v),
inasmuch
as he
dispenses the blood.
dispenses the blood.
Summa Theologica
lxii in Joan.
): "Judas did not receive
Christ's body then, as some think who read carelessly. " Therefore it
seems that Judas did not receive the body of Christ.
On the contrary, Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxii in Matth. ): "Judas was
not converted while partaking of the sacred mysteries: hence on both
sides his crime becomes the more heinous, both because imbued with such
a purpose he approached the mysteries, and because he became none the
better for approaching, neither from fear, nor from the benefit
received, nor from the honor conferred on him. "
I answer that, Hilary, in commenting on Mat. 26:17, held that Christ
did not give His body and blood to Judas. And this would have been
quite proper, if the malice of Judas be considered. But since Christ
was to serve us as a pattern of justice, it was not in keeping with His
teaching authority to sever Judas, a hidden sinner, from Communion with
the others without an accuser and evident proof. lest the Church's
prelates might have an example for doing the like, and lest Judas
himself being exasperated might take occasion of sinning. Therefore, it
remains to be said that Judas received our Lord's body and blood with
the other disciples, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), and Augustine
(Tract. lxii in Joan. ).
Reply to Objection 1: This is Hilary's argument, to show that Judas did
not receive Christ's body. But it is not cogent; because Christ is
speaking to the disciples, from whose company Judas separated himself:
and it was not Christ that excluded him. Therefore Christ for His part
drinks the wine even with Judas in the kingdom of God; but Judas
himself repudiated this banquet.
Reply to Objection 2: The wickedness of Judas was known to Christ as
God; but it was unknown to Him, after the manner in which men know it.
Consequently, Christ did not repel Judas from Communion; so as to
furnish an example that such secret sinners are not to be repelled by
other priests.
Reply to Objection 3: Without any doubt Judas did not receive Christ's
body in the dipped bread; he received mere bread. Yet as Augustine
observes (Tract. lxii in Joan. ), "perchance the feigning of Judas is
denoted by the dipping of the bread; just as some things are dipped to
be dyed. If, however, the dipping signifies here anything good" (for
instance, the sweetness of the Divine goodness, since bread is rendered
more savory by being dipped), "then, not undeservedly, did condemnation
follow his ingratitude for that same good. " And owing to that
ingratitude, "what is good became evil to him, as happens to them who
receive Christ's body unworthily. "
And as Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan. ), "it must be understood
that our Lord had already distributed the sacrament of His body and
blood to all His disciples, among whom was Judas also, as Luke
narrates: and after that, we came to this, where, according to the
relation of John, our Lord, by dipping and handing the morsel, does
most openly declare His betrayer. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ received and gave to the disciples His impassible body?
Objection 1: It seems that Christ both received and gave to the
disciples His impassible body. Because on Mat. 17:2, "He was
transfigured before them," the gloss says: "He gave to the disciples at
the supper that body which He had through nature, but neither mortal
nor passible. " And again, on Lev. 2:5, "if thy oblation be from the
frying-pan," the gloss says: "The Cross mightier than all things made
Christ's flesh fit for being eaten, which before the Passion did not
seem so suited. " But Christ gave His body as suited for eating.
Therefore He gave it just as it was after the Passion, that is,
impassible and immortal.
Objection 2: Further, every passible body suffers by contact and by
being eaten. Consequently, if Christ's body was passible, it would have
suffered both from contact and from being eaten by the disciples.
Objection 3: Further, the sacramental words now spoken by the priest in
the person of Christ are not more powerful than when uttered by Christ
Himself. But now by virtue of the sacramental words it is Christ's
impassible and immortal body which is consecrated upon the altar.
Therefore, much more so was it then.
On the contrary, As Innocent III says (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), "He
bestowed on the disciples His body such as it was. " But then He had a
passible and a mortal body. Therefore, He gave a passible and mortal
body to the disciples.
I answer that, Hugh of Saint Victor (Innocent III, De Sacr. Alt. Myst.
iv), maintained, that before the Passion, Christ assumed at various
times the four properties of a glorified body ---namely, subtlety in
His birth, when He came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin;
agility, when He walked dryshod upon the sea; clarity, in the
Transfiguration; and impassibility at the Last Supper, when He gave His
body to the disciples to be eaten. And according to this He gave His
body in an impassible and immortal condition to His disciples.
But whatever may be the case touching the other qualities, concerning
which we have already stated what should be held ([4666]Q[28], A[2], ad
3;[4667] Q[45], A[2]), nevertheless the above opinion regarding
impassibility is inadmissible. For it is manifest that the same body of
Christ which was then seen by the disciples in its own species, was
received by them under the sacramental species. But as seen in its own
species it was not impassible; nay more, it was ready for the Passion.
Therefore, neither was Christ's body impassible when given under the
sacramental species.
Yet there was present in the sacrament, in an impassible manner, that
which was passible of itself; just as that was there invisibly which of
itself was visible. For as sight requires that the body seen be in
contact with the adjacent medium of sight, so does passion require
contact of the suffering body with the active agents. But Christ's
body, according as it is under the sacrament, as stated above (A[1], ad
2;[4668] Q[76], A[5]), is not compared with its surroundings through
the intermediary of its own dimensions, whereby bodies touch each
other, but through the dimensions of the bread and wine; consequently,
it is those species which are acted upon and are seen, but not Christ's
own body.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ is said not to have given His mortal and
passible body at the supper, because He did not give it in mortal and
passible fashion. But the Cross made His flesh adapted for eating,
inasmuch as this sacrament represents Christ's Passion.
Reply to Objection 2: This argument would hold, if Christ's body, as it
was passible, were also present in a passible manner in this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([4669]Q[76], A[4]), the
accidents of Christ's body are in this sacrament by real concomitance,
but not by the power of the sacrament, whereby the substance of
Christ's body comes to be there. And therefore the power of the
sacramental words extends to this, that the body, i. e. Christ's, is
under this sacrament, whatever accidents really exist in it.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether, if this sacrament had been reserved in a pyx, or consecrated at the
moment of Christ's death by one of the apostles, Christ Himself would have
died there?
Objection 1: It seems that if this sacrament had been reserved in a pyx
at the moment of Christ's death, or had then been consecrated by one of
the apostles, that Christ would not have died there. For Christ's death
happened through His Passion. But even then He was in this sacrament in
an impassible manner. Therefore, He could not die in this sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, on the death of Christ, His blood was separated
from the body. But His flesh and blood are together in this sacrament.
Therefore He could not die in this sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, death ensues from the separation of the soul from
the body. But both the body and the soul of Christ are contained in
this sacrament. Therefore Christ could not die in this sacrament.
On the contrary, The same Christ Who was upon the cross would have been
in this sacrament. But He died upon the cross. Therefore, if this
sacrament had been reserved, He would have died therein.
I answer that, Christ's body is substantially the same in this
sacrament, as in its proper species, but not after the same fashion;
because in its proper species it comes in contact with surrounding
bodies by its own dimensions: but it does not do so as it is in this
sacrament, as stated above [4670](A[3]). And therefore, all that
belongs to Christ, as He is in Himself, can be attributed to Him both
in His proper species, and as He exists in the sacrament; such as to
live, to die, to grieve, to be animate or inanimate, and the like;
while all that belongs to Him in relation to outward bodies, can be
attributed to Him as He exists in His proper species, but not as He is
in this sacrament; such as to be mocked, to be spat upon, to be
crucified, to be scourged, and the rest. Hence some have composed this
verse:
"Our Lord can grieve beneath the sacramental veils But cannot feel the
piercing of the thorns and nails. "
Reply to Objection 1: As was stated above, suffering belongs to a body
that suffers in respect of some extrinsic body. And therefore Christ,
as in this sacrament, cannot suffer; yet He can die.
Reply to Objection 2: As was said above ([4671]Q[76], A[2]), in virtue
of the consecration, the body of Christ is under the species of bread,
while His blood is under the species of wine. But now that His blood is
not really separated from His body; by real concomitance, both His
blood is present with the body under the species of the bread, and His
body together with the blood under the species of the wine. But at the
time when Christ suffered, when His blood was really separated from His
body, if this sacrament had been consecrated, then the body only would
have been present under the species of the bread, and the blood only
under the species of the wine.
Reply to Objection 3: As was observed above ([4672]Q[76], A[1], ad 1),
Christ's soul is in this sacrament by real concomitance; because it is
not without the body: but it is not there in virtue of the
consecration. And therefore, if this sacrament had been consecrated
then, or reserved, when His soul was really separated from His body,
Christ's soul would not have been under this sacrament, not from any
defect in the form of the words, but owing to the different
dispositions of the thing contained.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT (TEN ARTICLES)
We now proceed to consider the minister of this sacrament: under which
head there are ten points for our inquiry:
(1) Whether it belongs to a priest alone to consecrate this sacrament?
(2) Whether several priests can at the same time consecrate the same
host?
(3) Whether it belongs to the priest alone to dispense this sacrament?
(4) Whether it is lawful for the priest consecrating to refrain from
communicating?
(5) Whether a priest in sin can perform this sacrament?
