrawn themselves from the parricidal hands of the impious.”
From these and other testimonies it seems to be established that the ecclesiastical Sacraments — especially those of the body and blood [of Christ], of ordination, and of confirmation — cannot be administered by heretics.
On the other side, others seem to hold that sacred orders, like baptism, can be conferred even by heretics who have been cut off; and that those who return from heretics, having been ordained and baptized there, need not be ordained again, just as they need not be baptized again.
Hence Augustinus: “Concerning the view some hold about heretics who have been condemned — that ‘one who departs from the Church does not lose the baptism he received, but does lose the right to confer it that he received’ — this is shown in many ways to be an empty claim. First, because no reason is given why one who cannot lose that baptism should be able to lose the right to confer it. For both are Sacraments, and both are given to a person through a certain consecration: the one when he is baptized, the other when he is ordained. Therefore it is not permitted in the Catholic Church to repeat either of them. For if at any time those coming from that party, even leaders among them, were received for the sake of peace, with the error of schism corrected, and if it seemed needful that they should exercise the same offices they had held, they were not ordained again; but just as baptism remained in them, so ordination remained whole,
because the fault lay in the separation, which has been corrected by the unity of peace, not in the Sacraments themselves, which are the same wherever they exist. And when it seems expedient to the Church that their leaders, coming to Catholic fellowship, should not exercise their offices there, nonetheless the Sacraments of ordination themselves are not taken from them, but remain upon them; and therefore hands are not laid upon them again, lest the injury be done not to the man but to the Sacrament itself. Just as in baptism there is something that can be given through such persons, so in ordination there is the right of conferring: both indeed to their own destruction. But it is one thing not to have, another to have it to one’s destruction, and another to have it wholesomely.”
The same: “Concerning those who have been separated from the unity of the Church, there is now no question that they both have [the Sacraments] and can confer them; but they have them to their destruction and confer them to destruction, because they are outside the bond of peace. No injury is to be done to either Sacrament. Just as one who withdraws from unity does not rightly have it, yet nevertheless has it, and therefore it is not given back to him when he returns; so also one who withdraws from unity does not rightly confer it, yet nevertheless does confer it; and therefore what he has conferred upon one who comes to unity is not repeated.”
The same: “It is one thing not to have something, another to have it without right or to usurp it illicitly. The Sacraments of Christ and the Church are therefore not absent merely because not only heretics but all the wicked make illicit use of them; rather, those persons are to be corrected and punished, while those [Sacraments] are to be acknowledged and venerated.”
Likewise Gregorius: “What you say — that those who have been ordained should be ordained again — is quite ridiculous. For just as one who has been baptized once ought not to be baptized again, so one who has been consecrated once cannot validly be consecrated again in the same order.”
From these and other authorities it seems to be affirmed that the Sacraments of Christ remain in all the wicked, even in heretics who have been cut off and condemned, together with the right to confer them: for they are able to confer them, though to destruction; and those upon whom they have conferred them need not be ordained again. These authorities appear to stand in direct opposition to those cited before.
Some resolve these difficulties in the following way. They say that heretics who have received priestly or episcopal anointing and then departed from the Church retain the right to confer baptism, but do not have the capacity to confer holy orders or to consecrate the body of the Lord after they have been cut off and condemned by the Church — just as a bishop who has been degraded does not have the power to bestow holy orders, yet has not lost the ability to baptize.
What Augustinus says, they understand as referring to heretics who have been divided from the truth of the faith and the unity of doctrine not by sentence of the Church but by the depravity of their own opinion. Such persons, even though they are what they are, nevertheless retain the right to consecrate and to ordain. And those who are ordained by them before their explicit excommunication — even if those ordained openly departed with them and were condemned by sentence of the Church — need not be re-ordained upon their return. And wherever one reads that those ordained by heretics may minister with their orders preserved, or need not be re-ordained, these authorities, they say, are to be understood of persons in this category. For after heretics have been cut off and condemned by the judgment of the Church, they assert that the right to ordain and to consecrate has been taken from them, as from those who have been degraded or excommunicated.
