EUCHARIST (QQ [75]- 80)
OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST (SIX ARTICLES)
TP Q[75] A[5] Thes.
Whether the accidents of the bread and wine remain in this sacrament after the change?
TP Q[75] A[5] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the accidents of the bread and wine do not remain in this
sacrament. For when that which comes first is removed, that which follows is also taken
away. But substance is naturally before accident, as is proved in Metaph. vii. Since,
then, after consecration, the substance of the bread does not remain in this sacrament, it
seems that its accidents cannot remain.
TP Q[75] A[5] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, there ought not to be any deception in a sacrament of truth. But we
judge of substance by accidents. It seems, then, that human judgment is deceived, if,
while the accidents remain, the substance of the bread does not. Consequently this is
unbecoming to this sacrament.
TP Q[75] A[5] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, although our faith is not subject to reason, still it is not contrary
to reason, but above it, as was said in the beginning of this work (FP, Q[1], A[6], ad 2;
A[8]). But our reason has its origin in the senses. Therefore our faith ought not to be
contrary to the senses, as it is when sense judges that to be bread which faith believes
to be the substance of Christ's body. Therefore it is not befitting this sacrament for the
accidents of bread to remain subject to the senses, and for the substance of bread not to
remain.
TP Q[75] A[5] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, what remains after the change has taken place seems to be the subject
of change. If therefore the accidents of the bread remain after the change has been
effected, it seems that the accidents are the subject of the change. But this is
impossible; for "an accident cannot have an accident" (Metaph. iii). Therefore
the accidents of the bread and wine ought not to remain in this sacrament.
TP Q[75] A[5] OTC
On the contrary, Augustine says in his book on the Sentences of Prosper
(Lanfranc, De
Corp. et Sang. Dom. xiii): "Under the species which we behold, of bread and wine, we
honor invisible things, i.e. flesh and blood."
TP Q[75] A[5] Body
I answer that, It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine
remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of
all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink
blood. And therefore Christ's flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under
the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and
wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might be derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our
Lord under His own species. Thirdly, that while we receive our Lord's body and blood
invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.
TP Q[75] A[5] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: As is said in the book De Causis, an effect depends more on the first
cause than on the second. And therefore by God's power, which is the first cause of all
things, it is possible for that which follows to remain, while that which is first is
taken away.
TP Q[75] A[5] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: There is no deception in this sacrament; for the accidents which are
discerned by the senses are truly present. But the intellect, whose proper object is
substance as is said in De Anima iii, is preserved by faith from deception.
TP Q[75] A[5] R.O. 2
And this serves as answer to the third argument; because faith is not contrary to the
senses, but concerns things to which sense does not reach.
TP Q[75] A[5] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: This change has not properly a subject, as was stated above (A[4], ad 1);
nevertheless the accidents which remain have some resemblance of a subject.
TP Q[75] A[6] Thes.
Whether the substantial form of the bread remains in this sacrament after the
consecration?
TP Q[75] A[6] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the substantial form of the bread remains in this sacrament after
the consecration. For it has been said (A[5]) that the accidents remain after the
consecration. But since bread is an artificial thing, its form is an accident. Therefore
it remains after the consecration.
TP Q[75] A[6] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, the form of Christ's body is His soul: for it is said in De Anima ii,
that the soul "is the act of a physical body which has life in potentiality".
But it cannot be said that the substantial form of the bread is changed into the soul.
Therefore it appears that it remains after the consecration.
TP Q[75] A[6] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, the proper operation of a things follows its substantial form. But what
remains in this sacrament, nourishes, and performs every operation which bread would do
were it present. Therefore the substantial form of the bread remains in this sacrament
after the consecration.
TP Q[75] A[6] OTC
On the contrary, The substantial form of bread is of the substance of bread. But the
substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, as stated above (AA[2],3,4).
Therefore the substantial form of the bread does not remain.
TP Q[75] A[6] Body
I answer that, Some have contended that after the consecration not only do the
accidents of the bread remain, but also its substantial form. But this cannot be. First of
all, because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain, nothing of the bread
would be changed into the body of Christ, excepting the matter; and so it would follow
that it would be changed, not into the whole body of Christ, but into its matter, which is
repugnant to the form of the sacrament, wherein it is said: "This is My body."
TP Q[75] A[6] Body
Secondly, because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain, it would remain
either in matter, or separated from matter. The first cannot be, for if it were to remain
in the matter of the bread, then the whole substance of the bread would remain, which is
against what was said above (A[2]). Nor could it remain in any other matter, because the
proper form exists only in its proper matter. But if it were to remain separate from
matter, it would then be an actually intelligible form, and also an intelligence; for all
forms separated from matter are such.
TP Q[75] A[6] Body
Thirdly, it would be unbefitting this sacrament: because the accidents of the bread
remain in this sacrament, in order that the body of Christ may be seen under them, and not
under its proper species, as stated above (A[5]).
TP Q[75] A[6] Body
And therefore it must be said that the substantial form of the bread does not remain.
TP Q[75] A[6] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: There is nothing to prevent art from making a thing whose form is not an
accident, but a substantial form; as frogs and serpents can be produced by art: for art
produces such forms not by its own power, but by the power of natural energies. And in
this way it produces the substantial forms of bread, by the power of fire baking the
matter made up of flour and water.
TP Q[75] A[6] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The soul is the form of the body, giving it the whole order of perfect
being, i.e. being, corporeal being, and animated being, and so on. Therefore the form of
the bread is changed into the form of Christ's body, according as the latter gives
corporeal being, but not according as it bestows animated being.
TP Q[75] A[6] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Some of the operations of bread follow it by reason of the accidents, such
as to affect the senses, and such operations are found in the species of the bread after
the consecration on account of the accidents which remain. But some other operations
follow the bread either by reason of the matter, such as that it is changed into something
else, or else by reason of the substantial form, such as an operation consequent upon its
species, for instance, that it "strengthens man's heart" (Ps. 103:15); and such
operations are found in this sacrament, not on account of the form or matter remaining,
but because they are bestowed miraculously upon the accidents themselves, as will be said
later (Q[77], A[3], ad 2,3; AA[5],6).
TP Q[75] A[7] Thes.
Whether this change is wrought instantaneously?
TP Q[75] A[7] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that this change is not wrought instantaneously, but successively. For
in this change there is first the substance of bread, and afterwards the substance of
Christ's body. Neither, then, is in the same instant, but in two instants. But there is a
mid-time between every two instants. Therefore this change must take place according to
the succession of time, which is between the last instant in which the bread is there, and
the first instant in which the body of Christ is present.
TP Q[75] A[7] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, in every change something is "in becoming" and something is
"in being." But these two things do not exist at the one time for, what is
"in becoming," is not yet, whereas what is "in being," already is.
Consequently, there is a before and an after in such change: and so necessarily the change
cannot be instantaneous, but successive.
TP Q[75] A[7] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv) that this sacrament "is made by the
words of Christ." But Christ's words are pronounced successively. Therefore the
change takes place successively.
TP Q[75] A[7] OTC
On the contrary, This change is effected by a power which is infinite, to which it
belongs to operate in an instant.
TP Q[75] A[7] Body
I answer that, A change may be instantaneous from a threefold reason. First on the part
of the form, which is the terminus of the change. For, if it be a form that receives more
and less, it is acquired by its subject successively, such as health; and therefore
because a substantial form does not receive more and less, it follows that its
introduction into matter is instantaneous.
TP Q[75] A[7] Body
Secondly on the part of the subject, which sometimes is prepared successively for
receiving the form; thus water is heated successively. When, however, the subject itself
is in the ultimate disposition for receiving the form, it receives it suddenly, as a
transparent body is illuminated suddenly. Thirdly on the part of the agent, which
possesses infinite power: wherefore it can instantly dispose the matter for the form. Thus
it is written (Mk. 7:34) that when Christ had said, "'Ephpheta,' which is 'Be thou
opened,' immediately his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed."
TP Q[75] A[7] Body
For these three reasons this conversion is instantaneous. First, because the substance
of Christ's body which is the term of this conversion, does not receive more or less.
Secondly, because in this conversion there is no subject to be disposed successively.
Thirdly, because it is effected by God's infinite power.
TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Some [*Cf. Albert the Great, Sent. iv, D, 11; St.
Bonaventure, Sent., iv,
D, 11] do not grant simply that there is a mid-time between every two instants. For they
say that this is true of two instants referring to the same movement, but not if they
refer to different things. Hence between the instant that marks the close of rest, and
another which marks the beginning of movement, there is no mid-time. But in this they are
mistaken, because the unity of time and of instant, or even their plurality, is not taken
according to movements of any sort, but according to the first movement of the heavens,
which is the measure of all movement and rest.
TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 1
Accordingly others grant this of the time which measures movement depending on the
movement of the heavens. But there are some movements which are not dependent on the
movement of the heavens, nor measured by it, as was said in the FP, Q[53], A[3] concerning
the movements of the angels. Hence between two instants responding to those movements
there is no mid-time. But this is not to the point, because although the change in
question has no relation of itself to the movement of the heavens, still it follows the
pronouncing of the words, which (pronouncing) must necessarily be measured by the movement
of the heavens. And therefore there must of necessity be a mid-time between every two
signate instants in connection with that change.
TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 1
Some say therefore that the instant in which the bread was last, and the instant in
which the body of Christ is first, are indeed two in comparison with the things measured,
but are one comparatively to the time measuring; as when two lines touch, there are two
points on the part of the two lines, but one point on the part of the place containing
them. But here there is no likeness, because instant and time is not the intrinsic measure
of particular movements, as a line and point are of a body, but only the extrinsic
measure, as place is to bodies.
TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 1
Hence others say that it is the same instant in fact, but another according to reason.
But according to this it would follow that things really opposite would exist together;
for diversity of reason does not change a thing objectively.
TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 1
And therefore it must be said that this change, as stated above, is wrought by Christ's
words which are spoken by the priest, so that the last instant of pronouncing the words is
the first instant in which Christ's body is in the sacrament; and that the substance of
the bread is there during the whole preceding time. Of this time no instant is to be taken
as proximately preceding the last one, because time is not made up of successive instants,
as is proved in Phys. vi. And therefore a first instant can be assigned in which Christ's
body is present; but a last instant cannot be assigned in which the substance of bread is
there, but a last time can be assigned. And the same holds good in natural changes, as is
evident from the Philosopher (Phys. viii).
TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: In instantaneous changes a thing is "in becoming," and is
"in being" simultaneously; just as becoming illuminated and to be actually
illuminated are simultaneous: for in such, a thing is said to be "in being"
according as it now is; but to be "in becoming," according as it was not before.
TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (ad 1), this change comes about in the last instant of the
pronouncing of the words. for then the meaning of the words is finished, which meaning is
efficacious in the forms of the sacraments. And therefore it does not follow that this
change is successive.
TP Q[75] A[8] Thes.
Whether this proposition is false: "The body of Christ is made out of bread"?
TP Q[75] A[8] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that this proposition is false: "The body of Christ is made out of
bread." For everything out of which another is made, is that which is made the other;
but not conversely: for we say that a black thing is made out of a white thing, and that a
white thing is made black: and although we may say that a man becomes black still we do
not say that a black thing is made out of a man, as is shown in Phys. i. If it be true,
then, that Christ's body is made out of bread, it will be true to say that bread is made
the body of Christ. But this seems to be false, because the bread is not the subject of
the making, but rather its term. Therefore, it is not said truly that Christ's body is
made out of bread.
TP Q[75] A[8] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, the term of "becoming" is something that is, or something
that is "made." But this proposition is never true: "The bread is the body
of Christ"; or "The bread is made the body of Christ"; or again, "The
bread will be the body of Christ." Therefore it seems that not even this is true:
"The body of Christ is made out of bread."
TP Q[75] A[8] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, everything out of which another is made is converted into that which is
made from it. But this proposition seems to be false: "The bread is converted into
the body of Christ," because such conversion seems to be more miraculous than the
creation of the world, in which it is not said that non-being is converted into being.
Therefore it seems that this proposition likewise is false: "The body of Christ is
made out of bread."
TP Q[75] A[8] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, that out of which something is made, can be that thing. But this
proposition is false: "Bread can be the body of Christ." Therefore this is
likewise false: "The body of Christ is made out of bread."
TP Q[75] A[8] OTC
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "When the consecration takes place,
the body of Christ is made out of the bread."
TP Q[75] A[8] Body
I answer that, This conversion of bread into the body of Christ has something in common
with creation, and with natural transmutation, and in some respect differs from both. For
the order of the terms is common to these three; that is, that after one thing there is
another (for, in creation there is being after non-being; in this sacrament, Christ's body
after the substance of bread; in natural transmutation white after black, or fire after
air); and that the aforesaid terms are not coexistent.
TP Q[75] A[8] Body
Now the conversion, of which we are speaking, has this in common with creation, that in
neither of them is there any common subject belonging to either of the extremes; the
contrary of which appears in every natural transmutation.
TP Q[75] A[8] Body
Again, this conversion has something in common with natural transmutation in two
respects, although not in the same fashion. First of all because in both, one of the
extremes passes into the other, as bread into Christ's body, and air into fire; whereas
non-being is not converted into being. But this comes to pass differently on the one side
and on the other; for in this sacrament the whole substance of the bread passes into the
whole body of Christ; whereas in natural transmutation the matter of the one receives the
form of the other, the previous form being laid aside. Secondly, they have this in common,
that on both sides something remains the same; whereas this does not happen in creation:
yet differently; for the same matter or subject remains in natural transmutation; whereas
in this sacrament the same accidents remain.
TP Q[75] A[8] Body
From these observations we can gather the various ways of speaking in such matters.
For, because in no one of the aforesaid three things are the extremes coexistent,
therefore in none of them can one extreme be predicated of the other by the substantive
verb of the present tense: for we do not say, "Non-being is being" or,
"Bread is the body of Christ," or, "Air is fire," or, "White is
black." Yet because of the relationship of the extremes in all of them we can use the
preposition "ex" [out of], which denotes order; for we can truly and properly
say that "being is made out of non-being," and "out of bread, the body of
Christ," and "out of air, fire," and "out of white, black." But
because in creation one of the extremes does not pass into the other, we cannot use the
word "conversion" in creation, so as to say that "non-being is converted
into being": we can, however, use the word in this sacrament, just as in natural
transmutation. But since in this sacrament the whole substance is converted into the whole
substance, on that account this conversion is properly termed transubstantiation.
TP Q[75] A[8] Body
Again, since there is no subject of this conversion, the things which are true in
natural conversion by reason of the subject, are not to be granted in this conversion. And
in the first place indeed it is evident that potentiality to the opposite follows a
subject, by reason whereof we say that "a white thing can be black," or that
"air can be fire"; although the latter is not so proper as the former: for the
subject of whiteness, in which there is potentiality to blackness, is the whole substance
of the white thing; since whiteness is not a part thereof; whereas the subject of the form
of air is part thereof: hence when it is said, "Air can be fire," it is verified
by synecdoche by reason of the part. But in this conversion, and similarly in creation,
because there is no subject, it is not said that one extreme can be the other, as that
"non-being can be being," or that "bread can be the body of Christ":
and for the same reason it cannot be properly said that "being is made of [de]
non-being," or that "the body of Christ is made of bread," because this
preposition "of" [de] denotes a consubstantial cause, which consubstantiality of
the extremes in natural transmutations is considered according to something common in the
subject. And for the same reason it is not granted that "bread will be the body of
Christ," or that it "may become the body of Christ," just as it is not
granted in creation that "non-being will be being," or that "non-being may
become being," because this manner of speaking is verified in natural transmutations
by reason of the subject: for instance, when we say that "a white thing becomes
black," or "a white thing will be black."
TP Q[75] A[8] Body
Nevertheless, since in this sacrament, after the change, something remains the same,
namely, the accidents of the bread, as stated above (A[5]), some of these expressions may
be admitted by way of similitude, namely, that "bread is the body of Christ,"
or, "bread will be the body of Christ," or "the body of Christ is made of
bread"; provided that by the word "bread" is not understood the substance
of bread, but in general "that which is contained under the species of bread,"
under which species there is first contained the substance of bread, and afterwards the
body of Christ.
TP Q[75] A[8] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: That out of which something else is made, sometimes implies together with
the subject, one of the extremes of the transmutation, as when it is said "a black
thing is made out of a white one"; but sometimes it implies only the opposite or the
extreme, as when it is said---"out of morning comes the day." And so it is not
granted that the latter becomes the former, that is, "that morning becomes the
day." So likewise in the matter in hand, although it may be said properly that
"the body of Christ is made out of bread," yet it is not said properly that
"bread becomes the body of Christ," except by similitude, as was said above.
TP Q[75] A[8] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: That out of which another is made, will sometimes be that other because of
the subject which is implied. And therefore, since there is no subject of this change, the
comparison does not hold.
TP Q[75] A[8] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: In this change there are many more difficulties than in creation, in which
there is but this one difficulty, that something is made out of nothing; yet this belongs
to the proper mode of production of the first cause, which presupposes nothing else. But
in this conversion not only is it difficult for this whole to be changed into that whole,
so that nothing of the former may remain (which does not belong to the common mode of
production of a cause), but furthermore it has this difficulty that the accidents remain
while the substance is destroyed, and many other difficulties of which we shall treat
hereafter (Q[77]). Nevertheless the word "conversion" is admitted in this
sacrament, but not in creation, as stated above.
TP Q[75] A[8] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: As was observed above, potentiality belongs to the subject, whereas there
is no subject in this conversion. And therefore it is not granted that bread can be the
body of Christ: for this conversion does not come about by the passive potentiality of the
creature, but solely by the active power of the Creator.
TP Q[76] Out.
OF
THE WAY IN WHICH CHRIST IS IN THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the manner in which Christ exists in this sacrament; and under
this head there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the whole Christ is under this sacrament?
(2) Whether the entire Christ is under each species of the sacrament?
(3) Whether the entire Christ is under every part of the species?
(4) Whether all the dimensions of Christ's body are in this sacrament?
(5) Whether the body of Christ is in this sacrament locally?
(6) Whether after the consecration, the body of Christ is moved when the host or
chalice is moved?
(7) Whether Christ's body, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by the eye?
(8) Whether the true body of Christ remains in this sacrament when He is seen under the
appearance of a child or of flesh?
TP Q[76] A[1] Thes.
Whether the whole Christ is contained under this sacrament?
TP Q[76] A[1] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the whole Christ is not contained under this sacrament, because
Christ begins to be in this sacrament by conversion of the bread and wine. But it is
evident that the bread and wine cannot be changed either into the Godhead or into the soul
of Christ. Since therefore Christ exists in three substances, namely, the Godhead, soul
and body, as shown above (Q[2], A[5]; Q[5], AA[1],3), it seems that the entire Christ is
not under this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[1] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, Christ is in this sacrament, forasmuch as it is ordained to the
refection of the faithful, which consists in food and drink, as stated above (Q[74],
A[1]). But our Lord said (Jn. 6:56): "My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink
indeed." Therefore, only the flesh and blood of Christ are contained in this
sacrament. But there are many other parts of Christ's body, for instance, the nerves,
bones, and such like. Therefore the entire Christ is not contained under this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[1] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, a body of greater quantity cannot be contained under the measure of a
lesser. But the measure of the bread and wine is much smaller than the measure of Christ's
body. Therefore it is impossible that the entire Christ be contained under this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[1] OTC
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Officiis): "Christ is in this sacrament."
TP Q[76] A[1] Body
I answer that, It is absolutely necessary to confess according to Catholic faith that
the entire Christ is in this sacrament. Yet we must know that there is something of Christ
in this sacrament in a twofold manner: first, as it were, by the power of the sacrament;
secondly, from natural concomitance. By the power of the sacrament, there is under the
species of this sacrament that into which the pre-existing substance of the bread and wine
is changed, as expressed by the words of the form, which are effective in this as in the
other sacraments; for instance, by the words: "This is My body," or, "This
is My blood." But from natural concomitance there is also in this sacrament that
which is really united with that thing wherein the aforesaid conversion is terminated. For
if any two things be really united, then wherever the one is really, there must the other
also be: since things really united together are only distinguished by an operation of the
mind.
TP Q[76] A[1] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Because the change of the bread and wine is not terminated at the Godhead
or the soul of Christ, it follows as a consequence that the Godhead or the soul of Christ
is in this sacrament not by the power of the sacrament, but from real concomitance. For
since the Godhead never set aside the assumed body, wherever the body of Christ is, there,
of necessity, must the Godhead be; and therefore it is necessary for the Godhead to be in
this sacrament concomitantly with His body. Hence we read in the profession of faith at
Ephesus (P. I., chap. xxvi): "We are made partakers of the body and blood of Christ,
not as taking common flesh, nor as of a holy man united to the Word in dignity, but the
truly life-giving flesh of the Word Himself."