(6) Whether the Mass of a wicked priest is of less value than that of a
good one?
(7) Whether those who are heretics, schismatics, or excommunicated, can
perform this sacrament?
(8) Whether degraded priests can do so?
(9) Whether communicants receiving at their hands are guilty of
sinning?
(10) Whether a priest may lawfully refrain altogether from celebrating?
[*This is the order observed by St. Thomas in writing the Articles; but
in writing this prologue, he placed Article 10 immediately after
Article 4 (Cf. Leonine edition). ]
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the consecration of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone?
Objection 1: It seems that the consecration of this sacrament does not
belong exclusively to a priest. Because it was said above ([4673]Q[78],
A[4]) that this sacrament is consecrated in virtue of the words, which
are the form of this sacrament. But those words are not changed,
whether spoken by a priest or by anyone else. Therefore, it seems that
not only a priest, but anyone else, can consecrate this sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, the priest performs this sacrament in the person
of Christ. But a devout layman is united with Christ through charity.
Therefore, it seems that even a layman can perform this sacrament.
Hence Chrysostom (Opus imperfectum in Matth. , Hom. xliii) says that
"every holy man is a priest. "
Objection 3: Further, as Baptism is ordained for the salvation of
mankind, so also is this sacrament, as is clear from what was said
above ([4674]Q[74], A[1] ;[4675] Q[79], A[2]). But a layman can also
baptize, as was stated above ([4676]Q[67] , A[3]). Consequently, the
consecration of this sacrament is not proper to a priest.
Objection 4: Further, this sacrament is completed in the consecration
of the matter. But the consecration of other matters such as the
chrism, the holy oil, and blessed oil, belongs exclusively to a bishop;
yet their consecration does not equal the dignity of the consecration
of the Eucharist, in which the entire Christ is contained. Therefore it
belongs, not to a priest, but only to a bishop, to perform this
sacrament.
On the contrary, Isidore says in an Epistle to Ludifred (Decretals,
dist. 25): "It belongs to a priest to consecrate this sacrament of the
Lord's body and blood upon God's altar. "
I answer that, As stated above ([4677]Q[78], AA[1],4), such is the
dignity of this sacrament that it is performed only as in the person of
Christ. Now whoever performs any act in another's stead, must do so by
the power bestowed by such a one. But as the power of receiving this
sacrament is conceded by Christ to the baptized person, so likewise the
power of consecrating this sacrament on Christ's behalf is bestowed
upon the priest at his ordination: for thereby he is put upon a level
with them to whom the Lord said (Lk. 22:19): "Do this for a
commemoration of Me. " Therefore, it must be said that it belongs to
priests to accomplish this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 1: The sacramental power is in several things, and
not merely in one: thus the power of Baptism lies both in the words and
in the water. Accordingly the consecrating power is not merely in the
words, but likewise in the power delivered to the priest in his
consecration and ordination, when the bishop says to him: "Receive the
power of offering up the Sacrifice in the Church for the living as well
as for the dead. " For instrumental power lies in several instruments
through which the chief agent acts.
Reply to Objection 2: A devout layman is united with Christ by
spiritual union through faith and charity, but not by sacramental
power: consequently he has a spiritual priesthood for offering
spiritual sacrifices, of which it is said (Ps. 1:19): "A sacrifice to
God is an afflicted spirit"; and (Rom. 12:1): "Present your bodies a
living sacrifice. " Hence, too, it is written (1 Pet. 2:5): "A holy
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices. "
Reply to Objection 3: The receiving of this sacrament is not of such
necessity as the receiving of Baptism, as is evident from what was said
above ([4678]Q[65], AA[3],4;[4679] Q[80], A[11], ad 2). And therefore,
although a layman can baptize in case of necessity, he cannot perform
this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 4: The bishop receives power to act on Christ's
behalf upon His mystical body, that is, upon the Church; but the priest
receives no such power in his consecration, although he may have it by
commission from the bishop. Consequently all such things as do not
belong to the mystical body are not reserved to the bishop, such as the
consecration of this sacrament. But it belongs to the bishop to
deliver, not only to the people, but likewise to priests, such things
as serve them in the fulfillment of their respective duties. And
because the blessing of the chrism, and of the holy oil, and of the oil
of the sick, and other consecrated things, such as altars, churches,
vestments, and sacred vessels, makes such things fit for use in
performing the sacraments which
belong to the priestly duty, therefore such consecrations are reserved
to the bishop as the head of the whole ecclesiastical order.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether several priests can consecrate one and the same host?
Objection 1: It seems that several priests cannot consecrate one and
the same host. For it was said above ([4680]Q[67], A[6]), that several
cannot at the same time baptize one individual. But the power of a
priest consecrating is not less than that of a man baptizing.
Therefore, several priests cannot consecrate one host at the same time.
Objection 2: Further, what can be done by one, is superfluously done by
several. But there ought to be nothing superfluous in the sacraments.
Since, then, one is sufficient for consecrating, it seems that several
cannot consecrate one host.
Objection 3: Further, as Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan. ), this is
"the sacrament of unity. " But multitude seems to be opposed to unity.
Therefore it seems inconsistent with the sacrament for several priests
to consecrate the same host.
On the contrary, It is the custom of some Churches for priests newly
ordained to co-celebrate with the bishop ordaining them.
I answer that, As stated above [4681](A[1]), when a priest is ordained
he is placed on a level with those who received consecrating power from
our Lord at the Supper. And therefore, according to the custom of some
Churches, as the apostles supped when Christ supped, so the newly
ordained co-celebrate with the ordaining bishop. Nor is the
consecration, on that account, repeated over the same host, because as
Innocent III says (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), the intention of all should
be directed to the same instant of the consecration.
Reply to Objection 1: We do not read of Christ baptizing with the
apostles when He committed to them the duty of baptizing; consequently
there is no parallel.
Reply to Objection 2: If each individual priest were acting in his own
power, then other celebrants would be superfluous, since one would be
sufficient. But whereas the priest does not consecrate except as in
Christ's stead; and since many are "one in Christ" (Gal. 3:28);
consequently it does not matter whether this sacrament be consecrated
by one or by many, except that the rite of the Church must be observed.
Reply to Objection 3: The Eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesiastical
unity, which is brought about by many being "one in Christ. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether dispensing of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone?
Objection 1: It seems that the dispensing of this sacrament does not
belong to a priest alone. For Christ's blood belongs to this sacrament
no less than His body. But Christ's blood is dispensed by deacons:
hence the blessed Lawrence said to the blessed Sixtus (Office of St.
Lawrence, Resp. at Matins): "Try whether you have chosen a fit
minister, to whom you have entrusted the dispensing of the Lord's
blood. " Therefore, with equal reason the dispensing of Christ's body
does not belong to priests only.
Objection 2: Further, priests are the appointed ministers of the
sacraments. But this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the
matter, and not in the use, to which the dispensing belongs. Therefore
it seems that it does not belong to a priest to dispense the Lord's
body.
Objection 3: Further, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii, iv) that this
sacrament, like chrism, has the power of perfecting. But it belongs,
not to priests, but to bishops, to sign with the chrism. Therefore
likewise, to dispense this sacrament belongs to the bishop and not to
the priest.
On the contrary, It is written (De Consecr. , dist. 12): "It has come to
our knowledge that some priests deliver the Lord's body to a layman or
to a woman to carry it to the sick: The synod therefore forbids such
presumption to continue; and let the priest himself communicate the
sick. "
I answer that, The dispensing of Christ's body belongs to the priest
for three reasons. First, because, as was said above [4682](A[1]), he
consecrates as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His
body at the supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by
them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ's body belongs to the
priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly,
because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the
people; hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God,
so it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to the people.
Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing
touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice
are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this
sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except
from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or
else in some other case of urgency.
Reply to Objection 1: The deacon, as being nigh to the priestly order,
has a certain share in the latter's duties, so that he may dispense the
blood; but not the body, except in case of necessity, at the bidding of
a bishop or of a priest. First of all, because Christ's blood is
contained in a vessel, hence there is no need for it to be touched by
the dispenser, as Christ's body is touched. Secondly, because the blood
denotes the redemption derived by the people from Christ; hence it is
that water is mixed with the blood, which water denotes the people. And
because deacons are between priest and people, the dispensing of the
blood is in the competency of deacons, rather than the dispensing of
the body.
Reply to Objection 2: For the reason given above, it belongs to the
same person to dispense and to consecrate this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: As the deacon, in a measure, shares in the
priest's "power of enlightening" (Eccl. Hier.
v), inasmuch as he
dispenses the blood. so the priest shares in the "perfective
dispensing" (Eccl. Hier. v) of the bishop, inasmuch as he dispenses
this sacrament whereby man is perfected in himself by union with
Christ. But other perfections whereby a man is perfected in relation to
others, are reserved to the bishop.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the priest who consecrates is bound to receive this sacrament?
Objection 1: It seems that the priest who consecrates is not bound to
receive this sacrament. Because, in the other consecrations, he who
consecrates the matter does not use it, just as the bishop consecrating
the chrism is not anointed therewith. But this sacrament consists in
the consecration of the matter. Therefore, the priest performing this
sacrament need not use the same, but may lawfully refrain from
receiving it.
