EUCHARIST (QQ[80]- 83)
OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST (SIX ARTICLES)
TP Q[80] A[9] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Those lacking the use of reason can have devotion towards the sacrament;
actual devotion in some cases, and past in others.
TP Q[80] A[9] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Dionysius is speaking there of energumens who are not yet baptized, in
whom the devil's power is not yet extinct, since it thrives in them through the presence
of original sin. But as to baptized persons who are vexed in body by unclean spirits, the
same reason holds good of them as of others who are demented. Hence Cassian says (Collat.
vii): "We do not remember the most Holy Communion to have ever been denied by our
elders to them who are vexed by unclean spirits."
TP Q[80] A[9] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The same reason holds good of newly born children as of the insane who
never have had the use of reason: consequently, the sacred mysteries are not to be given
to them. Although certain Greeks do the contrary, because Dionysius says (Eccl.
Hier. ii)
that Holy Communion is to be given to them who are baptized; not understanding that
Dionysius is speaking there of the Baptism of adults. Nor do they suffer any loss of life
from the fact of our Lord saying (Jn. 6:54), "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of
Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you"; because, as Augustine
writes to Boniface (Pseudo-Beda, Comment. in 1 Cor. 10:17), "then every one of the
faithful becomes a partaker," i.e. spiritually, "of the body and blood of the
Lord, when he is made a member of Christ's body in Baptism." But when children once
begin to have some use of reason so as to be able to conceive some devotion for the
sacrament, then it can be given to them.
TP Q[80] A[10] Thes.
Whether it is lawful to receive this sacrament daily?
TP Q[80] A[10] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It does not appear to be lawful to receive this sacrament daily, because, as
Baptism shows forth our Lord's Passion, so also does this sacrament. Now one may not be
baptized several times, but only once, because "Christ died once" only "for
our sins," according to 1 Pt. 3:18. Therefore, it seems unlawful to receive this
sacrament daily.
TP Q[80] A[10] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, the reality ought to answer to the figure. But the Paschal Lamb, which
was the chief figure of this sacrament, as was said above (Q[73], A[9]) was eaten only
once in the year; while the Church once a year commemorates Christ's Passion, of which
this sacrament is the memorial. It seems, then, that it is lawful to receive this
sacrament not daily, but only once in the year.
TP Q[80] A[10] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, the greatest reverence is due to this sacrament as containing Christ.
But it is a token of reverence to refrain from receiving this sacrament; hence the
Centurion is praised for saying (Mt. 8:8), "Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst
enter under my roof"; also Peter, for saying (Lk. 5:8), "Depart from me, for I
am a sinful man, O Lord." Therefore, it is not praiseworthy for a man to receive this
sacrament daily.
TP Q[80] A[10] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, if it were a praiseworthy custom to receive this sacrament frequently,
then the oftener it were taken the more praise-worthy it would be. But there would be
greater frequency if one were to receive it several. times daily; and yet this is not the
custom of the Church. Consequently, it does not seem praiseworthy to receive it daily.
TP Q[80] A[10] Obj. 5
OBJ 5: Further, the Church by her statutes intends to promote the welfare of the
faithful. But the Church's statute only requires Communion once a year; hence it is
enacted (Extra, De Poenit. et Remiss. xii): "Let every person of either sex devoutly
receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least at Easter; unless by the advice of his
parish priest, and for some reasonable cause, he considers he ought to refrain from
receiving for a time." Consequently, it is not praiseworthy to receive this sacrament
daily.
TP Q[80] A[10] OTC
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Verb. Dom., Serm.
xxviii): "This is our daily
bread; take it daily, that it may profit thee daily."
TP Q[80] A[10] Body
I answer that, There are two things to be considered regarding the use of this
sacrament. The first is on the part of the sacrament itself, the virtue of which gives
health to men; and consequently it is profitable to receive it daily so as to receive its
fruits daily. Hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "If, whenever Christ's blood is
shed, it is shed for the forgiveness of sins, I who sin often, should receive it often: I
need a frequent remedy." The second thing to be considered is on the part of the
recipient, who is required to approach this sacrament with great reverence and devotion.
Consequently, if anyone finds that he has these dispositions every day, he will do well to
receive it daily. Hence, Augustine after saying, "Receive daily, that it may profit
thee daily," adds: "So live, as to deserve to receive it daily." But
because many persons are lacking in this devotion, on account of the many drawbacks both
spiritual and corporal from which they suffer, it is not expedient for all to approach
this sacrament every day; but they should do so as often as they find themselves properly
disposed. Hence it is said in De Eccles. Dogmat. liii: "I neither praise nor blame
daily reception of the Eucharist."
TP Q[80] A[10] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: In the sacrament of Baptism a man is conformed to Christ's death, by
receiving His character within him. And therefore, as Christ died but once, so a man ought
to be baptized but once. But a man does not receive Christ's character in this sacrament;
He receives Christ Himself, Whose virtue endures for ever. Hence it is written (Heb.
10:14): "By one oblation He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."
Consequently, since man has daily need of Christ's health-giving virtue, he may
commendably receive this sacrament every day.
TP Q[80] A[10] R.O. 1
And since Baptism is above all a spiritual regeneration, therefore, as a man is born
naturally but once, so ought he by Baptism to be reborn spiritually but once, as Augustine
says (Tract. xi in Joan.), commenting on Jn. 3:4, "How can a man be born again, when
he is grown old?" But this sacrament is spiritual food; hence, just as bodily food is
taken every day, so is it a good thing to receive this sacrament every day. Hence it is
that our Lord (Lk. 11:3), teaches us to pray, "Give us this day our daily
bread": in explaining which words Augustine observes (De Verb. Dom., Serm.
xxviii):
"If you receive it," i.e. this sacrament, every day, "every day is today
for thee, and Christ rises again every day in thee, for when Christ riseth it is
today."
TP Q[80] A[10] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The Paschal Lamb was the figure of this sacrament chiefly as to Christ's
Passion represented therein; and therefore it was partaken of once a year only, since
Christ died but once. And on this account the Church celebrates once a year the
remembrance of Christ's Passion. But in this sacrament the memorial of His Passion is
given by way of food which is partaken of daily; and therefore in this respect it is
represented by the manna which was given daily to the people in the desert.
TP Q[80] A[10] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Reverence for this sacrament consists in fear associated with love;
consequently reverential fear of God is called filial fear, as was said in the FS, Q[67],
A[4], ad 2; SS, Q[19], AA[9],11,12; because the desire of receiving arises from love,
while the humility of reverence springs from fear. Consequently, each of these belongs to
the reverence due to this sacrament; both as to receiving it daily, and as to refraining
from it sometimes. Hence Augustine says (Ep. liv): "If one says that the Eucharist
should not be received daily, while another maintains the contrary, let each one do as
according to his devotion he thinketh right; for Zaccheus and the Centurion did not
contradict one another while the one received the Lord with joy, whereas the other said:
'Lord I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof'; since both honored our
Saviour, though not in the same way." But love and hope, whereunto the Scriptures
constantly urge us, are preferable to fear. Hence, too, when Peter had said, "Depart
from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord," Jesus answered: "Fear not."
TP Q[80] A[10] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: Because our Lord said (Lk. 11:3), "Give us this day our daily
bread," we are not on that account to communicate several times daily, for, by one
daily communion the unity of Christ's Passion is set forth.
TP Q[80] A[10] R.O. 5
Reply OBJ 5: Various statutes have emanated according to the various ages of the
Church. In the primitive Church, when the devotion of the Christian faith was more
flourishing, it was enacted that the faithful should communicate daily: hence Pope
Anaclete says (Ep. i): "When the consecration is finished, let all communicate who do
not wish to cut themselves off from the Church; for so the apostles have ordained, and the
holy Roman Church holds." Later on, when the fervor of faith relaxed, Pope Fabian
(Third Council of Tours, Canon 1) gave permission "that all should communicate, if
not more frequently, at least three times in the year, namely, at Easter, Pentecost, and
Christmas." Pope Soter likewise (Second Council of Chalon, Canon xlvii) declares that
Communion should be received "on Holy Thursday," as is set forth in the
Decretals (De Consecratione, dist. 2). Later on, when "iniquity abounded and charity
grew cold" (Mt. 24:12), Pope Innocent III commanded that the faithful should
communicate "at least once a year," namely, "at Easter." However, in
De Eccles. Dogmat. xxiii, the faithful are counseled "to communicate on all
Sundays."