TP Q[76] A[1] R.O. 1
On the other hand, His soul was truly separated from His body, as stated above (Q[50],
A[5]). And therefore had this sacrament been celebrated during those three days when He
was dead, the soul of Christ would not have been there, neither by the power of the
sacrament, nor from real concomitance. But since "Christ rising from the dead dieth
now no more" (Rm. 6:9), His soul is always really united with His body. And therefore
in this sacrament the body indeed of Christ is present by the power of the sacrament, but
His soul from real concomitance.
TP Q[76] A[1] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: By the power of the sacrament there is contained under it, as to the
species of the bread, not only the flesh, but the entire body of Christ, that is, the
bones the nerves, and the like. And this is apparent from the form of this sacrament,
wherein it is not said: "This is My flesh," but "This is My body."
Accordingly, when our Lord said (Jn. 6:56): "My flesh is meat indeed," there the
word flesh is put for the entire body, because according to human custom it seems to be
more adapted for eating, as men commonly are fed on the flesh of animals, but not on the
bones or the like.
TP Q[76] A[1] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: As has been already stated (Q[75], A[5]), after the consecration of the
bread into the body of Christ, or of the wine into His blood, the accidents of both
remain. From which it is evident that the dimensions of the bread or wine are not changed
into the dimensions of the body of Christ, but substance into substance. And so the
substance of Christ's body or blood is under this sacrament by the power of the sacrament,
but not the dimensions of Christ's body or blood. Hence it is clear that the body of
Christ is in this sacrament "by way of substance," and not by way of quantity.
But the proper totality of substance is contained indifferently in a small or large
quantity; as the whole nature of air in a great or small amount of air, and the whole
nature of a man in a big or small individual. Wherefore, after the consecration, the whole
substance of Christ's body and blood is contained in this sacrament, just as the whole
substance of the bread and wine was contained there before the consecration.
TP Q[76] A[2] Thes.
Whether the whole Christ is contained under each species of this sacrament?
TP Q[76] A[2] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the whole Christ is not contained under both species of this
sacrament. For this sacrament is ordained for the salvation of the faithful, not by virtue
of the species, but by virtue of what is contained under the species, because the species
were there even before the consecration, from which comes the power of this sacrament. If
nothing, then, be contained under one species, but what is contained under the other, and
if the whole Christ be contained under both, it seems that one of them is superfluous in
this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[2] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, it was stated above (A[1], ad 1) that all the other parts of the body,
such as the bones, nerves, and the like, are comprised under the name of flesh. But the
blood is one of the parts of the human body, as Aristotle proves (De Anima
Histor. i). If,
then, Christ's blood be contained under the species of bread, just as the other parts of
the body are contained there, the blood ought not to be consecrated apart, just as no
other part of the body is consecrated separately.
TP Q[76] A[2] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, what is once "in being" cannot be again "in
becoming." But Christ's body has already begun to be in this sacrament by the
consecration of the bread. Therefore, it cannot begin again to be there by the
consecration of the wine; and so Christ's body will not be contained under the species of
the wine, and accordingly neither the entire Christ. Therefore the whole Christ is not
contained under each species.
TP Q[76] A[2] OTC
On the contrary, The gloss on 1 Cor. 11:25, commenting on the word "Chalice,"
says that "under each species," namely, of the bread and wine, "the same is
received"; and thus it seems that Christ is entire under each species.
TP Q[76] A[2] Body
I answer that, After what we have said above (A[1]), it must be held most certainly
that the whole Christ is under each sacramental species yet not alike in each. For the
body of Christ is indeed present under the species of bread by the power of the sacrament,
while the blood is there from real concomitance, as stated above (A[1], ad 1) in regard to
the soul and Godhead of Christ; and under the species of wine the blood is present by the
power of the sacrament, and His body by real concomitance, as is also His soul and
Godhead: because now Christ's blood is not separated from His body, as it was at the time
of His Passion and death. Hence if this sacrament had been celebrated then, the body of
Christ would have been under the species of the bread, but without the blood; and, under
the species of the wine, the blood would have been present without the body, as it was
then, in fact.
TP Q[76] A[2] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Although the whole Christ is under each species, yet it is so not without
purpose. For in the first place this serves to represent Christ's Passion, in which the
blood was separated from the body; hence in the form for the consecration of the blood
mention is made of its shedding. Secondly, it is in keeping with the use of this
sacrament, that Christ's body be shown apart to the faithful as food, and the blood as
drink. Thirdly, it is in keeping with its effect, in which sense it was stated above
(Q[74], A[1]) that "the body is offered for the salvation of the body, and the blood
for the salvation of the soul."
TP Q[76] A[2] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: In Christ's Passion, of which this is the memorial, the other parts of the
body were not separated from one another, as the blood was, but the body remained entire,
according to Ex. 12:46: "You shall not break a bone thereof." And therefore in
this sacrament the blood is consecrated apart from the body, but no other part is
consecrated separately from the rest.
TP Q[76] A[2] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above, the body of Christ is not under the species of wine by
the power of the sacrament, but by real concomitance: and therefore by the consecration of
the wine the body of Christ is not there of itself, but concomitantly.
TP Q[76] A[3] Thes.
Whether Christ is entire under every part of the species of the bread and wine?
TP Q[76] A[3] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ is not entire under every part of the species of bread and
wine. Because those species can be divided infinitely. If therefore Christ be entirely
under every part of the said species, it would follow that He is in this sacrament an
infinite number of times: which is unreasonable; because the infinite is repugnant not
only to nature, but likewise to grace.
TP Q[76] A[3] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, since Christ's is an organic body, it has parts determinately distant.
for a determinate distance of the individual parts from each other is of the very nature
of an organic body, as that of eye from eye, and eye from ear. But this could not be so,
if Christ were entire under every part of the species; for every part would have to be
under every other part, and so where one part would be, there another part would be. It
cannot be then that the entire Christ is under every part of the host or of the wine
contained in the chalice.
TP Q[76] A[3] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, Christ's body always retains the true nature of a body, nor is it ever
changed into a spirit. Now it is the nature of a body for it to be "quantity having
position" (Predic. iv). But it belongs to the nature of this quantity that the
various parts exist in various parts of place. Therefore, apparently it is impossible for
the entire Christ to be under every part of the species.
TP Q[76] A[3] OTC
On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon (Gregory,
Sacramentarium): "Each
receives Christ the Lord, Who is entire under every morsel, nor is He less in each
portion, but bestows Himself entire under each."
TP Q[76] A[3] Body
I answer that, As was observed above (A[1], ad 3), because the substance of Christ's
body is in this sacrament by the power of the sacrament, while dimensive quantity is there
by reason of real concomitance, consequently Christ's body is in this sacrament
substantively, that is, in the way in which substance is under dimensions, but not after
the manner of dimensions, which means, not in the way in which the dimensive quantity of a
body is under the dimensive quantity of place.
TP Q[76] A[3] Body
Now it is evident that the whole nature of a substance is under every part of the
dimensions under which it is contained; just as the entire nature of air is under every
part of air, and the entire nature of bread under every part of bread; and this
indifferently, whether the dimensions be actually divided (as when the air is divided or
the bread cut), or whether they be actually undivided, but potentially divisible. And
therefore it is manifest that the entire Christ is under every part of the species of the
bread, even while the host remains entire, and not merely when it is broken, as some say,
giving the example of an image which appears in a mirror, which appears as one in the
unbroken mirror, whereas when the mirror is broken, there is an image in each part of the
broken mirror: for the comparison is not perfect, because the multiplying of such images
results in the broken mirror on account of the various reflections in the various parts of
the mirror; but here there is only one consecration, whereby Christ's body is in this
sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[3] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Number follows division, and therefore so long as quantity remains
actually undivided, neither is the substance of any thing several times under its proper
dimensions, nor is Christ's body several times under the dimensions of the bread; and
consequently not an infinite number of times, but just as many times as it is divided into
parts.
TP Q[76] A[3] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The determinate distance of parts in an organic body is based upon its
dimensive quantity; but the nature of substance precedes even dimensive quantity. And
since the conversion of the substance of the bread is terminated at the substance of the
body of Christ, and since according to the manner of substance the body of Christ is
properly and directly in this sacrament; such distance of parts is indeed in Christ's true
body, which, however, is not compared to this sacrament according to such distance, but
according to the manner of its substance, as stated above (A[1], ad 3).
TP Q[76] A[3] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: This argument is based on the nature of a body, arising from dimensive
quantity. But it was said above (ad 2) that Christ's body is compared with this sacrament
not by reason of dimensive quantity, but by reason of its substance, as already stated.
TP Q[76] A[4] Thes.
Whether the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this sacrament?
TP Q[76] A[4] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body is not in this
sacrament. For it was said (A[3]) that Christ's entire body is contained under every part
of the consecrated host. But no dimensive quantity is contained entirely in any whole, and
in its every part. Therefore it is impossible for the entire dimensive quantity of
Christ's body to be there.
TP Q[76] A[4] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, it is impossible for two dimensive quantities to be together, even
though one be separate from its subject, and the other in a natural body, as is clear from
the Philosopher (Metaph. iii). But the dimensive quantity of the bread remains in this
sacrament, as is evident to our senses. Consequently, the dimensive quantity of Christ's
body is not there.
TP Q[76] A[4] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, if two unequal dimensive quantities be set side by side, the greater
will overlap the lesser. But the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is considerably
larger than the dimensive quantity of the consecrated host according to every dimension.
Therefore, if the dimensive quantity of Christ's body be in this sacrament together with
the dimensive quantity of the host, the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is extended
beyond the quantity of the host, which nevertheless is not without the substance of
Christ's body. Therefore, the substance of Christ's body will be in this sacrament even
outside the species of the bread, which is unreasonable, since the substance of Christ's
body is in this sacrament, only by the consecration of the bread, as stated above (A[2]).
Consequently, it is impossible for the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body to be in
this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[4] OTC
On the contrary, The existence of the dimensive quantity of any body cannot be
separated from the existence of its substance. But in this sacrament the entire substance
of Christ's body is present, as stated above (AA[1],3). Therefore the entire dimensive
quantity of Christ's body is in this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[4] Body
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), any part of Christ is in this sacrament in two
ways: in one way, by the power of the sacrament; in another, from real concomitance. By
the power of the sacrament the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is not in this
sacrament; for, by the power of the sacrament that is present in this sacrament, whereat
the conversion is terminated. But the conversion which takes place in this sacrament is
terminated directly at the substance of Christ's body, and not at its dimensions; which is
evident from the fact that the dimensive quantity of the bread remains after the
consecration, while only the substance of the bread passes away.
TP Q[76] A[4] Body
Nevertheless, since the substance of Christ's body is not really deprived of its
dimensive quantity and its other accidents, hence it comes that by reason of real
concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body and all its other accidents are
in this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[4] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: The manner of being of every thing is determined by what belongs to it of
itself, and not according to what is coupled accidentally with it: thus an object is
present to the sight, according as it is white, and not according as it is sweet, although
the same object may be both white and sweet; hence sweetness is in the sight after the
manner of whiteness, and not after that of sweetness. Since, then, the substance of
Christ's body is present on the altar by the power of this sacrament, while its dimensive
quantity is there concomitantly and as it were accidentally, therefore the dimensive
quantity of Christ's body is in this sacrament, not according to its proper manner
(namely, that the whole is in the whole, and the individual parts in individual parts),
but after the manner of substance, whose nature is for the whole to be in the whole, and
the whole in every part.
TP Q[76] A[4] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Two dimensive quantities cannot naturally be in the same subject at the
same time, so that each be there according to the proper manner of dimensive quantity. But
in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of the bread is there after its proper manner,
that is, according to commensuration: not so the dimensive quantity of Christ's body, for
that is there after the manner of substance, as stated above (ad 1).
TP Q[76] A[4] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this sacrament not by way of
commensuration, which is proper to quantity, and to which it belongs for the greater to be
extended beyond the lesser; but in the way mentioned above (ad 1,2).
TP Q[76] A[5] Thes.
Whether Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place?
TP Q[76] A[5] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place. Because, to be
in a place definitively or circumscriptively belongs to being in a place. But Christ's
body seems to be definitively in this sacrament, because it is so present where the
species of the bread and wine are, that it is nowhere else upon the altar: likewise it
seems to be there circumscriptively, because it is so contained under the species of the
consecrated host, that it neither exceeds it nor is exceeded by it. Therefore Christ's
body is in this sacrament as in a place.
TP Q[76] A[5] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, the place of the bread and wine is not empty, because nature abhors a
vacuum; nor is the substance of the bread there, as stated above (Q[75], A[2]); but only
the body of Christ is there. Consequently the body of Christ fills that place. But
whatever fills a place is there locally. Therefore the body of Christ is in this sacrament
locally.
TP Q[76] A[5] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, as stated above (A[4]), the body of Christ is in this sacrament with
its dimensive quantity, and with all its accidents. But to be in a place is an accident of
a body; hence "where" is numbered among the nine kinds of accidents. Therefore
Christ's body is in this sacrament locally.
TP Q[76] A[5] OTC
On the contrary, The place and the object placed must be equal, as is clear from the
Philosopher (Phys. iv). But the place, where this sacrament is, is much less than the body
of Christ. Therefore Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place.
TP Q[76] A[5] Body
I answer that, As stated above (A[1], ad 3; A[3]), Christ's body is in this sacrament
not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity, but rather after the manner of
substance. But every body occupying a place is in the place according to the manner of
dimensive quantity, namely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its
dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a
place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that way in which substance
is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ's body succeeds the substance
of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its
dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ's
body. Nevertheless the substance of Christ's body is not the subject of those dimensions,
as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was there
locally by reason of its dimensions, because it was compared with that place through the
medium of its own dimensions; but the substance of Christ's body is compared with that
place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper
dimensions of Christ's body are compared with that place through the medium of substance;
which is contrary to the notion of a located body.
TP Q[76] A[5] Body
Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[5] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ's body is not in this sacrament definitively, because then it would
be only on the particular altar where this sacrament is performed: whereas it is in heaven
under its own species, and on many other altars under the sacramental species. Likewise it
is evident that it is not in this sacrament circumscriptively, because it is not there
according to the commensuration of its own quantity, as stated above. But that it is not
outside the superficies of the sacrament, nor on any other part of the altar, is due not
to its being there definitively or circumscriptively, but to its being there by
consecration and conversion of the bread and wine, as stated above (A[1]; Q[15], A[2],
sqq.).
TP Q[76] A[5] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The place in which Christ's body is, is not empty; nor yet is it properly
filled with the substance of Christ's body, which is not there locally, as stated above;
but it is filled with the sacramental species, which have to fill the place either because
of the nature of dimensions, or at least miraculously, as they also subsist miraculously
after the fashion of substance.
TP Q[76] A[5] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (A[4]), the accidents of Christ's body are in this
sacrament by real concomitance. And therefore those accidents of Christ's body which are
intrinsic to it are in this sacrament. But to be in a place is an accident when compared
with the extrinsic container. And therefore it is not necessary for Christ to be in this
sacrament as in a place.
TP Q[76] A[6] Thes.
Whether Christ's body is in this sacrament movably?
TP Q[76] A[6] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ's body is movably in this sacrament, because the
Philosopher says (Topic. ii) that "when we are moved, the things within us are
moved": and this is true even of the soul's spiritual substance. "But Christ is
in this sacrament," as shown above (Q[74], A[1] ). Therefore He is moved when it is
moved.
TP Q[76] A[6] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, the truth ought to correspond with the figure. But, according to the
commandment (Ex. 12:10), concerning the Paschal Lamb, a figure of this sacrament,
"there remained nothing until the morning." Neither, therefore, if this
sacrament be reserved until morning, will Christ's body be there; and so it is not
immovably in this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[6] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, if Christ's body were to remain under this sacrament even until the
morrow, for the same reason it will remain there during all coming time; for it cannot be
said that it ceases to be there when the species pass, because the existence of Christ's
body is not dependent on those species. Yet Christ does not remain in this sacrament for
all coming time. It seems, then, that straightway on the morrow, or after a short time, He
ceases to be under this sacrament. And so it seems that Christ is in this sacrament
movably.
TP Q[76] A[6] OTC
On the contrary, it is impossible for the same thing to be in motion and at rest, else
contradictories would be verified of the same subject. But Christ's body is at rest in
heaven. Therefore it is not movably in this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[6] Body
I answer that, When any thing is one, as to subject, and manifold in being, there is
nothing to hinder it from being moved in one respect, and yet to remain at rest in another
just as it is one thing for a body to be white, and another thing, to be large; hence it
can be moved as to its whiteness, and yet continue unmoved as to its magnitude. But in
Christ, being in Himself and being under the sacrament are not the same thing, because
when we say that He is under this sacrament, we express a kind of relationship to this
sacrament. According to this being, then, Christ is not moved locally of Himself, but only
accidentally, because Christ is not in this sacrament as in a place, as stated above
(A[5]). But what is not in a place, is not moved of itself locally, but only according to
the motion of the subject in which it is.
TP Q[76] A[6] Body
In the same way neither is it moved of itself according to the being which it has in
this sacrament, by any other change whatever, as for instance, that it ceases to be under
this sacrament: because whatever possesses unfailing existence of itself, cannot be the
principle of failing; but when something else fails, then it ceases to be in it; just as
God, Whose existence is unfailing and immortal, ceases to be in some corruptible creature
because such corruptible creature ceases to exist. And in this way, since Christ has
unfailing and incorruptible being, He ceases to be under this sacrament, not because He
ceases to be, nor yet by local movement of His own, as is clear from what has been said,
but only by the fact that the sacramental species cease to exist.
TP Q[76] A[6] Body
Hence it is clear that Christ, strictly speaking is immovably in this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[6] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: This argument deals with accidental movement, whereby things within us are
moved together with us. But with things which can of themselves be in a place, like
bodies, it is otherwise than with things which cannot of themselves be in a place, such as
forms and spiritual substances. And to this mode can be reduced what we say of Christ,
being moved accidentally, according to the existence which He has in this sacrament, in
which He is not present as in a place.
TP Q[76] A[6] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: It was this argument which seems to have convinced those who held that
Christ's body does not remain under this sacrament if it be reserved until the morrow. It
is against these that Cyril says (Ep. lxxxiii): "Some are so foolish as to say that
the mystical blessing departs from the sacrament, if any of its fragments remain until the
next day: for Christ's consecrated body is not changed, and the power of the blessing, and
the life-giving grace is perpetually in it." Thus are all other consecrations
irremovable so long as the consecrated things endure; on which account they are not
repeated. And although the truth corresponds with the figure, still the figure cannot
equal it.
TP Q[76] A[6] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The body of Christ remains in this sacrament not only until the morrow,
but also in the future, so long as the sacramental species remain: and when they cease,
Christ's body ceases to be under them, not because it depends on them, but because the
relationship of Christ's body to those species is taken away, in the same way as God
ceases to be the Lord of a creature which ceases to exist.
TP Q[76] A[7] Thes.
Whether the body of Christ, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by any eye, at
least by a glorified one?
TP Q[76] A[7] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the body of Christ, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by the
eye, at least by a glorified one. For our eyes are hindered from beholding Christ's body
in this sacrament, on account of the sacramental species veiling it. But the glorified eye
cannot be hindered by anything from seeing bodies as they are. Therefore, the glorified
eye can see Christ's body as it is in this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[7] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, the glorified bodies of the saints will be "made like to the
body" of Christ's "glory," according to Phil. 3:21. But Christ's eye
beholds Himself as He is in this sacrament. Therefore, for the same reason, every other
glorified eye can see Him.
TP Q[76] A[7] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, in the resurrection the saints will be equal to the angels, according
to Lk. 20:36. But the angels see the body of Christ as it is in this sacrament, for even
the devils are found to pay reverence thereto, and to fear it. Therefore, for like reason,
the glorified eye can see Christ as He is in this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[7] OTC
On the contrary, As long as a thing remains the same, it cannot at the same time be
seen by the same eye under diverse species. But the glorified eye sees Christ always, as
He is in His own species, according to Is. 33:17: "(His eyes) shall see the king in
his beauty." It seems, then, that it does not see Christ, as He is under the species
of this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[7] Body
I answer that, The eye is of two kinds, namely, the bodily eye properly so-called, and
the intellectual eye, so-called by similitude. But Christ's body as it is in this
sacrament cannot be seen by any bodily eye. First of all, because a body which is visible
brings about an alteration in the medium, through its accidents. Now the accidents of
Christ's body are in this sacrament by means of the substance; so that the accidents of
Christ's body have no immediate relationship either to this sacrament or to adjacent
bodies; consequently they do not act on the medium so as to be seen by any corporeal eye.
Secondly, because, as stated above (A[1], ad 3; A[3]), Christ's body is substantially
present in this sacrament. But substance, as such, is not visible to the bodily eye, nor
does it come under any one of the senses, nor under the imagination, but solely under the
intellect, whose object is "what a thing is" (De Anima iii). And therefore,
properly speaking, Christ's body, according to the mode of being which it has in this
sacrament, is perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but only by the
intellect, which is called the spiritual eye.
