Dist. 12, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 3
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 12
Quaestio III. Utrum homo debeat se retrahere ab hoc Sacramento propter immunditiam corporalem.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum homo debeat se retrahere ab hoc Sacramento propter immunditiam corporalem. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Quia in Lege mulier, quae menstrua patiebatur, reputabatur immunda; similiter vir, qui patiebatur seminis fluxum, Levitici decimo quinto1; similiter mulier post partum, Levitici duodecimo; et propter istas immunditias arcebatur ab ingressu in templum et esu agni: ergo videtur, quod multo fortius ab esu Agni veri homines arceri debent propter immunditiam corporalem.
2. Item, dicitur de Consecratione, distinctione secunda2: « Omnis homo ante sacram communionem abstinere debet ab uxore propria tribus diebus »; sed quilibet potest coniungi cum uxore propria sine immunditia mentis: ergo illud dictum est tantum propter immunditiam corporis, et sic etc.
3. Item, Gregorius3 dicit, quod « pollutus ex cogitatione praecedenti non debet accedere »; aut ergo hoc est propter immunditiam corporalem, aut spiritualem. Non spiritualem, quia propter illam cogitationem, si non esset secuta pollutio, non impediretur: ergo propter immunditiam corporalem.
4. Item, Deuteronomii vigesimo tertio4: Habebis locum etc.; Glossa: « Munditiam corporalem diligit Deus; ideo praecipit, nihil foedum manere in castris »: ergo etc.
5. Item, ratione videtur: quia, si aliquis immundis manibus consecraret, peccaret utique, quantumcumque sanctus: ergo etc.
6. Item, in hoc Sacramento non tantum est quid spirituale, sed etiam corporale: ergo debet esse munditia corporalis.
Contra: 1. Iste cibus « non est cibus ventris, sed mentis »5: ergo retrahi debet aliquis sola immunditia mentis, non carnis.
2. Item, magis displicet Deo immunditia peccati venialis quam quaelibet immunditia corporalis; sed propter peccatum veniale commissum non debet quis se retrahere: ergo nec propter aliquam immunditiam corporalem.
3. Item, immunditia corporalis, ut pollutio, non impedit manducationem spiritualem, quae est nobilior: ergo multo minus nec sacramentalem.
Conclusio. Corporalis immunditia, coniuncta cum spirituali, arcet a communione; aliae immunditiae species non impediunt nisi de congruo secundum gradus.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod immunditia corporalis quadruplex est. Quaedam est coniuncta spirituali secundum veritatem, ut pollutio veniens ex turpi cogitatione, vel crapula. Quaedam est coniuncta spirituali secundum conformitatem, ut pollutio veniens ex diabolica illusione, vel ex naturae superfluitate, in qua sentitur pruritus et delectatio inordinata. Quaedam vero non6 est coniuncta spirituali, tamen est generans horrorem immunditiae in anima, ut pollutio veniens ex infirmitate. Quaedam autem est pure corporalis, nullum horrorem immunditiae in anima generans, ut immunditia in pede.
Prima immunditia impedit, propter hoc quod homo debet reputare se immundum. Unde non recipit Sacramentum cum reverentia qui sic immundus est, nisi necessitas compellat; et propter irreverentiam privatur fructu et incurrit damnum. — Secunda immunditia, quae est in illusione diabolica, arcere debet ex congruo; quoniam, quamvis non sit certum, quod sit anima ibi maculata, tamen probabiliter potest dubitari; et ideo qui se reputat immundum bene facit. Unde Isidorus, distinctione sexta7: « Quisquis nocturna illusione polluitur, quamvis extra memoriam turpium cogitationum sese praesentiat inquinatum; tamen hoc, ut tentaretur, culpae suae attribuat suamque immunditiam statim fletibus tergat ». — Tertia immunditia est indifferens, quia tantum est poena; et ideo non arcet. Si tamen ratione horroris abstineat, devotio et reverentia est laudanda; unde nec mulier menstruata arcetur nec etiam mulier post partum, sicut dicunt iura. De primo reperies in Decreto, distinctione quinta8; de secundo, Extravagantium libro tertio, de Purificatione post partum. — Quarta simpliciter est indifferens inter omnes has immunditias. Prima magis impedit, ultima nullo modo; omnes tamen impediunt de congruo secundum gradus.
