Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 82 [ << | >> ]
| Deinde considerandum est de ministro huius sacramenti. Et circa hoc quaeruntur decem. | We now proceed to consider the minister of this sacrament: under which head there are ten points for our inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum consecrare hoc sacramentum sit proprium sacerdotis. | (1) Whether it belongs to a priest alone to consecrate this sacrament? |
| Secundo, utrum plures sacerdotes simul possent eandem hostiam consecrare. |
(2) Whether several priests can at the same time consecrate the same host? |
| Tertio, utrum dispensatio huius sacramenti pertineat ad solum sacerdotem. | (3) Whether it belongs to the priest alone to dispense this sacrament? |
| Quarto, utrum liceat sacerdoti consecranti a communione abstinere. |
(4) Whether it is lawful for the priest consecrating to refrain from communicating? |
| Quinto, utrum liceat sacerdoti omnino a celebratione abstinere. | (5) Whether a priest in sin can perform this sacrament? |
| Sexto, utrum sacerdos peccator possit conficere hoc sacramentum. |
(6) Whether the Mass of a wicked priest is of less value than that of a good one? |
| Septimo, utrum Missa mali sacerdotis minus valeat quam boni. |
(7) Whether those who are heretics, schismatics, or excommunicated, can perform this sacrament? |
| Octavo, utrum haeretici, schismatici vel excommunicati possint conficere hoc sacramentum. | (8) Whether degraded priests can do so? |
| Nono, utrum degradati. | (9) Whether communicants receiving at their hands are guilty of sinning? |
| Decimo, utrum peccent a talibus communionem recipientes. | (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).]
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 82 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod consecratio huius sacramenti non proprie sit sacerdotis. Dictum est enim supra quod hoc sacramentum consecratur virtute verborum quae sunt forma huius sacramenti. Sed illa verba non mutantur sive dicantur a sacerdote sive a quocumque alio. Ergo videtur quod non solus sacerdos, sed etiam quilibet alius possit hoc sacramentum consecrare. |
Objection 1: It seems that the consecration of this sacrament does not belong exclusively to a priest. Because it was said above (Question [78], Article [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. |
| Praeterea, sacerdos hoc sacramentum conficit in persona Christi. Sed laicus sanctus est unitus Christo per caritatem. Ergo videtur quod etiam laicus possit hoc sacramentum conficere. Unde et Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., quod omnis sanctus est sacerdos. | 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." |
| Praeterea, sicut Baptismus ordinatur ad hominum salutem, ita et hoc sacramentum, ut ex supra dictis patet. Sed etiam laicus potest baptizare, ut supra habitum est. Ergo non est proprium sacerdotis conficere hoc sacramentum. |
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 (Question [74], Article [1]; Question [79], Article [2]). But a layman can also baptize, as was stated above (Question [67], Article [3]). Consequently, the consecration of this sacrament is not proper to a priest. |
| Praeterea, hoc sacramentum perficitur in consecratione materiae. Sed alias materias consecrare, scilicet chrisma et oleum sanctum et oleum benedictum, pertinet ad solum episcopum, quarum tamen consecratio non est tantae dignitatis sicut consecratio Eucharistiae, in qua est totus Christus. Ergo non est proprium sacerdotis, sed solius episcopi, hoc sacramentum conficere. | 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. |
| Sed contra est quod Isidorus dicit, in quadam epistola, et habetur in decretis, dist. XXV, ad presbyterum pertinet sacramentum corporis et sanguinis domini in altari Dei conficere. | 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." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, hoc sacramentum tantae est dignitatis quod non conficitur nisi in persona Christi. Quicumque autem aliquid agit in persona alterius, oportet hoc fieri per potestatem ab illo concessam. Sicut autem baptizato conceditur a Christo potestas sumendi hoc sacramentum, ita sacerdoti, cum ordinatur, confertur potestas hoc sacramentum consecrandi in persona Christi, per hoc enim ponitur in gradu eorum quibus dictum est a domino, hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Et ideo dicendum est quod proprium est sacerdotum conficere hoc sacramentum. |
I answer that, As stated above (Question [78], Articles [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. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod virtus sacramentalis in pluribus consistit, et non in uno tantum, sicut virtus Baptismi consistit et in verbis et in aqua. Unde et virtus consecrativa non solum consistit in ipsis verbis, sed etiam in potestate sacerdoti tradita in sua consecratione vel ordinatione, cum ei dicitur ab episcopo, accipe potestatem offerendi sacrificium in Ecclesia tam pro vivis quam pro mortuis. Nam et virtus instrumentalis in pluribus instrumentis consistit, per quae agit principale agens. | 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. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod laicus iustus unitus est Christo unione spirituali per fidem et caritatem, non autem per sacramentalem potestatem. Et ideo habet spirituale sacerdotium ad offerendum spirituales hostias, de quibus dicitur in Psalmo, sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus, et Rom. XII, exhibeatis corpora vestra hostiam viventem. Unde et I Petri II dicitur, sacerdotium sanctum offerre spirituales hostias. |
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 (Rm. 12:1): "Present your bodies a living sacrifice." Hence, too, it is written (1 Pt. 2:5): "A holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod perceptio huius sacramenti non est tantae necessitatis sicut perceptio Baptismi, ut ex supra dictis patet. Et ideo, licet in necessitatis articulo laicus possit baptizare, non tamen potest hoc sacramentum conficere. |
