The Episcopal State

Fullness of the priesthood

This question is of importance, not only in itself but also in its relation to other questions. From a consideration of episcopal perfection, several authors determine what ought to be the perfection of a priest, and what is needed for perfection in general. But if these authors have not a correct notion of episcopal perfection, they cannot accurately solve these other questions.¹

Is the episcopate an order distinct from the priesthood and a distinct sacrament, giving a distinct character? Or is it an extension of the priesthood and its most perfect complement? Some (St. Robert Bellarmine, for example) say that the episcopate is a distinct sacrament. Others (St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, St. Albert the Great, Scotus) say: It is only an extension and complement of the priesthood. St. Thomas presents the following arguments:

(a) The Sacrament of Orders is intended principally for the consecration of the Eucharist, for the Sacrifice of the Mass.² But as far as the consecration of the Eucharist is concerned, a bishop or even the Supreme Pontiff himself has not greater power than that of a priest. Nothing is greater among the sacraments and in divine worship than the consecration of the Eucharist, because the Eucharist is the end of the other sacraments, in that it contains the Author of grace.

(b) The episcopacy adds to the simple priesthood the power of ordaining, confirming, and governing a diocese. Thus the episcopacy, in what it adds to the simple priesthood, very probably is not an order distinct from the priesthood, but is its extension and most perfect complement. By divine institution, therefore, the bishop is superior to priests as such not merely in jurisdiction but also in the power of orders, because a bishop can ordain and confirm.

This is confirmed by the Council of Trent, for in its list of orders it names only seven, and omits the episcopacy.³ Moreover, he who is not a priest cannot validly become a bishop; on the other hand, he who has not validly received the diaconate, but only the subdiaconate, can validly be made a priest.

Objection. An objection may be raised that episcopal consecration must give a special character because it gives special spiritual power of ordaining and confirming.

Answer. For this special power, it is sufficient that the episcopacy should be an intrinsic complement of the Sacrament of Orders. Thus, by episcopal consecration, a special character is not conferred, but the priestly character is extended in a real and physical way to higher functions, just as in the ordination of a priest the priestly character of consecrating is extended to the power of absolving by the words: "Receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven."

In order to confer grace, it is sufficient that the episcopacy should be (like sacramental penance after absolution) the intrinsic complement of the priesthood. Very probably the episcopacy is not an Order strictly so called, nor a sacrament distinct from the priesthood, but the fullness of the priesthood.

Episcopal consecration not only extends the priestly character to new functions: ordaining, confirming, consecrating churches and chalices, ruling a diocese; it gives also a notable .increase of the sacramental grace of Order. This is necessary that the bishop may fulfill his functions not only validly but worthily and with ever greater worthiness; this sacramental grace is a permanent modality of habitual grace, giving the right to ever new and higher actual graces, so that the bishop may always better and more worthily exercise his powers.

Thus he should live more and more in that sacramental grace, so that it may grow to completion in him; without this he cannot be perfect. This grace, therefore, is simultaneously personal and social, just like capital grace in Christ. As does charity, it perfects the person himself and his relation with his neighbor. A bishop receives at least five talents which must increase and multiply. The episcopacy, therefore, is truly the plenitude of the priesthood. Episcopal perfection can only be reached by aspiring to greater unity with Christ and with the whole Christian episcopacy under the direction of the Supreme Pontiff in the mystical body of Christ. This unity of the episcopacy is its strength.

The bishop ought to hope for all things from the reception of sacramental grace, by cooperating with it. He will in this way become more and more conscious of the majesty of Christ's priesthood. The bishop is simultaneously, as the successor of the Apostles, a teacher, the pastor of his flock, and a leader who rules his diocese or his church. He has, therefore, the three powers of teaching, sanctifying, ruling; and he must in case of persecution give his life for the defense of his flock.

2. State of perfection

Let us see (1) on what points theologians agree, and (2) on what points they disagree about the perfection required in a bishop.

The common teaching of theologians, among them St. Thomas,⁴ is clear on two points: (a) Bishops are really in a state of perfection. This state requires a perpetual obligation, made with some solemnity, to observe those things which are of perfection. But when bishops assume their pastoral office, which implies that the pastor lay down his life for his sheep; they bind themselves to those things which are of perfection. In addition to this profession there is also a solemn consecration. (b) It is certain that the episcopal state is more perfect than the religious. St. Thomas writes: "In the order of perfection . . . bishops are in the position of perfecters, whereas religious are in the position of being perfected themselves; the former is active, the latter passive."⁵ Passerini says that according to St. Thomas the episcopal state is the active state of those who perfect others, but the religious state is the passive state of those who are being perfected themselves.⁶ The bishop ordains priests and governs his flock. And, as St. Thomas says,⁷ a bishop "would be taking a backward step" if he wanted to enter a religious order while he was still useful to his flock.

