Click *H for Haydock Commentary. *Footnote for footnote etc.
Click any word in Latin Greek or Hebrew to activate the parser. Then click on the display to expand the parser.
*H And I commend to you Phebe, our sister, who is in the ministry of the church, that is in Cenchrae:
Ver. 1. I commend, &c. He concludes with a number of salutations, to show his affection for them. — Phœbe, who is in the ministry, or employed in the ministry, as women, called diaconissæ, used to be, privately instructing catechumens, assisting particularly at the baptizing of women, distributing charities, &c. Wi.
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 187, Article 2
[II-II, Q. 187, Art. 2]
Whether It Is Lawful for Religious to Occupy Themselves with Secular Business?
Objection 1: It would seem unlawful for religious to occupy themselves with secular business. For in the decree quoted above (A. 1) of Pope Boniface it is said that the "Blessed Benedict bade them to be altogether free from secular business; and this is most explicitly prescribed by the apostolic doctrine and the teaching of all the Fathers, not only to religious, but also to all the canonical clergy," according to 2 Tim. 2:4, "No man being a soldier to God, entangleth himself with secular business." Now it is the duty of all religious to be soldiers of God. Therefore it is unlawful for them to occupy themselves with secular business.
Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (1 Thess. 4:11): "That you use your endeavor to be quiet, and that you do your own business," which a gloss explains thus--"by refraining from other people's affairs, so as to be the better able to attend to the amendment of your own life." Now religious devote themselves in a special way to the amendment of their life. Therefore they should not occupy themselves with secular business.
Obj. 3: Further, Jerome, commenting on Matt. 11:8, "Behold they that are clothed in soft garments are in the houses of kings," says: "Hence we gather that an austere life and severe preaching should avoid the palaces of kings and the mansions of the voluptuous." But the needs of secular business induce men to frequent the palaces of kings. Therefore it is unlawful for religious to occupy themselves with secular business.
_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 16:1): "I commend to you Phoebe our Sister," and further on (Rom. 16:2), "that you assist her in whatsoever business she shall have need of you."
_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 186, AA. 1, 7, ad 1), the religious state is directed to the attainment of the perfection of charity, consisting principally in the love of God and secondarily in the love of our neighbor. Consequently that which religious intend chiefly and for its own sake is to give themselves to God. Yet if their neighbor be in need, they should attend to his affairs out of charity, according to Gal. 6:2, "Bear ye one another's burthens: and so you shall fulfil the law of Christ," since through serving their neighbor for God's sake, they are obedient to the divine love. Hence it is written (James 1:27): "Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation," which means, according to a gloss, to assist the helpless in their time of need.
We must conclude therefore that it is unlawful for either monks or clerics to carry on secular business from motives of avarice; but from motives of charity, and with their superior's permission, they may occupy themselves with due moderation in the administration and direction of secular business. Wherefore it is said in the Decretals (Dist. xxxviii, can. Decrevit): "The holy synod decrees that henceforth no cleric shall buy property or occupy himself with secular business, save with a view to the care of the fatherless, orphans, or widows, or when the bishop of the city commands him to take charge of the business connected with the Church." And the same applies to religious as to clerics, because they are both debarred from secular business on the same grounds, as stated above.
Reply Obj. 1: Monks are forbidden to occupy themselves with secular business from motives of avarice, but not from motives of charity.
Reply Obj. 2: To occupy oneself with secular business on account of another's need is not officiousness but charity.
Reply Obj. 3: To haunt the palaces of kings from motives of pleasure, glory, or avarice is not becoming to religious, but there is nothing unseemly in their visiting them from motives of piety. Hence it is written (4 Kings 4:13): "Hast thou any business, and wilt thou that I speak to the king or to the general of the army?" Likewise it becomes religious to go to the palaces of kings to rebuke and guide them, even as John the Baptist rebuked Herod, as related in Matt. 14:4. _______________________
THIRD
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 187, Article 2
[II-II, Q. 187, Art. 2]
Whether It Is Lawful for Religious to Occupy Themselves with Secular Business?
Objection 1: It would seem unlawful for religious to occupy themselves with secular business. For in the decree quoted above (A. 1) of Pope Boniface it is said that the "Blessed Benedict bade them to be altogether free from secular business; and this is most explicitly prescribed by the apostolic doctrine and the teaching of all the Fathers, not only to religious, but also to all the canonical clergy," according to 2 Tim. 2:4, "No man being a soldier to God, entangleth himself with secular business." Now it is the duty of all religious to be soldiers of God. Therefore it is unlawful for them to occupy themselves with secular business.
Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (1 Thess. 4:11): "That you use your endeavor to be quiet, and that you do your own business," which a gloss explains thus--"by refraining from other people's affairs, so as to be the better able to attend to the amendment of your own life." Now religious devote themselves in a special way to the amendment of their life. Therefore they should not occupy themselves with secular business.
Obj. 3: Further, Jerome, commenting on Matt. 11:8, "Behold they that are clothed in soft garments are in the houses of kings," says: "Hence we gather that an austere life and severe preaching should avoid the palaces of kings and the mansions of the voluptuous." But the needs of secular business induce men to frequent the palaces of kings. Therefore it is unlawful for religious to occupy themselves with secular business.
_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 16:1): "I commend to you Phoebe our Sister," and further on (Rom. 16:2), "that you assist her in whatsoever business she shall have need of you."
_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 186, AA. 1, 7, ad 1), the religious state is directed to the attainment of the perfection of charity, consisting principally in the love of God and secondarily in the love of our neighbor. Consequently that which religious intend chiefly and for its own sake is to give themselves to God. Yet if their neighbor be in need, they should attend to his affairs out of charity, according to Gal. 6:2, "Bear ye one another's burthens: and so you shall fulfil the law of Christ," since through serving their neighbor for God's sake, they are obedient to the divine love. Hence it is written (James 1:27): "Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation," which means, according to a gloss, to assist the helpless in their time of need.
We must conclude therefore that it is unlawful for either monks or clerics to carry on secular business from motives of avarice; but from motives of charity, and with their superior's permission, they may occupy themselves with due moderation in the administration and direction of secular business. Wherefore it is said in the Decretals (Dist. xxxviii, can. Decrevit): "The holy synod decrees that henceforth no cleric shall buy property or occupy himself with secular business, save with a view to the care of the fatherless, orphans, or widows, or when the bishop of the city commands him to take charge of the business connected with the Church." And the same applies to religious as to clerics, because they are both debarred from secular business on the same grounds, as stated above.
Reply Obj. 1: Monks are forbidden to occupy themselves with secular business from motives of avarice, but not from motives of charity.
Reply Obj. 2: To occupy oneself with secular business on account of another's need is not officiousness but charity.
Reply Obj. 3: To haunt the palaces of kings from motives of pleasure, glory, or avarice is not becoming to religious, but there is nothing unseemly in their visiting them from motives of piety. Hence it is written (4 Kings 4:13): "Hast thou any business, and wilt thou that I speak to the king or to the general of the army?" Likewise it becomes religious to go to the palaces of kings to rebuke and guide them, even as John the Baptist rebuked Herod, as related in Matt. 14:4. _______________________
THIRD
* Footnotes
-
*
Acts
18:2
And finding a certain Jew, named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with Priscilla his wife (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome), he came to them.
-
*
Acts
18:26
This man therefore began to speak boldly in the synagogue. Whom when Priscilla and Aquila had heard, they took him to them and expounded to him the way of the Lord more diligently.
*H (Who have for my life laid down their own necks: to whom not I only give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles),
Ver. 4. It is not exactly known to what the apostle here refers. Orig. thinks that they delivered the apostle from the snares of the Jews. Others, that they exposed themselves for him in the sedition raised at Corinth, or in that at Ephesus, when he was in such danger, on account of the outcry of the silversmiths. The obligations of the Churches of the Gentiles towards them must be understood of the hospitality, which these faithful servants of Christ exercised to all. Calmet. — Τον εαυτων τραχηλον υπεθηκαν , a proverbial expression, as in Latin, præbere cervices, caput objicere periculis, to support any thing, or person, that is in a sinking way, or in great danger.
*H And the church which is in their house. Salute Epenetus, my beloved: who is the firstfruits of Asia in Christ.
Ver. 5. This means the assembly of Christians, who probably resorted to the house of Prisca and Aquila, as to a place of retreat, and there held their religious assemblies. Or it may mean their family only, which was as regular and holy as an assembly of saints. The apostle, in another place, salutes the Church in the house of Nympha, and writing to Philemon, salutes the Church in his house. 1 Cor. xvi. 19.
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 26, Article 10
[II-II, Q. 26, Art. 10]
Whether a Man Ought to Love His Mother More Than His Father?