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 (Question [65], Articles [3],4; Question [80], Article [11], ad 2). And therefore, although a layman can baptize in case of necessity, he cannot perform this sacrament. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod episcopus accipit potestatem ut agat in persona Christi supra corpus eius mysticum, idest super Ecclesiam, quam quidem potestatem non accipit sacerdos in sua consecratione, licet possit eam habere ex episcopi commissione. Et ideo ea quae non pertinent ad dispositionem corporis mystici, non reservantur episcopo, sicut consecratio huius sacramenti. Ad episcopum vero pertinet non solum tradere populo, sed etiam sacerdotibus, ea ex quibus possunt propriis officiis uti. Et quia benedictio chrismatis et olei sancti et olei infirmorum, et aliorum quae consecrantur, puta altaris, Ecclesiae, vestium et vasorum, praestat quandam idoneitatem ad sacramenta perficienda quae pertinent ad officium sacerdotum, ideo tales consecrationes episcopo reservantur, tanquam principi totius ecclesiastici ordinis. | 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. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 82 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod plures sacerdotes non possunt unam et eandem hostiam consecrare. Dictum est enim supra quod plures non possunt unum baptizare. Sed non minor vis est sacerdotis consecrantis quam hominis baptizantis. Ergo etiam non possunt simul plures unam hostiam consecrare. |
Objection 1: It seems that several priests cannot consecrate one and the same host. For it was said above (Question [67], Article [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. |
| Praeterea, quod potest fieri per unum, superflue fit per multos. In sacramentis autem Christi nihil debet esse superfluum. Cum igitur unus sufficiat ad consecrandum, videtur quod plures non possunt unam hostiam consecrare. | 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. |
| Praeterea, sicut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., hoc sacramentum est sacramentum unitatis. Sed contrarium unitati videtur esse multitudo. Ergo non videtur conveniens esse huic sacramento quod plures sacerdotes eandem hostiam consecrent. | 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. |
| Sed contra est quod, secundum consuetudinem quarundam Ecclesiarum, sacerdotes, cum de novo ordinantur, concelebrant episcopo ordinanti. | On the contrary, It is the custom of some Churches for priests newly ordained to co-celebrate with the bishop ordaining them. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, sacerdos, cum ordinatur, constituitur in gradu eorum qui a domino acceperunt potestatem consecrandi in cena. Et ideo, secundum consuetudinem quarundam Ecclesiarum, sicut apostoli Christo cenanti concenaverunt, ita novi ordinati episcopo ordinanti concelebrant. Nec per hoc iteratur consecratio super eandem hostiam, quia, sicut Innocentius III dicit, omnium intentio debet ferri ad idem instans consecrationis. |
I answer that, As stated above (Article [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. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus non legitur simul baptizasse cum apostolis quando iniunxit eis officium baptizandi. Et ideo non est similis ratio. | 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. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, si quilibet sacerdotum operaretur in virtute propria, superfluerent alii celebrantes, uno sufficienter celebrante. Sed quia sacerdos non consecrat nisi in persona Christi, multi autem sunt unum in Christo, ideo non refert utrum per unum vel per multos hoc sacramentum consecraretur, nisi quod oportet ritum Ecclesiae servari. |
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. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod Eucharistia est sacramentum unitatis ecclesiasticae, quae attenditur secundum hoc quod multi sunt unum in Christo. | Reply to Objection 3: The Eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, which is brought about by many being "one in Christ." |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 82 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3 [ << | >> ]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod non pertineat solum ad sacerdotem dispensatio huius sacramenti. Sanguis enim Christi non minus pertinet ad hoc sacramentum quam corpus. Sed sanguis Christi dispensatur per diacones, unde et beatus Laurentius dixit beato Sixto, experire utrum idoneum ministrum elegeris, cui commisisti dominici sanguinis dispensationem. Ergo, pari ratione, dispensatio dominici corporis non pertinet ad solos sacerdotes. | 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. |
| Praeterea, sacerdotes constituuntur ministri sacramentorum. Sed hoc sacramentum perficitur in consecratione materiae, non in usu, ad quem pertinet dispensatio. Ergo videtur quod non pertineat ad sacerdotem corpus domini dispensare. | 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. |
| Praeterea, Dionysius dicit, in libro Eccles. Hier., quod hoc sacramentum habet perfectivam virtutem, sicut et chrisma. Sed signare chrismate baptizatos non pertinet ad sacerdotem, sed ad episcopum. Ergo etiam dispensare hoc sacramentum pertinet ad episcopum, non ad sacerdotem. | 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. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur de Consecr., dist. II, pervenit ad notitiam nostram quod quidam presbyteri laico aut feminae corpus domini tradunt ad deferendum infirmis. Ergo interdicit synodus ne talis praesumptio ulterius fiat, sed presbyter per semetipsum infirmos communicet. | 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." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod ad sacerdotem pertinet dispensatio corporis Christi, propter tria. Primo quidem quia, sicut dictum est, ipse consecrat in persona Christi. Ipse autem Christus, sicut consecravit corpus suum in cena, ita et aliis sumendum dedit. Unde, sicut ad sacerdotem pertinet consecratio corporis Christi, ita ad eum pertinet dispensatio. Secundo, quia sacerdos constituitur medius inter Deum et populum. Unde, sicut ad eum pertinet dona populi Deo offerre, ita ad eum pertinet dona sanctificata divinitus populo tradere. Tertio quia, in reverentiam huius sacramenti, a nulla re contingitur nisi consecrata, unde et corporale et calix consecrantur, similiter et manus sacerdotis, ad tangendum hoc sacramentum. Unde nulli alii tangere licet, nisi in necessitate puta si caderet in terram, vel in aliquo alio necessitatis casu. |
