Summa de Ecclesia

It is easy to answer these objections if we attend to the two points explained above, namely in what the perfection of the spiritual life principally consists, and what is implied in the notion of state. To the arguments to the contrary, therefore, it must be said.

¹

To the first I answer that renunciation of one's own resources can be considered in two ways. In one way according as it exists in act, and thus the assumption is denied; for we say that actual renunciation of riches does not essentially pertain to the perfection of the spiritual life, although it is a certain instrument of perfection. Hence it is read that the Lord said to Abraham, possessing many riches, in Gen. 17: Walk before me and be perfect. And therefore nothing prevents the state of perfection from existing without actual renunciation of one's own. The same must be said of the other outward observances concerning which God, handing down lessons of perfection, says in Matt. 5: If someone strike you on the right cheek, offer him the other also, and to him who wishes to contend with you in judgment and take your tunic, release to him your cloak also, etc. which the perfect are not bound to fulfill always in act; otherwise God would have fallen short of this perfection when, a slap having been received on one cheek, he did not offer the other but said: If I have spoken evil, bear testimony of the evil, in John 18. So neither did Paul, who when struck on the cheek did not offer it but said: God shall strike you, whited wall, in Acts 23. It is therefore not of the necessity of perfection that these works be fulfilled, but they are to be understood according to readiness of mind, as Augustine says in the book On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount. In another way, then, renunciation of riches can be considered according to readiness of mind, namely that a man be prepared, if need be, to leave or distribute all things and to do the other things spoken of, whenever there shall be need, and this pertains directly to perfection. Hence Aug. says in book 83 of the Questions, as found in ch. Quod dicitur, dist. 41, where Aug. says thus: that God says in the Gospel, Wisdom is justified by all her children, the Lord shows that the children of wisdom understand justice to be neither in abstaining nor in eating, but in bearing want with equanimity. Hence the Apostle also says: I know how to abound and to suffer need. To this bishops are especially bound, that they despise all their goods for the love of God and the salvation of their flock when need be, whether by bestowing liberally on the poor of their flock or by bearing the plundering of their goods with joy.

²

To the second reason I answer by denying the consequence, and the reason is that in the state of episcopal dignity a certain sublimity of rank is understood, since the bishop is set over others, according to Matt. 2: Faithful servant and wise, whom the Lord has set over his household. To crave this loftiness, however, is not licit, since it seems presumptuous. Hence the Lord in Matt. 22 rebuked the disciples seeking primacy, saying: You know that the princes of the Gentiles rule over them, where Chrysog. says: By this he shows that to crave primacy is heathen, and so by comparison with the Gentiles turns their seething mind. And to the proof of the consequence I answer by denying that it is praiseworthy to desire every state of perfection. As to what was adduced concerning the religious state and the episcopal state, the difference is for two reasons, as St Thomas says in II-II, q. 175. First, because for the episcopal state perfection of life is presupposed, as is clear from the fact that God asked of Peter whether he loved him more than the rest before committing to him the pastoral office. But for the religious state perfection is not presupposed; but the way into perfection. Hence the Lord in Matt. 19 did not say: If you are perfect, go and sell all that you have, but: If you will be perfect; and the reason for this difference is that, according to Dionysius, perfection belongs actively to the bishop, as to a perfector, but to the monk passively, as to one perfected. It is required that one be perfect in order to lead others to perfection, which is not presupposed in one who must be led to perfection. It is presumptuous for one to reckon himself perfect, but not to tend toward perfection. Second, the reason is not the same for the religious state and episcopal dignity, because those who assume the religious state subject themselves to others for receiving spiritual things, which is open to anyone, but he who passes to the episcopal state is raised to this, that he provide for others, and this it is not licit to desire. Hence Chrysog. on Matt. says: To crave primacy in the Church is neither just nor expedient.

³

To the reasons made against the second principal point, in which it was said that, speaking properly of state, as we are now speaking, parish priests would not be in it, as defined above, I answer first to the first by denying the assumption on both sides. For we say first that parish priests do not undertake the cure of souls as bishops do, since bishops principally have the cure of all of their diocese, as found in ch. Quecunque, 10, q. 1, where the brethren in the council of Antioch say: Whatever ecclesiastical goods there are, it is fitting that they be governed and dispensed with all diligence and faith, with the judgment and power of the bishop, to whom the souls of the whole people seem to have been committed; parish priests and archdeacons, however, have certain subordinate ministries under the bishops. Hence on 1 Cor. 12, To some helps, to others governments, the Gloss says: Helps, that is, those who bring aid to the greater, as Titus to the Apostle, or archdeacons to bishops; Governments, however, namely the prelacies of lesser persons, as are the priests who may be an example to the people; and Dionysius says in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 5 that, just as we see the whole hierarchy terminated in Jesus, so each one in its own divine high priest, that is, the bishop. And in ch. Cunctis, xvi, q. 1, Pope Clement says that all priests and deacons must attend, that they do nothing without leave of their own bishop. Hence if one rightly considers, as St Thomas says, archdeacons and parish priests are compared to the bishop in the rule of the Church as provosts and bailiffs to the king in temporal rule.

