|
Objection 1: It would seem that suffrages offered for one deceased
person are not more profitable to the one for whom they are offered,
than to others. For spiritual light is more communicable than a
material light. Now a material light, for instance of a candle,
though kindled for one person only, avails equally all those who are
gathered together, though the candle be not lit for them. Therefore,
since suffrages are a kind of spiritual light, though they be offered
for one person in particular, do not avail him any more than the others
who are in purgatory.
Objection 2: Further, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D,
45), suffrages avail the dead "in so far as during this life they
merited that they might avail them afterwards" [St. Augustine,
Enchiridion cx]. Now some merited that suffrages might avail them
more than those for whom they are offered. Therefore they profit more
by those suffrages, else their merits would be rendered unavailing.
Objection 3: Further, the poor have not so many suffrages given
them as the rich. Therefore if the suffrages offered for certain
people profit them alone, or profit them more than others, the poor
would be worse off: yet this is contrary to our Lord's saying (Lk.
6:20): "Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of
God."
On the contrary, Human justice is copied from Divine justice. But
if a person pay another's debt human justice releases the latter
alone. Therefore since he who offers suffrages for another pays the
debt, in a sense, of the person for whom he offers them, they profit
this person alone.
Further, just as a man by offering suffrages satisfies somewhat for a
deceased person, so, too, sometimes a person can satisfy for a living
person. Now where one satisfies for a living person the satisfaction
counts only for the person for whom it is offered. Therefore one also
who offers suffrages profits him alone for whom he offers them.
I answer that, There have been two opinions on this question.
Some, like Praepositivus, have said that suffrages offered for one
particular person do avail chiefly, not the person for whom they are
offered, but those who are most worthy. And they instanced a candle
which is lit for a rich man and profits those who are with him no less
than the rich man himself, and perhaps even more, if they have keener
sight. They also gave the instance of a lesson which profits the
person to whom it is given no more than others who listen with him, but
perhaps profits these others more, if they be more intelligent. And
if it were pointed out to them that in this case the Church's
ordinance in appointing certain special prayers for certain persons is
futile, they said that the Church did this to excite the devotion of
the faithful, who are more inclined to offer special than common
suffrages, and pray more fervently for their kinsfolk than for
strangers.
Others, on the contrary, said that suffrages avail more those for
whom they are offered. Now both opinions have a certain amount of
truth: for the value of suffrages may be gauged from two sources. For
their value is derived in the first place from the virtue of charity,
which makes all goods common, and in this respect they avail more the
person who is more full of charity, although they are not offered
specially for him. In this way the value of suffrages regards more a
certain inward consolation by reason of which one who is in charity
rejoices in the goods of another after death in respect of the
diminution of punishment; for after death there is no possibility of
obtaining or increasing grace, whereas during life the works of others
avail for this purpose by the virtue of charity. In the second place
suffrages derive their value from being applied to another person by
one's intention. In this way the satisfaction of one person counts
for another, and there can be no doubt that thus they avail more the
person for whom they are offered: in fact, they avail him alone in
this way, because satisfaction, properly speaking, is directed to the
remission of punishment. Consequently, as regards the remission of
punishment, suffrages avail chiefly the person for whom they are
offered, and accordingly there is more truth in the second opinion than
in the first.
Reply to Objection 1: Suffrages avail, after the manner of a
light, in so far as they reach the dead, who thereby receive a certain
amount of consolation: and this is all the greater according as they
are endowed with a greater charity. But in so far as suffrages are a
satisfaction applied to another by the intention of the offerer, they
do not resemble a light, but rather the payment of a debt: and it does
not follow, if one person's debt be paid, that the debt of others is
paid likewise.
Reply to Objection 2: Such a merit is conditional, for in this way
they merited that suffrages would profit them if offered for them, and
this was merely to render themselves fit recipients of those suffrages.
It is therefore clear that they did not directly merit the assistance
of those suffrages, but made themselves fit by their preceding merits
to receive the fruit of suffrages. Hence it does not follow that their
merit is rendered unavailing.
Reply to Objection 3: Nothing hinders the rich from being in some
respects better off than the poor, for instance as regards the
expiation of their punishment. But this is as nothing in comparison
with the kingdom of heaven, where the poor are shown to be better off
by the authority quoted.
|
|