I answer that, The dispensing of Christ's body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above (Article [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. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod diaconus, quasi propinquus ordini sacerdotali, aliquid participat de eius officio, ut scilicet dispenset sanguinem, non autem corpus, nisi in necessitate, iubente episcopo vel presbytero. Primo quidem, quia sanguis Christi continetur in vase. Unde non oportet quod tangatur a dispensante, sicut tangitur corpus Christi. Secundo, quia sanguis designat redemptionem a Christo in populum derivatam, unde et sanguini admiscetur aqua, quae significat populum. Et quia diaconi sunt inter sacerdotem et populum, magis convenit diaconibus dispensatio sanguinis quam dispensatio corporis. | 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. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod eiusdem est hoc sacramentum dispensare et consecrare, ratione iam dicta. | Reply to Objection 2: For the reason given above, it belongs to the same person to dispense and to consecrate this sacrament. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut diaconus in aliquo participat illuminativam virtutem sacerdotis, inquantum dispensat sanguinem; ita sacerdos participat perfectivam dispensationem episcopi, inquantum dispensat hoc sacramentum, quo perficitur homo secundum se per coniunctionem ad Christum. Aliae autem perfectiones, quibus homo perficitur per comparationem ad alios, episcopo reservantur. | 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. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 82 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sacerdos consecrans non teneatur sumere hoc sacramentum. In aliis enim consecrationibus ille qui consecrat materiam, non utitur ea, sicut episcopus consecrans chrisma non linitur eodem. Sed hoc sacramentum consistit in consecratione materiae. Ergo sacerdos perficiens hoc sacramentum non necesse habet uti eodem, sed potest licite a sumptione eius abstinere. | 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. |
| Praeterea, in aliis sacramentis minister non praebet sacramentum sibi ipsi, nullus enim baptizare seipsum potest, ut supra habitum est. Sed, sicut Baptismus ordinate dispensatur, ita et hoc sacramentum. Ergo sacerdos perficiens hoc sacramentum non debet ipsum sumere a seipso. |
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 (Question [66], Article [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. |
| Praeterea, contingit quandoque quod miraculose corpus Christi in altari apparet sub specie carnis, et sanguis sub specie sanguinis. Quae non sunt apta cibo vel potui, unde, sicut supra dictum est, propter hoc sub alia specie traduntur, ne sint horrori sumentibus. Ergo sacerdos consecrans non semper tenetur sumere hoc sacramentum. |
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 (Question [75], Article [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. |
| Sed contra est quod in Concilio Toletano legitur, et habetur de Consecr., dist. II, cap. relatum, modis omnibus tenendum est ut, quotiescumque sacrificans corpus et sanguinem domini nostri Iesu Christi in altario immolat, toties perceptione corporis et sanguinis participem se praebeat. | 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." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, Eucharistia non solum est sacramentum, sed etiam sacrificium. Quicumque autem sacrificium offert, debet fieri sacrificii particeps. Quia exterius sacrificium quod offert, signum est interioris sacrificii quo quis seipsum offert Deo, ut Augustinus dicit, X de Civ. Dei. Unde per hoc quod participat sacrificio, ostendit ad se sacrificium interius pertinere. Similiter etiam per hoc quod sacrificium populo dispensat, ostendit se esse dispensatorem divinorum populo. Quorum ipse primo debet esse particeps, sicut Dionysius dicit, in libro Eccles. Hier. Et ideo ipse ante sumere debet quam populo dispenset. Unde in praedicto capite legitur, quale est sacrificium cui nec ipse sacrificans particeps esse dignoscitur? Per hoc autem fit particeps quod de sacrificio sumit, secundum illud apostoli, I Cor. X, nonne qui edunt hostias, participes sunt altaris? Et ideo necesse est quod sacerdos, quotiescumque consecrat, sumat hoc sacramentum integre. |
I answer that, As stated above (Question [79], Articles [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. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod consecratio chrismatis, vel cuiuscumque alterius materiae, non est sacrificium, sicut consecratio Eucharistiae. Et ideo non est similis ratio. | 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. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod sacramentum Baptismi perficitur in ipso usu materiae. Et ideo nullus potest baptizare seipsum, quia in sacramento non potest esse idem agens et patiens. Unde nec in hoc sacramento sacerdos consecrat seipsum, sed panem et vinum, in qua consecratione conficitur hoc sacramentum. Usus autem sacramenti est consequenter se habens ad hoc sacramentum. Et ideo non est simile. | 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. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, si miraculose corpus Christi in altari sub specie carnis appareat, aut sanguis sub specie sanguinis, non est sumendum. Dicit enim Hieronymus, super Levit., de hac quidem hostia quae in Christi commemoratione mirabiliter fit, de illa vero quam Christus in ara crucis obtulit secundum se, nulli edere licet. Nec propter hoc sacerdos transgressor efficitur, quia ea quae miraculose fiunt, legibus non subduntur. Consulendum tamen esset sacerdoti quod iterato corpus et sanguinem domini consecraret et sumeret. | 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. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 82 [ << | >> ]
