Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, in sacramentis aliquid dupliciter significatur, scilicet verbis et factis, ad hoc quod sit perfectior significatio. Significantur autem verbis in celebratione huius sacramenti quaedam pertinentia ad passionem Christi, quae repraesentatur in hoc sacramento; vel etiam ad corpus mysticum, quod significatur in hoc sacramento; et quaedam pertinentia ad usum sacramenti, qui debet esse cum devotione et reverentia. Et ideo in celebratione huius mysterii quaedam aguntur ad repraesentandum passionem Christi; vel etiam dispositionem corporis mystici; et quaedam aguntur pertinentia ad devotionem et reverentiam usus huius sacramenti. I answer that, As was said above (Q. 60, A. 6), there is a twofold manner of signification in the sacraments, by words, and by actions, in order that the signification may thus be more perfect. Now, in the celebration of this sacrament words are used to signify things pertaining to Christ’s Passion, which is represented in this sacrament; or again, pertaining to Christ’s mystical body, which is signified therein; and again, things pertaining to the use of this sacrament, which use ought to be devout and reverent. Consequently, in the celebration of this mystery some things are done in order to represent Christ’s Passion, or the disposing of His mystical body, and some others are done which pertain to the devotion and reverence due to this sacrament. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ablutio manuum fit in celebratione Missae propter reverentiam huius sacramenti. Et hoc dupliciter. Primo quidem, quia aliqua pretiosa tractare non consuevimus nisi manibus ablutis. Unde indecens videtur quod ad tantum sacramentum aliquis accedat manibus, etiam corporaliter, inquinatis. Secundo, propter significationem. Quia, ut Dionysius dicit, III cap. Eccles. Hier., extremitatum ablutio significat emundationem etiam a minimis peccatis, secundum illud Ioan. XIII, qui lotus est, non indiget nisi ut pedes lavet. Et talis emundatio requiritur ab eo qui accedit ad hoc sacramentum. Quod etiam significatur per confessionem quae fit ante introitum Missae. Et hoc idem significabat ablutio sacerdotum in veteri lege, ut ibidem Dionysius dicit. Nec tamen Ecclesia hoc servat tanquam caeremoniale veteris legis praeceptum, sed quasi ab Ecclesia institutum, sicut quiddam secundum se conveniens. Et ideo non eodem modo observatur sicut tunc. Praetermittitur enim pedum ablutio, et servatur ablutio manuum, quae potest fieri magis in promptu, et quae sufficit ad significandam perfectam munditiam. Cum enim manus sit organum organorum, ut dicitur in III de anima, omnia opera attribuuntur manibus. Unde et in Psalmo dicitur, lavabo inter innocentes manus meas. Reply Obj. 1: The washing of the hands is done in the celebration of mass out of reverence for this sacrament; and this for two reasons: first, because we are not wont to handle precious objects except the hands be washed; hence it seems indecent for anyone to approach so great a sacrament with hands that are, even literally, unclean. Second, on account of its signification, because, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), the washing of the extremities of the limbs denotes cleansing from even the smallest sins, according to John 13:10: He that is washed needeth not but to wash his feet. And such cleansing is required of him who approaches this sacrament; and this is denoted by the confession which is made before the Introit of the mass. Moreover, this was signified by the washing of the priests under the Old Law, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii). However, the Church observes this ceremony, not because it was prescribed under the Old Law, but because it is becoming in itself, and therefore instituted by the Church. Hence it is not observed in the same way as it was then: because the washing of the feet is omitted, and the washing of the hands is observed; for this can be done more readily, and suffices for denoting perfect cleansing. For, since the hand is the organ of organs (De Anima iii), all works are attributed to the hands: hence it is said in Ps. 25:6: I will wash my hands among the innocent. Ad secundum dicendum quod thurificatione non utimur quasi caeremoniali praecepto legis, sed sicut Ecclesiae statuto. Unde non eodem modo utimur sicut in veteri lege erat statutum. Pertinet autem ad duo. Primo