Dist. 13, Dubia
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-dubia
----------------------------------------
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that Augustine says: *Nothing greater is accomplished by a good priest, nothing less by a bad one.* For it seems from this that a bad priest accomplishes equally the things that pertain to the Mass, as a good one; and so it seems that, just as a good priest does not sin, so neither does a bad one.

It is asked therefore about a priest who is knowingly bad and is bound to consecrate, because he has a parish: what ought he to do? If he leaves off, he sins;

[and there has occurred to him a mortal sin, of which he was not contrite;] in such a state it can happen that, if he has the supply of [another] priest, he ought to confess, if he has the suitableness of the hour, namely before the beginning of the canon. If he does not have it, some have said that, if the people are present, contrition with the resolve of confessing suffices, because he would scandalize the people if he left off; but if he did not fear scandal, they counsel leaving off, especially when nothing compels. — Yet it must be believed that without sin he can complete what has been begun; if he has the resolve of confessing with contrition, all is supplied; nor do I see contempt there.

But if he is bound to chant and does not have the supply of [another] priest; I say that he is bound to prepare himself through contrition and the resolve of confessing; and so it suffices for this, that he not sin, if he approach with shame and reverence. — But if he does not prepare himself, and chants; I say that he sins by the sin of *omission* when he omits to be contrite; also by another sin, if he is a hidden *simoniac*; if a *manifest* one, I say that he scandalizes; but if one *forbidden by the Church,* he sins in all these ways and by the sin of transgression. — But it must always be understood that there is one sin, and all the rest are as it were attached, or aggravating circumstances, as if someone were to kill men for gain.

But what shall we say of him to whom there occurs a remorse concerning irregularity? Then there is there no remedy of contrition nor even of confession.

To this some respond that, since it is forbidden to an irregular man to consecrate this Sacrament, and the irregularity is not blotted out by contrition, but only by dispensation, then however much the people be present and scandal be feared — since « one must not act against the truth of life on account of scandal » and against the precept — he is bound either to lay aside the consciousness of irregularity, or to leave off the Mass; and this, I say, before the consecration, and especially before the beginning of the canon. — Some say that the prohibition on account of irregularity does not extend to him, especially since he approached without consciousness of irregularity. Hence on account of the reverence of the Sacrament and the scandal of the people they say that, if he grieves and would gladly do what was in him, they say that it has been dispensed by the Lord for then.

But if it be asked about him who should begin to have a consciousness that he is not a priest; here it must be said in two ways: that he ought either to leave off the Mass before the consecration, or [to lay aside] the consciousness; and he ought to feign infirmity. — Therefore the sound counsel is that a man prepare himself diligently beforehand and in the Mass not think about himself, but rather about the Sacrament.

### Doubt II

Likewise, about this, that he says: *Nor is it enlarged by the merits of good dispensers,* it is asked: who sins more, namely whether the bad priest who consecrates and does not receive, or he who does both? And it seems that he sins more who does both, because he presumes more, and the irreverence is greater. — Likewise, it is asked, who sins more, whether he who out of fear and reverence dares to do nothing, or he who consecrates. And it seems that he sins more who consecrates, because he does a greater contumely to the Sacrament, the other [shows] reverence. — Likewise it is asked about him who receives only the body and not the blood.

**I respond:** It must be said that he sins more gravely who pretends to act, than he who consecrates and does not receive; and he more gravely who consecrates and does not receive, than he who consecrates and receives; and he more gravely who consecrates and receives a part, than he who consecrates and receives the whole.

And the reason for this is that irreverence can be done to the Sacrament in one way, because he who ministers is unworthy, yet nonetheless does as the Church instituted; in another way, because he is not only unworthy, but also in the very celebration does not keep the rite which he ought; and then he not only exhibits irreverence, but also does contumely, because he does not complete the Sacrament, but leaves it incomplete. And therefore it has been ordained that no one pretend to celebrate, in the decretal *On the Celebration of Masses,* book the third *De homine,* and below: « Although he who, out of consciousness of his own crime, reckons himself unworthy, sins gravely if he thrust himself irreverently to it; yet he seems to offend more gravely who has fraudulently presumed to pretend it, since the former falls into the hand of God alone the merciful, but the latter binds himself not only to God, whom he does not fear to mock, but to the people, whom he deceives ». It has also been ordained that he who consecrates should communicate, *On the Consecration,* distinction the second, from the Council of Toledo: « It is certain that those who, sacrificing, do not eat, are guilty of the Lord's

Sacrament, and let them know that for one year they have been driven back from that communion of which they have indecently deprived themselves ». It has also been ordained that they should receive the blood; whence *On the Consecration,* distinction the second, Pope Gelasius: « Either let them receive the whole Sacraments, or let them be barred from the whole, because the division of one and the same mystery cannot come about without great sacrilege ».

