Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

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 1, 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. . 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, 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.

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit nisi una tantum religio. In eo enim quod totaliter et perfecte habetur, diversitas esse non potest, propter quod, non potest esse nisi unum primum summum bonum, ut in primo habitum est.

Sed sicut Gregorius dicit, super Ezech., cum quis omne quod habet, omne quod vivit, omne quod sapit, omnipotenti deo voverit, holocaustum est, sine quo religio esse non dicitur. Ergo videtur quod non sint multae religiones, sed una tantum.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, ea quae in essentialibus conveniunt, non diversificantur nisi per accidens. Sed sine tribus votis essentialibus religioni non est aliqua religio, ut supra habitum est.

Ergo videtur quod religiones specie non diversificentur, sed solum per accidens.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, status perfectionis competit et religiosis et episcopis, ut supra habitum est.

Sed episcopatus non diversificatur specie, sed est ubique unus, unde Hieronymus dicit, ad evandrum episcopum, ubicumque fuerit episcopus, sive Romae sive eugubio sive constantinopoli sive rhegio, eiusdem meriti est, eiusdem et sacerdotii.

Ergo, pari ratione, una sola est religio.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, ab ecclesia tollendum est omne id quod confusionem inducere potest. Sed ex diversitate religionis videtur quaedam confusio posse induci in populo christiano, ut decretalis quaedam dicit, quae habetur de statu monachorum et canonicorum regularium.

Ergo videtur quod non debeant esse diversae religiones.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod in Psalmo describitur ad ornatum reginae pertinere quod sit circumamicta varietate.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex supra dictis patet, status religionis est quoddam exercitium quo aliquis exercetur ad perfectionem caritatis. Sunt autem diversa caritatis opera quibus homo vacare potest, sunt etiam diversi modi exercitiorum.

Et ideo religiones distingui possunt dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum diversitatem eorum ad quae ordinantur, sicut si una religio ordinetur ad peregrinos hospitio suscipiendos, et alia ad visitandos vel redimendos captivos. Alio modo, potest esse diversitas religionum secundum diversitatem exercitiorum, puta quod in una religione castigatur corpus per abstinentias ciborum, in alia per exercitium operum manualium, vel per nuditatem, vel per aliquid aliud huiusmodi. Sed quia finis est potissimum in unoquoque, maior est religionum diversitas quae attenditur secundum diversos fines ad quos religiones ordinantur, quam quae attenditur secundum diversa exercitia.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hoc est commune in omni religione, quod aliquis totaliter se debet praebere ad serviendum deo. Unde ex hac parte non est diversitas inter religiones, ut scilicet in una religione aliquis retineat aliquid sui, et in alia aliud.

Est autem diversitas secundum diversa in quibus homo potest deo servire, et secundum quod ad hoc se potest homo diversimode disponere.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod tria essentialia vota religionis pertinent ad exercitium religionis sicut quaedam principalia ad quae omnia alia reducuntur, ut supra dictum est.

Ad observandum autem unumquodque eorum diversimode aliquis se disponere potest, puta ad votum continentiae servandum se disponit aliquis per loci solitudinem, per abstinentiam, per mutuam societatem, et per multa alia huiusmodi. Et secundum hoc patet quod communitas essentialium votorum compatitur diversitatem religionis, tum propter diversas dispositiones; tum etiam propter diversos fines, ut ex supra dictis patet.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod in his quae ad perfectionem pertinent, episcopus se habet per modum agentis, religiosi autem per modum patientis, agens autem, etiam in naturalibus, quanto est superius, tanto est magis unum, ea vero quae patiuntur, sunt diversa. Unde rationabiliter est unus episcopalis status, religiones vero diversae.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod confusio opponitur distinctioni et ordini. Sic ergo ex multitudine religionum induceretur confusio, si ad idem et eodem modo diversae religiones essent, absque utilitate et necessitate. Unde, ut hoc non fiat, salubriter institutum est ne nova religio, nisi auctoritate summi pontificis, instituatur.