TP Q[80] A[11] Thes.
Whether it is lawful to abstain altogether from communion?
TP Q[80] A[11] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems to be lawful to abstain altogether from Communion. Because the
Centurion is praised for saying (Mt. 8:8): "Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst
enter under my roof"; and he who deems that he ought to refrain entirely from
Communion can be compared to the Centurion, as stated above (A[10], ad 3). Therefore,
since we do not read of Christ entering his house, it seems to be lawful for any
individual to abstain from Communion his whole life long.
TP Q[80] A[11] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, it is lawful for anyone to refrain from what is not of necessity for
salvation. But this sacrament is not of necessity for salvation, as was stated above
(Q[73], A[3]). Therefore it is permissible to abstain from Communion altogether.
TP Q[80] A[11] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, sinners are not bound to go to Communion: hence Pope Fabian (Third
Council of Tours, Canon 1) after saying, "Let all communicate thrice each year,"
adds: "Except those who are hindered by grievous crimes." Consequently, if those
who are not in the state of sin are bound to go to Communion, it seems that sinners are
better off than good people, which is unfitting. Therefore, it seems lawful even for the
godly to refrain from Communion.
TP Q[80] A[11] OTC
On the contrary, Our Lord said (Jn. 6:54): "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of
Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you."
TP Q[80] A[11] Body
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), there are two ways of receiving this sacrament
namely, spiritually and sacramentally. Now it is clear that all are bound to eat it at
least spiritually, because this is to be incorporated in Christ, as was said above (Q[73],
A[3], ad 1). Now spiritual eating comprises the desire or yearning for receiving this
sacrament, as was said above (A[1], ad 3, A[2]). Therefore, a man cannot be saved without
desiring to receive this sacrament.
TP Q[80] A[11] Body
Now a desire would be vain except it were fulfilled when opportunity presented itself.
Consequently, it is evident that a man is bound to receive this sacrament, not only by
virtue of the Church's precept, but also by virtue of the Lord's command (Lk. 22:19):
"Do this in memory of Me." But by the precept of the Church there are fixed
times for fulfilling Christ's command.
TP Q[80] A[11] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: As Gregory says: "He is truly humble, who is not obstinate in
rejecting what is commanded for his good." Consequently, humility is not praiseworthy
if anyone abstains altogether from Communion against the precept of Christ and the Church.
Again the Centurion was not commanded to receive Christ into his house.
TP Q[80] A[11] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: This sacrament is said not to be as necessary as Baptism, with regard to
children, who can be saved without the Eucharist, but not without the sacrament of
Baptism: both, however, are of necessity with regard to adults.
TP Q[80] A[11] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Sinners suffer great loss in being kept back from receiving this
sacrament, so that they are not better off on that account; and although while continuing
in their sins they are not on that account excused from transgressing the precept,
nevertheless, as Pope Innocent III says, penitents, "who refrain on the advice of
their priest," are excused.
TP Q[80] A[12] Thes.
Whether it is lawful to receive the body of Christ without the blood?
TP Q[80] A[12] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems unlawful to receive the body of Christ without the blood. For Pope
Gelasius says (cf. De Consecr. ii): "We have learned that some persons after taking
only a portion of the sacred body, abstain from the chalice of the sacred blood. I know
not for what superstitious motive they do this: therefore let them either receive the
entire sacrament, or let them be withheld from the sacrament altogether." Therefore
it is not lawful to receive the body of Christ without His blood.
TP Q[80] A[12] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, the eating of the body and the drinking of the blood are required for
the perfection of this sacrament, as stated above (Q[73], A[2]; Q[76], A[2], ad 1).
Consequently, if the body be taken without the blood, it will be an imperfect sacrament,
which seems to savor of sacrilege; hence Pope Gelasius adds (cf. De Consecr. ii),
"because the dividing of one and the same mystery cannot happen without a great
sacrilege."
TP Q[80] A[12] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, this sacrament is celebrated in memory of our Lord's Passion, as stated
above (Q[73], AA[4],5; Q[74], A[1]), and is received for the health of soul. But the
Passion is expressed in the blood rather than in the body; moreover, as stated above
(Q[74], A[1]), the blood is offered for the health of the soul. Consequently, one ought to
refrain from receiving the body rather than the blood. Therefore, such as approach this
sacrament ought not to take Christ's body without His blood.
TP Q[80] A[12] OTC
On the contrary, It is the custom of many churches for the body of Christ to be given
to the communicant without His blood.
TP Q[80] A[12] Body
I answer that, Two points should be observed regarding the use of this sacrament, one
on the part of the sacrament, the other on the part of the recipients; on the part of the
sacrament it is proper for both the body and the blood to be received, since the
perfection of the sacrament lies in both, and consequently, since it is the priest's duty
both to consecrate and finish the sacrament, he ought on no account to receive Christ's
body without the blood.
TP Q[80] A[12] Body
But on the part of the recipient the greatest reverence and caution are called for,
lest anything happen which is unworthy of so great a mystery. Now this could especially
happen in receiving the blood, for, if incautiously handled, it might easily be spilt. And
because the multitude of the Christian people increased, in which there are old, young,
and children, some of whom have not enough discretion to observe due caution in using this
sacrament, on that account it is a prudent custom in some churches for the blood not to be
offered to the reception of the people, but to be received by the priest alone.
TP Q[80] A[12] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Pope Gelasius is speaking of priests, who, as they consecrate the entire
sacrament, ought to communicate in the entire sacrament. For, as we read in the (Twelfth)
Council of Toledo, "What kind of a sacrifice is that, wherein not even the sacrificer
is known to have a share?"
TP Q[80] A[12] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The perfection of this sacrament does not lie in the use of the faithful,
but in the consecration of the matter. And hence there is nothing derogatory to the
perfection of this sacrament; if the people receive the body without the blood, provided
that the priest who consecrates receive both.
TP Q[80] A[12] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Our Lord's Passion is represented in the very consecration of this
sacrament, in which the body ought not to be consecrated without the blood. But the body
can be received by the people without the blood: nor is this detrimental to the sacrament.
Because the priest both offers and consumes the blood on behalf of all; and Christ is
fully contained under either species, as was shown above (Q[76], A[2]).
TP Q[81] Out.
OF
THE USE WHICH CHRIST MADE OF THIS SACRAMENT AT ITS INSTITUTION (FOUR ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the use which Christ made of this sacrament at its institution;
under which heading there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ received His own body and blood?
(2) Whether He gave it to Judas?
(3) What kind of body did He receive or give, namely, was it passible or impassible?
(4) What would have been the condition of Christ's body under this sacrament, if it had
been reserved or consecrated during the three days He lay dead?
TP Q[81] A[1] Thes.
Whether Christ received His own body and blood?
TP Q[81] A[1] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ did not receive His own body and blood, because nothing
ought to be asserted of either Christ's doings or sayings, which is not handed down by the
authority of Sacred Scripture. But it is not narrated in the gospels that He ate His own
body or drank His own blood. Therefore we must not assert this as a fact.
TP Q[81] A[1] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, nothing can be within itself except perchance by reason of its parts,
for instance. as one part is in another, as is stated in Phys. iv. But what is eaten and
drunk is in the eater and drinker. Therefore, since the entire Christ is under each
species of the sacrament, it seems impossible for Him to have received this sacrament.
TP Q[81] A[1] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, the receiving of this sacrament is twofold, namely, spiritual and
sacramental. But the spiritual was unsuitable for Christ, as He derived no benefit from
the sacrament. and in consequence so was the sacramental, since it is imperfect without
the spiritual, as was observed above (Q[80], A[1]). Consequently, in no way did Christ
partake of this sacrament.
TP Q[81] A[1] OTC
On the contrary, Jerome says (Ad Hedib., Ep. xxx), "The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself
the guest and banquet, is both the partaker and what is eaten."
