Dist. 13, Art. 1, Q. 4
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/13/q/bon-sent-IV-d13-a1-q4
----------------------------------------
### 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 Christ*: "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 *excellence*: 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 unfitting.

**On the contrary:** 1. "Several good things are better than fewer good things"; 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 fruitful; 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 fornicators.

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 affection; 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 them. 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 *eucharist*, 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*, *Vestra*; 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 Church.