D. 13 - Minister of the Eucharist

After the Master has examined the sacrament of the Eucharist, here he considers the ministers of this sacrament. And this is divided into two parts: in the first, he defines his aim; in the second, he adds an epilogue, at: concerning this heavenly mystery we have summarized some things which are to be held faithfully by Catholics. (Peter Lombard, Sententiae IV, 13.1 (72). 9.)

The first is in two parts: in the first, he shows who can consecrate and administer this kind of sacrament; in the second, who can receive it, at: it may also be truly said. (Sent IV, 13.1 (72). 8.)

The first is in two parts: in the first, he inquires whether the power of consecrating is taken away by the sin of the minister; in the second, he shows what things are required in the minister for him to be able to consecrate, at: in the performance of this mystery, just as it is necessary to preserve the form, so also it is necessary to have the order, that is, that [the celebrant] be a priest, and to have the intention. (Sent IV, 13.1 (72). 7.)

The first is in two parts: in the first, he inquires whether a bad priest can consecrate; in the second, whether those who are cut off from the Church can, at: but those who are excommunicate, or publicly known to be heretics, do not seem to be able to confect this sacrament. (Sent IV, 13.1 (72). 4.)

Concerning this heavenly mystery we have summarized some things which are to be held faithfully by Catholics. (Sent IV, 13.1 (72). 9.) Here he adds an epilogue; and concerning this he does two things: first, he sets down the epilogue; second, he defines what makes a heretic from an incidental, at: but lest you be ignorant of what makes a heretic, or what a heretic is, hear briefly what the holy doctors have taught on this point. (Sent IV, 13.2 (73). 1.)

Here there are two questions. First, about the consecrating minister. Second, about heresy.

Question 1

The consecration of the Eucharist

Concerning the first, three questions arise:

first, who can consecrate;

• second, the rite of consecrating;
• third, the administering of this sacrament.
• Article 1

Who can consecrate

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the first question we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST III, q. 72, a. 2; q. 82, a. 1.) It seems that a lay person can also consecrate. For it belongs to a priest to consecrate. But every lay person, if he is good, is a priest; for as John Chrysostom says, every holy person is a priest; (John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Hom. 43 (PG 56:876).) and to all the faithful it is said, you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood (1 Pet 2:9). Therefore, a good lay person can consecrate.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, a person cannot consecrate by his own power, but by God’s power. But a good lay person is more a partaker of divine power than a bad priest. Therefore, a good lay person can consecrate more than a bad priest.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, it is a greater thing to receive the sacrament than to consecrate it; for the latter is ordered to the former. But a good lay person can receive the sacrament. Therefore, he can also consecrate it.

On the contrary (1), this sacrament is offered to reconcile us to God, which is the office of a mediator. Therefore, since the priest alone is a medium between God and the people, only priests can consecrate this sacrament.

Furthermore (2), the goodness of virtue is not obvious, for no one knows whether he is worthy of hatred or love (Eccl 9:1), and this can especially not be known to someone else. Therefore, if the power of consecrating resulted from the goodness of the person, it could not be known when the consecration had truly happened or not. And so there would be deception in the sacraments.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that only a bishop can consecrate. (Parallels: ST III, q. 72, a. 2; q. 82, a. 1.) For in any nation the noblest action belongs to the leader, as the Commentator says in the Metaphysics 11. But the highest one in our hierarchy is the bishop, as Dionysius says. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, p. 1, n. 5 (PG 3:506).) Therefore, since consecrating is the highest action of our hierarchy, this act will be for him alone.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, according to Dionysius, (Ibid., n. 6.) in the place cited, to perfect belongs to the bishop alone. But according to him, it is the Eucharist that has perfective power. Therefore, only the bishop can consecrate.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, it is a greater thing to consecrate the body of Christ than to consecrate an altar, or to consecrate virgins. But these are reserved to bishops alone. Therefore, much more should the consecration of the body of Christ be reserved to them.

On the contrary, is the Church’s common practice, and the institution of the canons, which teach that the power of consecrating and baptizing is common to bishops and priests.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that heretics and schismatics and those excommunicated cannot consecrate. (Parallels: below, exposition of the text; d. 19, q. 1, a. 2, qa. 3, ad 1; ST III, q. 74, a. 9, ad 2; q. 82, a. 5; Quodl. XII, q. 11, a. 1.) For, as Cause 24, Question 1, says, we have heard anyone who was estranged from the unity of the Church can assist, but he cannot consecrate. (Gratian’s Decretals, Part 2, cause 24, ch. 4 (PL 187:1265).) Augustine also says that outside the Church there is no place of true sacrifice. (See Augustine, Contra Cresconium (CSEL 52), Bk. 2, chs. 12–13.) But all those mentioned are outside the Church. Therefore, they cannot consecrate.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, this sacrament cannot be polluted. But according to Jerome, heretics eat polluted bread. (See Jerome, Commentarii in prophetas minores (CCSL 76A), In Aggaeum, ch. 2.) Therefore, they do not have the true sacrament; therefore, they do not consecrate.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, this sacrament belongs to the Church’s union; hence it is also called Communion. But all those mentioned lack this union. Therefore, they cannot consecrate.

On the contrary (1), a priest has the power of consecrating from the character itself; but the character remains in the person of a heretic, schismatic, and someone excommunicated. Therefore, they can consecrate.

Furthermore (2), the quality of a person is only required for action that is proper to the person. But consecration is not a personal act of the priest himself, but of God, by whose words he consecrates. Therefore, it is not impeded because of a proper quality.

Quaestiuncula 4

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that someone who has been deprived of office cannot consecrate. (Parallels: ST III, q. 82, a. 8; Quodl. XII, q. 11, a. 1.) For no one can consecrate who does not have the power of consecrating. But one deprived of office does not have the power of consecrating, although he has the power of baptizing, as the canon says. (Gratian’s Decretals, Part 2, canon 1, q. 1, ch. 97 (PL 187:525).) Therefore, he cannot consecrate.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, a thing is made and is corrupted out of the same things, according to the Philosopher in the Ethics 2. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 2, ch. 1 (1104b7).) But someone receives the ability to consecrate from the power of the bishop. Therefore, when he is stripped of office by the bishop, it seems that he loses this ability.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, someone possessing priestly orders is not left to the punishment of secular courts. But someone stripped of his office is left to them. Therefore, he does not have holy orders; and therefore he cannot consecrate.

On the contrary (1), if someone who was stripped of office is reconciled to the Church, he is not ordained again. Therefore, he did not lose holy orders; therefore he was able to consecrate.

Furthermore (2), the same thing is proved by the indelible nature of the character, as was said above. But whether a bad priest or an angel can consecrate, the reasoning is the same as about baptizing; and so it should be looked for above in Distinction 5.

Quaestiuncula 5

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the Mass of a bad priest is not worth less than that of a good priest. (Parallel: ST III, q. 82, a. 6.) For, as Augustine says in the book On the Body of Christ, in the mystery of the Lord’s body and blood nothing greater is accomplished by a good priest, and nothing less is accomplished by a bad priest. (See Lanfranc, Liber de corpore et sanguine Domini, ch. 12 (PL 150:1310).)

Obj. 2: Furthermore, baptism given by a good minister is no better than that given by a bad one. Therefore, neither is the Mass said by a good or by a bad priest.

