[III.q.82.a.1.arg.1] It seems that the consecration of this sacrament does not belong exclusively to a priest. Because it was said above (Question 78, Article 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.
\n[III.q.82.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod non idem corpus numero anima resumet in resurrectione. I Corinth., xv, 37: Non corpus quod futurum est seminas, sed nudum granum. Sed Apostolus ibi comparat mortem seminationi, et resurrectionem pullulationi. Ergo non idem corpus quod per mortem deponitur in resurrectione resumitur.
\n[III.q.82.a.1.arg.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.\"
\n[III.q.82.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, cuilibet formæ aptatur materia secundum suam conditionem, et similiter cuilibet agenti instrumentum. Sed corpus comparatur ad animam sicut materia ad formam, et sicut instrumentum ad agentem. Cum ergo anima in resurrectione non sit ejusdem conditionis sicut modo est, quia vel transfertur totaliter in cælestem vitam, cui inhæsit vivens in mundo, vel deprimitur in brutalem si brutaliter in hoc mundo vixit, videtur quod non resumet idem corpus, sed vel cæleste, vel brutale.
\n[III.q.82.a.1.arg.3] Further, as Baptism is ordained for the salvation of mankind, so also is this sacrament, as is clear from what was said above (74, 1; 79, 2). But a layman can also baptize, as was stated above (67, 3). Consequently, the consecration of this sacrament is not proper to a priest.
\n[III.q.82.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, corpus humanum usque ad elementa post mortem resolvitur, ut dictum est. Sed illæ partes elementorum in quas corpus resolutum est non conveniunt cum humano corpore quod in eas resolutum est, nisi in materia prima; quo modo quælibet aliæ partes elementorum cum prædicto corpore conveniunt: si autem ex aliis partibus elementorum corpus formaretur, non diceretur idem numero. Ergo nec si ex illis partibus reparetur, corpus erit numero idem.
\n[III.q.82.a.1.arg.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.1.arg.4] 4. Præterea, impossibile est esse idem numero illud cujus partes essentiales sunt aliæ numero. Sed forma mixti quæ est essentialis pars corporis humani, sicut forma ejus, non poterit eadem numero resumi. Ergo corpus non erit idem numero. Próbatio mediae. Illud quod penitus cedit in non ens non potest idem numero resumi, quod patet ex hoc quod non potest esse idem numero, cujus est esse diversum; sed esse interruptum, quod est actus entis, est diversum, sicut et quilibet alius actus interruptus; sed forma mixtionis cedit penitus in non ens per mortem, cum sit forma corporalis, et similiter qualitates contrariæ, ex quibus fit mixtio; ergo forma mixtionis non redit eadem numero.
\n[III.q.82.a.1.sc] 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.\"
\n[III.q.82.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur Job, xix, 26: In carne mea videbo Deum salvatorem meum; ubi loquitur de visione post resurrectionem, quod patet ex hoc quod pracedit: In novissimo die de terra surrecturus sum. Ergo idem numero corpus resurget. Præterea, sicut Damascenus dicit in IV lib. Orth. fid., cap. ult., col. 1219, t. 1, « resurrection est ejus quod cecidit secunda surrectio. » Sed hoc corpus quod nunc gerimus, per mortem cecidit. Ergo idem numero corpus resurget.
\n[III.q.82.a.1.co] As stated above (78, 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 (Luke 22:19): \"Do this for a commemoration of Me.\" Therefore, it must be said that it belongs to priests to accomplish this sacrament.