quidem, ad reverentiam huius sacramenti, ut scilicet per bonum odorem depellatur si quid corporaliter pravi odoris in loco fuerit, quod posset provocare horrorem. Secundo, pertinet ad repraesentandum effectum gratiae, qua, sicut bono odore, Christus plenus fuit, secundum illud Gen. XXVII, ecce, odor filii mei sicut odor agri pleni; et a Christo derivatur ad fideles officio ministrorum, secundum illud II Cor. II, odorem notitiae suae spargit per nos in omni loco. Et ideo, undique thurificato altari, per quod Christus designatur, thurificantur omnes per ordinem. Reply Obj. 2: We use incense, not as commanded by a ceremonial precept of the Law, but as prescribed by the Church; accordingly we do not use it in the same fashion as it was ordered under the Old Law. It has reference to two things: first, to the reverence due to this sacrament, i.e., in order by its good odor, to remove any disagreeable smell that may be about the place; second, it serves to show the effect of grace, wherewith Christ was filled as with a good odor, according to Gen. 27:27: Behold, the odor of my son is like the odor of a ripe field; and from Christ it spreads to the faithful by the work of His ministers, according to 2 Cor. 2:14: He manifesteth the odor of his knowledge by us in every place; and therefore when the altar which represents Christ, has been incensed on every side, then all are incensed in their proper order. Ad tertium dicendum quod sacerdos in celebratione Missae utitur crucesignatione ad exprimendam passionem Christi, quae ad crucem est terminata. Est autem passio Christi quibusdam quasi gradibus peracta. Nam primo fuit Christi traditio, quae facta est a Deo, a Iuda, et a Iudaeis. Quod significat trina crucesignatio super illa verba, haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata. Reply Obj. 3: The priest, in celebrating the mass, makes use of the sign of the cross to signify Christ’s Passion which was ended upon the cross. Now, Christ’s Passion was accomplished in certain stages. First of all there was Christ’s betrayal, which was the work of God, of Judas, and of the Jews; and this is signified by the triple sign of the cross at the words, These gifts, these presents, these holy unspotted sacrifices. Secundo fuit Christi venditio. Est autem venditus sacerdotibus, Scribis et Pharisaeis. Ad quod significandum fit iterum trina crucesignatio super illa verba, benedictam, adscriptam, ratam. Vel ad ostendendum pretium venditionis, scilicet triginta denarios. Additur autem et duplex super illa verba, ut nobis corpus et sanguis, etc., ad designandam personam Iudae venditoris et Christi venditi. Second, there was the selling of Christ. Now he was sold to the Priests, to the Scribes, and to the Pharisees: and to signify this the threefold sign of the cross is repeated, at the words, blessed, enrolled, ratified. Or again, to signify the price for which He was sold, viz. thirty pence. And a double cross is added at the words—that it may become to us the Body and the Blood, etc., to signify the person of Judas the seller, and of Christ Who was sold. Tertio autem fuit praesignatio Passionis Christi facta in cena. Ad quod designandum, fiunt tertio duae cruces, una in consecratione corporis, alia in consecratione sanguinis, ubi utrobique dicitur benedixit. Third, there was the foreshadowing of the Passion at the Last Supper. To denote this, in the third place, two crosses are made, one in consecrating the body, the other in consecrating the blood; each time while saying, He blessed. Quarto autem fuit ipsa passio Christi. Unde, ad repraesentandum quinque plagas, fit quarto quintuplex crucesignatio super illa verba, hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam, panem sanctum vitae aeternae, et calicem salutis perpetuae. Fourth, there was Christ’s Passion itself. And so in order to represent His five wounds, in the fourth place, there is a fivefold signing of the cross at the words, a pure Victim, a holy Victim, a spotless Victim, the holy bread of eternal life, and the cup of everlasting salvation. Quinto, repraesentatur extensio corporis, et effusio sanguinis, et fructus passionis, per trinam crucesignationem quae fit super illis verbis, corpus et sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione et cetera. Fifth, the outstretching of Christ’s body, and the shedding of the blood, and the fruits of the Passion, are signified by the