Articulus 5 Article 5 Utrum praelati et religiosi sint in statu perfectionis Whether religious and prelates are in the state of perfection? Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod praelati et religiosi non sint in statu perfectionis. Status enim perfectionis distinguitur contra statum incipientium et proficientium. Sed non sunt aliqua genera hominum deputata specialiter statui proficientium vel incipientium. Ergo videtur quod nec etiam debeant esse aliqua genera hominum deputata statui perfectionis. Objection 1: It would seem that prelates and religious are not in the state of perfection. For the state of perfection differs from the state of the beginners and the proficient. Now no class of men is specially assigned to the state of the proficient or of the beginners. Therefore it would seem that neither should any class of men be assigned to the state of perfection. Praeterea, status exterior debet interiori statui respondere, alioquin incurritur mendacium, quod non solum est in falsis verbis, sed etiam in simulatis operibus, ut Ambrosius dicit, in quodam sermone. Sed multi sunt praelati vel religiosi qui non habent interiorem perfectionem caritatis. Si ergo omnes religiosi et praelati sunt in statu perfectionis, sequeretur quod quicumque eorum non sunt perfecti, sint in peccato mortali, tanquam simulatores et mendaces. Obj. 2: Further, the outward state should answer to the inward, else one is guilty of lying, which consists not only in false words, but also in deceitful deeds, according to Ambrose in one of his sermons (xxx de Tempore). Now there are many prelates and religious who have not the inward perfection of charity. Therefore, if all religious and prelates are in the state of perfection, it would follow that all of them that are not perfect are in mortal sin, as deceivers and liars. Praeterea, perfectio secundum caritatem attenditur, ut supra habitum est. Sed perfectissima caritas videtur esse in martyribus, secundum illud Ioan. XV, maiorem dilectionem nemo habet quam ut animam suam ponat quis pro amicis suis. Et super illud Heb. XII, nondum enim usque ad sanguinem etc., dicit Glossa, perfectior in hac vita dilectio nulla est ea ad quam sancti martyres pervenerunt, qui contra peccatum usque ad sanguinem certaverunt. Ergo videtur quod magis debeat attribui perfectionis status martyribus quam religiosis et episcopis. Obj. 3: Further, as stated above (A. 1), perfection is measured according to charity. Now the most perfect charity would seem to be in the martyrs, according to John 15:13, Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends: and a gloss on Heb. 12:4, For you have not yet resisted unto blood, says: In this life no love is more perfect than that to which the holy martyrs attained, who strove against sin even unto blood. Therefore it would seem that the state of perfection should be ascribed to the martyrs rather than to religious and bishops. Sed contra est quod Dionysius, in V cap. Eccles. Hier., attribuit perfectionem episcopis tanquam perfectoribus. Et in VI cap. eiusdem libri, attribuit perfectionem religiosis, quos vocat monachos vel Therapeutas, idest, Deo famulantes, tanquam perfectis. On the contrary, Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) ascribes perfection to bishops as being perfecters, and (Eccl. Hier. vi) to religious (whom he calls monks or therapeutai, i.e., servants of God) as being perfected. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, ad statum perfectionis requiritur obligatio perpetua ad ea quae sunt perfectionis, cum aliqua solemnitate. Utrumque autem horum competit et religiosis et episcopis. Religiosi enim voto se adstringunt ad hoc quod a rebus saecularibus abstineant quibus licite uti poterant, ad hoc quod liberius Deo vacent, in quo consistit perfectio praesentis vitae. Unde Dionysius dicit, VI cap. Eccles. Hier., de religiosis loquens, alii quidem Therapeutas, idest famulos, ex Dei puro servitio et famulatu, alii vero monachos ipsos nominant, ex indivisibili et singulari vita uniente ipsos, indivisibilium sanctis convolutionibus, idest contemplationibus, ad deiformem unitatem et amabilem Deo perfectionem. Horum etiam obligatio fit cum quadam solemnitate professionis et benedictionis. Unde et ibidem subdit Dionysius, propter quod, perfectam ipsis donans gratiam, sancta legislatio quadam ipsos dignata est sanctificativa invocatione. I answer that, As stated above (A. 4), there is required for the state of perfection a perpetual obligation to things pertaining to perfection, together with a certain solemnity. Now both these conditions are competent to religious and bishops. For religious bind themselves by vow to refrain from worldly affairs, which they might lawfully use, in order