Question Two. Whether Any Priest who Pronounces the Words of Consecration with Due Intention and over Fitting Matter can Confect the Eucharist

161. Proceeding to the second question [n.5] thus, argument is made that not any priest can confect the Eucharist.

By the statement in Gratian Decretum p.2 caus.2 q.1 ch.84, “Many seculars,” where Malachi 2.2 is adduced, “I will curse your blessings,” and it is expounded in a single way, “I will curse whatever is blessed by you;” and the threat in Malachi 2 is made to bad priests; therefore whatever is blessed by them is cursed by God, and consequently nothing is blessed through their ministry.

162. Again, in Decretum in the same place [ch.97], “When a priest is suspended or deposed, no power is left to him;” therefore he cannot confect the Eucharist.

163. Again, the virtue of the mass consists principally in the sacrament of the Eucharist; therefore if a bad priest can confect the Eucharist like a good one, a bad priest’s mass would equal a good priest’s mass in worth, and conversely.

164. Again a layman can receive the Eucharist; but receiving the Eucharist is the end of the consecration, and consequently is simply better and nobler; therefore a layman can as equally confect or more so; therefore not merely a priest.

165. Again Blessed Laurence dispensed the blood of Christ, as is plain from his words to Pope Xystus, “[.. .myself] to whom,” he says, “you have committed the dispensing of the lord’s blood” [Jacob de Voragine, Legend ch.113] And this is proved from Decretum [d.93 ch.18], “Let the deacon be given command, if necessity compels, and distribute the Eucharist of Christ’s body to the people.”

166. On the contrary:

Decretum [ch.97], “No cause is shown why he who cannot lose baptism could lose the right to baptize.”     Therefore , by similarity, he who cannot lose priestly order, cannot lose the right to confect the Eucharist. But no priest can lose priestly power, because the character is indelible, etc     .

167. Again, ibid., “It is certain that the sanctity of the sacraments in perverse men, whether they are so inwardly or outwardly, remains unpolluted and inviolable.” Therefore any priest, however evil, can have the same power of the sacraments as a good priest.

168. That, too, only a priest can consecrate and dispense is thus proved in Decretum d.93 ch.16, “A deacon ought not to give the bread,” that is, “the body of the Lord,” according to the gloss.

I. To the Question

169. To the question I say that confecting the Eucharist can belong to no one as principal cause save God alone (it is plain from the preceding question, [nn.18, 78, 118119]). But as instrumental cause or, to speak more properly, as belonging to a minister, it can belong to a man, because God has so ordained that the minister in certain sacraments can be a man.

170. Accordingly, therefore, I say that, speaking of confecting ministerially, a minister can in two ways be understood to have power to confect: in one way absolutely, namely such that if he attempts to do it, he does what he intends; in another way to have power to do it in the way ordained. And this distinction is general in all sacraments, because more is required to minister in the way ordained than simply to minister.

A. About the Power to Confect Simply

171. Speaking of the power to confect simply, nothing beyond due matter (spoken of at the end of d.11 nn.361-389) is required save a due minister - for whom three conditions are required, namely: that he be a priest, that he can pronounce the words of consecration, and that he can have the due intention of acting, namely that he intend to do what the Church intends to do.

172. The second and third condition are common here also to one who ministers the other sacraments: because of defect of the second condition, a mute cannot confect; because of defect of the third, someone lacking the use of reason cannot confect; and the same way about baptizing and conferring any other sacraments.

173. But the first condition is proper here, because only a priest has the power, and any priest can to whom can belong these two conditions: namely, pronouncing and intention.

174. Now, that only a priest has the power is proved by Gregory IX, Decretals 1 tit.1 ch.1, ‘About the supreme Trinity and the Catholic faith’, where is said of the Eucharist, “No one can confect this sacrament save only a priest who has received the rite of ordination according to the keys of the Church.”