TP Q[76] A[7] Body
Moreover it is perceived differently by different intellects. For since the way in
which Christ is in this sacrament is entirely supernatural, it is visible in itself to a
supernatural, i.e. the Divine, intellect, and consequently to a beatified intellect, of
angel or of man, which, through the participated glory of the Divine intellect, sees all
supernatural things in the vision of the Divine Essence. But it can be seen by a wayfarer
through faith alone, like other supernatural things. And not even the angelic intellect of
its own natural power is capable of beholding it; consequently the devils cannot by their
intellect perceive Christ in this sacrament, except through faith, to which they do not
pay willing assent; yet they are convinced of it from the evidence of signs, according to
James 2:19: "The devils believe, and tremble."
TP Q[76] A[7] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Our bodily eye, on account of the sacramental species, is hindered from
beholding the body of Christ underlying them, not merely as by way of veil (just as we are
hindered from seeing what is covered with any corporeal veil), but also because Christ's
body bears a relation to the medium surrounding this sacrament, not through its own
accidents, but through the sacramental species.
TP Q[76] A[7] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Christ's own bodily eye sees Himself existing under the sacrament, yet it
cannot see the way in which it exists under the sacrament, because that belongs to the
intellect. But it is not the same with any other glorified eye, because Christ's eye is
under this sacrament, in which no other glorified eye is conformed to it.
TP Q[76] A[7] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: No angel, good or bad, can see anything with a bodily eye, but only with
the mental eye. Hence there is no parallel reason, as is evident from what was said above.
TP Q[76] A[8] Thes.
Whether Christ's body is truly there when flesh or a child appears miraculously in this
sacrament?
TP Q[76] A[8] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ's body is not truly there when flesh or a child appears
miraculously in this sacrament. Because His body ceases to be under this sacrament when
the sacramental species cease to be present, as stated above (A[6]). But when flesh or a
child appears, the sacramental species cease to be present. Therefore Christ's body is not
truly there.
TP Q[76] A[8] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, wherever Christ's body is, it is there either under its own species, or
under those of the sacrament. But when such apparitions occur, it is evident that Christ
is not present under His own species, because the entire Christ is contained in this
sacrament, and He remains entire under the form in which He ascended to heaven: yet what
appears miraculously in this sacrament is sometimes seen as a small particle of flesh, or
at times as a small child. Now it is evident that He is not there under the sacramental
species, which is that of bread or wine. Consequently, it seems that Christ's body is not
there in any way.
TP Q[76] A[8] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, Christ's body begins to be in this sacrament by consecration and
conversion, as was said above (Q[75], AA[2],3,4). But the flesh and blood which appear by
miracle are not consecrated, nor are they converted into Christ's true body and blood.
Therefore the body or the blood of Christ is not under those species.
TP Q[76] A[8] OTC
On the contrary, When such apparition takes place, the same reverence is shown to it as
was shown at first, which would not be done if Christ were not truly there, to Whom we
show reverence of "latria." Therefore, when such apparition occurs, Christ is
under the sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[8] Body
I answer that, Such apparition comes about in two ways, when occasionally in this
sacrament flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. Sometimes it happens on the part of the
beholders, whose eyes are so affected as if they outwardly saw flesh, or blood, or a
child, while no change takes place in the sacrament. And this seems to happen when to one
person it is seen under the species of flesh or of a child, while to others it is seen as
before under the species of bread; or when to the same individual it appears for an hour
under the appearance of flesh or a child, and afterwards under the appearance of bread.
Nor is there any deception there, as occurs in the feats of magicians, because such
species is divinely formed in the eye in order to represent some truth, namely, for the
purpose of showing that Christ's body is truly under this sacrament; just as Christ
without deception appeared to the disciples who were going to Emmaus. For Augustine says
(De Qq. Evang. ii) that "when our pretense is referred to some significance, it is
not a lie, but a figure of the truth." And since in this way no change is made in the
sacrament, it is manifest that, when such apparition occurs, Christ does not cease to be
under this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[8] Body
But it sometimes happens that such apparition comes about not merely by a change
wrought in the beholders, but by an appearance which really exists outwardly. And this
indeed is seen to happen when it is beheld by everyone under such an appearance, and it
remains so not for an hour, but for a considerable time; and, in this case some think that
it is the proper species of Christ's body. Nor does it matter that sometimes Christ's
entire body is not seen there, but part of His flesh, or else that it is not seen in
youthful guise. but in the semblance of a child, because it lies within the power of a
glorified body for it to be seen by a non-glorified eye either entirely or in part, and
under its own semblance or in strange guise, as will be said later (XP, Q[85], AA[2],3).
TP Q[76] A[8] Body
But this seems unlikely. First of all, because Christ's body under its proper species
can be seen only in one place, wherein it is definitively contained. Hence since it is
seen in its proper species, and is adored in heaven, it is not seen under its proper
species in this sacrament. Secondly, because a glorified body, which appears at will,
disappears when it wills after the apparition; thus it is related (Lk. 24:31) that our
Lord "vanished out of sight" of the disciples. But that which appears under the
likeness of flesh in this sacrament, continues for a long time; indeed, one reads of its
being sometimes enclosed, and, by order of many bishops, preserved in a pyx, which it
would be wicked to think of Christ under His proper semblance.
TP Q[76] A[8] Body
Consequently, it remains to be said, that, while the dimensions remain the same as
before, there is a miraculous change wrought in the other accidents, such as shape, color,
and the rest, so that flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. And, as was said already, this
is not deception, because it is done "to represent the truth," namely, to show
by this miraculous apparition that Christ's body and blood are truly in this sacrament.
And thus it is clear that as the dimensions remain, which are the foundation of the other
accidents, as we shall see later on (Q[77], A[2]), the body of Christ truly remains in
this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[8] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: When such apparition takes place, the sacramental species sometimes
continue entire in themselves; and sometimes only as to that which is principal, as was
said above.
TP Q[76] A[8] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: As stated above, during such apparitions Christ's proper semblance is not
seen, but a species miraculously formed either in the eyes of the beholders, or in the
sacramental dimensions themselves, as was said above.
TP Q[76] A[8] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The dimensions of the consecrated bread and wine continue, while a
miraculous change is wrought in the other accidents, as stated above.
TP Q[77] Out.
OF
THE ACCIDENTS WHICH REMAIN IN THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We must now consider the accidents which remain in this sacrament; under which head
there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the accidents which remain are without a subject?
(2) Whether dimensive quantity is the subject of the other accidents?
(3) Whether such accidents can affect an extrinsic body?
(4) Whether they can be corrupted?
(5) Whether anything can be generated from them?
(6) Whether they can nourish?
(7) Of the breaking of the consecrated bread?
(8) Whether anything can be mixed with the consecrated wine?
TP Q[77] A[1] Thes.
Whether the accidents remain in this sacrament without a subject?
TP Q[77] A[1] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the accidents do not remain in this sacrament without a subject,
because there ought not to be anything disorderly or deceitful in this sacrament of truth.
But for accidents to be without a subject is contrary to the order which God established
in nature; and furthermore it seems to savor of deceit, since accidents are naturally the
signs of the nature of the subject. Therefore the accidents are not without a subject in
this sacrament.
TP Q[77] A[1] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, not even by miracle can the definition of a thing be severed from it,
or the definition of another thing be applied to it; for instance, that, while man remains
a man, he can be an irrational animal. For it would follow that contradictories can exist
at the one time: for the "definition of a thing is what its name expresses," as
is said in Metaph. iv. But it belongs to the definition of an accident for it to be in a
subject, while the definition of substance is that it must subsist of itself, and not in
another. Therefore it cannot come to pass, even by miracle, that the accidents exist
without a subject in this sacrament.
TP Q[77] A[1] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, an accident is individuated by its subject. If therefore the accidents
remain in this sacrament without a subject, they will not be individual, but general,
which is clearly false, because thus they would not be sensible, but merely intelligible.
TP Q[77] A[1] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, the accidents after the consecration of this sacrament do not obtain
any composition. But before the consecration they were not composed either of matter and
form, nor of existence [quo est] and essence [quod est]. Therefore, even after
consecration they are not composite in either of these ways. But this is unreasonable, for
thus they would be simpler than angels, whereas at the same time these accidents are
perceptible to the senses. Therefore, in this sacrament the accidents do not remain
without a subject.
TP Q[77] A[1] OTC
On the contrary, Gregory says in an Easter Homily (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom.
xx)
that "the sacramental species are the names of those things which were there before,
namely, of the bread and wine." Therefore since the substance of the bread and the
wine does not remain, it seems that these species remain without a subject.
TP Q[77] A[1] Body
I answer that, The species of the bread and wine, which are perceived by our senses to
remain in this sacrament after consecration, are not subjected in the substance of the
bread and wine, for that does not remain, as stated above (Q[75], A[2]); nor in the
substantial form, for that does not remain (Q[75], A[6]), and if it did remain, "it
could not be a subject," as Boethius declares (De Trin. i). Furthermore it is
manifest that these accidents are not subjected in the substance of Christ's body and
blood, because the substance of the human body cannot in any way be affected by such
accidents; nor is it possible for Christ's glorious and impassible body to be altered so
as to receive these qualities.
TP Q[77] A[1] Body
Now there are some who say that they are in the surrounding atmosphere as in a subject.
But even this cannot be: in the first place, because atmosphere is not susceptive of such
accidents. Secondly, because these accidents are not where the atmosphere is, nay more,
the atmosphere is displaced by the motion of these species. Thirdly, because accidents do
not pass from subject to subject, so that the same identical accident which was first in
one subject be afterwards in another; because an accident is individuated by the subject;
hence it cannot come to pass for an accident remaining identically the same to be at one
time in one subject, and at another time in another. Fourthly, since the atmosphere is not
deprived of its own accidents, it would have at the one time its own accidents and others
foreign to it. Nor can it be maintained that this is done miraculously in virtue of the
consecration, because the words of consecration do not signify this, and they effect only
what they signify.
TP Q[77] A[1] Body
Therefore it follows that the accidents continue in this sacrament without a subject.
This can be done by Divine power: for since an effect depends more upon the first cause
than on the second, God Who is the first cause both of substance and accident, can by His
unlimited power preserve an accident in existence when the substance is withdrawn whereby
it was preserved in existence as by its proper cause, just as without natural causes He
can produce other effects of natural causes, even as He formed a human body in the
Virgin's womb, "without the seed of man" (Hymn for Christmas, First Vespers).
TP Q[77] A[1] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: There is nothing to hinder the common law of nature from ordaining a
thing, the contrary of which is nevertheless ordained by a special privilege of grace, as
is evident in the raising of the dead, and in the restoring of sight to the blind: even
thus in human affairs, to some individuals some things are granted by special privilege
which are outside the common law. And so, even though it be according to the common law of
nature for an accident to be in a subject, still for a special reason, according to the
order of grace, the accidents exist in this sacrament without a subject, on account of the
reasons given above (Q[75] , A[5]).
TP Q[77] A[1] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Since being is not a genus, then being cannot be of itself the essence of
either substance or accident. Consequently, the definition of substance is not---"a
being of itself without a subject," nor is the definition of accident---"a being
in a subject"; but it belongs to the quiddity or essence of substance "to have
existence not in a subject"; while it belongs to the quiddity or essence of accident
"to have existence in a subject." But in this sacrament it is not in virtue of
their essence that accidents are not in a subject, but through the Divine power sustaining
them; and consequently they do not cease to be accidents, because neither is the
definition of accident withdrawn from them, nor does the definition of substance apply to
them.
TP Q[77] A[1] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: These accidents acquired individual being in the substance of the bread
and wine; and when this substance is changed into the body and blood of Christ, they
remain in that individuated being which they possessed before, hence they are individual
and sensible.
TP Q[77] A[1] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: These accidents had no being of their own nor other accidents, so long as
the substance of the bread and wine remained; but their subjects had "such"
being through them, just as snow is "white" through whiteness. But after the
consecration the accidents which remain have being; hence they are compounded of existence
and essence, as was said of the angels, in the FP, Q[50], A[2], ad 3; and besides they
have composition of quantitative parts.
TP Q[77] A[2] Thes.
Whether in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of the bread or wine is the subject of
the other accidents?
TP Q[77] A[2] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of the bread or wine is
not the subject of the other accidents. For accident is not the subject of accident;
because no form can be a subject, since to be a subject is a property of matter. But
dimensive quantity is an accident. Therefore dimensive quantity cannot be the subject of
the other accidents.
TP Q[77] A[2] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, just as quantity is individuated by substance, so also are the other
accidents. If, then, the dimensive quantity of the bread or wine remains individuated
according to the being it had before, in which it is preserved, for like reason the other
accidents remain individuated according to the existence which they had before in the
substance. Therefore they are not in dimensive quantity as in a subject, since every
accident is individuated by its own subject.
TP Q[77] A[2] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, among the other accidents that remain, of the bread and wine, the
senses perceive also rarity and density, which cannot be in dimensive quantity existing
outside matter; because a thing is rare which has little matter under great dimensions.
while a thing is dense which has much matter under small dimensions, as is said in Phys.
iv. It does not seem, then, that dimensive quantity can be the subject of the accidents
which remain in this sacrament.
TP Q[77] A[2] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, quantity abstract from matter seems to be mathematical quantity, which
is not the subject of sensible qualities. Since, then, the remaining accidents in this
sacrament are sensible, it seems that in this sacrament they cannot be subjected in the
dimensive quantity of the bread and wine that remains after consecration.
TP Q[77] A[2] OTC
On the contrary, Qualities are divisible only accidentally, that is, by reason of the
subject. But the qualities remaining in this sacrament are divided by the division of
dimensive quantity, as is evident through our senses. Therefore, dimensive quantity is the
subject of the accidents which remain in this sacrament.
TP Q[77] A[2] Body
I answer that, It is necessary to say that the other accidents which remain in this
sacrament are subjected in the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine that remains:
first of all, because something having quantity and color and affected by other accidents
is perceived by the senses; nor is sense deceived in such. Secondly, because the first
disposition of matter is dimensive quantity, hence Plato also assigned "great"
and "small" as the first differences of matter (Aristotle, Metaph. iv). And
because the first subject is matter, the consequence is that all other accidents are
related to their subject through the medium of dimensive quantity; just as the first
subject of color is said to be the surface, on which account some have maintained that
dimensions are the substances of bodies, as is said in Metaph. iii. And since, when the
subject is withdrawn, the accidents remain according to the being which they had before,
it follows that all accidents remain founded upon dimensive quantity.
TP Q[77] A[2] Body
Thirdly, because, since the subject is the principle of individuation of the accidents,
it is necessary for what is admitted as the subject of some accidents to be somehow the
principle of individuation: for it is of the very notion of an individual that it cannot
be in several; and this happens in two ways. First, because it is not natural to it to be
in any one; and in this way immaterial separated forms, subsisting of themselves, are also
individuals of themselves. Secondly, because a form, be it substantial or accidental, is
naturally in someone indeed, not in several, as this whiteness, which is in this body. As
to the first, matter is the principle of individuation of all inherent forms, because,
since these forms, considered in themselves, are naturally in something as in a subject,
from the very fact that one of them is received in matter, which is not in another, it
follows that neither can the form itself thus existing be in another. As to the second, it
must be maintained that the principle of individuation is dimensive quantity. For that
something is naturally in another one solely, is due to the fact that that other is
undivided in itself, and distinct from all others. But it is on account of quantity that
substance can be divided, as is said in Phys. i. And therefore dimensive quantity itself
is a particular principle of individuation in forms of this kind, namely, inasmuch as
forms numerically distinct are in different parts of the matter. Hence also dimensive
quantity has of itself a kind of individuation, so that we can imagine several lines of
the same species, differing in position, which is included in the notion of this quantity;
for it belongs to dimension for it to be "quantity having position" (Aristotle,
Categor. iv), and therefore dimensive quantity can be the subject of the other accidents,
rather than the other way about.
TP Q[77] A[2] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: One accident cannot of itself be the subject of another, because it does
not exist of itself. But inasmuch as an accident is received in another thing, one is said
to be the subject of the other, inasmuch as one is received in a subject through another,
as the surface is said to be the subject of color. Hence when God makes an accident to
exist of itself, it can also be of itself the subject of another.
TP Q[77] A[2] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The other accidents, even as they were in the substance of the bread, were
individuated by means of dimensive quantity, as stated above. And therefore dimensive
quantity is the subject of the other accidents remaining in this sacrament, rather than
conversely.
TP Q[77] A[2] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Rarity and density are particular qualities accompanying bodies, by reason
of their having much or little matter under dimensions; just as all other accidents
likewise follow from the principles of substance. And consequently, as the accidents are
preserved by Divine power when the substance is withdrawn, so, when matter is withdrawn,
the qualities which go with matter, such as rarity and density, are preserved by Divine
power.
TP Q[77] A[2] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: Mathematical quantity abstracts not from intelligible matter, but from
sensible matter, as is said in Metaph. vii. But matter is termed sensible because it
underlies sensible qualities. And therefore it is manifest that the dimensive quantity,
which remains in this sacrament without a subject, is not mathematical quantity.
TP Q[77] A[3] Thes.
Whether the species remaining in this sacrament can change external objects?
TP Q[77] A[3] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the species which remain in this sacrament cannot affect external
objects. For it is proved in Phys. vii, that forms which are in matter are produced by
forms that are in matter, but not from forms which are without matter, because like makes
like. But the sacramental species are species without matter, since they remain without a
subject, as is evident from what was said above (A[1]). Therefore they cannot affect other
matter by producing any form in it.
TP Q[77] A[3] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, when the action of the principal agent ceases, then the action of the
instrument must cease, as when the carpenter rests, the hammer is moved no longer. But all
accidental forms act instrumentally in virtue of the substantial form as the principal
agent. Therefore, since the substantial form of the bread and wine does not remain in this
sacrament, as was shown above (Q[75], A[6]), it seems that the accidental forms which
remain cannot act so as to change external matter.
TP Q[77] A[3] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, nothing acts outside its species, because an effect cannot surpass its
cause. But all the sacramental species are accidents. Therefore they cannot change
external matter, at least as to a substantial form.
TP Q[77] A[3] OTC
On the contrary, If they could not change external bodies, they could not be felt; for
a thing is felt from the senses being changed by a sensible thing, as is said in De Anima
ii.
TP Q[77] A[3] Body
I answer that, Because everything acts in so far as it is an actual being, the
consequence is that everything stands in the same relation to action as it does to being.
Therefore, because, according to what was said above (A[1]), it is an effect of the Divine
power that the sacramental species continue in the being which they had when the substance
of the bread and wine was present, it follows that they continue in their action.
Consequently they retain every action which they had while the substance of the bread and
wine remained, now that the substance of the bread and wine has passed into the body and
blood of Christ. Hence there is no doubt but that they can change external bodies.
TP Q[77] A[3] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: The sacramental species, although they are forms existing without matter,
still retain the same being which they had before in matter, and therefore as to their
being they are like forms which are in matter.
TP Q[77] A[3] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The action of an accidental form depends upon the action of a substantial
form in the same way as the being of accident depends upon the being of substance; and
therefore, as it is an effect of Divine power that the sacramental species exist without
substance, so is it an effect of Divine power that they can act without a substantial
form, because every action of a substantial or accidental form depends upon God as the
first agent.
TP Q[77] A[3] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The change which terminates in a substantial form is not effected by a
substantial form directly, but by means of the active and passive qualities, which act in
virtue of the substantial form. But by Divine power this instrumental energy is retained
in the sacramental species, just as it was before: and consequently their action can be
directed to a substantial form instrumentally, just in the same way as anything can act
outside its species, not as by its own power, but by the power of the chief agent.
TP Q[77] A[4] Thes.
Whether the sacramental species can be corrupted?
TP Q[77] A[4] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the sacramental species cannot be corrupted, because corruption
comes of the separation of the form from the matter. But the matter of the bread does not
remain in this sacrament, as is clear from what was said above (Q[75], A[2]). Therefore
these species cannot be corrupted.
TP Q[77] A[4] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, no form is corrupted except accidentally, that is, when its subject is
corrupted; hence self-subsisting forms are incorruptible, as is seen in spiritual
substances. But the sacramental species are forms without a subject. Therefore they cannot
be corrupted.
TP Q[77] A[4] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, if they be corrupted, it will either be naturally or miraculously. But
they cannot be corrupted naturally, because no subject of corruption can be assigned as
remaining after the corruption has taken place. Neither can they be corrupted
miraculously, because the miracles which occur in this sacrament take place in virtue of
the consecration, whereby the sacramental species are preserved: and the same thing is not
the cause of preservation and of corruption. Therefore, in no way can the sacramental
species be corrupted.
TP Q[77] A[4] OTC
On the contrary, We perceive by our senses that the consecrated hosts become putrefied
and corrupted.
TP Q[77] A[4] Body
I answer that, Corruption is "movement from being into non-being" (Aristotle,
Phys. v). Now it has been stated (A[3]) that the sacramental species retain the same being
as they had before when the substance of the bread was present. Consequently, as the being
of those accidents could be corrupted while the substance of the bread and wine was
present, so likewise they can be corrupted now that the substance has passed away.
