Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that all ecclesiastical prelates are in a state of perfection. For Jerome commenting on Titus 1:5, "Ordain . . . in every city," etc. says: "Formerly priest was the same as bishop," and afterwards he adds: "Just as priests know that by the custom of the Church they are subject to the one who is placed over them, so too, bishops should recognize that, by custom rather than by the very ordinance of our Lord, they are above the priests, and are together the rightful governors of the Church." Now bishops are in the state of perfection. Therefore those priests also are who have the cure of souls.

Objection 2: Further, just as bishops together with their consecration receive the cure of souls, so also do parish priests and archdeacons, of whom a gloss on Acts 6:3, "Brethren, look ye out . . . seven men of good reputation," says: "The apostles decided here to appoint throughout the Church seven deacons, who were to be of a higher degree, and as it were the supports of that which is nearest to the altar." Therefore it would seem that these also are in the state of perfection.

Objection 3: Further, just as bishops are bound to "lay down their life for their sheep," so too are parish priests and archdeacons. But this belongs to the perfection of charity, as stated above (Article 2, ad 3). Therefore it would seem that parish priests and archdeacons also are in the state of perfection.

On the contrary, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v): "The order of pontiffs is consummative and perfecting, that of the priests is illuminative and light-giving, that of the ministers is cleansing and discretive." Hence it is evident that perfection is ascribed to bishops only.

I answer that, In priests and deacons having cure of souls two things may be considered, namely their order and their cure. Their order is directed to some act in the Divine offices. Wherefore it has been stated above (Question 183, Article 3, ad 3) that the distinction of orders is comprised under the distinction of offices. Hence by receiving a certain order a man receives the power of exercising certain sacred acts, but he is not bound on this account to things pertaining to perfection, except in so far as in the Western Church the receiving of a sacred order includes the taking of a vow of continence, which is one of the things pertaining to perfection, as we shall state further on (Question 186, Article 4). Therefore it is clear that from the fact that a man receives a sacred order a man is not placed simply in the state of perfection, although inward perfection is required in order that one exercise such acts worthily.

In like manner, neither are they placed in the state of perfection on the part of the cure which they take upon themselves. For they are not bound by this very fact under the obligation of a perpetual vow to retain the cure of souls; but they can surrender it---either by entering religion, even without their bishop's permission (cf. Decret. xix, qu. 2, can. Duae sunt)---or again an archdeacon may with his bishop's permission resign his arch-deaconry or parish, and accept a simple prebend without cure, which would be nowise lawful, if he were in the state of perfection; for "no man putting his hand to the plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God" (Lk. 9:62). On the other hand bishops, since they are in the state of perfection, cannot abandon the episcopal cure, save by the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff (to whom alone it belongs also to dispense from perpetual vows), and this for certain causes, as we shall state further on (Question 185, Article 4). Wherefore it is manifest that not all prelates are in the state of perfection, but only bishops.

Reply to Objection 1: We may speak of priest and bishop in two ways. First, with regard to the name: and thus formerly bishops and priests were not distinct. For bishops are so called "because they watch over others," as Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei xix, 19); while the priests according to the Greek are "elders." Hence the Apostle employs the term "priests" in reference to both, when he says (1 Tim. 5:17): "Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honor"; and again he uses the term "bishops" in the same way, wherefore addressing the priests of the Church of Ephesus he says (Acts 20:28): "Take heed to yourselves" and "to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God."

But as regards the thing signified by these terms, there was always a difference between them, even at the time of the apostles. This is clear on the authority of Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v), and of a gloss on Lk. 10:1, "After these things the Lord appointed," etc. which says: "Just as the apostles were made bishops, so the seventy-two disciples were made priests of the second order." Subsequently, however, in order to avoid schism, it became necessary to distinguish even the terms, by calling the higher ones bishops and the lower ones priests. But to assert that priests nowise differ from bishops is reckoned by Augustine among heretical doctrines (De Heres. liii), where he says that the Arians maintained that "no distinction existed between a priest and a bishop."