Article: 5 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod malus sacerdos Eucharistiam consecrare non possit. Dicit enim Hieronymus, super Sophoniam, sacerdotes, qui Eucharistiae serviunt et sanguinem domini dividunt, impie agunt in legem Christi, putantes Eucharistiam precantis facere verba, non vitam; et necessariam esse solemnem orationem, et non sacerdotis merita. De quibus dicitur, sacerdos, in quocumque fuerit macula, non accedat offerre oblationes domino. Sed sacerdos peccator, cum sit maculosus, nec vitam habet nec merita huic convenientia sacramento. Ergo sacerdos peccator non potest consecrare Eucharistiam. | 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. |
| Praeterea, Damascenus dicit, in IV libro, quod panis et vinum, per adventum sancti spiritus, supernaturaliter transit in corpus domini et sanguinem. Sed Gelasius Papa dicit, et habetur in decretis, I, qu. I, cap. sacrosancta, quomodo ad divini mysterii consecrationem caelestis spiritus invocatus adveniet, si sacerdos qui eum adesse deprecatur, criminosis plenus actionibus comprobetur? Ergo per malum sacerdotem non potest Eucharistia consecrari. | 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. |
| Praeterea, hoc sacramentum sacerdotis benedictione consecratur. Sed benedictio sacerdotis peccatoris non est efficax ad consecrationem huius sacramenti, cum scriptum sit, maledicam benedictionibus vestris. Et Dionysius dicit, in epistola ad Demophilum monachum, perfecte cecidit a sacerdotali ordine qui non est illuminatus, et audax quidem mihi videtur talis, sacerdotalibus manum apponens; et audet immundas infamias, non enim dicam orationes, super divina symbola Christiformiter enuntiare. |
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." |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de corpore domini, intra Ecclesiam Catholicam, in mysterio corporis et sanguinis domini, nihil a bono maius, nihil a malo minus perficitur sacerdote, quia non in merito consecrantis, sed in verbo perficitur creatoris, et in virtute spiritus sancti. | 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." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, sacerdos consecrat hoc sacramentum non in virtute propria, sed sicut minister Christi, in cuius persona consecrat hoc sacramentum. Non autem ex hoc ipso desinit aliquis esse minister Christi quod est malus, habet enim dominus bonos et malos ministros seu servos. Unde, Matth. XXIV, dominus dicit, quis, putas, est fidelis servus et prudens, etc.; et postea subdit, si autem dixerit malus ille servus in corde suo, et cetera. Et apostolus dicit, I Cor. IV, sic nos existimet homo ut ministros Christi, et tamen postea subdit, nihil mihi conscius sum, sed non in hoc iustificatus sum. Erat ergo certus se esse ministrum Christi, non tamen erat certus se esse iustum. Potest ergo aliquis esse minister Christi etiam si iustus non sit. Et hoc ad excellentiam Christi pertinet, cui, sicut vero Deo, serviunt non solum bona, sed etiam mala, quae per ipsius providentiam in eius gloriam ordinantur. Unde manifestum est quod sacerdotes, etiam si non sint iusti, sed peccatores, possunt Eucharistiam consecrare. |
I answer that, As was said above (Articles [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 (Mt. 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. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Hieronymus per illa verba improbat errorem sacerdotum qui credebant se digne posse Eucharistiam consecrare ex hoc solo quod sunt sacerdotes, etiam si sint peccatores. Quod improbat Hieronymus per hoc quod maculosi ad altare accedere prohibentur. Non tamen removetur quin, si accesserint, sit verum sacrificium quod offerunt. | 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. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ante illa verba Gelasius Papa praemittit, sacrosancta religio, quae Catholicam continet disciplinam, tantam sibi reverentiam vindicat ut ad eam quilibet nisi pura conscientia non audeat pervenire. Ex quo manifeste apparet eius intentionis esse quod peccator sacerdos non debet accedere ad hoc sacramentum. Unde per hoc quod subdit, quomodo caelestis spiritus advocatus adveniet, intelligi oportet quod non advenit ex merito sacerdotis, sed ex virtute Christi, cuius verba profert sacerdos. | 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. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut eadem actio, inquantum fit ex prava intentione ministri, potest esse mala, bona autem inquantum fit ex bona intentione domini; ita benedictio sacerdotis peccatoris, inquantum ab ipso indigne fit, est maledictione digna, et quasi infamia seu blasphemia, et non oratio reputatur; inquantum autem profertur ex persona Christi, est sancta et efficax. Unde signanter dicitur, maledicam benedictionibus vestris. | 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." |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 82 [ << | >> ]
Article: 6 [ << | >> ]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Missa sacerdotis mali non minus valeat quam Missa sacerdotis boni. Dicit enim Gregorius, in registro, heu, in quam magnum laqueum incidunt qui divina et occulta mysteria plus ab aliis sanctificata fieri posse credunt, cum unus idemque spiritus sanctus ea mysteria occulte atque invisibiliter operando sanctificet. Sed haec occulta mysteria celebrantur in Missa. Ergo Missa mali sacerdotis non minus valet quam Missa boni. | 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. |
| Praeterea, sicut Baptismus traditur a ministro in virtute Christi, qui baptizat, ita et hoc sacramentum, quod in persona Christi consecratur. Sed non melior Baptismus datur a meliori ministro, ut supra habitum est. Ergo neque etiam melior Missa est quae celebratur a meliori sacerdote. |
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 (Question [64], Article [1], ad 2). Therefore neither is a mass the better, which is celebrated by a better priest. |
| Praeterea, sicut merita sacerdotum differunt per bonum et melius, ita etiam differunt per bonum et malum. Si ergo Missa melioris sacerdotis est melior, sequitur quod Missa mali sacerdotis sit mala. Quod est inconveniens, quia malitia ministrorum non potest redundare in Christi mysteria; sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Baptismo. Ergo neque Missa melioris sacerdotis est melior. | 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. |
