Chapter 27 — Refuting previous arguments about the higher degree of perfection in archdeacons and parish priests

We will now carefully examine each of the arguments quoted in the last chapter in order to show how truly they may be set aside as frivolous, absurd, and erroneous.

First, we are told that certain canonical decrees prove that archdeacons and pastors of souls are in a fixed state. This argument is worthless, for the canons in question speak not of the state of the clergy but of their rank. The words used in distinction 81 are: henceforth, should any bishop, priest, or deacon take a wife or keep one whom he has married, let him be degraded from his rank (Decretals 16.81). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 81, ch. 16 (Friedberg, 1:285).) And in causa 14, question 4 it says: if any man, forgetful of the fear of the Lord and of the words of the Holy Scriptures, etc., shall have committed usury, etc., let him be degraded from his rank and be an outcast from the clergy (c. 4). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 14, q. 4, ch. 4 (Friedberg, 1:736).) Thus, these words cannot be understood to speak of the clerical state, but of that clerical rank which must necessarily exist. For wheresoever there be any order or superiority, there must be specified degrees of rank.

With regard to the second argument, we may say that its absurdity is so patent that none can fail to see it. No one doubts that the word ‘state’ is used with several meanings. For he who is erect is said to stand. We also distinguish between the state of beginners, of proficients, and of the perfect. To stand also means to be firm. Thus the Apostle says: be steadfast and immoveable in every good work (1 Cor 15:58). But this is not the usual way in which the word state is used. We employ it, rather, to indicate a certain condition, such as a state of liberty or a state of slavery. It is made use of in this sense in causa 2, question 6, where it says: if we should by chance be appealed to in a capital charge or in a suit concerning a state, we must act at our own discretion, not by means of examiners (c. 40). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 2, q. 6, ch. 40 (Friedberg, 1:481).) If we accept the word state in this sense, it is true to say that they embrace the state of perfection who, as we have before said, bind themselves to the service of works of perfection. This cannot be the case save by a vow, which implies a perpetual obligation of service or servitude as opposed to liberty. As long, then, as a man is free to abandon the works of perfection, he is not in a state of perfection.

The third objection is also so frivolous that it would seem hardly to need an answer. In the words: priests who govern well etc., there is no mention either of a state or of perfection. Government does not indicate a state but a rank. Honor is due not only to perfection but to all who do good works; and this fact is shown by the very words: they govern well. For we read: glory and peace and honor to everyone who does good (Rom 2:10).

The fourth argument contains a manifest falsehood. We are told that before the time of St. Jerome and St. Augustine, a bishop and priest were one and the same. Now St. Augustine expressly says the opposite in his epistle to St. Jerome: although in the language of good men, which has become current in the Church, the episcopate is accounted greater than the priesthood, nevertheless Augustine is less than Jerome in many things. (Augustine, Epistulae 82.33 (CPL 0262; CSEL 34.2:385; PL 33:290). This text is also found in Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 2, q. 7, ch. 34 (Friedberg, 1:493).)

But as some men may deny that in the days of St. Jerome bishops were generally regarded as superior to priests, we will quote the authority of Dionysius, who wrote concerning the order of ecclesiastical hierarchy as it was established in the primitive Church. For he says that there are three orders in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, to wit, bishops, priests, and deacons (Eccles. hier. 5). (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 5.1.1 (PG 3:500D).) We may remark that the same writer speaks of deacons as composing the purifying order, of priests as forming the illuminative order, and of bishops as being the order producing perfection; (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 5.1.7 (PG 3:508C).) and as he says in chapter 6 of the same book, there are further three other orders corresponding to the three already mentioned. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 6.1.1-3 (PG 3:529D-533A).) For the order of the unpurified is subject to that of the deacons, whose duty it is to cleanse. The order of those needing light, that is, the holy people of God, is subject to the order of priests, whose office it is to illuminate by the administration of the sacraments. The order of the perfect, that is, the monks, is subject to the order of bishops, and is by them instructed in and elevated to sublime perfection. Hence, we see that Dionysius attributes perfection only to bishops and monks: to bishops as to the more perfect, to monks as perfect. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 6.1.3 (PG 3:532D).)