Objection 1: It would seem that a man ought to love his mother more than his father. For, as the Philosopher says (De Gener. Animal. i, 20), "the female produces the body in generation." Now man receives his soul, not from his father, but from God by creation, as stated in the First Part (Q. 90, A. 2; Q. 118). Therefore a man receives more from his mother than from his father: and consequently he ought to love her more than him.
Obj. 2: Further, where greater love is given, greater love is due. Now a mother loves her child more than the father does: for the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 7) that "mothers have greater love for their children. For the mother labors more in child-bearing, and she knows more surely than the father who are her children."
Obj. 3: Further, love should be more fond towards those who have labored for us more, according to Rom. 16:6: "Salute Mary, who hath labored much among you." Now the mother labors more than the father in giving birth and education to her child; wherefore it is written (Ecclus. 7:29): "Forget not the groanings of thy mother." Therefore a man ought to love his mother more than his father.
_On the contrary,_ Jerome says on Ezech. 44:25 that "man ought to love God the Father of all, and then his own father," and mentions the mother afterwards.
_I answer that,_ In making such comparisons as this, we must take the answer in the strict sense, so that the present question is whether the father as father, ought to be loved more than the mother as mother. The reason is that virtue and vice may make such a difference in such like matters, that friendship may be diminished or destroyed, as the Philosopher remarks (Ethic. viii, 7). Hence Ambrose [*Origen, Hom. ii in Cant.] says: "Good servants should be preferred to wicked children."
Strictly speaking, however, the father should be loved more than the mother. For father and mother are loved as principles of our natural origin. Now the father is principle in a more excellent way than the mother, because he is the active principle, while the mother is a passive and material principle. Consequently, strictly speaking, the father is to be loved more.
Reply Obj. 1: In the begetting of man, the mother supplies the formless matter of the body; and the latter receives its form through the formative power that is in the semen of the father. And though this power cannot create the rational soul, yet it disposes the matter of the body to receive that form.
Reply Obj. 2: This applies to another kind of love. For the friendship between lover and lover differs specifically from the friendship between child and parent: while the friendship we are speaking of here, is that which a man owes his father and mother through being begotten of them.
The Reply to the Third Objection is evident. _______________________
ELEVENTH
*H Salute them that are of Aristobulus' household. Salute Herodian, my kinsman. Salute them that are of Narcissus' household, who are in the Lord.
Ver. 16. &c. If the first-fruit (see the Greek word) be holy, so also is the mass; so also the rest, the product that follows. He alludes to the offering made by the law of the first-fruit, which was to acknowledge that all good things were from God, and to bring a blessing upon the rest. — If the root be holy, so are the branches. By the root, says S. Chrys. he understands Abraham, and the patriarchs, from whom all the Jewish nation proceeded, as branches from that root: and these branches are to be esteemed holy, not only because of the root they proceeded from, but also because they worshipped the true God. And if some, or a great part of these branches, have been broken, they may, as it is said, (v. 23.) be ingrafted again. And you, Gentiles, ought to remember that, you were of yourselves a wild olive-tree: and it is only by the merciful call of God, that you have the happiness to be ingrafted upon the same root of the patriarchs; and so, by imitating the faith of Abraham, are become his spiritual children, and heirs of the promises, and by that means have been made partakers of the root, and of the sap, and fatness of the sweet olive-tree. Remember that you bear not the root, nor were you the root that was holy; but the root beareth you; and that being branches of a wild olive, you ought naturally still to bear bad fruit, though ingrafted on the root of a sweet olive. It is only by the mercies of God, if you bring forth good fruit. Do not then be high-minded, nor boast, but fear, and endeavour to continue in goodness; lest God also spare not you, but cut you off, as unprofitable branches. And let me tell you, as to the Jews, if they abide not still in unbelief, God is able to ingraft them again into their own olive-tree; and it seems more easy, that they, who are naturally branches of the sweet olive-tree, should bring forth good fruit, when they shall be ingrafted in their own olive-tree, being of the race of Abraham, to whom the promises were made. Wi. — We see here, that he who standeth by faith, may fall from it; and therefore must live in fear, and not in the vain presumption and security of modern sectaries. Ch. — The apostle here exhorts the converted Gentiles, to fear lest they fall, and bring upon themselves a punishment similar to that of the Jews. The Jews were his chosen people, the children of the alliance; they have now been stripped of all; the same may also happen to you. You may fall into presumption and incredulity; if you remain firm, it is not by your own merits or works, but by faith, the pure gift of God. Neither faith, nor vocation, nor grace, are inadmissible. You may lose all; and therefore ought always to fear and live in humility. If God has not spared the natural branches, fear, lest he should not spare you. v. 21. Calmet. — The Gentiles are here admonished not to be proud, nor to glory over the Jews; but to take occasion rather from their fall to fear and to be humble, lest they be cast off. Not that the whole Church of Christ can ever fall from him; having been secured by so many divine promises in holy writ; but that each one in particular may fall; and therefore all in general are to be admonished to beware of that, which may happen to any one in particular. Ch.