TP Q[77] A[4] Body
But such accidents could have been previously corrupted in two ways: in one way, of
themselves; in another way, accidentally. They could be corrupted of themselves, as by
alteration of the qualities, and increase or decrease of the quantity, not in the way in
which increase or decrease is found only in animated bodies, such as the substances of the
bread and wine are not, but by addition or division; for, as is said in Metaph. iii, one
dimension is dissolved by division, and two dimensions result; while on the contrary, by
addition, two dimensions become one. And in this way such accidents can be corrupted
manifestly after consecration, because the dimensive quantity which remains can receive
division and addition; and since it is the subject of sensible qualities, as stated above
(A[1]), it can likewise be the subject of their alteration, for instance, if the color or
the savor of the bread or wine be altered.
TP Q[77] A[4] Body
An accident can be corrupted in another way, through the corruption of its subject, and
in this way also they can be corrupted after consecration; for although the subject does
not remain, still the being which they had in the subject does remain, which being is
proper, and suited to the subject. And therefore such being can be corrupted by a contrary
agent, as the substance of the bread or wine was subject to corruption, and, moreover, was
not corrupted except by a preceding alteration regarding the accidents.
TP Q[77] A[4] Body
Nevertheless, a distinction must be made between each of the aforesaid corruptions;
because, when the body and the blood of Christ succeed in this sacrament to the substance
of the bread and wine, if there be such change on the part of the accidents as would not
have sufficed for the corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood of Christ
do not cease to be under this sacrament on account of such change, whether the change be
on the part of the quality, as for instance, when the color or the savor of the bread or
wine is slightly modified; or on the part of the quantity, as when the bread or the wine
is divided into such parts as to keep in them the nature of bread or of wine. But if the
change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then
Christ's body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of
the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so
altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of
the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine
divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.
TP Q[77] A[4] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Since it belongs essentially to corruption to take away the being of a
thing, in so far as the being of some form is in matter, it results that by corruption the
form is separated from the matter. But if such being were not in matter, yet like such
being as is in matter, it could be taken away by corruption, even where there is no
matter; as takes place in this sacrament, as is evident from what was said above.
TP Q[77] A[4] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Although the sacramental species are forms not in matter, yet they have
the being which they had in matter.
TP Q[77] A[4] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: This corruption of species is not miraculous, but natural; nevertheless,
it presupposes the miracle which is wrought in the consecration, namely, that those
sacramental species retain without a subject, the same being as they had in a subject;
just as a blind man, to whom sight is given miraculously, sees naturally.
TP Q[77] A[5] Thes.
Whether anything can be generated from the sacramental species?
TP Q[77] A[5] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that nothing can be generated from the sacramental species: because,
whatever is generated, is generated out of some matter: for nothing is generated out of
nothing, although by creation something is made out of nothing. But there is no matter
underlying the sacramental species except that of Christ's body, and that body is
incorruptible. Therefore it seems that nothing can be generated from the sacramental
species.
TP Q[77] A[5] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, things which are not of the same genus cannot spring from one another:
thus a line is not made of whiteness. But accident and substance differ generically.
Therefore, since the sacramental species are accidents, it seems that no substance can be
generated from them.
TP Q[77] A[5] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, if any corporeal substance be generated from them, such substance will
not be without accident. Therefore, if any corporeal substance be generated from the
sacramental species, then substance and accident would be generated from accident, namely,
two things from one, which is impossible. Consequently, it is impossible for any corporeal
substance to be generated out of the sacramental species.
TP Q[77] A[5] OTC
On the contrary, The senses are witness that something is generated out of the
sacramental species, either ashes, if they be burned, worms if they putrefy, or dust if
they be crushed.
TP Q[77] A[5] Body
I answer that, Since "the corruption of one thing is the generation of
another" (De Gener. i), something must be generated necessarily from the sacramental
species if they be corrupted, as stated above (A[4]); for they are not corrupted in such a
way that they disappear altogether, as if reduced to nothing; on the contrary, something
sensible manifestly succeeds to them.
TP Q[77] A[5] Body
Nevertheless, it is difficult to see how anything can be generated from them. For it is
quite evident that nothing is generated out of the body and blood of Christ which are
truly there, because these are incorruptible. But if the substance, or even the matter, of
the bread and wine were to remain in this sacrament, then, as some have maintained, it
would be easy to account for this sensible object which succeeds to them. But that
supposition is false, as was stated above (Q[75], AA[2],4,8).
TP Q[77] A[5] Body
Hence it is that others have said that the things generated have not sprung from the
sacramental species, but from the surrounding atmosphere. But this can be shown in many
ways to be impossible. In the first place, because when a thing is generated from another,
the latter at first appears changed and corrupted; whereas no alteration or corruption
appeared previously in the adjacent atmosphere; hence the worms or ashes are not generated
therefrom. Secondly, because the nature of the atmosphere is not such as to permit of such
things being generated by such alterations. Thirdly, because it is possible for many
consecrated hosts to be burned or putrefied; nor would it be possible for an earthen body,
large enough to be generated from the atmosphere, unless a great and, in fact, exceedingly
sensible condensation of the atmosphere took place. Fourthly, because the same thing can
happen to the solid bodies surrounding them, such as iron or stone, which remain entire
after the generation of the aforesaid things. Hence this opinion cannot stand, because it
is opposed to what is manifest to our senses.
TP Q[77] A[5] Body
And therefore others have said that the substance of the bread and wine returns during
the corruption of the species, and so from the returning substance of the bread and wine,
ashes or worms or something of the kind are generated. But this explanation seems an
impossible one. First of all, because if the substance of the bread and wine be converted
into the body and blood of Christ, as was shown above (Q[75], AA[2],4), the substance of
the bread and wine cannot return, except the body and blood of Christ be again changed
back into the substance of bread and wine, which is impossible: thus if air be turned into
fire, the air cannot return without the fire being again changed into air. But if the
substance of bread or wine be annihilated, it cannot return again, because what lapses
into nothing does not return numerically the same. Unless perchance it be said that the
said substance returns, because God creates anew another new substance to replace the
first. Secondly, this seems to be impossible, because no time can be assigned when the
substance of the bread returns. For, from what was said above (A[4]; Q[76], A[6], ad 3),
it is evident that while the species of the bread and wine remain, there remain also the
body and blood of Christ, which are not present together with the substance of the bread
and wine in this sacrament, according to what was stated above (Q[75], A[2]). Hence the
substance of the bread and wine cannot return while the sacramental species remain; nor,
again, when these species pass away; because then the substance of the bread and wine
would be without their proper accidents, which is impossible. Unless perchance it be said
that in the last instant of the corruption of the species there returns (not, indeed, the
substance of bread and wine, because it is in that very instant that they have the being
of the substance generated from the species, but) the matter of the bread and wine; which,
matter, properly speaking, would be more correctly described as created anew, than as
returning. And in this sense the aforesaid position might be held.
TP Q[77] A[5] Body
However, since it does not seem reasonable to say that anything takes place
miraculously in this sacrament, except in virtue of the consecration itself, which does
not imply either creation or return of matter, it seems better to say that in the actual
consecration it is miraculously bestowed on the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine
to be the subject of subsequent forms. Now this is proper to matter; and therefore as a
consequence everything which goes with matter is bestowed on dimensive quantity; and
therefore everything which could be generated from the matter of bread or wine, if it were
present, can be generated from the aforesaid dimensive quantity of the bread or wine, not,
indeed, by a new miracle, but by virtue of the miracle which has already taken place.
TP Q[77] A[5] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Although no matter is there out of which a thing may be generated,
nevertheless dimensive quantity supplies the place of matter, as stated above.
TP Q[77] A[5] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Those sacramental species are indeed accidents, yet they have the act and
power of substance, as stated above (A[3]).
TP Q[77] A[5] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The dimensive quantity of the bread and wine retains its own nature, and
receives miraculously the power and property of substance; and therefore it can pass to
both, that is, into substance and dimension.
TP Q[77] A[6] Thes.
Whether the sacramental species can nourish?
TP Q[77] A[6] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the sacramental species cannot nourish, because, as Ambrose says
(De Sacram. v), "it is not this bread that enters into our body, but the bread of
everlasting life, which supports the substance of our soul." But whatever nourishes
enters into the body. Therefore this bread does not nourish: and the same reason holds
good of the wine.
TP Q[77] A[6] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, as is said in De Gener. ii, "We are nourished by the very things
of which we are made." But the sacramental species are accidents, whereas man is not
made of accidents, because accident is not a part of substance. Therefore it seems that
the sacramental species cannot nourish.
TP Q[77] A[6] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, the Philosopher says (De Anima ii) that "food nourishes according
as it is a substance, but it gives increase by reason of its quantity." But the
sacramental species are not a substance. Consequently they cannot nourish.
TP Q[77] A[6] OTC
On the contrary, The Apostle speaking of this sacrament says (1
Cor. 11:21): "One,
indeed, is hungry, and another is drunk": upon which the gloss observes that "he
alludes to those who after the celebration of the sacred mystery, and after the
consecration of the bread and wine, claimed their oblations, and not sharing them with
others, took the whole, so as even to become intoxicated thereby." But this could not
happen if the sacramental species did not nourish. Therefore the sacramental species do
nourish.
TP Q[77] A[6] Body
I answer that, This question presents no difficulty, now that we have solved the
preceding question. Because, as stated in De Anima ii, food nourishes by being converted
into the substance of the individual nourished. Now it has been stated (A[5]) that the
sacramental species can be converted into a substance generated from them. And they can be
converted into the human body for the same reason as they can into ashes or worms.
Consequently, it is evident that they nourish.
TP Q[77] A[6] Body
But the senses witness to the untruth of what some maintain; viz. that the species do
not nourish as though they were changed into the human body, but merely refresh and
hearten by acting upon the senses (as a man is heartened by the odor of meat, and
intoxicated by the fumes of wine). Because such refreshment does not suffice long for a
man, whose body needs repair owing to constant waste: and yet a man could be supported for
long if he were to take hosts and consecrated wine in great quantity.
TP Q[77] A[6] Body
In like manner the statement advanced by others cannot stand, who hold that the
sacramental species nourish owing to the remaining substantial form of the bread and wine:
both because the form does not remain, as stated above (Q[75], A[6]): and because to
nourish is the act not of a form but rather of matter, which takes the form of the one
nourished, while the form of the nourishment passes away: hence it is said in De Anima ii
that nourishment is at first unlike, but at the end is like.
TP Q[77] A[6] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: After the consecration bread can be said to be in this sacrament in two
ways. First, as to the species, which retain the name of the previous substance, as
Gregory says in an Easter Homily (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xx). Secondly, Christ's
very body can be called bread, since it is the mystical bread "coming down from
heaven." Consequently, Ambrose uses the word "bread" in this second
meaning, when he says that "this bread does not pass into the body," because, to
wit, Christ's body is not changed into man's body, but nourishes his soul. But he is not
speaking of bread taken in the first acceptation.
TP Q[77] A[6] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Although the sacramental species are not those things out of which the
human body is made, yet they are changed into those things stated above.
TP Q[77] A[6] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Although the sacramental species are not a substance, still they have the
virtue of a substance, as stated above.
TP Q[77] A[7] Thes.
Whether the sacramental species are broken in this sacrament?
TP Q[77] A[7] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the sacramental species are not broken in this sacrament, because
the Philosopher says in Meteor. iv that bodies are breakable owing to a certain
disposition of the pores; a thing which cannot be attributed to the sacramental species.
Therefore the sacramental species cannot be broken.
TP Q[77] A[7] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, breaking is followed by sound. But the sacramental species emit no
sound: because the Philosopher says (De Anima ii), that what emits sound is a hard body,
having a smooth surface. Therefore the sacramental species are not broken.
TP Q[77] A[7] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, breaking and mastication are seemingly of the same object. But it is
Christ's true body that is eaten, according to Jn. 6:57: "He that eateth My flesh,
and drinketh My blood." Therefore it is Christ's body that is broken and masticated:
and hence it is said in the confession of Berengarius: "I agree with the Holy
Catholic Church, and with heart and lips I profess, that the bread and wine which are
placed on the altar, are the true body and blood of Christ after consecration, and are
truly handled and broken by the priest's hands, broken and crushed by the teeth of
believers." Consequently, the breaking ought not to be ascribed to the sacramental
species.
TP Q[77] A[7] OTC
On the contrary, Breaking arises from the division of that which has quantity. But
nothing having quantity except the sacramental species is broken here, because neither
Christ's body is broken, as being incorruptible, nor is the substance of the bread,
because it no longer remains. Therefore the sacramental species are broken.
TP Q[77] A[7] Body
I answer that, Many opinions prevailed of old on this matter. Some held that in this
sacrament there was no breaking at all in reality, but merely in the eyes of the
beholders. But this contention cannot stand, because in this sacrament of truth the sense
is not deceived with regard to its proper object of judgment, and one of these objects is
breaking, whereby from one thing arise many: and these are common sensibles, as is stated
in De Anima ii.
TP Q[77] A[7] Body
Others accordingly have said that there was indeed a genuine breaking, but without any
subject. But this again contradicts our senses; because a quantitative body is seen in
this sacrament, which formerly was one, and is now divided into many, and this must be the
subject of the breaking.
TP Q[77] A[7] Body
But it cannot be said that Christ's true body is broken. First of all, because it is
incorruptible and impassible: secondly, because it is entire under every part, as was
shown above (Q[76], A[3]), which is contrary to the nature of a thing broken.
TP Q[77] A[7] Body
It remains, then, that the breaking is in the dimensive quantity of the bread, as in a
subject, just as the other accidents. And as the sacramental species are the sacrament of
Christ's true body, so is the breaking of these species the sacrament of our Lord's
Passion, which was in Christ's true body.
TP Q[77] A[7] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: As rarity and density remain under the sacramental species, as stated
above (A[2], ad 3), so likewise porousness remains, and in consequence
breakableness.
TP Q[77] A[7] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Hardness results from density; therefore, as density remains under the
sacramental species, hardness remains there too, and the capability of sound as a
consequence.
TP Q[77] A[7] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: What is eaten under its own species, is also broken and masticated under
its own species; but Christ's body is eaten not under its proper, but under the
sacramental species. Hence in explaining Jn. 6:64, "The flesh profiteth
nothing," Augustine (Tract. xxvii in Joan.) says that this is to be taken as
referring to those who understood carnally: "for they understood the flesh, thus, as
it is divided piecemeal, in a dead body, or as sold in the shambles." Consequently,
Christ's very body is not broken, except according to its sacramental species. And the
confession made by Berengarius is to be understood in this sense, that the breaking and
the crushing with the teeth is to be referred to the sacramental species, under which the
body of Christ truly is.
TP Q[77] A[8] Thes.
Whether any liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine?
TP Q[77] A[8] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that no liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine, because
everything mingled with another partakes of its quality. But no liquid can share in the
quality of the sacramental species, because those accidents are without a subject, as
stated above (A[1]). Therefore it seems that no liquid can be mingled with the sacramental
species of the wine.
TP Q[77] A[8] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, if any kind of liquid be mixed with those species, then some one thing
must be the result. But no one thing can result from the liquid, which is a substance, and
the sacramental species, which are accidents; nor from the liquid and Christ's blood,
which owing to its incorruptibility suffers neither increase nor decrease. Therefore no
liquid can be mixed with the consecrated wine.
TP Q[77] A[8] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, if any liquid be mixed with the consecrated wine, then that also would
appear to be consecrated; just as water added to holy-water becomes holy. But the
consecrated wine is truly Christ's blood. Therefore the liquid added would likewise be
Christ's blood otherwise than by consecration, which is unbecoming. Therefore no liquid
can be mingled with the consecrated wine.
TP Q[77] A[8] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, if one of two things be entirely corrupted, there is no mixture (De
Gener. i). But if we mix any liquid, it seems that the entire species of the sacramental
wine is corrupted, so that the blood of Christ ceases to be beneath it; both because great
and little are difference of quantity, and alter it, as white and black cause a difference
of color; and because the liquid mixed, as having no obstacle, seems to permeate the
whole, and so Christ's blood ceases to be there, since it is not there with any other
substance. Consequently, no liquid can be mixed with the consecrated wine.
TP Q[77] A[8] OTC
On the contrary, It is evident to our senses that another liquid can be mixed with the
wine after it is consecrated, just as before.
TP Q[77] A[8] Body
I answer that, The truth of this question is evident from what has been said already.
For it was said above (A[3]; A[5], ad 2) that the species remaining in this sacrament, as
they acquire the manner of being of substance in virtue of the consecration, so likewise
do they obtain the mode of acting and of being acted upon, so that they can do or receive
whatever their substance could do or receive, were it there present. But it is evident
that if the substance of wine were there present, then some other liquid could be mingled
with it.
TP Q[77] A[8] Body
Nevertheless there would be a different effect of such mixing both according to the
form and according to the quantity of the liquid. For if sufficient liquid were mixed so
as to spread itself all through the wine, then the whole would be a mixed substance. Now
what is made up of things mixed is neither of them, but each passes into a third resulting
from both: hence it would result that the former wine would remain no longer. But if the
liquid added were of another species, for instance, if water were mixed, the species of
the wine would be dissolved, and there would be a liquid of another species. But if liquid
of the same species were added, of instance, wine with wine, the same species would
remain, but the wine would not be the same numerically, as the diversity of the accidents
shows: for instance, if one wine were white and the other red.
TP Q[77] A[8] Body
But if the liquid added were of such minute quantity that it could not permeate the
whole, the entire wine would not be mixed, but only part of it, which would not remain the
same numerically owing to the blending of extraneous matter: still it would remain the
same specifically, not only if a little liquid of the same species were mixed with it, but
even if it were of another species, since a drop of water blended with much wine passes
into the species of wine (De Gener. i).
TP Q[77] A[8] Body
Now it is evident that the body and blood of Christ abide in this sacrament so long as
the species remain numerically the same, as stated above (A[4]; Q[76], A[6], ad 3);
because it is this bread and this wine which is consecrated. Hence, if the liquid of any
kind whatsoever added be so much in quantity as to permeate the whole of the consecrated
wine, and be mixed with it throughout, the result would be something numerically distinct,
and the blood of Christ will remain there no longer. But if the quantity of the liquid
added be so slight as not to permeate throughout, but to reach only a part of the species,
Christ's blood will cease to be under that part of the consecrated wine, yet will remain
under the rest.
TP Q[77] A[8] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Pope Innocent III in a Decretal writes thus: "The very accidents
appear to affect the wine that is added, because, if water is added, it takes the savor of
the wine. The result is, then, that the accidents change the subject, just as subject
changes accidents; for nature yields to miracle, and power works beyond custom." But
this must not be understood as if the same identical accident, which was in the wine
previous to consecration, is afterwards in the wine that is added; but such change is the
result of action; because the remaining accidents of the wine retain the action of
substance, as stated above, and so they act upon the liquid added, by changing it.
TP Q[77] A[8] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The liquid added to the consecrated wine is in no way mixed with the
substance of Christ's blood. Nevertheless it is mixed with the sacramental species, yet so
that after such mixing the aforesaid species are corrupted entirely or in part, after the
way mentioned above (A[5]), whereby something can be generated from those species. And if
they be entirely corrupted, there remains no further question, because the whole will be
uniform. But if they be corrupted in part, there will be one dimension according to the
continuity of quantity, but not one according to the mode of being, because one part
thereof will be without a subject while the other is in a subject; as in a body that is
made up of two metals, there will be one body quantitatively, but not one as to the
species of the matter.
TP Q[77] A[8] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: As Pope Innocent says in the aforesaid
Decretal, "if after the
consecration other wine be put in the chalice, it is not changed into the blood, nor is it
mingled with the blood, but, mixed with the accidents of the previous wine, it is diffused
throughout the body which underlies them, yet without wetting what surrounds it." Now
this is to be understood when there is not sufficient mixing of extraneous liquid to cause
the blood of Christ to cease to be under the whole; because a thing is said to be
"diffused throughout," not because it touches the body of Christ according to
its proper dimensions, but according to the sacramental dimensions, under which it is
contained. Now it is not the same with holy water, because the blessing works no change in
the substance of the water, as the consecration of the wine does.
TP Q[77] A[8] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: Some have held that however slight be the mixing of extraneous liquid, the
substance of Christ's blood ceases to be under the whole, and for the reason given above
(OBJ[4]); which, however, is not a cogent one; because "more" or
"less" diversify dimensive quantity, not as to its essence, but as to the
determination of its measure. In like manner the liquid added can be so small as on that
account to be hindered from permeating the whole, and not simply by the dimensions; which,
although they are present without a subject, still they are opposed to another liquid,
just as substance would be if it were present, according to what was said at the beginning
of the article.
TP Q[78] Out.
OF THE
FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider the form of this sacrament; concerning which there are six points
of inquiry:
(1) What is the form of this sacrament?
(2) Whether the form for the consecration of the bread is appropriate?
(3) Whether the form for the consecration of the blood is appropriate?
(4) Of the power of each form?
