|
Objection 1: It would seem that an aureole is not due to doctors.
For every reward to be had in the life to come will correspond to some
act of virtue. But preaching or teaching is not the act of a virtue.
Therefore an aureole is not due to teaching or preaching.
Objection 2: Further, teaching and preaching are the result of
studying and being taught. Now the things that are rewarded in the
future life are not acquired by a man's study, since we merit not by
our natural and acquired gifts. Therefore no aureole will be merited
in the future life for teaching and preaching.
Objection 3: Further, exaltation in the life to come corresponds to
humiliation in the present life, because "he that humbleth himself
shall be exalted" (Mt. 23:12). But there is no humiliation
in teaching and preaching, in fact they are occasions of pride; for a
gloss on Mt. 4:5, "Then the devil took Him up," says that
"the devil deceives many who are puffed up with the honor of the
master's chair." Therefore it would seem that an aureole is not due
to preaching and teaching.
On the contrary, A gloss on Eph. 1:18,19, "That you may
know . . . what is the exceeding greatness," etc. says: "The
holy doctors will have an increase of glory above that which all have in
common." Therefore, etc.
Further, a gloss on Canticle of Canticles 8:12, "My vineyard
is before me," says: "He describes the peculiar reward which He
has prepared for His doctors." Therefore doctors will have a
peculiar reward: and we call this an aureole.
I answer that, Just as by virginity and martyrdom a person wins a
most perfect victory over the flesh and the world, so is a most perfect
victory gained over the devil, when a person not only refuses to yield
to the devil's assaults, but also drives him out, not from himself
alone, but from others also. Now this is done by preaching and
teaching: wherefore an aureole is due to preaching and teaching, even
as to virginity and martyrdom. Nor can we admit, as some affirm,
that it is due to prelates only, who are competent to preach and teach
by virtue of their office. but it is due to all whosoever exercise this
act lawfully. Nor is it due to prelates, although they have the
office of preaching, unless they actually preach, since a crown is due
not to the habit, but to the actual strife, according to 2 Tim.
2:5, "He . . . shall not be crowned, except he strive
lawfully."
Reply to Objection 1: Preaching and teaching are acts of a virtue,
namely mercy, wherefore they are reckoned among the spiritual alms
deeds [SS, Question 32, Article 2].
Reply to Objection 2: Although ability to preach and teach is
sometimes the outcome of study, the practice of teaching comes from the
will, which is informed with charity infused by God: and thus its act
can be meritorious.
Reply to Objection 3: Exaltation in this life does not lessen the
reward of the other life, except for him who seeks his own glory from
that exaltation: whereas he who turns that exaltation to the profit of
others acquires thereby a reward for himself. Still, when it is
stated that an aureole is due to teaching, this is to be understood of
the teaching of things pertaining to salvation, by which teaching the
devil is expelled from men's hearts, as by a kind of spiritual
weapon, of which it is said (2 Cor. 10:4): "The weapons of
our warfare are not carnal but spiritual".
|
|