*H Salute Tryphaena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Salute Persis, the dearly beloved, who hath much laboured in the Lord.
Ver. 16. Condescending to the humble, in the spirit of charity and sweetness. See Luke ii. 48. Wi.
*H Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes: and the brethren that are with them.
Ver. 16. Let not then our good, or which we have a Christian liberty to do with a good conscience, be evil spoken of, because of the disputes and quarrels you have about it. Wi.
*H Salute one another with an holy kiss. All the churches of Christ salute you.
Ver. 16. Thus the primitive Christians express their concord and benevolence, as also their perfect equality. For it was customary with the Persians, and all oriental nations, to salute only their equals thus; though, to their inferiors, the presented their hand to be kissed. S. Clem. Pædog. and Polus.
*H Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them.
Ver. 17. The apostle does not here say that these men caused scandals, contrary to the Scripture; but contrary to the doctrine delivered to them: this place, therefore, is an argument in favour of tradition. Estius.
* Footnotes
-
*
Acts
16:1
And he came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold, there was a certain disciple there named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman that believed: but his father was a Gentile.
*H I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.
Ver. 22. This Tertius was the amanuensis, or secretary of S. Paul, and wrote this epistle as S. Paul dictated. It is not on that account less divinely inspired than the rest. Estius.
*H Now to him that is able to establish you, according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret from eternity;
Ver. 25-27. Now to him that is able, &c. These three last verses, in divers Greek copies, were found at the end of the 14th chapter, where we find them expounded by S. Chrysostom. — According to the . . . mystery kept secret from eternity, now made manifest; he means the mystery of Christ's incarnation, and man's redemption, formerly revealed indeed to the prophets, but now made known to all nations, in order to bring all men to the obedience of the gospel, by embracing the faith and doctrine of Christ. Wi.
* Summa
*S Part 1, Ques 10, Article 1
[I, Q. 10, Art. 1]
Whether This Is a Good Definition of Eternity, "The Simultaneously- Whole and Perfect Possession of Interminable Life"?
Objection 1: It seems that the definition of eternity given by Boethius (De Consol. v) is not a good one: "Eternity is the simultaneously-whole and perfect possession of interminable life." For the word "interminable" is a negative one. But negation only belongs to what is defective, and this does not belong to eternity. Therefore in the definition of eternity the word "interminable" ought not to be found.
Obj. 2: Further, eternity signifies a certain kind of duration. But duration regards existence rather than life. Therefore the word "life" ought not to come into the definition of eternity; but rather the word "existence."
Obj. 3: Further, a whole is what has parts. But this is alien to eternity which is simple. Therefore it is improperly said to be "whole."
Obj. 4: Many days cannot occur together, nor can many times exist all at once. But in eternity, days and times are in the plural, for it is said, "His going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity" (Micah 5:2); and also it is said, "According to the revelation of the mystery hidden from eternity" (Rom. 16:25). Therefore eternity is not omni-simultaneous.
Obj. 5: Further, the whole and the perfect are the same thing. Supposing, therefore, that it is "whole," it is superfluously described as "perfect."
Obj. 6: Further, duration does not imply "possession." But eternity is a kind of duration. Therefore eternity is not possession.
_I answer that,_ As we attain to the knowledge of simple things by way of compound things, so must we reach to the knowledge of eternity by means of time, which is nothing but the numbering of movement by _before_ and _after._ For since succession occurs in every movement, and one part comes after another, the fact that we reckon before and after in movement, makes us apprehend time, which is nothing else but the measure of before and after in movement. Now in a thing bereft of movement, which is always the same, there is no before or after. As therefore the idea of time consists in the numbering of before and after in movement; so likewise in the apprehension of the uniformity of what is outside of movement, consists the idea of eternity.
Further, those things are said to be measured by time which have a beginning and an end in time, because in everything which is moved there is a beginning, and there is an end. But as whatever is wholly immutable can have no succession, so it has no beginning, and no end.