(5) Of the truth of the expression?
(6) Of the comparison of the one form with the other?
TP Q[78] A[1] Thes.
Whether this is the form of this sacrament: "This is My body," and "This
is the chalice of My blood"?
TP Q[78] A[1] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that this is not the form of this sacrament: "This is My
body," and, "This is the chalice of My blood." Because those words seem to
belong to the form of this sacrament, wherewith Christ consecrated His body and blood. But
Christ first blessed the bread which He took, and said afterwards: "Take ye and eat;
this is My body" (Mt. 26:26). Therefore the whole of this seems to belong to the form
of this sacrament: and the same reason holds good of the words which go with the
consecration of the blood.
TP Q[78] A[1] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, Eusebius Emissenus (Pseudo-Hieron: Ep.
xxix; Pseudo-Isid.: Hom. iv)
says: "The invisible Priest changes visible creatures into His own body, saying:
'Take ye and eat; this is My body.'" Therefore, the whole of this seems to belong to
the form of this sacrament: and the same hold good of the works appertaining to the blood.
TP Q[78] A[1] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, in the form of Baptism both the minister and his act are expressed,
when it is said, "I baptize thee." But in the words set forth above there is no
mention made either of the minister or of his act. Therefore the form of the sacrament is
not a suitable one.
TP Q[78] A[1] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, the form of the sacrament suffices for its perfection; hence the
sacrament of Baptism can be performed sometimes by pronouncing the words of the form only,
omitting all the others. Therefore, if the aforesaid words be the form of this sacrament,
it would seem as if this sacrament could be performed sometimes by uttering those words
alone, while leaving out all the others which are said in the mass; yet this seems to be
false, because, were the other words to be passed over, the said words would be taken as
spoken in the person of the priest saying them, whereas the bread and wine are not changed
into his body and blood. Consequently, the aforesaid words are not the form of this
sacrament.
TP Q[78] A[1] OTC
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "The consecration is accomplished
by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus. Because, by all the other words spoken,
praise is rendered to God, prayer is put up for the people, for kings, and others; but
when the time comes for perfecting the sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words,
but the words of Christ. Therefore, it is Christ's words that perfect this
sacrament."
TP Q[78] A[1] Body
I answer that, This sacrament differs from the other sacraments in two respects. First
of all, in this, that this sacrament is accomplished by the consecration of the matter,
while the rest are perfected in the use of the consecrated matter. Secondly, because in
the other sacraments the consecration of the matter consists only in a blessing, from
which the matter consecrated derives instrumentally a spiritual power, which through the
priest who is an animated instrument, can pass on to inanimate instruments. But in this
sacrament the consecration of the matter consists in the miraculous change of the
substance, which can only be done by God; hence the minister in performing this sacrament
has no other act save the pronouncing of the words. And because the form should suit the
thing, therefore the form of this sacrament differs from the forms of the other sacraments
in two respects. First, because the form of the other sacraments implies the use of the
matter, as for instance, baptizing, or signing; but the form of this sacrament implies
merely the consecration of the matter, which consists in transubstantiation, as when it is
said, "This is My body," or, "This is the chalice of My blood."
Secondly, because the forms of the other sacraments are pronounced in the person of the
minister, whether by way of exercising an act, as when it is said, "I baptize
thee," or "I confirm thee," etc.; or by way of command, as when it is said
in the sacrament of order, "Take the power," etc.; or by way of entreaty, as
when in the sacrament of Extreme Unction it is said, "By this anointing and our
intercession," etc. But the form of this sacrament is pronounced as if Christ were
speaking in person, so that it is given to be understood that the minister does nothing in
perfecting this sacrament, except to pronounce the words of Christ.
TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: There are many opinions on this matter. Some have said that Christ, Who
had power of excellence in the sacraments, performed this sacrament without using any form
of words, and that afterwards He pronounced the words under which others were to
consecrate thereafter. And the words of Pope Innocent III seem to convey the same sense
(De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), where he says: "In good sooth it can be said that Christ
accomplished this sacrament by His Divine power, and subsequently expressed the form under
which those who came after were to consecrate." But in opposition to this view are
the words of the Gospel in which it is said that Christ "blessed," and this
blessing was effected by certain words. Accordingly those words of Innocent are to be
considered as expressing an opinion, rather than determining the point.
TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 1
Others, again, have said that the blessing was effected by other words not known to us.
But this statement cannot stand, because the blessing of the consecration is now performed
by reciting the things which were then accomplished; hence, if the consecration was not
performed then by these words, neither would it be now.
TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 1
Accordingly, others have maintained that this blessing was effected by the same words
as are used now; but that Christ spoke them twice, at first secretly, in order to
consecrate, and afterwards openly, to instruct others. But even this will not hold good,
because the priest in consecrating uses these words, not as spoken in secret, but as
openly pronounced. Accordingly, since these words have no power except from Christ
pronouncing them, it seems that Christ also consecrated by pronouncing them openly.
TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 1
And therefore others said that the Evangelists did not always follow the precise order
in their narrative as that in which things actually happened, as is seen from Augustine
(De Consens. Evang. ii). Hence it is to be understood that the order of what took place
can be expressed thus: "Taking the bread He blessed it, saying: This is My body, and
then He broke it, and gave it to His disciples." But the same sense can be had even
without changing the words of the Gospel; because the participle "saying"
implies sequence of the words uttered with what goes before. And it is not necessary for
the sequence to be understood only with respect to the last word spoken, as if Christ had
just then pronounced those words, when He gave it to His disciples; but the sequence can
be understood with regard to all that had gone before; so that the sense is: "While
He was blessing, and breaking, and giving it to His disciples, He spoke the words, 'Take
ye,'" etc.
TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: In these words, "Take ye and eat," the use of the consecrated,
matter is indicated, which is not of the necessity of this sacrament, as stated above
(Q[74], A[7]). And therefore not even these words belong to the substance of the form.
Nevertheless, because the use of the consecrated matter belongs to a certain perfection of
the sacrament, in the same way as operation is not the first but the second perfection of
a thing, consequently, the whole perfection of this sacrament is expressed by all those
words: and it was in this way that Eusebius understood that the sacrament was accomplished
by those words, as to its first and second perfection.
TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: In the sacrament of Baptism the minister exercises an act regarding the
use of the matter, which is of the essence of the sacrament: such is not the case in this
sacrament; hence there is no parallel.
TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: Some have contended that this sacrament cannot be accomplished by uttering
the aforesaid words, while leaving out the rest, especially the words in the Canon of the
Mass. But that this is false can be seen both from Ambrose's words quoted above, as well
as from the fact that the Canon of the Mass is not the same in all places or times, but
various portions have been introduced by various people.
TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 4
Accordingly it must be held that if the priest were to pronounce only the aforesaid
words with the intention of consecrating this sacrament, this sacrament would be valid
because the intention would cause these words to be understood as spoken in the person of
Christ, even though the words were pronounced without those that precede. The priest,
however, would sin gravely in consecrating the sacrament thus, as he would not be
observing the rite of the Church. Nor does the comparison with Baptism prove anything; for
it is a sacrament of necessity: whereas the lack of this sacrament can be supplied by the
spiritual partaking thereof, as Augustine says (cf. Q[73], A[3], ad 1).
TP Q[78] A[2] Thes.
Whether this is the proper form for the consecration of the bread: "This is My
body"?
TP Q[78] A[2] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that this is not the proper form of this sacrament: "This is My
body." For the effect of a sacrament ought to be expressed in its form. But the
effect of the consecration of the bread is the change of the substance of the bread into
the body of Christ, and this is better expressed by the word "becomes" than by
"is." Therefore, in the form of the consecration we ought to say: "This
becomes My body."
TP Q[78] A[2] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv), "Christ's words consecrate this
sacrament. What word of Christ? This word, whereby all things are made. The Lord
commanded, and the heavens and earth were made. " Therefore, it would be a more
proper form of this sacrament if the imperative mood were employed, so as to say: "Be
this My body."
TP Q[78] A[2] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, that which is changed is implied in the subject of this phrase, just as
the term of the change is implied in the predicate. But just as that into which the change
is made is something determinate, for the change is into nothing else but the body of
Christ, so also that which is converted is determinate, since only bread is converted into
the body of Christ. Therefore, as a noun is inserted on the part of the predicate, so also
should a noun be inserted in the subject, so that it be said: "This bread is My
body."
TP Q[78] A[2] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, just as the term of the change is determinate in nature, because it is
a body, so also is it determinate in person. Consequently, in order to determine the
person, it ought to be said: "This is the body of Christ."
TP Q[78] A[2] Obj. 5
OBJ 5: Further, nothing ought to be inserted in the form except what is substantial to
it. Consequently, the conjunction "for" is improperly added in some books, since
it does not belong to the substance of the form.
TP Q[78] A[2] OTC
On the contrary, our Lord used this form in consecrating, as is evident from Mt. 26:26.
TP Q[78] A[2] Body
I answer that, This is the proper form for the consecration of the bread. For it was
said (A[1]) that this consecration consists in changing the substance of bread into the
body of Christ. Now the form of a sacrament ought to denote what is done in the sacrament.
Consequently the form for the consecration of the bread ought to signify the actual
conversion of the bread into the body of Christ. And herein are three things to be
considered: namely, the actual conversion, the term "whence," and the term
"whereunto."
TP Q[78] A[2] Body
Now the conversion can be considered in two ways: first, in "becoming,"
secondly, in "being." But the conversion ought not to be signified in this form
as in "becoming," but as in "being." First, because such conversion is
not successive, as was said above (Q[75], A[7]), but instantaneous; and in such changes
the "becoming" is nothing else than the "being." Secondly, because the
sacramental forms bear the same relation to the signification of the sacramental effect as
artificial forms to the representation of the effect of art. Now an artificial form is the
likeness of the ultimate effect, on which the artist's intention is fixed ;. just as the
art-form in the builder's mind is principally the form of the house constructed, and
secondarily of the constructing. Accordingly, in this form also the conversion ought to be
expressed as in "being," to which the intention is referred.
TP Q[78] A[2] Body
And since the conversion is expressed in this form as in "being," it is
necessary for the extremes of the conversion to be signified as they exist in the fact of
conversion. But then the term "whereunto" has the proper nature of its own
substance; whereas the term "whence" does not remain in its own substance, but
only as to the accidents whereby it comes under the senses, and can be determined in
relation to the senses. Hence the term "whence" of the conversion is
conveniently expressed by the demonstrative pronoun, relative to the sensible accidents
which continue; but the term "whereunto" is expressed by the noun signifying the
nature of the thing which terminates the conversion, and this is Christ's entire body, and
not merely His flesh; as was said above (Q[76], A[1], ad 2). Hence this form is most
appropriate: "This is My body."
TP Q[78] A[2] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: The ultimate effect of this conversion is not a "becoming" but a
"being," as stated above, and consequently prominence should be given to this in
the form.
TP Q[78] A[2] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: God's word operated in the creation of things, and it is the same which
operates in this consecration, yet each in different fashion: because here it operates
effectively and sacramentally, that is, in virtue of its signification. And consequently
the last effect of the consecration must needs be signified in this sentence by a
substantive verb of the indicative mood and present time. But in the creation of things it
worked merely effectively, and such efficiency is due to the command of His wisdom; and
therefore in the creation of things the Lord's word is expressed by a verb in the
imperative mood, as in Gn. 1:3: "Let there be light, and light was made."
TP Q[78] A[2] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The term "whence" does not retain the nature of its substance in
the "being" of the conversion, as the term "whereunto" does. Therefore
there is no parallel.
TP Q[78] A[2] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: The pronoun "My," which implicitly points to the chief person,
i.e. the person of the speaker, sufficiently indicates Christ's person, in Whose person
these words are uttered, as stated above (A[1]).
TP Q[78] A[2] R.O. 5
Reply OBJ 5: The conjunction "for" is set in this form according to the
custom of the Roman Church, who derived it from Peter the Apostle; and this on account of
the sequence with the words preceding: and therefore it is not part of the form, just as
the words preceding the form are not.
TP Q[78] A[3] Thes.
Whether this is the proper form for the consecration of the wine: "This is the
chalice of My blood," etc.?
TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that this is not the proper form for the consecration of the wine.
"This is the chalice of My blood, of the New and Eternal Testament, the Mystery of
Faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins." For as
the bread is changed by the power of consecration into Christ's body, so is the wine
changed into Christ's blood, as is clear from what was said above (Q[76], AA[1],2,3). But
in the form of the consecration of the bread, the body of Christ is expressly mentioned,
without any addition. Therefore in this form the blood of Christ is improperly expressed
in the oblique case, and the chalice in the nominative, when it is said: "This is the
chalice of My blood."
TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, the words spoken in the consecration of the bread are not more
efficacious than those spoken in the consecration of the wine, since both are Christ's
words. But directly the words are spoken---"This is My body," there is perfect
consecration of the bread. Therefore, directly these other words are uttered---"This
is the chalice of My blood," there is perfect consecration of the blood; and so the
words which follow do not appeal to be of the substance of the form, especially since they
refer to the properties of this sacrament.
TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, the New Testament seems to be an internal inspiration, as is evident
from the Apostle quoting the words of Jeremias (31:31): "I will perfect unto the
house of Israel a New Testament . . . I will give My laws into their mind" (Heb.
8:8). But a sacrament is an outward visible act. Therefore, in the form of the sacrament
the words "of the New Testament" are improperly added.
TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, a thing is said to be new which is near the beginning of its existence.
But what is eternal has no beginning of its existence. Therefore it is incorrect to say
"of the New and Eternal," because it seems to savor of a contradiction.
TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 5
OBJ 5: Further, occasions of error ought to be withheld from men, according to Is.
57:14: "Take away the stumbling blocks out of the way of My people." But some
have fallen into error in thinking that Christ's body and blood are only mystically
present in this sacrament. Therefore it is out of place to add "the mystery of
faith."
TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 6
OBJ 6: Further, it was said above (Q[73], A[3], ad 3), that as Baptism is the sacrament
of faith, so is the Eucharist the sacrament of charity. Consequently, in this form the
word "charity" ought rather to be used than "faith."
TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 7
OBJ 7: Further, the whole of this sacrament, both as to body and blood, is a memorial
of our Lord's Passion, according to 1 Cor. 11:26: "As often as you shall eat this
bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord." Consequently,
mention ought to be made of Christ's Passion and its fruit rather in the form of the
consecration of the blood, than in the form of the consecration of the body, especially
since our Lord said: "This is My body, which shall be delivered up for you"
(Lk.
22:19).
TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 8
OBJ 8: Further, as was already observed (Q[48], A[2]; Q[49], A[3]), Christ's Passion
sufficed for all; while as to its efficacy it was profitable for many. Therefore it ought
to be said: "Which shall be shed for all," or else "for many," without
adding, "for you."
TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 9
OBJ 9: Further, the words whereby this sacrament is consecrated draw their efficacy
from Christ's institution. But no Evangelist narrates that Christ spoke all these words.
Therefore this is not an appropriate form for the consecration of the wine.
TP Q[78] A[3] OTC
On the contrary, The Church, instructed by the apostles, uses this form.
TP Q[78] A[3] Body
I answer that, There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained
that the words "This is the chalice of My blood" alone belong to the substance
of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the
words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood.
consequently they belong to the integrity of the expression.
TP Q[78] A[3] Body
And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of
the substance of the form down to the words, "As often as ye shall do this,"
which belong to the use of this sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance
of the form. Hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words, under the same rite
and manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands. Moreover, in Lk. 22:20, the words
that follow are interposed with the preceding words: "This is the chalice, the new
testament in My blood."
TP Q[78] A[3] Body
Consequently it must be said that all the aforesaid words belong to the substance of
the form; but that by the first words, "This is the chalice of My blood," the
change of the wine into blood is denoted, as explained above (A[2]) in the form for the
consecration of the bread; but by the words which come after is shown the power of the
blood shed in the Passion, which power works in this sacrament, and is ordained for three
purposes. First and principally for securing our eternal heritage, according to Heb.
10:19: "Having confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of
Christ"; and in order to denote this, we say, "of the New and Eternal
Testament." Secondly, for justifying by grace, which is by faith according to Rm.
3:25,26: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood . .
. that He Himself may be just, and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus
Christ": and on this account we add, "The Mystery of Faith." Thirdly, for
removing sins which are the impediments to both of these things, according to Heb. 9:14:
"The blood of Christ . . . shall cleanse our conscience from dead works," that
is, from sins; and on this account, we say, "which shall be shed for you and for many
unto the forgiveness of sins."
TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: The expression "This is the chalice of My blood" is a figure of
speech, which can be understood in two ways. First, as a figure of metonymy; because the
container is put for the contained, so that the meaning is: "This is My blood
contained in the chalice"; of which mention is now made, because Christ's blood is
consecrated in this sacrament, inasmuch as it is the drink of the faithful, which is not
implied under the notion of blood; consequently this had to be denoted by the vessel
adapted for such usage.
TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 1
Secondly, it can be taken by way of metaphor, so that Christ's Passion is understood by
the chalice by way of comparison, because, like a cup, it inebriates, according to Lam.
3:15: "He hath filled me with bitterness, he hath inebriated me with wormwood":
hence our Lord Himself spoke of His Passion as a chalice, when He said (Mt. 26:39):
"Let this chalice pass away from Me": so that the meaning is: "This is the
chalice of My Passion." This is denoted by the blood being consecrated apart from the
body; because it was by the Passion that the blood was separated from the body.
TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: As was said above (ad 1; Q[76], A[2], ad 1), the blood consecrated apart
expressly represents Christ's Passion, and therefore mention is made of the fruits of the
Passion in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body, since the body
is the subject of the Passion. This is also pointed out in our Lord's saying, "which
shall be delivered up for you," as if to say, "which shall undergo the Passion
for you."
TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: A testament is the disposal of a heritage. But God disposed of a heavenly
heritage to men, to be bestowed through the virtue of the blood of Jesus Christ; because,
according to Heb. 9:16: "Where there is a testament the death of the testator must of
necessity come in." Now Christ's blood was exhibited to men in two ways. First of all
in figure, and this belongs to the Old Testament; consequently the Apostle concludes (Heb.
9:16): "Whereupon neither was the first indeed dedicated without blood," which
is evident from this, that as related in Ex. 24:7,8, "when every" commandment of
the law "had been read" by Moses, "he sprinkled all the people"
saying: "This is the blood of the testament which the Lord hath enjoined unto
you."
TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 3
Secondly, it was shown in very truth; and this belongs to the New Testament. This is
what the Apostle premises when he says (Rm. 9:15): "Therefore He is the Mediator of
the New Testament, that by means of His death . . . they that are called may receive the
promise of eternal inheritance." Consequently, we say here, "The blood of the
New Testament," because it is shown now not in figure but in truth; and therefore we
add, "which shall be shed for you." But the internal inspiration has its origin
in the power of this blood, according as we are justified by Christ's Passion.
TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: This Testament is a "new one" by reason of its showing forth:
yet it is called "eternal" both on account of God's eternal pre-ordination, as
well as on account of the eternal heritage which is prepared by this testament. Moreover,
Christ's Person is eternal, in Whose blood this testament is appointed.
TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 5
Reply OBJ 5: The word "mystery" is inserted, not in order to exclude reality,
but to show that the reality is hidden, because Christ's blood is in this sacrament in a
hidden manner, and His Passion was dimly foreshadowed in the Old Testament.
TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 6
Reply OBJ 6: It is called the "Sacrament of Faith," as being an object of
faith: because by faith alone do we hold the presence of Christ's blood in this sacrament.
Moreover Christ's Passion justifies by faith. Baptism is called the "Sacrament of
Faith" because it is a profession of faith. This is called the "Sacrament of
Charity," as being figurative and effective thereof.
TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 7
Reply OBJ 7: As stated above (ad 2), the blood consecrated apart represents Christ's
blood more expressively; and therefore mention is made of Christ's Passion and its fruits,
in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body.
TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 8
Reply OBJ 8: The blood of Christ's Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect
among the Jews, to whom the blood of the Old Testament was exhibited, but also in the
Gentiles; nor only in priests who consecrate this sacrament, and in those others who
partake of it; but likewise in those for whom it is offered. And therefore He says
expressly, "for you," the Jews, "and for many," namely the Gentiles;
or, "for you" who eat of it, and "for many," for whom it is offered.
TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 9
Reply OBJ 9: The Evangelists did not intend to hand down the forms of the sacraments,
which in the primitive Church had to be kept concealed, as Dionysius observes at the close
of his book on the ecclesiastical hierarchy; their object was to write the story of
Christ. Nevertheless nearly all these words can be culled from various passages of the
Scriptures. Because the words, "This is the chalice," are found in Lk. 22:20,
and 1 Cor. 11:25, while Matthew says in chapter 26:28: "This is My blood of the New
Testament, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins." The words added,
namely, "eternal" and "mystery of faith," were handed down to the
Church by the apostles, who received them from our Lord, according to 1 Cor. 11:23:
"I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you."
TP Q[78] A[4] Thes.