Objection 2: Further, in the other sacraments the minister does not
give the sacrament to himself: for no one can baptize himself, as
stated above ([4683]Q[66], A[5], ad 4). But as Baptism is dispensed in
due order, so also is this sacrament. Therefore the priest who
consecrates this sacrament ought not to receive it at his own hands.
Objection 3: Further, it sometimes happens that Christ's body appears
upon the altar under the guise of flesh, and the blood under the guise
of blood; which are unsuited for food and drink: hence, as was said
above ([4684]Q[75], A[5]), it is on that account that they are given
under another species, lest they beget revulsion in the communicants.
Therefore the priest who consecrates is not always bound to receive
this sacrament.
On the contrary, We read in the acts of the (Twelfth) Council of Toledo
(Can. v), and again (De Consecr. , dist. 2): "It must be strictly
observed that as often as the priest sacrifices the body and blood of
our Lord Jesus Christ upon the altar, he must himself be a partaker of
Christ's body and blood. "
I answer that, As stated above ([4685]Q[79], AA[5],7), the Eucharist is
not only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice. Now whoever offers
sacrifice must be a sharer in the sacrifice, because the outward
sacrifice he offers is a sign of the inner sacrifice whereby he offers
himself to God, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x). Hence by partaking
of the sacrifice he shows that the inner one is likewise his. In the
same way also, by dispensing the sacrifice to the people he shows that
he is the dispenser of Divine gifts, of which he ought himself to be
the first to partake, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii).
Consequently, he ought to receive before dispensing it to the people.
Accordingly we read in the chapter mentioned above (Twelfth Council of
Toledo, Can. v): "What kind of sacrifice is that wherein not even the
sacrificer is known to have a share? " But it is by partaking of the
sacrifice that he has a share in it, as the Apostle says (1 Cor.
10:18): "Are not they that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the
altar? " Therefore it is necessary for the priest, as often as he
consecrates, to receive this sacrament in its integrity.
Reply to Objection 1: The consecration of chrism or of anything else is
not a sacrifice, as the consecration of the Eucharist is: consequently
there is no parallel.
Reply to Objection 2: The sacrament of Baptism is accomplished in the
use of the matter, and consequently no one can baptize himself, because
the same person cannot be active and passive in a sacrament. Hence
neither in this sacrament does the priest consecrate himself, but he
consecrates the bread and wine, in which consecration the sacrament is
completed. But the use thereof follows the sacrament, and therefore
there is no parallel.
Reply to Objection 3: If Christ's body appears miraculously upon the
altar under the guise of flesh, or the blood under the guise of blood,
it is not to be received. For Jerome says upon Leviticus (cf. De
Consecr. , dist. 2): "It is lawful to eat of this sacrifice which is
wonderfully performed in memory of Christ: but it is not lawful for
anyone to eat of that one which Christ offered on the altar of the
cross. " Nor does the priest transgress on that account, because
miraculous events are not subject to human laws. Nevertheless the
priest would be well advised to consecrate again and receive the Lord's
body and blood.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a wicked priest can consecrate the Eucharist?
Objection 1: It seems that a wicked priest cannot consecrate the
Eucharist. For Jerome, commenting on Sophon. iii, 4, says: "The priests
who perform the Eucharist, and who distribute our Lord's blood to the
people, act wickedly against Christ's law, in deeming that the
Eucharist is consecrated by a prayer rather than by a good life; and
that only the solemn prayer is requisite, and not the priest's merits:
of whom it is said: 'Let not the priest, in whatever defilement he may
be, approach to offer oblations to the Lord'" (Lev. 21:21, Septuagint).
But the sinful priest, being defiled, has neither the life nor the
merits befitting this sacrament. Therefore a sinful priest cannot
consecrate the Eucharist.
Objection 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that "the bread
and wine are changed supernaturally into the body and blood of our
Lord, by the coming of the Holy Ghost. " But Pope Gelasius I says (Ep.
ad Elphid. , cf. Decret. i, q. 1): "How shall the Holy Spirit, when
invoked, come for the consecration of the Divine Mystery, if the priest
invoking him be proved full of guilty deeds? " Consequently, the
Eucharist cannot be consecrated by a wicked priest.
Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is consecrated by the priest's
blessing. But a sinful priest's blessing is not efficacious for
consecrating this sacrament, since it is written (Malachi 2:2): "I will
curse your blessings. " Again, Dionysius says in his Epistle (viii) to
the monk Demophilus: "He who is not enlightened has completely fallen
away from the priestly order; and I wonder that such a man dare to
employ his hands in priestly actions, and in the person of Christ to
utter, over the Divine symbols, his unclean infamies, for I will not
call them prayers. "
On the contrary, Augustine (Paschasius) says (De Corp. Dom. xii):
"Within the Catholic Church, in the mystery of the Lord's body and
blood, nothing greater is done by a good priest, nothing less by an
evil priest, because it is not by the merits of the consecrator that
the sacrament is accomplished, but by the Creator's word, and by the
power of the Holy Spirit. "
I answer that, As was said above ([4686]AA[1],3), the priest
consecrates this sacrament not by his own power, but as the minister of
Christ, in Whose person he consecrates this sacrament. But from the
fact of being wicked he does not cease to be Christ's minister; because
our Lord has good and wicked ministers or servants. Hence (Mat. 24:45)
our Lord says: "Who, thinkest thou, is a faithful and wise servant? "
and afterwards He adds: "But if that evil servant shall say in his
heart," etc. And the Apostle (1 Cor. 4:1) says: "Let a man so account
of us as of the ministers of Christ"; and afterwards he adds: "I am not
conscious to myself of anything; yet am I not hereby justified. " He was
therefore certain that he was Christ's minister; yet he was not certain
that he was a just man. Consequently, a man can be Christ's minister
even though he be not one of the just. And this belongs to Christ's
excellence, Whom, as the true God, things both good and evil serve,
since they are ordained by His providence for His glory. Hence it is
evident that priests, even though they be not godly, but sinners, can
consecrate the Eucharist.
Reply to Objection 1: In those words Jerome is condemning the error of
priests who believed they could consecrate the Eucharist worthily, from
the mere fact of being priests, even though they were sinners; and
Jerome condemns this from the fact that persons defiled are forbidden
to approach the altar; but this does not prevent the sacrifice, which
they offer, from being a true sacrifice, if they do approach.
Reply to Objection 2: Previous to the words quoted, Pope Gelasius
expresses himself as follows: "That most holy rite, which contains the
Catholic discipline, claims for itself such reverence that no one may
dare to approach it except with clean conscience. " From this it is
evident that his meaning is that the priest who is a sinner ought not
to approach this sacrament. Hence when he resumes, "How shall the Holy
Spirit come when summoned," it must be understood that He comes, not
through the priest's merits, but through the power of Christ, Whose
words the priest utters.
Reply to Objection 3: As the same action can be evil, inasmuch as it is
done with a bad intention of the servant; and good from the good
intention of the master; so the blessing of a sinful priest, inasmuch
as he acts unworthily is deserving of a curse, and is reputed an infamy
and a blasphemy, and not a prayer; whereas, inasmuch as it is
pronounced in the person of Christ, it is holy and efficacious. Hence
it is said with significance: "I will curse your blessings. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the mass of a sinful priest is of less worth than the mass of a good
priest?
Objection 1: It seems that the mass of a sinful priest is not of less
worth than that of a good priest. For Pope Gregory says in the
Register: "Alas, into what a great snare they fall who believe that the
Divine and hidden mysteries can be sanctified more by some than by
others; since it is the one and the same Holy Ghost Who hallows those
mysteries in a hidden and invisible manner. " But these hidden mysteries
are celebrated in the mass. Therefore the mass of a sinful priest is
not of less value than the mass of a good priest.
Objection 2: Further, as Baptism is conferred by a minister through the
power of Christ Who baptizes, so likewise this sacrament is consecrated
in the person of Christ. But Baptism is no better when conferred by a
better priest, as was said above ([4687]Q[64], A[1], ad 2). Therefore
neither is a mass the better, which is celebrated by a better priest.
Objection 3: Further, as the merits of priests differ in the point of
being good and better, so they likewise differ in the point of being
good and bad. Consequently, if the mass of a better priest be itself
better, it follows that the mass of a bad priest must be bad. Now this
is unreasonable, because the malice of the ministers cannot affect
Christ's mysteries, as Augustine says in his work on Baptism (Contra
Donat. xii). Therefore neither is the mass of a better priest the
better.
On the contrary, It is stated in Decretal i, q. 1: "The worthier the
priest, the sooner is he heard in the needs for which he prays. "
I answer that, There are two things to be considered in the mass.
namely, the sacrament itself, which is the chief thing; and the prayers
which are offered up in the mass for the quick and the dead. So far as
the mass itself is concerned, the mass of a wicked priest is not of
less value than that of a good priest, because the same sacrifice is
offered by both.