These two conclusions are generally admitted by all. But there is a dispute about one point: The episcopal state is not only a state for the perfection of others, but should it not be called also a state for the exercise of perfection in this sense that it essentially presupposes that perfection has been already acquired, already in fact possessed? In other words: Is the bishop supposed to be already perfect perfect in the strict and not merely in the broad sense of the word?

There are two opposing opinions:

(a) The first opinion is held by Suarez and several others. They answer in the affirmative, and say that a bishop is bound to possess and to exercise perfection. Why? Because the episcopal state is greater than the religious state, which is only a state for acquiring perfection. A bishop should not only purify and illuminate others; he should also lead them to perfection.

St. Thomas, however, does not say exactly that a bishop is in the state of perfection which we may call "already acquired," and "to be exercised." He says⁸ that he is in the active state of one who perfects others, holding, as it were, a professorship of perfection, and that "the episcopal state is not directed to the attainment of perfection but rather to the end that, in virtue of the perfection which he has already acquired, he may govern others."⁹

(b) A second theory is held by Passerini and several others.¹⁰ They answer, no: the episcopal state does not demand that one should be already perfect, in the strict meaning of the word, but that one should have the intention of reaching this perfection.

The reason is simple. Were the first position true, the high idea of perfection, strictly so-called, which excludes all deliberate venial sins and deliberate imperfections, would have to be lowered; or else it would be difficult to find bishops to satisfy this condition.¹¹

Passerini even rejects the distinction between a state for acquiring perfection and a state for exercising perfection at least in the sense in which Suarez used these terms.

Why? Because, says Passerini, either we are speaking of ordinary perfection, in a less exact sense of the word, which excludes mortal sins and in this case, every state is for the exercise of perfection; or else we are speaking of perfection in the strict sense of the word, which excludes all deliberate venial sins and in this case a bishop is not bound to possess it already, because there are few who have reached it.

Passerini adds: "A bishop who is not perfect, indeed, even an evil one, does not cease to be in a state of perfection," ¹² just as a bad religious does not cease to be in the religious state. On the other hand, religious who are engaged in the apostolic life exercise or communicate perfection.

This question, as it has been put here, is of some importance in ascetical and mystical theology in determining what exactly is necessary for perfection in the strict sense of the word. Some Suarez, for example do not seem to have a very high conception of this perfection; for Suarez it does not require great charity. And among several arguments for proving their thesis they say: bishops are in the state of perfection which has been acquired and is to be exercised, and they fulfill their obligations. Passerini, on the other hand, seems to have a higher conception of perfection in the strict sense of the word.

3. Clarifying the issue

The solution will appear more clearly if we put the question this way: Is it sufficient that a bishop should have a firm and efficacious intention of worthily fulfilling all the duties of his office, even those which demand heroism should the need ever arise; or is he also bound in conscience to be already perfect in the strict meaning of the word?

Our solution of the problem is based on a distinction between that perfection required in conscience before accepting the episcopacy and a higher and very appropriate perfection toward which a bishop should strive.¹³

Our thesis, which agrees with Passerini's, may be stated in this way: (A) Before accepting the episcopate, one is not bound in conscience to be already strictly perfect; (B) A bishop, however, by reason of his office and state is more strictly bound than a religious to strive for perfection, and by holier means; (C) Moreover, it is very-fitting and appropriate, in order that he may worthily fulfill all the duties of his pastoral office, that he should already be perfect in the strict meaning of the word.

(A) Before accepting the episcopacy, one is not bound in conscience to be already strictly perfect.

It is sufficient that the bishop-elect have an efficacious intention of worthily fulfilling all the duties of the episcopal life, even those which are most perfect, and if the occasion arises, those which call for heroism.

