← Back to Distinction 9

Dist. 9, Art. 2, Q. 2

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 9

Textus Latinus
p. 208

Quaestio II. Utrum peccator, qui est in peccato ex certa scientia, manducet corpus Christi damnabiliter.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum peccator, qui est in peccato ex certa scientia, manducet corpus Christi damnabiliter. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Primae ad Corinthios undecimo: Iudicium sibi manducat et bibit, de malis loquitur; et iterum: Reus est corporis et sanguinis Domini1: ergo graviter peccat.

p. 209

2. Item, Augustinus2: « Et mala prosunt bonis, ut angelus satanae Paulo; et sancta obsunt malis »: ergo etc.

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia qui proiiceret corpus Domini in sterquilinium gravissime peccaret; sed non est maius sterquilinium quam homo peccator3: ergo etc.

4. Item, in hoc Sacramento Deus offert gratiam homini; sed peccator accipiens in peccato opponit se gratiae; sed qui repellit gratiam Dei peccat: ergo etc.

Contra: 1. Sacramentum illud est de bonis nobilissimis; sed « nobilissimis bonis sive maximis, sicut dicit Augustinus de Libero Arbitrio4, non contingit male uti »: ergo nec hoc Sacramento: ergo peccator non peccat sumendo.

2. Item, non egent qui sani sunt medico, sed qui male habent5: ergo cum peccator male habeat, peccator indiget hac medicina; sed qui accedit ad medicinam, qua indiget, non errat; et si non errat, non peccat: ergo etc.

3. Item, nullus faciendo illud, ad quod tenetur, peccat; sed peccator aliquo tempore tenetur manducare6: ergo non peccat. — Si dicis, quod peccat, quia non debite facit; contra: actus est in praecepto, non modus manducandi: ergo etc.

4. Item, si manducare est peccatum; sed sicut peccator est indignus manducare, ita et videre: ergo peccat videndo.

Conclusio.

Peccator sumendo corpus Christi committit grave peccatum omissionis et contemptus.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod peccator sumit sibi corpus Christi ad damnationem, non quia ipsum corpus aliquam maculam det animae, sed quia peccator ipsum contemnit, dum se praeparare, quem immundum scit7, negligit et Dominum in tam foedum hospitium introducit. Et est ibi peccatum omissionis in hoc, quod se non praeparavit tanto hospiti suscipiendo; et peccatum contemptus, quia Christo, quantum in se est, contumeliam facit. Ideo dicit Apostolus, quod reus est corporis et sanguinis Domini, quia ei contumeliam facit et contemnit.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod hoc Sacramento non contingit male uti; dicendum, quod falsum est, quia non solum Sacramento, sed Deo contingit male uti, cum ipse diligitur propter aliud. Quare autem virtutibus non contingit male uti, patet, quia ipsae sunt boni usus, et quibus utitur homo formaliter; contingit tamen male uti ut obiecto8: sic in proposito intellige.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de medicina, dicendum, quod sicut medicina corporalis nocet imparato, sic spiritualis est imparato occasio nocumenti; quia medicina quaerenda est cum praeparatione, non tantum corporalis, sed etiam spiritualis, illa scilicet, quae nobilissima est.

3. Ad aliud autem dicendum, quod non peccat ratione actus, sed circumstantiae; sicut si aliquis eleemosynam daret in contemptum Dei, sic et ille peccat, quia bonum malo modo facit9. — Ad illud quod subditur, quod modus non est in praecepto; dicendum, quod etsi non sit expressus aliquo praecepto, maxime tamen est attendendus, sicut patet per Apostolum.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod videre sit peccatum, sicut manducare; dicendum, quod non est simile: primo quidem, quia non est tantae irreverentiae videre, sicut manducare; secundo vero, quia manducando Sacramentum sumitur et gratia offertur; et quando peccator perseverat in peccato tempore, quo Dominus ipsum visitat personaliter, non tantum vocaliter, auget contemptum: ideo peccat mortaliter.

