Dist. 13, Art. 1, Q. 4
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 13
Quaestio IV. Utrum melior sit Missa boni sacerdotis quam mali.
Quarto quaeritur, utrum melior sit Missa boni sacerdotis quam mali. Et quod non, videtur:
1. Augustinus in libro de Corpore Christi3: « In mysterio corporis et sanguinis Domini nihil a bono maius, nihil a malo minus perficitur sacerdote ».
2. Item, ratione videtur: quia unus non baptizat melius quam alius; nulli enim data est potestas excellentiae4: ergo pari ratione nec melius conficit.
3. Item, nihil quod in bonitate non potest crescere nec decrescere, fit a bono melius vel a malo peius; sed corpus Christi in bonitate non potest crescere nec decrescere: ergo Sacramentum est aequale a bono et a malo ministratum.
4. Item, si Missa dicitur melius ab uno quam ab alio, videtur secundum hoc, quod spes possit poni in homine; quod est inconveniens5.
Contra: 1. « Plura bona paucioribus bonis sunt meliora »69; sed in Missa mali sacerdotis hoc solum acceptat Deus, scilicet Christi corpus, in Missa boni acceptat omnes orationes et devotiones: ergo Missa boni est melior.
2. Item, melius est quod est fructuosius2p; sed Missa boni sacerdotis est fructuosior, quia melius exauditur, et magis in ea ad devotionem homines provocantur: ergo est melior.
3. Item, si aeque bona est, ergo male prohibent sacri canones audire Missam ab haereticis et schismaticis et simoniacis et fornicariis notoriis3p.
Propter hoc quaeritur: quare magis horum Missam prohibent? et qui dicuntur notorii fornicarii?
Conclusio. Quoad substantiale non differunt Missae sacerdotis boni, vel mali, sed tantum quoad aliqua circumadiacentia Missa mali minus valet.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod de Missa est loqui quantum ad substantiale, quod est ibi, et hoc est confectio corporis et sanguinis Domini; et quantum ad hoc aequalitas est in omnibus, quia unum et idem ab omnibus fit. Sunt etiam in Missa aliqua circumadiacentia, sicut petitiones, orationes, obsecrationes et devotus modus et affectus4p; et quantum ad hoc melius valet Missa boni sacerdotis, quia magis provocat ad devotionem. Et si quis libentius audiat Missam sacerdotis devotioris; credo, quod bene facit, dum tamen credat, ipsum in substantiali non superexcedere peccatorem; alioquin periculose erraret. — Rationes procedunt ad partes oppositas secundum has duas vias.
Ad illud vero quod quaeritur: quare quorundam Missae audiri prohibentur? dicendum, quod hoc est poenam peccati eorum, quia non sunt digni conficere; et si conficiunt, non sunt digni audiri. — Alia ratio est, ut confusi de culpa, redeant ad gratiam. — Tertia ratio est, ut alii retrahantur ab eorum imitatione5p. Unde hoc est opus iustitiae, misericordiae et providentiae.
Ad illud quod quaeritur, quare magis illa quatuor genera peccatorum; dicendum, quod hoc est, quia directe repugnant Sacramento huic. Nam in hoc Sacramento est secretum fidei, et ideo repelluntur haeretici; est vinculum caritatis, ideo schismatici; est vas gratiae, unde eucharistia6p dicitur, ideo simoniaci, qui gratiam emunt et vendunt; est elevans hominem ad statum spiritualem, ideo repelluntur notorii fornicarii, qui omnino sunt carnales. — Et dicuntur notorii fornicarii non propter suspicionem, vel alia signa probabilia, sed secundum ordinem iuris condemnati de tali crimine, vel sponte in iudicio confessi, vel canonice convicti, vel etiam propter evidentiam facti sive sceleris. Et voco evidentiam, quando factum ita notorium est, quod non indiget testibus, cum nulla possit tergiversatione celari. Et hoc dicitur in quadam decretali de Cohabitatione clericorum et mulierum, Vestra7p; et infra: « Sine dubitatione teneatis, quod a clericis et presbyteris fornicariis, quamdiu tolerantur nec habent operis evidentiam, licite divina mysteria audiantur, et alia recipiantur ecclesiastica Sacramenta ». — Ex hoc patet, quod omnes tales, quando conficiunt, peccant; et similiter, qui praeter necessitatem audiunt, quia faciunt contra Ecclesiae statuta8p.
