Quaestio 185 Question 185 De his quae pertinent ad statum episcoporum Things Pertaining to the Episcopal State Deinde considerandum est de his quae pertinent ad statum episcoporum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur octo. We must now consider things pertaining to the episcopal state. Under this head there are eight points of inquiry: Primo, utrum liceat episcopatum appetere. (1) Whether it is lawful to desire the office of a bishop? Secundo, utrum liceat episcopatum finaliter recusare. (2) Whether it is lawful to refuse the office of bishop definitively? Tertio, utrum oporteat ad episcopatum eligere meliorem. (3) Whether the better man should be chosen for the episcopal office? Quarto, utrum episcopus possit ad religionem transire. (4) Whether a bishop may pass over to the religious state? Quinto, utrum liceat ei corporaliter suos subditos deserere. (5) Whether he may lawfully abandon his subjects in a bodily manner? Sexto, utrum possit habere proprium. (6) Whether he can have anything of his own? Septimo, utrum peccet mortaliter bona ecclesiastica pauperibus non erogando. (7) Whether he sins mortally by not distributing ecclesiastical goods to the poor? Octavo, utrum religiosi qui ad episcopatum assumuntur, teneantur ad observantias regulares. (8) Whether religious who are appointed to the episcopal office are bound to religious observances? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum liceat episcopatum appetere Whether it is lawful to desire the office of a bishop? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod liceat episcopatum appetere. Dicit enim apostolus, I ad Tim. III, qui episcopatum desiderat, bonum opus desiderat. Sed licitum et laudabile est bonum opus desiderare. Ergo etiam laudabile est desiderare episcopatum. Objection 1: It would seem that it is lawful to desire the office of a bishop. For the Apostle says (1 Tim 3:1): He that desires the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. Now it is lawful and praiseworthy to desire a good work. Therefore it is even praiseworthy to desire the office of a bishop. Praeterea, status episcoporum est perfectior quam status religiosorum, ut supra habitum est. Sed laudabile est quod aliquis desideret ad statum religionis transire. Ergo etiam laudabile est quod aliquis appetat ad episcopatum promoveri. Obj. 2: Further, the episcopal state is more perfect than the religious, as we have said above (Q. 184, A. 7). But it is praiseworthy to desire to enter the religious state. Therefore it is also praiseworthy to desire promotion to the episcopal state. Praeterea, Prov. XI dicitur, qui abscondit frumenta, maledicetur in populis, benedictio autem super caput vendentium. Sed ille qui est idoneus et vita et scientia ad episcopatum, videtur frumenta spiritualia abscondere si se ab episcopatu subtrahat, per hoc autem quod episcopatum accipit, ponitur in statu frumenta spiritualia dispensandi. Ergo videtur quod laudabile sit episcopatum appetere, et vituperabile ipsum refugere. Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Prov 11:26): He that hideth up corn shall be cursed among the people; but a blessing upon the head of them that sell. Now a man who is apt, both in manner of life and by knowledge, for the episcopal office, would seem to hide up the spiritual corn, if he shun the episcopal state, whereas by accepting the episcopal office he enters the state of a dispenser of spiritual corn. Therefore it would seem praiseworthy to desire the office of a bishop, and blameworthy to refuse it. Praeterea, facta sanctorum quae in Scriptura narrantur, proponuntur nobis in exemplum, secundum illud Rom. XV, quaecumque scripta sunt, ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt. Sed legitur Isaiae VI, quod Isaias se obtulit ad officium praedicationis, quae praecipue competit episcopis. Ergo videtur quod appetere episcopatum sit laudabile. Obj. 4: Further, the deeds of the saints related in Holy Writ are set before us as an example, according to Rom. 15:4, What things soever were written, were written for our learning. Now we read (Isa 6:8) that Isaias offered himself for the office of preacher, which belongs chiefly to bishops. Therefore it would seem praiseworthy to desire the office of a bishop. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, XIX de Civ. Dei, locus superior, sine quo populus regi non potest, etsi administretur ut decet, tamen indecenter appetitur. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19): The higher place, without which the people cannot be ruled, though it be filled becomingly, is unbecomingly desired. Respondeo dicendum quod in episcopatu tria possunt considerari. Quorum unum est principale et finale, scilicet episcopalis operatio, per quam utilitati proximorum intendit, secundum illud Ioan. ult., pasce oves meas. Aliud autem est altitudo gradus, quia episcopus super alios constituitur, secundum illud Matth. XXIV, fidelis servus et prudens, quem constituit dominus super familiam suam. Tertium autem est quod consequenter se habet ad ista, scilicet reverentia et honor, et sufficientia temporalium, secundum illud I ad Tim. V, qui bene praesunt presbyteri, duplici honore digni habeantur. Appetere igitur episcopatum ratione huiusmodi circumstantium bonorum, manifestum est quod est illicitum, et pertinet ad cupiditatem vel ambitionem. Unde contra Pharisaeos dominus dicit, Matth. XXIII, amant primos accubitus in cenis et primas cathedras in synagogis, salutationes in foro, et vocari ab hominibus, Rabbi. Quantum autem ad secundum, scilicet ad celsitudinem gradus, appetere episcopatum est praesumptuosum. Unde dominus, Matth. XX, arguit discipulos primatum quaerentes, dicens, scitis quia principes gentium dominantur eorum, ubi Chrysostomus dicit quod per hoc ostendit quod gentile est primatus cupere; et sic gentium comparatione eorum animam aestuantem convertit. I answer that, Three things may be considered in the episcopal office. One is principal and final, namely the bishop’s work, whereby the good of our neighbor is intended, according to John 21:17, Feed My sheep. Another thing is the height of degree, for a bishop is placed above others, according to Matt. 24:45, A faithful and a wise servant, whom his lord hath appointed over his family. The third is something resulting from these, namely reverence, honor, and a sufficiency of temporalities, according to 1 Tim. 5:17, Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honor. Accordingly, to desire the episcopal office on account of these incidental goods is manifestly unlawful, and pertains to covetousness or ambition. Wherefore our Lord said against the Pharisees (Matt 23:6, 7): They love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues, and salutations in the market-place, and to be called by men, Rabbi. As regards the second, namely the height of degree, it is presumptuous to desire the episcopal office. Hence our Lord reproved His disciples for seeking precedence, by saying to them (Matt 20:25): You know that the princes of the gentiles lord it over them. Here Chrysostom says (Hom. lxv in Matth.) that in these words He points out that it is heathenish to seek precedence; and thus by comparing them to the gentiles He converted their impetuous soul. Sed appetere proximis prodesse est secundum se laudabile et virtuosum. Verum quia, prout est episcopalis actus, habet annexam gradus celsitudinem, praesumptuosum videtur quod aliquis praeesse appetat ad hoc quod subditis prosit, nisi manifesta necessitate imminente, sicut Gregorius dicit, in Pastoral., quod tunc laudabile erat episcopatum quaerere, quando per hunc quemque dubium non erat ad supplicia graviora pervenire, unde non de facili inveniebatur qui hoc onus assumeret; praesertim cum aliquis caritatis zelo divinitus ad hoc incitatur, sicut Gregorius dicit, in Pastoral., quod Isaias, prodesse proximis cupiens, laudabiliter officium praedicationis appetiit. On the other hand, to desire to do good to one’s neighbor is in itself praiseworthy, and virtuous. Nevertheless, since considered as an episcopal act it has the height of degree attached to it, it would seem that, unless there be manifest and urgent reason for it, it would be presumptuous for any man to desire to be set over others in order to do them good. Thus Gregory says (Pastor. i, 8) that it was praiseworthy to seek the office of a bishop when it was certain to bring one into graver dangers. Wherefore it was not easy to find a person to accept this burden, especially seeing that it is through the zeal of charity that one divinely instigated to do so, according to Gregory, who says (Pastor. i, 7) that Isaias, being desirous of profiting his neighbor, commendably desired the office of preacher. Potest tamen absque praesumptione quilibet appetere talia opera facere, si eum contingeret in tali officio esse; vel etiam se esse dignum ad talia opera exequenda, ita quod opus bonum cadat sub desiderio, non autem primatus dignitatis. Unde Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., opus quidem desiderare bonum, bonum est, primatum autem honoris concupiscere vanitas est. Primatus enim fugientem se desiderat, desiderantem se horret. Nevertheless, anyone may, without presumption, desire to do such like works if he should happen to be in that office, or to be worthy of doing them; so that the object of his desire is the good work and not the precedence in dignity. Hence Chrysostom says: It is indeed good to desire a good work, but to desire the primacy of honor is vanity. For primacy seeks one that shuns it, and abhors one that desires it. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Gregorius dicit, in Pastoral., illo tempore hoc dixit apostolus quo ille qui plebibus praeerat, primus ad martyrii tormenta ducebatur, et sic nihil aliud erat quod in episcopatu appeti posset nisi bonum opus. Unde Augustinus dicit, XIX de Civ. Dei, quod apostolus dicens, qui episcopatum desiderat, bonum opus desiderat, exponere voluit quid sit episcopatus, quia nomen operis est, non honoris. Scopos quidem intentio est. Ergo episcopein, si velimus Latine superintendere possumus dicere, ut intelligat non se esse episcopum qui praeesse dilexerit, non prodesse. In actione enim, ut parum ante praemittit, non amandus est honor in hac vita sive potentia, quoniam omnia vana sunt sub sole, sed opus ipsum quod per eundem honorem vel potentiam fit. Et tamen, ut Gregorius dicit, in Pastoral., laudans desiderium, scilicet boni operis, in pavorem vertit protinus quod laudavit, cum subiungit, oportet autem episcopum irreprehensibilem esse, quasi dicat, laudo quod quaeritis, sed discite quid quaeratis. Reply Obj. 1: As Gregory says (Pastor. i, 8), When the Apostle said this he who was set over the people was the first to be dragged to the torments of martyrdom, so that there was nothing to be desired in the episcopal office, save the good work. Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19) that when the Apostle said, ‘Whoever desireth the office of bishop, desireth a good work,’ he wished to explain what the episcopacy is: for it denotes work and not honor: since skopos signifies ‘watching.’ Wherefore if we like we may render episkopein by the Latin superintendere (to watch over): thus a man may know himself to be no bishop if he loves to precede rather than to profit others. For, as he observed shortly before, In our actions we should seek, not honor nor power in this life, since all things beneath the sun are vanity, but the work itself which that honor or power enables us to do. Nevertheless, as Gregory says (Pastor. i, 8), while praising the desire (namely of the good work) he forthwith turns this object of praise into one of fear, when he adds: It behooveth . . . a bishop to be blameless, as though to say: I praise what you seek, but learn first what it is you seek. Ad secundum dicendum quod non est eadem ratio de statu religionis et statu episcopali, propter duo. Primo quidem, quia ad statum episcopalem praeexigitur vitae perfectio, ut patet per hoc quod dominus a Petro exquisivit si plus eum ceteris diligeret, antequam ei committeret pastorale officium. Sed ad statum religionis non praeexigitur perfectio, sed est via in perfectionem unde et dominus, Matth. XIX, non dixit, si es perfectus, vade et vende omnia quae habes, sed, si vis esse perfectus. Et huius differentiae ratio est quia, secundum Dionysium, perfectio pertinet active ad episcopum, sicut ad perfectorem, ad monachum autem passive, sicut ad perfectum. Requiritur autem quod sit perfectus aliquis ad hoc quod possit alios ad perfectionem adducere, quod non praeexigitur ab eo qui debet ad perfectionem adduci. Est autem praesumptuosum quod aliquis perfectum se reputet, non autem quod aliquis ad perfectionem tendat. Secundo, quia ille qui statum religionis assumit, se aliis subiicit ad spiritualia capienda, et hoc cuilibet licet. Unde Augustinus dicit, XIX de Civ. Dei, a studio cognoscendae veritatis nemo prohibetur, quod ad laudabile pertinet otium. Sed ille qui transit ad statum episcopalem, sublimatur ad hoc quod aliis provideat. Et hanc sublimationem nullus debet sibi assumere, secundum illud Heb. V, nemo assumit sibi honorem, sed qui vocatur a Deo. Et Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., primatum Ecclesiae concupiscere neque iustum est neque utile. Quis enim sapiens vult ultro se subiicere servituti et periculo tali ut det rationem pro omni Ecclesia, nisi forte qui non timet Dei iudicium, abutens primatu ecclesiastico saeculariter, ut scilicet convertat ipsum in saecularem? Reply Obj. 2: There is no parity between the religious and the episcopal state, for two reasons. First, because perfection of life is a prerequisite of the episcopal state, as appears from our Lord asking Peter if he loved Him more than the others, before committing the pastoral office to him, whereas perfection is not a prerequisite of the religious state, since the latter is the way to perfection. Hence our Lord did not say (Matt 19:21): If thou art perfect, go, sell all thou hast, but If thou wilt be perfect. The reason for this difference is because, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. vi), perfection pertains actively to the bishop, as the perfecter, but to the monk passively as one who is perfected: and one needs to be perfect in order to bring others to perfection, but not in order to be brought to perfection. Now it is presumptuous to think oneself perfect, but it is not presumptuous to tend to perfection. Second, because he who enters the religious state subjects himself to others for the sake of a spiritual profit, and anyone may lawfully do this. Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19): No man is debarred from striving for the knowledge of truth, since this pertains to a praiseworthy ease. On the other hand, he who enters the episcopal state is raised up in order to watch over others, and no man should seek to be raised thus, according to Heb. 5:4, Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God: and Chrysostom says: To desire supremacy in the Church is neither just nor useful. For what wise man seeks of his own accord to submit to such servitude and peril, as to have to render an account of the whole Church? None save him who fears not God’s judgment, and makes a secular abuse of his ecclesiastical authority, by turning it to secular uses. Ad tertium dicendum quod dispensatio spiritualium frumentorum non est facienda secundum arbitrium cuiuslibet, sed principaliter quidem secundum arbitrium et dispositionem Dei; secundario autem secundum arbitrium superiorum praelatorum, ex quorum persona dicitur, I ad Cor. IV, sic nos existimet homo ut ministros Christi, et dispensatores mysteriorum Dei. Et ideo non intelligitur ille abscondere frumenta spiritualia cui non competit ex officio, nec ei a superiori iniungitur, si ab aliorum correctione aut gubernatione desistat, sed solum tunc intelligitur abscondere, si dispensationem negligat cum ei ex officio incumbat, vel si officium, cum ei iniungitur, pertinaciter recipere renuat. Unde Augustinus dicit, XIX de Civ. Dei, otium sanctum quaerit caritas veritatis, negotium iustum suscipit necessitas caritatis. Quam sarcinam si nullus imponit, percipiendae atque intuendae vacandum est veritati. Si autem imponitur, suscipienda est, propter caritatis necessitatem. Reply Obj. 3: The dispensing of spiritual corn is not to be carried on in an arbitrary fashion, but chiefly according to the appointment and disposition of God, and in the second place according to the appointment of the higher prelates, in whose person it is said (1 Cor 4:1): Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. Wherefore a man is not deemed to hide spiritual corn if he avoids governing or correcting others, and is not competent to do so, neither in virtue of his office nor of his superior’s command; thus alone is he deemed to hide it, when he neglects to dispense it while under obligation to do so in virtue of his office, or obstinately refuses to accept the office when it is imposed on him. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19): The love of truth seeks a holy leisure, the demands of charity undertake an honest labor. If no one imposes this burden upon us, we must devote ourselves to the research and contemplation of truth, but if it be imposed on us, we must bear it because charity demands it of us. Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut Gregorius dicit, in Pastoral., Isaias, qui mitti voluit, ante se per altaris calculum purgatum vidit, ne non purgatus adire quisque sacra ministeria audeat. Quia ergo valde difficile est purgatum se quemlibet posse cognoscere, praedicationis officium tutius declinatur. Reply Obj. 4: As Gregory says (Pastor. i, 7), Isaias, who wishing to be sent, knew himself to be already cleansed by the live coal taken from the altar, shows us that no one should dare uncleansed to approach the sacred ministry. Since, then, it is very difficult for anyone to be able to know that he is cleansed, it is safer to decline the office of preacher. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum liceat episcopatum iniunctum omnino recusare Whether it is lawful for a man to refuse absolutely an appointment to the episcopate? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod liceat episcopatum iniunctum omnino recusare. Ut enim Gregorius dicit, in Pastoral., per activam vitam prodesse proximis cupiens Isaias, officium praedicationis appetit, per contemplationem vero Ieremias amori conditoris sedulo inhaerere desiderans, ne mitti ad praedicandum debeat, contradicit. Nullus autem peccat si meliora nolit deserere ut minus bonis inhaereat. Cum ergo amor Dei praeemineat dilectioni proximi, et vita contemplativa praeferatur vitae activae, ut ex supra dictis patet, videtur quod non peccat ille qui omnino episcopatum recusat. Objection 1: It would seem that it is lawful to refuse absolutely an appointment to the episcopate. For as Gregory says (Pastor. i, 7), 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 