Whether in the aforesaid words of the forms there be any created power which causes the
consecration?
TP Q[78] A[4] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that in the aforesaid words of the forms there is no created power
which causes the consecration. Because Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): "The change
of the bread into Christ's body is caused solely by the power of the Holy Ghost." But
the power of the Holy Ghost is uncreated. Therefore this sacrament is not caused by any
created power of those words.
TP Q[78] A[4] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, miraculous works are wrought not by any created power, but solely by
Divine power, as was stated in the FP, Q[110], A[4]. But the change of the bread and wine
into Christ's body and blood is a work not less miraculous than the creation of things, or
than the formation of Christ's body in the womb of a virgin: which things could not be
done by any created power. Therefore, neither is this sacrament consecrated by any created
power of the aforesaid words.
TP Q[78] A[4] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, the aforesaid words are not simple, but composed of many; nor are they
uttered simultaneously, but successively. But, as stated above (Q[75], A[7]), this change
is wrought instantaneously. hence it must be done by a simple power. Therefore it is not
effected by the power of those words.
TP Q[78] A[4] OTC
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "If there be such might in the word
of the Lord Jesus that things non-existent came into being, how much more efficacious is
it to make things existing to continue, and to be changed into something else? And so,
what was bread before consecration is now the body of Christ after consecration, because
Christ's word changes a creature into something different."
TP Q[78] A[4] Body
I answer that, Some have maintained that neither in the above words is there any
created power for causing the transubstantiation, nor in the other forms of the
sacraments, or even in the sacraments themselves, for producing the sacramental effects.
This, as was shown above (Q[62], A[1] ), is both contrary to the teachings of the saints,
and detracts from the dignity of the sacraments of the New Law. Hence, since this
sacrament is of greater worth than the others, as stated above (Q[65], A[3]), the result
is that there is in the words of the form of this sacrament a created power which causes
the change to be wrought in it: instrumental, however, as in the other sacraments, as
stated above (Q[62], AA[3],4). For since these words are uttered in the person of Christ,
it is from His command that they receive their instrumental power from Him, just as His
other deeds and sayings derive their salutary power instrumentally, as was observed above
(Q[48], A[6]; Q[56], A[1], ad 3).
TP Q[78] A[4] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: When the bread is said to be changed into Christ's body solely by the
power of the Holy Ghost, the instrumental power which lies in the form of this sacrament
is not excluded: just as when we say that the smith alone makes a knife we do not deny the
power of the hammer.
TP Q[78] A[4] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: No creature can work miracles as the chief agent. yet it can do so
instrumentally, just as the touch of Christ's hand healed the leper. And in this fashion
Christ's words change the bread into His body. But in Christ's conception, whereby His
body was fashioned, it was impossible for anything derived from His body to have the
instrumental power of forming that very body. Likewise in creation there was no term
wherein the instrumental action of a creature could be received. Consequently there is no
comparison.
TP Q[78] A[4] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The aforesaid words, which work the consecration, operate
sacramentally.
Consequently, the converting power latent under the forms of these sacraments follows the
meaning, which is terminated in the uttering of the last word. And therefore the aforesaid
words have this power in the last instant of their being uttered, taken in conjunction
with those uttered before. And this power is simple by reason of the thing signified,
although there be composition in the words uttered outwardly.
TP Q[78] A[5] Thes.
Whether the aforesaid expressions are true?
TP Q[78] A[5] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the aforesaid expressions are not true. Because when we say:
"This is My body," the word "this" designates a substance. But
according to what was said above (AA[1],4, ad 3; Q[75], AA[2],7), when the pronoun
"this" is spoken, the substance of the bread is still there, because the
transubstantiation takes place in the last instant of pronouncing the words. But it is
false to say: "Bread is Christ's body." Consequently this expression, "This
is My body," is false.
TP Q[78] A[5] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, the pronoun "this" appeals to the senses. But the sensible
species in this sacrament are neither Christ's body nor even its accidents. Therefore this
expression, "This is My body," cannot be true.
TP Q[78] A[5] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, as was observed above (A[4], ad 3), these words, by their
signification, effect the change of the bread into the body of Christ. But an effective
cause is understood as preceding its effect. Therefore the meaning of these words is
understood as preceding the change of the bread into the body of Christ. But previous to
the change this expression, "This is My body," is false. Therefore the
expression is to be judged as false simply; and the same reason holds good of the other
phrase: "This is the chalice of My blood," etc.
TP Q[78] A[5] OTC
On the contrary, These words are pronounced in the person of Christ, Who says of
Himself (Jn. 14:6): "I am the truth."
TP Q[78] A[5] Body
I answer that, There have been many opinions on this point. Some have said that in this
expression, "This is My body," the word "this" implies demonstration
as conceived, and not as exercised, because the whole phrase is taken materially, since it
is uttered by a way of narration: for the priest relates that Christ said: "This is
My body."
TP Q[78] A[5] Body
But such a view cannot hold good, because then these words would not be applied to the
corporeal matter present, and consequently the sacrament would not be valid: for Augustine
says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.): "The word is added to the element, and this becomes a
sacrament." Moreover this solution ignores entirely the difficulty which this
question presents: for there is still the objection in regard to the first uttering of
these words by Christ; since it is evident that then they were employed, not materially,
but significatively. And therefore it must be said that even when spoken by the priest
they are taken significatively, and not merely materially. Nor does it matter that the
priest pronounces them by way of recital, as though they were spoken by Christ, because
owing to Christ's infinite power, just as through contact with His flesh the regenerative
power entered not only into the waters which came into contact with Christ, but into all
waters throughout the whole world and during all future ages, so likewise from Christ's
uttering these words they derived their consecrating power, by whatever priest they be
uttered, as if Christ present were saying them.
TP Q[78] A[5] Body
And therefore others have said that in this phrase the word "this" appeals,
not to the senses, but to the intellect; so that the meaning is, "This is My
body"---i.e. "The thing signified by 'this' is My body." But neither can
this stand, because, since in the sacraments the effect is that which is signified, from
such a form it would not result that Christ's body was in very truth in this sacrament,
but merely as in a sign, which is heretical, as stated above (Q[85], A[1]).
TP Q[78] A[5] Body
Consequently, others have said that the word "this" appeals to the senses;
not at the precise instant of its being uttered, but merely at the last instant thereof;
as when a man says, "Now I am silent," this adverb "now" points to the
instant immediately following the speech: because the sense is: "Directly these words
are spoken I am silent." But neither can this hold good, because in that case the
meaning of the sentence would be: "My body is My body," which the above phrase
does not effect, because this was so even before the utterance of the words: hence neither
does the aforesaid sentence mean this.
TP Q[78] A[5] Body
Consequently, then, it remains to be said, as stated above (A[4]), that this sentence
possesses the power of effecting the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ. And
therefore it is compared to other sentences, which have power only of signifying and not
of producing, as the concept of the practical intellect, which is productive of the thing,
is compared to the concept of our speculative intellect which is drawn from things.
because "words are signs of concepts," as the Philosopher says (Peri Herm.
i).
And therefore as the concept of the practical intellect does not presuppose the thing
understood, but makes it, so the truth of this expression does not presuppose the thing
signified, but makes it; for such is the relation of God's word to the things made by the
Word. Now this change takes place not successively, but in an instant, as stated above
(Q[77], A[7]). Consequently one must understand the aforesaid expression with reference to
the last instant of the words being spoken, yet not so that the subject may be understood
to have stood for that which is the term of the conversion; viz. that the body of Christ
is the body of Christ; nor again that the subject be understood to stand for that which it
was before the conversion, namely, the bread. but for that which is commonly related to
both, i.e. that which is contained in general under those species. For these words do not
make the body of Christ to be the body of Christ, nor do they make the bread to be the
body of Christ; but what was contained under those species, and was formerly bread, they
make to be the body of Christ. And therefore expressly our Lord did not say: "This
bread is My body," which would be the meaning of the second opinion; nor "This
My body is My body," which would be the meaning of the third opinion: but in general:
"This is My body," assigning no noun on the part of the subject, but only a
pronoun, which signifies substance in common, without quality, that is, without a
determinate form.
TP Q[78] A[5] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: The term "this" points to a substance, yet without determining
its proper nature, as stated above.
TP Q[78] A[5] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The pronoun "this" does not indicate the accidents, but the
substance underlying the accidents, which at first was bread, and is afterwards the body
of Christ, which body, although not informed by those accidents, is yet contained under
them.
TP Q[78] A[5] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The meaning of this expression is, in the order of nature, understood
before the thing signified, just as a cause is naturally prior to the effect; but not in
order of time, because this cause has its effect with it at the same time, and this
suffices for the truth of the expression.
TP Q[78] A[6] Thes.
Whether the form of the consecration of the bread accomplishes its effect before the
form of the consecration of the wine be completed?
TP Q[78] A[6] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the form of the consecration of the bread does not accomplish its
effect until the form for the consecration of the wine be completed. For, as Christ's body
begins to be in this sacrament by the consecration of the bread, so does His blood come to
be there by the consecration of the wine. If, then, the words for consecrating the bread
were to produce their effect before the consecration of the wine, it would follow that
Christ's body would be present in this sacrament without the blood, which is improper.
TP Q[78] A[6] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, one sacrament has one completion: hence although there be three
immersions in Baptism, yet the first immersion does not produce its effect until the third
be completed. But all this sacrament is one, as stated above (Q[73], A[2]). Therefore the
words whereby the bread is consecrated do not bring about their effect without the
sacramental words whereby the wine is consecrated.
TP Q[78] A[6] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, there are several words in the form for consecrating the bread, the
first of which do not secure their effect until the last be uttered, as stated above
(A[4], ad 3). Therefore, for the same reason, neither do the words for the consecration of
Christ's body produce their effect, until the words for consecrating Christ's blood are
spoken.
TP Q[78] A[6] OTC
On the contrary, Directly the words are uttered for consecrating the bread, the
consecrated host is shown to the people to be adored, which would not be done if Christ's
body were not there, for that would be an act of idolatry. Therefore the consecrating
words of the bread produce their effect before. the words are spoken for consecrating the
wine.
TP Q[78] A[6] Body
I answer that, Some of the earlier doctors said that these two forms, namely, for
consecrating the bread and the wine, await each other's action, so that the first does not
produce its effect until the second be uttered.
TP Q[78] A[6] Body
But this cannot stand, because, as stated above (A[5], ad 3), for the truth of this
phrase, "This is My body," wherein the verb is in the present tense, it is
required for the thing signified to be present simultaneously in time with the
signification of the expression used; otherwise, if the thing signified had to be awaited
for afterwards, a verb of the future tense would be employed, and not one of the present
tense, so that we should not say, "This is My body," but "This will be My
body." But the signification of this speech is complete directly those words are
spoken. And therefore the thing signified must be present instantaneously, and such is the
effect of this sacrament; otherwise it would not be a true speech. Moreover, this opinion
is against the rite of the Church, which forthwith adores the body of Christ after the
words are uttered.
TP Q[78] A[6] Body
Hence it must be said that the first form does not await the second in its action, but
has its effect on the instant.
TP Q[78] A[6] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: It is on this account that they who maintained the above opinion seem to
have erred. Hence it must be understood that directly the consecration of the bread is
complete, the body of Christ is indeed present by the power of the sacrament, and the
blood by real concomitance; but afterwards by the consecration of the wine, conversely,
the blood of Christ is there by the power of the sacrament, and the body by real
concomitance, so that the entire Christ is under either species, as stated above (Q[76],
A[2]).
TP Q[78] A[6] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: This sacrament is one in perfection, as stated above (Q[73] , A[2]),
namely, inasmuch as it is made up of two things, that is, of food and drink, each of which
of itself has its own perfection; but the three immersions of Baptism are ordained to one
simple effect, and therefore there is no resemblance.
TP Q[78] A[6] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The various words in the form for consecrating the bread constitute the
truth of one speech, but the words of the different forms do not, and consequently there
is no parallel.
TP Q[79] Out.
OF
THE EFFECTS OF THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We must now consider the effects of this sacrament, and under this head there are eight
points of inquiry:
(1) Whether this sacrament bestows grace?
(2) Whether the attaining of glory is an effect of this sacrament?
(3) Whether the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament?
(4) Whether venial sin is forgiven by this sacrament?
(5) Whether the entire punishment due for sin is forgiven by this sacrament?
(6) Whether this sacrament preserves man from future sins?
(7) Whether this sacrament benefits others besides the recipients?
(8) Of the obstacles to the effect of this sacrament.
TP Q[79] A[1] Thes.
Whether grace is bestowed through this sacrament?
TP Q[79] A[1] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that grace is not bestowed through this sacrament. For this sacrament
is spiritual nourishment. But nourishment is only given to the living. Therefore since the
spiritual life is the effect of grace, this sacrament belongs only to one in the state of
grace. Therefore grace is not bestowed through this sacrament for it to be had in the
first instance. In like manner neither is it given so as grace may be increased, because
spiritual growth belongs to the sacrament of Confirmation, as stated above (Q[72], A[1]).
Consequently, grace is not bestowed through this sacrament.
TP Q[79] A[1] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, this sacrament is given as a spiritual refreshment. But spiritual
refreshment seems to belong to the use of grace rather than to its bestowal. Therefore it
seems that grace is not given through this sacrament.
TP Q[79] A[1] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, as was said above (Q[74], A[1]), "Christ's body is offered up in
this sacrament for the salvation of the body, and His blood for that of the soul."
Now it is not the body which is the subject of grace, but the soul, as was shown in the
FS, Q[110], A[4]. Therefore grace is not bestowed through this sacrament, at least so far
as the body is concerned.
TP Q[79] A[1] OTC
On the contrary, Our Lord says (Jn. 6:52): "The bread which I will give, is My
flesh for the life of the world." But the spiritual life is the effect of grace.
Therefore grace is bestowed through this sacrament.
TP Q[79] A[1] Body
I answer that, The effect of this sacrament ought to be considered, first of all and
principally, from what is contained in this sacrament, which is Christ; Who, just as by
coming into the world, He visibly bestowed the life of grace upon the world, according to
Jn. 1:17: "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ," so also, by coming
sacramentally into man causes the life of grace, according to Jn. 6:58: "He that
eateth Me, the same also shall live by Me." Hence Cyril says on Lk. 22:19:
"God's life-giving Word by uniting Himself with His own flesh, made it to be
productive of life. For it was becoming that He should be united somehow with bodies
through His sacred flesh and precious blood, which we receive in a life-giving blessing in
the bread and wine."
TP Q[79] A[1] Body
Secondly, it is considered on the part of what is represented by this sacrament, which
is Christ's Passion, as stated above (Q[74], A[1]; Q[76] , A[2], ad 1). And therefore this
sacrament works in man the effect which Christ's Passion wrought in the world. Hence,
Chrysostom says on the words, "Immediately there came out blood and water"
(Jn.
19:34): "Since the sacred mysteries derive their origin from thence, when you draw
nigh to the awe-inspiring chalice, so approach as if you were going to drink from Christ's
own side." Hence our Lord Himself says (Mt. 26:28): "This is My blood . . .
which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins."
TP Q[79] A[1] Body
Thirdly, the effect of this sacrament is considered from the way in which this
sacrament is given; for it is given by way of food and drink. And therefore this sacrament
does for the spiritual life all that material food does for the bodily life, namely, by
sustaining, giving increase, restoring, and giving delight. Accordingly, Ambrose says (De
Sacram. v): "This is the bread of everlasting life, which supports the substance of
our soul." And Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi in Joan.): "When we desire it, He lets
us feel Him, and eat Him, and embrace Him." And hence our Lord says (Jn. 6:56):
"My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed."
TP Q[79] A[1] Body
Fourthly, the effect of this sacrament is considered from the species under which it is
given. Hence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.): "Our Lord betokened His body and
blood in things which out of many units are made into some one whole: for out of many
grains is one thing made," viz. bread; "and many grapes flow into one
thing," viz. wine. And therefore he observes elsewhere (Tract. xxvi in Joan.):
"O sacrament of piety, O sign of unity, O bond of charity!"
TP Q[79] A[1] Body
And since Christ and His Passion are the cause of grace. and since spiritual
refreshment, and charity cannot be without grace, it is clear from all that has been set
forth that this sacrament bestows grace.
TP Q[79] A[1] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: This sacrament has of itself the power of bestowing grace; nor does anyone
possess grace before receiving this sacrament except from some desire thereof; from his
own desire, as in the case of the adult. or from the Church's desire in the case of
children, as stated above (Q[73], A[3]). Hence it is due to the efficacy of its power,
that even from desire thereof a man procures grace whereby he is enabled to lead the
spiritual life. It remains, then, that when the sacrament itself is really received, grace
is increased, and the spiritual life perfected: yet in different fashion from the
sacrament of Confirmation, in which grace is increased and perfected for resisting the
outward assaults of Christ's enemies. But by this sacrament grace receives increase, and
the spiritual life is perfected, so that man may stand perfect in himself by union with
God.
TP Q[79] A[1] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: This sacrament confers grace spiritually together with the virtue of
charity. Hence Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) compares this sacrament to the burning coal
which Isaias saw (Is. 6:6): "For a live ember is not simply wood, but wood united to
fire; so also the bread of communion is not simple bread but bread united with the
Godhead." But as Gregory observes in a Homily for Pentecost, "God's love is
never idle; for, wherever it is it does great works." And consequently through this
sacrament, as far as its power is concerned, not only is the habit of grace and of virtue
bestowed, but it is furthermore aroused to act, according to 2 Cor. 5:14: "The
charity of Christ presseth us." Hence it is that the soul is spiritually nourished
through the power of this sacrament, by being spiritually gladdened, and as it were
inebriated with the sweetness of the Divine goodness, according to Cant 5:1: "Eat, O
friends, and drink, and be inebriated, my dearly beloved."
TP Q[79] A[1] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Because the sacraments operate according to the similitude by which they
signify, therefore by way of assimilation it is said that in this sacrament "the body
is offered for the salvation of the body, and the blood for the salvation of the
soul," although each works for the salvation of both, since the entire Christ is
under each, as stated above (Q[76], A[2]). And although the body is not the immediate
subject of grace, still the effect of grace flows into the body while in the present life
we present "our [Vulg.: 'your'] members" as "instruments of justice unto
God" (Rm. 6:13), and in the life to come our body will share in the incorruption and
the glory of the soul.
TP Q[79] A[2] Thes.
Whether the attaining of glory is an effect of this sacrament?
TP Q[79] A[2] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the attaining of glory is not an effect of this sacrament. For an
effect is proportioned to its cause. But this sacrament belongs to "wayfarers"
[viatoribus], and hence it is termed "Viaticum." Since, then, wayfarers are not
yet capable of glory, it seems that this sacrament does not cause the attaining of glory.
TP Q[79] A[2] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, given sufficient cause, the effect follows. But many take this
sacrament who will never come to glory, as Augustine declares (De Civ. Dei xxi).
Consequently, this sacrament is not the cause of attaining unto glory.
TP Q[79] A[2] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, the greater is not brought about by the lesser, for nothing acts
outside its species. But it is the lesser thing to receive Christ under a strange species,
which happens in this sacrament, than to enjoy Him in His own species, which belongs to
glory. Therefore this sacrament does not cause the attaining of glory.
TP Q[79] A[2] OTC
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 6:52): "If any man eat of this bread, he shall
live for ever." But eternal life is the life of glory. Therefore the attaining of
glory is an effect of this sacrament.
TP Q[79] A[2] Body
I answer that, In this sacrament we may consider both that from which it derives its
effect, namely, Christ contained in it, as also His Passion represented by it; and that
through which it works its effect, namely, the use of the sacrament, and its species.
TP Q[79] A[2] Body
Now as to both of these it belongs to this sacrament to cause the attaining of eternal
life. Because it was by His Passion that Christ opened to us the approach to eternal life,
according to Heb. 9:15: "He is the Mediator of the New Testament; that by means of
His death . . . they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance."
Accordingly in the form of this sacrament it is said: "This is the chalice of My
blood, of the New and Eternal Testament."
TP Q[79] A[2] Body
In like manner the refreshment of spiritual food and the unity denoted by the species
of the bread and wine are to be had in the present life, although imperfectly. but
perfectly in the state of glory. Hence Augustine says on the words, "My flesh is meat
indeed" (Jn. 6:56): "Seeing that in meat and drink, men aim at this, that they
hunger not nor thirst, this verily nought doth afford save only this meat and drink which
maketh them who partake thereof to be immortal and incorruptible, in the fellowship of the
saints, where shall be peace, and unity, full and perfect."
TP Q[79] A[2] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: As Christ's Passion, in virtue whereof this sacrament is accomplished, is
indeed the sufficient cause of glory, yet not so that we are thereby forthwith admitted to
glory, but we must first "suffer with Him in order that we may also be
glorified" afterwards "with Him" (Rm. 8:17), so this sacrament does not at
once admit us to glory, but bestows on us the power of coming unto glory. And therefore it
is called "Viaticum," a figure whereof we read in 3 Kgs. 19:8: "Elias ate
and drank, and walked in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights unto the
mount of God, Horeb."