On the contrary, what is more fruitful is better. But the Mass of a good priest is more fruitful, for his prayer is heard more. Therefore, his Mass is better.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that the Church’s orders are derived from the order of the heavenly hierarchy; and so just as among the angels different actions are due to different orders, so also in the Church Militant different orders are applied to different acts, just as also in a body different members have different functions, which the mystical body resembles, as is clear from 1 Corinthians 12. However, the orders of the Church cannot be distinguished by the difference in interior goodness, which is unknown, and its degrees are indeterminate. And so the goodness or virtue of someone is not ordered to his being able to do something, but to his doing well whatever he can do. For the habits of the virtues are not powers, as the Philosopher proves, (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 2, ch. 4 (1106a6).) and that is why the fact that one person is capable of an act that another is not, does not depend on their difference in goodness or badness, but on the power received that one person has and not another; and so, because a lay person does not receive the power of consecrating, however great his goodness may be, it does not help him to be able to consecrate.

Reply Obj. 1: Every good person is said to be a priest mystically, because he offers himself as mystical sacrifice to God, namely, a living victim to God (Rom 12:1).

Reply Obj. 2: A good lay person is made partaker of the Lord’s power for accomplishing well what he was able to do in any fashion before, but not for being able to do through this power what he could not do before.

Reply Obj. 3: Although receiving the sacrament is greater in its fruit, nevertheless, consecrating it is greater in its power. And this is why it is not necessary that whoever can receive can consecrate.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that the power of consecrating does not only belong to the bishop, but it is also conferred on the priests. For the order of priest is an intermediate between the bishop and the people. And so, just as in the angelic hierarchy illuminations arrive at inferior orders by means of the superior ones, so all sacraments that are commonly administered to the whole people are conferred by the priests; and these are all the sacraments that do not establish one in any state or degree above others. And since the Eucharist is one of these, it can be administered and consecrated not only by a bishop but also by a priest. And there is also another reason, so that the memorial of the Lord’s Passion might be more frequent, and come more to the aid of the living and the dead by its greater frequency.

Reply Obj. 1: Although this act is the greatest in itself, nevertheless it is not the greatest as to establishing one in the Church’s order; for by the reception of this sacrament no one is established in a higher level or state among the members of the Church, as happens by holy orders; and so it is not necessary that that act be reserved to the bishops alone.

Reply Obj. 2: Among ordered things, the lower always partakes of something of the higher, as Dionysius says; (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 6, p. 3 (PG 3:534).) and this is how it is in the relations of the heavenly hierarchy, as was said in Book II, Distinction 9, Question 1, Article 6. And so, since the order of priest is connected with the order of bishop, it also partakes something of its perfective power in the perfection that perfects someone in himself, but not the perfection by which someone is established in a more eminent level, as is the case in holy orders, or in a higher office as it is in confirmation. And so the priest partakes in the power of consecrating from the bishop, but not the power of confirming or ordaining. And Dionysius says that he has this as it were participatively, which is clear from the fact that a priest consecrates upon an altar consecrated by a bishop, and in vessels consecrated by a bishop, and he himself was also consecrated by a bishop.

Reply Obj. 3: Those blessings are not available for use by the whole people, but by certain preeminent persons; and so they are reserved to the bishops alone.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that certain people have said that heretics who have been cut off from the Church, and likewise the excommunicated and schismatics, since they are outside the unity of the Church, cannot consecrate; and the Master seems to be of this opinion in the text. But since everything that is given through consecration is perpetual, for this reason, just as baptism, which is given through a consecration, is never lost, no matter how much someone falls into heresy or schism or excommunication; so neither can priestly orders be lost in any way, as Augustine says to Parmenianus. (Augustine, Contra epistulam Parmeniani (CSEL 51), Bk. 2, ch. 13.) And since the power of consecrating results from priestly orders, as was said, for this reason heretics and schismatics and those excommunicated consecrate, although to their own ruin, as long as the due form and matter and intention are preserved, which can also happen among unbelievers, as was said of baptism above in Distinction 5. (See d. 5, q. 2, a. 2.)

Reply Obj. 1: The words of the canon are to be understood about those who do not preserve the due form or about the carrying out that they lose, for they do not have the right to consecrate, and in law we are said to be able to do only what we can do justly. Or it speaks about the consecration by which holy orders are conferred, for it results in the damnation rather than the sanctification of the recipients. And likewise what Augustine says, that outside the Church there is no place of true sacrifice, is to be understood as to the effect; or outside the Church, that is, outside the Church’s form.

Reply Obj. 2: It is called polluted bread not in itself, but because by consecrating and receiving they pollute themselves and others who knowingly receive the sacraments from them.

Reply Obj. 3: Inasmuch as he has holy orders, he belongs to the unity of the Church, although in a certain respect he may be cut off from the Church.

Response to Quaestiuncula 4

To the fourth question, it should be said that someone stripped of office, because he does not lose holy orders, retains the power of consecrating. But the right of consecrating is taken away from him; and so if he consecrates, he sins, but it is consecrated nevertheless.

Reply Obj. 1: That canon does not speak by way of assertion, but as if by opposition, as is apparent from the context.

Reply Obj. 2: The bishop did not give holy orders, but God did through the ministry of the bishop. And God could take it away, but the bishop could not, for he was not constituted a minister of removing holy orders, as he was of conferring them, since orders should be perpetual because of the efficacy of the consecration.

Reply Obj. 3: It is not essential to priestly orders that someone not be left to secular judgment, but rather, it is granted by a privilege. And so someone stripped of his office who remains in holy orders loses this privilege by his own fault.

Response to Quaestiuncula 5

To the fifth question, it should be said that we can speak about the Mass in two ways: either as to what is essential in it, namely, the body of Christ, and in this way no matter who says it, it is equally good, because the work performed is equally good and also powerful; or as to what is attached to the sacrament, and secondary, as it were, and in this way, the Mass of a good priest is better, because it does not only have efficacy by the work itself having been performed, but by the work of the one doing it. And so, all other things being equal, it is better to hear the Mass of a good priest than a bad one.

And by this the solutions to both sides are clear.

Article 2

The rite of consecrating

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the second we proceed thus. (Parallel: ST III, q. 82, a. 10.) It seems that a priest is permitted to abstain entirely from consecrating. For Jerome tells of blessed Mark that he cut off his own thumb so that he would be considered rejected from the priesthood. (Moos writes in a note: “Thus in the old prologue On Mark, erroneously ascribed to Jerome.” Note that this story found its way into The Golden Legend, of enormous popularity in the Middle Ages: “He [Mark] was bent over in his profound humility, for it was due to his humility that he cut off his thumb, as we are told, in order to be judged unfit for the priesthood” (Ryan ed., 1:243).) Nor did he do this for any reason other than considering himself unworthy of such a sacrament. Therefore, it seems that if some priest abstained from celebration entirely out of reverence for the body of the Lord and consideration of his own weakness, he would not sin.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, just as the office of a priest is to consecrate, so also it is to bind and loose. But it is not required that he bind and loose unless he has the care of souls. Therefore, it is also not required of a priest who does not have a people to whom he is bound, that he consecrate, and so he does not sin by abstaining entirely.