Again, the prayer put up in the mass can be considered in two respects:
first of all, in so far as it has its efficacy from the devotion of the
priest interceding, and in this respect there is no doubt but that the
mass of the better priest is the more fruitful. In another respect,
inasmuch as the prayer is said by the priest in the mass in the place
of the entire Church, of which the priest is the minister; and this
ministry remains even in sinful men, as was said above [4688](A[5]) in
regard to Christ's ministry. Hence, in this respect the prayer even of
the sinful priest is fruitful, not only that which he utters in the
mass, but likewise all those he recites in the ecclesiastical offices,
wherein he takes the place of the Church. on the other hand, his
private prayers are not fruitful, according to Prov. 28:9: "He that
turneth away his ears from hearing the law, his prayer shall be an
abomination. "
Reply to Objection 1: Gregory is speaking there of the holiness of the
Divine sacrament.
Reply to Objection 2: In the sacrament of Baptism solemn prayers are
not made for all the faithful, as in the mass; therefore there is no
parallel in this respect. There is, however, a resemblance as to the
effect of the sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: By reason of the power of the Holy Ghost, Who
communicates to each one the blessings of Christ's members on account
of their being united in charity, the private blessing in the mass of a
good priest is fruitful to others. But the private evil of one man
cannot hurt another, except the latter, in some way, consent, as
Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons can consecrate?
Objection 1: It seems that heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated
persons are not able to consecrate the Eucharist. For Augustine says
(Liber sentent. Prosperi xv) that "there is no such thing as a true
sacrifice outside the Catholic Church": and Pope Leo I says (Ep. lxxx;
cf. Decretal i, q. 1): Elsewhere "(i. e. than in the Church which is
Christ's body) there is neither valid priesthood nor true sacrifice. "
But heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons are severed from
the Church. Therefore they are unable to offer a true sacrifice.
Objection 2: Further (Decretal, caus. i, q. 1), Innocent I is quoted as
saying: "Because we receive the laity of the Arians and other
pestilential persons, if they seem to repent, it does not follow that
their clergy have the dignity of the priesthood or of any other
ministerial office, for we allow them to confer nothing save Baptism. "
But none can consecrate the Eucharist, unless he have the dignity of
the priesthood. Therefore heretics and the like cannot consecrate the
Eucharist.
Objection 3: Further, it does not seem feasible for one outside the
Church to act on behalf of the Church. But when the priest consecrates
the Eucharist, he does so in the person of the entire Church, as is
evident from the fact of his putting up all prayers in the person of
the Church. Therefore, it seems that those who are outside the Church,
such as those who are heretics, schismatics, and excommunicate, are not
able to consecrate the Eucharist.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): "Just as Baptism
remains in them," i. e. in heretics, schismatics, and those who are
excommunicate, "so do their orders remain intact. " Now, by the power of
his ordination, a priest can consecrate the Eucharist. Therefore, it
seems that heretics, schismatics, and those who are excommunicate, can
consecrate the Eucharist, since their orders remain entire.
I answer that, Some have contended that heretics, schismatics, and the
excommunicate, who are outside the pale of the Church, cannot perform
this sacrament. But herein they are deceived, because, as Augustine
says (Contra Parmen. ii), "it is one thing to lack something utterly,
and another to have it improperly"; and in like fashion, "it is one
thing not to bestow, and quite another to bestow, but not rightly. "
Accordingly, such as, being within the Church, received the power of
consecrating the Eucharist through being ordained to the priesthood,
have such power rightly indeed; but they use it improperly if
afterwards they be separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or
excommunication. But such as are ordained while separated from the
Church, have neither the power rightly, nor do they use it rightly. But
that in both cases they have the power, is clear from what Augustine
says (Contra Parmen. ii), that when they return to the unity of the
Church, they are not re-ordained, but are received in their orders. And
since the consecration of the Eucharist is an act which follows the
power of order, such persons as are separated from the Church by
heresy, schism, or excommunication, can indeed consecrate the
Eucharist, which on being consecrated by them contains Christ's true
body and blood; but they act wrongly, and sin by doing so; and in
consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which is a
spiritual sacrifice.
Reply to Objection 1: Such and similar authorities are to be understood
in this sense, that the sacrifice is offered wrongly outside the
Church. Hence outside the Church there can be no spiritual sacrifice
that is a true sacrifice with the truth of its fruit, although it be a
true sacrifice with the truth of the sacrament; thus it was stated
above ([4689]Q[80], A[3]), that the sinner receives Christ's body
sacramentally, but not spiritually.
Reply to Objection 2: Baptism alone is allowed to be conferred by
heretics, and schismatics, because they can lawfully baptize in case of
necessity; but in no case can they lawfully consecrate the Eucharist,
or confer the other sacraments.
Reply to Objection 3: The priest, in reciting the prayers of the mass,
speaks instead of the Church, in whose unity he remains; but in
consecrating the sacrament he speaks as in the person of Christ, Whose
place he holds by the power of his orders. Consequently, if a priest
severed from the unity of the Church celebrates mass, not having lost
the power of order, he consecrates Christ's true body and blood; but
because he is severed from the unity of the Church, his prayers have no
efficacy.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a degraded priest can consecrate this sacrament?
Objection 1: It seems that a degraded priest cannot consecrate this
sacrament. For no one can perform this sacrament except he have the
power of consecrating. But the priest "who has been degraded has no
power of consecrating, although he has the power of baptizing" (App.
Gratiani). Therefore it seems that a degraded priest cannot consecrate
the Eucharist.
Objection 2: Further, he who gives can take away. But the bishop in
ordaining gives to the priest the power of consecrating. Therefore he
can take it away by degrading him.
Objection 3: Further, the priest, by degradation, loses either the
power of consecrating, or the use of such power. But he does not lose
merely the use, for thus the degraded one would lose no more than one
excommunicated, who also lacks the use. Therefore it seems that he
loses the power to consecrate, and in consequence that he cannot
perform this sacrament.
On the contrary, Augustine (Contra Parmen. ii) proves that "apostates"
from the faith "are not deprived of their Baptism," from the fact that
"it is not restored to them when they return repentant; and therefore
it is deemed that it cannot be lost. " But in like fashion, if the
degraded man be restored, he has not to be ordained over again.
Consequently, he has not lost the power of consecrating, and so the
degraded priest can perform this sacrament.
I answer that, The power of consecrating the Eucharist belongs to the
character of the priestly order. But every character is indelible,
because it is given with a kind of consecration, as was said above
([4690]Q[63] , A[5]), just as the consecrations of all other things are
perpetual, and cannot be lost or repeated. Hence it is clear that the
power of consecrating is not lost by degradation. For, again, Augustine
says (Contra Parmen. ii): "Both are sacraments," namely Baptism and
order, "and both are given to a man with a kind of consecration; the
former, when he is baptized; the latter when he is ordained; and
therefore it is not lawful for Catholics to repeat either of them. " And
thus it is evident that the degraded priest can perform this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 1: That Canon is speaking, not as by way of
assertion, but by way of inquiry, as can be gleaned from the context.
Reply to Objection 2: The bishop gives the priestly power of order, not
as though coming from himself, but instrumentally, as God's minister,
and its effect cannot be taken away by man, according to Mat. 19:6:
"What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. " And therefore
the bishop cannot take this power away, just as neither can he who
baptizes take away the baptismal character.
Reply to Objection 3: Excommunication is medicinal. And therefore the
ministry of the priestly power is not taken away from the
excommunicate, as it were, perpetually, but only for a time, that they
may mend; but the exercise is withdrawn from the degraded, as though
condemned perpetually.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is permissible to receive communion from heretical,
excommunicate, or sinful priests, and to hear mass said by them?
Objection 1: It seems that one may lawfully receive Communion from
heretical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, and to hear mass said
by them. Because, as Augustine says (Contra Petilian. iii), "we should
not avoid God's sacraments, whether they be given by a good man or by a
wicked one. " But priests, even if they be sinful, or heretics, or
excommunicate, perform a valid sacrament. Therefore it seems that one
ought not to refrain from receiving Communion at their hands, or from
hearing their mass.
Objection 2: Further, Christ's true body is figurative of His mystical
body, as was said above ([4691]Q[67], A[2]). But Christ's true body is
consecrated by the priests mentioned above. Therefore it seems that
whoever belongs to His mystical body can communicate in their
sacrifices.
Objection 3: Further, there are many sins graver than fornication. But
it is not forbidden to hear the masses of priests who sin otherwise.
Therefore, it ought not to be forbidden to hear the masses of priests
guilty of this sin.
On the contrary, The Canon says (Dist. 32): "Let no one hear the mass
of a priest whom he knows without doubt to have a concubine. " Moreover,
Gregory says (Dial. iii) that "the faithless father sent an Arian
bishop to his son, for him to receive sacrilegiously the consecrated
Communion at his hands. But, when the Arian bishop arrived, God's
devoted servant rebuked him, as was right for him to do. "
I answer that, As was said above ([4692]AA[5],7), heretical,
schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have
the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper
use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever
communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin.
Hence we read in John's Second Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that
saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works. "
Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to
assist at their mass.
Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics,
schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church's
sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears
their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not
all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence from using
this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they
are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence:
consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful
to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass.
Christ's body then, as some think who read carelessly. " Therefore it
seems that Judas did not receive the body of Christ.
On the contrary, Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxii in Matth. ): "Judas was
not converted while partaking of the sacred mysteries: hence on both
sides his crime becomes the more heinous, both because imbued with such
a purpose he approached the mysteries, and because he became none the
better for approaching, neither from fear, nor from the benefit
received, nor from the honor conferred on him. "
I answer that, Hilary, in commenting on Mat. 26:17, held that Christ
did not give His body and blood to Judas. And this would have been
quite proper, if the malice of Judas be considered. But since Christ
was to serve us as a pattern of justice, it was not in keeping with His
teaching authority to sever Judas, a hidden sinner, from Communion with
the others without an accuser and evident proof. lest the Church's
prelates might have an example for doing the like, and lest Judas
himself being exasperated might take occasion of sinning. Therefore, it
remains to be said that Judas received our Lord's body and blood with
the other disciples, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), and Augustine
(Tract. lxii in Joan. ).
Reply to Objection 1: This is Hilary's argument, to show that Judas did
not receive Christ's body. But it is not cogent; because Christ is
speaking to the disciples, from whose company Judas separated himself:
and it was not Christ that excluded him. Therefore Christ for His part
drinks the wine even with Judas in the kingdom of God; but Judas
himself repudiated this banquet.
Reply to Objection 2: The wickedness of Judas was known to Christ as
God; but it was unknown to Him, after the manner in which men know it.
Consequently, Christ did not repel Judas from Communion; so as to
furnish an example that such secret sinners are not to be repelled by
other priests.
Reply to Objection 3: Without any doubt Judas did not receive Christ's
body in the dipped bread; he received mere bread. Yet as Augustine
observes (Tract. lxii in Joan. ), "perchance the feigning of Judas is
denoted by the dipping of the bread; just as some things are dipped to
be dyed. If, however, the dipping signifies here anything good" (for
instance, the sweetness of the Divine goodness, since bread is rendered
more savory by being dipped), "then, not undeservedly, did condemnation
follow his ingratitude for that same good. " And owing to that
ingratitude, "what is good became evil to him, as happens to them who
receive Christ's body unworthily. "
And as Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan. ), "it must be understood
that our Lord had already distributed the sacrament of His body and
blood to all His disciples, among whom was Judas also, as Luke
narrates: and after that, we came to this, where, according to the
relation of John, our Lord, by dipping and handing the morsel, does
most openly declare His betrayer. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ received and gave to the disciples His impassible body?
Objection 1: It seems that Christ both received and gave to the
disciples His impassible body. Because on Mat. 17:2, "He was
transfigured before them," the gloss says: "He gave to the disciples at
the supper that body which He had through nature, but neither mortal
nor passible. " And again, on Lev. 2:5, "if thy oblation be from the
frying-pan," the gloss says: "The Cross mightier than all things made
Christ's flesh fit for being eaten, which before the Passion did not
seem so suited. " But Christ gave His body as suited for eating.
Therefore He gave it just as it was after the Passion, that is,
impassible and immortal.
Objection 2: Further, every passible body suffers by contact and by
being eaten. Consequently, if Christ's body was passible, it would have
suffered both from contact and from being eaten by the disciples.
Objection 3: Further, the sacramental words now spoken by the priest in
the person of Christ are not more powerful than when uttered by Christ
Himself. But now by virtue of the sacramental words it is Christ's
impassible and immortal body which is consecrated upon the altar.
Therefore, much more so was it then.
On the contrary, As Innocent III says (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), "He
bestowed on the disciples His body such as it was. " But then He had a
passible and a mortal body. Therefore, He gave a passible and mortal
body to the disciples.
I answer that, Hugh of Saint Victor (Innocent III, De Sacr. Alt. Myst.
iv), maintained, that before the Passion, Christ assumed at various
times the four properties of a glorified body ---namely, subtlety in
His birth, when He came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin;
agility, when He walked dryshod upon the sea; clarity, in the
Transfiguration; and impassibility at the Last Supper, when He gave His
body to the disciples to be eaten. And according to this He gave His
body in an impassible and immortal condition to His disciples.
But whatever may be the case touching the other qualities, concerning
which we have already stated what should be held ([4666]Q[28], A[2], ad
3;[4667] Q[45], A[2]), nevertheless the above opinion regarding
impassibility is inadmissible. For it is manifest that the same body of
Christ which was then seen by the disciples in its own species, was
received by them under the sacramental species. But as seen in its own
species it was not impassible; nay more, it was ready for the Passion.
Therefore, neither was Christ's body impassible when given under the
sacramental species.
Yet there was present in the sacrament, in an impassible manner, that
which was passible of itself; just as that was there invisibly which of
itself was visible. For as sight requires that the body seen be in
contact with the adjacent medium of sight, so does passion require
contact of the suffering body with the active agents. But Christ's
body, according as it is under the sacrament, as stated above (A[1], ad
2;[4668] Q[76], A[5]), is not compared with its surroundings through
the intermediary of its own dimensions, whereby bodies touch each
other, but through the dimensions of the bread and wine; consequently,
it is those species which are acted upon and are seen, but not Christ's
own body.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ is said not to have given His mortal and
passible body at the supper, because He did not give it in mortal and
passible fashion. But the Cross made His flesh adapted for eating,
inasmuch as this sacrament represents Christ's Passion.
Reply to Objection 2: This argument would hold, if Christ's body, as it
was passible, were also present in a passible manner in this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([4669]Q[76], A[4]), the
accidents of Christ's body are in this sacrament by real concomitance,
but not by the power of the sacrament, whereby the substance of
Christ's body comes to be there. And therefore the power of the
sacramental words extends to this, that the body, i. e. Christ's, is
under this sacrament, whatever accidents really exist in it.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether, if this sacrament had been reserved in a pyx, or consecrated at the
moment of Christ's death by one of the apostles, Christ Himself would have
died there?
Objection 1: It seems that if this sacrament had been reserved in a pyx
at the moment of Christ's death, or had then been consecrated by one of
the apostles, that Christ would not have died there. For Christ's death
happened through His Passion. But even then He was in this sacrament in
an impassible manner. Therefore, He could not die in this sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, on the death of Christ, His blood was separated
from the body. But His flesh and blood are together in this sacrament.
Therefore He could not die in this sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, death ensues from the separation of the soul from
the body. But both the body and the soul of Christ are contained in
this sacrament. Therefore Christ could not die in this sacrament.
On the contrary, The same Christ Who was upon the cross would have been
in this sacrament. But He died upon the cross. Therefore, if this
sacrament had been reserved, He would have died therein.
I answer that, Christ's body is substantially the same in this
sacrament, as in its proper species, but not after the same fashion;
because in its proper species it comes in contact with surrounding
bodies by its own dimensions: but it does not do so as it is in this
sacrament, as stated above [4670](A[3]). And therefore, all that
belongs to Christ, as He is in Himself, can be attributed to Him both
in His proper species, and as He exists in the sacrament; such as to
live, to die, to grieve, to be animate or inanimate, and the like;
while all that belongs to Him in relation to outward bodies, can be
attributed to Him as He exists in His proper species, but not as He is
in this sacrament; such as to be mocked, to be spat upon, to be
crucified, to be scourged, and the rest. Hence some have composed this
verse:
"Our Lord can grieve beneath the sacramental veils But cannot feel the
piercing of the thorns and nails. "
Reply to Objection 1: As was stated above, suffering belongs to a body
that suffers in respect of some extrinsic body. And therefore Christ,
as in this sacrament, cannot suffer; yet He can die.
Reply to Objection 2: As was said above ([4671]Q[76], A[2]), in virtue
of the consecration, the body of Christ is under the species of bread,
while His blood is under the species of wine. But now that His blood is
not really separated from His body; by real concomitance, both His
blood is present with the body under the species of the bread, and His
body together with the blood under the species of the wine. But at the
time when Christ suffered, when His blood was really separated from His
body, if this sacrament had been consecrated, then the body only would
have been present under the species of the bread, and the blood only
under the species of the wine.
Reply to Objection 3: As was observed above ([4672]Q[76], A[1], ad 1),
Christ's soul is in this sacrament by real concomitance; because it is
not without the body: but it is not there in virtue of the
consecration. And therefore, if this sacrament had been consecrated
then, or reserved, when His soul was really separated from His body,
Christ's soul would not have been under this sacrament, not from any
defect in the form of the words, but owing to the different
dispositions of the thing contained.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT (TEN ARTICLES)
We now proceed to consider the minister of this sacrament: under which
head there are ten points for our inquiry:
(1) Whether it belongs to a priest alone to consecrate this sacrament?
(2) Whether several priests can at the same time consecrate the same
host?
(3) Whether it belongs to the priest alone to dispense this sacrament?
(4) Whether it is lawful for the priest consecrating to refrain from
communicating?
(5) Whether a priest in sin can perform this sacrament?
(6) Whether the Mass of a wicked priest is of less value than that of a
good one?