But lest anyone should make the objection that he describes an ecclesiastical hierarchy established by the apostles, whereas by the institution of our Lord bishops and priests were one and the same, we will disprove this fallacy by quoting the words of the Gloss on Luke 10:1: after these things the Lord appointed, etc., where the Gloss observes: whereas the first order, that of the bishops, is represented by the apostles, the second order, that of the priesthood, is typified by the seventy disciples. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 835, at Luke 10:1, from Venerable Bede, Expositio in Evangelium Lucae, bk. 3, ch.10, on Luke 10:1, although he has "seventy-two" instead of "seventy disciples" (CCSL 120; CPL 1356; PL 92:461C); cf. Zacharias Chrysopolitanus, In unum ex quatuor, bk. 2, ch. 67.) It is strange how those who uphold this argument appear to misunderstand simple words. They assert that it is only since the days of St. Jerome that bishops have been distinguished from priests.

Yet if anyone will examine the old law, of which the priesthood prefigured our priesthood, he will see that the high priests were an order distinct from the priests. It is stated in distinction 21: the high priests and inferior priests were instituted by Moses who, at the bidding of the Lord, anointed Aaron to be high priest and his sons inferior priests (Decretals d. 21, max. 1). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 21, arg. by Gratian before ch. 1, sect. 1 (Friedberg, 1:67).)

This passage proves that the words of St. Jerome have been misinterpreted. For he does not say that in the primitive Church the order, or state, of the episcopate and that of the priesthood was one and the same. What he says is that the same word was used to designate the two orders. For priests spoke of bishops literally, as superintendents; and bishops used the same word of priests on account of their priestly dignity. (Cf. Augustine, De civitate Dei 19.19 (CCSL 48; CPL 0313; CSEL 40.2:405; PL 41:647), as found in Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 8, q. 1, ch. 11 (Friedberg, 1:594); Epistulae 82.33 (CPL 0262; CSEL 34.2:385; PL 33:290). This text is also found in Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 2, q. 7, ch. 34 (Friedberg, 1:493).) Hence Isidore says that the inferior clergy, although priests, have not attained to the highest dignity of the pontificate; for their foreheads are not anointed with chrism; neither have they power to confer the Holy Spirit, a power, as we know from the Acts of the Apostles, reserved to bishops; and he concludes: hence, in the early Church the same word was used both for bishops and priests; for the name denotes dignity and not age (c.f. Decretals 1.21). (Isidore, Etymologiarum, bk. 7, ch. 12, n. 21 (PL 82:292B), in Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 21, ch. 1, sect. 12 (Friedberg, 1:68).) There is a difference in the thing signified; but the same word is, on account of the priestly dignity, used both for bishops and priests, In later times, however, it was found necessary, for the removal of a schism arising from the similarity of name, (Cf. Jerome, Commentaria in Epistolam ad Titum, on 1:5 (CCSL 77C; CPL 0591; PL 26:562C); Also found in Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 95: "Olim," ch. 5 (Friedberg, 1:332).) to make a distinction in the appellation of the ranks of the clergy. Since then, the superior priesthood only has been called the episcopate; and the inferior clergy are known simply as priests.

The argument brought forward in the fifth objection is not tenable. The contemplative life is superior to the active, not merely because it is more secure, but simply because it is better. Our Lord’s own words point this out: Mary has chosen the better part (Luke 10:43). And insofar as contemplation is superior to activity, so much the more would he seem to do for God who, at the expense of his much loved contemplation, devotes himself for God’s sake to his neighbor’s salvation.

Hence, it is a proof of a greater perfection of charity to be willing, for the love of God and of our neighbor, to labor for the salvation of others, even though by so doing contemplation be somewhat impaired, than to cleave so closely to the sweetness of contemplation as to be unwilling to sacrifice it even for the salvation of others. The Apostle was so zealous for the salvation of his brethren that he desired for their sake not merely the prolongation of this present life, but also the temporary postponement of the beatific vision. His own words are a proof of this: I am straitened between two: having a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ, a thing by far the better. But to abide still in the flesh, is needful for you (Phil 1:23–24).