TP Q[81] A[1] Body
I answer that, Some have said that Christ during the supper gave His body and blood to
His disciples, but did not partake of it Himself. But this seems improbable. Because
Christ Himself was the first to fulfill what He required others to observe: hence He
willed first to be baptized when imposing Baptism upon others: as we read in Acts 1:1:
"Jesus began to do and to teach." Hence He first of all took His own body and
blood, and afterwards gave it to be taken by the disciples. And hence the gloss upon Ruth
3:7, "When he had eaten and drunk, says: Christ ate and drank at the supper, when He
gave to the disciples the sacrament of His body and blood. Hence, 'because the children
partook [*Vulg.: 'are partakers' (Heb. 2:14)] of His flesh and blood, He also hath been
partaker in the same.'"
TP Q[81] A[1] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: We read in the Gospels how Christ "took the bread . . . and the
chalice"; but it is not to be understood that He took them merely into His hands, as
some say. but that He took them in the same way as He gave them to others to take. Hence
when He said to the disciples, "Take ye and eat," and again, "Take ye and
drink," it is to be understood that He Himself, in taking it, both ate and drank.
Hence some have composed this rhyme:
"The King at supper sits,
The twelve as guests He greets,
Clasping Himself in His hands,
The food Himself now eats."
TP Q[81] A[1] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: As was said above (Q[76], A[5]), Christ as contained under this sacrament
stands in relation to place, not according to His own dimensions, but according to the
dimensions of the sacramental species; so that Christ is Himself in every place where
those species are. And because the species were able to be both in the hands and the mouth
of Christ, the entire Christ could be in both His hands and mouth. Now this could not come
to pass were His relation to place to be according to His proper dimensions.
TP Q[81] A[1] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: As was stated above (Q[79], A[1], ad 2), the effect of this sacrament is
not merely an increase of habitual grace, but furthermore a certain actual delectation of
spiritual sweetness. But although grace was not increased in Christ through His receiving
this sacrament, yet He had a certain spiritual delectation from the new institution of
this sacrament. Hence He Himself said (Lk. 22:15): "With desire I have desired to eat
this Pasch with you," which words Eusebius explains of the new mystery of the New
Testament, which He gave to the disciples. And therefore He ate it both spiritually and
sacramentally, inasmuch as He received His own body under the sacrament which sacrament of
His own body He both understood and prepared; yet differently from others who partake of
it both sacramentally and spiritually, for these receive an increase of grace, and they
have need of the sacramental signs for perceiving its truth.
TP Q[81] A[2] Thes.
Whether Christ gave His body to Judas?
TP Q[81] A[2] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ did not give His body to Judas. Because, as we read (Mt.
26:29), our Lord, after giving His body and blood to the disciples, said to them: "I
will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall
drink it with you new in the kingdom of My Father." From this it appears that those
to whom He had given His body and blood were to drink of it again with Him. But Judas did
not drink of it afterwards with Him. Therefore he did not receive Christ's body and blood
with the other disciples.
TP Q[81] A[2] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, what the Lord commanded, He Himself fulfilled, as is said in Acts 1:1:
"Jesus began to do and to teach." But He gave the command (Mt. 7:6): "Give
not that which is holy to dogs." Therefore, knowing Judas to be a sinner, seemingly
He did not give him His body and blood.
TP Q[81] A[2] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, it is distinctly related (Jn. 13:26) that Christ gave dipped bread to
Judas. Consequently, if He gave His body to him, it appears that He gave it him in the
morsel, especially since we read (Jn. 13:26) that "after the morsel, Satan entered
into him." And on this passage Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan.): "From this
we learn how we should beware of receiving a good thing in an evil way . . . For if he be
'chastised' who does 'not discern,' i.e. distinguish, the body of the Lord from other
meats, how must he be 'condemned' who, feigning himself a friend, comes to His table a
foe?" But (Judas) did not receive our Lord's body with the dipped morsel; thus
Augustine commenting on Jn. 13:26, "When He had dipped the bread, He gave it to
Judas, the son of Simon the Iscariot [Vulg.: 'to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon],"
says (Tract. lxii in Joan.): "Judas did not receive Christ's body then, as some think
who read carelessly." Therefore it seems that Judas did not receive the body of
Christ.
TP Q[81] A[2] OTC
On the contrary, Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxii in Matth.): "Judas was not converted
while partaking of the sacred mysteries: hence on both sides his crime becomes the more
heinous, both because imbued with such a purpose he approached the mysteries, and because
he became none the better for approaching, neither from fear, nor from the benefit
received, nor from the honor conferred on him."
TP Q[81] A[2] Body
I answer that, Hilary, in commenting on Mt. 26:17, held that Christ did not give His
body and blood to Judas. And this would have been quite proper, if the malice of Judas be
considered. But since Christ was to serve us as a pattern of justice, it was not in
keeping with His teaching authority to sever Judas, a hidden sinner, from Communion with
the others without an accuser and evident proof. lest the Church's prelates might have an
example for doing the like, and lest Judas himself being exasperated might take occasion
of sinning. Therefore, it remains to be said that Judas received our Lord's body and blood
with the other disciples, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), and Augustine (Tract. lxii
in Joan.).
TP Q[81] A[2] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: This is Hilary's argument, to show that Judas did not receive Christ's
body. But it is not cogent; because Christ is speaking to the disciples, from whose
company Judas separated himself: and it was not Christ that excluded him. Therefore Christ
for His part drinks the wine even with Judas in the kingdom of God; but Judas himself
repudiated this banquet.
TP Q[81] A[2] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The wickedness of Judas was known to Christ as God; but it was unknown to
Him, after the manner in which men know it. Consequently, Christ did not repel Judas from
Communion; so as to furnish an example that such secret sinners are not to be repelled by
other priests.
TP Q[81] A[2] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Without any doubt Judas did not receive Christ's body in the dipped bread;
he received mere bread. Yet as Augustine observes (Tract. lxii in Joan.), "perchance
the feigning of Judas is denoted by the dipping of the bread; just as some things are
dipped to be dyed. If, however, the dipping signifies here anything good" (for
instance, the sweetness of the Divine goodness, since bread is rendered more savory by
being dipped), "then, not undeservedly, did condemnation follow his ingratitude for
that same good." And owing to that ingratitude, "what is good became evil to
him, as happens to them who receive Christ's body unworthily."
TP Q[81] A[2] R.O. 3
And as Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan.), "it must be understood that our Lord
had already distributed the sacrament of His body and blood to all His disciples, among
whom was Judas also, as Luke narrates: and after that, we came to this, where, according
to the relation of John, our Lord, by dipping and handing the morsel, does most openly
declare His betrayer."
TP Q[81] A[3] Thes.
Whether Christ received and gave to the disciples His impassible body?
TP Q[81] A[3] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ both received and gave to the disciples His impassible
body. Because on Mt. 17:2, "He was transfigured before them," the gloss says:
"He gave to the disciples at the supper that body which He had through nature, but
neither mortal nor passible." And again, on Lev. 2:5, "if thy oblation be from
the frying-pan," the gloss says: "The Cross mightier than all things made
Christ's flesh fit for being eaten, which before the Passion did not seem so suited."
But Christ gave His body as suited for eating. Therefore He gave it just as it was after
the Passion, that is, impassible and immortal.
TP Q[81] A[3] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, every passible body suffers by contact and by being eaten.
Consequently, if Christ's body was passible, it would have suffered both from contact and
from being eaten by the disciples.
TP Q[81] A[3] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, the sacramental words now spoken by the priest in the person of Christ
are not more powerful than when uttered by Christ Himself. But now by virtue of the
sacramental words it is Christ's impassible and immortal body which is consecrated upon
the altar. Therefore, much more so was it then.
TP Q[81] A[3] OTC
On the contrary, As Innocent III says (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), "He bestowed on
the disciples His body such as it was." But then He had a passible and a mortal body.
Therefore, He gave a passible and mortal body to the disciples.
TP Q[81] A[3] Body
I answer that, Hugh of Saint Victor (Innocent III, De Sacr. Alt.
Myst. iv), maintained,
that before the Passion, Christ assumed at various times the four properties of a
glorified body ---namely, subtlety in His birth, when He came forth from the closed womb
of the Virgin; agility, when He walked dryshod upon the sea; clarity, in the
Transfiguration; and impassibility at the Last Supper, when He gave His body to the
disciples to be eaten. And according to this He gave His body in an impassible and
immortal condition to His disciples.