Reply to Objection 2: Bishops have the chief cure of the sheep of their diocese, while parish priests and archdeacons exercise an inferior ministry under the bishops. Hence a gloss on 1 Cor. 12:28, "to one, helps, to another, governments ," says: "Helps, namely assistants to those who are in authority," as Titus was to the Apostle, or as archdeacons to the bishop; "governments, namely persons of lesser authority, such as priests who have to instruct the people": and Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v) that "just as we see the whole hierarchy culminating in Jesus, so each office culminates in its respective godlike hierarch or bishop." Also it is said (XVI, qu. i, can. Cunctis): "Priests and deacons must all take care not to do anything without their bishop's permission." Wherefore it is evident that they stand in relation to their bishop as wardens or mayors to the king; and for this reason, just as in earthly governments the king alone receives a solemn blessing, while others are appointed by simple commission, so too in the Church the episcopal cure is conferred with the solemnity of consecration, while the archdeacon or parish priest receives his cure by simple appointment; although they are consecrated by receiving orders before having a cure.

Reply to Objection 3: As parish priests and archdeacons have not the chief cure, but a certain ministry as committed to them by the bishop, so the pastoral office does not belong to them in chief, nor are they bound to lay down their life for the sheep, except in so far as they have a share in their cure. Hence we should say that they have an office pertaining to perfection rather than that they attain the state of perfection.

Articulus 6

Argumentum 1

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod omnes praelati ecclesiastici sint in statu perfectionis.

Dicit enim Hieronymus, super Epist. Ad Tit., olim idem presbyter qui et episcopus, et postea subdit, sicut ergo presbyteri sciunt se ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit, esse subiectos; ita episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispensationis dominicae veritate presbyteris esse maiores, et in communi debere ecclesiam regere.

Sed episcopi sunt in statu perfectionis.

Ergo et presbyteri habentes curam animarum.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, sicut episcopi suscipiunt curam animarum cum consecratione, ita etiam et presbyteri curati, et etiam archidiaconi, de quibus, super illud Act. VI, considerate, fratres, viros boni testimonii septem etc., dicit Glossa, hic decernebant apostoli per ecclesiam constitui septem diacones, qui essent sublimioris gradus, et quasi columnae proximi circa aram.

Ergo videtur quod ipsi etiam sint in statu perfectionis.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, sicut episcopi obligantur ad hoc quod animam suam ponant pro ovibus suis, ita et presbyteri curati et archidiaconi. Sed hoc pertinet ad perfectionem caritatis, ut dictum est.

Ergo videtur quod etiam presbyteri curati et archidiaconi sint in statu perfectionis.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicit dionysius, V cap. Eccles. Hier., pontificum quidem ordo consummativus est et perfectivus; sacerdotum autem illuminativus et lucidativus; ministrantium vero purgativus et discretivus.

Ex quo patet quod perfectio solis episcopis attribuitur.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod in presbyteris et diaconibus habentibus curam animarum, duo possunt considerari, scilicet ordo, et cura. Ordo autem ipse ordinatur ad quendam actum in divinis officiis; unde supra dictum est quod distinctio ordinum sub distinctione officiorum continetur. Unde per hoc quod aliqui accipiunt sacrum ordinem, accipiunt potestatem quosdam sacros actus perficiendi, non autem obligantur ex hoc ipso ad ea quae sunt perfectionis, nisi quatenus, apud Occidentalem ecclesiam, in susceptione sacri ordinis emittitur continentiae votum, quod est unum eorum quae ad perfectionem pertinent, ut infra dicetur.

Unde patet quod ex hoc quod aliquis accipit sacrum ordinem, non ponitur simpliciter in statu perfectionis, quamvis interior perfectio ad hoc requiratur quod aliquis digne huiusmodi actus exerceat.