If by perfection of charity we mean, according to the teaching of St. Augustine, preparation of heart, (Cf. Augustine, De Sermone Domini in monte 1.19.58-59 (CCSL 35; PL 34:1259-560); De patientia, ch. 17, para. 14 (CPL 0308; CSEL 41:678; PL 40:618-619).) many who lead a contemplative life have attained to a degree of charity not found in some who are entirely occupied in laboring for the salvation of their neighbor. For many contemplatives are ready, in order to please God, to suspend for a time their cherished contemplation, in order to devote themselves to the welfare of their brethren. Whereas those who are busied in exterior works are often led to engage in them rather from the tedium which they experience in contemplation than from the desire of attaining to the fullness of divine love, which would induce them to lay aside for a time that contemplation which is their delight. But the faults of individuals do not detract from the merit of any state or office; and care for the salvation of others must always be esteemed an act of perfection, since it pertains to the love both of God and of our neighbor.

But here we must remember that not everyone who performs acts of perfection is necessarily in a state of perfection. No one doubts that a life of virginity pertains to perfection. Our Lord says of it: he that can take, let him take (Matt 19:12). And the Apostle writes: concerning virgins I have no commandment from the Lord, but I give a counsel (1 Cor 7:25). Now there are counsels concerning the works of perfection; nevertheless a life of virginity without a vow does not constitute a state of perfection. St. Augustine says in the book De virginitate: virginity is not honored because it is virginity but because it is dedicated to God. And by this consecration, even virginity of the body, preserved by piety, becomes spiritual (De virgin. 8.8). (Augustine, De sancta virginitate, ch. 8 (CPL 0300; CSEL 41:241-242; PL 40:400).) And again, he says: that continence is to be numbered among the goods of the soul, by which the body is preserved inviolate for the Creator of soul and body, and which is dedicated and consecrated to him. (Augustine, De sancta virginitate, ch. 8 (CPL 0300; CSEL 41:242; PL 40:400).)

Now it is clear that neither archdeacons nor parish priests, even if they are entrusted with the care of souls, are bound by vow to that office. If they were, they could not relinquish an archdiaconate or a parish without a dispensation from him who has power to annul perpetual vows. Hence, although an archdeacon or a parish priest performs a work of perfection or accepts a position involving such work, he is, nevertheless, not in a state of perfection. And if we reflect carefully, we shall see that the religious life is really the state of perfection; since by the vow of their order religious are obliged more strictly than are archdeacons or priests to submit to their bishops in all that regards the cure of souls, such as preaching and hearing confessions.

With regard to the sixth objection, we declare that, as has been already shown, it is untrue to say that there cannot be increase or perfection of charity in a person who is not living in a state of perfection. Some men live in a state of perfection, while their charity is either very imperfect or does not exist; for there are many religious and bishops living in a state of mortal sin. But on the other hand, the fact that there are many good parish priests, whose charity is perfect and who are ready to lay down their lives for others, does not prove that they are in a state of perfection. For there are many laymen, even married people, who have attained to such perfection of charity that they also are willing to die for their neighbor. This virtue, however, does not prove such persons to be in a state of perfection.

As for the seventh objection, namely that the deacons appointed by the apostles were in a state of perfection, there is no proof of the truth of this assertion, either in the text of the Bible or in the Gloss. We are told that the deacons were filled with the Holy Spirit and with wisdom; but this merely shows that they possessed that perfection of grace which may exist in those who are not in a state of perfection. And the fact that they ministered around the altar only points out that they held a certain high rank in the Church. For as we have before said, there is a difference between a state and a rank. It is nevertheless true that the deacons were in that state of perfection to which our Lord referred when he said: if you will be perfect, go and sell what you have, and follow Me (Matt 19:21). For the deacons followed Christ, forsaking all things, and possessing nothing of their own, but having all things in common (Acts 4:32). It is on their example that religious orders are moulded.

In the eighth objection it is maintained that the archdeacons Stephen and Lawrence were in a state of perfection. They most certainly were. But this state was due not to the fact that they were archdeacons, but that they were martyrs. Martyrdom surpasses all religious perfection. St. Augustine says in the book de Virginitate: ecclesiastical authority gives us the plainest evidence of this fact. For by the authority of the Church it is made known to the faithful in what places the names of martyrs and of holy women deceased are mentioned at the mysteries of the altar (45.46). (Augustine, De sancta virginitate, ch. 45 (CPL 0300; CSEL 41:290; PL 40:423).) Yet I say that even though Sebastian and George were in a state of perfection, we cannot on their account call the military life a state of perfection.

The ninth objection brought against us is that parish priests and archdeacons resemble bishops more than religious. This is true as regards their work, to wit, the care of souls committed to them. But it is not the case with regard to that perpetual obligation, which is essential to a state of perfection. From the point of view of obligation, religious, as has been pointed out, resemble bishops more closely than do archdeacons or parish priests.