175. But whence does the Church get the foundation for this opinion?

I reply: from the word of Christ in Matthew 26 [rather I Corinthians 11.25-26], “Do this as often as you do it...” where he is speaking to the Apostles, or at least the disciples, to whom only those succeed who are at least priests in the Church. For to the Apostles succeed bishops, and to disciples priests, as is contained in Decretum “In the New Testament” [p.1 d.21 ch.2, d.25 ch.1 sect.8]. The same is also contained in the statement of Paul I Corinthians 16.16, “The bread which we break, is it not a communion in the body of Christ?” ‘Which we break’, he says, supply: ‘we Apostles and disciples’. Now if any of the faithful could confect, there would be no need for anyone to break it for others, but each could communicate from his own sacrifice.

176. The second part, namely that ‘every priest able to pronounce the words with intention can confect’ [n.173], is plain from the authorities brought forward for the opposite [nn.166-168].

177. Nor is it a problem if objection is raised about a degraded priest, that he becomes a non-priest; for if this is true, it is not an objection about a priest!

178. Yet it must be said not to be true, because someone who degrades another does not destroy the character; nor is it conceded that, if someone can ministerially impress a character, he can thus ministerially take it away, for it is said that God has not made him a minister in taking away as he has made him a minister in conferring. And then the rule ‘it is easier to destroy than to build’ is not conceded to apply to a ministerial minister in the sacraments, and for this can be adduced II Corinthians 13.10, “God has not given us power to destroy but to build up.”

179. If the objection is also made about a degraded priest that he does not remain a priest, because he is deprived of clerical privilege and is handed over to the care of the secular power [cf. Ord. d.25 q.1 n.4], I reply that having that concomitant privilege is not essential in the case of Orders. Sufficient evidence for this is that the privilege seems to have been conceded by the Emperor Constantine; for at some point the Orders even of a priest were without such privilege, namely before the concession. This however could be a brocade shared with jurists, because the privilege consists in this, that a priest cannot be judged in a cause of blood save by an ecclesiastical judge.

180. But if the Pope takes from someone ecclesiastical privilege, committing him to the care of the secular power, the secular judge is minister or executor of the ecclesiastical judge; but no one other than an ecclesiastical judge can commit him to a secular judge; therefore it is only possible for him to be committed to a secular judge as to a minister of the ecclesiastical judge; and consequently he is not deprived of the privilege, because while the privilege remains no secular can be minister of an ecclesiastical judge over him.

181. If objection is made about a schismatic or heretic that they cannot confect, because a priest does not offer the sacrifice in his own person but in the person of the

Church, of which he is minister, and a schismatic or heretic has been cut off from the Church (and Maser Lombard in the text seems to rely on this reason; he proves the antecedent by the fact that a priest says ‘We offer to Thee etc.’ and not ‘I offer to Thee’) - I reply that offering does not belong to the idea of consecration, nor is it a necessary requirement that a non-consecrated host be offered when it is offered, and then it is a not yet sacrificed sacrifice (just as the consecrated Eucharist conserved in a pyx is the sacrament, though it only be, as it is there, a sacrifice aptitudinally).

182. Let it also be true that anyone who confects must confect in the faith of the Church, yet not only a schismatic but a heretic too (which is more, posit he is a heretic) can well have about the Eucharist the intention of the Church in confecting, and have this intention in a universal way, namely by intending to do what the Church does and what Christ instituted should be done, even though he not intend specifically, because he believes the Eucharist not to have power or to do anything, as is said in Prior Analytics 2.21.67a35-36, “it is possible to know that every mule is infertile and to be in doubt about this mule.” And enough was said about this intention in the matter of baptism, IV d.5 nn.17, 22-23.

B. About the Power to Confect in the Way Ordained

183. It remains then to look at the second member, namely about the power to confect in the way ordained [n.170].

184. And I say that for this purpose many things combine, which however (speaking of those that are not required for the power simply) can all be reduced to three, for they are required on the part either of the minister, or of the place, or of the time. And, accordingly, there are three articles.

