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 Utrum liceat sacerdoti omnino a consecratione Eucharistiae abstinere Whether it is lawful for a priest to refrain entirely from consecrating the Eucharist? 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. Obj. 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 (A. 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. Obj. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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. Quaestio 83 Question 83 De ritu huius sacramenti The Rite of This Sacrament Deinde considerandum est de ritu huius sacramenti. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex. We have now to consider the Rite of this sacrament, under which head there are six points of inquiry: Primo, utrum in celebratione huius mysterii Christus immoletur. (1) Whether Christ is sacrificed in the celebration of this mystery? Secundo, de tempore celebrationis. (2) Of the time of celebrating; Tertio, de loco, et aliis quae pertinent ad apparatum huius celebrationis. (3) Of the place and other matters relating to the equipment for this celebration; Quarto, de his quae in celebratione huius mysterii dicuntur. (4) Of the words uttered in celebrating this mystery; Quinto, de his quae circa celebrationem huius mysterii fiunt. (5) Of the actions performed in celebrating this mystery. Sexto, de defectibus qui circa celebrationem huius sacramenti occurrunt. (6) Of the defects which occur in the celebration of this sacrament. Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum in celebratione huius sacramenti Christus immoletur Whether Christ is sacrificed in this sacrament? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in celebratione huius sacramenti Christus non immoletur. Dicitur enim Hebr. X, quod Christus una oblatione consummavit in sempiternum sanctificatos. Sed illa oblatio fuit eius immolatio. Ergo Christus non immolatur in celebratione huius sacramenti. Objection 1: It seems that Christ is not sacrificed in the celebration of this sacrament. For it is written (Heb 10:14) that Christ by one oblation hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. But that oblation was His sacrifice. Therefore Christ is not sacrificed in the celebration of this sacrament. Praeterea, immolatio Christi facta est in cruce, in qua tradidit semetipsum oblationem et hostiam Deo in odorem suavitatis, ut dicitur Ephes. V. Sed in celebratione huius mysterii Christus non crucifigitur. Ergo nec immolatur. Obj. 2: Further, Christ’s sacrifice was made upon the cross, whereon He delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness, as is said in Eph. 5:2. But Christ is not crucified in the celebration of this mystery. Therefore, neither is He sacrificed. Praeterea, sicut Augustinus dicit, IV de Trin., in immolatione Christi idem est sacerdos et hostia. Sed in celebratione huius sacramenti non est idem sacerdos et hostia. Ergo celebratio huius sacramenti non est Christi immolatio. Obj. 3: Further, as Augustine says (De Trin. iv), in Christ’s sacrifice the priest and the victim are one and the same. But in the celebration of this sacrament the priest and the victim are not the same. Therefore, the celebration of this sacrament is not a sacrifice of Christ. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro sententiarum prosperi, semel immolatus est in semetipso Christus, et tamen quotidie immolatur in sacramento. On the contrary, Augustine says in the Liber Sentent. Prosp. (cf. Ep. xcviii): Christ was sacrificed once in Himself, and yet He is sacrificed daily in the Sacrament. Respondeo dicendum quod duplici ratione celebratio huius sacramenti dicitur Christi immolatio. Primo quidem quia, sicut Augustinus dicit, ad Simplicianum, solent imagines earum rerum nominibus appellari quarum imagines sunt, sicut cum, intuentes tabulam aut parietem pictum, dicimus, ille Cicero est, ille Sallustius. Celebratio autem huius sacramenti, sicut supra dictum est, imago est quaedam repraesentativa passionis Christi, quae est vera immolatio. Unde Ambrosius dicit, super epistolam ad Heb., in Christo semel oblata est hostia ad salutem sempiternam potens. Quid ergo nos? Nonne per singulos dies offerimus ad recordationem mortis eius? Alio modo, quantum ad effectum passionis, quia scilicet per hoc sacramentum participes efficimur fructus dominicae passionis. Unde et in quadam dominicali oratione secreta dicitur, quoties huius hostiae commemoratio celebratur, opus nostrae redemptionis exercetur. Quantum igitur ad primum modum, poterat Christus dici immolari etiam in figuris veteris testamenti, unde et in Apoc. XIII dicitur, quorum nomina non sunt scripta in libro vitae agni, qui occisus est ab origine mundi. Sed quantum ad modum secundum, proprium est huic sacramento quod in eius celebratione Christus immoletur. I answer that, The celebration of this sacrament is called a sacrifice for two reasons. First, because, as Augustine says (Ad Simplician. ii), the images of things are called by the names of the things whereof they are the images; as when we look upon a picture or a fresco, we say, ‘This is Cicero and that is Sallust.’ But, as was said above (Q. 79, A. 1), the celebration of this sacrament is an image representing Christ’s Passion, which is His true sacrifice. Accordingly the celebration of this sacrament is called Christ’s sacrifice. Hence it is that Ambrose, in commenting on Heb. 10:1, says: In Christ was offered up a sacrifice capable of giving eternal salvation; what then do we do? Do we not offer it up every day in memory of His death? Second it is called a sacrifice, in respect of the effect of His Passion: because, to wit, by this sacrament, we are made partakers of the fruit of our Lord’s Passion. Hence in one of the Sunday Secrets (Ninth Sunday after Pentecost) we say: Whenever the commemoration of this sacrifice is celebrated, the work of our redemption is enacted. Consequently, according to the first reason, it is true to say that Christ was sacrificed, even in the figures of the Old Testament: hence it is stated in the Apocalypse (13:8): Whose names are not written in the Book of Life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world. But according to the second reason, it is proper to this sacrament for Christ to be sacrificed in its celebration. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Ambrosius ibidem dicit, una est hostia, quam scilicet Christus obtulit et nos offerimus, et non multae, quia semel oblatus est Christus, hoc autem sacrificium exemplum est illius. Sicut enim quod ubique offertur unum est corpus et non multa corpora, ita et unum sacrificium. Reply Obj. 1: As Ambrose says (commenting on Heb. 10:1), there is but one victim, namely that which Christ offered, and which we offer, and not many victims, because Christ was offered but once: and this latter sacrifice is the pattern of the former. For, just as what is offered everywhere is one body, and not many bodies, so also is it but one sacrifice. Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut celebratio huius sacramenti est imago repraesentativa passionis Christi, ita altare est repraesentativum crucis ipsius, in qua Christus in propria specie immolatus est. Reply Obj. 2: As the celebration of this sacrament is an image representing Christ’s Passion, so the altar is representative of the cross itself, upon which Christ was sacrificed in His proper species. Ad tertium dicendum quod, per eandem rationem, etiam sacerdos gerit imaginem Christi, in cuius persona et virtute verba pronuntiat ad consecrandum, ut ex supra dictis patet. Et ita quodammodo idem est sacerdos et hostia. Reply Obj. 3: For the same reason (cf. Reply Obj. 2) the priest also bears Christ’s image, in Whose person and by Whose power he pronounces the words of consecration, as is evident from what was said above (Q. 82, AA. 1, 3). And so, in a measure, the priest and victim are one and the same. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum convenienter sit determinatum tempus celebrationis huius mysterii Whether the time for celebrating this mystery has been properly determined?