On the contrary, Ambrose says: it is a grave thing when we do not come to your table with clean heart and innocent hands; but it is a graver thing if while in dread of our sins, we do not even render the sacrifice. (Not found verbatim in the works of Ambrose. In ST III, q. 82, a. 10, Thomas cites the same text as “Ambrose says in a certain prayer...”; the editors of Editiones Paulinae send us to Anselm, Orationes, n. 33 (PL 158:926); Ambrosiaster, Commentaria in Epistolas B. Pauli, on Romans 2:4–5 (PL 17:264–65).) But the first thing is a mortal sin; therefore the second is as well.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that many men cannot consecrate the same host at the same time. (Parallel: ST III, q. 82, a. 2.) For several actions come from several agents, especially when each one is sufficient to act. But one priest can consecrate alone. Therefore, if several priests consecrated at the same time, there would be several consecrations upon the same host; and so injury would be done to the sacrament.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, one person saying the words consecrates by the power of the words. But what has been done cannot come to be done, for that which is does not come to be. Therefore, the others do nothing, and so the words they say are superfluous.

On the contrary, it is the custom of some churches that new priests concelebrate together with the bishop.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that Mass should not be celebrated daily in the Church. (Parallel: ST III, q. 83, a. 2.) For in Mass we call to mind the Lord’s Passion. But the Church celebrates the memorial of the Lord’s Passion once a year. Therefore, Mass should not be said many times in the Church.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, on Good Friday the memorial of the Lord’s Passion is enacted, yet no consecration is done on that day. Therefore, much less should it be done on all the other days.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, on certain days this sacrament is celebrated solemnly several times in the Church, as is seen on the feast of Christmas, and many other days. Therefore, it seems that sometimes it should be omitted.

On the contrary (1), the sacraments of the Church should be made use of more assiduously than the sacraments of the Old Law. But sacrifice was offered daily under the Old Law. Therefore, much more should it be done in the New Law.

Furthermore (2), this sacrament’s bread is called daily bread. But it would not be unless it were consecrated daily. Therefore, it should be consecrated daily.

Quaestiuncula 4

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that Mass should be celebrated in the evening. (Parallel: ST III, q. 83, a. 2.) For Christ’s act is our instruction. But Christ himself did this sacrament in the evening at supper. Therefore, it should be done at that hour.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, according to the canons, holy orders are to be celebrated at an evening hour. But sacred orders are not celebrated without a solemn Mass. Therefore, Mass should be celebrated at an evening hour.

Obj. 3: Or else, it seems that it should be after midnight, for that is when the day begins according to the counting of the Church.

Obj. 4: Or else it seems that only at the sixth hour, for in that hour the Lord suffered, and this sacrament is the memorial of his Passion.

Quaestiuncula 5

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it does not need to be celebrated in a sacred place. (Parallels: below, d. 24, q. 2, a. 2, ad 9; ST III, q. 83, a. 3.) For just as this is not a necessary sacrament, so neither is confirmation. But confirmation can be conferred in a non-sacred place. Therefore, neither does this sacrament need to be celebrated in a sacred space.

Obj. 2: Or else, it seems that it need not be on an altar of stone. For the sacrifices of the Old Law were a figure of this sacrifice. But the sacrifices of the Old Law were done on an altar of acacia wood, as is seen in Exodus 25:10, and again, an altar of gold, as is seen in 1 Kings 7:48, and again, an altar of earth, as is seen in Exodus 20:24. Therefore, in the New Law it is also not necessary that the altar be made only of stone.

Obj. 3: Or else, it seems that it should be consecrated in silken cloths. For that cloth is most valuable. Therefore, we should rather use it for the reverence of the sacrament.

Obj. 4: Or else, it seems that it could be celebrated in a chalice of stone. For the chalice represents Christ’s tomb. But that tomb was of stone. Therefore, the chalice too should be made of stone.

The priestly vestments will be discussed in the treatise on holy orders, Distinction 24, Question 1, Article 3.

Quaestiuncula 6

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that if any of the aforementioned things are omitted, there will be no consecration. (Parallel: ST III, q. 83, a. 3.) For as Dionysius says, the operations of the hierarchy are ordered according to divine laws. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 3, n. 2 (PG 3:166).) But the person who neglects the rite instituted by the Church does not follow divine laws, which were set down for us by its office. Therefore, such a person does not consecrate, since consecrating is a hierarchical act, for it is an act of holy orders.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the sacrament’s entire rite has its signification. But the signification is essential to the sacrament. Therefore, so is the rite of consecrating; and thus, if it is not observed, there will be no true consecration.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, spiritual actions are more ordered than secular ones. But if any action in secular matters, like selling or buying or anything like that, were done against what was established by the lawmakers, it would be held as null. Therefore, if anyone consecrated against the Church’s statutes, the consecration would also be null.

On the contrary (1), those things that are essential to the sacrament are the same among all people. But the sacrament’s rite is not the same among all, nor in every age. Therefore, it is not of the sacrament’s essence; therefore the consecration can happen without it.

Furthermore (2), in baptism there are certain things that, if they were omitted, are not considered to invalidate the sacrament, for they belong to the sacrament’s solemnity. Therefore, also here, if things are omitted that belong to the solemnity of the consecration, the consecration will truly exist.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that according to certain people, a man who abstains from celebration of the Eucharist does not sin, unless he has a congregation committed to him, or he is bound to celebrate out of obedience. But since, according to Gregory, when gifts grow, the reasons for the gifts grow, (Gregory the Great, Homilies on the Gospels, Bk. 1, homily 9, par. 1 (CCSL 141:58): “Cum enim augentur dona, rationes etiam crescunt donorum.”) and since the noblest power is given to a priest, he will be culpable for negligence unless he uses it for the honor of God and the salvation of himself and others, living and dead, according to the text: serving one another with whatever gift each of you has received (1 Pet 4:10). Unless perhaps someone abstains by the intimate prompting of the Holy Spirit, as is read of a certain holy father in the Lives of the Fathers, who never celebrated Mass once he was ordained. (See De vitis patrum, Bk. 9, ch. 19 (PL 74:80).)

Reply Obj. 1: Someone who does not have holy orders can refuse holy orders. But someone who has them, is bound to exercise them.

Reply Obj. 2: According to everyone, a man owes the other acts of holy orders not only to God, but also to his neighbors. For the acts of the lower orders are for the sake of the priest’s ministry. But other acts of the priest, like binding and loosing, regard the mystical body; likewise also teaching and baptizing. And so whoever is not bound to others either by being subject to or by being set over them, can refrain from these acts without sin. But consecration is a worthier act, and it is ordered to the true body of Christ, nor does it regard the mystical body of Christ except as a result. And thus even if he is bound to no man, he is still bound to God, that he render him an acceptable sacrifice; for it is commanded to priests: do this in memory of me (Luke 22:19).

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that according to the custom of certain churches, several priests concelebrate with the bishop when they are ordained. This is to represent that when the Lord instituted this sacrament, he also gave the power of consecrating to the disciples when he ate supper with them, just as the bishop celebrates together with the priests he has ordained.

Reply Obj. 1: Since intention is required for the perfection of the sacraments, for this reason since all have one intention of performing the consecration, there is only one consecration there.

Reply Obj. 2: As Innocent says, (Innocent III, De sacro altaris mysterio, Bk. 4, ch. 25 (PL 217:873).) all those celebrating should direct their intention to that instant when the bishop utters the words; and in this way the bishop’s intention is not spoiled, nor does anyone do something that is already done.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that according to Innocent, Mass is celebrated daily in the Church for five reasons. First, because it is always necessary for the medicine to be prepared against daily sins. Second, so that the wood of life may always be in the middle of Paradise. Third, so that every day Christ may be united to us sacramentally, and we to him spiritually. Fourth, so that the memory of the Passion may be kept watchfully among us. Fifth, so that in place of its type we might use that true lamb toward evening, for whom the Jews still to be converted will thirst in the evening, according to the scripture: they shall return toward evening, and suffer hunger like dogs (Ps 59 [58]:15).