TP Q[79] A[2] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Just as Christ's Passion has not its effect in them who are not disposed
towards it as they should be, so also they do not come to glory through this sacrament who
receive it unworthily. Hence Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), expounding the same
passage, observes: "The sacrament is one thing, the power of the sacrament another.
Many receive it from the altar . . . and by receiving" . . . die . . . Eat, then,
spiritually the heavenly "bread, bring innocence to the altar." It is no wonder,
then, if those who do not keep innocence, do not secure the effect of this sacrament.
TP Q[79] A[2] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: That Christ is received under another species belongs to the nature of a
sacrament, which acts instrumentally. But there is nothing to prevent an instrumental
cause from producing a more mighty effect, as is evident from what was said above (Q[77],
A[3], ad 3).
TP Q[79] A[3] Thes.
Whether the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament?
TP Q[79] A[3] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament. For
it is said in one of the Collects (Postcommunion, Pro vivis et defunctis): "May this
sacrament be a cleansing from crimes." But mortal sins are called crimes. Therefore
mortal sins are blotted out by this sacrament.
TP Q[79] A[3] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, this sacrament, like Baptism, works by the power of Christ's Passion.
But mortal sins are forgiven by Baptism, as stated above (Q[69], A[1]). Therefore they are
forgiven likewise by this sacrament, especially since in the form of this sacrament it is
said: "Which shall be shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins."
TP Q[79] A[3] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, grace is bestowed through this sacrament, as stated above (A[1]). But
by grace a man is justified from mortal sins, according to Rm. 3:24: "Being justified
freely by His grace." Therefore mortal sins are forgiven by this sacrament.
TP Q[79] A[3] OTC
On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor. 11:29): "He that eateth and drinketh
unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself": and a gloss of the same passage
makes the following commentary: "He eats and drinks unworthily who is in the state of
sin, or who handles (the sacrament) irreverently; and such a one eats and drinks judgment,
i.e. damnation, unto himself." Therefore, he that is in mortal sin, by taking the
sacrament heaps sin upon sin, rather than obtains forgiveness of his sin.
TP Q[79] A[3] Body
I answer that, The power of this sacrament can be considered in two ways. First of all,
in itself: and thus this sacrament has from Christ's Passion the power of forgiving all
sins, since the Passion is the fount and cause of the forgiveness of sins.
TP Q[79] A[3] Body
Secondly, it can be considered in comparison with the recipient of the sacrament, in so
far as there is, or is not, found in him an obstacle to receiving the fruit of this
sacrament. Now whoever is conscious of mortal sin, has within him an obstacle to receiving
the effect of this sacrament; since he is not a proper recipient of this sacrament, both
because he is not alive spiritually, and so he ought not to eat the spiritual nourishment,
since nourishment is confined to the living; and because he cannot be united with Christ,
which is the effect of this sacrament, as long as he retains an attachment towards mortal
sin. Consequently, as is said in the book De Eccles. Dogm.: "If the soul leans
towards sin, it is burdened rather than purified from partaking of the Eucharist."
Hence, in him who is conscious of mortal sin, this sacrament does not cause the
forgiveness of sin.
TP Q[79] A[3] Body
Nevertheless this sacrament can effect the forgiveness of sin in two ways. First of
all, by being received, not actually, but in desire; as when a man is first justified from
sin. Secondly, when received by one in mortal sin of which he is not conscious, and for
which he has no attachment; since possibly he was not sufficiently contrite at first, but
by approaching this sacrament devoutly and reverently he obtains the grace of charity,
which will perfect his contrition and bring forgiveness of sin.
TP Q[79] A[3] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: We ask that this sacrament may be the "cleansing of crimes," or
of those sins of which we are unconscious, according to Ps. 18:13: "Lord, cleanse me
from my hidden sins"; or that our contrition may be perfected for the forgiveness of
our sins; or that strength be bestowed on us to avoid sin.
TP Q[79] A[3] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Baptism is spiritual generation, which is a transition from spiritual
non-being into spiritual being, and is given by way of ablution. Consequently, in both
respects he who is conscious of mortal sin does not improperly approach Baptism. But in
this sacrament man receives Christ within himself by way of spiritual nourishment, which
is unbecoming to one that lies dead in his sins. Therefore the comparison does not hold
good.
TP Q[79] A[3] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Grace is the sufficient cause of the forgiveness of mortal sin; yet it
does not forgive sin except when it is first bestowed on the sinner. But it is not given
so in this sacrament. Hence the argument does not prove.
TP Q[79] A[4] Thes.
Whether venial sins are forgiven through this sacrament?
TP Q[79] A[4] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that venial sins are not forgiven by this sacrament, because this is
the "sacrament of charity," as Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.). But venial
sins are not contrary to charity, as was shown in the FS, Q[88], AA[1],2; SS, Q[24],
A[10]. Therefore, since contrary is taken away by its contrary, it seems that venial sins
are not forgiven by this sacrament.
TP Q[79] A[4] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, if venial sins be forgiven by this sacrament, then all of them are
forgiven for the same reason as one is. But it does not appear that all are forgiven,
because thus one might frequently be without any venial sin, against what is said in 1
Jn.
1:8: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." Therefore no venial
sin is forgiven by this sacrament.
TP Q[79] A[4] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, contraries mutually exclude each other. But venial sins do not forbid
the receiving of this sacrament: because Augustine says on the words, "If any man eat
of it he shall [Vulg.: 'may'] not die for ever" (Jn. 6:50): "Bring innocence to
the altar: your sins, though they be daily . . . let them not be deadly." Therefore
neither are venial sins taken away by this sacrament.
TP Q[79] A[4] OTC
On the contrary, Innocent III says (De S. Alt. Myst. iv) that this sacrament
"blots out venial sins, and wards off mortal sins."
TP Q[79] A[4] Body
I answer that, Two things may be considered in this sacrament, to wit, the sacrament
itself, and the reality of the sacrament: and it appears from both that this sacrament has
the power of forgiving venial sins. For this sacrament is received under the form of
nourishing food. Now nourishment from food is requisite for the body to make good the
daily waste caused by the action of natural heat. But something is also lost daily of our
spirituality from the heat of concupiscence through venial sins, which lessen the fervor
of charity, as was shown in the SS, Q[24], A[10]. And therefore it belongs to this
sacrament to forgive venial sins. Hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. v) that this daily bread
is taken "as a remedy against daily infirmity."
TP Q[79] A[4] Body
The reality of this sacrament is charity, not only as to its habit, but also as to its
act, which is kindled in this sacrament; and by this means venial sins are forgiven.
Consequently, it is manifest that venial sins are forgiven by the power of this sacrament.
TP Q[79] A[4] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Venial sins, although not opposed to the habit of charity, are
nevertheless opposed to the fervor of its act, which act is kindled by this sacrament; by
reason of which act venial sins are blotted out.
TP Q[79] A[4] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: The passage quoted is not to be understood as if a man could not at some
time be without all guilt of venial sin: but that the just do not pass through this life
without committing venial sins.
TP Q[79] A[4] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The power of charity, to which this sacrament belongs, is greater than
that of venial sins: because charity by its act takes away venial sins, which nevertheless
cannot entirely hinder the act of charity. And the same holds good of this sacrament.
TP Q[79] A[5] Thes.
Whether the entire punishment due to sin is forgiven through this sacrament?
TP Q[79] A[5] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the entire punishment due to sin is forgiven through this
sacrament. For through this sacrament man receives the effect of Christ's Passion within
himself as stated above (AA[1],2), just as he does through Baptism. But through Baptism
man receives forgiveness of all punishment, through the virtue of Christ's Passion, which
satisfied sufficiently for all sins, as was explained above (Q[69], A[2] ). Therefore it
seems the whole debt of punishment is forgiven through this sacrament.
TP Q[79] A[5] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, Pope Alexander I says (Ep. ad omnes orth.): "No sacrifice can be
greater than the body and the blood of Christ." But man satisfied for his sins by the
sacrifices of the old Law: for it is written (Lev. 4,5): "If a man shall sin, let him
offer" (so and so) "for his sin, and it shall be forgiven him." Therefore
this sacrament avails much more for the forgiveness of all punishment.
TP Q[79] A[5] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, it is certain that some part of the debt of punishment is forgiven by
this sacrament; for which reason it is sometimes enjoined upon a man, by way of
satisfaction, to have masses said for himself. But if one part of the punishment is
forgiven, for the same reason is the other forgiven: owing to Christ's infinite power
contained in this sacrament. Consequently, it seems that the whole punishment can be taken
away by this sacrament.
TP Q[79] A[5] OTC
On the contrary, In that case no other punishment would have to be enjoined; just as
none is imposed upon the newly baptized.
TP Q[79] A[5] Body
I answer that, This sacrament is both a sacrifice and a sacrament. it has the nature of
a sacrifice inasmuch as it is offered up; and it has the nature of a sacrament inasmuch as
it is received. And therefore it has the effect of a sacrament in the recipient, and the
effect of a sacrifice in the offerer, or in them for whom it is offered.
TP Q[79] A[5] Body
If, then, it be considered as a sacrament, it produces its effect in two ways: first of
all directly through the power of the sacrament; secondly as by a kind of concomitance, as
was said above regarding what is contained in the sacrament (Q[76], AA[1],2). Through the
power of the sacrament it produces directly that effect for which it was instituted. Now
it was instituted not for satisfaction, but for nourishing spiritually through union
between Christ and His members, as nourishment is united with the person nourished. But
because this union is the effect of charity, from the fervor of which man obtains
forgiveness, not only of guilt but also of punishment, hence it is that as a consequence,
and by concomitance with the chief effect, man obtains forgiveness of the punishment, not
indeed of the entire punishment, but according to the measure of his devotion and fervor.
TP Q[79] A[5] Body
But in so far as it is a sacrifice, it has a satisfactory power. Yet in satisfaction,
the affection of the offerer is weighed rather than the quantity of the offering. Hence
our Lord says (Mk. 12:43: cf. Lk. 21:4) of the widow who offered "two mites"
that she "cast in more than all." Therefore, although this offering suffices of
its own quantity to satisfy for all punishment, yet it becomes satisfactory for them for
whom it is offered, or even for the offerers, according to the measure of their devotion,
and not for the whole punishment.
TP Q[79] A[5] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: The sacrament of Baptism is directly ordained for the remission of
punishment and guilt: not so the Eucharist, because Baptism is given to man as dying with
Christ, whereas the Eucharist is given as by way of nourishing and perfecting him through
Christ. Consequently there is no parallel.
TP Q[79] A[5] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Those other sacrifices and oblations did not effect the forgiveness of the
whole punishment, neither as to the quantity of the thing offered, as this sacrament does,
nor as to personal devotion; from which it comes to pass that even here the whole
punishment is not taken away.
TP Q[79] A[5] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: If part of the punishment and not the whole be taken away by this
sacrament, it is due to a defect not on the part of Christ's power, but on the part of
man's devotion.
TP Q[79] A[6] Thes.
Whether man is preserved by this sacrament from future sins?
TP Q[79] A[6] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that man is not preserved by this sacrament from future sins. For there
are many that receive this sacrament worthily, who afterwards fall into sin. Now this
would not happen if this sacrament were to preserve them from future sins. Consequently,
it is not an effect of this sacrament to preserve from future sins.
TP Q[79] A[6] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, the Eucharist is the sacrament of charity, as stated above (A[4]). But
charity does not seem to preserve from future sins, because it can be lost through sin
after one has possessed it, as was stated in the SS, Q[24], A[11]. Therefore it seems that
this sacrament does not preserve man from sin.
TP Q[79] A[6] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, the origin of sin within us is "the law of sin, which is in our
members," as declared by the Apostle (Rm. 7:23). But the lessening of the
fomes,
which is the law of sin, is set down as an effect not of this sacrament, but rather of
Baptism. Therefore preservation from sin is not an effect of this sacrament.
TP Q[79] A[6] OTC
On the contrary, our Lord said (Jn. 6:50): "This is the bread which cometh down
from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die": which manifestly is not to
be understood of the death of the body. Therefore it is to be understood that this
sacrament preserves from spiritual death, which is through sin.
TP Q[79] A[6] Body
I answer that, Sin is the spiritual death of the soul. Hence man is preserved from
future sin in the same way as the body is preserved from future death of the body: and
this happens in two ways. First of all, in so far as man's nature is strengthened inwardly
against inner decay, and so by means of food and medicine he is preserved from death.
Secondly, by being guarded against outward assaults; and thus he is protected by means of
arms by which he defends his body.
TP Q[79] A[6] Body
Now this sacrament preserves man from sin in both of these ways. For, first of all, by
uniting man with Christ through grace, it strengthens his spiritual life, as spiritual
food and spiritual medicine, according to Ps. 103:5: "(That) bread strengthens
[Vulg.: 'may strengthen'] man's heart." Augustine likewise says (Tract. xxvi in
Joan.): "Approach without fear; it is bread, not poison." Secondly, inasmuch as
it is a sign of Christ's Passion, whereby the devils are conquered, it repels all the
assaults of demons. Hence Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi in Joan.): "Like lions breathing
forth fire, thus do we depart from that table, being made terrible to the devil."
TP Q[79] A[6] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: The effect of this sacrament is received according to man's condition:
such is the case with every active cause in that its effect is received in matter
according to the condition of the matter. But such is the condition of man on earth that
his free-will can be bent to good or evil. Hence, although this sacrament of itself has
the power of preserving from sin, yet it does not take away from man the possibility of
sinning.
TP Q[79] A[6] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Even charity of itself keeps man from sin, according to Rm. 13:10:
"The love of our neighbor worketh no evil": but it is due to the mutability of
free-will that a man sins after possessing charity, just as after receiving this
sacrament.
TP Q[79] A[6] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Although this sacrament is not ordained directly to lessen the
fomes, yet
it does lessen it as a consequence, inasmuch as it increases charity, because, as
Augustine says (Q[83]), "the increase of charity is the lessening of
concupiscence." But it directly strengthens man's heart in good; whereby he is also
preserved from sin.
TP Q[79] A[7] Thes.
Whether this sacrament benefit others besides the recipients?
TP Q[79] A[7] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that this sacrament benefits only the recipients. For this sacrament is
of the same genus as the other sacraments, being one of those into which that genus is
divided. But the other sacraments only benefit the recipients; thus the baptized person
alone receives effect of Baptism. Therefore, neither does this sacrament benefit others
than the recipients.
TP Q[79] A[7] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, the effects of this sacrament are the attainment of grace and glory,
and the forgiveness of sin, at least of venial sin. If therefore this sacrament were to
produce its effects in others besides the recipients, a man might happen to acquire grace
and glory and forgiveness of sin without doing or receiving anything himself, through
another receiving or offering this sacrament.
TP Q[79] A[7] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, when the cause is multiplied, the effect is likewise multiplied. If
therefore this sacrament benefit others besides the recipients, it would follow that it
benefits a man more if he receive this sacrament through many hosts being consecrated in
one mass, whereas this is not the Church's custom: for instance, that many receive
communion for the salvation of one individual. Consequently, it does not seem that this
sacrament benefits anyone but the recipient.
TP Q[79] A[7] OTC
On the contrary, Prayer is made for many others during the celebration of this
sacrament; which would serve no purpose were the sacrament not beneficial to others.
Therefore, this sacrament is beneficial not merely to them who receive it.
TP Q[79] A[7] Body
I answer that, As stated above (A[3]), this sacrament is not only a sacrament, but also
a sacrifice. For, it has the nature of a sacrifice inasmuch as in this sacrament Christ's
Passion is represented, whereby Christ "offered Himself a Victim to God" (Eph.
5:2), and it has the nature of a sacrament inasmuch as invisible grace is bestowed in this
sacrament under a visible species. So, then, this sacrament benefits recipients by way
both of sacrament and of sacrifice, because it is offered for all who partake of it. For
it is said in the Canon of the Mass: "May as many of us as, by participation at this
Altar, shall receive the most sacred body and blood of Thy Son, be filled with all
heavenly benediction and grace."
TP Q[79] A[7] Body
But to others who do not receive it, it is beneficial by way of sacrifice, inasmuch as
it is offered for their salvation. Hence it is said in the Canon of the Mass: "Be
mindful, O Lord, of Thy servants, men and women . . . for whom we offer, or who offer up
to Thee, this sacrifice of praise for themselves and for all their own, for the redemption
of their souls, for the hope of their safety and salvation." And our Lord expressed
both ways, saying (Mt. 26:28, with Lk. 22:20): "Which for you," i.e. who receive
it, "and for many," i.e. others, "shall be shed unto remission of
sins."
TP Q[79] A[7] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: This sacrament has this in addition to the others, that it is a sacrifice:
and therefore the comparison fails.
TP Q[79] A[7] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: As Christ's Passion benefits all, for the forgiveness of sin and the
attaining of grace and glory, whereas it produces no effect except in those who are united
with Christ's Passion through faith and charity, so likewise this sacrifice, which is the
memorial of our Lord's Passion, has no effect except in those who are united with this
sacrament through faith and charity. Hence Augustine says to Renatus (De Anima et ejus
origine i): "Who may offer Christ's body except for them who are Christ's
members?" Hence in the Canon of the Mass no prayer is made for them who are outside
the pale of the Church. But it benefits them who are members, more or less, according to
the measure of their devotion.
TP Q[79] A[7] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Receiving is of the very nature of the sacrament, but offering belongs to
the nature of sacrifice: consequently, when one or even several receive the body of
Christ, no help accrues to others. In like fashion even when the priest consecrates
several hosts in one mass, the effect of this sacrament is not increased, since there is
only one sacrifice; because there is no more power in several hosts than in one, since
there is only one Christ present under all the hosts and under one. Hence, neither will
any one receive greater effect from the sacrament by taking many consecrated hosts in one
mass. But the oblation of the sacrifice is multiplied in several masses, and therefore the
effect of the sacrifice and of the sacrament is multiplied.
TP Q[79] A[8] Thes.
Whether the effect of this sacrament is hindered by venial sin?
TP Q[79] A[8] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the effect of this sacrament is not hindered by venial sin. For
Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), commenting on Jn. 6:52, "If any man eat of this
bread," etc., says: "Eat the heavenly bread spiritually; bring innocence to the
altar; your sins, though they be daily, let them not be deadly." From this it is
evident that venial sins, which are called daily sins, do not prevent spiritual eating.
But they who eat spiritually, receive the effect of this sacrament. Therefore, venial sins
do not hinder the effect of this sacrament.
TP Q[79] A[8] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, this sacrament is not less powerful than Baptism. But, as stated above
(Q[69], AA[9],10), only pretense checks the effect of Baptism, and venial sins do not
belong to pretense; because according to Wis. 1:5: "the Holy Spirit of discipline
will flee from the deceitful," yet He is not put to flight by venial sins. Therefore
neither do venial sins hinder the effect of this sacrament.
TP Q[79] A[8] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, nothing which is removed by the action of any cause, can hinder the
effect of such cause. But venial sins are taken away by this sacrament. Therefore, they do
not hinder its effect.
TP Q[79] A[8] OTC
On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): "The fire of that desire which
is within us, being kindled by the burning coal," i.e. this sacrament, "will
consume our sins, and enlighten our hearts, so that we shall be inflamed and made
godlike." But the fire of our desire or love is hindered by venial sins, which hinder
the fervor of charity, as was shown in the FS, Q[81], A[4]; SS, Q[24], A[10]. Therefore
venial sins hinder the effect of this sacrament.
TP Q[79] A[8] Body
I answer that, Venial sins can be taken in two ways: first of all as past, secondly as
in the act of being committed. Venial sins taken in the first way do not in any way hinder
the effect of this sacrament. For it can come to pass that after many venial sins a man
may approach devoutly to this sacrament and fully secure its effect. Considered in the
second way venial sins do not utterly hinder the effect of this sacrament, but merely in
part. For, it has been stated above (A[1]), that the effect of this sacrament is not only
the obtaining of habitual grace or charity, but also a certain actual refreshment of
spiritual sweetness: which is indeed hindered if anyone approach to this sacrament with
mind distracted through venial sins; but the increase of habitual grace or of charity is
not taken away.
TP Q[79] A[8] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: He that approaches this sacrament with actual venial sin, eats spiritually
indeed, in habit but not in act: and therefore he shares in the habitual effect of the
sacrament, but not in its actual effect.
TP Q[79] A[8] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Baptism is not ordained, as this sacrament is, for the fervor of charity
as its actual effect. Because Baptism is spiritual regeneration, through which the first
perfection is acquired, which is a habit or form; but this sacrament is spiritual eating,
which has actual delight.
TP Q[79] A[8] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: This argument deals with past venial sins, which are taken away by this
sacrament.
TP Q[80] Out.
OF THE
USE OR RECEIVING OF THIS SACRAMENT IN GENERAL (TWELVE ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the use or receiving of this sacrament, first of all in
general; secondly, how Christ used this sacrament.
TP Q[80] Out.
