101 occurrences of therefore etc in this volume.
[Clear Hits]

SUBSCRIBER:


past masters commons

Annotation Guide:

cover
The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus
cover
Ordinatio. Book 4. Distinctions 14 - 42.
Book Four. Distinctions 14 - 42
Twenty Fifth Distinction
Question One. Whether Canonical Penalty Impedes Reception and Conferring of Orders
II. To the Initial Arguments

II. To the Initial Arguments

A. To the Arguments of the First Part

57. As to the first argument [n.3], it can be conceded as to the first five penalties; but if, as to the sixth penalty, it be held that a deposed bishop is simply not a bishop, then as to that case the likeness in consequence is simply to be denied, because the character of priest is not taken away, nor consequently priesthood as it is episcopacy.

58. As to the next [n.4], intention does not suffice if there is not a suitable minister, a minister of the sort who is not deposed according to this opinion [nn.14-15].

59. As to the third [n.5], the case is not similar, because penitence is a general sacrament and therefore no one is excluded from it, either in fact or in law. The other sacraments, which include something of excellence, can well be denied to someone because of a transgression exacting it. As to the point about heresy [n.5], the point is true; it does not exclude in fact, but it does exclude in law if also such a one has not been condemned. But if he has been cut off and condemned by the Church he does not confer orders, provided episcopacy is not an order and could simply be taken away - as they would have to reply who hold episcopacy not be an order but a certain dignity added to orders, which dignity has regard rather to jurisdiction [d.24 n.30].

B. To the Arguments for the Opposite

60. As to the first argument for the opposite [n.6], I concede that the ordination of a simoniac is invalid as to execution, but he does receive order, and therefore he only needs it that his suspension be relaxed.

61. As to the second [n.7], the consequence does not hold, because it is given to a minister of the Church to be minister in conferring, not in taking away.

62. As to the third [n.8], it will be touched on below what the way is that the Church can make persons illegitimate and can thus make them unfitted so that they not be suitable for contracting marriage [Ord. IV d.37, q.1]. But here, from the fact that a character is conferred, there is no like power in taking it away.

63. And when the argument is made that that [marriage] is more according to the law of nature than this [ordination through a bishop], it is true in that a contracted marriage is ratified, but not that every person, notwithstanding any impediment, can contract the marriage. For it is more of the law of nature that what God impresses on nature, which is not repugnant to sin (either formally or to it as demeritorious cause), perpetually remain in the soul than that any man or any woman be fit to contract marriage. And therefore any unfitness of persons for this act [of marriage] is not as contrary to the law of nature as is a character impressed on someone being destroyed.