- Primo ostendemus quod episcopi et superiores praelati possunt praedicare et absolvere eos qui sacerdotibus subduntur, sine licentia ipsorum sacerdotum.
- Secundo, quod hoc idem possunt aliis committere.
- Tertio, quod hoc aliis committi quam parochialibus sacerdotibus expedit saluti animarum.
- Quarto, quod etiam religiosi ad huiusmodi officia exercenda ex commissione praelatorum sunt idonei.
- Quinto, quod religio aliqua salubriter institui potest ad haec exequenda de licentia praelatorum.
- Sexto, respondebimus rationibus quae ad partem contrariam inducuntur.
- First, we shall show that bishops and superior prelates can preach and absolve those who are under the care of priests, without needing the permission of those priests.
- Secondly, we shall prove that they can empower others to act in like manner.
- Thirdly, we shall make clear that religious are, when commissioned by a bishop, capable of exercising these functions.
- Fourthly, we shall demonstrate that it is expedient for the welfare of souls that others, besides parish priests, should be allowed to preach, and hear confessions.
- Fifthly, it will be shown that a religious order may advantageously be founded for the purpose of preaching and hearing confessions, with license from the bishops.
- Sixthly, we shall reply to the objections of our adversaries.
| Quod autem episcopus in parochia sacerdoti commissa plenam habeat potestatem, probatur per hoc quod dicitur 10, quaest. 1, cap. sic quidam: ubi dicitur, quod omnia quae sunt Ecclesiae secundum constitutionem antiquam, ad episcopi ordinationem et potestatem pertinent: et hoc idem habetur in sequenti capitulo. Sed res temporales Ecclesiae ordinantur ad spiritualia. Ergo multo fortius spiritualia singularum parochiarum episcopo sunt commissa.
| 1. The fact that a bishop has, in any parish of his diocese, all the powers of a priest, is proved by these words from X, quaest. I, cap. Sic quidam: “All that has been established in the Church, by her ancient constitution, belongs to the office and power of a bishop.” Again, in the next chapter, the same is laid down. Now the temporal things of the Church exist for the sake of that which is spiritual. Hence with far greater reason, the spiritual concerns of parishes are committed to the bishops.
| | Item quaest. ead.: regenda est unaquaeque parochia sub provisione ac tuitione episcopi per sacerdotem, vel ceteros clericos, quos ipse cum Dei timore praeviderit.
| Again, in the same question it is said that “every parish is to be administered under the care and supervision of the bishop, by the priest or the other clerics whom he shall appoint, in the fear of God.”
| | Item. In sequenti capitulo dicitur, quod cuncta debent gubernari et dispensari cum iudicio et potestate episcopi, cui totius plebis animae videntur esse commissae.
| In the following chapter, we likewise read that, “a church must be governed and conducted according to the judgment and power of the bishop, who is charged with the souls of his whole flock.”
| | Item. Sacerdos cui parochia committitur, non potest aliquid in Ecclesia sua facere nisi de licentia episcopi speciali, vel saltem generali: unde dicitur 16, quaest. 1: cunctis fidelibus, et summopere omnibus presbyteris et diaconibus et reliquis clericis attendendum est ut nihil absque proprii episcopi licentia agant. Non utique Missa sine eius iussu quisquam presbyterorum in sua parochia agat, non baptizet, nec quidquam absque eius permissu faciat. Patet ergo quod in parochia presbytero commissa adhuc maiorem potestatem habet episcopus quam sacerdos, qui sine permissione episcopi nihil in ea agere potest.
| Again, a priest in charge of a parish can do nothing in it, without a general or particular permission from his bishop. Hence XVI, quaest. I, cap. Cunctis fidelibus, we find the following passage: “All priests, deacons, and other ecclesiastics must, above all things, bear in mind that they may do nothing without license from their respective bishop. Without this license, a priest cannot in his own parish say Mass, baptise, or perform any other office.” Hence a bishop has more power in each parish of his diocese than have the priests of those parishes. For they can do nothing without the Bishop’s leave.
| | Item. I Cor. 1, 2, super illud, in omni loco ipsorum et nostro, dicit Glossa: idest mihi primitus commisso: et loquitur de suffraganeis, idest de parochiis subiectis Ecclesiae Corinthiorum, ut patet per Glossam. Si ergo episcopi sunt successores apostolorum, ipsorum formam tenentes, ut dicitur Luc. X, patet quod parochia principalius est commissa episcopo quam sacerdoti. Non enim potest intelligi quod prius tempore fuerit apostolo commissa, et postea ab ipso in alium translata: quia non diceret, in omni loco ipsorum et nostro, si ex quo ipsorum esse coeperat, suus esse destitisset.
| The Gloss commenting on the words (1 Cor. i.), “in every place of theirs and ours,” says: “These words signify in every place originally committed to me,” and the Apostle was speaking of suffragan churches, i.e. churches subject to the Church of Corinth. If then bishops are the successors of the Apostles and retain their office, as appears from the commentary in the Gloss on Luke x., the chief power in a parish belongs rather to the bishop than to the parish priest. For the words, “in every place of theirs and ours,” cannot mean that the church was first entrusted to St. Paul, and then taken from him and given to another, else it would have ceased to be his.
| | Item. Apollo erat presbyter Corinthiorum, qui eis sacramenta ministrabat, ut patet I Cor. III, 6: Apollo rigavit. Glossa, Baptismo: et tamen apostolus de Corinthiis se intromittebat, ut patet I Cor. XI, 34: cetera cum venero disponam, et II Cor. II, 10: nam et ego si quid donavi propter vos in persona Christi, et I Cor. IV, 21: quid vultis? In virga veniam ad vos etc., et II Cor. X, 13: secundum mensuram regulae qua mensus est nobis Deus, pertingendi ad vos: et II (Cor.) ult.: ideo haec absens scribo, ut non praesens durius agam secundum potestatem (Glossa, ligandi, atque solvendi) quam dedit mihi dominus. Patet ergo quod episcopi in plebibus sacerdotibus commissis plenam retinent potestatem.
| Apollo was a priest, ministering to the Corinthians, as we know from the words (1 Cor. iii. 6), “Apollo watered,” i.e., “by baptism,” (Gloss). Nevertheless, St, Paul regulated the affairs of the Church of Corinth, as we learn from his own words, “The rest I will set in order, when I come” (2 Cor. ii. 34). And again, “For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sake have I done it in the person of Christ” (2 Cor. ii. 10). And, again, he writes to the Corinthians (1 Cor. iv. 21): “What do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod? or in the spirit of meekness and charity?” Again, “according to the measure of the rule which God has measured to us, a measure to reach even to you” (2 Cor. x. 18). In another chapter, he says “Therefore, I write these things being absent, that being present, I may not deal more severely according to the power which the Lord has given me” (2 Cor. xiii. 10). This “power,” as the Gloss says, was that of “binding and loosing.” Hence we clearly see that a bishop retains full jurisdiction over the people entrusted to priests.
| | Item. Cum sacerdotes succedant in locum septuaginta duorum discipulorum, episcopi vero in locum duodecim apostolorum, ut dicitur in Glossa Lucae X, 1 absurdissimum videtur, si dicere velint, quod apostoli non possent absolvere vel ligare vel alia huiusmodi facere sine licentia septuaginta duorum discipulorum: quod tamen eos dicere oportet, si hoc de episcopis et presbyteris dicant.
| Again, priests are said to be successors of the seventy-two disciples, and bishops successors of the twelve Apostles (cf. Gloss on Luke x). Now it would be absurd to maintain that the apostles had no power of binding or loosing and of performing other spiritual works without permission from the seventy-two disciples. This argument holds good in like manner, with regard to the relations between bishops and priests.
| | Item. Dionysius dicit in 5 cap. caelestis hierarchiae, quod quamvis pontificum ordo sit perfectivus, et sacerdotum ordo sit illuminativus, et ministrantium ordo sit purgativus; tamen hierarchicus ordo, scilicet pontificum, non tantum habet perficere, sed illuminare et purgare; et sacerdotum ordo non solum illuminare, sed et purgare. Et subiungit causam, dicens: ipsae quidem enim minores virtutes in ea quae in meliora sunt, transmovere non possunt, eo quod iniustum eis sit ad huiusmodi conari maiestatem. Ipsae autem diviniores virtutes cum propriis habent et subiectas operationes: ut patet per expositionem maximi ibidem.
| Dionysius, furthermore, says (V Eccl. Hier.) that “although the duty of the episcopate is to perfect others, that of the priesthood to enlighten them, and that of the diaconate to cleanse them, nevertheless, bishops are bound not only to perfect but likewise to enlighten and to purify their people. In like manner, it is the office of priests not only to enlighten, but likewise to purify their flocks.” He gives the following reason for his assertion: “Inferior powers cannot become capable of the higher works; and it would be unjust were they to aspire to such a dignity. But the more divine powers are able to perform inferior operations, as we see by the words of Maximus.”
| | Patet ergo, quod sicut sacerdos potest quicquid potest diaconus, et adhuc amplius; ita et episcopus potest quicquid potest sacerdos, et adhuc amplius. Sicut ergo sacerdos potest legere Evangelium in Ecclesia non requisito diacono; ita episcopus potest absolvere et alia Ecclesiae sacramenta ministrare quibus voluerit, non requisito sacerdote parochiali. Item. Qui facit aliquid per alium, et per se ipsum hoc facere posset. Sed dum presbyteri absolvunt sibi subditos, hoc per eos episcopi facere dicuntur: unde Dionysius dicit in XIII cap. caelestis hierarchiae: is qui secundum nos summus est sacerdos, per suos ministros aut sacerdotes purgans aut illuminans, ipse dicitur purgare et illuminare, aliis in ipsum reponentibus proprias sacras operationes. Ergo et episcopus, cum voluerit, poterit absolvere subditos sacerdotis, vel eis praedicare per se ipsum.
| It is plain then that if a priest can do the work of a deacon, a bishop can accomplish all and more than that is done by a priest. A priest can, without permission from his deacon, read the gospel in his church. Therefore a bishop can, without license from the parish priest, absolve and administer the other Sacraments in any parish church of his diocese. What a man does through the agency of another he can do himself ; but when priests give absolution it is their bishop who is said to absolve by their instrumentality. Hence Dionysius (VI, cap. Eccles. Hiear.) writes: “He who, according to us, is the high priest does, by means of priests, his ministers, cleanse and illuminate us. It is he who is said to exercise these functions; because he entrusts others with the power of performing these sacred actions in his stead.” Hence a bishop may, in his own person, give absolution or preach.
| | Item. Praelatis Ecclesiarum a subditis obedientia debetur, inquantum eorum curam habent: unde dicitur ad Hebr. ult.: obedite praepositis vestris, et subiacete eis: ipsi enim pervigilant, Glosa idest pro vobis soliciti sunt praedicando, quasi pro animabus vestris rationem reddituri. Sed parochianus quisque magis tenetur obedire episcopo quam presbytero parochiali, ut patet per Glossam ad Rom. XIII, 2: ubi dicitur, quod maiori potestati est magis obediendum quam minori, sicut proconsuli quam curatori, et imperatori quam proconsuli: quod ad potestatis ordinem pertinet, qui multo magis in spiritualibus potestatibus quam in temporalibus invenitur. Ergo episcopi, qui sunt in superiori potestate constituti, magis habent curam de subditis quam etiam ipsi sacerdotes parochiales. Ad curam autem animarum pertinet quod dicitur Prov. XXVII, 23: diligenter agnosce vultum pecoris tui: quod fit maxime in confessionibus audiendis. Et ita episcopi possunt audire confessiones parochianorum etiam convenientius quam presbyteri parochiales.
| Again, the inferior clergy owe obedience to their prelates, in all that regards their care of souls. Thus St. Paul says (Hebr. xiii. 17), “Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch (i.e., they are solicitous for you in preaching) as being to render an account of your souls.” A parishioner is more stringently bound to obey his bishop than his parish priest. For, as the Gloss says in the commentary on the words Rom. xiii., obedience must be paid rather to the higher than to the lower power; thus a proconsul must be obeyed rather than a governor, and an Emperor rather than a proconsul. For, obedience must be proportioned to rank. This maxim applies to spiritual far more strongly than to temporal affairs. Hence bishops, who are invested with power superior to that of parish priests, are at the same time more fully responsible for the people. The words of the book of Proverbs (xxvii. 25): “Be diligent to know the countenance of your cattle,” refer to the care of souls, and are chiefly carried out by hearing confessions. Therefore, it beseems bishops, even more than parish priests, to hear the confessions of the faithful.
