EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 8]
Whether a Degraded Priest Can Consecrate This Sacrament?
Objection 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.
Obj. 2: Further, he who gives can take away. But the bishop in ordaining gives to the priest the power of consecrating. Therefore he can take it away by degrading him.
Obj. 3: Further, the priest, by degradation, loses either the power of consecrating, or the use of such power. But he does not lose merely the use, for thus the degraded one would lose no more than one excommunicated, who also lacks the use. Therefore it seems that he loses the power to consecrate, and in consequence that he cannot perform this sacrament.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine (Contra Parmen. ii) proves that "apostates" from the faith "are not deprived of their Baptism," from the fact that "it is not restored to them when they return repentant; and therefore it is deemed that it cannot be lost." But in like fashion, if the degraded man be restored, he has not to be ordained over again. Consequently, he has not lost the power of consecrating, and so the degraded priest can perform this sacrament.
_I answer that,_ The power of consecrating the Eucharist belongs to the character of the priestly order. But every character is indelible, because it is given with a kind of consecration, as was said above (Q. 63, A. 5), just as the consecrations of all other things are perpetual, and cannot be lost or repeated. Hence it is clear that the power of consecrating is not lost by degradation. For, again, Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): "Both are sacraments,"
namely Baptism and order, "and both are given to a man with a kind of consecration; the former, when he is baptized; the latter when he is ordained; and therefore it is not lawful for Catholics to repeat either of them." And thus it is evident that the degraded priest can perform this sacrament.
Reply Obj. 1: That Canon is speaking, not as by way of a.s.sertion, but by way of inquiry, as can be gleaned from the context.
Reply Obj. 2: The bishop gives the priestly power of order, not as though coming from himself, but instrumentally, as G.o.d"s minister, and its effect cannot be taken away by man, according to Matt. 19:6: "What G.o.d 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.
Reply Obj. 3: Excommunication is medicinal. And therefore the ministry of the priestly power is not taken away from the excommunicate, as it were, perpetually, but only for a time, that they may mend; but the exercise is withdrawn from the degraded, as though condemned perpetually.
_______________________
NINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 9]
Whether It Is Permissible to Receive Communion from Heretical, Excommunicate, or Sinful Priests, and to Hear Ma.s.s Said by Them?
Objection 1: It seems that one may lawfully receive Communion from heretical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, and to hear ma.s.s said by them. Because, as Augustine says (Contra Petilian. iii), "we should not avoid G.o.d"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 ma.s.s.
Obj. 2: Further, Christ"s true body is figurative of His mystical body, as was said above (Q. 67, A. 2). But Christ"s true body is consecrated by the priests mentioned above. Therefore it seems that whoever belongs to His mystical body can communicate in their sacrifices.
Obj. 3: Further, there are many sins graver than fornication. But it is not forbidden to hear the ma.s.ses of priests who sin otherwise.
Therefore, it ought not to be forbidden to hear the ma.s.ses of priests guilty of this sin.
_On the contrary,_ The Canon says (Dist. 32): "Let no one hear the ma.s.s of a priest whom he knows without doubt to have a concubine."
Moreover, Gregory says (Dial. iii) that "the faithless father sent an Arian bishop to his son, for him to receive sacrilegiously the consecrated Communion at his hands. But, when the Arian bishop arrived, G.o.d"s devoted servant rebuked him, as was right for him to do."
_I answer that,_ As was said above (AA. 5, 7), heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin.
Hence we read in John"s Second Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that saith unto him, G.o.d speed you, communicateth with his wicked works."
Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to a.s.sist at their ma.s.s.
Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church"s sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their ma.s.s 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 p.r.o.nounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their ma.s.s. Hence on 1 Cor. 5:11, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine"s gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by G.o.d"s law, according to the Church"s ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted."
Reply Obj. 1: By refusing to hear the ma.s.ses of such priests, or to receive Communion from them, we are not shunning G.o.d"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.
Reply Obj. 2: The unity of the mystical body is the fruit of the true body received. But those who receive or minister unworthily, are deprived of the fruit, as was said above (A. 7; Q. 80, A. 4). And therefore, those who belong to the unity of the Faith are not to receive the sacrament from their dispensing.