triple signing of the cross at the words, as many as shall receive the body and blood, may be filled with every blessing, etc. Sexto, repraesentatur triplex oratio quam fecit in cruce, unam pro persecutoribus, cum dixit, pater, ignosce illis; secundam pro liberatione a morte, cum dixit, Deus, Deus meus, ut quid dereliquisti me? Tertia pertinet ad adeptionem gloriae, cum dixit, pater, in manus tuas commendo spiritum meum. Et ad hoc significandum, fit trina crucesignatio super illa verba, sanctificas, vivificas, benedicis, et cetera. Sixth, Christ’s threefold prayer upon the cross is represented; one for His persecutors when He said, Father, forgive them; the second for deliverance from death, when He cried, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? the third referring to His entrance into glory, when He said, Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit; and in order to denote these there is a triple signing with the cross made at the words, Thou dost sanctify, quicken, bless. Septimo, repraesentantur tres horae quibus pependit in cruce, scilicet a sexta hora usque ad nonam. Et ad hoc significandum, fit iterum trina crucesignatio ad illa verba, per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso. Seventh, the three hours during which He hung upon the cross, that is, from the sixth to the ninth hour, are represented; in signification of which we make once more a triple sign of the cross at the words, Through Him, and with Him, and in Him. Octavo autem, repraesentatur separatio animae a corpore, per duas cruces subsequentes extra calicem factas. Eighth, the separation of His soul from the body is signified by the two subsequent crosses made over the chalice. Nono autem, repraesentatur resurrectio tertia die facta, per tres cruces quae fiunt ad illa verba, pax domini sit semper vobiscum. Ninth, the resurrection on the third day is represented by the three crosses made at the words—May the peace of the Lord be ever with you. Potest autem brevius dici quod consecratio huius sacramenti, et acceptio sacrificii, et fructus eius, procedit ex virtute crucis Christi. Et ideo, ubicumque fit mentio de aliquo horum, sacerdos crucesignatione utitur. In short, we may say that the consecration of this sacrament, and the acceptance of this sacrifice, and its fruits, proceed from the virtue of the cross of Christ, and therefore wherever mention is made of these, the priest makes use of the sign of the cross. Ad quartum dicendum quod sacerdos post consecrationem non utitur crucesignatione ad benedicendum et consecrandum, sed solum ad commemorandum virtutem crucis et modum passionis Christi, ut ex dictis patet. Reply Obj. 4: After the consecration, the priest makes the sign of the cross, not for the purpose of blessing and consecrating, but only for calling to mind the virtue of the cross, and the manner of Christ’s suffering, as is evident from what has been said (ad 3). Ad quintum dicendum quod ea quae sacerdos in Missa facit, non sunt ridiculosae gesticulationes, fiunt enim ad aliquid repraesentandum. Quod enim sacerdos brachia extendit post consecrationem, significat extensionem brachiorum Christi in cruce. Levat etiam manus orando, ad designandum quod oratio eius pro populo dirigitur ad Deum, secundum illud Thren. III, levemus corda nostra cum manibus ad Deum in caelum. Et Exod. XVII dicitur quod, cum levaret Moyses manus, vincebat Israel. Quod autem manus interdum iungit, et inclinat se, suppliciter et humiliter orans, designat humilitatem et obedientiam Christi, ex qua passus est. Digitos autem iungit post consecrationem, scilicet pollicem cum indice, quibus corpus Christi consecratum tetigerat, ut, si qua particula digitis adhaeserat, non dispergatur. Quod pertinet ad reverentiam sacramenti. Reply Obj. 5: The actions performed by the priest in mass are not ridiculous gestures, since they are done so as to represent something else. The priest in extending his arms signifies the outstretching of Christ’s arms upon the cross. He also lifts up his hands as he prays, to point out that his prayer is directed to God for the people, according to Lam. 3:41: Let us lift up our hearts with our hands to the Lord in the heavens: and Ex. 17:11: And when Moses lifted up his hands Israel overcame. That at times he joins his hands, and bows down, praying earnestly and humbly, denotes the humility and obedience of Christ, out of which He