Unde si quis quaerat, utrum semper, quando polluitur corporaliter, cessare debeat: dicendum est, quod si sentit, inquinationem illam multum animam inclinasse, quia in actu illo fit homo caro, sive in somnis sive in vigiliis, consulendum esset ei facere reverentiam Sacramento. Si autem sentit naturam magis expeditam, et ulterius devotio trahat ad perceptionem, et solemnitas etiam9 trahat, vel aliquid, quod multum recompenset; tunc arbitrarer, ipsum sine remorsu posse accedere. — Concedendum ergo, quod solum propter carnis immunditiam non impeditur, sed quia haec immunditia coniuncta est immunditiae mentis; nec solum propter immunditiam mentis, quia cogitatio cito transit, sed immunditia carnis horrorem relinquit et diutius durat et inordinat: et ideo, quamvis pollutio sit peccatum veniale, magis tamen impedit quam aliud veniale, propter horroris diuturnitatem et maiorem deordinationem.
1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod immunditia corporalis, quia corporalis, impedit per Legem; dicendum, quod non valet, quia Lex data est in onus et in figuram, et per illas immunditias significabantur spirituales immunditiae10.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de coniunctione cum uxore, dicendum, quod raro contingit, quod homo coniungatur secundum illum actum, debitum exigendo, quin sit ibi aliqua culpa; si autem solum reddendo debitum, non credo, quod debeat retrahi nisi de congruo, vel etiam causa prolis: et hoc dicit Gregorius, et habetur Causa trigesima tertia, quaestione quarta11.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quare pollutio impedit; dicendum, quod ratione pollutionis carnis coniunctae pollutioni mentis, quia ex hac pollutione se immundum et indispositum reputare debet ad hoc Sacramentum ratione praedicta.
4. 5. 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod diligit Deus munditiam corporalem; dicendum, quod verum est eatenus, qua excitat devotionem mentis; e contrario abominatur immunditiam corporalem, quae est via ad irreverentiam mentis; et talis bene impedit. — Et per hoc patet sequens, quia immundis manibus non tractat Christi corpus nisi homo, qui modicam aut nullam adhibet reverentiam.
Ad illud de immunditia veniali, patet solutio: quia non ita durat, nec ita mens abhorret, nec ita deordinat.
Ad ultimum dicendum, quod in manducatione sacramentali venit Christus corporaliter in hominem, non in spirituali; ideo non est simile12.
La. Pro hac quaestione scholion proprium non habetur; vide scholion ad articuli huius quaest. 1 (a. 2, q. 1), ad quod ipse textus remittit: « Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest. »
En. This question has no scholion of its own; see the scholion to question 1 of this article (a. 2, q. 1), to which the text itself refers: "See the scholion to the first question of this article."
---
Question III. Whether a man ought to withdraw himself from this Sacrament on account of bodily uncleanness.
Thirdly, it is asked whether a man ought to withdraw himself from this Sacrament on account of bodily uncleanness. And that he ought to, it seems:
1. Because in the Law a woman who suffered menstruation was reckoned unclean; likewise a man who suffered a flux of seed, Leviticus the fifteenth1; likewise a woman after childbirth, Leviticus the twelfth; and on account of these uncleannesses she was kept from entry into the temple and from eating the lamb: therefore it seems that much more strongly should men be kept from eating the true Lamb on account of bodily uncleanness.
2. Likewise, it is said On Consecration, distinction the second2: "Every man ought, before holy communion, to abstain from his own wife for three days"; but anyone can be joined to his own wife without uncleanness of mind: therefore that saying was made only on account of uncleanness of body, and thus etc.
3. Likewise, Gregory3 says that "one polluted from a preceding thought ought not to approach"; either, then, this is on account of bodily uncleanness, or spiritual. Not spiritual, because on account of that thought, if pollution had not followed, he would not be impeded: therefore [it is] on account of bodily uncleanness.
4. Likewise, Deuteronomy the twenty-third4: You shall have a place etc.; the Gloss: "God loves bodily cleanness; therefore he commands that nothing foul remain in the camp": therefore etc.
5. Likewise, by reason it seems so: because, if someone were to consecrate with unclean hands, he would assuredly sin, however holy he be: therefore etc.
6. Likewise, in this Sacrament there is not only something spiritual, but also something bodily: therefore there ought to be bodily cleanness.