| | Item. Sacerdotes dantur episcopis ut coadiutores, quia soli onus populi ferre non possunt, sicut septuagintaduo senes dati sunt in adiutorium Moysi, ut patet Num. XI. Unde episcopus in ordinatione sacerdotum hoc exemplo, et quibusdam aliis praemissis, subiungit: quanto fragiliores sumus, tanto magis his auxiliis indigemus. Sed ille cui datur aliquis adiutor, non ex hoc amittit potestatem operandi cum sibi vacaverit; immo ipse est principalis operans, et adiutor est agens secundarium. Ergo episcopi possunt omnia agere quae ad curam plebis pertinent irrequisito sacerdote, etiam magis quam ipsi sacerdotes.
| As the seventy-two elders, of whom we read (Nun. vi.), were given to Moses as assistants; so priests are appointed as coadjutors to bishops, who could not bear their burdens unaided. Hence at the ordination of a priest, the bishop makes use of the following, and other similar words: “The weaker we are, the more do we stand in need of assistance.” But the fact that a bishop has a coadjutor does not deprive him of his own powers; for he still continues to “be their primary agent, and priests are his ministers. Hence bishops have as good, yes a better right, than priests to perform every sacerdotal office without the permission of any priest.
| | Item. Episcopi in Ecclesia tenent locum domini Iesu Christi: unde Dionysius dicit in 5 cap. ecclesiasticae hierarchiae: pontificum ordo primus quidem est divinarum ordinationum, sublimissimus autem et novissimus idem: etenim in ipsum perficitur et impletur omnis nostrae hierarchiae dispositio. Ut enim omnem hierarchiam videmus in Iesum consummatam, sic unamquamque in proprium divinum summum sacerdotem, idest episcopum: unde etiam I Pet. II, 25, dicitur de Christo: conversi estis ad pastorem et episcopum animarum vestrarum. Hoc autem praecipue verum est de Romano pontifice, cui, ut Cyrillus dicit, omnes iure divino caput inclinant, et ei tanquam ipsi domino Iesu obediunt: et Chrysostomus dicit super illud Ioan. ult.: pasce oves meas, idest, loco mei praepositus, et caput esto fratrum. Ergo ridiculum est dicere, et blasphemiae vicinum, quod episcopus non possit usum clavium exercere in quemlibet suae dioecesis, sicut et Christus posset.
| Further, bishops hold, in the Church, the place of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore Dionysius says (V Eccles. Hier.), “The Pontifical order is the first of divine ordinances, and supreme in the hierarchy of the Church. In it all degrees of the ecclesiastical hierarchy are consummated, and made perfect. As we behold the universal hierarchy summed up in Jesus, so each particular hierarchy attains its fulness in its own chief priest, i.e., its bishop. St Peter (1 Pet. ii. 25) says of Christ, “be converted to the pastor and bishop of your souls.” These words also apply, chiefly, to the Roman Pontiff, “before whom,” as St. Cyril remarks, “every head must, by divine right, bow, and whom all must obey, as they would obey our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.” St. Chrysostom says, commenting on the text of St. John, “Feed my lambs”: “These words are equivalent to saying, “Be, in my place, head and master of your brethren.” Hence it is absurd and almost blasphemous, to say that a bishop, who represents Christ, cannot exercise the power of the keys over any person in his diocese.
| | Item. Ad hoc quod aliquis possit absolvere in foro poenitentiali, sufficit quod habeat clavem et iurisdictionem per quam materia sibi determinatur; sicut et in aliis sacramentis, qui habet potestatem ordinis et materiam debitam, potest operari, si formam et intentionem debitam adhibeat: hoc enim semper in potestate eius est. Sed episcopus habet claves, cum sit sacerdos; habet etiam iurisdictionem in quemlibet suae dioecesis; alias non posset eos excommunicare, et coram se convenire. Ergo potest quemlibet suae dioecesis sine alicuius sacerdotis requisitione in foro poenitentiali absolvere.
| In order to give absolution, it is necessary to have the power of the keys, and jurisdiction, over every soul in a diocese. By this the matter is determined; and for the administration of penance as for the other Sacraments, all that is necessary is the power of Orders and the matter, together with the appointed form and due intention. Now a bishop being a priest has the keys. He has jurisdiction over every member of his diocese, otherwise he could not summon them to appear before him. Hence without the permission of any priest, he can give absolution to anyone in his diocese.
| | Item. Ideo sacerdotibus necessarium videtur subditorum confessiones audire, quia eis sacramentum Eucharistiae ministrant, quod ab his qui sunt in peccato mortali sumi non debet. Sed similiter sacramentum confirmationis et ordinis sumi non debet ab his qui sunt in peccato mortali, quia haec sacramenta gratiam praesupponunt: haec autem sacramenta a solis episcopis ministrantur. Ergo et pari ratione episcopis competit confessiones audire quorumlibet suae dioecesis.
| It is argued that it is necessary for parish priests to hear confessions, because they have the duty of administering the Blessed Eucharist, which no one should receive who is in mortal sin. But, Confirmation and Holy Orders likewise require a state of grace ‘m, their recipients; and these Sacraments can be given by bishops only. Hence a bishop is entitled to hear the confession of every person in his diocese.
| | Item. Nullus potest assumere sibi illud quod non est in sua potestate. Sed, sicut communis consuetudo probat, episcopi assumunt sibi casus quos voluerint, de quibus ad eos pro absolutione recurratur. Ergo etiam antequam eos sibi assumerent, erant in eorum potestate: ergo et de casibus aliis possunt absolvere cum voluerint.
| Further, no one can reserve to himself what is not within his own power. Now by a common usage, bishops reserve to themselves certain cases for absolution. But, in order to act thus, they must have power to absolve. Hence they must likewise have power to absolve in all other cases in which they desire to do so.
| | Item. Secundum Dionysium potestas episcopi in nostra hierarchia est potestas universalis; potestas autem sacerdotis et ministrorum est potestas particularis, ut patet in I cap. et in 5 Eccles. hierarchiae. Sed secundum quod probatum est a philosophis, virtus universalis efficacius agit in id quod subiicitur virtuti particulari, quam etiam ipsa particularis virtus. Ergo episcopus magis habet usum clavium in eos qui subduntur sacerdotibus, quam etiam ipsi sacerdotes.
| Dionysius remarks that, in our hierarchy the episcopal power is universal, the power of priests and other ministers particular (I, V, Eccl. Hier.). But, as we know by philosophy, universal power acts more efficaciously on that which is subject to a particular power than does that particular power itself. Hence a bishop exercises the power of the keys more efficaciously on those who are subject to priests, than do priests themselves.
| | Item. Nullus potest dare quod non habet. Sed episcopi est sacerdotibus dare omnem potestatem quam sacerdotes habent. Nullum autem spirituale amittitur cum datur: quia spiritualia non dantur nisi per actionem dantis in recipientem: agens vero non amittit virtutem agendi ex hoc ipso quod agit. Ergo episcopus habet omnem potestatem quam habet sacerdos parochialis.
| Further, it is plain that no man can give to another anything that he does not himself possess. It is the office of a bishop to give authority to priests. But, by imparting authority, a bishop does not deprive himself of it, for spiritual gifts are only bestowed by the action of the giver on the recipient. But as an agent does not, by acting, lose the power of acting, a bishop retains all that power which he gives to parish priests.
| | Deinde ostendendum est quod aliqui ex commissione episcoporum possunt praedicare et confessiones audire in parochiis sacerdotum. Extra. de officio Iudic. Ordin., cap. inter cetera, dicitur quod episcopi viros idoneos ad sanctae praedicationis officium salubriter exequendum assumant; et infra: praecipimus tam in cathedralibus, quam in aliis conventualibus Ecclesiis viros idoneos ordinari, quos episcopi coadiutores et cooperatores habeant, non solum in praedicationis officio, verum etiam in audiendis confessionibus, et poenitentiis iniungendis, ac ceteris quae ad salutem pertinent animarum. Ex quo patet quod clerici conventualium Ecclesiarum alicuius dioecesis, qui non sunt parochiales presbyteri, possunt praedicare et confessiones audire auctoritate episcopi.
| 2. Our next task will be to prove that certain men can be commissioned by bishops to preach and hear confessions in the parishes entrusted to priests. For, as it is stated (de officio judic. ordin. cap. Inter caetera), “a bishop may, with expediency, choose out certain men fit for the holy office of preaching.” And again, “we enjoin that, both in cathedrals and in conventual churches, bishops should appoint certain coadjutors and fellow-workers, who shall assist, not only in the duty of preaching, but in that of hearing confessions, imposing penance, and other such offices as may pertain to the welfare of souls.” From these words, it is plain that the clerics of monastic churches, who are not parish priests, may, by the authority of the bishop, preach and hear confessions.
| | Item. Extra. De haereticis, cap. excommunicamus, quia vero, dicitur: omnes qui prohibiti vel non missi praeter auctoritatem ab apostolica sede, vel Catholico episcopo loci susceptam, privatim vel publice praedicationis officium usurpare praesumpserint, excommunicationis vinculo innodentur. Ex quo haberi potest quod Papa vel episcopus potest dare alicui auctoritatem praedicandi.
| Again, in Extra de haereticis, cap. excommunicavimus, quia vero, it is laid down that, “all such as have been forbidden to preach, or who have not received, publicly or privately, license to preach from the Apostolic See, or from the Catholic bishop of a place, and shall yet usurp the office of preaching, do so under pain of excommunication.” Hence we see that the Pope, or a bishop, can give to any priest authority to preach.
| | Item. Constat quod apostoli, quorum episcopi sunt successores, per civitates et castella presbyteros ordinabant, qui continue cum populis sibi subiectis commorabantur; et tamen alios mittebant ad praedicandum, et alia exequendum quae ad salutem pertinent animarum. I Cor. IV, 17: misi ad vos Timotheum, qui est filius meus carissimus et fidelis in domino, qui vos commonefaciat vias meas quae sunt in Christo Iesu: et II Cor. XII ult.: rogavi Titum, et misi cum illo fratrem. Glossa, scilicet Barnabam, vel Lucam; et ad Titum I, 5: huius rei gratia reliqui te Cretae et cetera. Ergo et aliqui alii quam presbyteri parochiales possunt praedicare et confessiones audire ex commissione episcoporum.
| Further, it is certain that the Apostles, of whom bishops are the successors, ordained certain priests in cities and villages to dwell continually among their people. But they likewise sent forth others to preach and to perform other offices, for the good of souls. Thus St. Paul writes (1 Cor. iv. 17), “I have sent you Timothy, who is my dearest son and faithful in the Lord, who will put you in mind, of my ways in Christ Jesus.” Again (2 Cor. xii. 18), “I desired Titus, and I send with him a brother,” i.e. Barnabas or Luke. The Apostle also writes to Titus (i. 5 ), “For this cause I left you in Crete that you might correct what was wanting, and that you might appoint priests, as I appointed to you,” Hence other priests, besides those in charge of parishes, may preach and hear confessions, with license from a bishop.
| | Item. Praedicare et confessiones audire sunt iurisdictionis vel iurisdictionis et ordinis simul. Sed ea quae sunt huiusmodi, possunt committi his saltem qui ordinem habent. Ergo cum episcopus possit praedicare et confessiones audire in parochia non requisito sacerdote, ut supra probatum est; hoc idem et alius poterit ex eius commissione.
| The offices of preaching, and of hearing confessions pertain both to jurisdiction and to Orders. But offices pertaining to jurisdiction can only be exercised by those who have received Orders. Hence if a bishop without asking permission of the parish priest, can preach or hear confessions in any parish church within his diocese; another priest may, by the commission of the bishop, act in the same manner.
| | Item. Ad hoc facit consuetudo Romanae Ecclesiae: ad quam accedentes, a poenitentiariis Papae ad quoscumque sacerdotes litteras impetrant, ut eis confiteantur. Item. Legati Papae et eorum poenitentiarii confessiones audiunt non petita licentia a presbyteris parochialibus; et etiam auctoritate Papae ubique praedicant. Et ita patet quod praedicare et audire confessiones potest aliis committi sine licentia sacerdotum parochialium.
| This proposition is likewise proved, by the fact that persons seeking admission into the Church, receive from the papal penitentiaries letters empowering them to make their confession to any priest whatsoever. And the papal legates and penitentiaries preach everywhere, and hear confessions without asking any permission from parish priests, but solely by the authority of the Pope. This proves that commission can be given to certain priests both for preaching end for hearing confessions, without any necessity for a further license from parish priests.
| | Nunc restat ostendere, quod religiosi sunt idonei ad hoc quod talia eis committantur. 16, q. 1, cap. pervenit, dicitur, quod monachi et abbates, absque proprii episcopi licentia hoc nullatenus praesumere debeant, ut videlicet poenitentiam dent. Ex quo relinquitur quod ex auctoritate Papae et episcopi monachis et aliis religiosis liceat confessiones audire.