We find this teaching in St. Thomas, where he is answering this objection: "There are many prelates [bishops, as is clear from the text] and religious who have not the interior perfection of charity. If, therefore, all religious and prelates are in the state of perfection, it follows that all of them who are not perfect are in mortal sin, because they are deceivers and liars." St. Thomas answers, both for bishops and for religious: "Men enter the state of perfection because they profess, not that they are perfect, but that they will strive for perfection. St. Paul, therefore, says in his Epistle to the Philippians (3:12): 'Not as though I had already attained, or were already perfect; but I follow after, if I may by any means apprehend.' And further on (3:15) he adds: 'Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus minded.' A man, therefore, who takes up the state of perfection is not guilty of lying or deceit through not being perfect, but through revoking the intention of reaching perfection."¹⁴

A bishop, therefore, is not bound in conscience to be already perfect, in the strict sense of the word. Such perfection can be equated with the perfection of charity, implying that one clings always to God and always acts deliberately from charity, by rooting out deliberate venial sins and voluntary imperfections. In the Epistle to the Hebrews (5:2-3) there is this reference to a bishop: "Because he himself also is compassed with infirmity, and therefore he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins."

Passerini, therefore, is correct. We find a confirmation of this first part of our thesis in the teaching of St. Thomas. "Whether he that is appointed to the episcopate ought to be better than others?" In his reply, St. Thomas quotes the Decretals: "It is sufficient to choose a good man, and it is not necessary to choose the better man." And in explanation he says: "He who has to choose or appoint one as a bishop is not bound to select one who is best in himself, that is, according to charity, but one who is best for governing the Church, that is, one who is able to instruct, defend and govern the Church peacefully. . . . On the part of the person appointed, it is not necessary that he should consider himself better than others; this would be proud and presumptuous, but it is sufficient that he should see nothing in himself which would make it unlawful for him to take up office as prelate." ¹⁵

St. Thomas also says: "There is nothing to prevent one who does not excel in the grace of holiness from being more suited to the office of governing"¹⁶ as St. Paul says (I Cor. 12:4-6): "There are diversities of graces ... of ministries ... of operations."

(B) A bishop, however, by reason of his office and state, is more strictly obliged than a religious to strive for perfection strictly so called; and he is bound to use holier means.¹⁷

Perfection consists in the perfect observance of the precept of charity, a precept which has no limitations. A bishop, therefore, like a religious, should aim at perfection, which, as a final cause, has no limitations. From this point of view, as Passerini has well said, there is no distinction to be made in states of perfection. But:

(a) A bishop has a greater obligation than a religious of striving for perfection. Why? Because the duties of his pastoral office demand a greater interior sanctity, if the bishop is not to hinder the salvation of his flock and the sanctification of their souls. This obligation is even greater for a bishop than it is for a religious who is engaged in the apostolic life. There are two reasons for this: the bishop's care of his flock is primary and more universal, and he cannot set it aside; moreover, he is the supreme and principal teacher and minister of orders. As St. Peter says (I Pet. 5:3), he is the "pattern" of his flock. A bishop, therefore, would sin more grievously than a religious if he acts against perfection.

(b) States differ by reason of the means which are used to reach perfection; and in this the episcopacy excels. For among those works which are of counsel, some are more perfect of their very nature. Among these is that care of souls which is so great that one pours out one's life to achieve it. A bishop is bound to this in virtue of his state, and this means of reaching perfection is in itself superior to the exercise of religious obedience and poverty. Charity toward one's neighbor is the greatest effect of the love of God and the greatest sign of progress in charity toward God. "Love one another as I have loved you" (John 13:34); fraternal charity is the thermometer of the interior life.

As Passerini says:¹⁸ "To have the principal care of souls, and to join with it a contempt of the goods of the body, one's own reputation and life, is a state which far surpasses all others in perfection; and it is for this reason that a bishop is in a state more perfect than that of any religious whatsoever." And he adds: ¹⁹ "This, indeed, is the mind of St. Thomas, who proves that the episcopal state is more perfect than the religious state, not because bishops are actually perfect, but because they are more perfect in that their duty of perfecting others is certainly in itself and of its very nature sublime and more excellent than poverty, virginity and obedience; and it is a more effective means of reaching perfection. In no other state, as the Martyrology proves, are so many saints to be found."

An Objection: But religious, because of their poverty and obedience, seem to be more perfect.²⁰

Answer: Although a bishop is not bound to use poverty as a means for reaching perfection, yet "bishops especially are bound to despise all things for the honor of God and the spiritual welfare of their flock when it is necessary for them to do so, either by giving to the poor of their flock or by suffering, with joy being stripped of their goods.' And St. Thomas says: "Poverty is not perfection, but a means to perfection; and it does not follow that where there is greater poverty there is greater perfection. The highest perfection, indeed, is compatible with great wealth."²¹

And even though a bishop has not a vow of obedience, he is bound to give an outstanding example of obedience to the Pope, and to be in a sense a servant of the servants of God. This is often more difficult and more severe than religious obedience.

