Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Secunda Secundae·Q86. Oblations and first-fruits
Source context
- Theme
- Ritual obligations of oblations and first-fruits as acts of religion under the virtue of justice
- Soul-faculty
- Sentient Soul
Steiner
not engaged in the GA corpus
Cross-tradition
- Hebrew Bible / Torah (terumah and bikkurim)The Mosaic prescriptions of terumah (priestly portions) and bikkurim (first-fruits, Deuteronomy 26) provide the textual substrate Aquinas systematises under natural-law reasoning, showing cross-tradition congruence between cultic obligation and rational justice.
- Vedic yajna / dakshināThe Vedic institution of dakshinā (ritual gift to the priest) and the offering of first-produce in harvest rites display structural cross-tradition congruence with Aquinas's category of oblation as a debt of honor owed to the sacred order.
Q86. Oblations and first-fruits
Article 1
[II-II.q.86.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that men are not bound by precept to make oblations. Men are not bound, at the time of the Gospel, to observe the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law, as stated above (I-II, 103, 3,4). Now the offering of oblations is one of the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law, since it is written (Exodus 23:14): "Three times every year you shall celebrate feasts with Me," and further on (Exodus 23:15): "Thou shalt not appear empty before Me." Therefore men are not now under a necessity of precept to make oblations.
[II-II.q.86.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod per pœnitentiam non omnia peccata removeantur. Dicit enim Apostolus Hebr., xii, 47, quod Esau non inventit pœnitentiæ locum, quamquam cum lacrymis inquisisset eam; Glossa, id est, « non inventit locum veniæ, et benedictionis per pœnitentiam; » et II Machab., ix, 43, dicitur de Antiocho: Orabat scelestus Deum a quo non erat* misericordiam consecuturus. Non ergo videtur quod per pœnitentiam omnia peccata tollantur.
[II-II.q.86.a.1.arg.2] Further, before they are made, oblations depend on man's will, as appears from our Lord's saying (Matthew 5:23), "If . . . thou offer thy gift at the altar," as though this were left to the choice of the offerer: and when once oblations have been made, there is no way of offering them again. Therefore in no way is a man under a necessity of precept to make oblations.
[II-II.q.86.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Augustinus dicit in lib. I De sermone Domini in monte, cap. xxii, § 74, col. 1266, t. 3, quod « tanta labes est illius peccati, » scilicet « cum post agnitionem Dei per gratiam Christi quisque oppugnat fraternitatem, et adversus ipsam gratiam invidentiæ facibus agitatur, ut deprecandi humilitatem subire non possit, etiamsi peccatum suum mala conscientia agnoscere et enuntiare cogatur. » Non ergo omne peccatum potest per pœnitentiam tolli.
[II-II.q.86.a.1.arg.3] Further, if anyone is bound to give a certain thing to the Church, and fails to give it, he can be compelled to do so by being deprived of the Church's sacraments. But it would seem unlawful to refuse the sacraments of the Church to those who refuse to make oblations according to a decree of the sixth council [Can. Trullan, xxiii], quoted I, qu. i, can. Nullus: "Let none who dispense Holy Communion exact anything of the recipient, and if they exact anything let them be deposed." Therefore it is not necessary that men should make oblations.
[II-II.q.86.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, Dominus dicit Matth., xii, 32: Qui dixerit contra Spiritum sanctum verbum, non remittetur ei neque in hoc sæculo, neque in futuro. Non ergo omne peccatum remitti potest per pœnitentiam.
[II-II.q.86.a.1.sc] Gregory says [Gregory VII; Concil. Roman. v, can. xii]: "Let every Christian take care that he offer something to God at the celebration of Mass."
[II-II.q.86.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur Ezech., xviii, 22: Omnium iniquitatum ejus quas operatus est, non recordabor.
