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 Utrum haeretici et schismatici et excommunicati consecrare possunt Whether heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons can consecrate? 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. Obj. 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. Obj. 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, those who, 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 those who 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 Obj. 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 (Q. 80, A. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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. Articulus 8 Article 8 Utrum sacerdos degradatus possit hoc sacramentum conficere Whether a degraded priest can consecrate this sacrament? 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. Obj. 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. Obj. 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 (Q. 63, A. 5), just as the consecrations of all other things are perpetual, and cannot be lost or repeated. Hence it is clear that the power of consecrating is not lost by degradation. For, again, Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): Both are sacraments, namely Baptism and order, and both are given to a man with a kind of consecration; the former, when he is baptized; the latter when he is ordained; and therefore it is not lawful for Catholics to repeat either of them. And thus it is evident that the degraded priest can perform this sacrament. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod canon ille non loquitur assertive, sed inquisitive, sicut ex circumstantia litterae haberi potest. Reply Obj. 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 Obj. 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 Matt. 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 Obj. 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. Articulus 9 Article 9 Utrum aliquis licite possit communionem recipere a sacerdotibus haereticis vel excommunicatis, vel etiam peccatoribus, et ab eis missam audire Whether it is permissible to receive Communion from heretical, excommunicate, or sinful priests, and to hear mass said by them? 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. Obj. 2: Further, Christ’s true body is figurative of His mystical body, as was said above (Q. 67, A. 2). But Christ’s true body is consecrated by the priests mentioned above. Therefore it seems that whoever belongs to His mystical body can communicate in their sacrifices. 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. Obj. 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 (AA. 5, 7), heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin. Hence we read in John’s Second Canonical Epistle (11) that He that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works. Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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 (A. 7; Q. 80, A. 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 Obj. 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. Articulus 10 Article 10