1. About the Things Required on the Part of the Minister

185. First must be seen what is required on the part of the minister so that he be able to confect in the way ordained (supposing he has fitting matter and can pronounce the words with due intention). Now the things added to these on the part of the minister are found in a double difference, namely some are removals of impediments and some are applying of things fitting or suitable.

a. About the Removal of Impediments

186. About the first: impediments to what it is to confect in the ordained way are either guilt alone, or penalty alone, or neither guilt nor penalty.

187. The impediment of guilt, namely how someone in a state of mortal sin cannot confect, was spoken of in d.9 n.25.

188. And the impediment that is neither guilt nor penalty, namely that one is not fasting with the fast of nature, was spoken of in d.8 nn.170-183.

189. It remains here, then, to see precisely about the impediment that is penalty. Now no such penalty is natural, whether in body or soul, because such penalty simply does not impede, but only a canonical penalty, or a natural penalty on which can be founded a canonical penalty. And a canonical penalty (to speak briefly) is some prohibition on exercising an act or receiving a degree that would belong otherwise to someone not prohibited.

190. Now of such penalties there are many not founded on any natural penalty or defect, as degradation, irregularity, the greater excommunication, suspension from execution of things belonging to Orders, simony, infamy - and certain things of the sort reducible to these, as that under infamy can be included public sin (this includes much, as public fornicator, public usurer) and things such as drunkenness.

191. But some canonical penalties are founded on natural defects, for the Church did not wish defective persons of any sort to minister at the altar. And rightly, because in the Old Law, Leviticus 21.17, a law is set down for a man “who hath a blemish, not to offer bread to his Lord, nor advance to his ministry.”

192. Now these defects are those in which, if such a person defective in nature were to serve as minister, there would be scandal to the weak. And reasonably, because whatever can be omitted without mortal sin is to be avoided if the exercising of it cause scandal to the weak. Such scandal would arise if those with notable natural defects, as the mutilated or those infirm with some horrible infirmity (as leprosy and the like) were to minister at the altar.

193. Therefore has the Church reasonably affixed to such natural defects canonical penalties and prohibitions against ministering, because of reverence for the sacrament and to avoid scandal of the weak. And these prohibitions are plain in Decretum p.1 d.25 and Decretals I tit.20.

194. Required, therefore, in one who confects in the way ordained is the removal of all these impediments, because, if he who has any of them confects, he does so against the prohibition of the Church, and consequently not in the way ordained.

b. About the Applying of Things Fitting

195. The second thing that is required on the part of the minister is the applying of things fitting, namely of ornaments, as is contained in Decretum p.3 d.1 ch.42. Said there is that “The vestments of the Church, in which God is served, should be sanctified and honorable, they should not be used for uses other than ecclesiastical duties worthy of God, and should not be worn by others.”

196. Now which these items of clothing are is expounded by Innocent III, Sacrament of the Altar I ch.10: “There are,” he says, “six items of clothing common to bishops and priests, namely amice, alb, girdle, stole, maniple, planet.” However, in certain places the custom has obtained that the belt need not be blessed, and thus it does not appear to be licit to use a belt that has not been blessed.

c. About Penalties Against Ministers who Behave Otherwise

197. And if, as to all the things on the part of the minister, whether required for the power simply (in the first member [nn.185-194]) or required in this second member (about the things required on the part of the minister for power in the way ordained [nn.185-196]), the question is asked what the penalty is for a minister who makes an attempt otherwise, I reply: if he is mute he cannot attempt to speak; if he does not have the use of reason he cannot attempt to have the due intention; if he is not a priest and attempts to do as a priest does, he is sinning mortally but also achieves nothing; he is also irregular, as is contained in the Extra under the heading ‘About a non-ordained cleric who ministers’ [Innocent, ibid.]. And universally, whoever carries out or attempts the act of an Order he does not have is irregular; it is plain from diverse cases under that heading.

198. Now the penalty for one who ministers when under any canonical impediment is that of irregularity, as is plain in Extra under ‘About an excommunicated or deposed cleric’, in diverse chapters - and this most of all if the one ministering knows such a penalty is inflicted on him.