| (4.) It now remains to be proved that religious are fit to perform the functions, of preaching and hearing confessions. For in XVI, quaest. I, cap. Pervenit it is stated that “without the license of their own bishop monks and abbots may not presume to administer penance.” Whence it follows that religious, when authorised by the Pope or by a bishop may lawfully hear confessions.
| | Item. Quaestione eadem dicitur ex auctoritate huius decreti quod apostolico moderamine et pietatis officio a nobis est constitutum, sacerdotibus monachis, apostolorum figuram tenentibus, liceat praedicare, baptizare, communionem dare, pro peccatoribus exorare, poenitentiam imponere, atque peccata solvere.
| Again, in the same chapter the following words occur: “ We, in our Apostolic discretion and tenderness, decree that it is lawful for monks who are priests and who represent the Apostles to preach, baptise, give communion, pray for sinners, impose penance, and absolve from sin.”
| | Item. In seq. capitulo, sunt nonnulli, dicit Bonifacius Papa: credimus a sacerdotibus monachis ligandi solvendique officium, Deo cooperante, digne administrari, si eos contigerit hoc ministerio sublimari. Decertantes igitur monasticae professionis presbyteros sacerdotalis potentiae arcere officio, omnino praecipimus ut ab huiuscemodi ausibus reprimantur in posterum: quia quanto quisque celsior est, tanto et illis erit potentior.
| In the next chapter, Sunt tamen nonnulli, Pope Boniface speaks thus: “We believe that, by the operation of God, the office of binding and loosing may be worthily accomplished by monks in priestly Orders, if they have been deservedly exalted to this rank. We further ordain that for the future, those shall be reprimanded who contend that priests of the monastic profession are excluded from the exercise of the sacerdotal functions. For the higher a man’s rank the greater is his power.”
| | Item. Episcopi debent divina iudicia imitari quantum possunt. I Cor. IV, 16: imitatores mei estote, sicut et ego Christi. Sed divino iudicio aliqui religiosi sunt reputati idonei ut eis immediate a Deo praedicationis committeretur officium, sicut de Equitio monacho b. Gregorius in dialogo narrat, et etiam de beato Benedicto. Ergo et iudicio episcoporum aliqui religiosi possunt reputari idonei ut eis praedicatio committatur.
| Again, bishops are bound, as far as possible, to imitate the divine judgments. St. Paul says (1 Cor. ii, 1), “ Be imitators of me, as I also am of Christ.” But God has judged some monks worthy to preach without any human authorisation. This was the case with the monk Equitius, as St. Gregory relates (Dialog.) and also with St. Benedict. Hence bishops may rightly esteem certain religious to be fit to preach.
| | Item. Omnia quae licent saecularibus clericis, licent et religiosis, exceptis his quae in sua regula eis prohibentur. Arg. 16, q. 1: sunt nonnulli: ubi dicitur, quod monachis licet absolvere, et alia huiusmodi facere. Neque enim b. Benedictus monachorum praeceptor almificus huiuscemodi rei fuit interdictor. Sed saecularibus licet ex commissione episcoporum praedicare et confessiones audire. Ergo et religiosis; cum in nulla regula hoc sit prohibitum.
| Further, everything that is lawful to secular priests is lawful likewise to religious, with the exception of any points forbidden by their rule. In Arg. xvi, quaest. I Sunt tamen nonnulli, it is laid down “that it is right for monks to absolve and to perform similar functions. St. Benedict, the gentle guide of monks, has not forbidden such offices to be undertaken by religious.” Secular priests, when authorised by a bishop, may preach and hear confessions. Hence as there is no rule forbidding monks to perform these duties, they may preach and hear confessions in like manner.
| | Item. Maius est praedicationis officium ex propria auctoritate exequi quam ex commissione alterius. Sed religiosi possunt ad praelationis gradum sublimari; in quo eis competit praedicare, et alia propria auctoritate exequi quae ad salutem pertinent animarum. Ergo multo magis idonei debent reputari ut praedicationis officium et alia huiusmodi ex commissione episcopi exequantur.
| It is a greater dignity for a man to preach by his own authority, than by the commission of another. Now religious are always liable to be raised to the episcopate, in which rank they have a right to preach and do other work expedient for the welfare of souls at their own discretion. Why then should they be deemed unfit to preach by the permission of a bishop?
| | Item. Ad illud quod maxime competit perfectis, non redditur aliquis minus idoneus ex hoc quod in statu perfectionis se ponit, quem statum religiosi assumunt. Sed praedicationis officium competit maxime perfectis, unde I Esdrae I, 4 super illud, omnes reliqui etc., dicit Glossa: omnes electi, de potestate tenebrarum eruti, ad libertatem pertinent gloriae filiorum Dei, omnes societati sanctae civitatis, idest Ecclesiae, adnumerari laetantur. Sed tantum perfectorum est in aedificatione eius Ecclesiae etiam aliis praedicando laborare. Et quod intelligat de perfectione religionis, patet ex hoc quod sequitur: quia eruditores multorum, cum magis ad caelestia diligenda auditores instituunt, minus pro terrenis curam gerunt; immo acquisita pro spe aeternorum relinquunt. Hoc etiam patet per interlinearem, quae dicit: omnes reliqui, idest divites, qui praedicare non possunt. Ergo religiosi non redduntur minus idonei ad exequendum praedicationis officium quam alii; et ita, cum alii possunt ex commissione episcoporum praedicare et confessiones audire, ut probatum est religiosi hoc idem possunt.
| The fact that a man is in a state of perfection does not incapacitate him from preaching. On the contrary, preaching is a ministry peculiarly befitting the perfect state professed by religious. Hence the Gloss, commenting on the words of Esdras (1 Esdras 4), “all the rest” etc., says: “All those who have been chosen and delivered from the powers of darkness belong to the liberty of the glory of the children of God; and they all rejoice at being declared to belong to the society of the holy city (i.e., the Church); but it is the prerogative of the perfect alone to labour at building up the Church by preaching to others.” The fact that these words apply to the perfection of religious, is proved by the following words: The more earnestly preachers instruct their hearers to love heavenly things, the lea will they care about earthly goods. They will even abandon what they already possess, in the hope of obtaining an eternal heritage.” This interpretation further appears in the interlinear commentary, which says, “all the rest” i.e., “the rich who cannot preach.” Hence religious are not less fit than others to preach, and, with the commission of a bishop, have as much right to hear confessions and to preach as have parish priests.
| | Item. I Esdrae VIII, 31, super illud, promovimus ergo a flumine etc. dicit Glossa: fratrum quoque cohortem religiosam nobis in auxilium vocamus; qua adiuti, animas fidelium ad societatem electorum et ad arcem vitae perfectionis, quasi vasa sancta ad templum domini efficacius transferamus. Ex quo patet idem quod prius.
| On the words, “then we set forward from the river,” (1 Esdras viii. 31), the Gloss comments: “Let us likewise call to our assistance the religious army of brethren by whose help we may carry the souls of the faithful to the society of the elect, and to the fortress of a more perfect life, as we should carry holy vessels to the temple of the Lord.”
| | Item. Hoc etiam apparet ex communi consuetudine Orientalis Ecclesiae, secundum quam fere omnes monachis confitentur.
| The right of religious to preach and hear confessions is proved by the common custom of the Eastern Church, in which almost all the monks are confessors.
| | Item. Maioris potestatis est legationis officium exercere, episcopos confirmare, et de eis Ecclesiis provideri, quam praedicare, vel confessiones audire. Sed primum invenitur religiosis esse commissum. Ergo et secundum eis committi potest.
| Again, a greater responsibility attaches to the office of legate, and to the work of confirming bishops, and setting them over churches, than to the office of preachers or confessors. But, as we know that the first and more onerous duties are entrusted to religious, there is no reason why they should not perform the less important ones.
| | Item. Magis est remotum a religiosorum vita causas audire, quam confessiones, vel praedicare. Sed primum eis potest committi. Ergo multo fortius alia.
| Again, the work of hearing lawsuits has less connection with the religious life, than have the tasks of preaching or absolving. But, as religious are employed in the former office, they may, with far greater reason, be entrusted with the latter functions.
| | Nunc restat ostendere, quod saluti animarum expediat etiam aliis quam sacerdotibus parochialibus praedicationem committi, et alia quae ad salutem pertinent animarum.
| (3.) It now remains for us to show that it is expedient for the salvation of souls that others, besides parish priests, should preach and hear confessions.
| | Primo per hoc quod dominus dicit Matth. IX, 37: messis quidem multa: Glossa, turba populorum ad suscipiendum verbum et ferendum fructum apta; operarii autem pauci; Glossa: praedicatores ad congregandum electorum Ecclesiam. Rogate ergo dominum messis, ut mittat operarios in messem suam. Ex quo patet quod salubre est Ecclesiae per multos verbum Dei praedicari fidelibus, et maxime turba fidelium crescente.
| Our first proof is taken from the words of our Lord (Matt. ix. 37), “The harvest indeed is great”—or as the Gloss explains, “There is a vast multitude capable of receiving the word and of bearing fruit”—“ but the labourers are few,” i.e. (according to the Gloss), “the preachers who shall gather together the church of the elect.” “Pray, therefore, the Lord of the harvest, that He send labourers into his harvest.” These words show that it is salutary for the Church that the word of God should be announced to the faithful by many preachers, with an ever increasing number of believers.
| | Idem potest haberi per id quod dicitur Sap. VI, 26: multitudo sapientium (interlinearis, coetus praedicatorum) sanitas est orbis terrarum.
| Again, it is written in the Book of Wisdom (vi, 26), “In a multitude of counsellors, there is wisdom.” These words are interpreted by the interlinear commentary to signify “A multitude of preachers brings health to the whole world.”
| | Item. II ad Tim. II, 2: quae audisti per multos testes, haec commenda hominibus fidelibus: Glossa, idest sanae fidei: qui idonei erunt: Glossa, vita, et scientia, et facundia: alios docere: Glossa, illis enim debet committi praedicatio divina qui apti sunt illi officio.
| St. Paul says (2 Tim. ii. 2), “The things which you heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men,” i.e., “men of sound faith” (Gloss) “who shall be fit,” i.e., “fitted by their good life, their learning and eloquence” (Gloss), “to teach others.” In other words, “the office of preaching ought to be committed to those capable of fulfilling it” (Gloss).
| | Item. I Esdrae III, 8 super illud verbum, et omnes qui venerant de captivitate in Ierusalem, Glossa sic dicit: non solum episcopi et presbyteri plebem fidelium, idest Dei domum, debent aedificare; sed etiam populus de captivitate vitiorum ad visionem verae pacis vocatus, ministerium verbi ab his qui dicere noverunt, debet exigere.
| Again, the Gloss has the following comment on the words of Esdras (1 Esd. iii.), “all that were come from captivity to Jerusalem”: “Not only is it the duty of, bishops and priests to build up the house of God, whereby is signified His faithful people; but the people themselves, who are called out of captivity into Jerusalem, the vision of peace, ought likewise to require ministry of the Word from those who know how to preach.”
| | Item. Gregorius in 19 Moral., super illud Iob: quando lavabam pedes meos butyro, sic dicit: quid ad haec nos episcopi dicimus, qui commissis nobis verba vitae impendere non curamus, quando coniugatum virum prohibere non valuit ab officio praedicationis vel saecularis habitus, vel magnae occupatio facultatis? Ex quo patet quod alii etiam quam praelati vel rectores Ecclesiarum laudabiliter possunt praedicationis officium exercere.
| St. Gregory (XIX Moral.) remarks on the passage in Job xxix., “when I washed my feet with butter”: “What shall we bishops say, who care not to impart the Word entrusted to us, when we see this married man who does not suffer himself to be hindered from preaching, either by his worldly garb, or his pressing occupations?” By these words we see that others besides prelates and parish priests may rightfully exercise the office of preaching.
| | Hoc idem potest ostendi per multa exempla veteris testamenti. David enim laudatur de hoc quod cultum Dei ampliavit, vigintiquatuor sacerdotes constituendo, ut magis posset populus expediri, ut patet I Paral. XXIV. Similiter IV Reg. XVII, misit Ezechias nuntios discurrentes qui monerent populum ut converterentur ad dominum Deum patrum suorum; Assuerus etiam nuntios celeres misit per universas provincias, qui nuntiarent liberationem populi Dei, ut legitur Esther VIII, 14. Ergo multo magis saluberrime hoc fieri potest, ut aliis quam sacerdotibus parochialibus praedicationis officium committatur, et alia quae pertinent ad salutem animarum.
| We learn the same lesson from many other passages of the Old Testament. David is praised for having extended the worship of God, and for having established twenty-four priests for the benefit of the people (1 Chron. xxiii and xxiv). The same thing is related of Hezechiah (2 Chron. xxx. 6): “The posts went with letters, by commandment of the King and his princes, to all Israel and Judah, proclaiming, according to the King’s orders: ‘Children of Israel, turn again to the Lord God,’” etc. Assuerus, again, as we are told in the book of Esther (vii.), sent swift messages through the provinces to announce the deliverance of the people of God. With much greater reason then may others, besides parish priests, be commissioned to preach and to perform such like offices for the salvation of souls.