| Sed contra est quod habetur I, qu. I, quanto sacerdotes fuerint digniores, tanto facilius in necessitatibus pro quibus clamant, exaudiuntur. | 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." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod in Missa duo est considerare; scilicet ipsum sacramentum, quod est principale; et orationes quae in Missa fiunt pro vivis et mortuis. Quantum ergo ad sacramentum, non minus valet Missa mali sacerdotis quam boni, quia utrobique idem conficitur sacramentum. | 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. |
| Oratio etiam quae fit in Missa, potest considerari dupliciter. Uno modo, inquantum habet efficaciam ex devotione sacerdotis orantis. Et sic non est dubium quod Missa melioris sacerdotis magis est fructuosa. Alio modo, inquantum oratio in Missa profertur a sacerdote in persona totius Ecclesiae, cuius sacerdos est minister. Quod quidem ministerium etiam in peccatoribus manet, sicut supra dictum est de ministerio Christi. Unde quantum ad hoc, est fructuosa non solum oratio sacerdotis peccatoris in Missa, sed etiam omnes aliae eius orationes quas facit in ecclesiasticis officiis, in quibus gerit personam Ecclesiae. Sed orationes eius privatae non sunt fructuosae, secundum illud Proverb. XXVIII, qui declinat aurem suam ne audiat legem, oratio eius erit execrabilis. |
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 (Article [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." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Gregorius loquitur ibi quantum ad sanctitatem divini sacramenti. | Reply to Objection 1: Gregory is speaking there of the holiness of the Divine sacrament. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod in sacramento Baptismi non fiunt solemnes orationes pro omnibus fidelibus, sicut in Missa. Et ideo quantum ad hoc non est simile. Est autem simile quantum ad effectum sacramenti. | 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. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod propter virtutem spiritus sancti, qui per unitatem caritatis communicat invicem bona membrorum Christi, fit quod bonum privatum quod est in Missa sacerdotis boni, est fructuosum aliis. Malum autem privatum unius hominis non potest alteri nocere, nisi per aliqualem consensum, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro contra Parmenianum. | 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). |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 82 [ << | >> ]
Article: 7 [ << | >> ]
| Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod haeretici et schismatici et excommunicati consecrare non possunt. Dicit enim Augustinus quod extra Ecclesiam Catholicam non est locus veri sacrificii. Et Leo Papa dicit, et habetur in decretis, I, qu. I, aliter, (scilicet quam in Ecclesia, quae corpus Christi est) nec rata sunt sacerdotia, nec vera sacrificia. Sed haeretici, schismatici et excommunicati sunt ab Ecclesia separati. Ergo non possunt verum sacrificium conficere. | 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. |
| Praeterea, sicut legitur ibidem, Innocentius Papa dicit, Arianos, ceterasque huiusmodi pestes, quia laicos eorum sub imagine poenitentiae suscipimus, non videntur clerici eorum cum sacerdotii aut cuiuspiam mysterii suscipiendi dignitate esse, quibus solum Baptisma ratum esse permittimus. Sed non potest aliquis consecrare Eucharistiam nisi sit cum sacerdotii dignitate. Ergo haeretici, et ceteri huiusmodi, non possunt Eucharistiam conficere. | 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. |
| Praeterea, ille qui est extra Ecclesiam, non videtur aliquid posse agere in persona totius Ecclesiae. Sed sacerdos consecrans Eucharistiam hoc agit in persona totius Ecclesiae, quod patet ex hoc quod omnes orationes proponit in persona Ecclesiae. Ergo videtur quod illi qui sunt extra Ecclesiam, scilicet haeretici et schismatici et excommunicati, non possunt consecrare Eucharistiam. | 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. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in II contra Parmen., sicut Baptismus in eis, scilicet haereticis, schismaticis et excommunicatis, ita ordinatio mansit integra. Sed ex vi ordinationis sacerdos potest consecrare Eucharistiam. Ergo haeretici, schismatici et excommunicati, cum in eis maneat ordinatio integra, videtur quod possint consecrare Eucharistiam. | 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. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod quidam dixerunt quod haeretici, schismatici et excommunicati, quia sunt extra Ecclesiam, non possunt conficere hoc sacramentum. Sed in hoc decipiuntur. Quia, sicut Augustinus dicit, in II contra Parmen., aliud est aliquid omnino non habere, aliud autem non recte habere, et similiter est etiam aliud non dare, et aliud non recte dare. Illi igitur qui, intra Ecclesiam constituti, receperunt potestatem consecrandi in ordinatione sacerdotii, recte quidem habent potestatem, sed non recte ea utuntur, si postmodum per haeresim aut schisma vel excommunicationem ab Ecclesia separentur. Qui autem sic separati ordinantur, nec recte habent potestatem, nec recte utuntur. Quod tamen utrique potestatem habeant, per hoc patet quod, sicut Augustinus ibidem dicit, cum redeunt ad unitatem Ecclesiae, non reordinantur, sed recipiuntur in suis ordinibus. Et quia consecratio Eucharistiae est actus consequens ordinis potestatem, illi qui sunt ab Ecclesia separati per haeresim aut schisma vel excommunicationem, possunt quidem consecrare Eucharistiam, quae ab eis consecrata verum corpus Christi et sanguinem continet, non tamen recte hoc faciunt, sed peccant facientes. Et ideo fructum sacrificii non percipiunt, quod est sacrificium spirituale. | 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. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod auctoritas illa et similes intelligendae sunt quantum ad hoc quod non recte extra Ecclesiam sacrificium offertur. Unde extra Ecclesiam non potest esse spirituale sacrificium, quod est verum veritate fructus, licet sit verum veritate sacramenti, sicut etiam supra dictum est quod peccator sumit corpus Christi sacramentaliter, sed non spiritualiter. |