(7) Whether those who are heretics, schismatics, or excommunicated, can
perform this sacrament?
(8) Whether degraded priests can do so?
(9) Whether communicants receiving at their hands are guilty of
sinning?
(10) Whether a priest may lawfully refrain altogether from celebrating?
[*This is the order observed by St. Thomas in writing the Articles; but
in writing this prologue, he placed Article 10 immediately after
Article 4 (Cf. Leonine edition). ]
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the consecration of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone?
Objection 1: It seems that the consecration of this sacrament does not
belong exclusively to a priest. Because it was said above ([4673]Q[78],
A[4]) that this sacrament is consecrated in virtue of the words, which
are the form of this sacrament. But those words are not changed,
whether spoken by a priest or by anyone else. Therefore, it seems that
not only a priest, but anyone else, can consecrate this sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, the priest performs this sacrament in the person
of Christ. But a devout layman is united with Christ through charity.
Therefore, it seems that even a layman can perform this sacrament.
Hence Chrysostom (Opus imperfectum in Matth. , Hom. xliii) says that
"every holy man is a priest. "
Objection 3: Further, as Baptism is ordained for the salvation of
mankind, so also is this sacrament, as is clear from what was said
above ([4674]Q[74], A[1] ;[4675] Q[79], A[2]). But a layman can also
baptize, as was stated above ([4676]Q[67] , A[3]). Consequently, the
consecration of this sacrament is not proper to a priest.
Objection 4: Further, this sacrament is completed in the consecration
of the matter. But the consecration of other matters such as the
chrism, the holy oil, and blessed oil, belongs exclusively to a bishop;
yet their consecration does not equal the dignity of the consecration
of the Eucharist, in which the entire Christ is contained. Therefore it
belongs, not to a priest, but only to a bishop, to perform this
sacrament.
On the contrary, Isidore says in an Epistle to Ludifred (Decretals,
dist. 25): "It belongs to a priest to consecrate this sacrament of the
Lord's body and blood upon God's altar. "
I answer that, As stated above ([4677]Q[78], AA[1],4), such is the
dignity of this sacrament that it is performed only as in the person of
Christ. Now whoever performs any act in another's stead, must do so by
the power bestowed by such a one. But as the power of receiving this
sacrament is conceded by Christ to the baptized person, so likewise the
power of consecrating this sacrament on Christ's behalf is bestowed
upon the priest at his ordination: for thereby he is put upon a level
with them to whom the Lord said (Lk. 22:19): "Do this for a
commemoration of Me. " Therefore, it must be said that it belongs to
priests to accomplish this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 1: The sacramental power is in several things, and
not merely in one: thus the power of Baptism lies both in the words and
in the water. Accordingly the consecrating power is not merely in the
words, but likewise in the power delivered to the priest in his
consecration and ordination, when the bishop says to him: "Receive the
power of offering up the Sacrifice in the Church for the living as well
as for the dead. " For instrumental power lies in several instruments
through which the chief agent acts.
Reply to Objection 2: A devout layman is united with Christ by
spiritual union through faith and charity, but not by sacramental
power: consequently he has a spiritual priesthood for offering
spiritual sacrifices, of which it is said (Ps. 1:19): "A sacrifice to
God is an afflicted spirit"; and (Rom. 12:1): "Present your bodies a
living sacrifice. " Hence, too, it is written (1 Pet. 2:5): "A holy
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices. "
Reply to Objection 3: The receiving of this sacrament is not of such
necessity as the receiving of Baptism, as is evident from what was said
above ([4678]Q[65], AA[3],4;[4679] Q[80], A[11], ad 2). And therefore,
although a layman can baptize in case of necessity, he cannot perform
this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 4: The bishop receives power to act on Christ's
behalf upon His mystical body, that is, upon the Church; but the priest
receives no such power in his consecration, although he may have it by
commission from the bishop. Consequently all such things as do not
belong to the mystical body are not reserved to the bishop, such as the
consecration of this sacrament. But it belongs to the bishop to
deliver, not only to the people, but likewise to priests, such things
as serve them in the fulfillment of their respective duties. And
because the blessing of the chrism, and of the holy oil, and of the oil
of the sick, and other consecrated things, such as altars, churches,
vestments, and sacred vessels, makes such things fit for use in
performing the sacraments which
belong to the priestly duty, therefore such consecrations are reserved
to the bishop as the head of the whole ecclesiastical order.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether several priests can consecrate one and the same host?
Objection 1: It seems that several priests cannot consecrate one and
the same host. For it was said above ([4680]Q[67], A[6]), that several
cannot at the same time baptize one individual. But the power of a
priest consecrating is not less than that of a man baptizing.
Therefore, several priests cannot consecrate one host at the same time.
Objection 2: Further, what can be done by one, is superfluously done by
several. But there ought to be nothing superfluous in the sacraments.
Since, then, one is sufficient for consecrating, it seems that several
cannot consecrate one host.
Objection 3: Further, as Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan. ), this is
"the sacrament of unity. " But multitude seems to be opposed to unity.
Therefore it seems inconsistent with the sacrament for several priests
to consecrate the same host.
On the contrary, It is the custom of some Churches for priests newly
ordained to co-celebrate with the bishop ordaining them.
I answer that, As stated above [4681](A[1]), when a priest is ordained
he is placed on a level with those who received consecrating power from
our Lord at the Supper. And therefore, according to the custom of some
Churches, as the apostles supped when Christ supped, so the newly
ordained co-celebrate with the ordaining bishop. Nor is the
consecration, on that account, repeated over the same host, because as
Innocent III says (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), the intention of all should
be directed to the same instant of the consecration.
Reply to Objection 1: We do not read of Christ baptizing with the
apostles when He committed to them the duty of baptizing; consequently
there is no parallel.
Reply to Objection 2: If each individual priest were acting in his own
power, then other celebrants would be superfluous, since one would be
sufficient. But whereas the priest does not consecrate except as in
Christ's stead; and since many are "one in Christ" (Gal. 3:28);
consequently it does not matter whether this sacrament be consecrated
by one or by many, except that the rite of the Church must be observed.
Reply to Objection 3: The Eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesiastical
unity, which is brought about by many being "one in Christ. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether dispensing of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone?
Objection 1: It seems that the dispensing of this sacrament does not
belong to a priest alone. For Christ's blood belongs to this sacrament
no less than His body. But Christ's blood is dispensed by deacons:
hence the blessed Lawrence said to the blessed Sixtus (Office of St.
Lawrence, Resp. at Matins): "Try whether you have chosen a fit
minister, to whom you have entrusted the dispensing of the Lord's
blood. " Therefore, with equal reason the dispensing of Christ's body
does not belong to priests only.
Objection 2: Further, priests are the appointed ministers of the
sacraments. But this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the
matter, and not in the use, to which the dispensing belongs. Therefore
it seems that it does not belong to a priest to dispense the Lord's
body.
Objection 3: Further, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii, iv) that this
sacrament, like chrism, has the power of perfecting. But it belongs,
not to priests, but to bishops, to sign with the chrism. Therefore
likewise, to dispense this sacrament belongs to the bishop and not to
the priest.
On the contrary, It is written (De Consecr. , dist. 12): "It has come to
our knowledge that some priests deliver the Lord's body to a layman or
to a woman to carry it to the sick: The synod therefore forbids such
presumption to continue; and let the priest himself communicate the
sick. "
I answer that, The dispensing of Christ's body belongs to the priest
for three reasons. First, because, as was said above [4682](A[1]), he
consecrates as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His
body at the supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by
them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ's body belongs to the
priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly,
because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the
people; hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God,
so it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to the people.
Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing
touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice
are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this
sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except
from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or
else in some other case of urgency.
Reply to Objection 1: The deacon, as being nigh to the priestly order,
has a certain share in the latter's duties, so that he may dispense the
blood; but not the body, except in case of necessity, at the bidding of
a bishop or of a priest. First of all, because Christ's blood is
contained in a vessel, hence there is no need for it to be touched by
the dispenser, as Christ's body is touched. Secondly, because the blood
denotes the redemption derived by the people from Christ; hence it is
that water is mixed with the blood, which water denotes the people. And
because deacons are between priest and people, the dispensing of the
blood is in the competency of deacons, rather than the dispensing of
the body.
Reply to Objection 2: For the reason given above, it belongs to the
same person to dispense and to consecrate this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: As the deacon, in a measure, shares in the
priest's "power of enlightening" (Eccl. Hier.
v), inasmuch as he
dispenses the blood. so the priest shares in the "perfective
dispensing" (Eccl. Hier. v) of the bishop, inasmuch as he dispenses
this sacrament whereby man is perfected in himself by union with
Christ. But other perfections whereby a man is perfected in relation to
others, are reserved to the bishop.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the priest who consecrates is bound to receive this sacrament?
Objection 1: It seems that the priest who consecrates is not bound to
receive this sacrament. Because, in the other consecrations, he who
consecrates the matter does not use it, just as the bishop consecrating
the chrism is not anointed therewith. But this sacrament consists in
the consecration of the matter. Therefore, the priest performing this
sacrament need not use the same, but may lawfully refrain from
receiving it.