| | Item. Gregorius in 5 Homil. primae partis super Ezech.: hi qui animarum custodes sunt, et pascendi gregis onera perceperunt, mutare loca minime permittantur. Hi autem qui amore domini in praedicatione discurrunt, rotae eius ignis ardens sunt: quia cum ex eius desiderio per varia loca discurrunt, unde ipsi ardent, et alios accendunt. Ex quo patet quod conveniens est ut praeter rectores Ecclesiarum qui resident in suis Ecclesiis, aliis praedicationis officium committatur, qui per diversa loca discurrant.
| St. Gregory, in a homily (V, Part I on Ezekiel), says : “The pastors of souls and they who have undertaken the responsibility of feeding the flock of Christ ought very seldom, if ever, to change their dwelling. But those who, for love of God, take journeys for the sake of preaching may be compared to wheels of fire. For the zeal which devours them, and wherewith they inflame others, causes them to travel swiftly from place to place.” This is another proof that the office of preaching should be committed not only to parish priests, but to others who can, by travelling from one place to another, spread the knowledge of the truth.
| | Item. Quod hoc utile sit et salubre, satis manifestat occupatio rectorum Ecclesiae, quos in aliis rebus piis et ecclesiasticis oportet frequenter occupari; cum tamen oporteat praedicatorem verbi Dei ab omni alia occupatione liberum esse: unde apostoli dixerunt Act. VI, 2: non est aequum nos relinquere verbum Dei, et ministrare mensis. Unde patet quod satis necessarium est eis ab aliis iuvari.
| Again, it behoves a preacher of the Word to be free from any other occupation; whereas parish priests are constantly engaged in good work and in ecclesiastical business. The Apostles said, “It is not fit that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.” (Acts vi. 2). On this account, it is right that those who are in charge of parishes should be assisted by others not thus occupied.
| | Hanc etiam necessitatem maxime ostendit imperitia multorum sacerdotum, qui in aliquibus partibus adeo ignorantes inveniuntur, ut nec etiam loqui Latinum sciant. Paucissimi etiam inveniuntur qui sacram Scripturam didicerint; et tamen oportet praedicatorem verbi Dei in sacra Scriptura instructum esse. Unde satis apertum est multum saluti fidelium detrahi, si solum sacerdotibus parochialibus verbum Dei praedicandum relinquatur. In confessionibus etiam audiendis non minor necessitas apparet propter ignorantiam multorum sacerdotum, quae periculosissima est in confessionibus audiendis. Unde Augustinus in Lib. de poenitentia: qui vult confiteri peccata, ut inveniat gratiam, quaerat sacerdotem qui sciat ligare et solvere; ne cum negligens circa se extiterit, negligatur ab illo qui eum misericorditer movet et petit; ne ambo in foveam cadant, quam stultus vitare noluit.
| The necessity for priests devoted to the ministry of preaching is, furthermore, shown by the great ignorance prevailing in some places amongst many of the clergy, some of whom know not even how to speak in Latin. It is rare to find any who are conversant with the Scriptures. Yet a knowledge of the holy writings is essential to those who would preach the word of God. Hence if preaching be entrusted solely to parish priests, the faithful will be greatly the losers. The ignorance which prevails among the clergy is also most detrimental in the duty of hearing confessions. For, as St. Augustine says (De Penitentia), “If any man desires to confess his sins, let him seek out a priest who knows how to bind and to loose. For if he be negligent in the matter, he may be neglected by Him who incites him and moves him to seek for mercy; and so both may fall into the ditch which, in his folly, he strove not to avoid.”
| | Item eandem necessitatem ostendit multitudo plebis, quae interdum uni sacerdoti gubernanda committitur: qui si toto tempore vitae suae nihil aliud faceret, vix omnium confessiones diligenter audire posset. Item hanc necessitatem ostendit difficultas confitendi. Quidam enim, ut experimento inventum est, a confessione desisterent, si non possent aliis quam suis sacerdotibus confiteri: quandoque propter verecundiam, quia erubescunt confiteri peccata illis cum quibus quotidie conversantur: quandoque vero quia suspicantur sacerdotes sibi esse inimicos, et propter multa alia. Unde pie praelati eorum infirmitati condescendunt, ne omnino in desperationem labantur, de aliis confessoribus eis providendo.
| Additional priests, deputed to preach, and to act as confessors, are likewise called for, on account of the great multitude of souls often committed to the care of one pastor. For, were some parish priests to devote their whole lives to the task, they would scarcely be able to hear the confessions of all their flock. It happens likewise that some of the faithful, having no opportunity of confessing to any save to their parish priest, will abstain altogether from confession. For they are ashamed to acknowledge their sins to those whom they see every day. Sometimes, again, they fancy that the priest is unfriendly to them, and the like. Hence bishops act very judiciously in providing them with other confessors, and thus preserving them from despair,
| | His visis, ostendendum est aliquam religionem ad hoc specialiter salubriter posse institui ad cooperandum praelatis Ecclesiarum in praedicatione et confessionibus audiendis ex commissione praelatorum.
| 5. The foregoing reflections naturally lead us to consider the expediency of a religious order being instituted for the express purpose of assisting parish priests in preaching and hearing confessions. Episcopal permission would, of course, be needed to authorise the brethren of such an order to undertake their duties.
| | Primo per hoc quod omnis religio ad exemplum vitae apostolicae formata est: unde dicitur Act. IV, 32 super illud, et erant illis omnia communia: Glossa: communia, Graece coena, unde coenobitae, idest communiter viventes, coenobia, idest habitacula eorum. Haec autem fuit vita apostolica, ut relictis omnibus, per mundum discurrerent evangelizando et praedicando, ut patet Matth. X, 7-10 ubi regula quaedam eis inscribitur. Ergo ad praedicta potest aliqua religio convenientissime institui.
| Every religious order is based on the model of the Apostolic life. We are told that the Apostles practised community of life: “all things were common to them “ (Acts iv). The Gloss says that “the word ‘common’ is, in Greek, rendered by caena, or common meal, whence come the words cenobites, i.e. dwellers in common, and cenobia, i.e. common dwelling places.” The Apostles practised this mode of life, in order that leaving all things, they might be at liberty to preach the Gospel throughout the world. For the same reason, they prescribed this common life to their successors. Hence a religious order is peculiarly well adapted to the office of preaching.
| | Item. Iac. I, 27: religio munda et immaculata apud Deum et patrem haec est, visitare pupillos et viduas in tribulatione eorum. Sed illa visitatio est maxime necessaria quae fit per eos qui saluti animarum intendunt. Ergo convenientissime religio institui potest ad visitandum homines qui consolatione indigent, ut per patientiam et consolationem Scripturarum spem habeant.
| St. James says, “Religion pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the orphan and the widow in their tribulation.” The most necessary form of visiting those in affliction, is that which is practised by such as labour for the salvation of souls. A religious order may then with great advantage, be instituted with this object in view that its members may seek out such as are in trouble, and encourage them to have patience, and to hope in, the promises of Scripture.
| | Item. Act. VI, 2 super illud, non est aequum nos relinquere verbum Dei, et ministrare mensis, dicit interlinearis: meliora sunt fercula mentis quam dapes corporis. Sed aliquae religiones pie et salubriter institutae sunt ad subveniendum pauperibus in corporalibus dapibus et in aliis necessitatibus corporis. Ergo multo convenientius potest aliqua religio institui ad subveniendum necessitatibus animarum.
| In the interlinear commentary we find, on the words, “It is not fit that we should leave the word of God and serve tables (Acts vi. 2), the following observation: “Food for the soul is better than banquets for the body.” Now certain orders have already been instituted for the purpose of assisting men in their corporeal needs; it is still more fitting that another order should be established, to minister to their spiritual wants.” St, Augustine says: “It is better to nourish the soul that will live for ever with the Lord, than the body which must decay in death. The health of the body depends upon the condition of the soul; but the soul’s health does not depend upon bodily constitution.”
| | Item. Spiritualis militia magis competit religioso quam saecularis. Sed ad militiam saecularem exercendam aliquae religiones utiliter institutae sunt. Ergo multo convenientius institui possunt ad militiam spiritualem, quae competit praedicatoribus verbi Dei: de qua dicitur II Tim. II, 3: labora sicut bonus miles Christi Iesu: Glossa: in praedicando Evangelium contra hostes fidei.
| It is more seemly for a religious to fight with spiritual weapons, than with sword and shield. But there are already in existence several military orders. It is therefore expedient that an order should be founded for the purposes of spiritual warfare. The religious of such an order ought, principally to preach the gospel, according to the exhortation of St, Paul, “Labour like a good soldier of Christ” (2 Tim ii. 3), “by preaching the gospel against the enemies of the Faith,” as the Gloss explains.
| | Item. Eis qui procurant salutem animarum, necessarium est ut vita et scientia clareant: ex quibus non de facili tot possent inveniri quod singulis parochiis per universum mundum praeficerentur, cum etiam propter litteratorum inopiam nec adhuc per saeculares potuerit observari illud statutum Lateranensis Concilii ut in singulis Ecclesiis metropolitanis essent aliqui qui theologiam docerent; quod tamen per religiosos Dei gratia cernimus multo latius impletum quam etiam fuerit statutum; adeo ut impletum videatur illud Isa. XI, 9: repleta est terra scientia domini. Ergo saluberrime religio aliqua instituitur in qua sint homines litterati et studio vacantes ad iuvandum sacerdotes qui ad hoc minus sufficiunt.
| It is essential that they who labour for the salvation of souls should be remarkable both for learning, and for sanctity of life. It is not easy to find enough priests with such a reputation to take charge of all the parishes throughout the world: neither is it possible, among secular priests, to carry out the statute of the Council of Lateran, which enjoins that there should be teachers of theology in every metropolitan church. This desire of the Church is, however, through the mercy of God, being carried out through the instrumentality of religious. In the words of Isaiah (xi. 9), “The earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord.” Thus, it is highly expedient that a religious order should be founded, in which the brethren are learned and addicted to study, and at the same time have leisure to help secular priests who are not so well adapted to teach theology.
| | Item. Hoc evidentissime ostenditur ex effectu sequente. Videmus enim talibus religionibus institutis in pluribus partibus haereticam pravitatem eorum ministerio extirpatam, infideles etiam nonnullos ad fidem conversos, multos per universum orbem in lege Dei instructos, quamplurimos ad statum poenitentiae conversos; ita quod si quis inutilem talem religionem mentiatur, manifeste convinci possit, quasi gratiae invidus, quae in eis operatur, in spiritum sanctum peccare.
| The advantage of such orders is further proved by the beneficial results produced by their labours. For in many parts of the world, heresy has been destroyed; many infidels have been converted; careless Christians have been instructed in the law of God; and many have been brought to penance by the efforts of religious. Hence anyone who condemns such orders as useless is clearly sinning against the Holy Spirit, by envy of the grace whereby God co-operates in the labours of these men.
| | Item. 25, quaest. 1, dicitur: nulli fas sit sine status sui periculo vel divinas constitutiones, vel apostolica decreta temerare. Cum ergo per apostolicam sedem religiones aliquae sint institutae ad praedicta, quod etiam ex ipso nomine ostenditur (nemo enim quicumque, ut dicit Augustinus in Lib. de vita Christiana, nomen sine causa sortitur); manifeste se damnabilem reddit quicunque talem religionem damnare conatur.
| Again, in XXV. quaest. I, we read the following words: “No one can, either safely or rightly, pass rash judgments either on the Divine constitutions or on the decrees of the Holy See.” Since, therefore, certain religious Orders, as is proved by their very name (for, as St. Augustine puts it in his book The Christian Life, “no one is called by a name without a cause”), have been established, by the Apostolic See for the purposes of which we have spoken, anyone who condemns them does, by so doing, himself incur condemnation.
| | Nunc ultimo restat adversariorum obiectionibus respondere.
| 6. We must now proceed to our final task that of answering the objections of our opponents.