more freely to give themselves to God, wherein consists the perfection of the present life. Hence Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vi), speaking of religious: Some call them therapeutai, i.e., servants, on account of their rendering pure service and homage to God; others call them monachoi, on account of the indivisible and single-minded life which by their being wrapped in, i.e., contemplating, indivisible things, unites them in a Godlike union and a perfection beloved of God. Moreover, the obligation in both cases is undertaken with a certain solemnity of profession and consecration; wherefore Dionysius adds (Eccl. Hier. vi): Hence the holy legislation in bestowing perfect grace on them accords them a hallowing invocation. Similiter etiam et episcopi obligant se ad ea quae sunt perfectionis, pastorale assumentes officium, ad quod pertinet ut animam suam ponat pastor pro ovibus suis, sicut dicitur Ioan. X. Unde apostolus dicit, I ad Tim. ult., confessus es bonam confessionem coram multis testibus, idest in tua ordinatione, ut Glossa ibidem dicit. Adhibetur etiam quaedam solemnitas consecrationis simul cum professione praedicta, secundum illud II ad Tim. I, resuscites gratiam Dei quae est in te per impositionem manuum mearum, quod Glossa exponit de gratia episcopali. Et Dionysius dicit, V cap. Eccles. Hier., quod summus sacerdos, idest episcopus, in sua ordinatione habet eloquiorum super caput sanctissimam superpositionem, ut significetur quod ipse est participativus integre totius hierarchiae virtutis, et quod ipse non solum sit illuminativus omnium quae pertinent ad sanctas locutiones et actiones, sed quod etiam haec aliis tradat. In like manner bishops bind themselves to things pertaining to perfection when they take up the pastoral duty, to which it belongs that a shepherd lay down his life for his sheep, according to John 10:15. Wherefore the Apostle says (1 Tim 6:12): Thou . . . hast confessed a good confession before many witnesses, that is to say, when he was ordained, as a gloss says on this passage. Again, a certain solemnity of consecration is employed together with the aforesaid profession, according to 2 Tim. 1:6: Stir up the grace of God which is in thee by the imposition of my hands, which the gloss ascribes to the grace of the episcopate. And Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v) that when the high priest, i.e., the bishop, is ordained, he receives on his head the most holy imposition of the sacred oracles, whereby it is signified that he is a participator in the whole and entire hierarchical power, and that not only is he the enlightener in all things pertaining to his holy discourses and actions, but that he also confers this on others. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod inchoatio et augmentum non quaeritur propter se, sed propter perfectionem. Et ideo ad solum perfectionis statum aliqui homines cum quadam obligatione et solemnitate assumuntur. Reply Obj. 1: Beginning and increase are sought not for their own sake, but for the sake of perfection; hence it is only to the state of perfection that some are admitted under certain obligations and with solemnity. Ad secundum dicendum quod homines statum perfectionis assumunt, non quasi profitentes se esse perfectos, sed quasi profitentes se ad perfectionem tendere. Unde et apostolus dicit, ad Philipp. III, non quod iam comprehenderim, aut perfectus sim, sequor autem, si quo modo comprehendam. Et postea subdit, quicumque ergo perfecti sumus, hoc sentiamus. Unde non committit aliquis mendacium vel simulationem ex hoc quod non est perfectus qui statum perfectionis assumit, sed ex eo quod ab intentione perfectionis animum revocat. Reply Obj. 2: Those who enter the state of perfection do not profess to be perfect, but to tend to perfection. Hence the Apostle says (Phil 3:12): Not as though I had already attained, or were already perfect; but I follow after, if I may by any means apprehend: and afterwards (Phil 3:15): Let us therefore as many as are perfect, be thus minded. Hence a man who takes up the state of perfection is not guilty of lying or deceit through not being perfect, but through withdrawing his mind from the intention of reaching perfection. Ad tertium dicendum quod martyrium in actu perfectissimo caritatis consistit. Actus autem perfectionis non sufficit ad statum faciendum, ut dictum est. Reply Obj. 3: Martyrdom is the most perfect act of charity. But an act of perfection does not suffice to make the state of perfection, as stated above (A. 4). Articulus 6 Article 6 Utrum omnes praelati ecclesiastici sint in statu perfectionis Whether all ecclesiastical prelates are in the state of perfection? Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod omnes praelati ecclesiastici sint in statu perfectionis. Dicit enim Hieronymus, super Epist. ad Tit., olim idem presbyter qui et episcopus, et postea subdit, sicut ergo presbyteri sciunt se Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit, esse subiectos; ita episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispensationis dominicae veritate presbyteris esse maiores, et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere. Sed episcopi sunt in statu perfectionis. Ergo et presbyteri habentes curam animarum. Objection 1: It would seem that all ecclesiastical prelates are in a state of perfection. For Jerome commenting on Titus 1:5, Ordain . . . in every city, etc. says: Formerly priest was the same as bishop, and afterwards he adds: Just as priests know that by the custom of the Church they are subject to the one who is placed over them, so too, bishops should recognize that, by custom rather than by the very ordinance of our Lord, they are above the priests, and are together the rightful governors of the Church. Now bishops are in the state of perfection. Therefore those priests also are who have the cure of souls. Praeterea, sicut episcopi suscipiunt curam animarum cum consecratione, ita etiam et presbyteri curati, et etiam archidiaconi, de quibus, super illud Act. VI, considerate, fratres, viros boni testimonii septem etc., dicit Glossa, hic decernebant apostoli per Ecclesiam constitui septem diacones, qui essent sublimioris gradus, et quasi columnae proximi circa aram. Ergo videtur quod ipsi etiam sint in statu perfectionis. Obj. 2: Further, just as bishops together with their consecration receive the cure of souls, so also do parish priests and archdeacons, of whom a gloss on Acts 6:3, Brethren, look ye out . . . seven men of good reputation, says: The apostles decided here to appoint throughout the Church seven deacons, who were to be of a higher degree, and as it were the supports of that which is nearest to the altar. Therefore it would seem that these also are in the state of perfection. Praeterea, sicut episcopi obligantur ad hoc quod animam suam ponant pro ovibus suis, ita et presbyteri curati et archidiaconi. Sed hoc pertinet ad perfectionem caritatis, ut dictum est. Ergo videtur quod etiam presbyteri curati et archidiaconi sint in statu perfectionis. Obj. 3: Further, just as bishops are bound to lay down their life for their sheep, so too are parish priests and archdeacons. But this belongs to the perfection of charity, as stated above (A. 2, ad 3). Therefore it would seem that parish priests and archdeacons also are in the state of perfection. Sed contra est quod dicit Dionysius, V cap. Eccles. Hier., pontificum quidem ordo consummativus est et perfectivus; sacerdotum autem illuminativus et lucidativus; ministrantium vero purgativus et discretivus. Ex quo patet quod perfectio solis episcopis attribuitur. On the contrary, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v): The order of pontiffs is consummative and perfecting, that of the priests is illuminative and light-giving, that of the ministers is cleansing and discretive. Hence it is evident that perfection is ascribed to bishops only. Respondeo dicendum quod in presbyteris et diaconibus habentibus curam animarum, duo possunt considerari, scilicet ordo, et cura. Ordo autem ipse ordinatur ad quendam actum in divinis officiis; unde supra dictum est quod distinctio ordinum sub distinctione officiorum continetur. Unde per hoc quod aliqui accipiunt sacrum ordinem, accipiunt potestatem quosdam sacros actus perficiendi, non autem obligantur ex hoc ipso ad ea quae sunt perfectionis, nisi quatenus, apud Occidentalem Ecclesiam, in susceptione sacri ordinis emittitur continentiae votum, quod est unum eorum quae ad perfectionem pertinent, ut infra dicetur. Unde patet quod ex hoc quod aliquis accipit sacrum ordinem, non ponitur simpliciter in statu perfectionis, quamvis interior perfectio ad hoc requiratur quod aliquis digne huiusmodi actus exerceat. I answer that, In priests and deacons having cure of souls two things may be considered, namely their order and their cure. Their order is directed to some act in the Divine offices. Wherefore it has been stated above (Q. 183, A. 3, ad 3) that the distinction of orders is comprised under the distinction of offices. Hence by receiving a certain order a man receives the power of exercising certain sacred acts, but he is not bound on this account to things pertaining to perfection, except insofar as in the Western Church the receiving of a sacred order includes the taking of a vow of continence, which is one of the things pertaining to perfection, as we shall state further on (Q. 186, A. 4). Therefore it is clear that from the fact that a man receives