Chapter 28 — Refuting the argument that the state of perfection is not hindered by a lack of a solemn blessing or consecration

We have already shown the absurdity of the arguments on which is based the theory that archdeacons and parish priests are in a more perfect state than are religious. We will now, therefore, point out the frivolity of the objections raised against the proposition that a man is placed in a state of perfection by means of a solemn blessing or consecration.

But first, we must remember that a solemn rite of this nature is not a cause, but a sign, of a state of perfection. It is not bestowed on any save on those who are entering some state of life; though that state need not necessarily be one of perfection. Those who are joined in matrimony embrace a state in which neither husband nor wife will hereafter belong to themselves (1 Cor 7:4). For matrimony is a perpetual bond uniting one to the other. Hence, the Church, to signify this state of perpetuity, though it be not a state of perfection, pronounces a solemn nuptial blessing over man and wife. In the same way, when a state is changed in social life, a certain form is used; thus, when a slave receives his freedom a deed of manumission is drawn up.

We are not speaking at random. For all that we say is confirmed by the authority of Dionysius, who says that our divine masters, to wit the apostles, have vouchsafed to distinguish men by certain holy appellations, namely, those who are in the state of the perfect; some are servants, while others are called monks by reason of their pure service and ministry to God, and their single and undivided life which unites them by holy ties to godlike unity and perfection most pleasing to God. On this account, the holy law has given them perfect grace and has deemed them worthy of invocation (Cael. hier. 6). (The text is in reality found in Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 6.1.3 (PG 3:532D-533A).) We are also expressly told that as monks embrace a state of perfection, they are blessed by a solemn rite, handed down by apostolic tradition.

The argument that both in the consecration of a bishop and in the ordination of a priest the same words are used, namely: may these hands be sanctified and consecrated, etc. is irrelevant to our point. For we are not now speaking of a priest in his priestly character. For by his solemn consecration he is placed not in a state of perfection, be it active or passive, but, as Dionysius tells us, in an illuminative state. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 5.1.7 (PG 3:508C); cf. Dionysius Cartusianus, Commentarii in librum secundum Sententiarum, bk. 2, dist. 9, q. 3.) We are speaking of a priest insofar as he receives a certain charge or commission. And when this charge is laid upon him, it is not accompanied by any special blessing; for he does not by it embrace a state but merely accepts an office. A bishop, on the other hand, is solemnly consecrated to the pastoral office by reason of the perpetual obligation whereby be binds himself to it.

With regard to the second objection, namely that regarding the anointing of kings, we answer that this unction was a sign that he who received it was entering a state involving the chief government of the kingdom. The other officers of the kingdom were not anointed because they had no plenitude of power. In like manner in the kingdom of the Church, a bishop receives unction on his head to signify that he is the principal ruler of his diocese, while archdeacons and parish priests, who only hold a commission from the bishop, and who act as his lieutenants, are not anointed. But the fact of his receiving unction is no proof that a king enters a state of perfection, since his charge extends only to temporal matters. It is not like that of bishops, which extends to such as are spiritual. Charity, wherein perfection consists, regards the spiritual welfare of others. Hence, solicitude about the spiritual not about the temporal wants of our neighbor is essential to perfection; although perfect charity may likewise occupy itself about the material needs of others.

The third argument is quite irrelevant to the matter of which we are treating. The point with which we are at present dealing is not that of perfection of merit, which may of course be greater in a parish priest, or even in a married man, than in a bishop or religious. The subject with which we are occupied is the state of perfection. It would seem, by the argument of our adversaries, that they do not understand the meaning of their own words; since according to their reasoning, even bishops themselves are not in a higher state of perfection than priests; for it may happen that their lives are less meritorious than are the lives of priests.

The fourth objection, that the episcopate is not an order, contains, if it be taken in its literal meaning, a palpable falsehood. For Dionysius expressly says that there are three orders of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, to wit, bishops, priests, and deacons (Eccl. hier.). (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 5.1.3-6 (PG 3:504B-505D).) Again, in distinction 21, canon 1, it is said that the order of bishops is divided into four parts. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 21, ch. 1, sect. 1 (Friedberg, 1:67), from Isidore, Etymologiarum 7.12 (PL 82:290).) A bishop has a certain order with respect to the mystical body of Christ which is the Church, in whose government he takes the chief part. But with regard to the true body of Christ which is contained in the blessed sacrament, he has no superiority over a priest. The proof that a bishop has a certain order, and not merely jurisdiction, like an archdeacon or parish priest, lies in the fact that a bishop can do many things, such as administering confirmation and holy orders, and consecrating churches, which he cannot commission others to do. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 25, ch. 1, sect. 9 (Friedberg, 1:90).) The duties which are matters of jurisdiction only, he can transfer to others. Another proof that the episcopate is an order lies in the fact that, if a bishop be suspended, and then be ultimately restored to his see, he is not reconsecrated; (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 68, ch. 1 (Friedberg, 1:254).) for he has never lost the power of his order. This too is the case with men who are in other orders.

The fifth argument, namely that an archdeacon or parish priest is solemnly appointed because he is invested with a ring or some other symbol of the sort, is absolutely ridiculous. This investiture resembles certain civil ceremonies, whereby men when invested with a fief are presented with a ring or staff, rather than the rites of the Church, which consist in a solemn blessing or consecration.