TP Q[81] A[3] Body
But whatever may be the case touching the other qualities, concerning which we have
already stated what should be held (Q[28], A[2], ad 3; Q[45], A[2]), nevertheless the
above opinion regarding impassibility is inadmissible. For it is manifest that the same
body of Christ which was then seen by the disciples in its own species, was received by
them under the sacramental species. But as seen in its own species it was not impassible;
nay more, it was ready for the Passion. Therefore, neither was Christ's body impassible
when given under the sacramental species.
TP Q[81] A[3] Body
Yet there was present in the sacrament, in an impassible manner, that which was
passible of itself; just as that was there invisibly which of itself was visible. For as
sight requires that the body seen be in contact with the adjacent medium of sight, so does
passion require contact of the suffering body with the active agents. But Christ's body,
according as it is under the sacrament, as stated above (A[1], ad 2; Q[76], A[5]), is not
compared with its surroundings through the intermediary of its own dimensions, whereby
bodies touch each other, but through the dimensions of the bread and wine; consequently,
it is those species which are acted upon and are seen, but not Christ's own body.
TP Q[81] A[3] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ is said not to have given His mortal and passible body at the
supper, because He did not give it in mortal and passible fashion. But the Cross made His
flesh adapted for eating, inasmuch as this sacrament represents Christ's Passion.
TP Q[81] A[3] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: This argument would hold, if Christ's body, as it was
passible, were also
present in a passible manner in this sacrament.
TP Q[81] A[3] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[76], A[4]), the accidents of Christ's body are in this
sacrament by real concomitance, but not by the power of the sacrament, whereby the
substance of Christ's body comes to be there. And therefore the power of the sacramental
words extends to this, that the body, i.e. Christ's, is under this sacrament, whatever
accidents really exist in it.
TP Q[81] A[4] Thes.
Whether, if this sacrament had been reserved in a pyx, or consecrated at the moment of
Christ's death by one of the apostles, Christ Himself would have died there?
TP Q[81] A[4] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that if this sacrament had been reserved in a pyx at the moment of
Christ's death, or had then been consecrated by one of the apostles, that Christ would not
have died there. For Christ's death happened through His Passion. But even then He was in
this sacrament in an impassible manner. Therefore, He could not die in this sacrament.
TP Q[81] A[4] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, on the death of Christ, His blood was separated from the body. But His
flesh and blood are together in this sacrament. Therefore He could not die in this
sacrament.
TP Q[81] A[4] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, death ensues from the separation of the soul from the body. But both
the body and the soul of Christ are contained in this sacrament. Therefore Christ could
not die in this sacrament.
TP Q[81] A[4] OTC
On the contrary, The same Christ Who was upon the cross would have been in this
sacrament. But He died upon the cross. Therefore, if this sacrament had been reserved, He
would have died therein.
TP Q[81] A[4] Body
I answer that, Christ's body is substantially the same in this sacrament, as in its
proper species, but not after the same fashion; because in its proper species it comes in
contact with surrounding bodies by its own dimensions: but it does not do so as it is in
this sacrament, as stated above (A[3]). And therefore, all that belongs to Christ, as He
is in Himself, can be attributed to Him both in His proper species, and as He exists in
the sacrament; such as to live, to die, to grieve, to be animate or inanimate, and the
like; while all that belongs to Him in relation to outward bodies, can be attributed to
Him as He exists in His proper species, but not as He is in this sacrament; such as to be
mocked, to be spat upon, to be crucified, to be scourged, and the rest. Hence some have
composed this verse:
TP Q[81] A[4] Body
"Our Lord can grieve beneath the sacramental veils But cannot feel the piercing of
the thorns and nails."
TP Q[81] A[4] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: As was stated above, suffering belongs to a body that suffers in respect
of some extrinsic body. And therefore Christ, as in this sacrament, cannot suffer; yet He
can die.
TP Q[81] A[4] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: As was said above (Q[76], A[2]), in virtue of the consecration, the body
of Christ is under the species of bread, while His blood is under the species of wine. But
now that His blood is not really separated from His body; by real concomitance, both His
blood is present with the body under the species of the bread, and His body together with
the blood under the species of the wine. But at the time when Christ suffered, when His
blood was really separated from His body, if this sacrament had been consecrated, then the
body only would have been present under the species of the bread, and the blood only under
the species of the wine.
TP Q[81] A[4] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: As was observed above (Q[76], A[1], ad 1), Christ's soul is in this
sacrament by real concomitance; because it is not without the body: but it is not there in
virtue of the consecration. And therefore, if this sacrament had been consecrated then, or
reserved, when His soul was really separated from His body, Christ's soul would not have
been under this sacrament, not from any defect in the form of the words, but owing to the
different dispositions of the thing contained.
TP Q[82] Out.
OF
THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT (TEN ARTICLES)
We now proceed to consider the minister of this sacrament: under which head there are
ten points for our inquiry:
(1) Whether it belongs to a priest alone to consecrate this sacrament?
(2) Whether several priests can at the same time consecrate the same host?
(3) Whether it belongs to the priest alone to dispense this sacrament?
(4) Whether it is lawful for the priest consecrating to refrain from communicating?
(5) Whether a priest in sin can perform this sacrament?
(6) Whether the Mass of a wicked priest is of less value than that of a good one?
(7) Whether those who are heretics, schismatics, or excommunicated, can perform this
sacrament?
(8) Whether degraded priests can do so?
(9) Whether communicants receiving at their hands are guilty of sinning?
(10) Whether a priest may lawfully refrain altogether from celebrating?
[*This is the order observed by St. Thomas in writing the Articles; but in writing this
prologue, he placed Article 10 immediately after Article 4 (Cf. Leonine edition).]
TP Q[82] A[1] Thes.
Whether the consecration of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone?
TP Q[82] A[1] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the consecration of this sacrament does not belong exclusively to
a priest. Because it was said above (Q[78], A[4]) that this sacrament is consecrated in
virtue of the words, which are the form of this sacrament. But those words are not
changed, whether spoken by a priest or by anyone else. Therefore, it seems that not only a
priest, but anyone else, can consecrate this sacrament.
TP Q[82] A[1] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, the priest performs this sacrament in the person of Christ. But a
devout layman is united with Christ through charity. Therefore, it seems that even a
layman can perform this sacrament. Hence Chrysostom (Opus imperfectum in Matth., Hom.
xliii) says that "every holy man is a priest."
TP Q[82] A[1] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, as Baptism is ordained for the salvation of mankind, so also is this
sacrament, as is clear from what was said above (Q[74], A[1] ; Q[79], A[2]). But a layman
can also baptize, as was stated above (Q[67] , A[3]). Consequently, the consecration of
this sacrament is not proper to a priest.
TP Q[82] A[1] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the matter. But the
consecration of other matters such as the chrism, the holy oil, and blessed oil, belongs
exclusively to a bishop; yet their consecration does not equal the dignity of the
consecration of the Eucharist, in which the entire Christ is contained. Therefore it
belongs, not to a priest, but only to a bishop, to perform this sacrament.
TP Q[82] A[1] OTC
On the contrary, Isidore says in an Epistle to Ludifred (Decretals, dist. 25): "It
belongs to a priest to consecrate this sacrament of the Lord's body and blood upon God's
altar."
TP Q[82] A[1] Body
I answer that, As stated above (Q[78], AA[1],4), such is the dignity of this sacrament
that it is performed only as in the person of Christ. Now whoever performs any act in
another's stead, must do so by the power bestowed by such a one. But as the power of
receiving this sacrament is conceded by Christ to the baptized person, so likewise the
power of consecrating this sacrament on Christ's behalf is bestowed upon the priest at his
ordination: for thereby he is put upon a level with them to whom the Lord said (Lk.
22:19): "Do this for a commemoration of Me." Therefore, it must be said that it
belongs to priests to accomplish this sacrament.
TP Q[82] A[1] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: The sacramental power is in several things, and not merely in one: thus
the power of Baptism lies both in the words and in the water. Accordingly the consecrating
power is not merely in the words, but likewise in the power delivered to the priest in his
consecration and ordination, when the bishop says to him: "Receive the power of
offering up the Sacrifice in the Church for the living as well as for the dead." For
instrumental power lies in several instruments through which the chief agent acts.