Unde dicendum, quod est peccatum in gustu propter duo, scilicet propter irreverentiam et propter negligentiam, quia debebat se praeparare ad gratiam; in visu quantum ad neutrum est peccatum; in tactu vero est medio modo. Nam si est peccatum, hoc est solum propter irreverentiam, quia non est ordinatum Sacramentum, ut tactu det gratiam; sed qui est immundus et foetidus spiritualiter peccat, si tangit, quia tantae rei, quantum in se est, facit iniuriam. Distinguitur tamen in tactu: quia aut praevenitur, et necessitas urget, quia corpus Christi in locum immundum caderet, nisi colligeret; et hoc modo si tangit, non peccat, quia non est irreverentia; alias peccat. — Et si tu obiicias, quod semper est peccatum, quia Bethsamitae videntes arcam sunt interfecti, primi Regum sexto10; et similiter Oza percussus est, quia arcam tetigit

p. 210

secundi Regum sexto; dicendum, quod hoc non fuit figura videntium et tangentium Christum; sed Bethsamitae figuram gerunt simplicium huius Sacramenti arcana videre volentium, qui propter curiositatem frequenter in fide pereunt et moriuntur; et Oza figuram gerit sacerdotum carnalium, qui in peccatis existentes ad conficiendum accedunt. Nam aliqui dicunt, quod nocte cum uxore iacuit11. — Litteralis autem ratio, quare illi interfecti sunt, est, quia contra Domini mandatum fecerunt, quia Dominus praeceperat, quod nullus de plebe videret arcam. Praeceperat etiam, ut sacerdotes eam ferrent12; et quia utrique contra praeceptum Domini fecerunt, ideo percussi sunt.

Nunc autem dicendum est, quod quia gustus facit irreverentiam simpliciter, peccat qui gustat. Quia vero in tactu est irreverentia, licet non semper nec tanta, ideo non tantum peccat, et potest esse, quod sine peccato faciat. Quia in visu irreverentia non est, ideo nulla est culpa, nisi aliqua conditio superaddita faciat culpam ex sua deformitate13.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether a sinner who is knowingly in sin eats the body of Christ damnably.

Secondly it is asked, whether a sinner who is knowingly in sin eats the body of Christ damnably. And it seems that he does.

1. First to the Corinthians, chapter eleven: He eats and drinks judgment to himself, speaks of the wicked; and again: He is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord1: therefore he sins gravely.

2. Likewise, Augustine2: « Even evils profit the good, as the angel of Satan profited Paul; and holy things harm the wicked »: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, it seems by reason: because one who would throw the body of the Lord into a dunghill would sin most gravely; but there is no greater dunghill than a sinful man3: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, in this Sacrament God offers grace to man; but a sinner receiving while in sin sets himself against grace; but one who repels the grace of God sins: therefore etc.

On the contrary: 1. That Sacrament is among the most noble goods; but « of the most noble or greatest goods, as Augustine says On Free Choice4, one cannot make ill use »: therefore neither of this Sacrament: therefore the sinner does not sin in receiving.

2. Likewise, those who are well do not need a physician, but those who are sick5: therefore since a sinner is sick, the sinner needs this medicine; but one who comes to the medicine he needs does not err; and if he does not err, he does not sin: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, no one sins by doing that to which he is bound; but a sinner is at some time bound to eat6: therefore he does not sin. — If you say that he sins because he does not do it duly; on the contrary: the act is under the precept, not the manner of eating: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, if eating is a sin; but just as the sinner is unworthy to eat, so also to see: therefore he sins by seeing.

Conclusion.

A sinner, by receiving the body of Christ, commits a grave sin of omission and of contempt.

I respond: It must be said that a sinner takes the body of Christ to himself unto damnation, not because that body imparts any stain to the soul, but because the sinner despises it, since he neglects to prepare himself—whom he knows to be unclean7—and introduces the Lord into so foul a lodging. And there is here a sin of omission in this, that he did not prepare himself to receive so great a guest; and a sin of contempt, because, as far as in him lies, he does insult to Christ. Therefore the Apostle says that he is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, because he does insult to him and despises him.

1. To what is objected, that one cannot make ill use of this Sacrament; it must be said that this is false, because not only of the Sacrament but even of God one can make ill use, when he is loved for the sake of something else. But why one cannot make ill use of the virtues is plain, because they themselves are good uses, and which a man uses formally; yet one can make ill use of them as of an object8: so understand it in the present case.