199. But here a distinction can be drawn between ignorance of fact and ignorance of law

Ignorance of law does not excuse, because he who takes so great an act upon himself knows the laws according to which he can perform such and so great act; and therefore such ignorance of law does not excuse, but perhaps it aggravates more.

200. But ignorance of fact does excuse, as is contained in the same title there [Innocent, ibid., n. 198] - and this unless true and public repute make manifest to him that he is prevented by such penalty. This is proved by that chapter, with the same title: “Since he was sure only by repute about the judgment passed against him, he is believed not to sin if he celebrated the divine office as solemnly as possible,” to which is added: “Because in doubtful things the safer way is to be chosen; and though he might be unsure about the sentenced passed against him, yet he ought rather to abstain than carry out the ecclesiastical sacraments.” And at the end is added, “We, exercising mercy toward him, have not thought the penalty should be inflicted on him that the Canon inflicts on those who have, after excommunication, presumed to celebrate divine offices.”

201. From this is plain that the penalty incurred by canon law is mercifully relaxed for one in doubt who, after excommunication passed against him has become known by public repute, has celebrated the divine offices.

202. However, among these impediments minor excommunication is not included, insofar, namely, as the penalty of irregularity follows, because, as is contained under the same title: “although he who celebrates under minor excommunication sins gravely, yet he incurs no mark of irregularity.”

203. However, about one guilty of simony [Decretum p.1 d.33 ch.2] or a public or notorious sinner, there is doubt.

But it first seems to be solved by Decretum p.2 cause 1 q.1 ch.21: among those who must not be promoted is named he who has, in imitation of Simon Magus, offered money for the purchase; and in Decretals V tit.3 ch.2 Pope Gregory condemns simoniacs altogether and decrees by apostolic authority that they be removed from office; and this is spoken of in the text there and in the gloss. Therefore such a person seems, because of canonical penalty, simply unsuitable for acts of Order, just as he must, because of the authority cited, be altogether expelled from the clergy.

204. About a public or notorious sinner, it is certain that, before penance, he sins mortally by confecting, not only because he is in a state of mortal sin but also because he causes scandal.

205. But is he irregular?

A penalty inflicted on him for this is perhaps not found in the canon, for although he is prohibited by Decretum p.1 d.32 ch.5, “Let no one hear the mass of a priest whom he knows without doubt has a concubine” and from this it would seem that he is forbidden to celebrate (because he is more strictly bound to avoid celebrating than the hearer is from hearing, and consequently, if he celebrates, he acts against the precept of the Church), yet this consequence is not necessary in penalties, because ‘penalties are not to be amplified’ [Ord. IV d.6 n.185]. And sometimes communication with him in any act is forbidden, so that he may recover himself and be corrected; but the penalty of irregularity is not inflicted on him if he performs this act.

206. The same could be said of a public usurer, who also persists in his sin of usury.

207. However, about an infamous person who has repented of his sin but has not yet been fully restored, whether he would be irregular when celebrating - one should not say that he would be unless it is found in Canon Law that this penalty is to be inflicted on him.

208. Now as to someone who celebrates without all or some of the ornaments, or celebrates with non-consecrated ones - that the penalty of irregularity is imposed is not found in Canon Law.

209. Briefly, since this penalty is one of Canon Law, it is not incurred when it is not inflicted.

210. No condition, therefore, required on the part of the minister and not observed, makes him incur irregularity save lack of priesthood and some canonical penalty prohibiting or removing him simply from exercise of the priesthood. And consequently someone not prohibited by such penalty does not incur irregularity when confecting. So irregularity is not incurred because of sin (unless it is of the sort that has a canonical prohibition annexed to it), nor because of failure to observe the fast, nor because of lack of due ornaments, nor briefly because of anything else not contained under those stated above.

2. About the Things Required on the Part of the Place

211. The second main topic follows [n.184], namely the things required on the part of the place. Here we can draw a distinction between place properly speaking and a vessel, which is a sort of movable place according to the Philosopher, Physics 4.4.212a20-21.

a. About Place Properly Speaking

212. On the part of place properly speaking removal of impediments is required, namely that the place is not forbidden, and appointment of fitting disposition is required, namely that the place be sanctified.