[II-II.q.86.a.1.co] As stated above (85, 3, ad 3), the term "oblation" is common to all things offered for the Divine worship, so that if a thing be offered to be destroyed in worship of God, as though it were being made into something holy, it is both an oblation and a sacrifice. Wherefore it is written (Exodus 29:18): "Thou shalt offer the whole ram for a burnt-offering upon the altar; it is an oblation to the Lord, a most sweet savor of the victim of the Lord"; and (Leviticus 2:1): "When anyone shall offer an oblation of sacrifice to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour." If, on the other hand, it be offered with a view to its remaining entire and being deputed to the worship of God or to the use of His ministers, it will be an oblation and not a sacrifice. Accordingly it is essential to oblations of this kind that they be offered voluntarily, according to Exodus 25:2, of "every man that offereth of his own accord you shall take them." Nevertheless it may happen in four ways that one is bound to make oblations. First, on account of a previous agreement: as when a person is granted a portion of Church land, that he may make certain oblations at fixed times, although this has the character of rent. Secondly, by reason of a previous assignment or promise; as when a man offers a gift among the living, or by will bequeaths to the Church something whether movable or immovable to be delivered at some future time. Thirdly, on account of the need of the Church, for instance if her ministers were without means of support. Fourthly, on account of custom; for the faithful are bound at certain solemn feasts to make certain customary oblations. On the last two cases, however, the oblation remains voluntary, as regards, to wit, the quantity or kind of the thing offered.
[II-II.q.86.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod hoc quod aliquod peccatum per pœnitentiam tolli non possit, potest contingere dupliciter: uno modo quia aliquis de peccato pœnittere non posset; alio modo quia pœnitentiia non posset delere peccatum: primo quidem modo non possunt per pœnitentiam deleri peccata dæmonum, et etiam hominum damnatorum, quia affectus eorum sunt confirmati in malo, ita quod non potest eis displicere peccatum, inquantum est culpa, sed solum displicet eis inquantum 1 est pœna quam patiuntur, ratione cujus aliquam pœnitentiam, sed infructuosam habent, secundum illud Sap., v, 3: Pœnitentiam agentes, et præ angustia spiritus gementes. Unde talis pœnitentiia non est cum spe veniæ, sed cum desperatione. Tale autem non potest esse aliquod peccatum hominis viatoris, cujus liberum arbitrium flexibile est ad bonum et ad malum. Unde dicere quod aliquod peccatum sit in hac vita, de quo quis pœnitere non possit, erroneum est; primo quidem quia per hoc tolleretur libertas arbitrii; secundo quia 2 derogaretur virtuti gratiae, per quam moveri potest cor cujuscumque peccatoris ad pœnitendum, secundum illud Proverb., xxi, 1: Cor regis in manu Dei: quocumque voluerit, vertet illud *. Quod autem secundo modo non possit per veram pœnitentiam aliquod peccatum remitti, est etiam erroneum, primo quidem quia repugnat divinæ misericordiae, de qua dicitur Joel., ii, 43, quod benignus et misericors est, patiens et multæ misericordiae, et præstabilis super maliia: vinceetur enim quodammodo Deus ab homine, si homo peccatum vellet deleri, quod Deus delere non vellet. Secundo, quia hoc derogaret virtuti passionis Christi, per quam pœnitentiia opera- 1 In tur, sicut et cætera sacramenta, cum scriptum sit I Joan., xii, 2: Ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris, non nostris Tantum. solum*, sed etiam totius mundi. Unde simpliciter dicendum est quod omne peccatum in hac vita per pœnitentiam 4 deleri potest.
[II-II.q.86.a.1.ad.1] Under the New Law men are not bound to make oblations on account of legal solemnities, as stated in Exodus, but on account of certain other reasons, as stated above.
[II-II.q.86.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Esau non vere pœnituit, quod patet ex hoc quod dixit, Gen., xxvii, 44: Venient dies luctus patris mei, et occidam Jacob fratrem meum; similiter etiam nec Antiochus vere pœnituit; dolebat enim de culpa præterita, non propter offensam Dei, sed propter infirmitatem corporalem quam patiebatur.
[II-II.q.86.a.1.ad.2] Some are bound to make oblations, both before making them, as in the first, third, and. fourth cases, and after they have made them by assignment or promise: for they are bound to offer in reality that which has been already offered to the Church by way of assignment.
[II-II.q.86.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod illud verbum Augustini sic intelligendum est: « Tanta est labes illius peccati, ut deprecandi humilitatem subire non possit, » scilicet de facili; secundum quod dicitur ille non posse sanari qui non potest de facili sanari: potest tamen hoc fieri per divinæ gratiae virtutem, quæ etiam interdum in profundum maris convertit, ut dicitur in psal. Lxvii, 23.
[II-II.q.86.a.1.ad.3] Those who do not make the oblations they are bound to make may be punished by being deprived of the sacraments, not by the priest himself to whom the oblations should be made, lest he seem to exact, something for bestowing the sacraments, but by someone superior to him.
