tortures . . .”71
None of this, however, is the recipient’s problem.72 No matter how much the wicked celebrant has incurred the divine wrath, there is no question whatever of the validity of his sacrament in itself. This point is made abundantly clear in a host of quaestiones, the discussions of Albert the Great (c. 1200–1280), Bonaventure, and Aquinas being among the most cogent.73 Is the mass of a bad priest worth less than the mass of a good priest? Albert and Bonaventure cite (pseudo-) Augustine’s anti-Donatist statement that in confecting the Eucharist, “nothing greater is done by a good priest, nothing less is done by a bad priest” (cf. p. 55 above). Bonaventure adds that if one priest’s mass is said to be better than another’s, this would give some men the impression that they had, so to speak, a better deal than other people, which would be inconveniens—an inappropriate and unfitting idea. Both theologians firmly distinguish between the substantial and the additional aspects of the mass. In respect to the former, that being the confection of the body and blood of Christ, there is utter uniformity and equity between priests. In respect to the latter, the work of man rather than of God (as Albert puts it), there is inequality—and from that point of view the mass of the good priest may be regarded as better.74 Those additional aspects or “adjuncts” which can admit of inequality include such things as petitions, prayers, obsecrations, and the manner of devotion and devout affection. The Mass of a good priest is more stimulating in the arousal of devotion.75 Albert emphasizes that in no way does he wish to censure anyone for preferring to hear the good priest’s Mass, because “frequently the bad man irreverently treats the body of Christ”—for example, by covering it with a dirty cloth or leaving it unattended on the altar. Similarly, Bonaventure remarks that “if a person more willingly hears the mass of the more devout priest, I believe that he acts well, providing he believes that, as far as the substantial aspect is concerned, this priest does not far exceed the sinner; otherwise he [that person] would err perilously.”76
Aquinas also addresses the issue of the quality of priestly prayer,77 citing the Decretum as stating that “the worthier the priest the more readily is he heard in the needs for which he prays.” The authority of Augustine would seem to go against this, he notes, inasmuch as the saint says that “the wickedness of ministers cannot redound to Christ’s mysteries.”78 In resolving this apparent contradiction, Aquinas contrasts the sacrament itself with “the prayers offered therein for the living and the dead.” As far as the sacrament is concerned, “the mass of a bad priest is worth no less than the mass of a good priest, for by both the same sacrament is wrought.” In this case, an individual’s “private evil” (malum privatum) cannot harm anyone else. As far as the prayers are concerned, however, a further distinction must be made. “In so far as they have efficacy from the devotion of the priest who prays” then there is no doubt that the prayers of a better priest are more fruitful. But, “in so far as they are said in the person of the whole Church, of which the priest is the minister,” it must be said that “the prayers even of a sinful priest are fruitful” and this includes not only the prayers of the mass but also the other prayers he says while performing his ecclesiastical office. In contrast, his “private” prayers are not fruitful.79
The level of consensus here reached concerning the substance of the mass and the adjuncta of personal prayers is striking, the standards and methodologies of analysis remarkably uniform. And yet: in the event it did not take much pressure to reveal the cracks in the edifice. By way of example, we may consider the Lollard treatise De precationis sacris—not from an extreme wing of Wycliffite thought, by any means, but thus all the more indicative of how relatively small conceptual shifts could produce quite strikingly different—and threatening—results.80 The prayers of the wicked are here said to be an abomination to the Lord (cf. Isaiah 1:10); indeed, “preire wiþouten goode dede is nou
The author of De precationis sacris quotes canon law copiously to make the point that no-one should hear the mass of a priest who publicly and “wiþouten ony doute” keeps a concubine. Such evil individuals must not “entre into holy Chirche, and seie masse”—but if they presume to do so, their congregations “schullen not here her servyce.”83 The strident totalizing of such statements opens up the prospect of layfolk boycotting church services if they do not approve of the ministers who are officiating at them—a far cry from the restrained manner in which, for example, Thomas Aquinas tackled the question, “is it lawful to receive communion from or assist at masses of heretical, schismatic, or sinful priests?”84 Here Augustine is quoted as saying, “one should not shun God’s sacrament be the man good or bad.”85 After all, sinners, heretics, and excommunicates seem to have the power to effect a valid sacrament. Is this true also, Aquinas then asks, of the priest who is a fornicator? On the one hand, it is not forbidden to hear the masses of priests who have sinned in far worse ways—so why should the fornicator be singled out for rejection? On the other, according to canon law a man should not hear the mass of a priest “whom he knows beyond doubt keeps a concubine.”86 In resolving the problem, Aquinas affirms that, while all these kinds of sinful priests do have the power of consecrating the Eucharist, they do not rightly exercise it, and sin in so doing.87 If the Church has specifically debarred them from performing such a priestly function, then no-one should participate in it, whether as assistant or recipient—otherwise they commit sin. Until such times as the Church’s sentence is pronounced, however, it is quite lawful to receive communion from them and assist at their mass. What, then, of the fornicator in particular? There are indeed worse sins than fornication, yet men are more prone to it “owing to the lusts of the flesh. Consequently this sin is particularly forbidden to priests by the Church, lest anyone assist at the mass of one living in concubinage.” But Aquinas is anxious to point out that “this is to be understood of one who is notorious (notorio), either from being convicted and sentenced, or ‘by an acknowledgement of guilt in judicial form, or by plain evidence of the facts from which he cannot shuffle away.’”88
His teacher Albert the Great had stated that no-one should hear the mass of a deviant priest (whether a heretic, simoniac, or schismatic) who was notorious—here defined as one who had admitted his guilt in the presence of a judge or had it legally proved by a witness.89 And, if a person hears such a deviant’s mass with full knowledge of his deviancy, then that person sins mortally; if this is done in ignorance, of course, a more lenient view may be taken. Concerning the fornicator, Albert continues, the same distinction between what is “notorious” and what is “secret” (occultus) applies; an individual who is infamous for his vice should have the full rigor of the law applied to him, and following his trial, his mass should not be heard. Before such a sentence is