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 (Question [80], Article [3]), that the sinner receives Christ's body sacramentally, but not spiritually. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod solus Baptismus permittitur esse ratus haereticis et schismaticis, quia possunt licite baptizare in articulo necessitatis. In nullo autem casu licite possunt Eucharistiam consecrare, vel alia sacramenta conferre. | 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. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod sacerdos in Missa in orationibus quidem loquitur in persona Ecclesiae, in cuius unitate consistit. Sed in consecratione sacramenti loquitur in persona Christi, cuius vicem in hoc gerit per ordinis potestatem. Et ideo, si sacerdos ab unitate Ecclesiae praecisus Missam celebret, quia potestatem ordinis non amittit, consecrat verum corpus et sanguinem Christi, sed quia est ab Ecclesiae unitate separatus, orationes eius efficaciam non habent. | 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. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 82 [ << | >> ]
Article: 8 [ << | >> ]
| Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sacerdos degradatus non possit hoc sacramentum conficere. Nullus enim conficit hoc sacramentum nisi per potestatem consecrandi quam habet. Sed degradatus non habet potestatem consecrandi, licet habeat potestatem baptizandi, ut dicit canon. Ergo videtur quod presbyter degradatus non possit Eucharistiam consecrare. | 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. |
| Praeterea, ille qui aliquid dat, potest etiam auferre. Sed episcopus dat presbytero potestatem consecrandi ordinando ipsum. Ergo etiam potest ei auferre degradando ipsum. | 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. |
| Praeterea, sacerdos per degradationem aut amittit potestatem consecrandi, aut solam executionem. Sed non solam executionem, quia sic non plus amitteret degradatus quam excommunicatus, qui executione caret. Ergo videtur quod amittit potestatem consecrandi. Et ita videtur quod non possit conficere hoc sacramentum. | 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. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus, in II contra Parmen., probat quod apostatae a fide non carent Baptismate, per hoc quod per poenitentiam redeuntibus non restituitur, et ideo non posse amitti iudicatur. Sed similiter degradatus, si reconcilietur, non est iterum ordinandus. Ergo non amisit potestatem consecrandi. Et ita sacerdos degradatus potest conficere hoc sacramentum. | 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. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod potestas consecrandi Eucharistiam pertinet ad characterem sacerdotalis ordinis. Character autem quilibet, quia cum quadam consecratione datur, indelebilis est, ut supra dictum est, sicut et quarumcumque rerum consecrationes perpetuae sunt, nec amitti nec reiterari possunt. Unde manifestum est quod potestas consecrandi non amittitur per degradationem. Dicit enim Augustinus, in II contra Parmen., utrumque, scilicet Baptismus et ordo, sacramentum est, et quadam consecratione utrumque homini datur, et illud cum baptizatur, et illud cum ordinatur. Ideo non licet a Catholicis utrumque iterari. Et sic patet quod sacerdos degradatus potest conficere hoc sacramentum. |
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 (Question [63], Article [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. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod canon ille non loquitur assertive, sed inquisitive, sicut ex circumstantia litterae haberi potest. | 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. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod episcopus non dat potestatem sacerdotalis ordinis propria virtute, sed instrumentaliter, sicut minister Dei, cuius effectus per hominem tolli non potest, secundum illud Matth. XIX, quos Deus coniunxit, homo non separet. Et ideo episcopus non potest hanc potestatem auferre, sicut nec ille qui baptizat potest auferre characterem baptismalem. | 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 Mt. 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. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod excommunicatio est medicinalis. Et ideo excommunicatis non aufertur executio sacerdotalis potestatis quasi in perpetuum, sed ad correctionem, usque ad tempus. Degradatis autem aufertur executio quasi in perpetuum condemnatis. | 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. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 82 [ << | >> ]
Article: 9 [ << | >> ]
| Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquis licite possit communionem recipere a sacerdotibus haereticis vel excommunicatis, vel etiam peccatoribus, et ab eis Missam audire. Sicut enim Augustinus, contra Petilianum, dicit, neque in homine bono neque in homine malo aliquis Dei fugiat sacramenta. Sed sacerdotes, quamvis sint peccatores et haeretici vel excommunicati, verum conficiunt sacramentum. Ergo videtur quod non sit vitandum ab eis communionem accipere vel eorum Missam audire. | 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. |
| Praeterea, corpus Christi verum figurativum est corporis mystici, sicut supra dictum est. Sed a praedictis sacerdotibus verum corpus Christi consecratur. Ergo videtur quod illi qui sunt de corpore mystico, possint eorum sacrificiis communicare. |
Objection 2: Further, Christ's true body is figurative of His mystical body, as was said above (Question [67], Article [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. |
| Praeterea, multa peccata sunt graviora quam fornicatio. Sed non est prohibitum audire Missas sacerdotum aliter peccantium. Ergo etiam non debet esse prohibitum audire Missas sacerdotum fornicariorum. | 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. |