a sacred order a man is not placed simply in the state of perfection, although inward perfection is required in order that one exercise such acts worthily. Similiter etiam nec ex parte curae quam suscipiunt, ponuntur in statu perfectionis. Non enim obligantur ex hoc ipso vinculo perpetui voti ad hoc quod curam animarum retineant, sed possunt eam deserere, vel transeundo ad religionem, etiam absque licentia episcopi, ut habetur in decretis, XIX Caus. qu. II; et etiam, cum licentia episcopi, potest aliquis archidiaconatum vel parochiam dimittere et simplicem praebendam accipere sine cura. Quod nullo modo liceret si esset in statu perfectionis, nemo enim mittens manum ad aratrum et aspiciens retro, aptus est regno Dei, ut dicitur Luc. IX. Episcopi autem, quia sunt in statu perfectionis, non nisi auctoritate summi pontificis, ad quem etiam pertinet in votis perpetuis dispensare, possunt episcopalem curam deserere, et ex certis causis, ut infra dicetur. Unde manifestum est quod non omnes praelati sunt in statu perfectionis, sed soli episcopi. In like manner, neither are they placed in the state of perfection on the part of the cure which they take upon themselves. For they are not bound by this very fact under the obligation of a perpetual vow to retain the cure of souls; but they can surrender it—either by entering religion, even without their bishop’s permission (cf. Decret. xix, qu. 2, can. Duae sunt)—or again an archdeacon may with his bishop’s permission resign his arch-deaconry or parish, and accept a simple prebend without cure, which would be nowise lawful, if he were in the state of perfection; for no man putting his hand to the plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God (Luke 9:62). On the other hand bishops, since they are in the state of perfection, cannot abandon the episcopal cure, save by the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff (to whom alone it belongs also to dispense from perpetual vows), and this for certain causes, as we shall state further on (Q. 185, A. 4). Wherefore it is manifest that not all prelates are in the state of perfection, but only bishops. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod de presbytero et episcopo dupliciter loqui possumus. Uno modo, quantum ad nomen. Et sic olim non distinguebantur episcopi et presbyteri. Nam episcopi dicuntur ex eo quod superintendunt, sicut Augustinus dicit, XIX de Civ. Dei, presbyteri autem in Graeco dicuntur quasi seniores. Unde et apostolus communiter utitur nomine presbyterorum quantum ad utrosque, cum dicit, I ad Tim. V, qui bene praesunt presbyteri, duplici honore digni habeantur. Et similiter etiam nomine episcoporum, unde dicit, Act. XX, presbyteris Ecclesiae Ephesinae loquens, attendite vobis et universo gregi, in quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit episcopos regere Ecclesiam Dei. Reply Obj. 1: We may speak of priest and bishop in two ways. First, with regard to the name: and thus formerly bishops and priests were not distinct. For bishops are so called because they watch over others, as Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei xix, 19); while the priests according to the Greek are elders. Hence the Apostle employs the term priests in reference to both, when he says (1 Tim 5:17): Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honor; and again he uses the term bishops in the same way, wherefore addressing the priests of the Church of Ephesus he says (Acts 20:28): Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Spirit hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God. Sed secundum rem, semper inter eos fuit distinctio, etiam tempore apostolorum, ut patet per Dionysium, V cap. Eccles. Hier. Et Luc. X, super illud, post haec autem designavit dominus etc., dicit Glossa, sicut in apostolis forma est episcoporum, sic in septuagintaduobus discipulis forma est presbyterorum secundi ordinis. Postmodum tamen, ad schisma vitandum, necessarium fuit ut etiam nomina distinguerentur, ut scilicet maiores dicerentur episcopi. Minores autem dicuntur presbyteri. Dicere autem presbyteros non differre ab episcopis, inter dogmata haeretica numerat Augustinus, in libro de Haeres., ubi dicit quod Aeriani dicebant presbyterum ab episcopo nulla differentia debere discerni. But as regards the thing signified by these terms, there was always a difference between them, even at the time of the apostles. This is clear on the authority of Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v), and of a gloss on Luke 10:1, After these things the Lord appointed, etc. which says: Just as the apostles were made bishops, so the seventy-two disciples were made priests of the second order. Subsequently, however, in order to avoid schism, it