[II-II.q.86.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod illud verbum, vel blasphemia contra Spiritum sanctum, est finalis impœnitentia, ut Augustinus dicit in lib. De verbis Domini, serm. Lxxi, cap. xii et xiii, col. 455, t. 5, quæ penitus irremissibilis est, quia post finem hujus vitæ non est remissio pecatorum; vel si intelligatur per blasphemiam Spiritus sancti peccatum quod fit ex certa malitia vel etiam ipsa blasphemia Spiritus sancti, dicitur non remitti, scilicet de facili, vel quia tale peccatum non habet in se causam excusationis; vel quia pro tali peccato punitur aliquis et in hoc sæculo, et in futuro, ut in secunda parte expositum est.
Article 2
[II-II.q.86.a.2.arg.1] It would seem that oblations are not due to priests alone. For chief among oblations would seem to be those that are deputed to the sacrifices of victims. Now whatever is given to the poor is called a "victim in Scripture according to Hebrews 13:16, "Do not forget to do good and to impart, for by such victims [Douay: 'sacrifices'] God's favor is obtained. Much more therefore are oblations due to the poor.
[II-II.q.86.a.2.arg.1] Ad secundum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod sine pœnitentia peccatum remitti possit. Non enim est minor virtus Dei Plures hæretici inter quos Montanistæ et Novatiani negarunt omnia peccata posse remitti. circa adultos quam circa pueros. Sed pueris peccata dimittit sine pœnitentia. Ergo etiam adultis.
[II-II.q.86.a.2.arg.2] Further, in many parishes monks have a share in the oblations. Now "the case of clerics is distinct from the case of monks," as Jerome states [Ep. xiv, ad Heliod.]. Therefore oblations art not due to priests alone.
[II-II.q.86.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Deus virtutem suam sacramentis non alligavit. Sed pœnitentia est quoddam sacramentum. Ergo virtute divina possunt peccata sine pœnitentia dimitti.
[II-II.q.86.a.2.arg.3] Further, lay people with the consent of the Church buy oblations such as loaves and so forth, and they do so for no other reason than that they may make use thereof themselves. Therefore oblations may have reference to the laity.
[II-II.q.86.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, major est misericordia Dei quam misericordia hominis. Sed homo interdum remittit offensam suam homini etiam non pœnitenti; unde et ipse Dominus mandat, Matth., v, 44: Diligite inimicos vestros, benefacite his qui oderunt vos. Ergo multo magis Deus dimittit offensam suam hominibus non pœnitentibus.
[II-II.q.86.a.2.sc] A canon of Pope Damasus [Damasus I] quoted X, qu. i [Can. Hanc consuetudinem], says: "None but the priests whom day by day we see serving the Lord may eat and drink of the oblations which are offered within the precincts of the Holy Church: because in the Old Testament the Lord forbade the children of Israel to eat the sacred loaves, with the exception of Aaron and his sons" (Leviticus 24:8-9).
[II-II.q.86.a.2.sc] Sed contra est quod Dominus dicit, Jerem., xviii, 8: Si pœnitentiam egerit gens illa a malo* quod fecit, agam et ego pœnitentiam super malo quod cogitavi ut face-rem ei. Et sic e contrario videtur quod si homo pœnitentiam non agat, Deus ei non remittat offensam.
[II-II.q.86.a.2.co] The priest is appointed mediator and stands, so to speak, "between" the people and God, as we read of Moses (Deuteronomy 5:5), wherefore it belongs to him to set forth the Divine teachings and sacraments before the people; and besides to offer to the Lord things appertaining to the people, their prayers, for instance, their sacrifices and oblations. Thus the Apostle says (Hebrews 5:1): "Every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins." Hence the oblations which the people offer to God concern the priests, not only as regards their turning them to their own use, but also as regards the faithful dispensation thereof, by spending them partly on things appertaining to the Divine worship, partly on things touching their own livelihood (since they that serve the altar partake with the altar, according to 1 Corinthians 9:13), and partly for the good of the poor, who, as far as possible, should be supported from the possessions of the Church: for our Lord had a purse for the use of the poor, as Jerome observes on Matthew 17:26, "That we may not scandalize them."