2. To what is objected concerning medicine, it must be said that just as bodily medicine harms one unprepared, so spiritual medicine is an occasion of harm to one unprepared; because medicine must be sought with preparation, not only bodily but also spiritual—that, namely, which is most noble.

3. To the other point it must be said that he does not sin by reason of the act, but of the circumstance; just as if someone were to give alms in contempt of God, so too this man sins, because he does a good thing in a bad way9. — To what is added, that the manner is not under the precept; it must be said that even if it is not expressed by any precept, it must nonetheless most especially be attended to, as is plain from the Apostle.

4. To what is objected, that seeing would be a sin just as eating; it must be said that it is not the same: first indeed, because seeing is not of so great irreverence as eating; but secondly, because by eating the Sacrament is received and grace is offered; and when a sinner perseveres in sin at the time when the Lord visits him personally, not merely by voice, he increases the contempt: therefore he sins mortally.

Hence it must be said that there is sin in taste on two accounts, namely on account of irreverence and on account of negligence, because he ought to prepare himself for grace; in sight there is sin on neither account; but in touch it is in a middle way. For if there is sin, this is only on account of irreverence, because the Sacrament is not ordained to give grace by touch; but he who is spiritually unclean and foul sins if he touches, because, as far as in him lies, he does injury to so great a thing. Yet a distinction is made in touch: for either he is forestalled, and necessity presses, because the body of Christ would fall into an unclean place unless he gathered it; and in this way if he touches, he does not sin, because there is no irreverence; otherwise he sins. — And if you object that it is always a sin, because the men of Beth-shemesh were slain for seeing the ark, in the first book of Kings, chapter six10; and likewise Uzzah was struck because he touched the ark,

in the second book of Kings, chapter six; it must be said that this was not a figure of those seeing and touching Christ; but the men of Beth-shemesh bear the figure of the simple who wish to see the secret things of this Sacrament, who through curiosity frequently perish and die in the faith; and Uzzah bears the figure of carnal priests who, existing in sins, approach to consecrate. For some say that he lay with his wife by night11. — But the literal reason why they were slain is that they acted against the Lord's command, because the Lord had commanded that none of the people should see the ark. He had also commanded that the priests should carry it12; and because both parties acted against the Lord's precept, therefore they were struck down.