On the contrary: 1. This food "is not the food of the belly, but of the mind"5: therefore one ought to withdraw [only] by uncleanness of mind alone, not of flesh.
2. Likewise, the uncleanness of venial sin displeases God more than any bodily uncleanness whatever; but on account of a venial sin committed one ought not to withdraw himself: therefore neither on account of any bodily uncleanness.
3. Likewise, bodily uncleanness, such as pollution, does not impede spiritual eating, which is more noble: therefore much less [does it impede] the sacramental [eating].
Conclusion. Bodily uncleanness, joined with the spiritual, debars from communion; the other kinds of uncleanness do not impede except fittingly, according to degrees.
I respond: It must be said that bodily uncleanness is fourfold. A certain one is joined to the spiritual in truth, such as the pollution coming from a base thought, or from drunkenness. A certain one is joined to the spiritual by conformity, such as the pollution coming from a diabolical illusion, or from a superfluity of nature, in which an itching and a disordered delight is felt. But a certain one is not6 joined to the spiritual, yet generates a horror of uncleanness in the soul, such as the pollution coming from infirmity. And a certain one is purely bodily, generating no horror of uncleanness in the soul, such as the uncleanness on the foot.
The first uncleanness impedes, on account of the fact that a man ought to reckon himself unclean. Hence he who is thus unclean does not receive the Sacrament with reverence, unless necessity compels; and on account of the irreverence he is deprived of the fruit and incurs harm. — The second uncleanness, which is in the diabolical illusion, ought to debar fittingly; since, although it is not certain that the soul is there stained, nevertheless it can probably be doubted; and therefore he who reckons himself unclean does well. Hence Isidore, distinction the sixth7: "Whoever is polluted by a nocturnal illusion, although apart from any memory of base thoughts he presents himself befouled; nevertheless let him attribute this to his own fault, that he was tempted, and let him at once wipe away his uncleanness with weeping." — The third uncleanness is indifferent, because it is only a penalty; and therefore it does not debar. If nevertheless one abstains by reason of horror, the devotion and reverence is to be praised; hence neither is a menstruating woman debarred nor even a woman after childbirth, as the laws say. Of the first you will find in the Decree, distinction the fifth8; of the second, in the Extravagantes, the third book, On Purification after childbirth. — The fourth is simply indifferent among all these uncleannesses. The first impedes more, the last in no way; all nevertheless impede fittingly, according to degrees.
Hence if anyone should ask whether, always, when one is bodily polluted, he ought to desist: it must be said that if he feels that that befoulment has much inclined the soul, because in that act a man becomes flesh, whether in sleep or in waking, it would be advisable for him to show reverence to the Sacrament. But if he feels nature more disengaged, and furthermore devotion draws [him] to reception, and the solemnity9 too draws [him], or something which much recompenses; then I would judge that he can approach without remorse. — It must be granted, therefore, that not solely on account of the uncleanness of the flesh is one impeded, but because this uncleanness is joined to the uncleanness of mind; nor solely on account of the uncleanness of mind, because the thought quickly passes, but the uncleanness of the flesh leaves a horror behind and lasts longer and disorders [the soul]: and therefore, although the pollution be a venial sin, it nevertheless impedes more than another venial [sin], on account of the lastingness of the horror and the greater disorder.
1. To that which is objected, that bodily uncleanness, because bodily, impedes through the Law; it must be said that it does not hold, because the Law was given as a burden and as a figure, and by those uncleannesses the spiritual uncleannesses were signified10.
2. To that which is objected concerning the joining with the wife, it must be said that it rarely happens that a man is joined according to that act, by exacting the debt, without there being some fault there; but if [it is] only by rendering the debt, I do not believe that he ought to withdraw except fittingly, or even for the sake of offspring: and this Gregory says, and it is had [in] Cause the thirty-third, question the fourth11.
3. To that which is objected, why pollution impedes; it must be said that [it is] by reason of the pollution of the flesh joined to the pollution of the mind, because from this pollution he ought to reckon himself unclean and indisposed toward this Sacrament, for the aforesaid reason.
4. 5. 6. To that which is objected, that God loves bodily cleanness; it must be said that it is true insofar as it excites the devotion of the mind; on the contrary he abominates bodily uncleanness, which is a way to irreverence of mind; and such [uncleanness] does indeed impede. — And by this the following is clear, because a man does not handle the body of Christ with unclean hands unless he be one who applies little or no reverence.