[II-II.q.86.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod impossibile est peccatum actuale mortale sine pœnitentia remitti, loquendo de pœnitentia quæ est virtus. Cum enim peccatum sit Dei offensa, eo modo Deus peccatum remittit, quo remittit offensam in se commissam. Offensa autem directe opponitur gratiæ; ex hoc enim dicitur aliquis alteri esse offensus quod repellit eum a gratia sua. Sicut autem habitum est in secunda parte, hoc interest inter gratiam Dei et gratiam hominis, quod gratia hominis non causat, sed præsupponit bonitatem veram vel apparentem in homine grato; sed gratia Dei causat bonitatem in homine grato, eo quod bona voluntas Dei, quæ in nomine gratiæ intelligitur, est causa boni creati. Unde potest contingere quod homo remittat offensam, qua offensus est alicui, absque aliqua immutatione voluntatis ejus; non autem contingere po-test quod Deus remittat offensam alicui absque immutatione voluntatis ejus. Offensa autem peccati mortalis procedit ex hoc quod voluntas hominis est aversa a Deo per conversionem ad aliquod bonum commutabile. Unde requiritur ad remissionem divinæ offensae, quod voluntas hominis sic immutetur ut convertatur ad Deum cum detestatione conversionis prae- Quidam vero Doctor asseruit nullum posse baptizati peccatum remitti nisi in sacramento pœnitentia. dictæ, et proposito emendandi; quod pertinet ad rationem pœnitentiæ, secundum quod est virtus. Et ideo impossibile est quod peccatum alicui remittatur sine pœnitentia, secundum quod est virtus. Sacramentum autem pœnitentiæ, sicut supra dictum est, perficitur per officium sacerdotis ligantis et solventis, sine quo potest Deus peccatum remittere, sicut remisit Christus mulieri adulteræ, ut legitur Joan., vIII, et peccatrici, ut legitur Luc., VII, quibus tamen non remisit peccata sine virtute pœnitentiæ: nam, sicut Gregorius dicit in Hom. xxxiii in Evang., § 1, col. 1240, t. 2, « per gratiam traxit intus, » scilicet ad pœnitentiam, « quam per misericordiam suscepit foris. »
[II-II.q.86.a.2.ad.1] Whatever is given to the poor is not a sacrifice properly speaking; yet it is called a sacrifice in so far as it is given to them for God's sake. On like manner, and for the same reason, it can be called an oblation, though not properly speaking, since it is not given immediately to God. Oblations properly so called fall to the use of the poor, not by the dispensation of the offerers, but by the dispensation of the priests.
[II-II.q.86.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod in pueris non est nisi peccatum originale, quod non consistit in actuali deordinatione voluntatis, sed in quadam habituali deordinatione naturæ, ut in secunda parte habitum est; et ideo remittitur eis peccatum cum habituali immutatione per infusionem gratiae et virtutum, non autem cum actuali. Sed adulto, in quo sunt actualia peccata, quæ consistunt in deordinatione actuali voluntatis, non remittuntur peccata, etiam in baptismo, sine actuali immutatione voluntatis, quod fit per pœnitentiam.
[II-II.q.86.a.2.ad.2] Monks or other religious may receive oblations under three counts. First, as poor, either by the dispensation of the priests, or by ordination of the Church; secondly, through being ministers of the altar, and then they can accept oblations that are freely offered; thirdly, if the parishes belong to them, and they can accept oblations, having a right to them as rectors of the Church.
[II-II.q.86.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod ratio illa procedit de pœnitentia, secundum quod est sacramentum.
[II-II.q.86.a.2.ad.3] Oblations when once they are consecrated, such as sacred vessels and vestments, cannot be granted to the use of the laity: and this is the meaning of the words of Pope Damasus. But those which are unconsecrated may be allowed to the use of layfolk by permission of the priests, whether by way of gift or by way of sale.
[II-II.q.86.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod misericordia Dei est majoris virtutis quam misericordia hominis in hoc quod immutat voluntatem hominis ad pœnitendum, quod misericordia hominis facere non potest.
Article 3
[II-II.q.86.a.3.arg.1] It would seem that a man may not make oblations of whatever he lawfully possesses. According to human law [Dig. xii, v, de Condict. ob. turp. vel iniust. caus. 4 "the whore's is a shameful trade in what she does but not in what she takes," and consequently what she takes she possesses lawfully. Yet it is not lawful for her to make an oblation with her gains, according to Deuteronomy 23:18, "Thou shalt not offer the hire of a strumpet . . . in the house of the Lord thy God." Therefore it is not lawful to make an oblation of whatever one possesses lawfully.