TP Q[82] A[1] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: A devout layman is united with Christ by spiritual union through faith and
charity, but not by sacramental power: consequently he has a spiritual priesthood for
offering spiritual sacrifices, of which it is said (Ps. 1:19): "A sacrifice to God is
an afflicted spirit"; and (Rm. 12:1): "Present your bodies a living
sacrifice." Hence, too, it is written (1 Pt. 2:5): "A holy priesthood, to offer
up spiritual sacrifices."
TP Q[82] A[1] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The receiving of this sacrament is not of such necessity as the receiving
of Baptism, as is evident from what was said above (Q[65], AA[3],4; Q[80], A[11], ad 2).
And therefore, although a layman can baptize in case of necessity, he cannot perform this
sacrament.
TP Q[82] A[1] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: The bishop receives power to act on Christ's behalf upon His mystical
body, that is, upon the Church; but the priest receives no such power in his consecration,
although he may have it by commission from the bishop. Consequently all such things as do
not belong to the mystical body are not reserved to the bishop, such as the consecration
of this sacrament. But it belongs to the bishop to deliver, not only to the people, but
likewise to priests, such things as serve them in the fulfillment of their respective
duties. And because the blessing of the chrism, and of the holy oil, and of the oil of the
sick, and other consecrated things, such as altars, churches, vestments, and sacred
vessels, makes such things fit for use in performing the sacraments which belong to the
priestly duty, therefore such consecrations are reserved to the bishop as the head of the
whole ecclesiastical order.
TP Q[82] A[2] Thes.
Whether several priests can consecrate one and the same host?
TP Q[82] A[2] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that several priests cannot consecrate one and the same host. For it
was said above (Q[67], A[6]), that several cannot at the same time baptize one individual.
But the power of a priest consecrating is not less than that of a man baptizing.
Therefore, several priests cannot consecrate one host at the same time.
TP Q[82] A[2] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, what can be done by one, is superfluously done by several. But there
ought to be nothing superfluous in the sacraments. Since, then, one is sufficient for
consecrating, it seems that several cannot consecrate one host.
TP Q[82] A[2] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, as Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), this is "the sacrament
of unity." But multitude seems to be opposed to unity. Therefore it seems
inconsistent with the sacrament for several priests to consecrate the same host.
TP Q[82] A[2] OTC
On the contrary, It is the custom of some Churches for priests newly ordained to
co-celebrate with the bishop ordaining them.
TP Q[82] A[2] Body
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), when a priest is ordained he is placed on a
level with those who received consecrating power from our Lord at the Supper. And
therefore, according to the custom of some Churches, as the apostles supped when Christ
supped, so the newly ordained co-celebrate with the ordaining bishop. Nor is the
consecration, on that account, repeated over the same host, because as Innocent III says
(De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), the intention of all should be directed to the same instant of
the consecration.
TP Q[82] A[2] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: We do not read of Christ baptizing with the apostles when He committed to
them the duty of baptizing; consequently there is no parallel.
TP Q[82] A[2] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: If each individual priest were acting in his own power, then other
celebrants would be superfluous, since one would be sufficient. But whereas the priest
does not consecrate except as in Christ's stead; and since many are "one in
Christ" (Gal. 3:28); consequently it does not matter whether this sacrament be
consecrated by one or by many, except that the rite of the Church must be observed.
TP Q[82] A[2] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The Eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, which is brought
about by many being "one in Christ."
TP Q[82] A[3] Thes.
Whether dispensing of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone?
TP Q[82] A[3] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the dispensing of this sacrament does not belong to a priest
alone. For Christ's blood belongs to this sacrament no less than His body. But Christ's
blood is dispensed by deacons: hence the blessed Lawrence said to the blessed Sixtus
(Office of St. Lawrence, Resp. at Matins): "Try whether you have chosen a fit
minister, to whom you have entrusted the dispensing of the Lord's blood." Therefore,
with equal reason the dispensing of Christ's body does not belong to priests only.
TP Q[82] A[3] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, priests are the appointed ministers of the sacraments. But this
sacrament is completed in the consecration of the matter, and not in the use, to which the
dispensing belongs. Therefore it seems that it does not belong to a priest to dispense the
Lord's body.
TP Q[82] A[3] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii, iv) that this sacrament, like chrism,
has the power of perfecting. But it belongs, not to priests, but to bishops, to sign with
the chrism. Therefore likewise, to dispense this sacrament belongs to the bishop and not
to the priest.
TP Q[82] A[3] OTC
On the contrary, It is written (De Consecr., dist. 12): "It has come to our
knowledge that some priests deliver the Lord's body to a layman or to a woman to carry it
to the sick: The synod therefore forbids such presumption to continue; and let the priest
himself communicate the sick."
TP Q[82] A[3] Body
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. Secondly, 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. Thirdly,
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.
TP Q[82] A[3] R.O. 1
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. Secondly, 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.
TP Q[82] A[3] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: For the reason given above, it belongs to the same person to dispense and
to consecrate this sacrament.
TP Q[82] A[3] R.O. 3
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.
TP Q[82] A[4] Thes.
Whether the priest who consecrates is bound to receive this sacrament?
TP Q[82] A[4] Obj. 1
OBJ 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.
TP Q[82] A[4] Obj. 2
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.
TP Q[82] A[4] Obj. 3
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.
TP Q[82] A[4] OTC
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."
TP Q[82] A[4] Body
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.
TP Q[82] A[4] R.O. 1
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.
TP Q[82] A[4] R.O. 2
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.
TP Q[82] A[4] R.O. 3
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.
TP Q[82] A[5] Thes.
Whether a wicked priest can consecrate the Eucharist?
TP Q[82] A[5] Obj. 1
OBJ 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.
TP Q[82] A[5] Obj. 2
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
Ghost." 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.
TP Q[82] A[5] Obj. 3
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
(Malachi 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."
TP Q[82] A[5] OTC
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."
TP Q[82] A[5] Body
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 (Mt. 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.
TP Q[82] A[5] R.O. 1
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.
TP Q[82] A[5] R.O. 2
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.
TP Q[82] A[5] R.O. 3
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."
TP Q[82] A[6] Thes.
Whether the mass of a sinful priest is of less worth than the mass of a good priest?
TP Q[82] A[6] Obj. 1
OBJ 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 Ghost 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.
TP Q[82] A[6] Obj. 2
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.
TP Q[82] A[6] Obj. 3
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.
TP Q[82] A[6] OTC
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."
TP Q[82] A[6] Body
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.
TP Q[82] A[6] Body
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."
TP Q[82] A[6] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Gregory is speaking there of the holiness of the Divine sacrament.
TP Q[82] A[6] R.O. 2
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.
TP Q[82] A[6] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: By reason of the power of the Holy Ghost, 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).
TP Q[82] A[7] Thes.
Whether heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons can consecrate?
TP Q[82] A[7] Obj. 1
OBJ 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.
TP Q[82] A[7] Obj. 2
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.
TP Q[82] A[7] Obj. 3
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.
TP Q[82] A[7] OTC
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.
TP Q[82] A[7] Body
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, such as, 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 such as 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.
TP Q[82] A[7] R.O. 1
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.
TP Q[82] A[7] R.O. 2
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.
TP Q[82] A[7] R.O. 3
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.
TP Q[82] A[8] Thes.
Whether a degraded priest can consecrate this sacrament?
TP Q[82] A[8] Obj. 1
OBJ 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.
TP Q[82] A[8] Obj. 2
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.
TP Q[82] A[8] Obj. 3
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.
TP Q[82] A[8] OTC
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.
TP Q[82] A[8] Body
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.
TP Q[82] A[8] R.O. 1
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.
TP Q[82] A[8] R.O. 2
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 Mt. 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.
TP Q[82] A[8] R.O. 3
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.
TP Q[82] A[9] Thes.
Whether it is permissible to receive communion from heretical, excommunicate, or sinful
priests, and to hear mass said by them?
TP Q[82] A[9] Obj. 1
OBJ 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.
TP Q[82] A[9] Obj. 2
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.
TP Q[82] A[9] Obj. 3
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.
TP Q[82] A[9] OTC
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."
TP Q[82] A[9] Body
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.
TP Q[82] A[9] Body
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."
TP Q[82] A[9] R.O. 1
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.
TP Q[82] A[9] R.O. 2
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.
TP Q[82] A[9] R.O. 3
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.
TP Q[82] A[10] Thes.
