Ninth Distinction

Overview of the Parts

1. “And just as there are two parts” [Lombard Sent. IV d.1 ch.1].

In the ninth distinction the Master treats of the reception of this sacrament.

2. And the first part, in which he determines the truth, stays undivided.

3. His second part (which begins at ch.2 n.1), namely where he excludes error about the truths he has determined, is divided into two parts: first he excludes an error about the reception of the sacrament; second he excludes another error about the thing of the sacrament. And these excluded errors correspond to the truths already determined. The second part begins at the beginning of d.10 ch.1 n.1.

Single Question. Whether Someone in a State of Mortal Sin Sins Mortally in Receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist

4. As to this distinction I ask only one question about the reception of this sacrament, namely whether someone in a state of mortal sin sins mortally in receiving the sacrament.

5. It seems that he does not:

Because no one sins by doing what he is bound to do; but sometimes someone is bound to communicate notwithstanding the fact he is in mortal sin; therefore etc. Proof of the minor as to two cases: every Christian is bound to communicate once a year, according to Gregory IX Decretals V tit.38 ch.12, “everyone of either sex;” similar proof of the second case, in Gratian Decretum p.3 d.2 ch.11 it is said that a priest who has consecrated is bound to receive the sacrament, and it is possible that he is then in mortal sin, or that in the meantime he falls into mortal sin.

6. Again, no one is bound to go to confession save once a year, as is plain from Gregory IX above [n.5]; therefore he is bound to do the acts appropriate for him, even if he does not confess many times; therefore a priest can celebrate many times, however much he has sinned, without repeated confession. For it does not appear why in his confessing once the said precept is for him not sufficient for salvation as it is for another Christian, since he does not seem tied to a special law.

7. On the contrary:

I Corinthians 11.29, “He who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks for judgment.” Such is anyone of this sort who is not spiritually a member of Christ and receives the Eucharist, because receiving signifies that he is spiritually incorporated into Christ.

8. Further, Augustine On John’s Gospel tr.26 n.18, when speaking of a bad priest says, “He receives for judgment the sacrament of so great a thing.”

I. To the Question

A. About Mortal Sin

9. One must say that someone can be understood to be in mortal sin in three ways: first actually, because namely he is now sinning mortally in an exterior or interior act; second because, after a past mortal sin that he does not recall, he has not repented nor does repent; third because, if he has repented or does repent of the past sin, yet he has not confessed nor been absolved in the Church.

1. About him who is Actually in Mortal Sin

10. About the first I say that he sins mortally, because he simply eats unworthily.

2. About him who has not Repented of a Past Mortal Sin

11. About the second I say that if his negligence is heavy and gross, because of which he does not recall his sin, he is not excused from sin, though he sins less than the first. The point is plain from I Corinthians 11.28, “Let a man,” he says, “prove himself etc.,” for he is bound to examine himself, with the diligence possible for our weakness, before he receives communion.

12. But if his negligence is not gross, as that sufficient examination has been done and no sin occurs to him about which he was not or is not contrite and has not confessed already, he does not sin by receiving communion, though perhaps something lies hidden or fallen into oblivion.

13. The proof is:

First that if, after such examination, he were to die contrite and confessed, he would be saved; but no greater examination is required for receiving communion than for dying in peace.

Second because otherwise anyone at all would be exposing himself to danger in receiving communion; for Psalm 18.13 says, “Who understands his sins?” and Ecclesiastes 9.1, “A man knows not whether he is worthy of love or hate.” Therefore, if it were necessary for someone who receives communion to be in a state of charity, anyone at all would expose himself to danger in receiving communion, since he does not know whether he would be sinning in doing that act.

The third proof is that then the sacrament would not be a sacrament for the wayfarer, since such certitude [sc. knowing one is in a state of grace or charity] does not belong to a wayfarer.

14. For this reason I say that when diligent examination has been done according to the possibility of our weakness, and when contrition has preceded, and confession has been made that, as it seems to man, is sufficient, then he does not sin if he then receives communion. On the contrary, if any sins remain hidden, they are remitted by the sacrament.

3. About him who has Repented but has not Confessed

15. About the third I say that if an opportunity to confess arises, he is bound to confess before he receives communion. The reason is that he must be reconciled not only to God but to the Church, so that he may receive worthily the sacrament of the unity of the Church.

16. But if an opportunity to confess does not arise, and if he can without scandal avoid receiving communion, he is bound not to receive but to wait for confession, for the same reason as said just now [n.15].

17. But if scandal may arise unless he at once receive communion, as if he has put on vestments and, after doing so, he becomes conscious of a mortal sin which he has not otherwise confessed and he does not have a suitable confessor to hand then, with contrition and the will to confess at an opportune time, he can, so as to avoid scandal, celebrate [mass].

18. And likewise as concerns another about to receive communion who is not a celebrant (as when the custom in some religious community or college or church is that all non-priests receive communion), if the case is alike, namely if, when he must receive communion, he does not then have a suitable confessor, he can then receive communion without having confessed. Nor must one say that he is sinning mortally or transgressing the precept in order to avoid scandal, because no precept excludes him from this act in this case. For putting off the confession in act that he then hass in his affection does not prevent him from being a member of the Church militant suitable for the acts in which the members communicate; and he is bound to avoid scandal to a neighbor.

B. About Venial Sin

19. As to venial sin one need not be in doubt, because there is no necessity for penitential confession about venial sin.

20. However a certain authority On Ecclesiastical Dogmas [Gennadius of Marseilles ch.53], and it is in the Master’s text in distinction 12 ch.6 n.2, seems to make mention of venial sin; for it says “Although someone is pricked in conscience by a sin, provided he does not have a will to sin in other respects and makes satisfaction with tears and prayers, he may approach securely; but I say this about him who is not weighed down by mortal sins.” Therefore, it seems that no one can approach securely unless he is without the will to sin venially, and has made satisfaction for past sins with tears and prayers.

21. I reply: the passage can be understood of mortal sin (not that mortal sin is present now or in the past without penance, but it has already been confessed), if he is pricked in conscience that he has not completely made satisfaction. And then what follows about mortal sin is intelligible: “who is not weighed down by mortal sins” supply “actual or past ones without subsequent penance.”

II. To the Initial Arguments

22. To the first argument [n.5] I say that he who does in due manner what he is bound to do does not sin.

23. To the minor I say that no one is bound to receive communion in mortal sin, Gregory IX Decretals V tit.38 ch.12.

24. To the same proof [n.5] I say that just as he is bound to receive communion once a year so he is bound to make an effort by exterior penance [sc. auricular confession] to be outside mortal sin [v. IV d.15 q.1 n.8].

25. To the second proof [n.5] I say that a priest is bound to make an effort to be outside mortal sin before he receives communion; but if it happen that, after consecration and before communion, a memory comes to him of a mortal sin committed some time ago about which he did not do interior or exterior penance, then he is bound to have interior penance before he receives communion, and to put off exterior penance until an opportunity for confession arises.

26. To the second [n.6] I say that the precept about confessing once is less often than the times the faithful can keep the sacrament of penance. But many are bound also in special cases to exterior penance, as someone gravely ill whose recovery is despaired of, or someone undertaking an act where it is likely (in human judgment) that he is exposing himself to danger of death, as in deadly war. Thus too is a priest bound by a special law to exterior penance before he performs the act [of consecrating and receiving communion].

27. And if you say ‘by what law?’, I say by the law of the Apostle in I Corinthians 11.28 [n.11], “Let a man prove himself etc.”