Passerini asks:²² Is the episcopal state superior to the religious state joined to the apostolic life as practiced by members of the Order of Preachers, for example, or the Society of Jesus, who are engaged in the apostolate even with great personal danger to life, as on the missions? Is a bishop superior to doctors in theology,²³ who teach many other priests? Is he superior to regular prelates who have office for life, like Abbots and Generals who have charge of an entire Order and who have besides the burden of the care of souls the burden of the vows and regular observance?

With Passerini, we may answer this question as follows: The immediate purpose and object of the episcopal state is far superior to the purpose of the religious state, even when the latter binds itself to works of charity, and this is true for three reasons:

(a) A more universal sphere of action: Only a bishop can confer all the sacraments, consecrate churches and oils used in the Sacraments of Baptism and Extreme Unction; only he has a vote in defining truths of faith; and in virtue of his office he may be called in Council to discuss those things which concern the ruling of the Church. These things are not within the province of religious.

(I?) In their manner of acting: Religious, in their care of souls, are the assistants of the bishop.

(c) A more serious obligation: Religious have not the same obligation as bishops of giving their lives for the spiritual welfare of the faithful.

(C) In order that a bishop may worthily and conscientiously fulfill all the duties of his pastoral office, it is very fitting and helpful that he should be already perfect, in the strict meaning of the word (cf. 2 Tim. 1:3-14).

A bishop must not only purify and illuminate others, but he must also lead them to perfection. He must direct priests and govern them; he is the father of the faithful of his diocese, no matter what their standing may be; even exempt religious are his sons. Moreover, he frequently has to make heroic acts of virtue in order to safeguard the spiritual salvation of his flock, and he must be prepared to endure even greater and more difficult things for them. In order to fulfill all these duties worthily, it will be very helpful for him to give himself to prayer, so that he may live deeply by faith and charity and speak to his flock from the abundance of holy love. (Witness the lives of St. Charles Borromeo, St. Francis de Sales and St. Alphonsus.)

It is not necessary that a bishop should surpass everybody in all things: otherwise a man without the virtue of virginity could never become a bishop. He should, however, excel in those things which affect the ruling of his flock. That is why it is fitting that only one who is perfect should be made a bishop.

Understood in this way, our thesis does not lower our exalted idea of perfection strictly so called, nor is it derogatory to the episcopal state. And this appears to be the teaching of St. Thomas.

4. Some practical questions

Is it lawful to desire the office of the bishop? ²⁴

It seems that it is lawful, because St. Paul says in his first Epistle to Timothy (3:1): "If a man desires the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work." It is lawful and praiseworthy to desire a good work.

St. Augustine says, however, that it is "unbecoming to desire" the episcopal office.²⁵ As to lawfulness, some authors equate this desire with the desire for contemplation and mystical union.

Let us see how St. Thomas answers this question. He says that to desire the episcopal state because of its high dignity or honor is unlawful; but to desire it in order to do good to one's neighbor is in itself praiseworthy and virtuous. This was particularly true in the early Church in times of persecutions, because bishops often had to endure very great sufferings. But because the episcopacy is a very exalted dignity, unless there is an urgent reason, it seems presumptuous for one to desire the office of a bishop. That is why some take a vow not to accept the episcopal office except under obedience or unless charity makes it necessary.

One can, however, without presumption desire the office of a bishop if "the object of his desire is the good work and not the first place in dignity."

This desire is not of the same kind as the desire for mystical union, because there is no very great external dignity connected necessarily with this union; on the contrary, it usually involves a very painful purification.

Would it be lawful to refuse absolutely an appointment to the episcopate? ²⁶

St. Thomas answers that it would not be lawful: "Just as it is a sign of an inordinate will that a man of his own choice should seek to be appointed to rule over others, so too is it a sign of an inordinate will if in direct opposition to the will of his superiors he definitely refuses this office of governing others. The reasons are: it is opposed to the love which one should have for one's neighbor, for whose good one should offer oneself as place and time demand, and secondly, it is contrary to humility by which a man submits himself to the orders of his Superiors."²⁷

May a bishop give up his episcopal office in order to enter a religious order? ²⁸

He can do so only with the permission of the Supreme Pontiff, and the reason must be that he can no longer work for the salvation of his subjects either because of his age, for example, or his infirmity, or because of some scandal or defection among his subjects.