We fully agree with the tenth proposition, namely that the administration of ecclesiastical property does not detract from the state of perfection. Were this the case, the superiors and ministers of temporal affairs in religious orders would become imperfect. But perfection is weakened in those who do not renounce all that they possess for the sake of Christ and who make a profit out of the revenues of the Church as if they were their own property.

They who put forward the eleventh objection are plainly led astray by the folly of Vigilantius, against whom St. Jerome thus writes: those who assert that it is more perfect to keep the use of their own goods and to distribute their income among the poor in driblets rather than to renounce and give away all their possessions at once, must take their answer not from me, but from the Lord, who said, ‘If you would be perfect, go and sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and come follow me.’ (Matt 19:21.) He is speaking to those who desire to be perfect, and who, with the apostles, leave father, boat, and net. He whose example you praise is in the second or third rank of perfection. (Jerome, Contra Vigilantium 14 (CCSL 79C; CPL 0611; PL 23:366B-C).) Further, it is incorrect to say that archdeacons and parish priests are more perfect than monks because they show hospitality and monks do not. For as religious renounce all that they possess, they have no means of entertaining guests.

The twelfth argument, namely that the most agreeable offering that can be made to God is zeal for souls, is undoubtedly true. But a certain order must be observed in this zeal. A man must, first, have zeal for his own soul and strip it of all earthly affections in accordance with those words of the wise man: have pity on your own soul, pleasing God (Sir 30:24). This duty is pointed out by St. Augustine (City of God 21). (The text is in reality found in Augustine, De civitate Dei 10.6 (CCSL 47; CPL 0313; CSEL 40.1:455; PL 41:283).) Now if a man, having arrived at contempt for earthly concerns, and even for himself, proceed further to zeal for the soul of others, he will thereby offer a more perfect sacrifice to God than he would have presented by zeal only for his own salvation. But the most perfect of all offerings that can be made is the obligation whereby bishops and religious are bound, by vow or profession, to live a life of zeal for souls.

The thirteenth argument, namely that as a patriarch presides in his patriarchate and a bishop in his see, so likewise an archdeacon rules in his archdiaconate and a pastor in his parish, is manifestly faulty. For a bishop rules the whole of his diocese; whereas archdeacons and parish priests have their sphere of government allotted to them by their bishop; they are, so to speak, his lieutenants. Commenting on the words of the Apostle: others of helping, others of governing (1 Cor 12:28), the Gloss says: ‘helping,’ that is, as coadjutors to their superiors, as was Titus to the Apostle, or as archdeacons are to their bishops; ‘governing,’ that is, the clergy of inferior rank, such as priests, whose duty it is to teach. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, on 1 Cor 12:28 (PL 191:1657C).) This interpretation is borne out by the words used by the bishop in the ordination of priests (Specifically in the preface "Honorum dator;" cf. Pontificale Romanum XII, 9, 20.): inasmuch as we are weaker than they, namely the apostles, by so much the more do we need these helps. Hence, it is laid down: all priests, deacons, and other clerics must do nothing without the permission of their own bishop. Thus, without the license of his bishop, a priest cannot celebrate Mass nor baptize in his own parish (Decretals 41.16.1). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 16, q. 1, ch. 41 (Friedberg, 1:773).) This rule is again established in distinction 80, canon 5: priests shall do nothing without the command and advice of their bishop. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 80, ch. 5 "Non debere" (Friedberg, 1:281).)

The fourteenth objection bears witness to the sentiments of those who make it. It is founded on the fact that priests, when guilty of heinous crimes, are imprisoned in monasteries. For, as St. Gregory says: when crafty people say what is true, it is very difficult for them to conceal their secret ambition (Moral. 10). (Gregory the Great, Moralia in Job 10.21.39 (CCSL 143; CPL 1708; PL 75:943A).) Those who bring forward the argument about the imprisonment of criminal priests, conclude that priests are in a state of perfection in which monks are not because guilty priests are condemned to a rigorous penance, which innocent religious voluntarily embrace. But that state is highest before God which is the most lowly in the eyes of the world: he who humbles himself shall be exalted (Matt 23:12), and: God has chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom (Jas 2:5). But those who are ambitious of the glory of this world reckon earthly honor to be a state; and they account as abject whatsoever the world despises.