\n[III.q.82.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod circa hanc quæstionem philosophi erraverunt, et quidam hæretici moderni errant. Quidam enim philosophi posuerunt animas a corpore separatas iterato corporibus conjungi. Sed errabant in hoc quantum ad duo: primo quidem quantum ad modum conjunctionis, quia quidam ponebant corpori iterum conjungi naturaliter animam separatum per viam generationis; secundo quantum ad corpus cui conjungebatur, quia ponebant quod secunda conjunctio non erat ad idem corpus numero, quod per mortem depositum est, sed ad aliud, quando idem specie, quando autem diversum. Ad diversum quidem quando anima in corpore existens præter rationis ordinem vitam duxerat: unde transibat post mortem de corpore hominis in corpus alterius animalis cujus moribus vivendo se conformavit; sicut in corpus canis propter luxuriam, in corpus leonis propter rapinam et violentiam, et sic de aliis. Sed in corpus ejusdem speciei, quando anima bene in corpore vivens, post mortem aliqua felicitate per functa, post aliqua sæcula incipiebat ad corpus velle redire; et sic iterum corpori conjungebatur humano. Sed hæc opinio ex duabus radicibus falsis venit. Quarum prima est quia dicebant quod anima non conjungitur corpori essentialiter, sicut forma materiæ, sed solum accidentaliter, sicut motor mobili, aut sicut homo vestimento: et ideo ponere poterant quod anima præxistebat, antequam corpori generato infunderetur in generatione naturali; et iterum quod diversis corporibus uniretur. Secunda est, quia ponebant intellectum non differre a sensu nisi accidentaliter, ut scilicet homo diceretur intellectum habere præ aliis animalibus, quia in eo propter optimam corporis complexionem vis sensitiva amplius viget; unde poterant ponere quod anima hominis in corpus animalis bruti transiret, præcipue facta immutatione animæ humanæ ad effectus brutales. Sed illæ duæ prædictæ radices destruuntur a Philosopho, in lib. II De anima, text. 4, et seq., et text. 450, et seq., quibus destruc-tis patet falsitas prædictæ positionis. Et simili modo destruuntur errores quorum-dam hæreticorum quorum quidam in prædictas opiniones philosophorum inciderunt, quidam autem posuerunt animas iterato conjungi corporibus cælestibus vel etiam corporibus in modum venti subtilibus, ut Gregorius, lib. XIV Moral., cap. LVI, col. 1077, t. 1, de quodam episcopo Constantinopolitano narrat, exponens illud Job, xix: In carne mea videbo Deum, etc. Et præter hoc prædicti errores hæreticorum destrui possunt ex hoc quod veritati resurrectionis præjudicant, quam sacra Scriptura profitetur. Non enim resurrectione dici potest nisi anima ad idem corpus redeat, quia resurrection est iterata surrectio. Ejusdem autem est surgere et cadere. Unde resurrectioni magis respicit corpus quod post mortem cadit, quam animam quæ post mortem vivit. Et ita si non est idem corpus quod anima resumit, nec dicetur resurrection, sed magis novi corporis assumptio.
\n[III.q.82.a.1.ad.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod similitudo non currit per omnia, sed quantum ad aliquid. In seminatione enim grani, granum seminatum et natum non est idem numero, nec eodem modo se habens, cum primo seminatum fuerit absque folliculis, cum quibus tamen nascitur. Corpus autem resurgens erit idem numero, sed alio modo se habens, quia mortale surget in immortalitate.
\n[III.q.82.a.1.ad.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 (Psalm 1:19): \"A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit\"; and (Romans 12:1): \"Present your bodies a living sacrifice.\" Hence, too, it is written (1 Peter 2:5): \"A holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices.\"
\n[III.q.82.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod differentia quæ est inter animam resurgentis et animam in hoc mundo viventis non est secundum aliquid essentiale, sed secundum gloriam et miseriam, quæ differentiam accidentalem faciunt. Unde non oportet quod aliud corpus numero resurgat, sed alio modo se habens, ut respondeat proportionabiliter differentia corporum differentiæ animarum.
\n[III.q.82.a.1.ad.3] The receiving of this sacrament is not of such necessity as the receiving of Baptism, as is evident from what was said above (65, 3,4; 80, 11, ad 2). And therefore, although a layman can baptize in case of necessity, he cannot perform this sacrament.
\n[III.q.82.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod illud quod intelligitur in materia ante formam remanet in materia post corruptionem, quia remoto posteriori adhuc potest remanere prius. Oportet autem, ut commentator dicit in I Physic., comment. 63, et in libro De substantia orbis, cap. 11, in materia generabilium et corruptibilium ante formam substantialem intelligere dimensions non terminatas secundum quas attendatur divisio materiæ, ut diversas formas in diversis partibus recipere possit; unde et post separationem substantialis formæ a materia adhuc dimensiones illæ manent eædem; et sic materia sub illis dimensionibus existens, quamcumque formam accipiat, habet majorem identitatem ad illud quod ex ea generatum fuerat quam aliqua pars alia materiæ sub quacumque forma existens; et sic eadem materia ad corpus humanum reparandum reducetur, quæ prius materia ejus fuit.