Whether it is lawful for a priest to refrain entirely from consecrating the Eucharist?
TP Q[82] A[10] Obj. 1
OBJ 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.
TP Q[82] A[10] Obj. 2
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.
TP Q[82] A[10] Obj. 3
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.
TP Q[82] A[10] OTC
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."
TP Q[82] A[10] Body
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.
TP Q[82] A[10] Body
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."
TP Q[82] A[10] R.O. 1
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.
TP Q[82] A[10] R.O. 2
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.
TP Q[82] A[10] R.O. 3
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.
TP Q[83] Out.
OF THE
RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT (SIX ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the Rite of this sacrament, under which head there are six
points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ is sacrificed in the celebration of this mystery?
(2) Of the time of celebrating;
(3) Of the place and other matters relating to the equipment for this celebration;
(4) Of the words uttered in celebrating this mystery;
(5) Of the actions performed in celebrating this mystery.
(6) Of the defects which occur in the celebration of this sacrament.
TP Q[83] A[1] Thes.
Whether Christ is sacrificed in this sacrament?
TP Q[83] A[1] Obj. 1
OBJ 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 oblation. Therefore Christ is not
sacrificed in the celebration of this sacrament.
TP Q[83] A[1] Obj. 2
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.
TP Q[83] A[1] Obj. 3
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.
TP Q[83] A[1] OTC
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."
TP Q[83] A[1] Body
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?" Secondly 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.
TP Q[83] A[1] R.O. 1
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."
TP Q[83] A[1] R.O. 2
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.
TP Q[83] A[1] R.O. 3
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.
TP Q[83] A[2] Thes.
Whether the time for celebrating this mystery has been properly determined?
TP Q[83] A[2] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the time for celebrating this mystery has not been properly
determined. For as was observed above (A[1]), this sacrament is representative of our
Lord's Passion. But the commemoration of our Lord's Passion takes place in the Church once
in the year: because Augustine says (Enarr. ii in Ps. 21): "Is not Christ slain as
often as the Pasch is celebrated? Nevertheless, the anniversary remembrance represents
what took place in by-gone days; and so it does not cause us to be stirred as if we saw
our Lord hanging upon the cross." Therefore this sacrament ought to be celebrated but
once a year.
TP Q[83] A[2] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, Christ's Passion is commemorated in the Church on the Friday before
Easter, and not on Christmas Day. Consequently, since this sacrament is commemorative of
our Lord's Passion, it seems unsuitable for this sacrament to be celebrated thrice on
Christmas Day, and to be entirely omitted on Good Friday.
TP Q[83] A[2] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, in the celebration of this sacrament the Church ought to imitate
Christ's institution. But it was in the evening that Christ consecrated this sacrament.
Therefore it seems that this sacrament ought to be celebrated at that time of day.
TP Q[83] A[2] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, as is set down in the Decretals (De Consecr., dist. i), Pope Leo I
wrote to Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, that "it is permissible to celebrate mass
in the first part of the day." But the day begins at midnight, as was said above
(Q[80], A[8], ad 5). Therefore it seems that after midnight it is lawful to celebrate.
TP Q[83] A[2] Obj. 5
OBJ 5: Further, in one of the Sunday Secrets (Ninth Sunday after Pentecost) we say:
"Grant us, Lord, we beseech Thee, to frequent these mysteries." But there will
be greater frequency if the priest celebrates several times a day. Therefore it seems that
the priest ought not to be hindered from celebrating several times daily.
TP Q[83] A[2] OTC
On the contrary is the custom which the Church observes according to the statutes of
the Canons.
TP Q[83] A[2] Body
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), in the celebration of this mystery, we must take
into consideration the representation of our Lord's Passion, and the participation of its
fruits; and the time suitable for the celebration of this mystery ought to be determined
by each of these considerations. Now since, owing to our daily defects, we stand in daily
need of the fruits of our Lord's Passion, this sacrament is offered regularly every day in
the Church. Hence our Lord teaches us to pray (Lk. 11:3): "Give us this day our daily
bread": in explanation of which words Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. xxviii): "If
it be a daily bread, why do you take it once a year, as the Greeks have the custom in the
east? Receive it daily that it may benefit you every day."
TP Q[83] A[2] Body
But since our Lord's Passion was celebrated from the third to the ninth hour, therefore
this sacrament is solemnly celebrated by the Church in that part of the day.
TP Q[83] A[2] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ's Passion is recalled in this sacrament, inasmuch as its effect
flows out to the faithful; but at Passion-tide Christ's Passion is recalled inasmuch as it
was wrought in Him Who is our Head. This took place but once; whereas the faithful receive
daily the fruits of His Passion: consequently, the former is commemorated but once in the
year, whereas the latter takes place every day, both that we may partake of its fruit and
in order that we may have a perpetual memorial.
TP Q[83] A[2] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The figure ceases on the advent of the reality. But this sacrament is a
figure and a representation of our Lord's Passion, as stated above. And therefore on the
day on which our Lord's Passion is recalled as it was really accomplished, this sacrament
is not consecrated. Nevertheless, lest the Church be deprived on that day of the fruit of
the Passion offered to us by this sacrament, the body of Christ consecrated the day before
is reserved to be consumed on that day; but the blood is not reserved, on account of
danger, and because the blood is more specially the image of our Lord's Passion, as stated
above (Q[78], A[3], ad 2). Nor is it true, as some affirm, that the wine is changed into
blood when the particle of Christ's body is dropped into it. Because this cannot be done
otherwise than by consecration under the due form of words.
On Christmas Day, however, several masses are said on account of Christ's threefold
nativity. Of these the first is His eternal birth, which is hidden in our regard. and
therefore one mass is sung in the night, in the "Introit" of which we say:
"The Lord said unto Me: Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee." The
second is His nativity in time, and the spiritual birth, whereby Christ rises "as the
day-star in our [Vulg.: 'your'] hearts" (2 Pt. 1:19), and on this account the mass is
sung at dawn, and in the "Introit" we say: "The light will shine on us
today." The third is Christ's temporal and bodily birth, according as He went forth
from the virginal womb, becoming visible to us through being clothed with flesh: and on
that account the third mass is sung in broad daylight, in the "Introit" of which
we say: "A child is born to us." Nevertheless, on the other hand, it can be said
that His eternal generation, of itself, is in the full light, and on this account in the
gospel of the third mass mention is made of His eternal birth. But regarding His birth in
the body, He was literally born during the night, as a sign that He came to the darknesses
of our infirmity; hence also in the midnight mass we say the gospel of Christ's nativity
in the flesh.
TP Q[83] A[2] R.O. 2
Likewise on other days upon which many of God's benefits have to be recalled or
besought, several masses are celebrated on one day, as for instance, one for the feast,
and another for a fast or for the dead.
TP Q[83] A[2] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: As already observed (Q[73], A[5]), Christ wished to give this sacrament
last of all, in order that it might make a deeper impression on the hearts of the
disciples; and therefore it was after supper, at the close of day, that He consecrated
this sacrament and gave it to His disciples. But we celebrate at the hour when our Lord
suffered, i.e. either, as on feast-days, at the hour of Terce, when He was crucified by
the tongues of the Jews (Mk. 15:25), and when the Holy Ghost descended upon the disciples
(Acts 2:15); or, as when no feast is kept, at the hour of Sext, when He was crucified at
the hands of the soldiers (Jn. 19:14), or, as on fasting days, at None, when crying out
with a loud voice He gave up the ghost (Mt. 27:46,50).
TP Q[83] A[2] R.O. 3
Nevertheless the mass can be postponed, especially when Holy orders have to be
conferred, and still more on Holy Saturday; both on account of the length of the office,
and also because orders belong to the Sunday, as is set forth in the Decretals (dist. 75).
TP Q[83] A[2] R.O. 3
Masses, however, can be celebrated "in the first part of the day," owing to
any necessity; as is stated De Consecr., dist. 1.
TP Q[83] A[2] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: As a rule mass ought to be said in the day and not in the night, because
Christ is present in this sacrament, Who says (Jn. 9:4,5): "I must work the works of
Him that sent Me, whilst it is day: because the night cometh when no man can work; as long
as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." Yet this should be done in such a
manner that the beginning of the day is not to be taken from midnight; nor from sunrise,
that is, when the substance of the sun appears above the earth; but when the dawn begins
to show: because then the sun is said to be risen when the brightness of his beams
appears. Accordingly it is written (Mk. 16:1) that "the women came to the tomb, the
sun being now risen"; though, as John relates (Jn. 20:1), "while it was yet dark
they came to the tomb." It is in this way that Augustine explains this difference (De
Consens. Evang. iii).