| Sed contra est quod canon dicit, XXXII dist., nullus audiat Missam sacerdotis quem indubitanter concubinam novit habere. Et Gregorius dicit, in III Dialog., quod pater perfidus Arianum episcopum misit ad filium, ut ex eius manu sacrilegae consecrationis communionem acciperet, sed vir Deo devotus Ariano episcopo venienti exprobravit ut debuit. | 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." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, sacerdotes, si sint haeretici vel schismatici vel excommunicati, vel etiam peccatores, quamvis habeant potestatem consecrandi Eucharistiam, non tamen ea recte utuntur, sed peccant utentes. Quicumque autem communicat alicui in peccato, ipse particeps peccati efficitur, unde et in secunda canonica Ioannis legitur quod qui dixerit ei, ave, scilicet haeretico, communicat operibus illius malignis. Et ideo non licet a praedictis communionem accipere aut eorum Missam audire. |
I answer that, As was said above (Articles [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. |
| Differt tamen inter praedictas sectas. Nam haeretici et schismatici et excommunicati sunt per sententiam Ecclesiae executione consecrandi privati. Et ideo peccat quicumque eorum Missam audit vel ab eis accipit sacramenta. Sed non omnes peccatores sunt per sententiam Ecclesiae executione huius potestatis privati. Et sic, quamvis sint suspensi quantum est ex sententia divina, non tamen quantum ad alios ex sententia Ecclesiae. Et ideo, usque ad sententiam Ecclesiae, licet ab eis communionem accipere et eorum Missam audire. Unde super illud I Cor. V, cum huiusmodi nec cibum sumere, dicit Glossa Augustini, hoc dicendo, noluit hominem ab homine iudicari ex arbitrio suspicionis, vel etiam extraordinario usurpato iudicio, sed potius ex lege Dei, secundum ordinem Ecclesiae, sive ultro confessum, vel accusatum et convictum. | 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. Hence on 1 Cor. 5:11, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in hoc quod refugimus audire talium sacerdotum Missam aut ab eis communionem recipere, non refugimus Dei sacramenta, sed potius ea veneramur, unde hostia a talibus sacerdotibus consecrata est adoranda, et, si reservetur, licite potest sumi a sacerdote legitimo. Sed refugimus culpam indigne ministrantium. | Reply to Objection 1: By refusing to hear the masses of such priests, or to receive Communion from them, we are not shunning God's sacraments; on the contrary, by so doing we are giving them honor (hence a host consecrated by such priests is to be adored, and if it be reserved, it can be consumed by a lawful priest): but what we shun is the sin of the unworthy ministers. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod unitas corporis mystici est fructus corporis veri percepti. Illi autem qui indigne percipiunt vel ministrant, privantur fructu, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo non est sumendum ex eorum dispensatione sacramentum ab eis qui sunt in unitate Ecclesiae. |
Reply to Objection 2: The unity of the mystical body is the fruit of the true body received. But those who receive or minister unworthily, are deprived of the fruit, as was said above (Article [7]; Question [80], Article [4]). And therefore, those who belong to the unity of the Faith are not to receive the sacrament from their dispensing. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet fornicatio non sit gravior ceteris peccatis, tamen ad eam sunt homines proniores, propter carnis concupiscentiam. Et ideo specialiter hoc peccatum a sacerdotibus prohibitum est ab Ecclesia, ne aliquis audiat Missam concubinarii sacerdotis. Sed hoc intelligendum est de notorio, vel per sententiam quae fertur in convictum, vel confessionem in iure factam, vel quando non potest peccatum aliqua tergiversatione celari. | Reply to Objection 3: Although fornication is not graver than other sins, yet men are more prone to it, owing to fleshly concupiscence. Consequently, this sin is specially inhibited to priests by the Church, lest anyone hear the mass of one living in concubinage. However, this is to be understood of one who is notorious, either from being convicted and sentenced, or from having acknowledged his guilt in legal form, or from it being impossible to conceal his guilt by any subterfuge. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 82 [ << | >> ]
Article: 10 [ << | >> ]
| Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod liceat sacerdoti omnino a consecratione Eucharistiae abstinere. Sicut enim ad officium sacerdotis pertinet Eucharistiam consecrare, ita etiam baptizare et in aliis sacramentis ministrare. Sed sacerdos non tenetur ministrare in aliis sacramentis, nisi propter curam animarum susceptam. Ergo videtur quod nec etiam teneatur Eucharistiam consecrare, si curam non habeat animarum. | Objection 1: It seems to be lawful for a priest to refrain entirely from consecrating the Eucharist. Because, as it is the priest's office to consecrate the Eucharist, so it is likewise to baptize and administer the other sacraments. But the priest is not bound to act as a minister of the other sacraments, unless he has undertaken the care of souls. Therefore, it seems that likewise he is not bound to consecrate the Eucharist except he be charged with the care of souls. |
| Praeterea, nullus tenetur facere quod sibi non licet, alioquin esset perplexus. Sed sacerdoti peccatori, vel etiam excommunicato, non licet Eucharistiam consecrare, ut ex supra dictis patet. Ergo videtur quod tales non teneantur ad celebrandum. Et ita nec alii, alioquin ex sua culpa commodum reportarent. |
Objection 2: Further, no one is bound to do what is unlawful for him to do; otherwise he would be in two minds. But it is not lawful for the priest who is in a state of sin, or excommunicate, to consecrate the Eucharist, as was said above (Article [7]). Therefore it seems that such men are not bound to celebrate, and so neither are the others; otherwise they would be gainers by their fault. |