\n[III.q.82.a.1.ad.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.1.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod sicut qualitas simplex non est forma substantialis elementi, sed accidens proprium ejus et dispositio per quam materia efficiatur propria tali formæ, ita forma mixtionis, quæ est qualitas resultans ex qualitatibus simplicibus ad medium venientibus, non est forma substantialis corporis mixti, sed est accidens proprium et dispositio per quam materia fit necessaria ad formam. Corpus autem humanum, praeter hanc formam mixtionis, non habet aliquam formam substantialem nisi animam rationalem; quia si haberet aliam formam substantialem priorem, illa daret ei substantiale esse, et sic per eam constitueretur in genere substantiae: unde anima jam adveniret corpori constituto in genere substantiae; et sic comparatio animæ ad corpus esset sicut comparatio formarum artificialium ad suas materias quantum ad hoc quod constituuntur in genere substantiae per suam materiam; unde conjunctio animæ ad corpus esset accidentalis, quod est error antiquorum philosophorum a Philosopho reprobatus, in lib. II De anima, text. 4 et seq., et lib. I, text. 53. Sequeretur etiam quod corpus humanum et singulæ partes ejus non æquivoce retinerent priora nomina, quod est contra Philosophum in II De anima, text. 9. Unde cum anima rationalis remaneat, nulla forma substantialis corporis humani cedit penitus in non ens. Formarum autem accidentalium variatio non facit diversitatem in numero. Unde idem corpus numero resurget, cum materia eadem numero resumatur ut in præcedenti solutione dictum est.
\n[III.q.82.a.2.arg.1] It seems that several priests cannot consecrate one and the same host. For it was said above (Question 67, Article 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.
\n[III.q.82.a.2.arg.1] Ad secundum sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod non sit idem numero homo qui resurget. Sicut enim dicit Philosophus, in II De generat., text. 99, « quæcumque habent substantiam corruptibilem mo-tam, non reiterantur eadem numero. » Sed talis est substantia hominis secundum præsentem statum. Ergo non potest post mutationem mortis reiterari idem numero.
\n[III.q.82.a.2.arg.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, ubi est alia et alia humanitas non est idem homo numero: unde Socrates et Plato sunt duo homines, et non unus homo, quia alia est humanitas utriusque. Sed alia est humanitas resurgentis ab ea quam nunc habet. Ergo non est idem homo numero. Media probari potest dupliciter: primo quia humanitas, quæ est forma totius, non est forma et substantia, sicut anima, sed est forma tantum: hujusmodi autem formæ cedunt penitus in non ens, et sic non possunt iterari; secundo quia humanitas resultat ex conjunctione partium. Sed non potest eadem numero conjunctio resumi quæ prius fuit, quia iteratio identitati opponitur; iteratio enim numerum importat, identitas autem unitatem, quæ se non compatiuntur: in resurrectione autem conjunctio iteratur. Ergo non est eadem conjunctio, et sic non est eadem humanitas, nec idem homo.
\n[III.q.82.a.2.arg.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, idem homo non est plura animalia: ergo si non est idem animal, non est idem numero homo. Sed ubi non est idem sensus, non est idem animal, quia animal definitur per sensum primum, scilicet tactum, ut patet in II De anima, text. 16 et 17. Sensus autem, cum non maneat in anima separata, ut quidam dicunt, non potest idem numero resumi. Ergo in resurrectione non erit homo resurgens idem animal numero, et sic nec idem homo.
\n[III.q.82.a.2.sc] It is the custom of some Churches for priests newly ordained to co-celebrate with the bishop ordaining them.
\n[III.q.82.a.2.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur Job, xix, 27: Quem visurus sum ego ipse, et non alius; et loquitur de visione post resurrectionem. Ergo idem homo numero resurget. Præterea, Augustinus dicit, VIII De Trin., cap. v, col. 953, t. 8, quod « resurgere nihil est aliud quam reviviscere. » Nisi autem idem homo numero rediret ad vitam qui mortuus est, non diceretur reviviscere. Ergo non resurgeret; quod est contra fidem.
\n[III.q.82.a.2.co] As stated above (Article 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.
\n[III.q.82.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod necessitas ponendi resurrectionem est ex hoc, ut homo finem ultimum, propter quem factus est, consequatur: quod in hac vita fieri non potest, nec in vita animæ separatæ, ut supra dictum est; alias homo esset vane constitutus, si ad finem ad quem factus est, pervenire non posset. Et quia oportet quod illud idem numero ad finem perveniat quod propter finem est factum, ne in vanum esse factum videatur, oportet quod idem homo numero resurgat: et hoc quidem fit, dum eadem anima numero eidem corpori numero conjungitur; alias enim non esset resurrectione proprie, nisi idem homo repararetur. Unde ponere quod idem numero non sit qui resurget, est hæreticum derogans veritati Scripturæ, quæ resurrectionem prædicat.