TP Q[83] A[2] R.O. 4
Exception is made on the night of Christmas eve, when mass is celebrated, because our
Lord was born in the night (De Consecr., dist. 1). And in like manner it is celebrated on
Holy Saturday towards the beginning of the night, since our Lord rose in the night, that
is, "when it was yet dark, before the sun's rising was manifest."
TP Q[83] A[2] R.O. 5
Reply OBJ 5: As is set down in the decree (De Consecr., dist. 1), in virtue of a decree
of Pope Alexander II, "it is enough for a priest to celebrate one mass each day,
because Christ suffered once and redeemed the whole world; and very happy is he who can
worthily celebrate one mass. But there are some who say one mass for the dead, and another
of the day, if need be. But I do not deem that those escape condemnation who presume to
celebrate several masses daily, either for the sake of money, or to gain flattery from the
laity." And Pope Innocent III says (Extra, De Celebr. Miss., chap. Consuluisti) that
"except on the day of our Lord's birth, unless necessity urges, it suffices for a
priest to celebrate only one mass each day."
TP Q[83] A[3] Thes.
Whether this sacrament ought to be celebrated in a house and with sacred vessels?
TP Q[83] A[3] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated in a house and with
sacred vessels. For this sacrament is a representation of our Lord's Passion. But Christ
did not suffer in a house, but outside the city gate, according to Heb. 1:12: "Jesus,
that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered without the gate."
Therefore, it seems that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated in a house, but rather
in the open air.
TP Q[83] A[3] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, in the celebration of this sacrament the Church ought to imitate the
custom of Christ and the apostles. But the house wherein Christ first wrought this
sacrament was not consecrated, but merely an ordinary supper-room prepared by the master
of the house, as related in Lk. 22:11,12. Moreover, we read (Acts 2:46) that "the
apostles were continuing daily with one accord in the temple; and, breaking bread from
house to house, they took their meat with gladness." Consequently, there is no need
for houses, in which this sacrament is celebrated, to be consecrated.
TP Q[83] A[3] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, nothing that is to no purpose ought to be done in the Church, which is
governed by the Holy Ghost. But it seems useless to consecrate a church, or an altar, or
such like inanimate things, since they are not capable of receiving grace or spiritual
virtue. Therefore it is unbecoming for such consecrations to be performed in the Church.
TP Q[83] A[3] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, only Divine works ought to be recalled with solemnity, according to Ps.
91:5: "I shall rejoice in the works of Thy hands." Now the consecration of a
church or altar, is the work of a man; as is also the consecration of the chalice, and of
the ministers, and of other such things. But these latter consecrations are not
commemorated in the Church. Therefore neither ought the consecration of a church or of an
altar to be commemorated with solemnity.
TP Q[83] A[3] Obj. 5
OBJ 5: Further, the truth ought to correspond with the figure. But in the Old
Testament, which was a figure of the New, the altar was not made of hewn stones: for, it
is written (Ex. 20:24): "You shall make an altar of earth unto Me . . . and if thou
make an altar of stone unto Me, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones." Again, the
altar is commanded to be made of "setim-wood," covered "with brass"
(Ex. 27:1,2), or "with gold" (Ex. 25). Consequently, it seems unfitting for the
Church to make exclusive use of altars made of stone.
TP Q[83] A[3] Obj. 6
OBJ 6: Further, the chalice with the paten represents Christ's tomb, which was
"hewn in a rock," as is narrated in the Gospels. Consequently, the chalice ought
to be of stone, and not of gold or of silver or tin.
TP Q[83] A[3] Obj. 7
OBJ 7: Further, just as gold is the most precious among the materials of the altar
vessels, so are cloths of silk the most precious among other cloths. Consequently, since
the chalice is of gold, the altar cloths ought to be made of silk and not of linen.
TP Q[83] A[3] Obj. 8
OBJ 8: Further, the dispensing and ordering of the sacraments belong to the Church's
ministers, just as the ordering of temporal affairs is subject to the ruling of secular
princes; hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 4:1): "Let a man so esteem us as the
ministers of Christ end the dispensers of the mysteries of God." But if anything be
done against the ordinances of princes it is deemed void. Therefore, if the various items
mentioned above are suitably commanded by the Church's prelates, it seems that the body of
Christ could not be consecrated unless they be observed; and so it appears to follow that
Christ's words are not sufficient of themselves for consecrating this sacrament: which is
contrary to the fact. Consequently, it does not seem fitting for such ordinances to be
made touching the celebration of this sacrament.
TP Q[83] A[3] OTC
On the contrary, The Church's ordinances are Christ's own ordinances; since He said
(Mt. 18:20): "Wherever two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in
the midst of them."
TP Q[83] A[3] Body
I answer that, There are two things to be considered regarding the equipment of this
sacrament: one of these belongs to the representation of the events connected with our
Lord's Passion; while the other is connected with the reverence due to the sacrament, in
which Christ is contained verily, and not in figure only.
TP Q[83] A[3] Body
Hence we consecrate those things which we make use of in this sacrament; both that we
may show our reverence for the sacrament, and in order to represent the holiness which is
the effect of the Passion of Christ, according to Heb. 13:12: "Jesus, that He might
sanctify the people by His own blood," etc.
TP Q[83] A[3] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: This sacrament ought as a rule to be celebrated in a house, whereby the
Church is signified, according to 1 Tim. 3:15: "That thou mayest know how thou
oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living
God." Because "outside the Church there is no place for the true
sacrifice," as Augustine says (Liber Sentent. Prosp. xv). And because the Church was
not to be confined within the territories of the Jewish people, but was to be established
throughout the whole world, therefore Christ's Passion was not celebrated within the city
of the Jews, but in the open country, that so the whole world might serve as a house for
Christ's Passion. Nevertheless, as is said in De Consecr., dist. 1, "if a church be
not to hand, we permit travelers to celebrate mass in the open air, or in a tent, if there
be a consecrated altar-table to hand, and the other requisites belonging to the sacred
function."
TP Q[83] A[3] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The house in which this sacrament is celebrated denotes the Church, and is
termed a church; and so it is fittingly consecrated, both to represent the holiness which
the Church acquired from the Passion, as well as to denote the holiness required of them
who have to receive this sacrament. By the altar Christ Himself is signified, of Whom the
Apostle says (Heb. 13:15): "Through Him we offer a sacrifice of praise to God."
Hence the consecration of the altar signifies Christ's holiness, of which it was said (Lk.
1:35): "The Holy one born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Hence we read
in De Consecr., dist. 1: "It has seemed pleasing for the altars to be consecrated not
merely with the anointing of chrism, but likewise with the priestly blessing."
TP Q[83] A[3] R.O. 2
And therefore, as a rule, it is not lawful to celebrate this sacrament except in a
consecrated house. Hence it is enacted (De Consecr., dist. 1): "Let no priest presume
to say mass except in places consecrated by the bishop." And furthermore because
pagans and other unbelievers are not members of the Church, therefore we read (De
Consecr., dist. 1): "It is not lawful to bless a church in which the bodies of
unbelievers are buried, but if it seem suitable for consecration, then, after removing the
corpses and tearing down the walls or beams, let it be rebuilt. If, however, it has been
already consecrated, and the faithful lie in it, it is lawful to celebrate mass
therein." Nevertheless in a case of necessity this sacrament can be performed in
houses which have not been consecrated, or which have been profaned; but with the bishop's
consent. Hence we read in the same distinction: "We deem that masses are not to be
celebrated everywhere, but in places consecrated by the bishop, or where he gives
permission." But not without a portable altar consecrated by the bishop: hence in the
same distinction we read: "We permit that, if the churches be devastated or burned,
masses may be celebrated in chapels, with a consecrated altar." For because Christ's
holiness is the fount of all the Church's holiness, therefore in necessity a consecrated
altar suffices for performing this sacrament. And on this account a church is never
consecrated without consecrating the altar. Yet sometimes an altar is consecrated apart
from the church, with the relics of the saints, "whose lives are hidden with Christ
in God" (Col. 3:3). Accordingly under the same distinction we read: "It is our
pleasure that altars, in which no relics of saints are found enclosed, be thrown down, if
possible, by the bishops presiding over such places."