Reply Obj. 1: Christ’s Passion as it happened to our Head is only represented once per year in the Church; but as its effects reach to us, it should be represented every day, for its effect in us is continuous, and that is how it is represented in this sacrament.

Reply Obj. 2: The Church, desiring the Christian people to meditate on the Lord’s Passion itself as it existed in our Head, established that on that day the body of Christ should not be consecrated. But lest the Church should be entirely without the body of Christ, the body of Christ that was consecrated and reserved the day before is received. But the blood is not reserved because of the danger of spilling. Nor is it true what some people say, that the wine is consecrated by dropping a piece of the host into the chalice, for transubstantiation does not happen without the due form of words. And so after it has been drunk, it is not permitted to the priest receive Communion again that day.

Reply Obj. 3: All our actions should be perfected by Christ. And this is why when it happens that on a single day either different benefits of God must be commemorated, for which thanks should be rendered to God, or else many things are to be requested from God for the salvation of the living and the dead, it is necessary that several Masses be celebrated in a church, if it has the faculties. Nor does it follow from this that sometimes it should be omitted.

Response to Quaestiuncula 4

To the fourth question, it should be said that commonly speaking, Mass should be said in the daytime, not at night, for this sacrament belongs to the time of grace, which is signified by the day: the night is far gone, but the day is at hand (Rom 13:12). But day is not only judged by the rising of the sun, but by the signs that the sunrise is about to begin, by a certain brightening of the air. However, the Mass is sung on two nights because of the privilege of those nights, namely on the night before Christmas, when Christ was born, and around the beginning of the night of the resurrection, as is seen in the prayer, O God, who make this most sacred night radiant with the glory of the Lord’s Resurrection, etc. (The Collect for the Easter Vigil.) although it is not necessary always to observe this. But the celebration of solemn Mass is established to be done at three times of day; namely at the third hour on feast days, at the sixth hour on a ferial day, and at the ninth hour on days of fasting. For in the Mass we call to mind Christ’s death, who indeed was crucified at the third hour by the tongues of the Jews, and at the sixth hour by the hands of the soldiers, and at the ninth hour he breathed his last. But when holy orders are done, the Mass can be sung even after the ninth hour, and particularly on Holy Saturday, for holy orders pertain to the Sunday; or also so that the preparation may be more diligently made, it may be deferred as much as possible before lunch. And so when it is not a day of fast, it is celebrated between the third hour and the sixth, when it is common to eat; but on fasting days at the ninth hour. However, private Masses may be said from morning until the third hour, or even until the ninth on days of fast.

Reply Obj. 1: Christ consecrated at an evening hour for the same reason that it was also after dinner; and so just as we do not need to imitate him in the second, so neither in the first.

Reply Obj. 2: This happens specially on days when holy orders are conferred for the reason already mentioned.

Reply Obj. 3: According to the Church the natural day begins at midnight, but not the artificial day in which alone it is licit to celebrate Mass.

Reply Obj. 4: Although Christ was placed on the Cross at the sixth hour, nevertheless the sacrament of his Passion is enacted at other times; and so it is not necessary that Mass be celebrated only then.

Response to Quaestiuncula 5

To the fifth question, it should be said that in this sacrament is contained the one who is the cause of all holiness; and so everything that relates to this sacrament’s consecration should also be consecrated, like the consecrating priests themselves, and the ministers, and vestments, and vessels, and everything like them. And therefore this sacrament should also be celebrated on a consecrated altar in a consecrated house. But if there is a present necessity, either because of destruction of the churches in a certain land, or for people on a journey, it is permitted also to celebrate in non-consecrated places, as long as they have a portable consecrated altar and other things like that which are required for the consecration of this mystery. Otherwise it is not permitted unless granted by the bishop.

Reply Obj. 1: The sacrament of confirmation does not contain Christ himself; and so the sanctification of place is not required as in this sacrament.

Reply Obj. 2: Blessed Sylvester established finally that the altar not be of anything but stone. (In contemporary dictionaries of Christian antiquity, the attribution to Pope Sylvester I (314–335) of a decree mandating stone altars is questioned or rejected outright; however, the use of stone for the construction of altars was widespread by the 4th century, and in the succeeding two centuries became normative, having been prescribed by regional councils.) For since the altar must be consecrated, the altar must be made of something strong and not fragile, like wood or earth. Again, because there must be in the church a great number of altars, so that this mystery may be done frequently, it must be a common material, not gold or silver or anything like that which cannot easily be had. However, in the Old Law there was only one altar designated for only one effect, and so nothing prevented it from being made of gold. Stone also fits with the signification of the altar, which signifies Christ, who is also signified by stone: but the rock was Christ (1 Cor 10:4). But before the time of Sylvester, because of the persecution, the faithful did not have a safe place to remain, and so they had a wooden altar which was easily moved.

Reply Obj. 3: The cloths in which the body of Christ is consecrated represent the white shroud in which the body of Christ was wrapped. And as it was linen, it is not permitted to consecrate the body of Christ in any cloth but linen. Linen is also suited to this sacrament because of its purity, for the whitest and most easily cleaned cloths are made from it. And because of the repeated beating of the linen by which it is prepared to be made into white cloth, it is suited to signifying Christ’s Passion. And so it is not becoming for silken cloths to be the corporal and altar cloth, although they are more precious; nor for dyed linen cloth, although it is more beautiful.

Reply Obj. 4: According to the Church’s statutes the chalice must be only of gold or silver or pewter; but not of bronze or brass, because from the strength of the wine it could rust, and provoke nausea; nor from glass or crystal because of their fragility; nor from wood because of its porousness, which absorbs the liquid placed in it; nor from stone, because it is clumsy; for it is not necessary that the signs correspond to what they represent in everything.

Response to Quaestiuncula 6

To the sixth question, it should be said that once those things that are not essential to a thing are removed, the thing nevertheless remains. And this is why, since the determination of the hour or the place or the vestments in the rites are not essential to the sacrament but to the solemnity, if they are omitted, the sacrifice is consecrated nevertheless, as long as those things are present that are essential to the sacrament, namely, the order and intention on the part of the one consecrating, and the matter and form on the part of what is consecrated. Still, the person who does otherwise sins gravely, and should be demoted.

Reply Obj. 1: If the divine laws that pertain to the essential institution of a sacrament are changed, nothing happens, as if there were other matter or form. But it is otherwise with the laws that pertain to the solemnity of the sacrament.

Reply Obj. 2: The signification of the sacramental reality is of the sacrament’s essence. And this is sufficiently possessed by the matter. And so the signification that is added by any of the rites belongs to the solemnity, and not to the sacrament’s essence.

Reply Obj. 3: The sacraments have their origin from divine institution, and so the omission of anything that was instituted by the Church cannot impede the valid sacrament from happening. But it would impede it if the sacrament had its efficacy from the Church’s institution, as secular actions are ratified by statutes of princes.

Article 3

The administering of holy communion

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the third question we proceed thus. (Parallel: ST III, q. 82, a. 3.) It seems that a lay person can administer the body of Christ. For the completion of this sacrament consists in the consecration of the matter, as was said above, not in the sacrament’s use. But ordained ministers are the ministers of the sacraments. Therefore, even if the consecration of the matter pertains only to priests, nevertheless the administering should pertain to all.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the sacrament should be administered by those who treat it with reverence. But some laymen have greater reverence for the sacrament than even priests; and sometimes even women. Therefore, the sacrament can be administered by them.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, as it belongs to priests to administer the body of Christ, so also to touch it. But in a certain case it is permitted for a layman to touch the body of Christ, for example, if he saw it lying on the ground, and there were no priest who could pick it up. Therefore, in a certain case he is also allowed to administer it.

