Posted on 07/20/2021 2:03:52 PM PDT by viewfromthefrontier
What attitude should a Catholic take toward cruel and arbitrary prelates – for example, those who endlessly stir up division and then shamelessly blame the division on those who note and bemoan the fact? In Quodlibet VIII, Aquinas makes some relevant remarks when addressing the question whether “evil prelates” should be honored. You can find the passage in the Nevitt and Davies translation of Thomas Aquinas’s Quodlibetal Questions, from which I quote:
[snip]
There are two key points here. The first is that when a man is a bad prelate, we should not pretend otherwise merely because of his office. … The second key point is that such a prelate nevertheless must be given the honor that attaches to his office as a vicar of Christ. It is an insult to Christ to refuse his representative such honor – as if it is not Christ himself who is permitting such a man to be his vicar, or as if Christ does not know what he is doing in permitting it.
What these points together entail is suffering. … This suffering can result from our own sins, or from the effects of original sin on the world around us, or from persecution. And sometimes it can come even from within the Church itself. Christ promises only that she will not be destroyed or, in her decisive pronouncements, bind the faithful to error. Short of that, she can be and sometimes is afflicted with evil of every kind, even at the very top. This is permitted in part precisely to illustrate the truth of Christ’s promise. Even bad popes cannot destroy the Church.
(Excerpt) Read more at edwardfeser.blogspot.com ...
Ping
Let Bergoglio actually claim the title of Vicar of Christ. Then maybe we can talk about affording him the respect due to one who answers to same.
He refuses to claim it!
ROFWL
When in doubt, go with Aquinas.
If you err in so doing, you’re in excellent company!
Thank you for this article.
Here is the quote that was snipped:
We can distinguish two things about a prelate: the person himself and his office, which makes him a sort of public person. If a prelate is evil, he should not be honored for the person he is. For honor is respect shown to people as a witness to their virtue. Hence, if we honored such a prelate for the person he is, we would bear false witness about him, which is forbidden in Exodus 20: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. But, as a public person, a prelate bears an image and occupies a position in the Church… that does not belong to him but, rather, to someone else, viz. Christ. And, as such, his worth is not determined by the person he is, but by the position he occupies. He is like one of those little stones used as a placeholder for 100 marks on a scale – quite worthless in itself. As Proverbs 26 says: He who gives honor to a fool is like one who puts a stone on Mercury’s heap… So, too, an evil prelate should not be honored because of who he is but because of the one whose position he holds. The case is similar to the veneration of images, which is directed to the things depicted therein, as Damascene says. Hence Zechariah compares an evil prelate to an idol: Woe to the pastor and idol who deserts the flock…
An evil prelate is unworthy to be a prelate and receive the honors due to prelates. But the one whose image the prelate bears is worthy to have his vicar honored, just as the blessed Virgin is worthy to have a painted image of her venerated, although the image itself is not worthy of such respect. (pp. 70-71)
Possibly because he does not believe in Christ as Redeemer, the Jesuit thing is “historical Jesus.”
If he is evil, he is usurping the office. And if the people who appointed him to the office know it, then they also are usurpers. At some point it becomes an offense to pretend otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.