Similiter etiam nec ex parte curae quam suscipiunt, ponuntur in statu perfectionis. Non enim obligantur ex hoc ipso vinculo perpetui voti ad hoc quod curam animarum retineant, sed possunt eam deserere, vel transeundo ad religionem, etiam absque licentia episcopi, ut habetur in decretis, XIX caus. Qu. II; et etiam, cum licentia episcopi, potest aliquis archidiaconatum vel parochiam dimittere et simplicem praebendam accipere sine cura.

Quod nullo modo liceret si esset in statu perfectionis, nemo enim mittens manum ad aratrum et aspiciens retro, aptus est regno dei, ut dicitur Luc. IX.

Episcopi autem, quia sunt in statu perfectionis, non nisi auctoritate summi pontificis, ad quem etiam pertinet in votis perpetuis dispensare, possunt episcopalem curam deserere, et ex certis causis, ut infra dicetur.

Unde manifestum est quod non omnes praelati sunt in statu perfectionis, sed soli episcopi.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod de presbytero et episcopo dupliciter loqui possumus. Uno modo, quantum ad nomen. Et sic olim non distinguebantur episcopi et presbyteri. Nam episcopi dicuntur ex eo quod superintendunt, sicut Augustinus dicit, XIX de CIV. Dei, presbyteri autem in Graeco dicuntur quasi seniores.

Unde et apostolus communiter utitur nomine presbyterorum quantum ad utrosque, cum dicit, I ad Tim. V, qui bene praesunt presbyteri, duplici honore digni habeantur.

Et similiter etiam nomine episcoporum, unde dicit, Act. XX, presbyteris ecclesiae ephesinae loquens, attendite vobis et universo gregi, in quo vos spiritus sanctus posuit episcopos regere ecclesiam dei.

Sed secundum rem, semper inter eos fuit distinctio, etiam tempore apostolorum, ut patet per dionysium, V cap. Eccles. Hier..

Et Luc. X, super illud, post haec autem designavit dominus etc., dicit Glossa, sicut in apostolis forma est episcoporum, sic in septuagintaduobus discipulis forma est presbyterorum secundi ordinis.

Postmodum tamen, ad schisma vitandum, necessarium fuit ut etiam nomina distinguerentur, ut scilicet maiores dicerentur episcopi.

Minores autem dicuntur presbyteri. Dicere autem presbyteros non differre ab episcopis, inter dogmata haeretica numerat Augustinus, in libro de haeres., ubi dicit quod aeriani dicebant presbyterum ab episcopo nulla differentia debere discerni.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod episcopi principaliter habent curam omnium suae dioecesis, presbyteri autem curati et archidiaconi habent aliquas subministrationes sub episcopis.

Unde super illud I ad Cor. XII, alii opitulationes, alii gubernationes, dicit Glossa, opitulationes, idest, eos qui maioribus ferunt opem, ut titus apostolo, vel archidiaconi episcopis. Gubernationes, scilicet minorum personarum praelationes, ut presbyteri sunt, qui plebi documento sunt.

Et dionysius dicit, V cap. Eccles. Hier., quod sicut universam hierarchiam videmus in iesu terminatam, ita unamquamque in proprio divino hierarcha, idest episcopo.

Et XVI, qu. I, dicitur, omnibus presbyteris et diaconibus attendendum est ut nihil absque proprii episcopi licentia agant.

Ex quo patet quod ita se habent ad episcopum sicut ballivi vel praepositi ad regem. Et propter hoc, sicut in mundanis potestatibus solus rex solemnem benedictionem accipit, alii vero per simplicem commissionem instituuntur; ita etiam in ecclesia cura episcopalis cum solemnitate consecrationis committitur, cura autem archidiaconatus vel plebanatus cum simplici iniunctione.

Consecrantur tamen in susceptione ordinis, etiam antequam curam habeant.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod sicut plebani et archidiaconi non habent principaliter curam, sed administrationem quandam secundum quod eis ab episcopo committitur; ita etiam ad eos non pertinet principaliter pastorale officium, nec obligatio ponendi animam pro ovibus, sed inquantum participant de cura.

Unde magis habent quoddam officium ad perfectionem pertinens, quam obtineant perfectionis statum.