213. The first is simply necessary, because he who celebrates in a forbidden place acts against the prohibition of the Church, and consequently not in ordained fashion.

214. The second is necessary unless a case of necessity arise, as is proved by Decretum ‘On Consecration’, p.3 d.1 ch.11, “In places other than those consecrated to the Lord, that is, tabernacles anointed by pontiffs, it is not licit to chant or to celebrate.” The same is plain from the next chapter and the following one, where is said, “Let no priest presume to celebrate mass save in places sanctified by a bishop, who has wanted it in other respects to share his priesthood.”

215. But the exception there about a case of necessity is plain ibid., and the cases there are these: as when the churches in a country are destroyed, or if someone traveling cannot at all get to a consecrated church (which is regularly true of those traveling by ship, and others of the sort). For it does not seem likely that observation of the precept of the decalogue ‘Keep the sabbath holy’ (which precept the Church has interpreted to mean hearing mass on the Lord’s day, Decretum p.3 d.1 ch.64) was intended by the Church to be impeded by a precept of lesser obligation (as that such and such a place is determinately required for mass to be heard), since no one should be constrained in observance of something more necessary by the strictness of something less necessary.

216. But what and where are the consecrated places?

As a rule, they are parish churches and other solemn collegiate churches.

217. Oratories, that are called ‘chapels’ cannot be held to be consecrated save by license of the bishop, Decretum p.3 d.1 ch.33, “Each of the faithful is permitted to have an oratory and to pray there, but not to celebrate masses there,” save in the above stated cases [n.215]; for it is not permitted to make a sacred oratory without the authority of the bishop, Decretals III tit.41 ch.14.

218. Now there is need of ornament for the place, namely a light, as is said ibid., “He was sacrificing without fire and water,” and there follows, “We command that you deprive him perpetually of office and benefice.”

b. About Movable Place or Vessels

219. About movable place or vessels [n.211] I draw the distinction that the altar is a remote vessel, and must also be made of stone, Decretum p.3 d.1 ch.31, “If altars are not made of stone, let them not be consecrated with the oil of chrism.” Proximate vessels are the cup and the paten, which should be made of gold or silver or, where poverty compels, at least of tin, as is contained ibid., “let the chalice of the Lord, along with the paten, be made, if not of gold, then of silver. But if someone is so poor, at least let him have a tin chalice; but let it not be made of bronze or brass, for this causes, because of the power of the wine, rust (or mildew) and equally vomit. But let none presume to sing masses with a wooden or glass chalice.” Not of glass, reasonably, because of its fragility, lest the Lord’s blood be exposed to danger; not of wood because it absorbs the moisture.

220. Again, all vessels should be consecrated. Discussion about the altar is contained in Decretum p.3 d.1 chs.18, 30-32. Now whether the altar is fixed, as it commonly is in churches, or portable, makes no great difference, because it is fitting on a portable altar or on the fixed one to celebrate masses, as is contained in Decretals V tit.33 ch.30, “We have judged that the Friars Minor and the Order of Preachers should be so indulged that, wherever they might be, they may be able, without prejudice to the parish, to celebrate with a traveling altar; some, interpreting our indulgence too strictly, try to say that the aforesaid Brothers cannot do this without the assent of the prelates.” And a little later, “But since the mentioned indulgence confers nothing on them (without it the same thing would be permitted to them if the prelates approved), we decree, having thus far rejected this sort of interpretation, that, provided however they altogether abstain from things that come from parochial right, they not defer to make public the license of celebrating given to them also by our authority, so that the aforesaid Brothers may be seen to have in this obtained grace from our indulgence,” says Pope Honorius III.

221. If an objection be drawn from this article that it is not licit to use a traveling altar save by privilege, I reply that this is true as regard its use in any consecrated or nonconsecrated place indifferently; but as to its use in a consecrated place, common right seems enough, because, before the dedication of the altar in any church whatever, celebration commonly occurred on the little altar, which is called the ‘super-altar’.