To that concerning venial uncleanness, the solution is clear: because it does not last so [long], nor does the mind so abhor [it], nor does it so disorder [the soul].
To the last it must be said that in sacramental eating Christ comes bodily into the man, [but] not in spiritual [eating]; therefore it is not alike12.
La. Pro hac quaestione scholion proprium non habetur; vide scholion ad articuli huius quaest. 1 (a. 2, q. 1), ad quod ipse textus remittit: « Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest. »
En. This question has no scholion of its own; see the scholion to question 1 of this article (a. 2, q. 1), to which the text itself refers: "See the scholion to the first question of this article."
---
- 1Vers. 2. et 18. Secundus locus est ibid. 12, 2. seqq. — Inferius post primum agni cod. X addit typici, edd. abstinebant.Verses 2 and 18. The second passage is in the same place, 12, 2 ff. — Below, after the first agni, codex X adds typici, the editions [read] abstinebant.
- 2Can. (Concilii Eliberitani) Omnis homo (21)... tribus, aut quatuor, aut octo diebus. — Circa finem arg. o. codd. F G L X aa bb (li a secunda manu) recepimus tantum pro ante.Canon (of the Council of Elvira) Omnis homo (21)... three, or four, or eight days. — Near the end of the argument, with codices F G L X aa bb (li by a second hand) we have received tantum for ante.
- 3Libr. XI. Regist. Epist. indict. 4. epist. 64. ad II. interrogationem Augustini, Anglorum episcopi. Cfr. C. Testamentum d. 6.Book XI of the Register, letter, indiction 4, epistle 64, to the second question of Augustine, bishop of the English. Cf. canon Testamentum d. 6.
- 4Vers. 12. — Glossa est ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum.Verse 12. — The Gloss is the ordinary [gloss] in Strabo and Lyra.
- 5Cfr. supra pag. 275, nota 7. et infra d. 13. n. 2. q. 2.Cf. above p. 275, note 7, and below d. 13. n. 2. q. 2.
- 6Ed. I cum multis codd. perperam omittit non.Edition I, with many codices, wrongly omits non.
- 7Cap. Non est peccatum (3.) ... 1. Verba sumta sunt ex edd. et solemnitas. Aliquanto superius pro inclinasse cod. O maculasse, cod. U infamasse. Inferius pro arbitrarer, ipsum codd. R S T arbitramur, qui codd. etiam subinde post posse addunt nihilominus. — Isidor., III. Sent. c. 6. n. 14, ubi melius habetur praesentiat pro praesentiat. — Codd. et Vat. falso Isidorus, de Consecratione, dist. 3. (Vat. 6.).Canon Non est peccatum (3.) ... 1. The words are taken from the editions, et solemnitas. A little above, for inclinasse codex O [reads] maculasse, codex U infamasse. Below, for arbitrarer, ipsum, codices R S T [read] arbitramur, which codices also from time to time, after posse, add nihilominus. — Isidore, III Sentences c. 6. n. 14, where it is better read praesentiat. — The codices and the Vatican [edition] falsely [attribute it to] Isidore, On Consecration, dist. 3 (Vat. 6.).
- 8Cap. Ad eius vero (4.) ... sumtum ex Gregor., loc. paulo superius cit., ad 10. interrogationem. — Secundus locus est C. Volens (1.) tit. 47. Innocentii III. — Codd. perperam reperies de Consecratione, dist. 5.Canon Ad eius vero (4.) ... taken from Gregory, the place cited a little above, to the tenth question. — The second passage is canon Volens (1.) title 47 of Innocent III. — The codices wrongly [direct one to] find it in On Consecration, dist. 5.
- 9Ita codd. H L Y Z, codd. V G vel etiam solemnitas. Verba sumta sunt ex edd. et solemnitas.Thus codices H L Y Z; codices V G [read] vel etiam solemnitas. The words are taken from the editions, et solemnitas.
- 10Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. 1. c. 4. et III. Sent. d. 10. q. 3.Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. 1. c. 4. and III Sentences d. 10. q. 3.
- 11Cap. Vir cum propria (7.), sumtum ex Gregor., loc. supra cit., ad 10. interrogationem.Canon Vir cum propria (7.), taken from Gregory, the place cited above, to the tenth question.
- 12Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.See the scholion to the first question of this article.