Now it must be said that, because taste does irreverence simply, he who tastes sins. But because in touch there is irreverence, though not always nor so great, therefore he does not sin so much, and it can be that he does it without sin. Because in sight there is no irreverence, therefore there is no fault, unless some added condition makes the fault by its own deformity13.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Vers. 29. — Seq. textus est ibid. v. 27: Reus erit etc.
    Verse 29. — The following text is ibid., v. 27: He will be guilty etc.
  2. 2
    In Ioan. Evang. tr. 62. n. 1. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. et dub. 16, nec non II. Sent. d. 27. dub. 3. — Mox pro intelligere codd. H K N aa est intellicjere [intelligere].
    On the Gospel of John, tract 62, n. 1. See here the text of the Master, c. 2, and dub. 16, and also II Sent., d. 27, dub. 3. — Presently, for intelligere, codices H K N aa have intelligere.
  3. 3
    Cfr. Gregor., XV. Moral. c. 4. n. 5.
    Cf. Gregory, XV Morals, c. 4, n. 5.
  4. 4
    Libr. II. c. 19. n. 50. Cfr. supra pag. 20, nota 12.
    Book II, c. 19, n. 50. Cf. above, p. 20, note 12.
  5. 5
    Luc. 5, 31.
    Luke 5, 31.
  6. 6
    Cfr. C. Etsi non frequentius (16.) et seqq., de Consecrat. d. 2.
    Cf. canon Etsi non frequentius (16) and following, De consecratione, d. 2.
  7. 7
    Ita cod. H, cod. U cum sciat se immundum, in ceteris et edd. cum immundus sit. Nostra lectio confirmatur verbis Alexandri Hal., S. p. IV. q. II. m. 2. a. 2. § 2.
    So codex H; codex U reads since he knows himself unclean, while in the others and the editions since he is unclean. Our reading is confirmed by the words of Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV, q. II, m. 2, a. 2, § 2.
  8. 8
    De ratione, quare virtutibus per se non possit quis male uti, vide I. Sent. d. I. a. I. q. 2. seq., a. 3. a. 2. ad 4.
    On the reason why one cannot of itself make ill use of the virtues, see I Sent., d. I, a. 1, q. 2 f., a. 3, a. 2, ad 4.
  9. 9
    Cfr. supra d. 5. dub. 1. — Pro quia codd. F G H I Z (V primitus) qui. Solutio Ad illud quod subditur etc. desideratur in codd. et ed. I; retinuimus ipsam cum Vat., quae sequitur Alex. Hal., loc. cit., cum alias ad obiectum deesset solutio. In fine respicitur I. Cor. 11, 27. seqq.
    Cf. above, d. 5, dub. 1. — For quia, codices F G H I Z (V originally) read qui. The solution Ad illud quod subditur etc. is wanting in the codices and in ed. I; we have retained it with the Vatican edition, which follows Alexander of Hales, loc. cit., since otherwise a solution to the objection would be lacking. At the end, reference is made to I Cor. 11, 27 ff.
  10. 10
    Vers. 13. et 19. — Seq. loc. est II. Reg. 6, 6. seq. — Aliquanto inferius pro curiositatem codd. G I temeritatem, ed. I cum pluribus codd. timorositatem, Vat. timorositatem. Cfr. Prov. 25, 27: Qui scrutator est maiestatis opprimetur a gloria.
    Verses 13 and 19. — The following passage is II Kings 6, 6 f. — Somewhat lower down, for curiositatem codices G I read temeritatem, ed. I with several codices timorositatem, the Vatican edition timorositatem. Cf. Prov. 25, 27: He who is a searcher of majesty shall be overwhelmed by glory.
  11. 11
    Petr. Comest. (✝ 1178.), Histor. scholast. libr. II. Reg. c. 9: Dicit Iosephus [VIII. Antiq. c. 4.] eum percussum, quia tetigit arcam, « cum sacerdos non esset ». Alii dicunt, quia posuerat arcam super plaustrum, cum humeris portare debuisset. Hebraei tradunt, quod ea nocte dormierat cum uxore sua. Cfr. de Mirabilibus s. Script. (inter opera August.) c. 12.
    Peter Comestor (d. 1178), Scholastic History, on Book II of Kings, c. 9: He says, with Josephus [VIII Antiquities, c. 4], that he was struck because he touched the ark, « since he was not a priest ». Others say it was because he had placed the ark upon a cart, when he ought to have carried it on his shoulders. The Hebrews hold that on that night he had slept with his wife. Cf. On the Wonders of Sacred Scripture (among the works of Augustine), c. 12.
  12. 12
    Cfr. Num. 4, 15, ubi praecipitur, quod arca ab Aaron et filiis eius non nuda, sed involuta detur filiis Caath ad portandum. Vide etiam I. Paralip. 15, 14. seq.: Sanctificati sunt ergo sacerdotes et levitae, ut portarent arcam Domini Dei Israel. Et tulerunt filii Levi arcam Dei... humeris suis in vectibus. — Pro etiam plurimi codd. et ed. I incongrue enim. Inferius post vocem simpliciter codd. H K addunt ideo.
    Cf. Num. 4, 15, where it is commanded that the ark be given by Aaron and his sons to the sons of Kohath to carry, not bare, but wrapped. See also I Paralipomenon 15, 14 f.: The priests and Levites were sanctified, then, that they might carry the ark of the Lord God of Israel. And the sons of Levi carried the ark of God... upon their shoulders by the poles. — For etiam, very many codices and ed. I incongruously read enim. Lower down, after the word simpliciter, codices H K add ideo.
  13. 13
    Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    See the scholion to the preceding question.
Cited by

1 place in the Opera Omnia citesthis question. Derived from Quaracchi’s own apparatus, never tagged by hand.

Whether the Eucharist ought to be confected in the species of bread and wine
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 11
supra d. 9. a. 2. q. 2.

2 further references address the article or printed page this question belongs to, rather than the question itself.

← Dist. 9, Art. 2, Q. 1Dist. 9, Art. 2, Q. 3→