\n[III.q.82.a.2.ad.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Philosophus loquitur de reiteratione quæ fit per motum vel mutationem naturalem. Ostendit enim differentiam circulationis quæ est in generatione et corruptione, ad circulationem quæ est in motu cæli; quia cælum per motum localem redit idem numero ad principium motus, quia habet substantiam incorruptibilem motam; sed generabilia et corruptibilia per generationem redeunt ad idem specie; non ad idem numero, quia ex homine generatur sanguis, ex quo semen, et sic deinceps, quousque perveniatur ad hominem non eumdem numero, sed specie: similiter ex igne generatur aer, ex quo aqua, ex aqua terra, ex qua ignis, non idem numero, sed specie. Unde patet quod ratio inducta secundum Philosophi intentionem non est ad propositum. Vel dicendum, quod aliorum generabilium et corruptibilium forma non est per se subsistens, ut post compositi corruptionem remanere valeat, sicut est de anima rationali, quæ esse quod sibi in corpore acquiritur etiam post separationem a corpore retinet: et in participationem illius esse corpus per resurrectionem adducitur, cum non sit aliud esse corporis, et aliud animæ in corpore: alias esset conjunctio animæ et corporis accidentalis; et sic interruptio nulla facta est in esse substantiali hominis, ut non possit idem numero redire homo propter interruptionem essendi; sicut accidit in aliis rebus corruptis, quarum esse omnino interrumpitur forma non remanente, materia autem sub alio esse remanente. Sed tamen nec etiam homo per generationem naturalem reiteratur idem numero, quia corpus generati hominis non fit ex tota materia generantis: unde est corpus diversum numero, et per consequens anima, et totus homo.
\n[III.q.82.a.2.ad.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\" (Galatians 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.
\n[III.q.82.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod de humanitate et de qualibet forma totius est duplex opinio. Quidam enim dicunt quod idem secundum rem est forma totius et forma partis; sed dicitur forma partis secundum quod perficit materiam: forma autem totius, secundum quod ex ea tota ratio speciei consequitur. Et secundum hanc opinionem, humanitas secundum rem non est aliud quam anima rationalis; et sic, cum anima rationalis eadem numero resumatur, eadem numero erit humanitas et etiam post mortem manet, quamvis non sub ratione humanitatis, quia ex ea separata compositum rationem speciei non consequitur. Alia opinio est Avicennæ, quæ verior videtur, quod forma totius non est forma partis tantum, nec forma aliqua alia præter formam partis, sed est totum resultans ex compositione formæ et materiae, comprehendens in se utrumque: et hæc forma totius essentia vel quidditas, dicitur. Quia ergo in resurrectione idem numero corpus erit, et eadem numero anima rationalis, erit de necessitate eadem humanitas. Prima autem ratio probans diversitatem humanitatis futuram, procedebat ac si humanitas esset quædam alia forma superveniens formæ et materiae, quod falsum est. Secunda ratio etiam non potest identitatem humanitatis impedire, quia con- Scotus vult quod per agens naturale aliquid junctio significat actionem vel passionem; quæ quamvis diversa sit, non potest identitatem humanitatis impedire, quia actio et passio, ex quibus erat humanitas, non sunt de essentia humanitatis: unde eorum diversitas non inducit diversitatem humanitatis; constat enim quod generatio et resurrectio non sunt idem motus numero. Nec tamen propter hoc identitas resurgentis cum generato impeditur: similiter etiam nec impeditur identitas humanitatis, si accipiatur conjunctio pro ipsa relatione, quia relatio illa non est de essentia humanitatis, sed concomitatur eam, eo quod humanitas non est de illis formis, quæ sunt compositio et ordo, ut dicitur II Physic., text. 13, sicut sunt formæ artificiatorum. Unde existente alia compositione numero, non est eadem numero forma domus.