Others, however, say that sacraments celebrated by heretics and excommunicates according to the form of the Church are true and valid, because those who depart from the Church have not lost the right to give and to consecrate; and those thus ordained by heretics need not be re-ordained when they return. But what heretics do otherwise than the Church does is false and empty; and those who appear to be ordained by such persons receive not a gift but a wound. It is according to this distinction that the doctors speak variously on these matters.
Some, however, say that the same sacraments that Catholics celebrate can be celebrated by heretics who have been cut off, provided those heretics observe the form of the Church; and that what is celebrated by them is true and valid in itself, but false and empty for those who handle them wickedly and for those who receive them wickedly — void and false, that is, because they do not bestow what they promise and are believed to confer; to be condemned as well, because they serve as judgment upon those who give or receive them illicitly; and called polluted, not in themselves, but on account of the unworthy
handling of them by heretics. It is for this reason that Gregorius calls the communion of Arius an execration, and Innocentius calls the ordination of Bonosus a condemnation — not because they are such in themselves, but because they render those who give or receive them thus; just as Hieronymus calls their sacrifices the bread of mourning, not with respect to what they are in themselves, but with respect to their effect.
Still others hold that those heretics who were ordained within the Church retain the right to ordain and to consecrate even after they have been separated from it; but those ordained and anointed by such persons while they were already in schism or heresy lack that right, and therefore, when they attempt to ordain, they inflict a wound rather than confer grace.
Concerning Simoniacs, however, there is no doubt that they are heretics; yet they do ordain and consecrate before the sentence of degradation has been passed. And although in the strict sense Simoniacs are those who, after the manner of Simon Magus, wish to purchase with money the grace that is beyond price, and those who receive payment for sacred ministry in the manner of Gehazi are to be called Gehazites, nevertheless all — both those who give and those who receive — are called Simoniacs, and both are struck by the same sentence.
There is, however, a difference between those who knowingly allow themselves to be ordained by Simoniacs and those who do so in ignorance.
“Those who have knowingly allowed themselves to be consecrated — or rather, execrated — by Simoniacs: their consecration is altogether null and void. But those who are ordained by Simoniacs without knowing at the time of their ordination that they are Simoniacs, and who were at that time regarded as Catholics, their ordination is mercifully upheld.”
264 “If some object that they are not purchasing the consecrations themselves, but the very things that proceed from consecration, they are shown to be utterly foolish. For whoever sells either of these — without which the other cannot be had — does not cease to sell them both.”
265 The Simoniac heresy admits of a threefold distinction. For some are ordained simoniacally by Simoniacs; others simoniacally by non-Simoniacs; and others non-simoniacally by Simoniacs.
Hence Pope Nicolaus [declares]: “We establish a decree concerning the Simoniac heresy in its three forms — that is, concerning Simoniac ordainers and ordinands acting simoniacally, concerning those ordained simoniacally by non-Simoniacs, and concerning non-Simoniacs ordained simoniacally by Simoniacs. Simoniac ordainers who act simoniacally are to be deposed from their rank according to the canons; those likewise ordained simoniacally by non-Simoniacs are similarly to be removed from office; but those who are not Simoniacs and have been ordained by Simoniacs without simony, we permit out of mercy, and in view of the needs of the time, to remain in office through the laying on of hands.” “This is to be understood of those who are ordained by Simoniacs without knowing them to be Simoniacs. What makes them Simoniacs is not guilt of the crime, but the ordination of a Simoniac.”
Likewise, where Alexander decrees “that Simoniacs are to be utterly condemned and deposed,” it must be understood with the qualification: unless someone was forcibly drawn in. For concerning these [ordained under compulsion by Simoniacs], and those violently ordained by any heretics whatsoever, Innocentius says that they may have some color of excuse, provided they depart from them at once and renounce their wicked assembly.
Concerning the age of those to be ordained, Pope Nicolaus decreed as follows: “The sacred canons have established,” he says, “that a subdeacon is not to be ordained before the age of fourteen, nor a deacon before [twenty-]five, nor a priest before thirty. Thereafter, if he shall be found worthy, he may be elected to the episcopate” — which we likewise command to be observed in the same manner.
Likewise Fabianus [declares]: “If anyone shall not have completed thirty years of age, he is by no means to be ordained a priest, even if he be very worthy” — “because the Lord himself was baptized at thirty years of age, and thus began to teach.”