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. 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. Obj. 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 (Q. 75, A. 5), it is on that account that they are given under another species, lest they beget revulsion in the communicants. Therefore the priest who consecrates is not always bound to receive this sacrament. 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 (Q. 79, AA. 5, 7), the Eucharist is not only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice. Now whoever offers sacrifice must be a sharer in the sacrifice, because the outward sacrifice he offers is a sign of the inner sacrifice whereby he offers himself to God, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x). Hence by partaking of the sacrifice he shows that the inner one is likewise his. In the same way also, by dispensing the sacrifice to the people he shows that he is the dispenser of Divine gifts, of which he ought himself to be the first to partake, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii). Consequently, he ought to receive before dispensing it to the people. Accordingly we read in the chapter mentioned above (Twelfth Council of Toledo, Can. v): What kind of sacrifice is that wherein not even the sacrificer is known to have a share? But it is by partaking of the sacrifice that he has a share in it, as the Apostle says (1 Cor 10:18): Are not they that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar? Therefore it is necessary for the priest, as often as he consecrates, to receive this sacrament in its integrity. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod consecratio chrismatis, vel cuiuscumque alterius materiae, non est sacrificium, sicut consecratio Eucharistiae. Et ideo non est similis ratio. Reply Obj. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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. Articulus 5 Article 5 Utrum malus sacerdos Eucharistiam consecrare possit Whether a wicked priest can consecrate the Eucharist? 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. Obj. 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 Spirit. 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. Obj. 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 (Mal 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 (AA. 1, 3), the priest consecrates this sacrament not by his own power, but as the minister of Christ, in Whose person he consecrates this sacrament. But from the fact of being wicked he does not cease to be Christ’s minister; because our Lord has good and wicked ministers or servants. Hence (Matt 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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. Articulus 6 Article 6 Utrum missa sacerdotis mali minus valeat quam missa sacerdotis boni Whether the mass of a sinful priest is of less worth than the mass of a good priest? 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 Spirit 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. Obj. 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 (Q. 64, A. 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. Obj. 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 (A. 5) in regard to Christ’s ministry. Hence, in this respect the prayer even of the sinful priest is fruitful, not only that which he utters in the mass, but likewise all those he recites in the ecclesiastical offices, wherein he takes the place of the Church. On the other hand, his private prayers are not fruitful, according to Prov. 28:9: He that turneth away his ears from hearing the law, his prayer shall be an abomination. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Gregorius loquitur ibi quantum ad sanctitatem divini sacramenti. Reply Obj. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 3: By reason of the power of the Holy Spirit, 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). Articulus 7 Article 7