On the contrary (1), it is said in On Consecration, Distinction 2, that if a priest is restrained even from sending this sacrament to the sick through laymen. (Gratian’s Decretals, Part 3, De consecratione, d. 2, ch. 29 (PL 187:1743).)

Furthermore (2), those to whom it belongs to be ministers of the Church are also dispensers of God’s mysteries: let a man so consider us as ministers of Christ and dispensers of God’s mysteries (1 Cor 4). But laymen are not ministers of the Church. Therefore, they should not be dispensers of the sacraments.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that a deacon can administer it. (Parallel: ST III, q. 82, a. 3, corp. and ad 1.) For blessed Laurence was a deacon. But the administering of the Lord’s blood was entrusted to him, as is known from his legend. (As is written in The Golden Legend, ch. 117, Laurence ran after Sixtus while the latter was being led away to his martyrdom, crying out: “Where are you going, father, without your son? ... Try me, surely, to see whether you have chosen a minister suitable to have the dispensing of the Lord’s Blood entrusted to him!” (Ryan ed., 2:64).) Therefore, a deacon can administer this sacrament.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the administering of this sacrament pertains to the care of the people. But a deacon can have care of souls. Therefore, he can also be a minister of this sacrament.

On the contrary, it says in Canon Distinction 93: it is not fitting for the deacon to give the bread, that is, the body of Christ. (Gratian’s Decretals, Part 1, dist. 93, ch. 16 (PL 187:438).)

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that someone could licitly receive this sacrament administered by a fornicating priest, or an excommunicated or heretical priest. (Parallels: below, d. 24, q. 1, a. 3, qa. 5, ad 3 & 4; ST III, q. 64, a. 9, ad 3; q. 82, a. 9; Quodl. XI, q. 8, aa. 1–2.) For Augustine says: neither in a good man nor in a bad man does anyone escape the sacraments of God. (As given in the text of the Decretals, Part 2, c. 1, q. 1, ch. 35 (PL 187:498); however, the original text, from Augustine, Contra epistulam Parmeniani, Bk. 3, ch. 9, par. 10 (CSEL 52:171): “nemo glorietur nec in homine bono, nemo bona dei fugiat nec in homine malo.”) Therefore, this sacrament can be received from any kind of priest.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, divine power is stronger than human wickedness. But the sacrament contains and causes grace by divine power. Therefore, no matter how wicked the man who gives it is, or whether he is a heretic, whoever receives the sacrament from him obtains grace.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the wickedness of a priest cannot soil the body of Christ itself. But this sacrament, which is the body of Christ, confers grace by the very accomplishment of the action. Therefore, even if someone is excommunicated or a heretic, the sacrament received from him confers grace.

On the contrary (1), the canon says: no one may hear the Mass of a priest whom he knows without a doubt to keep a concubine. (Gratian’s Decretals, Part 1, d. 32, ch. 5 (PL 187:177).) Therefore, whoever receives the sacrament from a cohabiting priest sins.

Furthermore (2), no one should receive the sacrament outside the institution of the Church, for he would approach unworthily. But certain people are suspended according to the Church’s institution. Therefore, it is not permitted to receive the sacrament from them.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that just as in a natural body there are certain principal members, through which the powers and operations of life pass from the principle of life to the other members, so also in the Church the priests and other ministers are like principal members by whose mediation the sacraments of life should be dispensed to the people. And so, just as consecration is not befitting to laypeople, no matter how holy they are, neither is the administering of this sacrament.

Reply Obj. 1: Although in its essence, this sacrament is complete without the sacrament’s use, nevertheless, it is not complete as regards its effect without its use. And therefore this sacrament’s use also pertains to the administering of the ministers of the Church.

Reply Obj. 2: For this sacrament’s reverence, not only sanctification of morals is required, but also sacramental sanctification: for even the very chalice, in which there cannot exist holiness of morals, is consecrated out of reverence for the sacrament. And in the same way, in the person administering this sacrament there should be both kinds of sanctification, which is why not only are the priest’s hands sanctified by anointing, but also the chalice. And thus, since a layman does not have this sanctity, for this reason he cannot administer this sacrament.

Reply Obj. 3: Just as it belongs to the priest to confer baptism by his office, though a layman does not sin by baptizing in an emergency, so also to touch the body of Christ belongs to a priest alone by his office, but in an emergency, for example if it were lying in some unclean place, he can and should touch the body of Christ, even if he is a sinner. But the administering of the sacrament is not the same, for the reception of this sacrament is not of necessity; and so to anyone who cannot eat it sacramentally, it should be said, believe and you will have eaten. (Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus (CCSL 36), Tract. 26, par. 1.)

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that the administering of this sacrament properly belongs to the priest by the fact that he represents Christ, who was the mediator of God and men. Hence, since this sacrament is for reconciling us to God, it ought to be administered by a priest, who is the mediator between God and the people. But just as a priest, as was said, participates in something of the perfective power that belongs to a bishop, so also a deacon participates in something of the administering of this sacrament, for it belongs to him by office to dispense the Lord’s blood but not his body. For the minister of the body must touch the body, but the minister of the blood need not. However, it is not permitted for a deacon to touch the body of Christ, since he does not have consecrated hands. And so he should not administer the body except by the special command of the priest or bishop, or when the priest is far away in an emergency. Or he administers the blood and not the body for this reason, that the mystery of redemption is signified by the blood, which flows down from Christ the head to his members by the office of his ministers, and so also the water which signifies the people is mixed into the blood. But the Incarnation, which the body of Christ signifies, did not happen by human ministry.

Reply Obj. 1: Although he was minister of the blood, nevertheless it is not read that he was minister of the body; and so also to this day in any church the blood is administered to the altar servers by a deacon.

Reply Obj. 2: A deacon can have the care of souls as to what belongs to legal authority, but not as to those things that belong to priestly orders; and the administering of the sacraments pertains to priestly orders.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that if anyone approaches this sacrament with sin, it will be more to his damage than his advancement. But anyone who approaches against the ordering of the Church sins by disobedience. Now simoniacs and schismatics and the excommunicated are suspended from administering this sacrament by the Church’s decree: for they are outside the unity of the Church, in which the sacraments are conferred. Likewise it is forbidden to cohabiting priests because of the supreme spirituality that is required in this sacrament. This is why if someone receives the sacrament from one of these, he sins, and so he does not receive grace. Nevertheless, there is a difference between fornicating priests and the others mentioned: for a man should not share with the others in divine things knowingly, however much they are private; but fornicating priests are not to be avoided unless they are notorious. And there are three ways of being called notorious: either because of public opinion, because people are convinced; or by having confessed it in court; or by the obviousness of the matter, as when it is so evident that no one can turn a blind eye to it. But from other sinners it is permitted to receive the sacraments.

Reply Obj. 1: He is not fled because he is wicked, but because of the Church’s prohibition. Or it could be said that Augustine says that the sacraments are not to be fled, for one must also be recognized that a valid sacrament is consecrated by them.

Reply Obj. 2: Although the sacrament does not lose its power, nevertheless in someone who approaches unworthily by acting against obedience to the Church, it does not have its effect.

And the same thing should be said to the third objection.