\n[III.q.82.a.2.ad.3] The Eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, which is brought about by many being \"one in Christ.\"
\n[III.q.82.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod ratio illa optime concludit contra illos qui ponebant animam sensibilem et rationalem diversas in homine esse, quia secundum hoc anima sensitiva in homine non esset incorruptibilis sicut nec in aliis animalibus: unde in resurrectione non esset eadem anima sensibilis, et per consequens nec idem animal, nec idem homo. Si autem ponamus quod eadem anima secundum substantiam in homine sit rationalis et sensibilis, nullas in hoc angustias patiemur, quia animal definitur per sensum qui est anima sensitiva sicut per formam essentialem: per sensum autem qui est potentia sensitiva, cognoscitur ejus definitio, sicut per formam accidentalem, quæ maximam partem confert ad cognoscendum « quod quid est, » ut in I De anima, text. 2, dicitur. Post mortem ergo manet anima sensibilis, sicut et anima rationalis, secundum substantiam; sed potentiæ sensitivæ, secundum quosdam non manent: quæ quidem potentiæ, cum sint accidentales proprietates, eorum varietate identitatem animalis totius auferre non possunt, nec etiam partium animalis; non enim dicuntur potentiæ perfectiones, vel actus organorum, nisi sicut principia agendi, ut calor in igne.
\n[III.q.82.a.3.arg.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod oporteat pulveres humani corporis ad eam partem corporis quæ in eos dissoluta est, per resurrectionem redire. Quia, secundum Philosophum in II De anima, text. 9, « sicut se habet tota anima ad totum corpus, ita pars animæ ad partem corporis, ut visus ad pupillam. Sed oportet quod post resurrectionem corpus resumatur ab eadem anima. Ergo oportet quod partes etiam corporis resumantur ad eadem membra in quibus eisdem partibus animæ perficiebantur.
\n[III.q.82.a.3.arg.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, diversitas materiae facit diversitatem in numero. Sed si pulveres non redeant ad easdem partes non reficientur ex eadem materia ex qua prius constabant. Ergo non erunt eædem numero. Sed si partes sunt diversæ, totum erit diversum, quia partes comparantur ad totum sicut materia ad formam, ut patet in II Physic., text. 31. Ergo non erit idem numero homo, quod est contra veritatem resurrectionis.
\n[III.q.82.a.3.arg.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.3.arg.3] 3. Præterea, resurrection ad hoc ordinatur quod homo operum suorum mercedem accipiat. Sed diversis operibus meritoriis vel demeritoriis diversæ partes corporis deserviunt. Ergo oportet quod in resurrectione quælibet pars ad suum statum redeat, ut pro suo modo praemietur.
\n[III.q.82.a.3.sc] 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.\"
\n[III.q.82.a.3.sc] Sed contra, artificialia magis dependent ex sua materia quam naturalia. Sed in artificialibus ad hoc quod idem artificiatum ex eadem materia reparetur, non oportet quod partes reducantur ad eumdem situm. Ergo nec in homine oportet. Præterea, variatio accidentis non facit diversitatem in numero. Sed situs partium est accidens quoddam. Ergo diversitas ejus in homine non facit diversitatem in numero.
\n[III.q.82.a.3.co] The dispensing of Christ's body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above (Article 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.
\n[III.q.82.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod in hac quaestione differt considerare quid fieri possit sine identitatis præjudicio, et quid fiet ut congruentia servetur. Quantum ergo ad primum, sciendum est quod in homine possunt accipi diversæ partes dupliciter: uno modo diversæ partes totius homogenei, sicut diversæ partes carnis, vel diversæ partes ossis; alio modo diversæ partes diversarum specierum totius heterogenei, sicut os et caro. Si ergo dicatur quod pars materiæ redibit ad aliam partem speciei ejusdem, hoc non faciet varietatem nisi in situ partium. Situs autem partium variatus non variat speciem in totis homogeneis. Et sic, si materia unius partis redeat ad aliam, nullum præjudicium generabitur identitati totius. Et ita etiam est in exemplo quod ponitur in Littera, IV, dist. xliv, quia statua non redit eadem numero secundum formam, sed secundum materiam, secundum quam est substantia quædam; sic autem statua est homogenea; quamvis non secundum formam artificialem. Si autem dicatur quod materia unius partis redit ad aliam partem alterius speciei, sic de necessitate variatur non solum situs partium, sed etiam identitas earum; ita tamen quod tota materia, aut aliquid quod erat de veritate humanæ naturæ in una, in aliam transferatur, non autem si aliquid quod est in una parte superfluum, transferatur in aliam. Ablata autem identitate partium, aufertur identitas totius, si loquamur de partibus essentialibus; non autem si loquamur de partibus accidentalibus; sicut sunt capilli et ungues, de quibus videtur loqui Augustinus, lib. XXII De civit. Dei, cap. xix, col. 780, t. 7. Et sic patet qualiter translatio materiæ de parte in partem tollit identitatem totius, et qualiter non. Sed loquendo secundum congruentiam, magis probabile est quod etiam situs partium idem servabitur in resurrectione, præcipue quantum ad partes essentiales et organicas, quamvis forte Salva reverentia potentiæ divinæ cui subest omne possibile, videtur quod nullum permanens corruptum vel annihilatum possit idem numero reparari. — Hæc Durandus. Et Aureolus addit quod cor corruptum redire idem numero aliquo modo implicat contradictionem. Omnis res successiva corrupta propter tempus non quantum ad accidentales, sicut sunt ungues et capilli.
