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].