| | Quod ergo primo obiicitur quod pascere ad monachos non pertinet, sed pasci; intelligendum est ex hoc quod sunt monachi, contra illos qui ex sola vitae sanctitate potestatem ecclesiastici ordinis alicui competere dicebant: sicut etiam potest dici, quod saeculari clerico non competit pascere, si non habeat curam animarum, vel nisi sit sibi ab habentibus curam animarum commissum. Unde propter hoc non excluditur quin religiosis competat pascere populum verbo Dei, si vel ad praelationem assumantur, vel a praelatis eis committatur. Non enim minus sunt idonei religiosi ad praedicationis officium exequendum quam saeculares; nisi forte quatenus sunt sub obedientia constituti, ut sic indigeant duplici licentia ad praedicandum: scilicet licentia eorum quibus cura plebis committitur, et licentia praelatorum ordinis sui, sine qua nihil eis agere licet. Similiter est intelligendum quod postea obiicitur: praeter domini sacerdotes nullus audeat praedicare: verum est quasi propria auctoritate, scilicet ordinaria. Similiter quod sequitur, monachos a populorum praedicatione omnino cessare censemus, intelligendum est ut non propria auctoritate, ex hoc ipso quod monachi sunt, officium sibi praedicationis assumant.
| Ad 1. Their first argument is that the duty of monks is, “not to feed a flock, but to be fed.” This saying is to be understood as meaning that monks have not, by right of their monastic profession, the office of instructing the faithful. It was directed against the mistaken notion that sanctity of life alone is sufficient qualification for the ecclesiastical state. But it is equally true that it is not the duty of a secular priest to feed a flock, unless he has the care of souls, or unless he bears a commission from those holding such a charge. Religious are as fitted as are the secular clergy for the office of preaching. The only difference between them is that religious require a double license, viz. the authorisation of a bishop, and permission from the superior of their order, without which they may not act. The second objection must be answered in exactly the same way. For the words, “Let none, save the priests of the Lord, dare to preach,” is true, if we understand them to mean that no one may preach without a commission to do so.
| | Similiter quod sequitur, quod praedicare monacho non convenit, intelligendum est quasi ex hoc ipso quod monachus sit, officium habeat praedicandi.
| Ad 2. In like manner, the prohibition to monks to preach, which is quoted against us, is to be understood to mean that monks may not, merely because they are monks, arrogate to themselves the office of preaching. And, in the same way, when it is said that “it does not beseem a monk to preach,” the words mean that the monastic state does not, of itself, confer a right to preach.
| | Ad illud quod postea obiicitur, quod illi qui pascunt populum verbo Dei, debent etiam pascere temporali subsidio, respondetur, quod intelligendum est, si vires suppetant, secundum illud I Ioan. III, 17: qui habuerit substantiam huius mundi, et viderit fratrem suum necessitatem patientem etc.; alias apostoli praedicare non potuissent, qui dixerunt Act. III, 6: argentum et aurum non est mihi. Nihilominus tamen et illi qui secundum se pauperes sunt, possunt aliis temporali subsidio providere, dum divites ad eleemosynarum largitatem hortantur, sicut et Paulo praedicationis officium in gentes assumenti commissum est ut pauperum memor esset, ut dicitur Gal. II, 10.
| Ad 3. When it is objected that they who feed the people with the word of God, ought likewise to supply their material necessities, we reply that this is perfectly true in cases where such charity is possible. For, as St, John says (1 Jn. iii. 17), “He who has the substance of this world and sees his brother in need, and closes the bowels of his mercy against him, how does the charity of God abide in him?” But, almsgiving is not always the necessary accompaniment to preaching; otherwise the Apostles would not have preached, for they possessed nothing to give. “Silver and gold have I none” (Acts iii. 6). Nevertheless, religious, who themselves are poor, are able, at times, to provide for the wants of the poor out of the donations made to them by the wealthy. St. Paul tells us that when he was sent to preach to the Gentiles, he was careful to remember the poor (Gal. ii.).
| | Ad illud quod postea obiicitur, quod greges pascuntur a pastoribus, dicendum est, quod pastores gregem domini pascere possunt non solum per se, sed per alios, quibus ipsi committunt: quia ille intelligitur aliquid facere cuius auctoritate fit.
| Ad 4. To the objection that pastors are bound to feed their flocks, we reply that they cannot feed them entirely by their own efforts; they must be assisted by others, to whom they entrust the task. For he, by whose authority a deed is accomplished, is held responsible for its performance.
| | Ad illud quod postea obiicitur, quod non debent praedicare nisi missi: missi autem a domino leguntur tantum scilicet duodecim apostoli, et septuaginta duo discipuli: dicendum, quod illi etiam qui sunt missi a domino, possunt alios mittere; sicut Paulus, qui misit Timotheum ad praedicandum; I ad Cor. IV, 17: ideo misi ad vos Timotheum etc.; et ita ex commissione episcoporum et presbyterorum possunt etiam alii ad praedicandum mitti; et tamen illi missi a domino intelliguntur qui per potestatem a domino traditam mittuntur; et omnes illi sic missi a praelatis Ecclesiarum, scilicet episcopis vel presbyteris, inter opitulationes computantur: quia ipsi maioribus opem ferunt, quamvis non sint archidiaconi. Quod enim in Glossa dicitur, ut Titus Paulo, vel archidiaconus episcopis, per modum exempli ponitur. Unde non sequitur quod qui non sunt archidiaconi, non possunt maioribus opitulari. Et tamen, cum aliquis ex commissione episcopi praedicat vel confessiones audit, episcopus hoc facere intelligitur, ut patet ex auctoritate Dionysii supra inducta. Nihilominus tamen, etsi duo ordines tantum essent a domino instituti qui possent praedicare propria auctoritate, posset tamen Ecclesia et tertium ordinem statuere praedicatorum, qui propria auctoritate praedicarent; et praecipue Papa, qui habet potestatis plenitudinem in Ecclesia: sicut etiam in primitiva Ecclesia fuerunt soli duo ordines sacri, scilicet presbyteri et diaconi; et tamen postea Ecclesia minores ordines sibi constituit, ut Magister in sententiis dicit.
| Ad 5. When it is urged that none have a right to preach, save those who are sent, and that we only read of our Lord’s sending the twelve Apostles and the seventy-two disciples, our answer is that they who ore sent by God have power to send forth others. St. Paul sent Timothy to preach: “Therefore have I sent to you Timothy” (1 Cor. iv. 17). Thus likewise other men may be sent forth to preach at the bidding of bishops and priests. But all thus sent must be regarded as the emissaries of the Lord, because it is by His power that they receive their commission. And all who are thus authorised to preach must, although not archdeacons, be regarded as the coadjutors of the bishops, because they are rendering them important assistance, such indeed “as Titus gave to St, Paul, or as archdeacons afford to their bishops” (Gloss). Hence it by no means follows that none save archdeacons can assist bishops in their labours. For, when any priest bearing the commission of a bishop preaches or hears confessions, these functions are accounted as having been performed by the bishop himself. Although it may be true that only two orders were instituted by our Lord for the purpose of preaching; the Church, or the Pope to whom is confided all ecclesiastical power, could found a third order of preachers. For, as we are reminded by the Master of the Sentences, there were in the early Church two degrees only in Holy Orders: priests and deacons; but in course of time other grades were established.
| | Ad illud quod postea obiicitur dicendum, quod decretum illud loquitur de quibusdam qui corepiscopi vocabantur, qui non in civitatibus, sed in vicis seu villis ordinabantur, et aliqua poterant plusquam alii sacerdotes, scilicet minores ordines dare: et hi aliquo tempore in Ecclesia fuerant instituti, habentes ordinariam potestatem: sed postea, ut in eadem dist. dicitur, propter insolentiam suam, qua episcoporum officia sibi usurpabant, ab Ecclesia prohibiti sunt. Et ideo patet quod non est similis ratio de illis religiosis qui ex commissione praelatorum praedicant vel confessiones audiunt potestatem ordinariam non habentes. Horum enim ordo in numerum non ponit contra ordines a domino institutos; cum ille secundum iura facere intelligatur cuius auctoritate fit: quod etiam patet per auctoritatem Dionysii supra inductam.
| Ad 6. Our answer to the next objection which follows is that the decree to which it refers regards a certain order of men called chorepiscopi, who were ordained not in cities but in hamlets and villages, and who were invested with certain faculties not granted to ordinary priests, such, for instance, as that of conferring minor orders. For some time, these chorepiscopi were recognised in the Church as invested with ordinary powers, but they were finally suppressed, (as is related in the same distinction) on account of their usurpation of the episcopal functions. Thus the decree mentioned in this objection bears no reference to those religious, who, not having ordinary faculties, act as confessors by commission form a bishop. Such an order of religious does not exist in opposition to the number of orders established by our Lord, since, as it has been instituted by His authority, it is rightly regarded as having been ordained by Himself (see the words of Dionysius quoted above).
| | Ad aliud dicendum, quod ex illa auctoritate Dionysii non potest amplius haberi, nisi quod monachi ex potestate ordinaria sui ordinis non habent quod sint praelati, vel aliorum adductivi: non autem excluditur quin monachus possit accipere potestatem ordinariam vel commissam ad alios adducendum: praecipue cum in littera dicatur, quod monasticus ordo non est aliis praelatus vel aliorum adductivus; non autem quod esse non possit vel non debeat.
| The only conclusion concerning monks that can be drawn from his passage of Dionysius, is that monks have not, on account of their profession, the status of prelates, or of those whose duty it is to guide other to God. There is, however, no reason why a monk should not receive ordinary power or a commission to guide others, especially as the decree quoted merely sys that the monastic orders are not instituted in order to be in command of others or to guide. It does not say that the members of these orders cannot or ought not hold such a position. This is evident from the authority of Dionysius quoted above.
| | Ad aliud dicendum, quod ecclesiastica hierarchia imitatur caelestem quantum potest, sed non in omnibus. In caelesti enim hierarchia distinctio donorum gratuitorum, secundum quam ordines distinguuntur, sequitur distinctionem naturae; non autem in hominibus. Et ideo, cum Angelorum natura sit immutabilis, Angelus inferioris ordinis ad superiorem ordinem transferri non potest: quod tamen in ecclesiastica ierarchia fieri potest; sed tamen in caelesti Angelus inferioris ordinis in suo ordine manens exequitur actum superioris virtute. Sicut enim dicit Dionysius 13 Caelest. hierarchiae, Angelus qui purgavit labia Isaiae, dictus est Seraphin, cum tamen esset de inferiori ordine, quia Seraphin officium exercuit: et Gregorius dicit in Hom. de centum ovibus, quod hi spiritus qui mittuntur, horum vocabulum percipiunt quorum officia gerunt. Unde non est inconveniens, si in ecclesiastica hierarchia aliquis inferioris ordinis officium superioris ordinis exerceat, eius commissione.
| Ad 8. The argument that the ecclesiastical hierarchy is a copy of the heavenly hierarchy is only partially true. In the heavenly, but not in the earthly hierarchy, there is a distinction of gratuitous gifts, according to the distinction of orders. Hence as the angelic nature is immutable, the angels of an inferior rank cannot be transferred to a superior grade, as is the case with mortals in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Nevertheless, in the celestial hierarchy, angels of an inferior order can remain in their own rank, and yet can perform the functions pertaining to a higher grade. Thus Dionysius (XIII, celest. hierarch.) says, “The angel that cleansed Isaiah is called a Seraph, because he fulfilled the office of the Seraphim.” And St. Gregory, in his homily on the hundred sheep, says that “the spirits who are sent forth bear names denoting the order of their ministry.” Hence it is not unseemly, if in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, a man belonging to one of the inferior orders be commissioned to perform duties specially pertaining to a higher rank.
| | Ad illud quod postea obiicitur, quod aut praedicant cum potestate, aut sine potestate, dicendum, quod praedicant cum potestate praedicandi non ordinaria, sed eis ab aliis commissa. Nec tamen sequitur quod possint procurationes exigere, quia hoc non est eis datum; possent autem, si eis daretur ab his, in quibus residet praedicta potestas: et sic etiam non sequitur quod propter hoc Ecclesiae debeant plures procurationes.
| Ad 9. To the objection that religious preach “either with power or without power,” we reply that they preach not with ordinary power, but by that conferred by special commission. It does not, therefore, follow that they have the right of demanding means of support; for this power has not been granted them. They could, however, exercise this power, were it conferred on them by hose to whom it belongs.
| | Ad illud quod postea obiicitur, quod secundum hoc religiosi habent maiorem auctoritatem quam episcopi vel patriarchae, dicendum, quod non est verum: quia patriarchae vel episcopi possunt alicubi auctoritate ordinaria praedicare, religiosi autem non habentes curam animarum nusquam; possunt tamen ubilibet praedicare auctoritate eorum qui possunt; et episcopus potest episcopalia exercere in aliena dioecesi auctoritate illius episcopi in cuius dioecesi commoratur.
| Ad 10. It is untrue to say that if religious have faculties to preach, they possess powers superior to those of bishops or patriarchs. For bishops and patriarchs can, by their ordinary power, preach in any place, but religious, who have not the care of souls, can never preach by ordinary power. They can preach, not by ordinary power, but only by special commission; just as the bishop can exercise episcopal functions in a diocese belonging to another, with the permission of the bishop of the diocese in which he is staying.
