II. To the Initial Arguments

232. As to the first initial argument [n.161], an exposition can be given to that gloss [ibid.] “whatever is blessed by you” on the words of Malachi 2 (namely “insofar as you are evil”), because the evil, insofar as they are such, bless by flattering the evil who are truly cursed by God; but in the Eucharist the priest does not bless insofar as he is evil, but insofar as he keeps the intention of the Church in blessing and consecrating.

233. To the second [n.162], when it is said “no power is left to him,” this is true of power for carrying out the Eucharist in ordained way, but not of power for carrying it out simply.

234. As to the third [n.163], if the offering of the sacrament, insofar as it is offering of the sacrament, has its efficacy from the fact it is offered, one must concede that an offering made by a bad priest has an efficacy equal to that made by a good priest. But if the many other things contained in the mass by way of prayer do much for the efficacy of the mass - which appears probable, because devotion in another prayer is, with God, not far distant from devotion in certain things pertaining to the mass; and devotion is accepted according to the merits of him whose devotion it is - the consequence is that the mass of a better priest is better, and yet the sacrament on both sides is equal.

235. If you ask what is to be simply maintained, I reply: God recompenses a good thing according to retributive justice only because of some merit to which that good thing corresponds; the merit that is said to be in the celebration of the mass, as it is the mass, cannot be an abstract merit like an Idea of Plato; therefore it must be some merit in reality. Either then it is the merit of the whole Church or of some member of the Church; but not of the whole Church save because of some member of it. Now it is not the merit of a part of the Church that is bad in the whole and dead in the way it would be of a part that is alive, that is, a part that exists in charity and works in charity. So there is not as much merit in anyone’s mass when it is the mass of someone bad as when it is of someone good; and consequently God does not, according to retributive justice, have to give to anyone in the Church, or to the whole Church, as much good in recompense for this mass as for some other mass.

236. To the fourth [n.164] I say that ‘to receive’ is more necessary than ‘to confect’, and more necessary though it be in itself sometimes more noble; yet it belongs to more people than does a less noble thing that is of less nobility; and the reason is the greater or more common necessity. So it is here, because Christ expressly taught that he wants the Eucharist to be received by any Christian whatever, John 6.54, “Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man...”, and he is there speaking to everyone. But the consecration or the dispensing he did not want to be as common, because that it be common was not as necessary; for fewer have power to dispense than to receive.

237. To the fifth [n.165] I say that Blessed Laurence dispensed the blood of Christ, as is plain in the Legend; and this is most fitting, because he only dispensed the blood in the chalice, and holding the cup is permitted to a deacon.

238. But the body is not dispensed unless the species of the bread is touched, and therefore the subsequent authority (about the dispensing of the body by the deacon [ibid.]) seems more difficult. One can say to this that being able to dispense the body of Christ, as the alleged authority [from the Decretum] says, is simply permitted to a deacon in a case of necessity; but it does not follow from this that he can confect, because to dispense is less than to confect.

239. But not only does it in no way belong to a layman to confect but even to dispense, according to Decretum p.3 d.2 ch.29, where it is said, “Some priests think so little of the divine mysteries that they hand over the body of the Lord to laymen to carry to the sick;” and there follows, “The Synod forbids such rash presumption to continue any further.”

240. And the fitting reason is that just as from the soul, through the medium of the heart, the powers of the soul are passed on to the other members of the body, and just as the principal seat of life is in the heart (Generation of Animals 2.4.738b16-17), and just as also in any polity the principal act belonging to the polity belongs to some chief person in the polity - so it is reasonable that the rite or act of confecting and dispensing the Eucharist reside with him who is chief in the ecclesiastical hierarchy; of such sort is a priest.

241. There is a confirmation of this, because to have power over the true body of Christ is of no less reverence and authority than to have power over the mystical body of Christ; but the latter belongs only to the priest; therefore equally or more so does authority as regard confecting and dispensing regularly belong (because of reverence for the true body of Christ) only to the priest; for there cannot be found a person or a rank more worthy in the Church for the consecrating and dispensing of this sacrament, in which sacrament is truly and really contained he who is the Holy of holies.

To whom be glory for ages of ages. Amen.