Reply Obj. 3: Although fornication is not graver than other sins, yet men are more p.r.o.ne to it, owing to fleshly concupiscence.
Consequently, this sin is specially inhibited to priests by the Church, lest anyone hear the ma.s.s 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.
_______________________
TENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 10]
Whether It Is Lawful for a Priest to Refrain Entirely from Consecrating the Eucharist?
Objection 1: It seems to be lawful for a priest to refrain entirely from consecrating the Eucharist. Because, as it is the priest"s office to consecrate the Eucharist, so it is likewise to baptize and administer the other sacraments. But the priest is not bound to act as a minister of the other sacraments, unless he has undertaken the care of souls. Therefore, it seems that likewise he is not bound to consecrate the Eucharist except he be charged with the care of souls.
Obj. 2: Further, no one is bound to do what is unlawful for him to do; otherwise he would be in two minds. But it is not lawful for the priest who is in a state of sin, or excommunicate, to consecrate the Eucharist, as was said above (A. 7). Therefore it seems that such men are not bound to celebrate, and so neither are the others; otherwise they would be gainers by their fault.
Obj. 3: Further, the priestly dignity is not lost by subsequent weakness: because Pope Gelasius I says (cf. Decretal, Dist. 55): "As the canonical precepts do not permit them who are feeble in body to approach the priesthood, so if anyone be disabled when once in that state, he cannot lose that he received at the time he was well." But it sometimes happens that those who are already ordained as priests incur defects whereby they are hindered from celebrating, such as leprosy or epilepsy, or the like. Consequently, it does not appear that priests are bound to celebrate.
_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says in one of his Orations (x.x.xiii): "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."
_I answer that,_ Some have said that a priest may lawfully refrain altogether from consecrating, except he be bound to do so, and to give the sacraments to the people, by reason of his being entrusted with the care of souls.
But this is said quite unreasonably, because everyone is bound to use the grace entrusted to him, when opportunity serves, according to 2 Cor. 6:1: "We exhort you that you receive not the grace of G.o.d 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 G.o.d to Whom the sacrifice of this sacrament is offered by consecrating. Hence, it is not lawful for the priest, even though he has not the care of souls, to refrain altogether from celebrating; and he seems to be bound to celebrate at least on the chief festivals, and especially on those days on which the faithful usually communicate. And hence it is that (2 Macc. 4:14) it is said against some priests that they "were not now occupied about the offices of the altar ... despising the temple and neglecting the sacrifices."
Reply Obj. 1: The other sacraments are accomplished in being used by the faithful, and therefore he alone is bound to administer them who has undertaken the care of souls. But this sacrament is performed in the consecration of the Eucharist, whereby a sacrifice is offered to G.o.d, to which the priest is bound from the order he has received.
Reply Obj. 2: The sinful priest, if deprived by the Church"s sentence from exercising his order, simply or for a time, is rendered incapable of offering sacrifice; consequently, the obligation lapses.
But if not deprived of the power of celebrating, the obligation is not removed; nor is he in two minds, because he can repent of his sin and then celebrate.
Reply Obj. 3: Weakness or sickness contracted by a priest after his ordination does not deprive him of his orders; but hinders him from exercising them, as to the consecration of the Eucharist: sometimes by making it impossible to exercise them, as, for example, if he lose his sight, or his fingers, or the use of speech; and sometimes on account of danger, as in the case of one suffering from epilepsy, or indeed any disease of the mind; and sometimes, on account of loathsomeness, as is evident in the case of a leper, who ought not to celebrate in public: he can, however, say ma.s.s privately, unless the leprosy has gone so far that it has rendered him incapable owing to the wasting away of his limbs.
_______________________
QUESTION 83
OF THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT (In Six Articles)
We have now to consider the Rite of this sacrament, under which head there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ is sacrificed in the celebration of this mystery?
(2) Of the time of celebrating;
(3) Of the place and other matters relating to the equipment for this celebration;
(4) Of the words uttered in celebrating this mystery;
(5) Of the actions performed in celebrating this mystery.
(6) Of the defects which occur in the celebration of this sacrament.
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 83, Art. 1]
Whether Christ Is Sacrificed in This Sacrament?