| | Ad illud quod postea obiicitur, quod praedicator non debet aedificare super alienum fundamentum, dicendum, quod falsum est et contra apostolum, I Cor. III, 10: ut sapiens architectus fundamentum posui: Glossa: praedicationem: alius autem superaedificat. Unusquisque autem videat quomodo superaedificet: quod, secundum Ambrosium in Glossa, exponitur de superaedificatione doctrinae. Quod autem apostolus dicit Rom. XV, 20: sic autem praedicavi Evangelium non ubi nominatus est Christus, ne super alienum fundamentum aedificarem: non est intelligendum quasi hoc non liceret: sed quia tunc temporis aliud magis necessarium reputabat. Unde dicit Glossa ibidem: ne aedificarem super alienum fundamentum: idest ne praedicarem iam per alios conversis: non quod hoc non facerem, si contigisset: sed malebam iacere fundamentum fidei ubi non erat. Alias non licuisset Ioanni Evangelistae praedicare Ephesi, ubi Paulus fidem plantaverat; aut Paulo praedicare Romae, ubi Petrus eum praevenerat. Quid autem dicent, si religiosi, contra quos loquuntur, hoc modo distributi sunt, ut quidam eorum infidelibus annuntient verbum Dei, quidam autem inter fideles sint in subsidium praelatorum? Nec tamen hoc facit ad propositum: quia non est idem praedicare plebi alienae, et aedificare super alienum fundamentum, ut in praedicta auctoritate accipitur; cum etiam sacerdos parochialis in sua parochia praedicans, super alienum aedificet fundamentum, quia praedicat conversis per alios ad fidem.
| Ad 11. It is urged that no man ought to build on a foundation laid by another. This statement is untrue, and is against the teaching of St. Paul, who says (1 Cor. iii. 10), “As a wise architect I have laid the foundation, and another builds thereon.” This “building” is explained by the Gloss and by St. Ambrose to signify “preaching and teaching.” When the Apostle says: “I have so preached this Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation” (Rom. xv. 20), his word must be understood to signify, not that it would have been unlawful for St. Paul to have built upon another man’s foundation, but that he did not, at that moment, consider it expedient to do so. Hence the Gloss, commenting on these words, says: “lest I should build upon another man’s foundation, i.e., lest I should preach to those converted by other men. Not that St. Paul would not have so acted had such a course appeared to him desirable; but that he preferred to lay the foundations of the faith in some spot wherein it had not as yet been preached.” Were it unlawful to preach where another has already taught the Word of God, St. John the Evangelist would not have preached at Ephesus, in which city St. Paul had planted the Faith; nor would St. Paul have preached at Rome, where St. Peter had already been. But what will our opponents say if it should so happen that the religious whom they so bitterly denounce, be divided in such a manner that some go forth, to preach the Word to unbelievers, and, others remain among the faithful to assist the bishops? But this objection has really no connection with the point in question. For to build on another man’s foundation and to preach to another man’s converts are not the same thing. Otherwise, every priest when preaching in his own parish would be building on another man’s foundation, for his parishioners would, probably, be the converts of former priests of the parish.
| | Similiter quod dicitur II ad Cor. X, 15: non gloriantes in immensum in alienis laboribus, scilicet ubi alius fundamentum fidei posuisset, quod esset ultra mensuram gloriari; non est intellectus Glossae, quod si apostolus laborasset ubi alius fundamentum fidei posuerat, quod hoc esset in immensum gloriari; sed quod si ipse gloriatus esset quasi fundamentum iaciens fundamento prius ab alio posito, ultra mensuram laboris sui gloriatus esset.
| The words of St. Paul, (2 Cor. x), “not glorying beyond measure in other men’s labour,” are, by those who are averse to the preaching of religious, interpreted to mean that to labour where another man has laid the foundations of the faith is to glory beyond measure. The Gloss does not explain these words as signifying that if St. Paul had laboured where another had already preached, he would have been glorying beyond measure. It understands the text to mean that, had St. Paul taken to himself the glory of having laid the foundations of the faith in such a place, he would have gloried beyond measure.
| | Similiter etiam quod postea sequitur, non habentes spem gloriari in aliena regula, idest in his qui sunt de alieno regimine, Glossa illa male inducitur. Non enim sic habetur in Glossa, sed ita: secundum regulam nostram, idest regimen nostrum, idest secundum quod a Deo nobis est iniunctum, evangelizare dico in abundantia, scilicet non in paucis locis, immo etiam in illa loca, quae ultra vos sunt. Nec tamen sumus habentes spem, idest non speramus gloriari in aliqua aliena regula; nec illi qui ultra eos sunt, de alieno regimine sunt. Si tamen ita esset in Glossa ut dicunt, non intelligitur quin apostolus praedicare potuisset illis qui erant de regimine alterius apostoli: ipse enim praedicavit Antiochenis et Romanis, qui erant de regimine Petri; sed quia non gloriabatur de eis quasi de subiectis suo regimini: hoc enim esset in aliena regula gloriari. Et praeterea illi qui ex commissione praelatorum praedicant, non praedicant in plebibus alienis, sed in plebibus praelatorum qui eos mittunt; qui etiam ipsis operantibus operari dicuntur.
| The objection to the preaching of religious, founded on the words, “not to glory in another man’s rule,” is due to a misinterpretation of the commentary of the Gloss on this passage. The Gloss is quoted as saying, “not to glory in another man’s rule, i.e., in those who are under the government of another.” This is a mis-quotation. The passage of the Gloss referred to runs as follows: “Our rule, i.e., our ministry, which is imposed upon us by God, is to preach the Gospel freely, not only in a few places, but in those (places) which are beyond your present dwelling. But we hope not to glory in another man’s rule; for those who are at a distance from you are not under any man’s, government.” If the passage in the Gloss really stood as it is represented by our adversaries, it would be difficult to understand, how one Apostle could preach in a province evangelised by another. St. Paul preached at Rome and at Antioch, which were subject to St. Peter; but he did not glory in those churches, as if they were committed to him; he, therefore, did not glory in another man’s rule. And, further, religious who are commissioned by bishops to preach, do so in no diocese save in that one for which they have faculties. Thus, they do not preach to another man’s flock. They are the coadjutors of the bishop, whose commission they hold.
| | Ad ea quibus postmodum ostendere nituntur, quod religiosi confessiones audire non debent, de facili patet responsio. Per illa enim decreta quae inducunt, nihil aliud ostendunt nisi quod religiosi non possunt propria auctoritate audire; non autem excluditur quin possint audire ex auctoritate Papae vel episcopi, ut manifeste habetur 16, q. 1, pervenit; nec quod etiam religiosi sint minus idonei ad huiusmodi quam saeculares, ut patet 16, qu. 1, sunt nonnulli.
| Ad 12. It is easy to answer the objections to the propriety of religious hearing confessions. The decree quoted as opposed to it only forbids religious to act as confessors on their own authority. It does not prohibit their doing so at the bidding of the Pope or of a bishop. This is clearly shown XVI, quaest. I, Pervenit. Neither are religious less fit than are secular priests for this duty (XVI, quaest. I, Sunt tamen nonnulli).
| | Ad aliud quod postea obiicitur, quod presbyteri parochiales, cum sint rectores animarum, debent diligenter agnoscere vultum gregis sibi commissi; quod non possunt facere, nisi confessiones audiant; dicendum, quod de bonitate vel malitia alicuius constare potest alicui non solum per propriam confessionem, sed etiam per sententiam superioris de eo latam. Unde si episcopus subditum sacerdotis absolvat vel per se vel per alium cui ipse commiserit, sacerdos parochialis ita debet se reputare cognoscere eum ac si sibi confessus esset; cum iam sit per superioris sententiam approbatus, de qua ei iudicare non licet. Et praeterea satis potest vultum eius agnoscere, si secundum decretalem semel in anno ei confitetur.
| Ad 13. To the next objection, viz. that parish priests, pastors of souls, ought to study the faces of flock, which they cannot do except by hearing confessions, we answer that confession is not the only means whereby we may know whether a man be good or bad. For, we can draw a conclusion from the judgment passed upon him by his superior. Hence if a bishop absolves one of his flock, either by his own act, or through the agency of another commissioned. by him, his parish priest ought to be as satisfied that he knows such a man, as if he himself had been his confessor. He knows that his parishioner has been approved by the judgment of a superior, whom he himself has no right to criticise. And further, if according to the decretal he hear the confessions of his parishioners once a year, it gives him sufficient opportunity for knowing them.
| | Ad illud quod postea obiicitur, quod quilibet tenetur semel in anno confiteri proprio sacerdoti, dicendum, quod proprius sacerdos non solum est sacerdos parochialis, sed etiam episcopus vel Papa: ad quos etiam magis pertinet cura eius quam ad sacerdotem, ut multipliciter ostensum est. Proprium enim hic non accipitur secundum quod dividitur contra commune, sed secundum quod dividitur contra alienum. Unde qui confessus est episcopo suo vel alicui habenti vicem eius, confessus est proprio sacerdoti. Et praeterea per hoc non excluditur quod, si semel in anno confitetur proprio sacerdoti, scilicet parochiali, dato quod de eo tantum intelligatur, quin possit aliis vicibus aliis etiam confiteri qui habeant potestatem absolvendi.
| Ad 14. To the objection that everyone is bound, once in the year to confess his sins to his own priest, we reply that the expression “his own priest” applies not only to the parish priest, but to the bishop of the diocese and to the Pope, who have, in a more extended sense than parish priests, the care of souls. The expression “his own priest” is used, not in contradistinction to the bishop, or Pope, who is the common priest, but in contradistinction to a stranger. Hence he who has made his confession to his bishop, or to a vicegerent appointed by him, has confessed to his own priest. And further, anyone who confesses once a year to his own parish priest, and makes himself intelligible to him, is not forbidden to make his confession at other times to any other priest who has faculty to give absolution.
| | Ad illud quod postea obiicitur, quod non potest scire eum esse dignum ut admittatur ad sacramentum Eucharistiae nisi audita eius confessione, dicendum, quod falsum est. Potest enim scire per sententiam superioris, qui eum in foro poenitentiali absolvit, cui etiam sententiae debet stare non minus quam suae.
| Ad 15. The objection that, unless a priest hears a man’s confession, he cannot know whether he is in a fit state to receive the Blessed Eucharist, is based upon an error. For a priest can know the state of a communicant’s soul by the judgement of the superior who has given him absolution, and whom he ought to trust as he would trust himself.
| | Ad illud quod postea obiicitur, quod si aliquis potest alteri confiteri quam proprio sacerdoti, datur per hoc occasio multis latendi, dicendum, quod falsum est. Cum enim in foro poenitentiali cuilibet sit credendum et pro se et contra se; sacerdos debet credere eum confessum esse, si se confessum fateatur: quia et si etiam sibi confiteretur, posset eum decipere, ut levibus confessis maiora taceret. Et praeterea, dato quod ex hoc daretur aliqua occasio mali, tamen multum praeponderat quod per hoc vitantur multa alia maiora mala, sicut prius ostensum est, quod per hoc multis periculis obviatur.
| Ad 16. The argument, that the permission to confess to a priest other than the parish priest, affords opportunity for concealment of sins, is fallacious. For, a priest ought to believe what a penitent says, whether it be for or against himself. Therefore, if the penitent says that he has made his confession, it ought to be taken for granted that he is speaking the truth. Even if the parish priest were to act as his confessor, he might be deceived; for the penitent might confess his more venial offences, and conceal his grievous sins. And it must likewise be remembered that, though the facility for confessing to different priests may be abused, it is nevertheless, as we have already shown, a safeguard against far greater evils.
| | Ad illud quod postea obiicitur, quod ad monachum non pertinet corrigere, et sic nec absolvere, dicendum, quod verum est propria auctoritate; sed ex commissione auctoritatem habentis utrumque potest sibi competere, si sacerdotali ordine fungatur. Demophilus tamen, cui Dionysius scribebat, non erat sacerdos, nec etiam diaconus, ut ex his quae in eadem epistola dicuntur, apparet.
| Ad 17. The argument, that, a monk, having no power to correct others, cannot absolve them, is only true in a very limited sense. For, though monks have not this power in an ordinary way, they are able, by the commission of a bishop, both to correct and to absolve. The Demophilus to whom Dionysius wrote the words quoted was not a priest, nor even a deacon. This is clear from the Epistle quoted by our adversaries.