suffered. He closes his fingers, i.e., the thumb and first finger, after the consecration, because, with them, he had touched the consecrated body of Christ; so that if any particle cling to the fingers, it may not be scattered: and this belongs to the reverence for this sacrament. Ad sextum dicendum quod quinquies se sacerdos vertit ad populum, ad designandum quod dominus die resurrectionis quinquies se manifestavit, ut supra dictum est in tractatu de resurrectione Christi. Salutat autem septies populum, scilicet quinque vicibus quando se convertit ad populum, et bis quando se non convertit, scilicet ante praefationem cum dicit, dominus vobiscum, et cum dicit, pax domini sit semper vobiscum, ad designandum septiformem gratiam spiritus sancti. Episcopus autem celebrans in festis in prima salutatione dicit, pax vobis, quod post resurrectionem dixit dominus, cuius personam repraesentat episcopus praecipue. Reply Obj. 6: Five times does the priest turn round towards the people, to denote that our Lord manifested Himself five times on the day of His Resurrection, as stated above in the treatise on Christ’s Resurrection (Q. 55, A. 3, Obj. 3). But the priest greets the people seven times, namely, five times, by turning round to the people, and twice without turning round, namely, when he says, The Lord be with you before the Preface, and again when he says, May the peace of the Lord be ever with you: and this is to denote the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit. But a bishop, when he celebrates on festival days, in his first greeting says, Peace be to you, which was our Lord’s greeting after Resurrection, Whose person the bishop chiefly represents. Ad septimum dicendum quod fractio hostiae tria significat, primo quidem, ipsam divisionem corporis Christi, quae facta est in passione; secundo, distinctionem corporis mystici secundum diversos status; tertio, distributionem gratiarum procedentium ex passione Christi, ut Dionysius dicit, III cap. Eccles. Hier. Unde talis fractio non inducit divisionem Christi. Reply Obj. 7: The breaking of the host denotes three things: first, the rending of Christ’s body, which took place in the Passion; second, the distinction of His mystical body according to its various states; and third, the distribution of the graces which flow from Christ’s Passion, as Dionysius observes (Eccl. Hier. iii). Hence this breaking does not imply severance in Christ. Ad octavum dicendum quod, sicut Sergius Papa dicit, et habetur in decretis, de Consecr., dist. II, triforme est corpus domini. Pars oblata in calicem Missa corpus Christi quod iam resurrexit, demonstrat, scilicet ipsum Christum, et beatam virginem, vel si qui alii sancti cum corporibus sunt in gloria. Pars comesta ambulans adhuc super terram, quia scilicet viventes in terra sacramento uniuntur; et passionibus conteruntur, sicut panis comestus atteritur dentibus. Pars in altari usque ad finem Missae remanens est corpus Christi in sepulcro remanens, quia usque in finem saeculi corpora sanctorum in sepulcris erunt, quorum tamen animae sunt vel in Purgatorio vel in caelo. Hic tamen ritus non servatur modo, ut scilicet una pars servetur usque in finem Missae. Manet tamen eadem significatio partium. Quam quidam metrice expresserunt, dicentes, hostia dividitur in partes, tincta beatos plene, sicca notat vivos, servata sepultos. Reply Obj. 8: As Pope Sergius says, and it is to be found in the Decretals (De Consecr., dist. ii), the Lord’s body is threefold; the part offered and put into the chalice signifies Christ’s risen body, namely, Christ Himself, and the Blessed Virgin, and the other saints, if there be any, who are already in glory with their bodies. The part consumed denotes those still walking upon earth, because while living upon earth they are united together by this sacrament; and are bruised by the passions, just as the bread eaten is bruised by the teeth. The part reserved on the altar till the close of the mass, is His body hidden in the sepulchre, because the bodies of the saints will be in their graves until the end of the world: though their souls are either in purgatory, or in heaven. However, this rite of reserving one part on the altar till the close of the mass is no longer observed, on account of the danger; nevertheless, the same meaning of the parts continues, which some persons have expressed in verse, thus: The host being rent— What is