222. And this altar, whether fixed or movable and portable, must not have huge fractures, Decretals III tit.40 chs.1, 3, where it is said that “if a blessed stone has been moved, it must be blessed again.”

223. The chalice too and paten must be consecrated, Decretum p.3 d.1 ch.2.

224. These vessels must also be decorated, the altar indeed with two panels and, where it is the custom of the church, consecrated and, which is more precise, with a corporal of clean muslin. And it is necessary that the corporal cover at least the place of the chalice and the host, which must be placed on top of the consecrated altar, if the whole altar is immovable and consecrated, or upon a movable altar, when the use of this is required.

3. About Penalties for Him who Celebrates without these Requirements

225. If it is asked what the penalty is for one who celebrates without the aforesaid conditions on the part of the place and vessel, I say that irregularity is incurred in none of them save perhaps in two cases: first if he celebrates in a place forbidden by a judge, another if he celebrates with an unsuitable chalice.

226. As to the first of these, one must understand that a place can be forbidden by a judge or by law:

By law indeed if it is polluted by blood or seed, Decretals III tit.40 ch.10; and in such cases, provided the thing is notorious, it is a sin to celebrate; however, irregularity is not incurred, because it is not expressly imposed by law; but if the thing is private, it is not even a sin because neither does it need reconciliation, ibid., tit.16 ch.5.

227. But if the prohibition against the place is imposed by a judge, one who celebrates there is said to incur irregularity. The proof is ibid., tit.27 ch.7, tit.31 ch.18. However, both chapters could be given a fair exposition, because neither is expositive of law, and not even a response of positive law; nor does it appear that someone so celebrating is simply irregular. The point is clear from exposition of the words, when well considered, about privation of benefices and the like.

228. In the second case [n.225], namely lack of suitable chalice, it is doubtful whether irregularity is incurred because of it, for the penalty of being deposed contained in ibid. III tit.41 ch.14 is inflicted for several things, as that he did not use the due chalice nor water nor fire, and it is doubtful if deposition should be imposed for any of these separately, because in the text all of them came together.

4. About the Things Required on the Part of the Time

229. The third main point, on the part of the time [n.184].

Briefly, you may hold that mass is fittingly celebrated from the beginning of the day up to nones, calculating the beginning of the day not from the rising of the sun above our horizon but from the hour at which the solar rays illumine our hemisphere, which is called the beginning of the aurora (according to De CrepusculisAuthor: Abu Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Mucadh. ⁵⁹), when the sun is 10 or 8 degrees below the horizon, the ascent from which does not take more than the period of a full hour and a fifth of an hour. And this limit for celebrating then and not before is proved in Decretum p.3 d.1 ch.48, “On the holy sabbath [the night of the Lord’s nativity], about the beginning of night, the solemnities of the mass are to be celebrated.” And the reason is that that part of the artificial day, which is after nones on the holy sabbath, is computed along with the night preceding the Lord’s day. Hence in the blessing of the candle it is said, “God who this most holy night.” Now the end of celebration, namely the ninth hour [nones] is gathered from the custom of the churches; and this end is reached especially on days of fasting, when in collegiate churches the mass after fasting is regularly wont to be celebrated about the ninth hour.

230. Now this circumstance of time is accompanied by a certain necessity to mark a period of time in the celebration of an ordained mass, at whatever hour of the artificial day it is done, namely to read the introit, prayers, and epistle, as is noted in the missals according to the use of the Roman Church, without which preceding acts no one confects in the ordained way; nor perhaps absolutely could anyone confect (as said above in d.8 nn.66-71, 89-91) without first saying at least the words by which he would signify that he was pronouncing the words of consecration in the person of Christ, not in the proper person of the priest.

C. About the Necessity of Having a Respondent in the Celebration of the Mass

231. The last point is that the celebrant must have someone who gives reply in the person of the whole Church, so that the celebrant may be known to be mediator in this act between God and the Church, who offers sacrifice to God for the Church, which assists him in doing the offering [Decretum p.3 d.1 ch.61].

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.