| Praeterea, dignitas sacerdotalis non perditur per subsequentem infirmitatem, dicit enim Gelasius Papa, et habetur in decretis, dist. LV, praecepta canonum sicut non patiuntur venire ad sacerdotium debiles corpore, ita, si quis in eo fuerit constitutus ac tunc fuerit sauciatus, amittere non potest quod tempore suae sinceritatis accepit. Contingit autem quandoque quod ordinati in sacerdotes incurrunt aliquos defectus ex quibus a celebratione impediuntur, sicut est lepra, vel morbus caducus, vel aliquid huiusmodi. Non ergo videtur quod sacerdotes ad celebrandum teneantur. | Objection 3: Further, the priestly dignity is not lost by subsequent weakness: because Pope Gelasius I says (cf. Decretal, Dist. 55): "As the canonical precepts do not permit them who are feeble in body to approach the priesthood, so if anyone be disabled when once in that state, he cannot lose that he received at the time he was well." But it sometimes happens that those who are already ordained as priests incur defects whereby they are hindered from celebrating, such as leprosy or epilepsy, or the like. Consequently, it does not appear that priests are bound to celebrate. |
| Sed contra est quod Ambrosius dicit, in quadam oratione, grave est quod ad mensam tuam mundo corde et manibus innocentibus non venimus, sed gravius est si, dum peccata metuimus, etiam sacrificium non reddamus. | On the contrary, Ambrose says in one of his Orations (xxxiii): "It is a grave matter if we do not approach Thy altar with clean heart and pure hands; but it is graver still if while shunning sins we also fail to offer our sacrifice." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod quidam dixerunt quod sacerdos potest omnino licite a consecratione abstinere, nisi teneatur ex cura sibi commissa celebrare pro populo et sacramenta praebere. | I answer that, Some have said that a priest may lawfully refrain altogether from consecrating, except he be bound to do so, and to give the sacraments to the people, by reason of his being entrusted with the care of souls. |
| Sed hoc irrationabiliter dicitur. Quia unusquisque tenetur uti gratia sibi data cum fuerit opportunum, secundum illud II Cor. VI, hortamur vos ne in vacuum gratiam Dei recipiatis. Opportunitas autem sacrificium offerendi non solum attenditur per comparationem ad fideles Christi, quibus oportet sacramenta ministrari, sed principaliter per comparationem ad Deum, cui in consecratione huius sacramenti sacrificium offertur. Unde sacerdoti, etiam si non habeat curam animarum, non licet omnino a celebratione cessare, sed saltem videtur quod celebrare tenetur in praecipuis festis, et maxime in illis diebus in quibus fideles communicare consueverunt. Et hinc est quod II Machab. IV dicitur contra quosdam sacerdotes quod iam non circa altaris officia dediti erant, contempto templo et sacrificiis neglectis. | But this is said quite unreasonably, because everyone is bound to use the grace entrusted to him, when opportunity serves, according to 2 Cor. 6:1: "We exhort you that you receive not the grace of God in vain." But the opportunity of offering sacrifice is considered not merely in relation to the faithful of Christ to whom the sacraments must be administered, but chiefly with regard to God to Whom the sacrifice of this sacrament is offered by consecrating. Hence, it is not lawful for the priest, even though he has not the care of souls, to refrain altogether from celebrating; and he seems to be bound to celebrate at least on the chief festivals, and especially on those days on which the faithful usually communicate. And hence it is that (2 Macc. 4:14) it is said against some priests that they "were not now occupied about the offices of the altar... despising the temple and neglecting the sacrifices." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod alia sacramenta perficiuntur in usu fidelium. Et ideo in illis ministrare non tenetur nisi ille qui super fideles suscipit curam. Sed hoc sacramentum perficitur in consecratione Eucharistiae, in qua sacrificium Deo offertur, ad quod sacerdos obligatur ex ordine iam suscepto. | Reply to Objection 1: The other sacraments are accomplished in being used by the faithful, and therefore he alone is bound to administer them who has undertaken the care of souls. But this sacrament is performed in the consecration of the Eucharist, whereby a sacrifice is offered to God, to which the priest is bound from the order he has received. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod sacerdos peccator, si per sententiam Ecclesiae sit executione ordinis privatus vel simpliciter vel ad tempus, redditus est impotens ad sacrificium offerendum, et ideo obligatio tollitur. Hoc autem cedit sibi in detrimentum spiritualis fructus, magis quam in emolumentum. Si vero non sit privatus potestate celebrandi, non solvitur obligatio. Nec tamen est perplexus, quia potest de peccato poenitere et celebrare. | Reply to Objection 2: The sinful priest, if deprived by the Church's sentence from exercising his order, simply or for a time, is rendered incapable of offering sacrifice; consequently, the obligation lapses. But if not deprived of the power of celebrating, the obligation is not removed; nor is he in two minds, because he can repent of his sin and then celebrate. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod debilitas vel aegritudo superveniens ordini sacerdotali ordinem non tollit, executionem tamen ordinis impedit quantum ad consecrationem Eucharistiae. Quandoque quidem propter impossibilitatem executionis, sicut si privetur oculis aut digitis, aut usu linguae. Quandoque autem propter periculum, sicut patet de eo qui patitur morbum caducum, vel etiam quamcumque alienationem mentis. Quandoque propter abominationem, sicut patet de leproso, qui non debet publice celebrare. Potest tamen dicere Missam occulte, nisi lepra adeo invaluerit quod per corrosionem membrorum eum ad hoc reddiderit impotentem. | Reply to Objection 3: Weakness or sickness contracted by a priest after his ordination does not deprive him of his orders; but hinders him from exercising them, as to the consecration of the Eucharist: sometimes by making it impossible to exercise them, as, for example, if he lose his sight, or his fingers, or the use of speech; and sometimes on account of danger, as in the case of one suffering from epilepsy, or indeed any disease of the mind; and sometimes, on account of loathsomeness, as is evident in the case of a leper, who ought not to celebrate in public: he can, however, say mass privately, unless the leprosy has gone so far that it has rendered him incapable owing to the wasting away of his limbs. |