by contemplation exclaimed against being sent to preach. Now no man sins by being unwilling to forgo better things in order to adhere to things that are not so good. Since then the love of God surpasses the love of our neighbor, and the contemplative life is preferable to the active, as shown above (Q. 25, A. 1; Q. 26, A. 2; Q. 182, A. 1) it would seem that a man sins not if he refuse absolutely the episcopal office. Praeterea, sicut Gregorius dicit, valde difficile est ut aliquis se purgatum possit cognoscere, nec debet aliquis non purgatus sacra ministeria adire. Si ergo aliquis se non sentiat esse purgatum, quantumcumque sibi episcopale iniungatur officium, non debet illud suscipere. Obj. 2: Further, as Gregory says (Pastor. i, 7), It is very difficult for anyone to be able to know that he is cleansed: nor should anyone uncleansed approach the sacred ministry. Therefore if a man perceives that he is not cleansed, however urgently the episcopal office be enjoined him, he ought not to accept it. Praeterea, de beato Marco Hieronymus dicit, in prologo super Marcum, quod amputasse sibi post fidem pollicem dicitur, ut sacerdotio reprobus haberetur. Et similiter aliqui votum emittunt ut nunquam episcopatum accipiant. Sed eiusdem rationis est ponere impedimentum ad aliquid, et omnino recusare illud. Ergo videtur quod absque peccato possit aliquis omnino episcopatum recusare. Obj. 3: Further, Jerome (Prologue, super Marc.) says that it is related of the Blessed Mark that after receiving the faith he cut off his thumb that he might be excluded from the priesthood. Likewise some take a vow never to accept a bishopric. Now to place an obstacle to a thing amounts to the same as refusing it altogether. Therefore it would seem that one may, without sin, refuse the episcopal office absolutely. Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus, ad Eudoxium, si qua opera vestra mater Ecclesia desideraverit, nec elatione avida suscipiatis, nec blandiente desidia respuatis. Postea subdit, neque otium vestrum necessitatibus Ecclesiae praeponatis, cui parturienti si nulli boni ministrare vellent, quomodo nasceremini non inveniretis. On the contrary, Augustine says (Ep. xlviii ad Eudox.): If Mother Church requires your service, neither accept with greedy conceit, nor refuse with fawning indolence; and afterwards he adds: Nor prefer your ease to the needs of the Church: for if no good men were willing to assist her in her labor, you would seek in vain how we could be born of her. Respondeo dicendum quod in assumptione episcopatus duo sunt consideranda, primo quidem, quid deceat hominem appetere secundum propriam voluntatem; secundo, quid hominem deceat facere ad voluntatem alterius. Quantum igitur ad propriam voluntatem, convenit homini principaliter insistere propriae saluti, sed quod aliorum saluti intendat, hoc convenit homini ex dispositione alterius potestatem habentis, sicut ex supra dictis patet. Unde sicut ad inordinationem voluntatis pertinet quod aliquis proprio motu feratur in hoc quod aliorum gubernationi praeficiatur; ita etiam ad inordinationem voluntatis pertinet quod aliquis omnino, contra superioris iniunctionem, praedictum gubernationis officium finaliter recuset, propter duo. I answer that, Two things have to be considered in the acceptance of the episcopal office: first, what a man may fittingly desire according to his own will; second, what it behooves a man to do according to the will of another. As regards his own will it becomes a man to look chiefly to his own spiritual welfare, whereas that he look to the spiritual welfare of others becomes a man according to the appointment of another having authority, as stated above (A. 1, ad 3). Hence just as it is a mark of an inordinate will that a man of his own choice incline to be appointed to the government of others, so too it indicates an inordinate will if a man definitively refuse the aforesaid office of government in direct opposition to the appointment of his superior: and this for two reasons. Primo quidem, quia hoc repugnat caritati proximorum, quorum utilitati se aliquis debet exponere pro loco et tempore. Unde Augustinus dicit, XIX de Civ. Dei, quod negotium iustum suscipit necessitas caritatis. Secundo, quia hoc repugnat humilitati, per quam aliquis superiorum mandatis se subiicit. Unde Gregorius dicit, in Pastoral., quod tunc ante Dei oculos vera est humilitas, cum ad respuendum hoc quod utiliter subire praecipitur, pertinax non est. First, because this is contrary to the love of our neighbor, for whose good a man should offer himself according as place and time demand: hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19) that the demands of charity undertake an honest labor. Second, because this is contrary to humility, whereby a man submits to his superior’s commands: hence Gregory says (Pastor. i, 6): In God’s sight humility is genuine when it does not obstinately refuse to submit to what is usefully prescribed. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quamvis, simpliciter et absolute loquendo, vita contemplativa potior sit quam activa, et amor Dei quam dilectio proximi; tamen ex alia parte bonum multitudinis praeferendum est bono unius. Unde Augustinus dicit, in verbis praemissis, neque otium vestrum necessitatibus Ecclesiae praeponatis. Praesertim quia et hoc ipsum ad dilectionem Dei pertinet quod aliquis ovibus Christi curam pastoralem impendat. Unde super illud Ioan. ult., pasce oves meas, dicit Augustinus, sit amoris officium pascere dominicum gregem, sicut fuit timoris indicium negare pastorem. Reply Obj. 1: Although simply and absolutely speaking the contemplative life is more excellent than the active, and the love of God better than the love of our neighbor, yet, on the other hand, the good of the many should be preferred to the good of the individual. Wherefore Augustine says in the passage quoted above: Nor prefer your own ease to the needs of the Church, and all the more since it belongs to the love of God that a man undertake the pastoral care of Christ’s sheep. Hence Augustine, commenting on John 21:17, Feed My sheep, says (Tract. cxxiii in Joan.): Be it the task of love to feed the Lord’s flock, even as it was the mark of fear to deny the Shepherd. Similiter etiam praelati non sic transferuntur ad vitam activam ut contemplativam deserant. Unde Augustinus dicit, XIX de Civ. Dei, quod, si imponatur sarcina pastoralis officii, nec sic deserenda est delectatio veritatis, quae scilicet in contemplatione habetur. Moreover prelates are not transferred to the active life, so as to forsake the contemplative; wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19) that if the burden of the pastoral office be imposed, we must not abandon the delights of truth, which are derived from contemplation. Ad secundum dicendum quod nullus tenetur obedire praelato ad aliquod illicitum, sicut patet ex his quae supra dicta sunt de obedientia. Potest ergo contingere quod ille cui iniungitur praelationis officium, in se aliquid sentiat per quod non liceat ei praelationem accipere. Hoc autem impedimentum quandoque quidem removeri potest per ipsummet cui pastoralis cura iniungitur, puta si habeat peccandi propositum, quod potest deserere. Et propter hoc non excusatur quin finaliter teneatur obedire praelato iniungenti. Quandoque vero impedimentum ex quo fit ei illicitum pastorale officium, non potest ipse removere, sed praelatus qui iniungit, puta si sit irregularis vel excommunicatus. Et tunc debet defectum suum praelato iniungenti ostendere, qui si impedimentum removere voluerit, tenetur humiliter obedire. Unde Exodi IV, cum Moyses dixisset, obsecro, domine, non sum eloquens ab heri et nudius tertius, dominus respondit ad eum, ego ero in ore tuo, doceboque te quid loquaris. Quandoque vero non potest removeri impedimentum nec per iniungentem nec per eum cui iniungitur, sicut si archiepiscopus non possit super irregularitate dispensare. Unde subditus non tenetur ei obedire ad suscipiendum episcopatum, vel etiam sacros ordines, si sit irregularis. Reply Obj. 2: No one is bound to obey his superior by doing what is unlawful, as appears from what was said above concerning obedience (Q. 104, A. 5). Accordingly it may happen that he who is appointed to the office of prelate perceive something in himself on account of which it is unlawful for him to accept a prelacy. But this obstacle may sometimes be removed by the very person who is appointed to the pastoral cure—for instance, if he have a purpose to sin, he may abandon it—and for this reason he is not excused from being bound to obey definitely the superior who has appointed him. Sometimes, however, he is unable himself to remove the impediment that makes the pastoral office unlawful to him, yet the prelate who appoints him can do so—for instance, if he be irregular or excommunicate. In such a case he ought to make known his defect to the prelate who has appointed him; and if the latter be willing to remove the impediment, he is bound humbly to obey. Hence when Moses had said (Exod 4:10): I beseech thee, Lord, I am not eloquent from yesterday, and the day before, the Lord answered (Exod 4:12): I will be in thy mouth, and I will teach thee what thou shalt speak. At other times the impediment cannot be removed, neither by the person appointing nor by the one appointed—for instance, if an archbishop be unable to dispense from an irregularity; wherefore a subject, if irregular, would not be bound to obey him by accepting the episcopate or even sacred orders.