became necessary to distinguish even the terms, by calling the higher ones bishops and the lower ones priests. But to assert that priests nowise differ from bishops is reckoned by Augustine among heretical doctrines (De Haeres. liii), where he says that the Arians maintained that no distinction existed between a priest and a bishop. Ad secundum dicendum quod episcopi principaliter habent curam omnium suae dioecesis, presbyteri autem curati et archidiaconi habent aliquas subministrationes sub episcopis. Unde super illud I ad Cor. XII, alii opitulationes, alii gubernationes, dicit Glossa, opitulationes, idest, eos qui maioribus ferunt opem, ut Titus apostolo, vel archidiaconi episcopis. Gubernationes, scilicet minorum personarum praelationes, ut presbyteri sunt, qui plebi documento sunt. Et Dionysius dicit, V cap. Eccles. Hier., quod sicut universam hierarchiam videmus in Iesu terminatam, ita unamquamque in proprio divino hierarcha, idest episcopo. Et XVI, qu. I, dicitur, omnibus presbyteris et diaconibus attendendum est ut nihil absque proprii episcopi licentia agant. Ex quo patet quod ita se habent ad episcopum sicut ballivi vel praepositi ad regem. Et propter hoc, sicut in mundanis potestatibus solus rex solemnem benedictionem accipit, alii vero per simplicem commissionem instituuntur; ita etiam in Ecclesia cura episcopalis cum solemnitate consecrationis committitur, cura autem archidiaconatus vel plebanatus cum simplici iniunctione. Consecrantur tamen in susceptione ordinis, etiam antequam curam habeant. Reply Obj. 2: Bishops have the chief cure of the sheep of their diocese, while parish priests and archdeacons exercise an inferior ministry under the bishops. Hence a gloss on 1 Cor. 12:28, to one, helps, to another, governments, says: Helps, namely assistants to those who are in authority, as Titus was to the Apostle, or as archdeacons to the bishop; governments, namely persons of lesser authority, such as priests who have to instruct the people: and Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v) that just as we see the whole hierarchy culminating in Jesus, so each office culminates in its respective godlike hierarch or bishop. Also it is said (XVI, qu. i, can. Cunctis): Priests and deacons must all take care not to do anything without their bishop’s permission. Wherefore it is evident that they stand in relation to their bishop as wardens or mayors to the king; and for this reason, just as in earthly governments the king alone receives a solemn blessing, while others are appointed by simple commission, so too in the Church the episcopal cure is conferred with the solemnity of consecration, while the archdeacon or parish priest receives his cure by simple appointment; although they are consecrated by receiving orders before having a cure. Ad tertium dicendum quod sicut plebani et archidiaconi non habent principaliter curam, sed administrationem quandam secundum quod eis ab episcopo committitur; ita etiam ad eos non pertinet principaliter pastorale officium, nec obligatio ponendi animam pro ovibus, sed inquantum participant de cura. Unde magis habent quoddam officium ad perfectionem pertinens, quam obtineant perfectionis statum. Reply Obj. 3: As parish priests and archdeacons have not the chief cure, but a certain ministry as committed to them by the bishop, so the pastoral office does not belong to them in chief, nor are they bound to lay down their life for the sheep, except insofar as they have a share in their cure. Hence we should say that they have an office pertaining to perfection rather than that they attain the state of perfection. Articulus 7 Article 7 Utrum status religiosorum sit perfectior quam status praelatorum Whether the religious state is more perfect than that of prelates? Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod status religiosorum sit perfectior quam status praelatorum. Dominus enim dicit, Matth. XIX, si vis perfectus esse, vade et vende omnia quae habes et da pauperibus, quod faciunt religiosi. Non autem ad hoc tenentur episcopi, dicitur enim XII, qu. I, episcopi de rebus propriis vel acquisitis, vel quidquid de proprio habent, heredibus suis derelinquant. Ergo religiosi sunt in perfectiori statu quam episcopi. Objection 1: It would seem that the religious state is more perfect than that of prelates. For our Lord said (Matt 19:21): If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all thou hast, and give to the poor; and religious do this. But bishops are not bound to do so; for it is said (XII, qu. i, can. Episcopi de rebus): Bishops, if they wish, may bequeath to their heirs their personal or acquired property, and whatever belongs to them personally. Therefore religious are in a more perfect state than