[II-II.q.86.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod possit per pœnitentiam unum peccatum sine alio remitti. Dicitur enim Amos, iv, 7: Plui super unam civitatem, et super alteram civitatem non plui: pars una compluta est, et pars super quam non Migne. 2 Paulo mutatis verbis. 3 Sic habetur in Decr. dist. III De pœnitentia, Quod exponens Gregorius 2 Super Ezech., hom. x, § 23, col. 89, § t. 2, dicit: « Cumillequi proximum odit, ab aliis vitiis se corrigit, una eademque civitas ex parte compluitur, et ex parte arida manet, quia sunt qui cum quædam vitia resecant, in aliis graviter perdurant. » Ergo potest unum peccatum per pœnitentiam dimitti sine alio.
[II-II.q.86.a.3.arg.2] Further, in the same passage it is forbidden to offer "the price of a dog" in the house of God. But it is evident that a man possesses lawfully the price of a dog he has lawfully sold. Therefore it is not lawful to make an oblation of whatever we possess lawfully.
[II-II.q.86.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Ambrosius, Super psal.: Beati immaculati in via, Serm. xviii, § 3, col. 1528, t. 2, dicit quod « prima consolatio est, quia non obliviscitur misereri Deus; secunda per punitionem; ubi etsi fides desit, pœna satisfacit et relevat 5. » Potest ergo aliquis relevari ab aliquo peccato, manente peccato infidelitatis.
[II-II.q.86.a.3.arg.3] Further, it is written (Malachi 1:8): "If you offer the lame and the sick, is it not evil?" Yet an animal though lame or sick is a lawful possession. Therefore it would seem that not of every lawful possession may one make an oblation.
[II-II.q.86.a.3.arg.3] 3. Præterea, eorum quæ non necesse est esse simul, unum potest auferri sine alio. Sed peccata, ut in secunda parte habitum est, non sunt connexa; et ita unum eorum potest esse sine alio. Ergo etiam unum eorum potest remitti sine alio per pœnitentiam.
[II-II.q.86.a.3.sc] It is written (Proverbs 3:9): "Honor the Lord with thy substance." Now whatever a man possesses lawfully belongs to his substance. Therefore he may make oblations of whatever he possesses lawfully.
[II-II.q.86.a.3.sc] Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit 4 in libro De vera et falsa pœnitentia, cap. ix, col. 1124 t. 6,: « Sunt plures quos pœnitet peccasse, sed non omnino, reservantes sibi quædam in quibus delecentur, non animadvertentes Dominum simul surdum et mutum a dæmonio liberasse, per hoc docens, nos nunquam nisi de omnibus sanari. »
[II-II.q.86.a.3.co] As Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. Serm. cxiii), "shouldst thou plunder one weaker than thyself and give some of the spoil to the judge, if he should pronounce in thy favor, such is the force of justice that even thou wouldst not be pleased with him: and if this should not please thee, neither does it please thy God." Hence it is written (Sirach 34:21): "The offering of him that sacrificeth of a thing wrongfully gotten is stained." Therefore it is evident that an oblation must not be made of things unjustly acquired or possessed. On the Old Law, however, wherein the figure was predominant, certain things were reckoned unclean on account of their signification, and it was forbidden to offer them. But in the New Law all God's creatures are looked upon as clean, as stated in Titus 1:15: and consequently anything that is lawfully possessed, considered in itself, may be offered in oblation. But it may happen accidentally that one may not make an oblation of what one possesses lawfully; for instance if it be detrimental to another person, as in the case of a son who offers to God the means of supporting his father (which our Lord condemns, Matthew 15:5), or if it give rise to scandal or contempt, or the like.