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that Augustine says: *Recall the name and attend to the truth. For it is called Mass* etc.: namely why the Mass is so named; and whether in every sacrifice a victim is sent? — Likewise it is asked: why is it not said, *Ite, Missa est* [Go, it is the dismissal], in every Mass? — Likewise, it is asked about this, that he says that a heavenly messenger comes to consecrate the body. For from this word of Augustine it seems that an Angel consecrates the body of the Lord and confects it. — Against this is that this action is altogether above the angelic nature.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as is touched on in the text, it is called *Missa* because a heavenly messenger is sent (*mittitur*). This heavenly messenger, as Innocent expounds, is the Angel of great counsel. He, I say, is sent to consecrate, because he is the invisible priest who consecrates and confects this Sacrament, wherever it be confected. — Hence that reasoning to the contrary is invalid, by which he objects from the angelic ministry; for this sending is not only this, but is also a sending of the sacrifice to God through the highest Angel, namely Christ, the great Angels assisting. On account of which at the end it is said: *Ite, Missa est;* and on account of this it is rightly called *Missa.* Hence Hugh: « The sacred victim itself can be called *Missa* [the sent], because it was first sent, namely from the Father, that it might be with us; afterwards by us to the Father, that it might intercede for us with the Father: first from the Father to us through the incarnation; second by us to the Father through the passion. Likewise in the Sacrament: first from the Father to us through sanctification, by which it begins to be with us; afterwards by us to the Father through oblation, by which it intercedes for us ».

But then there is the question: why is it not said at the end of every Mass: *Ite, Missa est?* **I respond:** It must be said that, although every Mass regards the whole mystical body of Christ, as is clear through the threefold partition of the host; yet according to that threefold difference it happens that Masses are appropriated in three ways. For some are celebrated specially for the honor of the Saints; and because they are already in safety and are before God, therefore in such [Masses] the people are dismissed and it is said: *Ite, Missa est,* as if: hasten to enter into that rest. — Some specially for the salvation of the living; and because we are not certain of our salvation, therefore we ought continually to be solicitous, lest through our sloth the efficacy of the Mass vanish in us. Therefore it is said in the Mass at the end at all times: *Benedicamus Domino* [Let us bless the Lord], according to that of the Prophet: *I will bless the Lord at all times.* — Some specially for the rest of the dead, and in those it is said: *Requiescant in pace* [May they rest in peace].

### Doubt IV

Likewise, about this, that the Master says: *But that you may not be ignorant of what makes a heretic,* it is asked whence one is called and for what reason one is called *heretic.* For if you say that one is called *heretic* because he errs; this is against Augustine, who says in the first book *On the Trinity*: *I shall be able to err, but I shall not be able to be a heretic.* If you say that one is called *heretic* because he is divided from the communion of the faithful; then the excommunicate and the schismatic ought to be called *heretic.* — It is asked therefore for what reason one is called *heretic;* and in what *heresy, sect,* and *superstition* differ.

**I respond:** As Isidore says in the book of *Etymologies*: « *Heretic* is so called from the Greek *haeresis,* which is *election* in Latin »; and although election is common to the good and the bad, yet the heretic himself receives some false opinion not from the gift of God, but from his own authority and from his own sense. For « every truth is from the Holy Spirit, by whomever it be said ». But he is not said to choose this whenever he opines something false, but when he prefers the false and pertinaciously believes it and is ready to defend it, whether he himself devised it or another. Hence such a definition can be given: a heretic is one who, by ignorance or contempt of the divine law, a pertinacious inventor of his own error, or a follower of another's, prefers to oppose the catholic

truth rather than to be subject to it. And this account agrees with the reasoning and saying of Augustine. Hence Augustine, Cause the twenty-fourth, question the third: « Those who defend their opinion, however perverse, with no pertinacious animosity, being ready to be corrected, are by no means to be counted among heretics ».

And *heresy* differs from *schism,* because the former is against the faith, schism against morals or the bond of charity. — Now an opinion against the faith can, by reason of its devising, be called *superstition,* that is, superfluous institution; by reason of adherence *heresy;* by reason of defense *sect,* speaking by appropriation. — Or *heresy,* because against the truth; *sect,* because against the community; *superstition,* because against utility, as a superfluous institution. — Or *heresy* from choosing, *sect* from following, *superstition* from standing-over. Hence *heresy* denotes the presumptuous and deliberate devising of the false, *sect* superadds imitation, *superstition* the inveteracy of long duration. Just as old men outliving [their time] grow delirious, so also heretics; therefore it is called *superstition,* because it agrees with the aged and the survivor. But superstition is first so called as it were from *standing-over;* for just as in faith the intellect is taken captive, so in error it is puffed up and exalted.