|
Objection 1: It would seem that there is but one religious order.
For there can be no diversity in that which is possessed wholly and
perfectly; wherefore there can be only one sovereign good, as stated
in the FP, Question 6 , Articles 2,3,4. Now as Gregory
says (Hom. xx in Ezech.), "when a man vows to Almighty God all
that he has, all his life, all his knowledge, it is a holocaust,"
without which there is no religious life. Therefore it would seem that
there are not many religious orders but only one.
Objection 2: Further, things which agree in essentials differ only
accidentally. Now there is no religious order without the three
essential vows of religion, as stated above (Question 186,
Articles 6,7). Therefore it would seem that religious orders
differ not specifically, but only accidentally.
Objection 3: Further, the state of perfection is competent both to
religious and to bishops, as stated above (Question 185,
Articles 5,7). Now the episcopate is not diversified
specifically, but is one wherever it may be; wherefore Jerome says
(Ep. cxlvi ad Evan.): "Wherever a bishop is, whether at
Rome, or Gubbio, or Constantinople, or Reggio, he has the same
excellence, the same priesthood." Therefore in like manner there is
but one religious order.
Objection 4: Further, anything that may lead to confusion should be
removed from the Church. Now it would seem that a diversity of
religious orders might confuse the Christian people, as stated in the
Decretal de Statu Monach. et Canon. Reg. [Cap. Ne Nimia,
de Relig. Dom.]. Therefore seemingly there ought not to be
different religious orders.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 44:10) that it pertains
to the adornment of the queen that she is "surrounded with variety."
I answer that, As stated above (Question 186, A, 7;
Question 187, Article 2), the religious state is a training
school wherein one aims by practice at the perfection of charity. Now
there are various works of charity to which a man may devote himself;
and there are also various kinds of exercise. Wherefore religious
orders may be differentiated in two ways. First, according to the
different things to which they may be directed: thus one may be
directed to the lodging of pilgrims, another to visiting or ransoming
captives. Secondly, there may be various religious orders according
to the diversity of practices; thus in one religious order the body is
chastised by abstinence in food, in another by the practice of manual
labor, scantiness of clothes, or the like.
Since, however, the end imports most in every matter, [Arist.,
Topic. vi 8] religious orders differ more especially according to
their various ends than according to their various practices.
Reply to Objection 1: The obligation to devote oneself wholly to
God's service is common to every religious order; hence religious do
not differ in this respect, as though in one religious order a person
retained some one thing of his own, and in another order some other
thing. But the difference is in respect of the different things
wherein one may serve God, and whereby a man may dispose himself to
the service of God.
Reply to Objection 2: The three essential vows of religion pertain
to the practice of religion as principles to which all other matters are
reduced, as stated above (Question 186, Article 7). But
there are various ways of disposing oneself to the observance of each of
them. For instance one disposes oneself to observe the vow of
continence, by solitude of place, by abstinence, by mutual
fellowship, and by many like means. Accordingly it is evident that
the community of the essential vows is compatible with diversity of
religious life, both on account of the different dispositions and on
account of the different ends, as explained above.
Reply to Objection 3: In matters relating to perfection, the
bishop stands in the position of agent, and the religious as passive,
as stated above (Question 184, Article 7). Now the agent,
even in natural things, the higher it is, is so much the more one,
whereas the things that are passive are various. Hence with reason the
episcopal state is one, while religious orders are many.
Reply to Objection 4: Confusion is opposed to distinction and
order. Accordingly the multitude of religious orders would lead to
confusion, if different religious orders were directed to the same end
and in the same way, without necessity or utility. Wherefore to
prevent this happening it has been wholesomely forbidden to establish a
new religious order without the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff.
|
|