\n[III.q.82.a.3.ad.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.3.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod objectio illa procedit de partibus organicis et non de partibus similibus.
\n[III.q.82.a.3.ad.2] For the reason given above, it belongs to the same person to dispense and to consecrate this sacrament.
\n[III.q.82.a.3.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod situs diversus partium materiæ non facit diversitatem in numero, quamvis eam faciat diversitas materiæ.
\n[III.q.82.a.3.ad.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.3.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod operatio, proprie loquendo, non est partis, sed totius. Unde præmium non debetur parti, sed toti.
\n[III.q.82.a.4.arg.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.4.arg.2] Further, in the other sacraments the minister does not give the sacrament to himself: for no one can baptize himself, as stated above (66, 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.
\n[III.q.82.a.4.arg.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 (Question 75, Article 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.
\n[III.q.82.a.4.sc] 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.\"
\n[III.q.82.a.4.co] As stated above (79, 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 Corinthians 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.
\n[III.q.82.a.4.ad.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.4.ad.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.4.ad.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.5.arg.1] It seems that a wicked priest cannot consecrate the Eucharist. For Jerome, commenting on Zephaniah 3:4, 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'\" (Leviticus 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.
\n[III.q.82.a.5.arg.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.5.arg.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.\"
\n[III.q.82.a.5.sc] 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.\"
\n[III.q.82.a.5.co] As was said above (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 (Matthew 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 Corinthians 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.
\n[III.q.82.a.5.ad.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.5.ad.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.5.ad.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.\"
\n[III.q.82.a.6.arg.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.6.arg.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 (64, 1, ad 2). Therefore neither is a mass the better, which is celebrated by a better priest.
\n[III.q.82.a.6.arg.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.6.sc] It is stated in Decretal i, q. 1: \"The worthier the priest, the sooner is he heard in the needs for which he prays.\"
\n[III.q.82.a.6.co] 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.
\nAgain, 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 (Article 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 Proverbs 28:9: \"He that turneth away his ears from hearing the law, his prayer shall be an abomination.\"
\n[III.q.82.a.6.ad.1] Gregory is speaking there of the holiness of the Divine sacrament.
\n[III.q.82.a.6.ad.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.6.ad.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).
\n[III.q.82.a.7.arg.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.7.arg.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.7.arg.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.7.sc] 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.
\n[III.q.82.a.7.co] 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.
\n[III.q.82.a.7.ad.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 (Question 80, Article 3), that the sinner receives Christ's body sacramentally, but not spiritually.
\n[III.q.82.a.7.ad.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.7.ad.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.8.arg.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.8.arg.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.8.arg.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.8.sc] 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.
\n[III.q.82.a.8.co] 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 (63, 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.
\n[III.q.82.a.8.ad.1] That Canon is speaking, not as by way of assertion, but by way of inquiry, as can be gleaned from the context.
\n[III.q.82.a.8.ad.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 Matthew 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.
\n[III.q.82.a.8.ad.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.9.arg.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.9.arg.2] Further, Christ's true body is figurative of His mystical body, as was said above (Question 67, Article 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.
\n[III.q.82.a.9.arg.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.9.sc] 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. ii.) 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.\"
\n[III.q.82.a.9.co] As was said above (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.
\nStill 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 Corinthians 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.\"
\n[III.q.82.a.9.ad.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.9.ad.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 (7; 80, 4). And therefore, those who belong to the unity of the Faith are not to receive the sacrament from their dispensing.
\n[III.q.82.a.9.ad.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.10.arg.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.10.arg.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 (Article 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.
\n[III.q.82.a.10.arg.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.10.sc] 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.\"
\n[III.q.82.a.10.co] 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.
\nBut this is said quite unreasonably, because everyone is bound to use the grace entrusted to him, when opportunity serves, according to 2 Corinthians 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 Maccabees 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.\"
\n[III.q.82.a.10.ad.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.10.ad.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.
\n[III.q.82.a.10.ad.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.
\nThe Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
\n