Question 2

On heresy

Next it should be asked about heresy, and concerning this, three questions arise:

first, what a heretic does;

• second, whether heresy is a greater sin than others;
• third, whether heretics are to be tolerated.
• Article 1

What a heretic does

Obj. 1: To the first we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST II-II, q. 10, a. 5; q. 11, a. 12; q. 104, a. 1, ad 1.) It seems that ‘heresy’ does not mean a perversion of the faith. For heresy is the same as division, as Isidore says. (In fact, Isidore nowhere says this; Thomas more correctly cites Isidore below, in his response.) But division is opposed to union. Now union happens by charity, for love is the unitive virtue, as Dionysius says. (Pseudo-Dionysius, On the Divine Names, ch. 4, n. 15 (PG 3:714).) Therefore, heresy does not pertain to a perversion of the faith, but rather to a perversion of hatred.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, schism conveys division, and so it seems that schismatics are heretics. But schismatics do not always hold a perversion of the faith. Therefore, heresy does not consist in the perversion of the faith.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, simoniacs do not err in the faith. But nevertheless simoniacs are heretics, for, as Gregory says in the register: let anyone who is ordained for money be brought forth as a heretic. (As the Patrologia volume of the Decretals indicates in a note, this sentence is not found in Gregory’s epistles, although the Decretals attribute it to him; see p. 2, cause 1, q. 1, ch. 5 (PL 187:480). Moos, however, refers to Gregory’s Register, Bk. 9, epist. 106 (PL 77:1029).) Therefore, heresy does not include error in the faith.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, superstition is opposed to religion, not to faith. But superstition is called a heresy. Therefore, it does not pertain to the perversion of the faith, but rather to the perversion of religion.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, Jerome says that heresy is incurred by words uttered inordinately. (In the text of Lombard, d. 13, ch. 2; see Glossa ordinaria on Hos. 2:16.) But faith does not consist in words of the mouth, but in the assent of the heart. Therefore, heresy does not mean a perversion of the faith.

Obj. 6: Furthermore, there are many things relating to the faith in which there are contrary opinions, and so one of them must be false; but nevertheless it is not judged to be heretical. Therefore, heresy’s whole nature does not consist in the perversion of the faith.

Obj. 7: Furthermore, the Jews hold a perversion of the faith, yet they are not called heretics. Therefore, not every heresy consists in the perversion of the faith.

Obj. 8: Furthermore, many people hold a perversion of the faith who do not hold new opinions, like the Manichees. But to hold a new opinion is essential to heresy, as is clear from Augustine’s definition. (In the text of Lombard, ch. 2; see Augustine, De utilitate credendi (CSEL 25), ch. 1, n. 1.) Therefore, etc.

Obj. 9: Furthermore, many people hold a perverse opinion in things that belong to the faith who do not hope for any temporal benefit from this. Yet that is essential to heresy, as is clear from Augustine. (This and the next reference are to the same passage.) Therefore, etc.

On the contrary (1), heresy is a sin. Therefore, it is opposed to some virtue. But no knowledge is counted among the virtues except faith. Therefore since heresy belongs to knowledge, as is evident from Augustine’s definition cited above, it seems that heresy is a perversion of the faith.

Furthermore (2), this is clear from the common way of speaking.

I answer that, ‘heresy’ is a Greek word, and it means a choosing, according to Isidore, and this is why heresy is also said to be divisive. (Isidore writes: “Haeresis Graece ab electione uocatur, quod scilicet unusquisque id sibi eligat quod melius illi esse uidetur, ut philosophi Peripatetici, Academici, et Epicurei et Stoici, uel sicut alii qui peruersum dogma cogitantes arbitrio suo de Ecclesia recesserunt. Inde ergo haeresis, dicta Graeca uoce, ex interpretatione electionis, qua quisque arbitrio suo ad instituenda, siue ad suscipienda quaelibet ipse sibi elegit” (Etymologiarum siue Originum libri XX [ed. Lindsay], Bk. 8, ch. 3). Moos “corrects” electionem to divisionem, as objection 1 also reads. If Moos is correct, Thomas would be misquoting Isidore twice.) And since in choosing, a division is made of one thing from another, choosing is called pro-heresy, as is clear in the Metaphysics 9. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 1, ch. 1 (1094a2).) But a division occurs by removing one part from the whole. Now, the first thing that brings people together is a way of knowing, for from that all others arise. And so heresy also consists in holding an individual opinion apart from the common opinion. And for this reason the philosophers who held certain positions outside the common judgment of others established their own sects or ‘heresies.’ (See the Isidore quotation above, which connects the term with the schools of philosophy.) But because no one is named by what is in him incompletely, but only when he is confirmed in it (as a man is not called hot-tempered by having the passion of anger in himself, but by being easily overcome by it, nor is someone called healthy from being merely disposed to it). And so neither is someone called a heretic unless he is firmly entrenched in an individual opinion. And so the name heresy also applies to him according as it means choosing, because what happens in a choosing proceeds from something like a firm habit. The name heresy also applies to him in Latin, as coming from haerere, sticking, for he sticks to his own opinion stubbornly. And since the mystical body is first brought together by the unity of the true faith, this is why in our opinion someone is called a heretic who departs from the common faith that is called Catholic, sticking stubbornly to a contrary opinion of his own choosing.

Reply Obj. 1: Love makes a union complete, but the beginning of union comes out of knowing. And so a division that is in the faith constitutes heresy.

Reply Obj. 2: Schism conveys a division opposed to the union of love, for those are called schismatics who do not keep agreement in the Church’s observances by obeying the Church’s prelates, wanting instead to establish an individual church by themselves. And they do not have a subverted dogma in the beginning, but by withdrawing from the Church’s foundation they turn to idle talk, and devise some subverted dogma, and that is how they fall into heresy in the end. And so Jerome says that heresy and schism differ as genus and species. (Jerome, Commentarii in iv epistulas Paulinas, Ad Titum, ch. 3, 10 (PL 26:598).)

Reply Obj. 3: Simoniacs are sometimes called heretics by their resemblance, for just as a heretic believes against the faith, so a simoniac acts as if he believed against the faith as long as he wants to obtain or give sacred things for a price, as if he thought the gift of the Holy Spirit was possessed by money.

Reply Obj. 4: Faith is the first of the things that are required for religion, for every act of religion or worship of God is a certain protestation of faith. And therefore the truth of the faith is called the truth that is according to godliness (cf. Tit 1:1). And so those things that are heresies also pertain to superstition.

Reply Obj. 5: Faith subsists principally and first in the heart, but secondarily in the mouth, for it is believed in the heart for righteousness, and confessed with the mouth for salvation (Rom 10:10). And in the same way heresy chiefly subsists in the heart, as Hilary says: the intellect’s meaning is in the soul, but secondarily, in the mouth. (Moos says this text has not been located in the works of Hilary. One wonders if the following might not have formed a basis: Tractatus super psalmos (CCSL 61A), Ps. 118, par. 11: “Sed Dei eloquia in faucibus dulcia sunt, in animam scilicet defluentia et interna penetrantia, non in ore modo cibi placentia, sed illic dulcia ubi cognitionis et prudentiae et intellegentiae sensus est.”) Hence Jerome says that heresy is incurred by words inordinately spoken, not because heresy consists in them per se, but because they are an occasion and cause of error.