Why? "The perfection of the episcopal state requires that a man binds himself, for the love of God, to work for the salvation of his neighbor. He is bound, therefore, to retain this pastoral care as long as he is able to procure the spiritual welfare of those who have been entrusted to him. He ought not to neglect this, either for the quiet of divine contemplation, or to avoid any hardship, or to acquire any gain whatsoever."²⁹ Moreover: "So long as a bishop can be useful to the salvation of his neighbor, he would be backsliding if he wished to enter the religious state to busy himself only with his own salvation."³⁰

Therefore, as St. Thomas says, in a time of persecution, "when the salvation of his subjects demands the personal presence of the pastor, the pastor should not withdraw himself personally from his flock, either because of some temporal advantage, or because of some danger threatening his person. The good shepherd is bound to lay down his life for his sheep."³¹

5. Priestly ministry in the world today

Christ said to His Apostles (Matt. 10:16-17): "Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves. But beware of men. For they will deliver you up in councils and they will scourge you in their synagogues." And in Luke (10:3) He says: "Behold I send you as lambs among wolves."

Similarly in the first Epistle of St. John (5:19) we are told what is the spirit of the world as opposed to the spirit of Christ: "the whole world is seated in wickedness"; and: "for all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life" (2:16).

St. Paul says (Eph. 6:11-13): "Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. For our wrestling is not only against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. Therefore, take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things perfect."

In his commentary on Matthew, St. Thomas says: "Why did God in this way wish to send the Apostles into danger? He did so in order to show His power, because if He had sent armed men, their success would be attributed to their violence and not to the power of God. Therefore, He sent poor men. It was a great thing that through poor, despised, and unarmed men, so many were converted to the Lord."³²

In his commentary on Ephesians, St. Thomas notes that the principal weapons against the wickedness of the devil are the three theological virtues: the shield of faith, the hope of reaching our final goal, which is like the helmet of salvation, and the love of God and of souls which is connected with humility and the spirit of adoration.³³

But I would like to speak particularly of the corruption of the world which we have to evangelize, a world influenced by almost twenty centuries of Christianity. Today, for very many, the great ideals of Christianity have been lowered and they have taken on a completely different meaning. Many, like Chesterton,³⁴ have spoken about great ideas gone mad. This began particularly with Jean Jacques Rousseau, whose teaching has rightly been called Christianity corrupted.³⁵ The worst corruption is that of the best.

In classical antiquity, there was indeed a great opposition between the spiritualism of Plato and Aristotle and the materialism of Epicurus. But the mind had not yet reached the heights of Christianity, and the more penetrating philosophers spoke only of wisdom or of some rational love of the Supreme Good; the Stoics spoke about a universal fraternity among all men.

With the coming of Christianity, the human mind was raised to a supernatural life, with a very certain faith in God, a very strong hope in Him, and with charity toward the heavenly Father and toward all His adopted sons. For three centuries, martyrs died for the Christian faith, and the blood of martyrs was the seed of Christians. The teaching of the Fathers was brought to its perfection by St. Augustine. Sacred theology reached its peak in the 13th century.

Then, in the 14th century, a decline began with the rise of Nominalism, and in the 15th and 16th centuries with Protestantism, the rejection of the infallibility of the Church, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacrament of Penance and the need for good works. This decline became more rapid among the unbelieving philosophers of the 18th century. Voltaire and Rousseau, with the French Revolution and its spirit of naturalism as interpreted by the deists, maintained: God, if He exists, does not care about individuals but only about universal laws. As a result sin is not an offense against God but against a constantly evolving reason. What previously seemed to us to be theft is no longer theft; perhaps individual property is itself a theft, as the socialists say.

The spirit of naturalism and rationalism denies all the supernatural mysteries of the Blessed Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, and rejects the Eucharist and other sacraments. It denies the life of grace, which is the seed of glory, eternal life; it also denies the opposition between heaven and hell.

At one time, liberalism wished to remain suspended halfway in this fall from Catholicism to serious error. But liberalism reached no conclusions; it did not affirm or deny, but fluctuated. And so when a decision has to be taken and one must act, liberalism gives way to radicalism, then to socialism and finally to materialistic communism which denies property, the family, the fatherland and religion.

We still have the remnants of an ideology, which began with J. J. Rousseau and in which we find a corrupted version of Christianity in keeping with the spirit of naturalism. It denies all the supernatural mysteries. And instead of faith in God, hope in God and charity toward God we have a faith in humanity, a hope in humanity, a love of humanity. Humanity is deified and takes the place of God. They always speak, therefore, about the progress of humanity, as if a scientific, economic, moral and spiritual progress were always taking place, as if humanity of itself, without any higher help, was causing this progress.