[II-II.q.86.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod impossibile est per pœnitentiam unum peccatum sine alio remitti: primo quidem quia c. xLI, col. 1612; multo plenius D. Ambrosius in loco praedicto. 4 Liber spuriis annumeratur. De pœnitentia. peccatum remittitur, inquantum tollitur Dei offensa per gratiam. Unde in secunda parte habitum est, quod nullum peccatum potest remitti sine gratia. Omne autem peccatum mortale contrariatur gratiae, et excludit eam. Unde impossibile est quod unum peccatum sine alio remittatur. Secundo, quia, sicut ostensum est, peccatum mortale non potest sine vera pœnitentia remitti, ad quam pertinet deserere peccatum, inquantum est contra Deum; quod quidem est commune omnibus peccatis mortalibus: ubi autem est eadem ratio, et idem effectus. Unde non potest esse vere pœnitens, qui de uno peccato pœnitet, et non de alio. Si enim displiceret ei illud peccatum, quia est contra Deum super omnia dilectum, quod requiritur ad rationem veræ pœnitentiae, sequeretur quod de omnibus peccatis pœniteret. Unde sequitur quod impossibile sit unum peccatum per pœnitentiam remitti sine alio. Tertio, quia hoc esset contra perfectionem misericordiæ Dei, cujus perfecta sunt opera, ut dicitur Deut., xxxii, unde cujus miseretur, totaliter miseretur. Et hoc est quod Augustinus dicit in lib. Depœnitentia, loc. cit. 4: « Quædam impietas infidelitatis est, ab illo qui justus et justitia est, dimidiam sperare veniam. »
[II-II.q.86.a.3.ad.1] In the Old Law it was forbidden to make an offering of the hire of a strumpet on account of its uncleanness, and in the New Law, on account of scandal, lest the Church seem to favor sin if she accept oblations from the profits of sin.
[II-II.q.86.a.3.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod illud verbum Gregorii non est intelligendum quantum ad remissionem culpæ, sed quantum ad cessationem ab actu, quia interdum ille qui plura peccata consuevit committere, deserit unum, non tamen aliud; quod quidem fit auxilio divino, quod tamen non pertingit usque ad remissionem culpæ.
[II-II.q.86.a.3.ad.2] According to the Law, a dog was deemed an unclean animal. Yet other unclean animals were redeemed and their price could be offered, according to Leviticus 27:27, "If it be an unclean animal, he that offereth it shall redeem it." But a dog was neither offered nor redeemed, both because idolaters used dogs in sacrifices to their idols, and because they signify robbery, the proceeds of which cannot be offered in oblation. However, this prohibition ceased under the New Law.
[II-II.q.86.a.3.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod in verbo illo Ambrosii fides non potest accipi, qua creditur in Christum; quia, ut Augustinus dicit, Tract. lxxxix, § 4, col. 1856, t. 3, Super illud Joan., xv, Si non venisse, et locutus eis non fuissem, peccatum non haberent, scilicet infidelitatis: « Hoc est peccatum, quo tenentur cuncta peccata. » Sed accipitur fides pro conscientia, quia interdum per pœnas quas quis patienter sustinet, consequitur remissionem peccati, cujus conscientiam non habet.
[II-II.q.86.a.3.ad.3] The oblation of a blind or lame animal was declared unlawful for three reasons. First, on account of the purpose for which it was offered, wherefore it is written (Malachi 1:8): "If you offer the blind in sacrifice, is it not evil?" and it behooved sacrifices to be without blemish. Secondly, on account of contempt, wherefore the same text goes on (Malachi 1:12): "You have profaned" My name, "in that you say: The table of the Lord is defiled and that which is laid thereupon is contemptible." Thirdly, on account of a previous vow, whereby a man has bound himself to offer without blemish whatever he has vowed: hence the same text says further on (Malachi 1:14): "Cursed is the deceitful man that hath in his flock a male, and making a vow offereth in sacrifice that which is feeble to the Lord." The same reasons avail still in the New Law, but when they do not apply the unlawfulness ceases.
[II-II.q.86.a.3.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod peccata, quamvis non sint connexa quantum ad conversionem ad bonum commutabile, sunt tamen connexa quantum ad aversionem a bono incommutabili, in qua conveniunt omnia peccata mortalia; et ex hac parte habent rationem offensæ, quam oportet per pœnitentiam tolii.
Article 4
[II-II.q.86.a.4.arg.1] It would seem that men are not bound to pay first-fruits. After giving the law of the first-born the text continues (Exodus 13:9): "It shall be as a sign in thy hand," so that, apparently, it is a ceremonial precept. But ceremonial precepts are not to be observed in the New Law. Neither therefore ought first-fruits to be paid.
[II-II.q.86.a.4.arg.1] Ad quartum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod remissa culpa per pœnitentia, non remaneat reatus pœnæ. Remota enim causa, removetur effectus. Sed culpa est causa reatus pœnæ: ideo enim est aliquis dignus pœna, quia culpam commisit. Ergo, remissa culpa, non potest remaneere reatus pœnæ.