Scholion in articulum primum (q. 1–4) cum Quaestione I huius articuli editur. — The scholion on this article (covering questions 1–4) is rendered with Question I of this article.
---
Question IV. Whether the Mass of a good priest is better than that of a wicked one.
Fourthly it is asked whether the Mass of a good priest is better than that of a wicked one. And that it is not, seems to be the case:
1. Augustine, in the book On the Body of Christ3: "In the mystery of the body and blood of the Lord nothing is made greater by a good priest, nothing less by a wicked one."
2. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because one [person] does not baptize better than another; for to no one is given the power of excellence4: therefore by parity of reasoning neither does one consecrate better.
3. Likewise, nothing which cannot increase or decrease in goodness is made better by a good [agent] or worse by a wicked one; but the body of Christ cannot increase or decrease in goodness: therefore the Sacrament is equal whether administered by a good or a wicked [priest].
4. Likewise, if a Mass is said to be better from one than from another, it seems on this account that hope could be placed in a man; which is unfitting5.
On the contrary: 1. "Several good things are better than fewer good things"69; but in the Mass of a wicked priest God accepts only this, namely the body of Christ, whereas in the Mass of a good [priest] He accepts all the prayers and devotions: therefore the Mass of a good [priest] is better.
2. Likewise, that is better which is more fruitful2p; but the Mass of a good priest is more fruitful, because it is better heard, and in it men are more provoked to devotion: therefore it is better.
3. Likewise, if it is equally good, then the sacred canons wrongly forbid hearing the Mass of heretics and schismatics and simoniacs and notorious fornicators3p.
On account of this it is asked: why do they forbid the Mass of these in particular? and who are called notorious fornicators?
Conclusion. As to what is substantial the Masses of a good or a wicked priest do not differ, but only as to certain attendant circumstances is the Mass of a wicked [priest] of less worth.
I respond: It must be said that one may speak of the Mass with respect to what is substantial, which is there, and this is the confecting of the body and blood of the Lord; and as to this there is equality in all, because one and the same thing is done by all. There are also in the Mass certain attendant things, such as petitions, prayers, supplications, and a devout manner and affection4p; and as to this the Mass of a good priest is of more worth, because it more provokes to devotion. And if anyone hears the Mass of a more devout priest more willingly, I believe that he does well, provided that he believe that this [priest] does not surpass the sinner in what is substantial; otherwise he would err dangerously. — The reasons proceed to the opposite sides according to these two ways.
But to that which is asked: why are the Masses of certain [priests] forbidden to be heard? it must be said that this is for the punishment of their sin, because they are not worthy to consecrate; and if they do consecrate, they are not worthy to be heard. — Another reason is that, confounded over their fault, they may return to grace. — A third reason is that others may be drawn back from imitating them5p. Hence this is a work of justice, of mercy, and of providence.
To that which is asked, why these four kinds of sinners in particular; it must be said that this is because they are directly repugnant to this Sacrament. For in this Sacrament there is the secret of faith, and therefore heretics are repelled; it is the bond of charity, therefore schismatics; it is the vessel of grace, whence it is called the eucharist6p, therefore simoniacs, who buy and sell grace; it raises man to a spiritual state, therefore notorious fornicators are repelled, who are wholly carnal. — And they are called notorious fornicators not on account of suspicion, or other probable signs, but [those] condemned of such a crime according to the order of law, or who have confessed of their own accord in court, or have been canonically convicted, or even on account of the evidentness of the deed or the crime. And I call it evidentness when the deed is so notorious that it needs no witnesses, since it can be concealed by no evasion. And this is stated in a certain decretal On the Cohabitation of Clerics and Women, Vestra7p; and below: "Hold without doubt that, from clerics and priests who are fornicators, so long as they are tolerated and do not have the evidentness of the deed, the divine mysteries may lawfully be heard, and the other ecclesiastical Sacraments received." — From this it is plain that all such, when they consecrate, sin; and likewise those who hear them beyond necessity, because they act against the statutes of the Church8p.