TP Q[83] A[3] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The church, altar, and other like inanimate things are consecrated, not
because they are capable of receiving grace, but because they acquire special spiritual
virtue from the consecration, whereby they are rendered fit for the Divine worship, so
that man derives devotion therefrom, making him more fitted for Divine functions, unless
this be hindered by want of reverence. Hence it is written (2 Macc. 3:38): "There is
undoubtedly in that place a certain power of God; for He that hath His dwelling in the
heavens is the visitor, and the protector of that place."
TP Q[83] A[3] R.O. 3
Hence it is that such places are cleansed and exorcised before being consecrated, that
the enemy's power may be driven forth. And for the same reason churches defiled by
shedding of blood or seed are reconciled: because some machination of the enemy is
apparent on account of the sin committed there. And for this reason we read in the same
distinction: "Wherever you find churches of the Arians, consecrate them as Catholic
churches without delay by means of devout prayers and rites." Hence, too, it is that
some say with probability, that by entering a consecrated church one obtains forgiveness
of venial sins, just as one does by the sprinkling of holy water; alleging the words of
Ps. 84:2,3: "Lord, Thou hast blessed Thy land . . . Thou hast forgiven the iniquity
of Thy people." And therefore, in consequence of the virtue acquired by a church's
consecration, the consecration is never repeated. Accordingly we find in the same
distinction the following words quoted from the Council of Nicaea: "Churches which
have once been consecrated, must not be consecrated again, except they be devastated by
fire, or defiled by shedding of blood or of anyone's seed; because, just as a child once
baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, ought not to be
baptized again, so neither ought a place, once dedicated to God, to be consecrated again,
except owing to the causes mentioned above; provided that the consecrators held faith in
the Holy Trinity": in fact, those outside the Church cannot consecrate. But, as we
read in the same distinction: "Churches or altars of doubtful consecration are to be
consecrated anew."
TP Q[83] A[3] R.O. 3
And since they acquire special spiritual virtue from their consecration, we find it
laid down in the same distinction that "the beams of a dedicated church ought not to
be used for any other purpose, except it be for some other church, or else they are to be
burned, or put to the use of brethren in some monastery: but on no account are they to be
discarded for works of the laity." We read there, too, that "the altar covering,
chair, candlesticks, and veil, are to be burned when warn out; and their ashes are to be
placed in the baptistery, or in the walls, or else cast into the trenches beneath the
flag-stones, so as not to be defiled by the feet of those that enter."
TP Q[83] A[3] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: Since the consecration of the altar signifies Christ's holiness, and the
consecration of a house the holiness of the entire Church, therefore the consecration of a
church or of an altar is more fittingly commemorated. And on this account the solemnity of
a church dedication is observed for eight days, in order to signify the happy resurrection
of Christ and of the Church's members. Nor is the consecration of a church or altar man's
doing only, since it has a spiritual virtue. Hence in the same distinction (De Consecr.)
it is said: "The solemnities of the dedication of churches are to be solemnly
celebrated each year: and that dedications are to be kept up for eight days, you will find
in the third book of Kings" (8:66).
TP Q[83] A[3] R.O. 5
Reply OBJ 5: As we read in De Consecr., dist. 1, "altars, if not of stone, are not
to be consecrated with the anointing of chrism." And this is in keeping with the
signification of this sacrament; both because the altar signifies Christ, for in 1 Cor.
10:3, it is written, "But the rock was Christ": and because Christ's body was
laid in a stone sepulchre. This is also in keeping with the use of the sacrament. Because
stone is solid, and may be found everywhere. which was not necessary in the old Law, when
the altar was made in one place. As to the commandment to make the altar of earth, or of
unhewn stones, this was given in order to remove idolatry.
TP Q[83] A[3] R.O. 6
Reply OBJ 6: As is laid down in the same distinction, "formerly the priests did
not use golden but wooden chalices; but Pope Zephyrinus ordered the mass to be said with
glass patens; and subsequently Pope Urban had everything made of silver." Afterwards
it was decided that "the Lord's chalice with the paten should be made entirely of
gold, or of silver or at least of tin. But it is not to be made of brass, or copper,
because the action of the wine thereon produces verdigris, and provokes vomiting. But no
one is to presume to sing mass with a chalice of wood or of glass," because as the
wood is porous, the consecrated blood would remain in it; while glass is brittle and there
might arise danger of breakage; and the same applies to stone. Consequently, out of
reverence for the sacrament, it was enacted that the chalice should be made of the
aforesaid materials.
TP Q[83] A[3] R.O. 7
Reply OBJ 7: Where it could be done without danger, the Church gave order for that
thing to be used which more expressively represents Christ's Passion. But there was not so
much danger regarding the body which is placed on the corporal, as there is with the blood
contained in the chalice. And consequently, although the chalice is not made of stone, yet
the corporal is made of linen, since Christ's body was wrapped therein. Hence we read in
an Epistle of Pope Silvester, quoted in the same distinction: "By a unanimous decree
we command that no one shall presume to celebrate the sacrifice of the altar upon a cloth
of silk, or dyed material, but upon linen consecrated by the bishop; as Christ's body was
buried in a clean linen winding-sheet." Moreover, linen material is becoming, owing
to its cleanness, to denote purity of conscience, and, owing to the manifold labor with
which it is prepared, to denote Christ's Passion.
TP Q[83] A[3] R.O. 8
Reply OBJ 8: The dispensing of the sacraments belongs to the Church's ministers; but
their consecration is from God Himself. Consequently, the Church's ministers can make no
ordinances regarding the form of the consecration, and the manner of celebrating. And
therefore, if the priest pronounces the words of consecration over the proper matter with
the intention of consecrating, then, without every one of the things mentioned
above---namely, without house, and altar, consecrated chalice and corporal, and the other
things instituted by the Church---he consecrates Christ's body in very truth; yet he is
guilty of grave sin, in not following the rite of the Church.
TP Q[83] A[4] Thes.
Whether the words spoken in this sacrament are properly framed?
TP Q[83] A[4] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the words spoken in this sacrament are not properly framed. For,
as Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv), this sacrament is consecrated with Christ's own words.
Therefore no other words besides Christ's should be spoken in this sacrament.
TP Q[83] A[4] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, Christ's words and deeds are made known to us through the Gospel. But
in consecrating this sacrament words are used which are not set down in the Gospels: for
we do not read in the Gospel, of Christ lifting up His eyes to heaven while consecrating
this sacrament: and similarly it is said in the Gospel: "Take ye and eat"
[comedite] without the addition of the word "all," whereas in celebrating this
sacrament we say: "Lifting up His eyes to heaven," and again, "Take ye and
eat [manducate] of this." Therefore such words as these are out of place when spoken
in the celebration of this sacrament.
TP Q[83] A[4] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, all the other sacraments are ordained for the salvation of all the
faithful. But in the celebration of the other sacraments there is no common prayer put up
for the salvation of all the faithful and of the departed. Consequently it is unbecoming
in this sacrament.
TP Q[83] A[4] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, Baptism especially is called the sacrament of faith. Consequently, the
truths which belong to instruction in the faith ought rather to be given regarding Baptism
than regarding this sacrament, such as the doctrine of the apostles and of the Gospels.
TP Q[83] A[4] Obj. 5
OBJ 5: Further, devotion on the part of the faithful is required in every sacrament.
Consequently, the devotion of the faithful ought not to be stirred up in this sacrament
more than in the others by Divine praises and by admonitions, such as, "Lift up your
hearts."
TP Q[83] A[4] Obj. 6
OBJ 6: Further, the minister of this sacrament is the priest, as stated above (Q[82],
A[1]). Consequently, all the words spoken in this sacrament ought to be uttered by the
priest, and not some by the ministers, and some by the choir.
TP Q[83] A[4] Obj. 7
OBJ 7: Further, the Divine power works this sacrament unfailingly. Therefore it is to
no purpose that the priest asks for the perfecting of this sacrament, saying: "Which
oblation do thou, O God, in all," etc.
TP Q[83] A[4] Obj. 8
|