[II-II.q.86.a.4.arg.2] Further, first-fruits were offered to the Lord for a special favor conferred on that people, wherefore it is written (Deuteronomy 26:2-3): "Thou shalt take the first of all thy fruits . . . and thou shalt go to the priest that shall be in those days, and say to him: I profess this day before the Lord thy God, that I am come into the land, for which He swore to our fathers, that He would give it us." Therefore other nations are not bound to pay first-fruits.
[II-II.q.86.a.4.arg.2] 2. Præterea, sicut Apostolus dicit Rom., v, donum Christi est efficacius quam peccatum 4. Sed peccando homo simul incurrit culpam et pœnæ reatum. Ergo multo magis per donum gratiae simul remittitur culpa, et tollitur pœnæ reatus.
[II-II.q.86.a.4.arg.3] That which one is bound to do should be something definite. But neither in the New Law nor in the Old do we find mention of a definite amount of first-fruits. Therefore one is not bound of necessity to pay them.
[II-II.q.86.a.4.arg.3] 3. Præterea, remissio peccatorum fit in pœnitentia per virtutem passionis, secundum illud Roman., 11, 25: Quem proposuit Deus propitiatorem per fidem in sanguine ipsius, propter remissionem præ- Juxta Scotistas potest de potentia Dei absculta unum peccatum absque alio remitti. cedentium delictorum. Sed passio Christi est sufficienter satisfactoria pro omnibus peccatis, ut supra dictum est. Non ergo post remissionem culpæ remanet aliquis reatus pœnæ.
[II-II.q.86.a.4.sc] It is laid down (16, qu. vii, can. Decimas): "We confirm the right of priests to tithes and first-fruits, and everybody must pay them."
[II-II.q.86.a.4.sc] Sed contra est quod II Reg., xii, 43, dicitur quod cum David pœnitens dixisset ad Nathan: Peccavi Domino, dixit Nathan ad illum: Dominus quoque transulit peccatum tuum, non morieris: verum-tamen filius qui natus est tibi, morte morietur, quod fuit in pœnam præcedentis peccati, ut ibidem dicitur. Ergo, remissa culpa, remanet reatus alicujus pœnæ.
[II-II.q.86.a.4.co] First-fruits are a kind of oblation, because they are offered to God with a certain profession (Deuteronomy 26); where the same passage continues: "The priest taking the basket containing the first-fruits from the hand of him that bringeth the first-fruits, shall set it before the altar of the Lord thy God," and further on (Deuteronomy 26:10) he is commanded to say: "Therefore now I offer the first-fruits of the land, which the Lord hath given me." Now the first-fruits were offered for a special reason, namely, in recognition of the divine favor, as though man acknowledged that he had received the fruits of the earth from God, and that he ought to offer something to God in return, according to 1 Chronicles 29:14, "We have given Thee what we received of Thy hand." And since what we offer God ought to be something special, hence it is that man was commanded to offer God his first-fruits, as being a special part of the fruits of the earth: and since a priest is "ordained for the people "in the things that appertain to God" (Hebrews 5:1), the first-fruits offered by the people were granted to the priest's use." Wherefore it is written (Numbers 18:8): "The Lord said to Aaron: Behold I have given thee the charge of My first-fruits." Now it is a point of natural law that man should make an offering in God's honor out of the things he has received from God, but that the offering should be made to any particular person, or out of his first-fruits, or in such or such a quantity, was indeed determined in the Old Law by divine command; but in the New Law it is fixed by the declaration of the Church, in virtue of which men are bound to pay first-fruits according to the custom of their country and the needs of the Church's ministers.
[II-II.q.86.a.4.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut in secunda parte habitum est, in peccato mortali sunt duo, scilicet aversio ab incommutabili bono, et conversio ad commutabile bonum inordinata. Ex parte ergo aversionis ab incommutabili bono consequitur peccatum mortale reatus pœnæ aternæ, ut qui contra aternum bonum peccavit, in aternum puniatur; ex parte etiam conversionis ad bonum commutabile, inquantum est inordinata, consequitur peccatum mortale reatus alicujus pœnæ, quia inordinatio culpæ non reducitur ad ordinem justitiæ nisi per pœnam: justum est enim ut qui voluntati suæ plus indulsit quam debuit, contra voluntatem suam aliquid patiatur: sic enim erit aqualitas. Unde Apocal., xviii, 7, dicitur: Quantum glorificavit se et in deliciis fuit, tantum date illi tormentum et luctum. Quia tamen conversio ad bonum commutabile est finita, non habet ex hac parte peccatum mortale quod debeatur ei pœna aternæ. Unde si sit inordinata conversio ad bonum commutabile sine aversione a Deo, sicut est in peccatis venialibus, non debetur peccato pœna aternæ, sed temporalis. Quando igitur per gratiam remittitur culpa, tollitur aversion animæ a Deo, inquantum per gratiam anima Deo conjungitur. Unde et per consequens simul tollitur reatus pœnæ aternæ; potest tamen remanere reatus alicujus pœnæ temporalis.