But we have seen in the recent World War, along with material progress in knowledge and the means of destruction, a frightful moral collapse, economic decline and misery.

And so this new ideology which has been given the place of Christian faith is composed of great ideals gone mad. Like the increasing speed of a falling stone, this fall is deeper and swifter because it began at a greater height.

The present position, therefore, is worse than that before the time of Christ. It is not the ignorance of a child, but the madness of an old, and at one time very cultured, man. It is not surprising, therefore, that modern philosophers like Kant, Fichte and Hegel, whose way of thinking was rationalistic, have been great intellectual monstrosities. This movement had already begun with Spinoza who denied the freedom of God, creation, providence, the justice of God and His mercy, all merit and demerit.

This is the foolishness and the madness of which St. Paul spoke (1 Cor. 3:19): "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." Wisdom judges everything even the smallest things both speculatively and practically, in view of the highest cause and ultimate end; but foolishness or madness judges everything, even the highest thing, by that which is lowest, and in the place of God it puts the concupiscence of the flesh and of the eyes, or the pride of life.³⁶

NOTES TO CHAPTER 7

I. See 2 Tim. 1:3-14; Council of Trent, sess. 23, c. 4, 6, 7; Pontificale Romanum: consecratio episcopalis; St. Thomas Aquinas, S.T., 2-2, q. 184 articles 4,5,7,8; q. 185, a. 8: q. 186, a. 3, ad 6; q. 188, a. 1, ad 3; Passerini, De Statibus Hominum (commentary on 2-2, q. 184 articles 5 to 7), p. 73; Suarez, De Statu Perfectionis, lib. 1, c. 15 and 16.

2. See S.T., Suppl., q. 37, aa. 2 and 4.

3. See Denzinger, 958.

4. See S.T., 2-2, q. 184, a. 5.

5. Ibid., a. 7.

6. Passerini, op. cit., p. 72, n. 10.

7. S.T., 2-2, q. 185, a. 4, ad 1.

8. I bid., a. 8.

9. lbid.,q. 186, a. 3, ad 5.

10. Passerini, op cit., pp. 70, 73.

11. See Passerini, op. cit., p. 73, n. 18. St. Thomas Aquinas says: "The state of perfection is twofold, that of prelates and that of religious. But the term is used equivocally, because the religious state is for the acquisition of perfection, whereas the state of being a prelate is not for the acquisition of perfection for oneself, but for communicating it, already acquired, to others" (In Matt. 19:21). A bishop is to a religious as a teacher is to pupil.

It is said that St. Thomas was once asked: "Who should be elected Master-General?" His answer was: "He who is more prudent should be elected Superior; he who is more learned should teach us; he who is more holy should pray for us."

12. Passerini, op. cit., p. 72, n. 15.

13. See St. Thomas Aquinas, In Matt., 19:21.

14. S.T., 2-2, q. 184, a. 5, ad 2.

15. Ibid., q. 185, a. 3.

16. I bid., ad 3.

17. See Passerini, op. cit., p. 74. St. Thomas, S.T., 2-2 q. 185, a. 3, ad 2, writes: "A bishop should aim at showing himself to be more excellent than others in both knowledge and holiness."

18. Passerini, op. cit., p. 93, summary number 6.

19. I bid., p. 94.

20. See S.T., 2-2, q. 184, a. 7, ad 1.

21. Ibid., q. 185, a. 6, ad 1.

22. Passerini, op. cit., p. 95.

23. With reference to doctors in theology, St. Thomas says that they, next to bishops, "are like the principal master-workmen who examine and teach how others ought to work out the salvation of their souls. In itself, therefore, it is better and more meritorious to teach sacred doctrine, if it is done with

a good intention, than to look after the salvation of this or that particular soul, as the Apostle says, 'Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel' (I Cor. 1:17)" (Quod. I., a. 14).

24. See S.T., 2-2, q. 185, a. 1.

25. St. Augustine, The City of God, XIX, 19.

26. See S.T., 2-2, q. 185, a. 4.

27. Ibid., a. 2.

28. See I bid., a. 4.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid., ad 1.

31. I bid., a. 6.

32. St. Thomas Aquinas, In Matt. 10:16.

33. St. Thomas Aquinas, In Eph. 6:12.

34. G. K. Chesterton, Heretics.

35. Jacques Maritain, Three Reformers.

36. See ST., 2-2, q. 46, "De Stultitia."