dipped, means the blest; What is dry, means the living; What is kept, those at rest. Quidam tamen dicunt quod pars in calicem Missa significat eos qui vivunt in hoc mundo; pars autem extra calicem servata significat plene beatos quantum ad animam et corpus; pars autem comesta significat ceteros. Others, however, say that the part put into the chalice denotes those still living in this world, while the part kept outside the chalice denotes those fully blessed both in soul and body; while the part consumed means the others. Ad nonum dicendum quod per calicem duo possunt significari. Uno modo, ipsa passio, quae repraesentatur in hoc sacramento. Et secundum hoc, per partem in calicem missam significantur illi qui adhuc sunt participes passionum Christi. Alio modo, potest significari fruitio beata, quae etiam in hoc sacramento praefiguratur. Et ideo illi quorum corpora iam sunt in plena beatitudine, significantur per partem in calicem missam. Et est notandum quod pars in calicem missa non debet populo dari in supplementum communionis, quia panem intinctum non porrexit Christus nisi Iudae proditori. Reply Obj. 9: Two things can be signified by the chalice: first, the Passion itself, which is represented in this sacrament, and according to this, by the part put into the chalice are denoted those who are still sharers of Christ’s sufferings; second, the enjoyment of the Blessed can be signified, which is likewise foreshadowed in this sacrament; and therefore those whose bodies are already in full beatitude, are denoted by the part put into the chalice. And it is to be observed that the part put into the chalice ought not to be given to the people to supplement the communion, because Christ gave dipped bread only to Judas the betrayer. Ad decimum dicendum quod vinum, ratione suae humiditatis, est ablutivum. Et ideo sumitur post perceptionem huius sacramenti, ad abluendum os, ne aliquae reliquiae remaneant, quod pertinet ad reverentiam sacramenti. Unde extra, de Celebrat. Miss., cap. ex parte, sacerdos vino os perfundere debet postquam totum percepit sacramentum, nisi cum eodem die Missam aliam debuerit celebrare, ne, si forte vinum perfusionis acciperet, celebrationem aliam impediret. Et eadem ratione perfundit vino digitos quibus corpus Christi tetigerat. Reply Obj. 10: Wine, by reason of its humidity, is capable of washing, consequently it is received in order to rinse the mouth after receiving this sacrament, lest any particles remain: and this belongs to reverence for the sacrament. Hence (Extra, De Celebratione missae, chap. Ex parte), it is said: The priest should always cleanse his mouth with wine after receiving the entire sacrament of Eucharist: except when he has to celebrate another mass on the same day, lest from taking the ablution-wine he be prevented from celebrating again; and it is for the same reason that wine is poured over the fingers with which he had touched the body of Christ. Ad undecimum dicendum quod veritas quantum ad aliquid debet respondere figurae, quia scilicet non debet pars hostiae consecratae de qua sacerdos et ministri, vel etiam populus communicat, in crastinum reservari. Unde, ut habetur de Consecr., dist. II, Clemens Papa statuit, tanta holocausta in altario offerantur, quanta populo sufficere debeant. Quod si remanserint, in crastinum non reserventur, sed cum timore et tremore clericorum diligentia consumantur. Quia tamen hoc sacramentum quotidie sumendum est, non autem agnus paschalis quotidie sumebatur; ideo oportet alias hostias consecratas pro infirmis conservare. Unde in eadem distinctione legitur, presbyter Eucharistiam semper habeat paratam, ut, quando quis infirmatus fuerit, statim eum communicet, ne sine communione moriatur. Reply Obj. 11: The truth ought to be conformable with the figure, in some respect: namely, because a part of the host consecrated, of which the priest and ministers or even the people communicate, ought not to be reserved until the day following. Hence, as is laid down (De Consecr., dist. ii), Pope Clement I ordered that as many hosts are to be offered on the altar as shall suffice for the people; should any be left over, they are not to be reserved until the morrow, but let the clergy carefully consume them with fear and trembling. Nevertheless, since this sacrament is to be received daily, whereas the Paschal Lamb was not, it is therefore necessary for other hosts to be reserved