[II-II.q.86.a.4.ad.1] The ceremonial observances were properly speaking signs of the future, and consequently they ceased when the foreshadowed truth was actually present. But the offering of first-fruits was for a sign of a past favor, whence arises the duty of acknowledgment in accordance with the dictate of natural reason. Hence taken in a general sense this obligation remains.
[II-II.q.86.a.4.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod culpa mortalis utrumque habet, et aversionem a Deo, et conversionem ad bonum creatum. Sed, sicut in secunda parte habitum est, aversion a Deo est ibi sicut formale; conversio autem ab bonum creatum, estibi sicut materiale. Remoto autem formali cujuscumque rei, tollitur species; sicut remoto rationali, tollitur species humana. Et ideo ex hoc ipso dicitur culpa mortalis remitti, quod per gratiam tollitur aversion mentis a Deo simul cum reatu pœnæ aternæ; remanet tamen illud quod est materiale, scilicet inordinata conversio ad bonum creatum, pro qua debetur reatus pœnæ temporalis.
[II-II.q.86.a.4.ad.2] First-fruits were offered in the Old Law, not only on account of the favor of the promised land given by God, but also on account of the favor of the fruits of the earth, which were given by God. Hence it is written (Deuteronomy 26:10): "I offer the first-fruits of the land which the Lord hath given me," which second motive is common among all people. We may also reply that just as God granted the land of promise to the Jews by a special favor, so by a general favor He bestowed the lordship of the earth on the whole of mankind, according to Psalm 113:24, "The earth He has given to the children of men."
[II-II.q.86.a.4.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod, sicut in secunda parte habitum est, ad gratiam pertinet operari in homine justificando ipsum a peccato, et cooperari homini ad recte operandum. Remissio igitur culpæ et reatus pœnæ aternæ pertinet ad gratiam operantem; sed remissio reatus pœnæ temporalis pertinet ad gratiam cooperantem, inquantum scilicet homo cum auxilio divinæ gratiae patienter pœnas tolerando, absolvitur etiam a reatu pœnæ temporalis. Sicut igitur prius est effectus gratiae operantis quam gratiae cooperantis, ita etiam prius est remissio culpæ et pœnæ aternæ quam plena absolutio a pœna temporali; utrumque enim est a gratia, sed primum a gratia sola, secundum ex gratia et libero arbitrio.
[II-II.q.86.a.4.ad.3] As Jerome says [Comment. in Ezekiel 45:13-14; cf. Cap. Decimam, de Decim. Primit. et Oblat.]: "According to the tradition of the ancients the custom arose for those who had most to give the priests a fortieth part, and those who had least, one sixtieth, in lieu of first-fruits." Hence it would seem that first-fruits should vary between these limits according to the custom of one's country. And it was reasonable that the amount of first-fruits should not be fixed by law, since, as stated above, first-fruits are offered by way of oblation, a condition of which is that it should be voluntary.
The 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
[II-II.q.86.a.4.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod passio Christi de se sufficiens est ad tollendum omnem reatum pœnæ non solum aternæ, sed etiam temporalis; et secundum modum quo homo participat virtutem passionis Christi, percipit etiam absolutionem a reatu pœnæ. In baptismo autem homo participat totaliter virtutem passionis Christi; utpote per aquam et spiritum Christi commortuus peccato, et in eo regeneratus ad novam vitam; et ideo in baptismo homo consequitur remissionem reatus totius pœnæ. In pœnitentia vero consequitur virtutem passionis Christi secundum modum propriorum actuum, qui sunt materia pœnitentiae, sicut aqua baptismi, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo non statim per primum actum pœnitentiae, quo remittitur culpa, solvitur reatus totius pœnæ, sed completis omnibus pœnitentiae actibus.
JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/secunda-secundae/q086.json