The scholion on this article (covering questions 1–4) is rendered with Question I of this article. — Scholion in articulum primum (q. 1–4) cum Quaestione I huius articuli editur.
---
- 3Vide supra pag. 226, nota 1. — Superius post characterem cum codd. E aa substituimus qui pro quae. Cfr. supra d. 6. p. I. q. 1.See above, p. 226, note 1. — Above, after character, with codices E aa we have substituted qui for quae. Cf. above, d. 6, p. I, q. 1.
- 4Supra d. 1. p. I. q. 4. et d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. relatae. — Superius pro divinitus cod. O divinitus data, codd. H S divina, et pro Sacramentis Vat. sacerdotibus.Adduced above, d. 1, p. I, q. 4, and d. 10, p. II, a. 1, q. 3. — Above, for divinely codex O [reads] divinely given, codices H S divine, and for to the Sacraments the Vatican [edition reads] to priests.
- 5Id est, (ut videtur) etiam si quam maxime perspiciatur.That is, (as it seems) even if it be most fully discerned.
- 6Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.See the scholion to question 1 of this article.
- 9Ita allegatur in C. Intra catholicam (77.), C. I. q. 1, et ab Algero (cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.), sed est Paschasii Radberti, lib. de Corp. et sang. Domini, c. 12. n. 1.It is thus cited in the Canon Intra catholicam (77), C. I, q. 1, and by Alger (cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1), but it is by Paschasius Radbertus, in the book On the Body and Blood of the Lord, c. 12, n. 1.
- 2pCfr. Aristot., loc. cit., c. 1. et 4, ubi docet, utilius esse melius sive magis eligendum.Cf. Aristotle, in the place cited, c. 1 and 4, where he teaches that the more useful is the better, or [that which is] more to be chosen.
- 3pVide C. Nullam Missam (5.) et C. Praeter hoc (6.), d. 32. De haereticis, schismaticis et simoniacis agitur C. I. q. 1. et C. 24. q. 1.See the Canon Nullam Missam (5) and the Canon Praeter hoc (6), d. 32. Of heretics, schismatics, and simoniacs treatment is made in C. I, q. 1, and C. 24, q. 1.
- 4pEdd. motus. Inferius pro devotioris ed. I cum codd. R S bb devoti. Subinde pro peccatorem edd. peccatoris Missam.The editions [read] manner. Below, for of a more devout [priest], edition I with codices R S bb [reads] devout. Thereupon, for the sinner the editions [read] the Mass of a sinner.
- 5pSecunda et tertia ratio insinuatur a Gratiano in C. Praeter hoc (6.), § 2. d. 32: Attamen decessores nostri Nicolaus et Gregorius a Missis sacerdotum, quos tales revera esse cognovit, fideles abstinere decreverunt, ut et peccandi licentiam ceteris auferrent et huiusmodi ad dignae poenitentiae lamenta revocarent. — Pro providentiae codd. E M prudentiae.The second and third reason is intimated by Gratian in the Canon Praeter hoc (6), § 2, d. 32: "Yet our predecessors Nicholas and Gregory decreed that the faithful abstain from the Masses of priests whom they knew to be truly such, in order both to take away from others the license of sinning and to call back such [men] to the laments of worthy penance." — For of providence codices E M [read] of prudence.
- 6pCfr. supra d. 8. p. I. dub. 2.Cf. above, d. 8, p. I, dub. 2.
- 7pCap. Vestra duxit devotio (7.), X. lib. III. tit. 2, ubi pro fornicariis originalis, quem edd. sequuntur, voci fornicariis praeit quamquam.Chapter Vestra duxit devotio (7), X, book III, tit. 2, where, for fornicators of the original, which the editions follow, before the word fornicators there comes although.
- 8pCfr. supra q. 1. in fine corp. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.Cf. above, q. 1, at the end of the corpus. — See the scholion to question 1 of this article. ---