for the sick. Hence we read in the same distinction: Let the priest always have the Eucharist ready, so that, when anyone fall sick, he may take Communion to him at once, lest he die without it. Ad duodecimum dicendum quod in solemni celebratione Missae plures debent adesse. Unde Soter Papa dicit, ut habetur de Consecr., dist. I, hoc quoque statutum est, ut nullus presbyterorum Missarum solemnia celebrare praesumat, nisi, duobus praesentibus sibique respondentibus, ipse tertius habeatur, quia, cum pluraliter ab eo dicitur, dominus vobiscum, et illud in secretis, orate pro me, apertissime convenit ut ipsi respondeatur salutationi. Unde et, ad maiorem solemnitatem, ibidem statutum legitur quod episcopus cum pluribus Missarum solemnia peragat. In Missis tamen privatis sufficit unum habere ministrum, qui gerit personam totius populi Catholici, ex cuius persona sacerdoti pluraliter respondet. Reply Obj. 12: Several persons ought to be present at the solemn celebration of the mass. Hence Pope Soter says (De Consecr., dist. 1): It has also been ordained, that no priest is to presume to celebrate solemn mass, unless two others be present answering him, while he himself makes the third; because when he says in the plural, ‘The Lord be with you,’ and again in the Secrets, ‘Pray ye for me,’ it is most becoming that they should answer his greeting. Hence it is for the sake of greater solemnity that we find it decreed (De Consecr. dist. 1) that a bishop is to solemnize mass with several assistants. Nevertheless, in private masses it suffices to have one server, who takes the place of the whole Catholic people, on whose behalf he makes answer in the plural to the priest. Articulus 6 Article 6 Utrum possit sufficienter occurri defectibus qui circa celebrationem huius sacramenti occurrunt, statuta ecclesiae observando Whether the defects occurring during the celebration of this sacrament can be sufficiently met by observing the Church’s statutes? Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non possit sufficienter occurri defectibus qui circa celebrationem huius sacramenti occurrunt, statuta Ecclesiae observando. Contingit enim quandoque quod sacerdos, ante consecrationem vel post, moritur vel alienatur, vel aliqua alia infirmitate praepeditur ne sacramentum sumere possit et Missam perficere. Ergo videtur quod non possit impleri statutum Ecclesiae quo praecipitur quod sacerdos consecrans suo sacrificio communicet. Objection 1: It seems that the defects occurring during the celebration of this sacrament cannot be sufficiently met by observing the statutes of the Church. For it sometimes happens that before or after the consecration the priest dies or goes mad, or is hindered by some other infirmity from receiving the sacrament and completing the mass. Consequently it seems impossible to observe the Church’s statute, whereby the priest consecrating must communicate of his own sacrifice. Praeterea, contingit quandoque quod sacerdos, ante consecrationem vel post, recolit se aliquid comedisse vel bibisse, vel alicui mortali peccato subiacere, vel etiam excommunicationi, cuius prius memoriam non habebat. Necesse est ergo quod ille qui est in tali articulo constitutus, peccet mortaliter contra statutum Ecclesiae faciens, sive sumat sive non sumat. Obj. 2: Further, it sometimes happens that, before the consecration, the priest remembers that he has eaten or drunk something, or that he is in mortal sin, or under excommunication, which he did not remember previously. Therefore, in such a dilemma a man must necessarily commit mortal sin by acting against the Church’s statute, whether he receives or not. Praeterea, contingit quandoque quod in calicem musca aut aranea vel aliquod animal venenosum cadit post consecrationem; vel etiam cognoscit sacerdos calici venenum esse immissum ab aliquo malevolo causa occidendi ipsum. In quo casu, si sumat, videtur peccare mortaliter, se occidendo vel Deum tentando. Similiter, si non sumat, peccat, contra statutum Ecclesiae faciens. Ergo videtur esse perplexus et subiectus necessitati peccandi. Quod est inconveniens. Obj. 3: Further, it sometimes happens that a fly or a spider, or some other poisonous creature falls into the chalice after the consecration. Or even that the priest comes to know that poison has been put in by some evilly disposed person in order to kill him. Now in this instance, if he takes it, he appears to