Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum consecratio huius sacramenti proprie sit sacerdotis Whether the consecration of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone? 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 (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. 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. Obj. 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. Obj. 3: Further, as Baptism is ordained for the salvation of mankind, so also is this sacrament, as is clear from what was said above (Q. 74, A. 1; Q. 79, A. 2). But a layman can also baptize, as was stated above (Q. 67, A. 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. Obj. 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 (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 (Luke 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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. 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 Obj. 3: The receiving of this sacrament is not of such necessity as the receiving of Baptism, as is evident from what was said above (Q. 65, AA. 3, 4; Q. 80, A. 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 Obj. 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 fulfilment 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. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum plures sacerdotes possunt unam et eandem hostiam consecrare Whether several priests can consecrate one and the same host? 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 (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. 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. Obj. 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. Obj. 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 (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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus non legitur simul baptizasse cum apostolis quando iniunxit eis officium baptizandi. Et ideo non est similis ratio. Reply Obj. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 3: The Eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, which is brought about by many being one in Christ. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum pertineat solum ad sacerdotem dispensatio huius sacramenti Whether dispensing of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone? 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. Obj. 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. Obj. 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 (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. Second, 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. Third, 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 Obj. 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. Second, 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum sacerdos consecrans teneatur sumere hoc sacramentum Whether the priest who consecrates is bound to receive this sacrament? 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. Obj. 2: Further, in the other sacraments the minister does not give the sacrament to himself: for no one can baptize himself, as stated above (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.