Reply Obj. 6: In faith there are certain things that every man is bound to recognize explicitly, and so if someone errs in these things, he is considered an unbeliever, and a heretic, if he adds obstinacy to it. But if there are certain things that a man is not bound to believe explicitly, he is not made a heretic by erring in these things; as if someone simple believes that Jacob was the father of Abraham, which is against the truth of scripture that faith professes, until it becomes known to him that the Church’s faith holds the contrary; for no one departs from the Church’s faith, speaking essentially, unless it is someone who knows that what he is withdrawing from is the Church’s faith. And since there are certain things that are contained implicitly in the Church’s faith as conclusions in their principles, this is the reason that different opinions are allowed in them, until it is determined by the Church that one of them is against the Church’s faith, because something contrary to the faith follows directly from it.

Reply Obj. 7: Being divided only applies to parts; and so those who never were of the Church’s faith, like Jews and pagans, are not considered to be heretics, if they hold a perverted faith, for they were never parts of this whole that is the Church.

Reply Obj. 8: Every opinion that does not have its start in Christ’s teaching, which is the foundation, is considered to be new, no matter how ancient it is in time. Or it could be said that Augustine is speaking about the first inventors of heresy.

Reply Obj. 9: It is clear that those who devise new heresies are looking for some benefit, at least domination: for they want to have followers. In all of them this also proceeds from pride, which is the love of one’s own excellence, that souls depart from the common path by frivolousness or by stubbornness.

Article 2

Whether heresy is a greater sin than others

Obj. 1: To the second we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST II-II, q. 10, a. 3; q. 20, a. 3; q. 34, a. 2, ad 2; q. 39, a. 2, ad 3; ST III, q. 80, a. 5; De malo, q. 2, a. 10; Super I ad Tim. 5, lec. 1.) It seems that heresy is not the greatest sin. For the greatest sins seem to be the chief sins: for the greatest thing in any genus is what is principal. But heresy is not chief among vices. Therefore, it is not the greatest.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, according to the Philosopher in the Ethics 8, (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 8, ch. 12 (1160b9).) the worst is the opposite of the best. But faith, to which heresy is opposed, is not the best of virtues. Therefore, neither is heresy the greatest sin.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, what is excusable is not the greatest of sins. But heresy or unbelief is excusable: but I obtained mercy, because I acted unknowing in my unbelief (1 Tim 1:13). Therefore, heresy is not the greatest sin.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, the measure of punishment is according to the measure of the sin. But according to Jerome, (In the ancient Decretals Jerome was cited as the source, but later editions correctly attribute the statement to Augustine: see PL 187:264 and the source, De baptismo, Bk 2, ch. 6, par. 9 (CSEL 51:183).) the sin of schism is punished more than any other sin: for they are swallowed up by the earth, as is seen in Numbers 16:32. Therefore, heresy is not the greatest sin.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, the sin against the Holy Spirit is graver than other sins. But heresy is not this kind of sin. Therefore, it is not the most grave.

On the contrary (1), in the letter of Clement it says that those who wander away from God hold the first place in punishments. (Epistle of Clement, n. 7 (PG 2:42).) But such people are heretics. Therefore, etc.

Furthermore (2), Ambrose says: you sin most seriously if you do not know. (Apparently not from Ambrose, this comment on Romans 2:4 may be found in the Glossa ordinaria and the Glossa Lombardi (PL 191:1338); Ambrosiaster, Commentaria in Epistolas B. Pauli, on Romans 2:4–5 (PL 17:264–65).) But heretics have ignorance of God. Therefore, they sin most seriously.

Furthermore (3), Dionysius says that that man who has a certain participation of most sacred consummations is not the equal of someone entirely untaught, or of one who does not partake of divine ceremonies, that is, of sacraments. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 3 (PG 3:423).) But this kind of person is a heretic. Therefore, other sinners are not to be equated with them in wickedness.

I answer that, anyone who does harm is called wicked. And so since heresy harms more than any other sin, because it subverts the foundation of all goods without which nothing of good remains, this is why heresy is the greatest sin in kind, although some other sin could be more serious incidentally, as for example if contempt of God were to grow more in something that was even a venial sin by its genus. But what is incidental is not the concern of an art, as the Philosopher says in the Ethics 5. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 5, ch. 11 (1138b1–2).)

Reply Obj. 1: As the Philosopher says in the Ethics 7, bestiality is counted outside the number of other human wickednesses, because it goes beyond the human manner. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 7, ch. 6 (1148b35ff.).) In the same way, the saints count heresy outside the number of sins that are found among the faithful, as more serious than they. And this is why it is not reckoned among the capital vices, nor among their daughter vices, for capital vices, according to Isidore in the Gloss on Deuteronomy 7, (See Glossa ordinaria, PL 113:459.) are represented by the seven nations that did not remain in the land of promise. Nevertheless if the seven capital vices had to be reduced to one, they could be reduced to pride, as is evident from Augustine’s definition included in the text.

Reply Obj. 2: The words of the Philosopher are to be understood about matters that are not ordered to each other, where when one is destroyed the other is not destroyed. But among things that are ordered to each other, the destruction of the first is always worse, whether the first is better or not; for once it is removed, its results are removed, just as sickness is worse than unwholesome habits although wholesome living is better than health.

Reply Obj. 3: Just as faith is somewhat in the desire, so is heresy; and although it may be excused in a certain way on the part of the ignorance it has in the intellect, nevertheless as it has hardness in the desire for not obeying the first truth, nothing prevents it from being the greatest sin.

Reply Obj. 4: Although schism was most gravely punished as to the newness of punishment—for it was expedient so that the Church’s prelates would not be held in contempt—nevertheless, infidelity is punished more as to the great number of those punished, as is clear from Exodus 32:28. (The Busa text cites Exodus 20; the Moos text has Exodus 22:35; but neither of these citations can be right. Exodus 32 makes the point Thomas is making.)

Reply Obj. 5: Heresy, according as it includes obstinacy, is a species of the sin against the Holy Spirit, for it is an attack on recognized truth.

Article 3

Whether heretics are to be tolerated

Obj. 1: To the third we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST II-II, q. 10, a. 8, ad 1; q. 11, a. 3; Quodl. X, q. 7, a. 1; Super Matt. 13.) It seems that heretics should be tolerated. For nothing should be attacked except what is against friendship. But a difference of opinions is not against the harmony of friendship, as the Philosopher implies in the Ethics 9. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 9, ch. 6 (1167a24).) Therefore, they are not to be attacked.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, what is necessary is not to be impeded. But heresy is necessary to the Church: it is necessary for heresies to exist, so that those who are tested may be made manifest (1 Cor 11:19). Therefore, they are not to be attacked.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the Lord commanded that weeds be permitted to grow until harvest (cf. Mt 13:30). But the harvest is the end of the ages. Therefore, since heretics are weeds, it seems that they must be permitted to grow until the end of the world.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, no wise man should strive for what cannot ensue. But, as it says in a certain gloss on Isaiah 7, as long as the world stands, wise speech, secular speech, and heretical speech will dominate. (Jerome, Commentariorum in Isaiam Prophetam, Bk. 3, ch. 7 (PL 24:105).) Therefore, the Church should not strive for the persecution of heretics.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, no one believes without willing, as Augustine says. (Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus (CCSL 36), Tract. 26, par. 2.) But heretics err in their faith. Therefore, they are not to be forced.

On the contrary (1), the Apostle commands that the old leaven be uprooted, for it corrupts the whole mass (cf. 1 Cor 5:6–7). But heretics corrupt the Church the most. Therefore, they are to be rooted out of the Church.