Thus eternity is known from two sources: first, because what is eternal is interminable--that is, has no beginning nor end (that is, no term either way); secondly, because eternity has no succession, being simultaneously whole.
Reply Obj. 1: Simple things are usually defined by way of negation; as "a point is that which has no parts." Yet this is not to be taken as if the negation belonged to their essence, but because our intellect which first apprehends compound things, cannot attain to the knowledge of simple things except by removing the opposite.
Reply Obj. 2: What is truly eternal, is not only being, but also living; and life extends to operation, which is not true of being. Now the protraction of duration seems to belong to operation rather than to being; hence time is the numbering of movement.
Reply Obj. 3: Eternity is called whole, not because it has parts, but because it is wanting in nothing.
Reply Obj. 4: As God, although incorporeal, is named in Scripture metaphorically by corporeal names, so eternity though simultaneously whole, is called by names implying time and succession.
Reply Obj. 5: Two things are to be considered in time: time itself, which is successive; and the "now" of time, which is imperfect. Hence the expression "simultaneously-whole" is used to remove the idea of time, and the word "perfect" is used to exclude the "now" of time.
Reply Obj. 6: Whatever is possessed, is held firmly and quietly; therefore to designate the immutability and permanence of eternity, we use the word "possession." _______________________
SECOND
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 103, Article 1
[II-II, Q. 103, Art. 1]
Whether Honor Denotes Something Corporal?
Objection 1: It seems that honor does not denote something corporal. For honor is showing reverence in acknowledgment of virtue, as may be gathered from the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 5). Now showing reverence is something spiritual, since to revere is an act of fear, as stated above (Q. 81, A. 2, ad 1). Therefore honor is something spiritual.
Obj. 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 3), "honor is the reward of virtue." Now, since virtue consists chiefly of spiritual things, its reward is not something corporal, for the reward is more excellent than the merit. Therefore honor does not consist of corporal things.
Obj. 3: Further, honor is distinct from praise, as also from glory. Now praise and glory consist of external things. Therefore honor consists of things internal and spiritual.
_On the contrary,_ Jerome in his exposition of 1 Tim. 5:3, "Honor widows that are widows indeed," and (1 Tim. 5:17), "let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honor" etc. says (Ep. ad Ageruch.): "Honor here stands either for almsgiving or for remuneration." Now both of these pertain to [corporal] things. Therefore honor consists of corporal things.
_I answer that,_ Honor denotes a witnessing to a person's excellence. Therefore men who wish to be honored seek a witnessing to their excellence, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 5; viii, 8). Now witness is borne either before God or before man. Before God, Who is the searcher of hearts, the witness of one's conscience suffices. wherefore honor, so far as God is concerned, may consist of the mere internal movement of the heart, for instance when a man acknowledges either God's excellence or another man's excellence before God. But, as regards men, one cannot bear witness, save by means of signs, either by words, as when one proclaims another's excellence by word of mouth, or by deeds, for instance by bowing, saluting, and so forth, or by external things, as by offering gifts, erecting statues, and the like. Accordingly honor consists of signs, external and corporal.
Reply Obj. 1: Reverence is not the same as honor: but on the one hand it is the primary motive for showing honor, in so far as one man honors another out of the reverence he has for him; and on the other hand, it is the end of honor, in so far as a person is honored in order that he may be held in reverence by others.
Reply Obj. 2: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 3), honor is not a sufficient reward of virtue: yet nothing in human and corporal things can be greater than honor, since these corporal things themselves are employed as signs in acknowledgment of excelling virtue. It is, however, due to the good and the beautiful, that they may be made known, according to Matt. 5:15, "Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house." In this sense honor is said to be the reward of virtue.
Reply Obj. 3: Praise is distinguished from honor in two ways. First, because praise consists only of verbal signs, whereas honor consists of any external signs, so that praise is included in honor. Secondly, because by paying honor to a person we bear witness to a person's excelling goodness absolutely, whereas by praising him we bear witness to his goodness in reference to an end: thus we praise one that works well for an end. On the other hand, honor is given even to the best, which is not referred to an end, but has already arrived at the end, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 5).
Glory is the effect of honor and praise, since the result of our bearing witness to a person's goodness is that his goodness becomes clear to the knowledge of many. The word "glory" signifies this, for "glory" is the same as _kleria_, wherefore a gloss of Augustine on Rom. 16:27 observes that glory is "clear knowledge together with praise." _______________________
SECOND