| | Ad illud quod postea obiicitur, quod si possunt confessiones audire, eadem ratione ubique possent, et sic essent universalis Ecclesiae gubernatores, dicendum, quod nusquam possunt audire propria auctoritate, possunt tamen audire ubicunque eis commissum fuerit; et si committeretur eis quod ubique audirent ab eo qui toti Ecclesiae praeest, possent ubique audire. Nec tamen essent universalis Ecclesiae gubernatores; quia non absolverent auctoritate ordinaria, sed commissa. Quod autem Papa universalem pontificem se prohibet nominari, non hoc ideo est quia ipse non habeat auctoritatem immediatam et plenam in qualibet Ecclesia; sed quia non praeficitur cuilibet particulari Ecclesiae ut proprius et specialis illius Ecclesiae rector, sic enim cessarent omnium aliorum pontificum potestates: et hoc, capitulum inductum pro ratione inducit.
| Ad 18. The same answer must be returned to the objection that, if religious can hear confessions anywhere, they can do so everywhere, and thus they become rulers of the Universal Church. Monks, on their own authority, can hear confessions nowhere. They can act as confessors only where they are commissioned to do so; and if the Head of the Church give them permission to hear confessions everywhere, they can do so everywhere. This, however, does not constitute them governors of the Church, since they absolve sinners, not by their own power, but by the authority delegated to them. The Pope is not styled universal Bishop, not because he does not possess complete and direct power over every diocese in the Church, but because he does not rule any particular diocese as its peculiar and special pastor. Were he to do so, the powers of the other bishops would lapse. This reason is given in the chapter quoted.
| | Ad ea autem quibus postmodum ostendere nituntur, quod nec etiam auctoritate episcoporum possunt religiosi praedicare et confessiones audire, de facili patet responsio. Quod enim primo obiiciunt: quod dat aliquis, iam non habet: patet esse falsum in spiritualibus, quae communicantur non per translationem alicuius dominii, sicut accidit in rebus corporalibus, sed magis per modum derivationis cuiusdam effectus a causa sua; sicut qui communicat alii scientiam, non propter hoc scientiam amittit. Et ita est etiam in communicatione potestatis: qui enim dat alicui potestatem, non amittit eam, sicut episcopus qui dat potestatem sacerdoti quod conficiat corpus Christi, dando non amittit eam. Unde de communicatione spiritualium rerum dicit Augustinus in I libro de doctrina Christiana: omnis res quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur quomodo habenda est. Et similiter, quando dat episcopus sacerdoti potestatem absolvendi aliquos homines, non amittit illam potestatem; nisi forte aestimetur potestas quam sacerdos habet in sua parochia, quasi potestas quam habet miles in villa sua: quod est ridiculum, cum non sint domini, sed ministri, secundum illud I ad Cor. IV, 1: sic nos existimet homo etc.; et Luc. XXII: reges gentium dominantur eorum, non ita erit inter vos.
| Ad 19. The arguments brought as proofs that religious cannot, even with episcopal permission, preach or bear confessions, are easily answered. The proposition, that what a man gives away he does not still possess, does not hold good in things spiritual. These are communicated, not like physical things, by the transference of some dominion over them, but rather by an emanation of an effect from its cause. When one man communicates knowledge to another, he does not, on this account, deprive himself of this knowledge; for it remains in his power. In the same way, he that confers some power upon another, does not, by doing so, deprive himself of that power. A bishop does not, by conferring on a priest the power to consecrate the Body of the Lord, cease to be able himself to do so. St. Augustine, treating of the communication of spiritual things, says (I De Doctrina Christiana) “Everything that is not lessened by being imparted. is not, if it be possessed without being communicated, possessed as it ought to be possessed.” In like manner, when a bishop confers upon a priest the power of absolving, he does not himself lose that power, unless the power of a priest in his parish is considered similar to that of a soldier in his town. This idea is, of course, ridiculous; for priests are not masters, but servants. “Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ,” St. Paul writes (1 Cor. iv. 1). Our Lord, also, said to His Apostles, “The Kings of the Gentiles lord it, over them: but you not so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the least: and he who is the leader, as he who serves” Luke xxii, 25).
| | Ad illud quod postea obiicitur, quod episcopus quando committit curam parochiae sacerdoti ipse se exonerat, dicendum, quod falsum est; quia adhuc pertinet ad eum habere curam totius plebis quae est in sua diocesi, quia totius plebis animae videntur sibi esse commissae, ut habetur 10, quaest. 1, cap. quaecunque. Unde et apostolus de se dicebat II ad Cor. XI, 28: praeter illa quae extrinsecus sunt, instantia mea quotidiana, solicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum. Non tamen onus fit ei importabile, quia habet alios inferioris ordinis adiutores. Dato autem quod sit immunis a periculo per hoc quod curam sacerdoti committit, non tamen sequitur quod per hoc reddatur immunis a potestate quam in parochia habebat. Ministri enim Christi non solum possunt operari ad salutem plebis ad vitandum periculum sibi imminens, sed etiam ad augendum meritum, et magis fructificandum in populo Dei: sicut etiam Paulus multa supererogabat propter salutem electorum, quae sine periculo salutis suae dimittere poterat.
| Ad 20. The statement that a bishop, by committing the care of a parish to a priest, relieves himself of all responsibility connected with it, is untrue. For, a bishop is still answerable for the care of all the souls in his diocese (Quaest. I, Cap. Quaecumque). Hence St. Paul, after speaking of all his labours, concludes by saying, “Besides those things that are without: my daily instance, the care of all the churches “ (2 Cor. xi. 28). His burden, however, is rendered supportable to a bishop, because he has assistants of an inferior rank. But, even granted that a bishop, by committing a parish to a priest, relieves himself of its responsibility, it would not, on that account, follow that he would abrogate his power in that parish. For, the ministers of Christ are able to labour for the salvation of the faithful, not only by freeing themselves from responsibility, but likewise by increasing their own merit, and producing greater fruit among souls. Thus St. Paul undertook much work for the salvation of the elect, which he might, without any danger to his salvation, have omitted.
| | Ad illud quod postea obiicitur, scilicet quod sacerdos est sub episcopo, sicut episcopus sub archiepiscopo; dicendum, quod non est omnino simile. Constat enim quod archiepiscopus non habet immediatam iurisdictionem in illos qui sunt de dioecesi episcopi suffraganei sui, nisi propter negligentiam episcopi vel nisi causa ad eum deferretur; sed episcopus habet immediatam iurisdictionem in parochiam sacerdotis, cum possit quemlibet coram se citare et excommunicare, quod archiepiscopus non potest in subditis episcoporum, nisi ut dictum est. Cuius ratio est, quia potestas sacerdotis naturaliter et ex iure divino subditur potestati episcopi, cum sit imperfecta respectu illius, ut Dionysius probat; sed episcopus subditur archiepiscopo solum ex ordinatione Ecclesiae. Et ideo in quibus Ecclesia statuit episcopum archiepiscopo subiectum, in illis tantum subiectus est ei. Sacerdos autem qui ex iure divino episcopo subditur, in omnibus est ei subiectus; sicut et Papa habet immediatam iurisdictionem in omnes Christianos; quia Romana Ecclesia, nullis synodicis constitutis ceteris Ecclesiis praelata est, sed evangelica voce domini et salvatoris nostri primatum obtinuit, ut habetur in decretis dist. 21, cap. quamvis.
| Ad 21. The argument that a priest is subject to a bishop, just as, a bishop is under an archbishop, is not quite correct. For an archbishop has not immediate jurisdiction over an episcopal diocese, except in matters specially referred to him. Thus an archbishop cannot summon before him, or excommunicate, one who is the subject of a bishop. A bishop, on the other hand, has immediate jurisdiction over his parochial clergy; he can cite any of them to appear before him; and he has power to excommunicate them. The reason of this distinction is that the power of a priest is imperfect compared to that of a bishop; priests are by divine right subject to bishops, as Dionysius proves. The subjection of a bishop to an archbishop depends only on an ecclesiastical ordinance and is limited by it. But a priest, being by divine right subject to a bishop, is subject to him in all things. The jurisdiction of a bishop over his priests resembles in kind that of the Sovereign Pontiff over all Christendom. For the Roman Church has not been given supremacy over other churches by the decrees of any synod, but by the words of our Lord and Saviour Himself (In Decretis, Distinct. XXI, Cap. Quamvis).
| | Ad illud quod postea obiicitur, quod presbyteri parochiales sunt sponsi Ecclesiarum sibi commissarum, dicendum, quod sponsus Ecclesiae, proprie loquendo, Christus est: de quo dicitur: qui habet sponsam sponsus est, Ioh. III, 29, ipse enim de Ecclesia suo nomine filios generat. Alii autem qui sponsi dicuntur, sunt ministri sponsi, exterius cooperantes ad generationem spiritualium filiorum; quos tamen non sibi, sed Christo generant. Qui quidem ministri intantum sponsi dicuntur, inquantum vicem veri sponsi obtinent. Et ideo Papa, qui obtinet vicem sponsi in tota Ecclesia, universalis Ecclesiae sponsus dicitur. Episcopus autem suae dioecesis, presbyter autem suae parochiae. Unde et dioecesis sponsus Papa est et episcopus parochiae. Nec tamen propter hoc sequitur quod sint plures sponsi unius Ecclesiae; quia sacerdos suo ministerio cooperatur episcopo tanquam principali, et similiter episcopi Papae, et Papa ipsi Christo. Unde Christus et Papa et episcopus et sacerdos non computantur nisi unus sponsus Ecclesiae. Unde patet quod ex hoc quod episcopus vel Papa audit confessiones parochiani, vel alii audiendas committit, non sequitur quod sint plures sponsi unius Ecclesiae; sequeretur autem, si duo praeficerentur eidem Ecclesiae eodem gradu; sicut duo episcopi in una dioecesi, et duo presbyteri curati in una parochia, quod canones prohibent.
| Ad 22. To the argument that parish priests are the bridegrooms of the churches committed to them, we answer that strictly speaking, the Spouse of the Church is Christ, of whom are spoken the words, “He who has the bride is the bridegroom” (John iii. 29). He, by His Church, begets children to bear His name. The other so-called spouses are in reality the servants of the Bridegroom, who co-operate with him exteriorly in this work of spiritual generation, but who do not beget spiritual children for themselves. Although they are but ministers, they are termed spouses, because they take the place of the true Spouse. Hence the Pope, who is the vicegerent of Christ throughout the entire Church, is called the spouse of the universal Church. In like manner a bishop is termed the spouse of his diocese, and a priest of his parish. But at the same time the Pope is the spouse of every diocese and the bishop is the spouse of all parishes within his see. But it does not follow from these words that there is in one church a plurality of spouses. For priests assist their bishop in his work, and bishops cooperate with the Pope; he finally is the direct minister to Christ. Thus, Christ, the Pope, the bishops, and the priests are but the one spouse of the Church. Hence the fact that the Pope or the bishop hear the confessions of the faithful of a parish, or commit this office to another, is not proof that one church possesses a plurality of spouses. True plurality would consist in the appointment of two ecclesiastics of the same rank to the same office. Hence were there two bishops in one diocese, or two parish priests in one parish, there would be the plurality forbidden by the canons.
| | Ad ea quibus probare nituntur, quod nec ex privilegio Papae religiosi praedicare nec confessiones audire possunt, nunc respondendum est. Quod enim primo obiicitur, quod Romanae sedis auctoritas non potest aliquid condere vel mutare contra statuta sanctorum patrum, dicendum, quod hoc verum est in illis quae statuta sanctorum patrum decreverunt esse de iure divino, sicut articuli fidei, qui determinati sunt per Concilia; sed illa quae sancti patres determinaverunt de iure positivo, sunt relicta sub dispositione Papae, ut ea possit mutare vel dispensare secundum opportunitates temporum vel negotiorum. Sancti enim patres in Conciliis congregati nihil statuere potuissent nisi auctoritate Romani pontificis interveniente, sine qua nec etiam Concilium congregari potest. Nec tamen Papa quando aliquid aliter facit quam a sanctis patribus statutum sit, contra eorum statuta facit: quia servatur intentio statuentium, etiamsi non serventur verba statutorum, quae non possunt in omnibus casibus et in omnibus temporibus observari, servata intentione statuentium, quae est utilitas Ecclesiae; sicut et in omni iure positivo accidit. Derogatur enim prioribus statutis per statuta sequentia. Nec tamen hoc quod aliqui religiosi qui non sunt episcopi vel presbyteri parochiales, praedicant et confessiones audiunt, est contra decreta patrum, nisi ex sua auctoritate hoc facerent sine auctoritate Papae vel episcoporum, ut ex praedictis patet.