Furthermore (2), it is the office of pastors to keep wolves away from the sheep, as is clear from John 10:12. But heretics are wolves, as is clear in Acts 20:29. Therefore, they should be rooted out.

Furthermore (3), spiritual life is better than physical. But murderers are rooted out because they take men’s physical lives. Therefore, much more should heretics be, who take men’s spiritual lives.

I answer that, heresy is an infectious vice; hence it is said, they lead much toward ungodliness, and their speech spreads like a cancer (2 Tim 2:16–17). And so the Church excludes them from the company of the faithful, and particularly those who corrupt others, so that the simple, who can be easily corrupted, are segregated from them not only in mind, but even physically. And this is why they are imprisoned and expelled by the Church. Now, if they did not corrupt others, they could also be concealed. But those who are firm in the faith can spend time with them physically so that they might convert them; nevertheless they cannot share in divine things, for they are excommunicated. But they can licitly be killed and despoiled of their goods by the secular authority, even if they do not corrupt others, for they are blaspheming against God, and they keep a false faith. And so they can be justly punished more than those who are guilty of the crime of offending majesty and those who forge false money.

Reply Obj. 1: The Philosopher is speaking only of speculative opinions. But consensus in the unity of the faith is the principle of communion in charity, and therefore dissent in the faith excludes the friendship of familiarity.

Reply Obj. 2: Heresy is said to be necessary not speaking per se, but incidentally, inasmuch as God draws something good out of any evil. For according to Augustine, the Church uses heretics to prove its own faith, namely when it attacks their false dogmas. (See Augustine, Confessions (CCSL 27), Bk. 7, ch. 19.)

Reply Obj. 3: The Lord commanded that the weeds not be rooted out for this reason: lest perhaps the wheat should be uprooted at the same time with them. And so, this approach has a place among those about whom it is not clear whether or not they are heretics.

Reply Obj. 4: Although the Church cannot make it so that there are no heretics, nevertheless it can repress this or that one individually; just as also we cannot avoid all venial sins, but we can strive to avoid individual ones.

Reply Obj. 5: The Church does not prosecute them so that they may be led to believe by violence, but so that they may not corrupt others, and lest so great a sin remain unpunished.

Exposition of the Text

Those who are within the Church in name and sacrament, if not in their [way of] life. (Peter Lombard, Sententiae IV, 13.1 (72). 1.) He says this because of schismatics and heretics, who, according to him, cannot consecrate.

And what could be better than the body and blood of Christ? (Sent IV 13.1 (72). 3.) It seems that the mystical body is, which is signified by it. And it should be said that among things that are only for the sake of signifying, it is true that what is signified is greater than the sign, but not among other things that signify as a result. And so it should be said that the mystical body of Christ, if it is taken with its head, is better than the true body of Christ, but only if the true body of Christ is taken without the divinity to which it is united; otherwise not, for God and all created things are not in the least better than God alone. But if the mystical body of Christ is considered without its head, then the true body of Christ is more noble.

But those who are excommunicate, or publicly known to be heretical, do not seem to be able to confect this sacrament. (Sent IV 13.1 (72). 4.) It should be known that in this opinion of the Master, he disagrees with the common opinion. And so the contrary opinion should be adhered to.

“For the mass is so called because the heavenly messenger comes to consecrate the life-giving body.” (Sent IV 13.1 (72). 4 citing Pseudo-Augustine, unidentified.) Besides this reason, Hugh assigns three other reasons. (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis fidei, Bk. 2, pt. 8, ch. 14 (PL 176:472).) First, that it is called the Mass as something ‘transmitted,’ by the fact that the faithful people by the ministry of the priest, who performs the role of a mediator between God and man, transmits prayers, vows, and offerings to God. Second, the victim himself can be said to be something sacred that is ‘sent,’ for he was first sent down by our Father to us, so that he might be with us, and afterward from us to our Father, so that he might be before the Father on our behalf. Third, it is called the Mass from ‘dismissal,’ as some people say, for as the priest is about to consecrate the host, he sends the catechumens and those not receiving Communion out of the church by the hand of the deacon and the porter. The fourth reason is set down in the text.

Therefore, “command these to be borne by the hands of your holy angels to your altar in heaven.” (Sent IV 13.1 (72). 4 citing Roman Canon, after the consecration.) It should be believed that the angels assist at the sacred mysteries, not to consecrate, for none of their kind has the power, but that they may present to God the prayers of the priest and people, as it says, the smoke of the incense, which are the prayers of the saints, rose up in the sight of the Lord from the hand of the angel (Rev 8:4). Therefore, the priest prays that these, that is, what is signified by these, namely, the mystical body, by the hands of your angel, that is, the ministry of angels, may be borne to your altar in heaven, that is, into the Church Triumphant, or into the full participation of divinity, for God himself is said to be the heavenly altar: you shall not ascend to my altar by steps (Exod 20:26); that is, you will not establish levels within the Trinity. Or by ‘angel’ Christ himself may be understood, who is the angel of great counsel (As Isaiah 9:6 reads in the LXX.) who unites his own mystical body to God the Father, and to the Church Triumphant.

“Would God send his angel...to consecrate his offering,” (Sent IV 13.1 (72). 4 citing Pseudo-Augustine, unidentified.) that is, to present what he has consecrated to God, so that it might be accepted in the sight of God for those who offer it; for as to what it contains, it is always acceptable to God.

“I will curse your blessings.” (Sent IV 13.1 (72). 4 citing Mal. 2,2.) The blessing of the host is not chiefly from the priest, but from God; hence this text is not relevant to the case at hand.

And to have the intention. (Sent IV 13.1 (72). 7.) About the intention the same thing may be said as what was said about baptism in Distinction 6. (See d. 6, q. 1, a. 2, qa. 1.)

It may also be truly said that the body of Christ is not received by brute animals, even when they appear to do so. (Sent IV 13.1 (72). 8.) How this is true was said above in Distinction 10. (Actually, d. 9, a. 2, qa. 3.) However, the person through whose negligence it happens that a mouse eats the species, according to the canons, must do penance for forty days; and if the mouse can be caught, it should be incinerated and the ashes thrown into the sacrarium. But if the host has been lost, or part of it, so that it cannot be found, he should do twenty-two days of penance.

But if by negligence some of the precious blood should drip onto a board or tile that is affixed to the ground, it should be licked up and the board should be scraped. But if there was no floorboard, the ground should be scraped, and burned in a fire, and the ashes should be buried in the altar, and the priest should do penance for forty days. However, if the chalice spills on the altar, the minister should mop up the spill, and do three days’ penance.

If the spill is too much for one altar cloth and requires another, let him do penance for four days. If it takes three altar cloths, let him do penance for eight days. If it takes four, let him do penance for twenty days, and let the minister wash the linens that the spill touched over the chalice three times, and let the washing water be taken up and kept beside the altar. The safest thing is to cut off and burn that part of the linen, and to bury the ashes under the altar.

But if someone should vomit up the Eucharist by drunkenness or overeating, let him do forty days’ penance; clerics or monks should do sixty; a bishop should do ninety. But if someone vomits by reason of illness, he may do seven days’ penance.

However, some people say that these penalties were imposed as a caution, so that negligence would be more guarded against. And so, when the circumstances are taken into account, the penalty can be lessened or increased up to the penalty listed above. But the safest thing is that he do the amount mentioned.

Now according to some, he should fast for those days, and abstain from Communion. But others say that for these days the penalties imposed are to be decided based on the conditions of the person and the problem; and this seems more probable. And let these things said about the Eucharist suffice.