Objection 2: Further, in the other sacraments the minister does not
give the sacrament to himself: for no one can baptize himself, as
stated above ([4683]Q[66], A[5], ad 4). But as Baptism is dispensed in
due order, so also is this sacrament. Therefore the priest who
consecrates this sacrament ought not to receive it at his own hands.
Objection 3: Further, it sometimes happens that Christ's body appears
upon the altar under the guise of flesh, and the blood under the guise
of blood; which are unsuited for food and drink: hence, as was said
above ([4684]Q[75], A[5]), it is on that account that they are given
under another species, lest they beget revulsion in the communicants.
Therefore the priest who consecrates is not always bound to receive
this sacrament.
On the contrary, We read in the acts of the (Twelfth) Council of Toledo
(Can. v), and again (De Consecr. , dist. 2): "It must be strictly
observed that as often as the priest sacrifices the body and blood of
our Lord Jesus Christ upon the altar, he must himself be a partaker of
Christ's body and blood. "
I answer that, As stated above ([4685]Q[79], AA[5],7), the Eucharist is
not only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice. Now whoever offers
sacrifice must be a sharer in the sacrifice, because the outward
sacrifice he offers is a sign of the inner sacrifice whereby he offers
himself to God, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x). Hence by partaking
of the sacrifice he shows that the inner one is likewise his. In the
same way also, by dispensing the sacrifice to the people he shows that
he is the dispenser of Divine gifts, of which he ought himself to be
the first to partake, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii).
Consequently, he ought to receive before dispensing it to the people.
Accordingly we read in the chapter mentioned above (Twelfth Council of
Toledo, Can. v): "What kind of sacrifice is that wherein not even the
sacrificer is known to have a share? " But it is by partaking of the
sacrifice that he has a share in it, as the Apostle says (1 Cor.
10:18): "Are not they that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the
altar? " Therefore it is necessary for the priest, as often as he
consecrates, to receive this sacrament in its integrity.
Reply to Objection 1: The consecration of chrism or of anything else is
not a sacrifice, as the consecration of the Eucharist is: consequently
there is no parallel.
Reply to Objection 2: The sacrament of Baptism is accomplished in the
use of the matter, and consequently no one can baptize himself, because
the same person cannot be active and passive in a sacrament. Hence
neither in this sacrament does the priest consecrate himself, but he
consecrates the bread and wine, in which consecration the sacrament is
completed. But the use thereof follows the sacrament, and therefore
there is no parallel.
Reply to Objection 3: If Christ's body appears miraculously upon the
altar under the guise of flesh, or the blood under the guise of blood,
it is not to be received. For Jerome says upon Leviticus (cf. De
Consecr. , dist. 2): "It is lawful to eat of this sacrifice which is
wonderfully performed in memory of Christ: but it is not lawful for
anyone to eat of that one which Christ offered on the altar of the
cross. " Nor does the priest transgress on that account, because
miraculous events are not subject to human laws. Nevertheless the
priest would be well advised to consecrate again and receive the Lord's
body and blood.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a wicked priest can consecrate the Eucharist?
Objection 1: It seems that a wicked priest cannot consecrate the
Eucharist. For Jerome, commenting on Sophon. iii, 4, says: "The priests
who perform the Eucharist, and who distribute our Lord's blood to the
people, act wickedly against Christ's law, in deeming that the
Eucharist is consecrated by a prayer rather than by a good life; and
that only the solemn prayer is requisite, and not the priest's merits:
of whom it is said: 'Let not the priest, in whatever defilement he may
be, approach to offer oblations to the Lord'" (Lev. 21:21, Septuagint).
But the sinful priest, being defiled, has neither the life nor the
merits befitting this sacrament. Therefore a sinful priest cannot
consecrate the Eucharist.
Objection 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that "the bread
and wine are changed supernaturally into the body and blood of our
Lord, by the coming of the Holy Ghost. " But Pope Gelasius I says (Ep.
ad Elphid. , cf. Decret. i, q. 1): "How shall the Holy Spirit, when
invoked, come for the consecration of the Divine Mystery, if the priest
invoking him be proved full of guilty deeds? " Consequently, the
Eucharist cannot be consecrated by a wicked priest.
Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is consecrated by the priest's
blessing. But a sinful priest's blessing is not efficacious for
consecrating this sacrament, since it is written (Malachi 2:2): "I will
curse your blessings. " Again, Dionysius says in his Epistle (viii) to
the monk Demophilus: "He who is not enlightened has completely fallen
away from the priestly order; and I wonder that such a man dare to
employ his hands in priestly actions, and in the person of Christ to
utter, over the Divine symbols, his unclean infamies, for I will not
call them prayers. "
On the contrary, Augustine (Paschasius) says (De Corp. Dom. xii):
"Within the Catholic Church, in the mystery of the Lord's body and
blood, nothing greater is done by a good priest, nothing less by an
evil priest, because it is not by the merits of the consecrator that
the sacrament is accomplished, but by the Creator's word, and by the
power of the Holy Spirit. "
I answer that, As was said above ([4686]AA[1],3), the priest
consecrates this sacrament not by his own power, but as the minister of
Christ, in Whose person he consecrates this sacrament. But from the
fact of being wicked he does not cease to be Christ's minister; because
our Lord has good and wicked ministers or servants. Hence (Mat. 24:45)
our Lord says: "Who, thinkest thou, is a faithful and wise servant? "
and afterwards He adds: "But if that evil servant shall say in his
heart," etc. And the Apostle (1 Cor. 4:1) says: "Let a man so account
of us as of the ministers of Christ"; and afterwards he adds: "I am not
conscious to myself of anything; yet am I not hereby justified. " He was
therefore certain that he was Christ's minister; yet he was not certain
that he was a just man. Consequently, a man can be Christ's minister
even though he be not one of the just. And this belongs to Christ's
excellence, Whom, as the true God, things both good and evil serve,
since they are ordained by His providence for His glory. Hence it is
evident that priests, even though they be not godly, but sinners, can
consecrate the Eucharist.
Reply to Objection 1: In those words Jerome is condemning the error of
priests who believed they could consecrate the Eucharist worthily, from
the mere fact of being priests, even though they were sinners; and
Jerome condemns this from the fact that persons defiled are forbidden
to approach the altar; but this does not prevent the sacrifice, which
they offer, from being a true sacrifice, if they do approach.
Reply to Objection 2: Previous to the words quoted, Pope Gelasius
expresses himself as follows: "That most holy rite, which contains the
Catholic discipline, claims for itself such reverence that no one may
dare to approach it except with clean conscience. " From this it is
evident that his meaning is that the priest who is a sinner ought not
to approach this sacrament. Hence when he resumes, "How shall the Holy
Spirit come when summoned," it must be understood that He comes, not
through the priest's merits, but through the power of Christ, Whose
words the priest utters.
Reply to Objection 3: As the same action can be evil, inasmuch as it is
done with a bad intention of the servant; and good from the good
intention of the master; so the blessing of a sinful priest, inasmuch
as he acts unworthily is deserving of a curse, and is reputed an infamy
and a blasphemy, and not a prayer; whereas, inasmuch as it is
pronounced in the person of Christ, it is holy and efficacious. Hence
it is said with significance: "I will curse your blessings. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the mass of a sinful priest is of less worth than the mass of a good
priest?
Objection 1: It seems that the mass of a sinful priest is not of less
worth than that of a good priest. For Pope Gregory says in the
Register: "Alas, into what a great snare they fall who believe that the
Divine and hidden mysteries can be sanctified more by some than by
others; since it is the one and the same Holy Ghost Who hallows those
mysteries in a hidden and invisible manner. " But these hidden mysteries
are celebrated in the mass. Therefore the mass of a sinful priest is
not of less value than the mass of a good priest.
Objection 2: Further, as Baptism is conferred by a minister through the
power of Christ Who baptizes, so likewise this sacrament is consecrated
in the person of Christ. But Baptism is no better when conferred by a
better priest, as was said above ([4687]Q[64], A[1], ad 2). Therefore
neither is a mass the better, which is celebrated by a better priest.
Objection 3: Further, as the merits of priests differ in the point of
being good and better, so they likewise differ in the point of being
good and bad. Consequently, if the mass of a better priest be itself
better, it follows that the mass of a bad priest must be bad. Now this
is unreasonable, because the malice of the ministers cannot affect
Christ's mysteries, as Augustine says in his work on Baptism (Contra
Donat. xii). Therefore neither is the mass of a better priest the
better.
On the contrary, It is stated in Decretal i, q. 1: "The worthier the
priest, the sooner is he heard in the needs for which he prays. "
I answer that, There are two things to be considered in the mass.
namely, the sacrament itself, which is the chief thing; and the prayers
which are offered up in the mass for the quick and the dead. So far as
the mass itself is concerned, the mass of a wicked priest is not of
less value than that of a good priest, because the same sacrifice is
offered by both.