bishops. Praeterea, perfectio principalius consistit in dilectione Dei quam in dilectione proximi. Sed status religiosorum directe ordinatur ad dilectionem Dei, unde et ex Dei servitio et famulatu nominantur, ut Dionysius dicit, VI cap. Eccles. Hier. Status autem episcoporum videtur ordinari ad dilectionem proximi, cuius curae superintendunt, unde et nominantur, ut patet per Augustinum, XIX de Civ. Dei. Ergo videtur quod status religiosorum sit perfectior quam status episcoporum. Obj. 2: Further, perfection consists more especially in the love of God than in the love of our neighbor. Now the religious state is directly ordered to the love of God, wherefore it takes its name from service and homage to God, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vi); whereas the bishop’s state would seem to be ordered to the love of our neighbor, of whose cure he is the warden, and from this he takes his name, as Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei. xix, 19). Therefore it would seem that the religious state is more perfect than that of bishops. Praeterea, status religiosorum ordinatur ad vitam contemplativam, quae potior est quam vita activa, ad quam ordinatur status episcoporum, dicit enim Gregorius, in Pastoral., quod per activam vitam prodesse proximis cupiens Isaias officium praedicationis appetiit, per contemplationem vero Ieremias, amori conditoris sedulo inhaerere desiderans, ne mitti ad praedicandum debeat, contradicit. Ergo videtur quod status religiosorum sit perfectior quam status episcoporum. Obj. 3: Further, the religious state is directed to the contemplative life, which is more excellent than the active life to which the episcopal state is directed. For Gregory says (Pastor. i, 7) that Isaias wishing to be of profit to his neighbor by means of the active life desired the office of preaching, whereas Jeremias, who was fain to hold fast to the love of his Creator, exclaimed against being sent to preach. Therefore it would seem that the religious state is more perfect than the episcopal state. Sed contra, nulli licet a maiori statu ad minorem transire, hoc enim esset retro aspicere. Sed potest aliquis a statu religionis transire ad statum episcopalem, dicitur enim XVIII, qu. I, quod sacra ordinatio de monacho episcopum facit. Ergo status episcoporum est perfectior quam religiosorum. On the contrary, It is not lawful for anyone to pass from a more excellent to a less excellent state; for this would be to look back. Yet a man may pass from the religious to the episcopal state, for it is said (XVIII, qu. i, can. Statutum) that the holy ordination makes a monk to be a bishop. Therefore the episcopal state is more perfect than the religious. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, XII super Gen. ad Litt., semper agens praestantius est patiente. In genere autem perfectionis, episcopi, secundum Dionysium, se habent ut perfectores, religiosi autem ut perfecti, quorum unum pertinet ad actionem, alterum autem ad passionem. Unde manifestum est quod status perfectionis potius est in episcopis quam in religiosis. I answer that, As Augustine says (Gen ad lit. xii, 16), the agent is ever more excellent than the patient. Now in the genus of perfection according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v, vi), bishops are in the position of perfecters, whereas religious are in the position of being perfected; the former of which pertains to action, and the latter to passion. Whence it is evident that the state of perfection is more excellent in bishops than in religious. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod abrenuntiatio propriarum facultatum dupliciter considerari potest. Uno modo, secundum quod est in actu. Et sic in ea non consistit essentialiter perfectio, sed est quoddam perfectionis instrumentum, sicut supra dictum est. Et ideo nihil prohibet statum perfectionis esse sine abrenuntiatione propriorum. Sic etiam dicendum est de aliis exterioribus observantiis. Alio modo potest considerari secundum praeparationem animi, ut scilicet homo sit paratus, si opus fuerit, omnia dimittere vel distribuere. Et hoc pertinet directe ad perfectionem. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de quaest. Evang., ostendit dominus filios sapientiae intelligere non in abstinendo nec in manducando esse iustitiam, sed in aequanimitate tolerandi inopiam. Unde et apostolus dicit, scio abundare et penuriam pati. Ad hoc autem maxime tenentur episcopi, quod omnia sua pro honore Dei et salute sui gregis contemnant, cum opus fuerit, vel pauperibus sui gregis largiendo, vel rapinam bonorum suorum cum gaudio sustinendo. Reply Obj. 1: Renunciation of one’s possessions may be considered in two ways. First, as being actual: and thus it is not essential, but a means, to perfection, as stated above (A. 3). Hence nothing hinders the state of perfection from being without renunciation of one’s possessions, and the same applies to other outward practices. Second, it may be considered in relation to one’s preparedness, in the sense of being prepared to renounce or give away all: and this belongs directly to perfection. Hence Augustine says (De QQ. Evang. ii, qu. 11): Our Lord shows that the children of wisdom understand righteousness to consist neither in eating nor in abstaining, but in bearing want patiently. Wherefore the Apostle says (Phil 4:12): I know . . . both to abound and to suffer need. Now bishops especially are bound to despise all things for the honor of God and the spiritual welfare of their flock, when it is necessary for them to do so, either by giving to the poor of their flock, or by suffering with joy the being stripped of their own goods. Ad secundum dicendum quod hoc ipsum quod episcopi intendunt his quae pertinent ad proximorum dilectionem, provenit ex abundantia dilectionis divinae. Unde dominus primo a Petro quaesivit an eum diligeret, et postea ei gregis curam commisit. Et Gregorius dicit, in Pastoral., si dilectionis est testimonium cura pastoris, quisquis, virtutibus pollens, gregem Dei renuit pascere, pastorem summum convincitur non amare. Hoc autem est maioris dilectionis signum, ut homo propter amicum etiam alii serviat, quam etiam si soli amico velit servire. Reply Obj. 2: That bishops are busy about things pertaining to the love of their neighbor, arises out of the abundance of their love of God. Hence our Lord asked Peter first of all whether he loved Him, and afterwards committed the care of His flock to him. And Gregory says (Pastor. i, 5): If the pastoral care is a proof of love, he who refuses to feed God’s flock, though having the means to do so, is convicted of not loving the supreme Pastor. And it is a sign of greater love if a man devotes himself to others for his friend’s sake, than if he be willing only to serve his friend. Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Gregorius dicit, in Pastoral., sit praesul actione praecipuus, prae cunctis contemplatione suspensus, quia ad ipsos pertinet non solum propter seipsos, sed etiam propter instructionem aliorum contemplari. Unde Gregorius dicit, super Ezech., quod de perfectis viris post contemplationem suam redeuntibus dicitur, memoriam suavitatis tuae eructabunt. Reply Obj. 3: As Gregory says (Pastor. ii, 1), A prelate should be foremost in action, and more uplifted than others in contemplation, because it is incumbent on him to contemplate, not only for his own sake, but also for the purpose of instructing others. Hence Gregory applies (Hom. v in Ezech.) the words of Ps. 144:7, They shall publish the memory . . . of Thy sweetness, to perfect men returning after their contemplation. Articulus 8 Article 8 Utrum presbyteri curati et archidiaconi sint maioris perfectionis quam religiosi Whether parish priests and archdeacons are more perfect than religious? Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod etiam presbyteri curati et archidiaconi sint maioris perfectionis quam religiosi. Dicit enim Chrysostomus, in suo dialogo, si talem mihi aliquem adducas monachum qualis, ut secundum exaggerationem dicam, Elias fuit, non tamen illi comparandus est qui, traditus populis et multorum peccata ferre compulsus, immobilis perseverat et fortis. Et parum post dicit, si quis mihi proponeret optionem ubi mallem placere, in officio sacerdotali an in solitudine monachorum, sine comparatione eligerem illud quod prius dixi. Et in eodem libro dicit, si quis bene administrato sacerdotio illius propositi, scilicet monachalis, sudores conferat, tantum eos distare reperiet quantum inter privatum distat et regem. Ergo videtur quod sacerdotes habentes curam animarum sint perfectiores religiosis. Objection 1: It would seem that also parish priests and archdeacons are more perfect than religious. For Chrysostom says in his Dialogue (De Sacerdot. vi): Take for example a monk, such as Elias, if I may exaggerate somewhat, he is not to be compared with one who, cast among the people and compelled to carry the sins of many, remains firm and strong. A little further on he says: If I were given the choice, where would I prefer to please, in the priestly office, or in the monastic solitude, without hesitation I should choose the former. Again in the same book (ch. 5) he says: If you compare the toils of this project, namely of the monastic life, with a well-employed priesthood, you will find them as far distant from one another as a common citizen is from a king. Therefore it would seem that priests who have the cure of souls are more perfect than religious.