| Ad 23. We must next answer the proposition that not even Papal permission can authorise religious to preach or to hear confessions. The first reason on which this assertion is grounded, that the authority of the Roman See cannot alter anything established by the statutes of the Fathers or institute anything contrary to these statutes. This is true with regard to those decrees which, in the judgment of the Saints, are of divine right, e.g., the articles of the faith formulated by Councils. But those matters which the Holy Fathers have declared to be of positive right are left to the judgment of the Pope to be altered or abolished by him, according to the requirements of the times. For, the holy Fathers assembled in councils cannot promulgate any decree save by the authorisation of the Sovereign Pontiff, without whose permission no council is allowed even to meet. Again, if the Pope sees fit to act otherwise than in the manner established by the holy Fathers, he does not act counter to their statutes. For, although, in such a case, the words of the statutes are not obeyed, the intention of those who have drawn up the statutes (to wit the welfare, of the Church) is fulfilled. For in matters which are of positive right, it may be impossible, at all times and under every circumstance, to adhere to the letter of a statute; although the intention with which it was framed is respected. One statute will necessarily be abrogated by a subsequent one. But the fact that certain religious, being neither bishops nor parish priests, exercise the functions of preaching, and hearing confessions, is not contrary to the statutes of the Holy Fathers, unless such religious act thus on their own initiative, unauthorised by the Pope or by a bishop.
| | Et per hoc patet solutio ad id quod postea obiicitur: quia Papa ex hoc quod dat alicui licentiam vel privilegium audiendi confessiones et praedicandi, non facit per hoc contra apostolum: quia tales religiosi non praedicant plebibus alienis, ut supra dictum est. Nec tamen hoc est verum quod Papa non possit aliquid facere contra apostolum; dispensat enim cum bigamo, et in poena quam canones apostolorum statuerunt presbytero fornicanti. Ex decreto autem inducto non potest amplius haberi nisi quod Papa non potest destruere canonicam Scripturam apostolorum et prophetarum, quae est ecclesiasticae fidei fundamentum.
| Ad 24. In answer to the second objection, the Pope, as we have already shown, does not, by giving to religious the privilege of preaching or hearing confessions, act contrary to St. Paul’s admonition; for these religious do not preach to another man’s people. It is not true to say that the Pope cannot alter any Apostolic decree; for the penalties pronounced against bigamy and against fornication among the clergy, are, by authority of the Holy See, sometimes in abeyance. The power of the Pope is limited only in so far that he cannot alter the canonical scriptures of the Apostles and Prophets, which are fundamental to the faith of the Church.
| | Ad illud quod postea obiicitur, quod privilegia principum sunt intelligenda sine praeiudicio alterius, dicendum, quod praeiudicium dicitur fieri alicui quando subtrahitur ei aliquid quod in favorem eius introductum est, vel quod ad utilitatem eius ordinatur. Sed subiectio alicuius subditi ad rectorem Ecclesiae non est ordinata principaliter ad utilitatem praesidentium, sed ad utilitatem subiectorum: unde Ezech. XXXIV, 2, dicitur: vae pastoribus Israel, qui pascebant semetipsos. Nonne greges pascuntur a pastoribus? Et ideo nullum praeiudicium fit rectori Ecclesiae, quando subditus eius a sua potestate eximitur: sicut Papa eximit abbatem a potestate episcopi sine eius praeiudicio, et similiter episcopum a potestate archiepiscopi. Si autem ipsemet operetur in subditis quae pertinent ad salutem, vel aliis hoc ipsum committit, non solum non facit ei praeiudicium, sed praestat ei magnum beneficium, quod maxime acceptatur a cunctis rectoribus, qui non quaerunt quae sua sunt, sed quae Iesu Christi. Unde Num. XI, 29 super illud: quid, inquit, aemularis pro me? Glossa Gregorii: pia mens pastorum, quia non propriam gloriam, sed auctoris quaerit, ab omnibus vult iuvari in eo quod facit. Fidelis enim praedicator, si fieri valeat, optat ut veritatem quam loqui solus non sufficit, ora cunctorum sonent.
| Ad 25. To the objection that the privileges granted by sovereigns are to be understood in the sense that they are only granted in so far as they be not prejudicial to any other, we reply that an injustice is done to another when something is withdrawn from him which has been established for his gratification or advantage. Hence Ezechiel says (xxxiv. 2), “Woe to the shepherds of Israel that feed themselves. Should not the flocks be fed by the shepherds?” But it is nowise prejudicial to a parish priest, if one of his parishioners be withdrawn from his authority. In the same manner an abbot may, by the Pope, be withdrawn from the authority of a bishop, and a bishop from that of an archbishop, without injustice to either. In fact, if such a course tend to the salvation of their parishioners, far from being prejudicial, it is most beneficial to all pastors who seek the things of Christ, and not such as are their own. St. Gregory commenting on the words in the eleventh chapter of the Book of Numbers (11:29), “Are you jealous for my sake?” says: “A spiritual pastor who seeks not his own honour, but the glory of his Creator, desires to be helped in his actions by all men.” A faithful preacher would wish that were it possible, the lips of all mankind should proclaim the truth which he alone is incompetent to utter.
| | Ad illud quod postea obiicitur, quod princeps quando committit alicui liberam testamenti factionem, intelligitur commisisse tantum consuetam et legitimam; dicendum, quod similiter quando Papa committit alicui quod praedicet vel confessiones audiat, committit ei ut legitime hoc faciat. Unde per hanc commissionem non potest praedicare aliqua quae non decent. Sed ex quo ab eo data est libera potestas praedicandi, non requiritur, ad hoc quod sit legitima eius praedicatio, quod ab alio potestatem accipiat; quia sic inutilis esset ei potestas a Papa accepta; sicut etiam ille qui habet licentiam ab imperatore quod testamentum condat, non oportet quod ab alio ulterius licentiam petat, sed quod observet ea quae pertinent ad debitum modum testandi. Similiter et praedicator cui datur licentia a Papa praedicandi, debet debito modo praedicare, ut scilicet alia praedicet pauperibus, alia divitibus, et observet huiusmodi quae Gregorius in pastorali docet.
| Ad 26. The argument that when a sovereign grants to a subject permission to make a will, it is with the understanding that such a will is only to be made in an ordinary and legal manner, holds good with regard to the Pope. When the sovereign Pontiff commissions anyone to preach and hear confessions, he only allows him to do so in a legitimate way; his preaching must be unto edification. But, if a man hold a commission from the Pope to preach, he need not, in order to preach lawfully, seek a license from any other superior. Such a course would stultify the authority of the Pope. A man who has obtained permission from his Sovereign to make a will, need not have another license from anyone else. All that is required of him is, to make his will in due form. A preacher licensed by the Pope requires no other authorisation. He need only observe the proper rules of preaching, such as that of using one style in addressing the poor, and another in speaking to the rich, and such other points as are mentioned by St. Gregory in Pastorale.
| | Ad illud quod postea obiicitur, quod monachus cum ordinatur, non accipit executionem officii, nisi cum cura plebis sibi committitur; dicendum, quod potestas sacerdotalis ordinis ad duo ordinatur. Primo et principaliter ad corpus Christi verum consecrandum; et huius potestatis executionem statim cum ordinatur accipit, nisi sit defectus in ordinatione vel ordinato. Secundario ordinatur ad corpus Christi mysticum per claves Ecclesiae, quae sibi committuntur; et huius potestatis executionem non recipit, nisi cura sibi committatur, vel nisi auctoritate alterius habentis curam hoc agat. Nec tamen potestas sacerdotalis frustra datur ei; quia habet executionem in hoc ad quod potestas sacerdotii principaliter ordinatur. Sed officium praedicationis non ordinatur ad aliud quam ad praedicandum. Unde, cum privilegium principis non debeat alicui esse inutile, ut iura dicunt; ex hoc ipso quod Papa committit alicui officium praedicandi, ille habet executionem officii, quicunque sit; et tamen quando Papa dat privilegium alicui religioso quod possit praedicare, Papa non committit ei officium, sed magis officii executionem: quia religiosi tales non praedicant quasi utentes sua potestate, sed aliena sibi commissa, sicut dictum est.
| Ad 27. When it is urged that a monk does not, at his ordination, receive power to exercise his priestly office unless he be placed in charge of souls, we reply, by reminding those who make this objection that the priesthood is instituted for two ends. Its first and principal end is the true consecration of the Body of Christ. Power to accomplish this end is conferred at ordination, unless there be some defect in the administration or in the recipient of this Sacrament. The second end for which the Priesthood is instituted is for the welfare of the mystical body of Christ, by the keys of the Church entrusted to the priest. Power to accomplish this end is not conferred at ordination, unless the priest ordained be placed in charge of souls or unless this power be given him by the authority of someone who has the care of souls. But the power of the priesthood is never given in vain; for every priest has power to fulfil the principal purpose of his ordination. But the power of preaching is bestowed for no end, save for that of preaching. Hence as a privilege conferred by a sovereign, cannot be useless to him on whom it is bestowed; so, when the Pope gives to any priest a commission to preach, he has power to execute such a commission. Nevertheless, the Pope, by so acting, does not give to a religious the office of preaching, but rather the power to exercise such an office. For religious do not, as we have said, make use of their own power in preaching; they use the power entrusted to them by another.
| | Ad aliud dicendum, quod, sicut supra dictum est in 1 quaest. de doctrina, Dionysius ibi loquitur de monachis laicis, qui non sunt episcopi vel presbyteri, vel diaconi. Si tamen de omnibus intelligeretur, non destruit ecclesiasticam hierarchiam Papa, mittens monachos ad praedicandum: quia, ut supra dictum est, in ecclesiastica hierarchia ille qui est inferioris ordinis, potest superioris officium exercere, etiam in suo ordine manens, sicut etiam et in caelesti; et ulterius potest ad superiorem ordinem promoveri, quod non est in caelesti. Unde et Innocentius III, ante Concilium generale quosdam Cisterciensis ordinis misit ad praedicandum in partibus Tholosanis.
| Ad 28. The words quoted from I, quaest. de Doctrina were written by Dionysius of lay monks, i.e., of monks who are neither bishops, priests nor deacons, But, even if they be applied to all religious, the Pope, by sending monks to preach, would not be disturbing the order of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. For, as we have said before, he who is of an inferior rank can exercise an office belonging to a higher grade, thus imitating the action of the celestial hierarchy. Furthermore, in the ecclesiastical hierarchy those of a lower order can be promoted to a higher rank. This cannot take place in the heavenly hierarchy. Hence Pope Innocent III, before a General council, sent some Cistercian monks to preach at Toulouse.
| | Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, quod religiosi non possunt petere licentiam praedicandi, quia hoc est ambitionis; dicendum, quod falsum est: quia praedicationis officium et laudabiliter appeti potest ex caritate, exemplo Isaiae, qui se ad hoc sponte obtulit, Isa. VI, 8: ecce ego, mitte me: et laudabiliter potest vitari ex humilitate, exemplo Ieremiae, qui dixit: a, a, a, domine Deus, nescio loqui, quia puer ego sum: Ier. I, 6, ut patet per Glossam Gregorii ibidem. Et similis sententia habetur 8, quaest. 1, cap. in scriptis. Sciendum etiam, quod ecclesiastica officia duo habent adiuncta: scilicet opus, et dignitatem vel honorem: et ratione honoris laudabiliter recusantur et ratione operis laudabiliter possunt quaeri. I Tim. III, 1: qui episcopatum desiderat, bonum opus desiderat. Unde Augustinus exponere voluit quid sit episcopatus, secundum scilicet quod desiderari potest, quia nomen est operis, non honoris: ut habetur 8, quaest. 1, qui episcopatum. Et hoc idem habetur in Glossa super eodem verbo. Et ideo si opus separatur a dignitate, laudabiliter et sine aliquo ambitionis periculo potest desiderari. Et ideo non est ambitionis, si religiosus petat a sacerdote vel episcopo licentiam praedicandi, sed est signum dilectionis Dei et proximi.
| Ad 29. The last objection, brought against religious who preach, is that it is ambition on their part to seek permission to exercise this office. This is untrue , for a desire to preach inspired by charity is on the contrary praiseworthy. Isaiah (vi. 8) offered himself to the Lord, saying: “Lo: here I am: send me.” This function may likewise be meritoriously declined out of humility. Thus Jeremiah said (i. 6): “Ah, ah, ah, Lord God, I cannot speak, for I am a child.” This is evident from the Gloss of St. Gregory. The same view is found in VIII, quaest. I, cap. In scripturis. We must remember that ecclesiastical offices are accompanied both by dignity and by labour. Therefore, they may, on account of their dignity, be declined; and they may be desired, for the sake of the work. “ If a man desire the office of bishop, he desires a good thing,” says St. Paul (1 Tim. iii, 1). On these words St. Augustine says (XIX De civitate Dei), “The Apostle desired to explain what is meant by the episcopate and how far it may be desired, for the name implies labour not glory “ (cf. VIII quaest. I, qui episcopatum, also the Gloss on the same text). Hence if the labours of the episcopate be distinguished from its attendant dignity, it may laudably and without danger of ambition be desired. In like manner, a religious who seeks from a parish priest or a bishop permission to preach shows not that he is inspired by ambition, but that he is filled with the love of God and of his neighbour.
| | |