Again, the prayer put up in the mass can be considered in two respects:
first of all, in so far as it has its efficacy from the devotion of the
priest interceding, and in this respect there is no doubt but that the
mass of the better priest is the more fruitful. In another respect,
inasmuch as the prayer is said by the priest in the mass in the place
of the entire Church, of which the priest is the minister; and this
ministry remains even in sinful men, as was said above [4688](A[5]) in
regard to Christ's ministry. Hence, in this respect the prayer even of
the sinful priest is fruitful, not only that which he utters in the
mass, but likewise all those he recites in the ecclesiastical offices,
wherein he takes the place of the Church. on the other hand, his
private prayers are not fruitful, according to Prov. 28:9: "He that
turneth away his ears from hearing the law, his prayer shall be an
abomination. "
Reply to Objection 1: Gregory is speaking there of the holiness of the
Divine sacrament.
Reply to Objection 2: In the sacrament of Baptism solemn prayers are
not made for all the faithful, as in the mass; therefore there is no
parallel in this respect. There is, however, a resemblance as to the
effect of the sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: By reason of the power of the Holy Ghost, Who
communicates to each one the blessings of Christ's members on account
of their being united in charity, the private blessing in the mass of a
good priest is fruitful to others. But the private evil of one man
cannot hurt another, except the latter, in some way, consent, as
Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons can consecrate?
Objection 1: It seems that heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated
persons are not able to consecrate the Eucharist. For Augustine says
(Liber sentent. Prosperi xv) that "there is no such thing as a true
sacrifice outside the Catholic Church": and Pope Leo I says (Ep. lxxx;
cf. Decretal i, q. 1): Elsewhere "(i. e. than in the Church which is
Christ's body) there is neither valid priesthood nor true sacrifice. "
But heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons are severed from
the Church. Therefore they are unable to offer a true sacrifice.
Objection 2: Further (Decretal, caus. i, q. 1), Innocent I is quoted as
saying: "Because we receive the laity of the Arians and other
pestilential persons, if they seem to repent, it does not follow that
their clergy have the dignity of the priesthood or of any other
ministerial office, for we allow them to confer nothing save Baptism. "
But none can consecrate the Eucharist, unless he have the dignity of
the priesthood. Therefore heretics and the like cannot consecrate the
Eucharist.
Objection 3: Further, it does not seem feasible for one outside the
Church to act on behalf of the Church. But when the priest consecrates
the Eucharist, he does so in the person of the entire Church, as is
evident from the fact of his putting up all prayers in the person of
the Church. Therefore, it seems that those who are outside the Church,
such as those who are heretics, schismatics, and excommunicate, are not
able to consecrate the Eucharist.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): "Just as Baptism
remains in them," i. e. in heretics, schismatics, and those who are
excommunicate, "so do their orders remain intact. " Now, by the power of
his ordination, a priest can consecrate the Eucharist. Therefore, it
seems that heretics, schismatics, and those who are excommunicate, can
consecrate the Eucharist, since their orders remain entire.
I answer that, Some have contended that heretics, schismatics, and the
excommunicate, who are outside the pale of the Church, cannot perform
this sacrament. But herein they are deceived, because, as Augustine
says (Contra Parmen. ii), "it is one thing to lack something utterly,
and another to have it improperly"; and in like fashion, "it is one
thing not to bestow, and quite another to bestow, but not rightly. "
Accordingly, such as, being within the Church, received the power of
consecrating the Eucharist through being ordained to the priesthood,
have such power rightly indeed; but they use it improperly if
afterwards they be separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or
excommunication. But such as are ordained while separated from the
Church, have neither the power rightly, nor do they use it rightly. But
that in both cases they have the power, is clear from what Augustine
says (Contra Parmen. ii), that when they return to the unity of the
Church, they are not re-ordained, but are received in their orders. And
since the consecration of the Eucharist is an act which follows the
power of order, such persons as are separated from the Church by
heresy, schism, or excommunication, can indeed consecrate the
Eucharist, which on being consecrated by them contains Christ's true
body and blood; but they act wrongly, and sin by doing so; and in
consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which is a
spiritual sacrifice.
Reply to Objection 1: Such and similar authorities are to be understood
in this sense, that the sacrifice is offered wrongly outside the
Church. Hence outside the Church there can be no spiritual sacrifice
that is a true sacrifice with the truth of its fruit, although it be a
true sacrifice with the truth of the sacrament; thus it was stated
above ([4689]Q[80], A[3]), that the sinner receives Christ's body
sacramentally, but not spiritually.
Reply to Objection 2: Baptism alone is allowed to be conferred by
heretics, and schismatics, because they can lawfully baptize in case of
necessity; but in no case can they lawfully consecrate the Eucharist,
or confer the other sacraments.
Reply to Objection 3: The priest, in reciting the prayers of the mass,
speaks instead of the Church, in whose unity he remains; but in
consecrating the sacrament he speaks as in the person of Christ, Whose
place he holds by the power of his orders. Consequently, if a priest
severed from the unity of the Church celebrates mass, not having lost
the power of order, he consecrates Christ's true body and blood; but
because he is severed from the unity of the Church, his prayers have no
efficacy.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a degraded priest can consecrate this sacrament?
Objection 1: It seems that a degraded priest cannot consecrate this
sacrament. For no one can perform this sacrament except he have the
power of consecrating. But the priest "who has been degraded has no
power of consecrating, although he has the power of baptizing" (App.
Gratiani). Therefore it seems that a degraded priest cannot consecrate
the Eucharist.
Objection 2: Further, he who gives can take away. But the bishop in
ordaining gives to the priest the power of consecrating. Therefore he
can take it away by degrading him.
Objection 3: Further, the priest, by degradation, loses either the
power of consecrating, or the use of such power. But he does not lose
merely the use, for thus the degraded one would lose no more than one
excommunicated, who also lacks the use. Therefore it seems that he
loses the power to consecrate, and in consequence that he cannot
perform this sacrament.
On the contrary, Augustine (Contra Parmen. ii) proves that "apostates"
from the faith "are not deprived of their Baptism," from the fact that
"it is not restored to them when they return repentant; and therefore
it is deemed that it cannot be lost. " But in like fashion, if the
degraded man be restored, he has not to be ordained over again.
Consequently, he has not lost the power of consecrating, and so the
degraded priest can perform this sacrament.
I answer that, The power of consecrating the Eucharist belongs to the
character of the priestly order. But every character is indelible,
because it is given with a kind of consecration, as was said above
([4690]Q[63] , A[5]), just as the consecrations of all other things are
perpetual, and cannot be lost or repeated. Hence it is clear that the
power of consecrating is not lost by degradation. For, again, Augustine
says (Contra Parmen. ii): "Both are sacraments," namely Baptism and
order, "and both are given to a man with a kind of consecration; the
former, when he is baptized; the latter when he is ordained; and
therefore it is not lawful for Catholics to repeat either of them. " And
thus it is evident that the degraded priest can perform this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 1: That Canon is speaking, not as by way of
assertion, but by way of inquiry, as can be gleaned from the context.
Reply to Objection 2: The bishop gives the priestly power of order, not
as though coming from himself, but instrumentally, as God's minister,
and its effect cannot be taken away by man, according to Mat. 19:6:
"What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. " And therefore
the bishop cannot take this power away, just as neither can he who
baptizes take away the baptismal character.
Reply to Objection 3: Excommunication is medicinal. And therefore the
ministry of the priestly power is not taken away from the
excommunicate, as it were, perpetually, but only for a time, that they
may mend; but the exercise is withdrawn from the degraded, as though
condemned perpetually.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is permissible to receive communion from heretical,
excommunicate, or sinful priests, and to hear mass said by them?
Objection 1: It seems that one may lawfully receive Communion from
heretical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, and to hear mass said
by them. Because, as Augustine says (Contra Petilian. iii), "we should
not avoid God's sacraments, whether they be given by a good man or by a
wicked one. " But priests, even if they be sinful, or heretics, or
excommunicate, perform a valid sacrament. Therefore it seems that one
ought not to refrain from receiving Communion at their hands, or from
hearing their mass.
Objection 2: Further, Christ's true body is figurative of His mystical
body, as was said above ([4691]Q[67], A[2]). But Christ's true body is
consecrated by the priests mentioned above. Therefore it seems that
whoever belongs to His mystical body can communicate in their
sacrifices.
Objection 3: Further, there are many sins graver than fornication. But
it is not forbidden to hear the masses of priests who sin otherwise.
Therefore, it ought not to be forbidden to hear the masses of priests
guilty of this sin.
On the contrary, The Canon says (Dist. 32): "Let no one hear the mass
of a priest whom he knows without doubt to have a concubine. " Moreover,
Gregory says (Dial. iii) that "the faithless father sent an Arian
bishop to his son, for him to receive sacrilegiously the consecrated
Communion at his hands. But, when the Arian bishop arrived, God's
devoted servant rebuked him, as was right for him to do. "
I answer that, As was said above ([4692]AA[5],7), heretical,
schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have
the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper
use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever
communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin.
Hence we read in John's Second Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that
saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works. "
Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to
assist at their mass.
Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics,
schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church's
sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears
their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not
all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence from using
this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they
are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence:
consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful
to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass.