sin by killing himself, or by tempting God: also in like manner if he does not take it, he sins by acting against the Church’s statute. Consequently, he seems to be perplexed, and under necessity of sinning, which is not becoming. Praeterea, contingit quod per negligentiam ministri aut aqua non ponitur in calice, aut etiam nec vinum, et hoc sacerdos advertit. Ergo in hoc etiam casu videtur esse perplexus, sive sumat corpus sine sanguine, quasi imperfectum faciens sacrificium; sive non sumens nec corpus nec sanguinem. Obj. 4: Further, it sometimes happens from the server’s want of heed that water is not added to the chalice, or even the wine overlooked, and that the priest discovers this. Therefore he seems to be perplexed likewise in this case, whether he receives the body without the blood, thus making the sacrifice to be incomplete, or whether he receives neither the body nor the blood. Praeterea, contingit quod sacerdos non recolit se dixisse verba consecrationis, vel etiam alia quae in consecratione huius sacramenti dicuntur. Videtur ergo peccare in hoc casu, sive reiteret verba super eandem materiam, quae forte iam dixerat; sive utatur pane et vino non consecratis quasi consecratis. Obj. 5: Further, it sometimes happens that the priest cannot remember having said the words of consecration, or other words which are uttered in the celebration of this sacrament. In this case he seems to sin, whether he repeats the words over the same matter, which words possibly he has said before, or whether he uses bread and wine which are not consecrated, as if they were consecrated. Praeterea, contingit quandoque, propter frigus, quod sacerdoti dilabitur hostia in calicem, sive ante fractionem sive post. In hoc ergo casu non poterit sacerdos implere ritum Ecclesiae vel de ipsa fractione, vel etiam de hoc quod sola tertia pars mittatur in calicem. Obj. 6: Further, it sometimes comes to pass owing to the cold that the host will slip from the priest’s hands into the chalice, either before or after the breaking. In this case then the priest will not be able to comply with the Church’s rite, either as to the breaking, or else as to this, that only a third part is put into the chalice. Praeterea, contingit quandoque quod per negligentiam sacerdotis sanguis Christi effunditur; vel etiam quod sacerdos sacramentum sumptum vomit; aut quod etiam hostiae consecratae tandiu conserventur quod putrefiant; vel etiam quod a muribus corrodantur; vel etiam qualitercumque perdantur. In quibus casibus non videtur posse huic sacramento debita reverentia exhiberi secundum Ecclesiae statuta. Non videtur ergo quod his defectibus seu periculis occurri possit, salvis Ecclesiae statutis. Obj. 7: Further, sometimes, too, it happens, owing to the priest’s want of care, that Christ’s blood is spilled, or that he vomits the sacrament received, or that the consecrated hosts are kept so long that they become corrupt, or that they are nibbled by mice, or lost in any manner whatsoever; in which cases it does not seem possible for due reverence to be shown towards this sacrament, as the Church’s ordinances require. It does not seem then that such defects or dangers can be met by keeping to the Church’s statutes. Sed contra est quod, sicut Deus, sic Ecclesia non praecipit aliquid impossibile. On the contrary, Just as God does not command an impossibility, so neither does the Church. Respondeo dicendum quod periculis seu defectibus circa hoc sacramentum evenientibus dupliciter potest occurri. Uno modo, praeveniendo, ne scilicet periculum accidat. Alio modo, subsequendo, ut scilicet id quod accidit emendetur, vel adhibendo remedium, vel saltem per poenitentiam eius qui negligenter egit circa hoc sacramentum. I answer that, Dangers or defects happening to this sacrament can be met in two ways: first, by preventing any such mishaps from occurring: second, by dealing with them in such a way, that what may have happened amiss is put right, either by employing a remedy, or at least by repentance on his part who has acted negligently regarding this sacrament. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, si sacerdos morte aut infirmitate gravi occupetur ante consecrationem corporis et sanguinis domini, non oportet ut per alium suppleatur. Si vero post incoeptam consecrationem hoc acciderit, puta consecrato corpore ante consecrationem sanguinis, vel etiam consecrato utroque, debet Missae celebritas per alium expleri. Unde, ut habetur in decretis, VII, qu. I, cap. nihil, in Toletano Concilio legitur, censuimus convenire ut, cum a sacerdotibus Missarum tempore sacra mysteria consecrantur, si aegritudinis accidit cuiuslibet eventus quo coeptum nequeat expleri mysterium, sit liberum episcopo vel presbytero alteri consecrationem exequi incoepti officii. Non enim aliud competit ad supplementum initiatis mysteriis quam aut incipientis aut subsequentis benedictione sint completa sacerdotis, quia nec perfecta videri possunt nisi perfecto ordine compleantur. Cum enim omnes simus unum in Christo, nihil contrarium diversitas personarum format, ubi efficaciam prosperitatis unitas fidei repraesentat. Nec tamen quod naturae languoris causa consulitur, in praesumptionis perniciem convertatur. Nullus, absque patenti proventu molestiae, minister vel sacerdos, cum coeperit, imperfecta officia praesumat omnino relinquere. Si quis hoc temerarie praesumpserit, excommunicationis sententiam sustinebit. Reply Obj. 1: If the priest be stricken by death or grave sickness before the consecration of our Lord’s body and blood, there is no need for it to be completed by another. But if this happens after the consecration is begun, for instance, when the body has been consecrated and before the consecration of the blood, or even after both have been consecrated, then the celebration of the mass ought to be finished by someone else. Hence, as is laid down (Decretal vii, q. 1), we read the following decree of the (Seventh) Council of Toledo: We consider it to be fitting that when the sacred mysteries are consecrated by priests during the time of mass, if any sickness supervenes, in consequence of which they cannot finish the mystery begun, let it be free for the bishop or another priest to finish the consecration of the office thus begun. For nothing else is suitable for completing the mysteries commenced, unless the consecration be completed either by the priest who began it, or by the one who follows him: because they cannot be completed except they be performed in perfect order. For since we are all one in Christ, the change of persons makes no difference, since unity of faith insures the happy issue of the mystery. Yet let not the course we propose for cases of natural debility, be presumptuously abused: and let no minister or priest presume ever to leave the Divine offices unfinished, unless he be absolutely prevented from continuing. If anyone shall have rashly presumed to do so, he will incur sentence of excommunication. Ad secundum dicendum quod, ubi difficultas occurrit, semper est accipiendum illud quod habet minus de periculo. Maxime autem periculosum circa hoc sacramentum est quod est contra perfectionem ipsius sacramenti, quia hoc est immane sacrilegium. Minus autem est illud quod pertinet ad qualitatem sumentis. Et ideo, si sacerdos, post consecrationem incoeptam, recordetur aliquid comedisse vel bibisse, nihilominus debet perficere sacrificium et sumere sacramentum. Similiter, si recordetur se peccatum aliquod commisisse, debet poenitere cum proposito confitendi et satisfaciendi, et sic non indigne, sed fructuose sumere sacramentum. Et eadem ratio est si se meminerit excommunicationi cuicumque subiacere. Debet enim assumere propositum absolutionem petendi, et sic per invisibilem pontificem, Iesum Christum, absolutionem consequitur quantum ad hunc actum, quod peragat divina mysteria. Reply Obj. 2: Where difficulty arises, the less dangerous course should always be followed. But the greatest danger regarding this sacrament lies in whatever may prevent its completion, because this is a heinous sacrilege; while that danger is of less account which regards the condition of the receiver. Consequently, if after the consecration has been begun the priest remembers that he has eaten or drunk anything, he ought nevertheless to complete the sacrifice and receive the sacrament. Likewise, if he recalls a sin committed, he ought to make an act of contrition, with the firm purpose of confessing and making satisfaction for it: and thus he will not receive the sacrament unworthily, but with profit. The same applies if he calls to mind that he is under some excommunication; for he ought to make the resolution of humbly seeking absolution; and so he will receive absolution from the invisible High Priest Jesus Christ for his act of completing the Divine mysteries.