⁴

To the second part also of the antecedent of the aforesaid reason is false, in which it is said that priests undertake the cure of souls with consecration as bishops do, which is false. Hence as in worldly powers the king alone receives solemn blessing, but others are instituted officials through simple commission, so also in the Church the episcopal cure is committed with the solemnity of consecration, but the cure of the archdeaconry or parish is conferred with simple imposition. But what is said, that in the consecration of bishop and priest the words are the same, etc., is not to the point; for we are not now treating of the priest inasmuch as he is a priest — for thus he is placed in a state through solemn consecration, as St Thomas says in the book on the perfection of the spiritual life: not indeed in the state of active or passive perfection, but in the illuminative state according to Dionysius — but when he receives a cure, then no solemn blessing is shown to him, whence then he undertakes no state, but there is for him a certain commission of office; and so a parish priest, although he is consecrated in the reception of orders, is not so in the reception of a cure. But the bishop is consecrated to the pastoral cure itself, on account of the perpetual obligation by which he binds himself to the pastoral cure, as is clear from what was said.

⁵

To the second I answer by denying the antecedent, since just as parish priests and archdeacons do not principally have the cure but a certain administration according as committed by the bishop, so neither does the pastoral office principally pertain to them, nor the obligation of laying down the soul for the sheep, except insofar as they share in the cure. Hence they rather have, as St Thomas says, a certain office pertaining to perfection than obtain the state of perfection.

⁶

To the third reason I answer by denying the consequence. And to the proof of the first, taken from the passage of a monk to the office of a priest having cure, I answer that it makes nothing to the point, since a monk does not pass to a secular cure with diminution of the religious state, but with it retained, as is said in De monachis, xvi, q. 1, where Pope Innocent says of monks who long dwell in monasteries that if afterwards they come to the order of clergy they ought not depart from their former resolve; but parish priests or archdeacons, when they enter religion, lay down the cure, that they may be applied to the state of perfection, whence the excellence of religion is shown. To the second proof, when it is said that parish priests are more like bishops, etc., I answer that parish priests and archdeacons are more like bishops than religious in a certain respect, namely in the cure of souls which they have secondarily, but in the perpetual obligation required for the state of perfection religious are more like bishops, as is clear from what was said.

⁷

It remains to answer the reasons made against the third principal point, in which it was said that the state of prelates is more sublime and more perfect than the state of religious. To the first reason I answer that the reasoning does not proceed, since the perfection of love of neighbor derives from the perfection of love of God, which indeed prevails so much in the hearts of some that they wish not only to enjoy and serve God, but also their neighbors for God's sake. Hence the very fact that bishops attend to what pertains to love of neighbor comes from abundance of divine love. Hence the Lord first asked Peter whether he loved him, and afterwards committed to him the care of the flock. And Gregory says in the Pastoral Rule: If the care of the shepherd is the testimony of love, he who, abounding in virtues, refuses to feed the flock of God is convicted of not loving the supreme Shepherd; and this is a sign of greater love, that a man should for his friend's sake serve another as well, than if he wished to serve his friend alone.

⁸ To the second it is answered that it seems to make nothing to the point, since the bishop, constituted mediator between God and men, must excel in action insofar as constituted minister of this kind, and also be chief in contemplation, that he may draw from God what he hands on to men. Hence Greg. says in the Pastoral Rule: Let the prelate be chief in action, suspended above all in contemplation, ruler of inward cares, not abandoning solicitude for inward things in providing for outward things. But if they suffer some loss in the sweetness of contemplation on account of outward occupation by which they serve their neighbors, this very thing bears witness to the perfection of divine love: for he is convicted of loving someone more who for love of him desires to lack for a time the delight of his presence, being occupied in his service, than if he wished always to enjoy his presence. Hence the Apostle in Rom. 8, after saying that neither death nor life shall separate us from the charity of Christ, afterwards adds: I wished myself to be anathema from Christ for my brethren; which Chrysostom, expounding in the book On Compunction of Heart, says thus: Thus the love of Christ so transformed his whole mind that the thing which was more lovable to him than all else, to be with Christ, he despised that very thing, because it pleased Christ.