Under the first heading there are twelve points of inquiry:
(1) Whether there are two ways of eating this sacrament, namely, sacramentally and
spiritually?
(2) Whether it belongs to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually?
(3) Whether it belongs to the just man only to eat it
sacramentally?
(4) Whether the sinner sins in eating it sacramentally?
(5) Of the degree of this sin;
(6) Whether this sacrament should be refused to the sinner that approaches it?
(7) Whether nocturnal pollution prevents man from receiving this sacrament?
(8) Whether it is to be received only when one is fasting?
(9) Whether it is to be given to them who lack the use of reason?
(10) Whether it is to be received daily?
(11) Whether it is lawful to refrain from it altogether?
(12) Whether it is lawful to receive the body without the blood?
TP Q[80] A[1] Thes.
Whether there are two ways to be distinguished of eating Christ's body?
TP Q[80] A[1] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that two ways ought not to be distinguished of eating Christ's body,
namely, sacramentally and spiritually. For, as Baptism is spiritual regeneration,
according to Jn. 3:5: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,"
etc., so also this sacrament is spiritual food: hence our Lord, speaking of this
sacrament, says (Jn. 6:64): "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and
life." But there are no two distinct ways of receiving Baptism, namely, sacramentally
and spiritually. Therefore neither ought this distinction to be made regarding this
sacrament.
TP Q[80] A[1] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, when two things are so related that one is on account of the other,
they should not be put in contra-distinction to one another, because the one derives its
species from the other. But sacramental eating is ordained for spiritual eating as its
end. Therefore sacramental eating ought not to be divided in contrast with spiritual
eating.
TP Q[80] A[1] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, things which cannot exist without one another ought not to be divided
in contrast with each other. But it seems that no one can eat spiritually without eating
sacramentally; otherwise the fathers of old would have eaten this sacrament spiritually.
Moreover, sacramental eating would be to no purpose, if the spiritual eating could be had
without it. Therefore it is not right to distinguish a twofold eating, namely, sacramental
and spiritual.
TP Q[80] A[1] OTC
On the contrary, The gloss says on 1 Cor. 11:29: "He that eateth and drinketh
unworthily," etc.: "We hold that there are two ways of eating, the one
sacramental, and the other spiritual."
TP Q[80] A[1] Body
I answer that, There are two things to be considered in the receiving of this
sacrament, namely, the sacrament itself, and its fruits, and we have already spoken of
both (QQ[73],79). The perfect way, then, of receiving this sacrament is when one takes it
so as to partake of its effect. Now, as was stated above (Q[79], AA[3],8), it sometimes
happens that a man is hindered from receiving the effect of this sacrament; and such
receiving of this sacrament is an imperfect one. Therefore, as the perfect is divided
against the imperfect, so sacramental eating, whereby the sacrament only is received
without its effect, is divided against spiritual eating, by which one receives the effect
of this sacrament, whereby a man is spiritually united with Christ through faith and
charity.
TP Q[80] A[1] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: The same distinction is made regarding Baptism and the other sacraments:
for, some receive the sacrament only, while others receive the sacrament and the reality
of the sacrament. However, there is a difference, because, since the other sacraments are
accomplished in the use of the matter, the receiving of the sacrament is the actual
perfection of the sacrament; whereas this sacrament is accomplished in the consecration of
the matter: and consequently both uses follow the sacrament. On the other hand, in Baptism
and in the other sacraments that imprint a character, they who receive the sacrament
receive some spiritual effect, that is, the character. which is not the case in this
sacrament. And therefore, in this sacrament, rather than in Baptism, the sacramental use
is distinguished from the spiritual use.
TP Q[80] A[1] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: That sacramental eating which is also a spiritual eating is not divided in
contrast with spiritual eating, but is included under it; but that sacramental eating
which does not secure the effect, is divided in contrast with spiritual eating; just as
the imperfect, which does not attain the perfection of its species, is divided in contrast
with the perfect.
TP Q[80] A[1] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[73], A[3]), the effect of the sacrament can be secured
by every man if he receive it in desire, though not in reality. Consequently, just as some
are baptized with the Baptism of desire, through their desire of baptism, before being
baptized in the Baptism of water; so likewise some eat this sacrament spiritually ere they
receive it sacramentally. Now this happens in two ways. First of all, from desire of
receiving the sacrament itself, and thus are said to be baptized, and to eat spiritually,
and not sacramentally, they who desire to receive these sacraments since they have been
instituted. Secondly, by a figure: thus the Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:2), that the fathers
of old were "baptized in the cloud and in the sea," and that "they did eat
. . . spiritual food, and . . . drank . . . spiritual drink." Nevertheless
sacramental eating is not without avail, because the actual receiving of the sacrament
produces more fully the effect of the sacrament than does the desire thereof, as stated
above of Baptism (Q[69] , A[4], ad 2).
TP Q[80] A[2] Thes.
Whether it belongs to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually?
TP Q[80] A[2] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that it does not belong to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually,
but likewise to angels. Because on Ps. 77:25: "Man ate the bread of angels," the
gloss says: "that is, the body of Christ, Who i's truly the food of angels." But
it would not be so unless the angels were to eat Christ spiritually. Therefore the angels
eat Christ spiritually.
TP Q[80] A[2] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.) says: By "this meat and drink, He
would have us to understand the fellowship of His body and members, which is the Church in
His predestinated ones." But not only men, but also the holy angels belong to that
fellowship. Therefore the holy angels eat of it spiritually.
TP Q[80] A[2] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, Augustine in his book De Verbis Domini (Serm.
cxlii) says: "Christ
is to be eaten spiritually, as He Himself declares: 'He that eateth My flesh and drinketh
My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him.'" But this belongs not only to men, but also
to the holy angels, in whom Christ dwells by charity, and they in Him. Consequently, it
seems that to eat Christ spiritually is not for men only, but also for the angels.
TP Q[80] A[2] OTC
On the contrary, Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.) says: "Eat the bread" of
the altar "spiritually; take innocence to the altar." But angels do not approach
the altar as for the purpose of taking something therefrom. Therefore the angels do not
eat spiritually.
TP Q[80] A[2] Body
I answer that, Christ Himself is contained in this sacrament, not under His proper
species, but under the sacramental species. Consequently there are two ways of eating
spiritually. First, as Christ Himself exists under His proper species, and in this way the
angels eat Christ spiritually inasmuch as they are united with Him in the enjoyment of
perfect charity, and in clear vision (and this is the bread we hope for in heaven), and
not by faith, as we are united with Him here.
TP Q[80] A[2] Body
In another way one may eat Christ spiritually, as He is under the sacramental species,
inasmuch as a man believes in Christ, while desiring to receive this sacrament; and this
is not merely to eat Christ spiritually, but likewise to eat this sacrament; which does
not fall to the lot of the angels. And therefore although the angels feed on Christ
spiritually, yet it does not belong to them to eat this sacrament spiritually.
TP Q[80] A[2] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: The receiving of Christ under this sacrament is ordained to the enjoyment
of heaven, as to its end, in the same way as the angels enjoy it; and since the means are
gauged by the end, hence it is that such eating of Christ whereby we receive Him under
this sacrament, is, as it were, derived from that eating whereby the angels enjoy Christ
in heaven. Consequently, man is said to eat the "bread of angels," because it
belongs to the angels to do so firstly and principally, since they enjoy Him in his proper
species; and secondly it belongs to men, who receive Christ under this sacrament.
TP Q[80] A[2] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Both men and angels belong to the fellowship of His mystical body; men by
faith, and angels by manifest vision. But the sacraments are proportioned to faith,
through which the truth is seen "through a glass" and "in a dark
manner." And therefore, properly speaking, it does not belong to angels, but to men,
to eat this sacrament spiritually.
TP Q[80] A[2] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Christ dwells in men through faith, according to their present state, but
He is in the blessed angels by manifest vision. Consequently the comparison does not hold,
as stated above (ad 2).
TP Q[80] A[3] Thes.
Whether the just man alone may eat Christ sacramentally?
TP Q[80] A[3] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that none but the just man may eat Christ
sacramentally. For Augustine
says in his book De Remedio Penitentiae (cf. Tract. in Joan. xxv, n. 12; xxvi, n. 1):
"Why make ready tooth and belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten . . . For to believe in
Him, this it is, to eat the living bread." But the sinner does not believe in Him;
because he has not living faith, to which it belongs to believe "in God," as
stated above in the SS, Q[2], A[2]; SS, Q[4], A[5]. Therefore the sinner cannot eat this
sacrament, which is the living bread.
TP Q[80] A[3] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, this sacrament is specially called "the sacrament of
charity," as stated above (Q[78], A[3], ad 6). But as unbelievers lack faith, so all
sinners lack charity. Now unbelievers do not seem to be capable of eating this sacrament,
since in the sacramental form it is called the "Mystery of Faith." Therefore,
for like reason, the sinner cannot eat Christ's body sacramentally.
TP Q[80] A[3] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, the sinner is more abominable before God than the irrational creature:
for it is said of the sinner (Ps. 48:21): "Man when he was in honor did not
understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them." But an
irrational animal, such as a mouse or a dog, cannot receive this sacrament, just as it
cannot receive the sacrament of Baptism. Therefore it seems that for the like reason
neither may sinners eat this sacrament.
TP Q[80] A[3] OTC
On the contrary, Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), commenting on the words, "that
if any man eat of it he may not die," says: "Many receive from the altar, and by
receiving die: whence the Apostle saith, 'eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.'"
But only sinners die by receiving. Therefore sinners eat the body of Christ
sacramentally,
and not the just only.
TP Q[80] A[3] Body
I answer that, In the past, some have erred upon this point, saying that Christ's body
is not received sacramentally by sinners; but that directly the body is touched by the
lips of sinners, it ceases to be under the sacramental species.
TP Q[80] A[3] Body
But this is erroneous; because it detracts from the truth of this sacrament, to which
truth it belongs that so long as the species last, Christ's body does not cease to be
under them, as stated above (Q[76], A[6], ad 3; Q[77], A[8]). But the species last so long
as the substance of the bread would remain, if it were there, as was stated above (Q[77],
A[4]). Now it is clear that the substance of bread taken by a sinner does not at once
cease to be, but it continues until digested by natural heat: hence Christ's body remains
just as long under the sacramental species when taken by sinners. Hence it must be said
that the sinner, and not merely the just, can eat Christ's body.
TP Q[80] A[3] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Such words and similar expressions are to be understood of spiritual
eating, which does not belong to sinners. Consequently, it is from such expressions being
misunderstood that the above error seems to have arisen, through ignorance of the
distinction between corporeal and spiritual eating.
TP Q[80] A[3] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Should even an unbeliever receive the sacramental species, he would
receive Christ's body under the sacrament: hence he would eat Christ
sacramentally, if the
word "sacramentally" qualify the verb on the part of the thing eaten. But if it
qualify the verb on the part of the one eating, then, properly speaking, he does not eat
sacramentally, because he uses what he takes, not as a sacrament, but as simple food.
Unless perchance the unbeliever were to intend to receive what the Church bestows; without
having proper faith regarding the other articles, or regarding this sacrament.
TP Q[80] A[3] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Even though a mouse or a dog were to eat the consecrated host, the
substance of Christ's body would not cease to be under the species, so long as those
species remain, and that is, so long as the substance of bread would have remained; just
as if it were to be cast into the mire. Nor does this turn to any indignity regarding
Christ's body, since He willed to be crucified by sinners without detracting from His
dignity; especially since the mouse or dog does not touch Christ's body in its proper
species, but only as to its sacramental species. Some, however, have said that Christ's
body would cease to be there, directly it were touched by a mouse or a dog; but this again
detracts from the truth of the sacrament, as stated above. None the less it must not be
said that the irrational animal eats the body of Christ sacramentally; since it is
incapable of using it as a sacrament. Hence it eats Christ's body
"accidentally," and not sacramentally, just as if anyone not knowing a host to
be consecrated were to consume it. And since no genus is divided by an accidental
difference, therefore this manner of eating Christ's body is not set down as a third way
besides sacramental and spiritual eating.
TP Q[80] A[4] Thes.
Whether the sinner sins in receiving Christ's body
sacramentally?
TP Q[80] A[4] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the sinner does not sin in receiving Christ's body
sacramentally,
because Christ has no greater dignity under the sacramental species than under His own.
But sinners did not sin when they touched Christ's body under its proper species; nay,
rather they obtained forgiveness of their sins, as we read in Lk. 7 of the woman who was a
sinner; while it is written (Mt. 14:36) that "as many as touched the hem of His
garment were healed." Therefore, they do not sin, but rather obtain salvation, by
receiving the body of Christ.
TP Q[80] A[4] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, this sacrament, like the others, is a spiritual medicine. But medicine
is given to the sick for their recovery, according to Mt. 9:12: "They that are in
health need not a physician." Now they that are spiritually sick or infirm are
sinners. Therefore this sacrament can be received by them without sin.
TP Q[80] A[4] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, this sacrament is one of our greatest gifts, since it contains Christ.
But according to Augustine (De Lib. Arb. ii), the greatest gifts are those "which no
one can abuse." Now no one sins except by abusing something. Therefore no sinner sins
by receiving this sacrament.
TP Q[80] A[4] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, as this sacrament is perceived by taste and touch, so also is it by
sight. Consequently, if the sinner sins by receiving the sacrament, it seems that he would
sin by beholding it, which is manifestly untrue, since the Church exposes this sacrament
to be seen and adored by all. Therefore the sinner does not sin by eating this sacrament.
TP Q[80] A[4] Obj. 5
OBJ 5: Further, it happens sometimes that the sinner is unconscious of his sin. Yet
such a one does not seem to sin by receiving the body of Christ, for according to this all
who receive it would sin, as exposing themselves to danger, since the Apostle says (1
Cor.
4:4): "I am not conscious to myself of anything, yet I am not hereby justified."
Therefore, the sinner, if he receive this sacrament, does not appear to be guilty of sin.
TP Q[80] A[4] OTC
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:29): "He that eateth and drinketh
unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself." Now the gloss says on this
passage: "He eats and drinks unworthily who is in sin, or who handles it
irreverently." Therefore, if anyone, while in mortal sin, receives this sacrament, he
purchases damnation, by sinning mortally.
TP Q[80] A[4] Body
I answer that, In this sacrament, as in the others, that which is a sacrament is a sign
of the reality of the sacrament. Now there is a twofold reality of this sacrament, as
stated above (Q[73], A[6]): one which is signified and contained, namely, Christ Himself;
while the other is signified but not contained, namely, Christ's mystical body, which is
the fellowship of the saints. Therefore, whoever receives this sacrament, expresses
thereby that he is made one with Christ, and incorporated in His members; and this is done
by living faith, which no one has who is in mortal sin. And therefore it is manifest that
whoever receives this sacrament while in mortal sin, is guilty of lying to this sacrament,
and consequently of sacrilege, because he profanes the sacrament: and therefore he sins
mortally.
TP Q[80] A[4] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: When Christ appeared under His proper species, He did not give Himself to
be touched by men as a sign of spiritual union with Himself, as He gives Himself to be
received in this sacrament. And therefore sinners in touching Him under His proper species
did not incur the sin of lying to Godlike things, as sinners do in receiving this
sacrament.
TP Q[80] A[4] R.O. 1
Furthermore, Christ still bore the likeness of the body of sin; consequently He
fittingly allowed Himself to be touched by sinners. But as soon as the body of sin was
taken away by the glory of the Resurrection, he forbade the woman to touch Him, for her
faith in Him was defective, according to Jn. 20:17: "Do not touch Me, for I am not
yet ascended to My Father," i.e. "in your heart," as Augustine explains
(Tract. cxxi in Joan.). And therefore sinners, who lack living faith regarding Christ are
not allowed to touch this sacrament.
TP Q[80] A[4] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Every medicine does not suit every stage of sickness; because the tonic
given to those who are recovering from fever would be hurtful to them if given while yet
in their feverish condition. So likewise Baptism and Penance are as purgative medicines,
given to take away the fever of sin; whereas this sacrament is a medicine given to
strengthen, and it ought not to be given except to them who are quit of sin.
TP Q[80] A[4] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: By the greatest gifts Augustine understands the soul's virtues,
"which no one uses to evil purpose," as though they were principles of evil.
Nevertheless sometimes a man makes a bad use of them, as objects of an evil use, as is
seen in those who are proud of their virtues. So likewise this sacrament, so far as the
sacrament is concerned, is not the principle of an evil use, but the object thereof. Hence
Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan.): "Many receive Christ's body unworthily; whence
we are taught what need there is to beware of receiving a good thing evilly . . . For
behold, of a good thing, received evilly, evil is wrought": just as on the other
hand, in the Apostle's case, "good was wrought through evil well received,"
namely, by bearing patiently the sting of Satan.
TP Q[80] A[4] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: Christ's body is not received by being seen, but only its sacrament,
because sight does not penetrate to the substance of Christ's body, but only to the
sacramental species, as stated above (Q[76], A[7]). But he who eats, receives not only the
sacramental species, but likewise Christ Himself Who is under them. Consequently, no one
is forbidden to behold Christ's body, when once he has received Christ's sacrament,
namely, Baptism: whereas the non-baptized are not to be allowed even to see this
sacrament, as is clear from Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. vii). But only those are to be allowed
to share in the eating who are united with Christ not merely sacramentally, but likewise
really.
TP Q[80] A[4] R.O. 5
Reply OBJ 5: The fact of a man being unconscious of his sin can come about in two ways.
First of all through his own fault, either because through ignorance of the law (which
ignorance does not excuse him), he thinks something not to be sinful which is a sin, as
for example if one guilty of fornication were to deem simple fornication not to be a
mortal sin; or because he neglects to examine his conscience, which is opposed to what the
Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:28): "Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that
bread, and drink of the chalice." And in this way nevertheless the sinner who
receives Christ's body commits sin, although unconscious thereof, because the very
ignorance is a sin on his part.
TP Q[80] A[4] R.O. 5
Secondly, it may happen without fault on his part, as, for instance, when he has
sorrowed over his sin, but is not sufficiently contrite: and in such a case he does not
sin in receiving the body of Christ, because a man cannot know for certain whether he is
truly contrite. It suffices, however, if he find in himself the marks of contrition, for
instance, if he "grieve over past sins," and "propose to avoid them in the
future" [*Cf. Rule of Augustine]. But if he be ignorant that what he did was a sinful
act, through ignorance of the fact, which excuses, for instance, if a man approach a woman
whom he believed to be his wife whereas she was not, he is not to be called a sinner on
that account; in the same way if he has utterly forgotten his sin, general contrition
suffices for blotting it out, as will be said hereafter (XP, Q[2], A[3], ad 2); hence he
is no longer to be called a sinner.
TP Q[80] A[5] Thes.
Whether to approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin is the gravest of all
sins?
TP Q[80] A[5] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that to approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin is the
gravest of all sins; because the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:27): "Whosoever shall eat
this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and
of the blood of the Lord": upon which the gloss observes: "He shall be punished
as though he slew Christ." But the sin of them who slew Christ seems to have been
most grave. Therefore this sin, whereby a man approaches Christ's table with consciousness
of sin, appears to be the gravest.
TP Q[80] A[5] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, Jerome says in an Epistle (xlix): "What hast thou to do with
women, thou that speakest familiarly with God at the altar?" [*The remaining part of
the quotation is not from St. Jerome]. Say, priest, say, cleric, how dost thou kiss the
Son of God with the same lips wherewith thou hast kissed the daughter of a harlot?
"Judas, thou betrayest the Son of Man with a kiss!" And thus it appears that the
fornicator approaching Christ's table sins as Judas did, whose sin was most grave. But
there are many other sins which are graver than fornication, especially the sin of
unbelief. Therefore the sin of every sinner approaching Christ's table is the gravest of
all.
TP Q[80] A[5] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, spiritual uncleanness is more abominable to God than corporeal. But if
anyone was to cast Christ's body into mud or a cess-pool, his sin would be reputed a most
grave one. Therefore, he sins more deeply by receiving it with sin, which is spiritual
uncleanness, upon his soul.
TP Q[80] A[5] OTC
On the contrary, Augustine says on the words, "If I had not come, and had not
spoken to them, they would be without sin" (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.), that this is to
be understood of the sin of unbelief, "in which all sins are comprised," and so
the greatest of all sins appears to be, not this, but rather the sin of unbelief.
TP Q[80] A[5] Body
I answer that, As stated in the FS, Q[73], AA[3],6; SS, Q[73], A[3], one sin can be
said to be graver than another in two ways: first of all essentially, secondly
accidentally. Essentially, in regard to its species, which is taken from its object: and
so a sin is greater according as that against which it is committed is greater. And since
Christ's Godhead is greater than His humanity, and His humanity greater than the
sacraments of His humanity, hence it is that those are the gravest sins which are
committed against the Godhead, such as unbelief and blasphemy. The second degree of
gravity is held by those sins which are committed against His humanity: hence it is
written (Mt. 12:32): "Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall
be forgiven him; but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven
him, neither in this world nor in the world to come." In the third place come sins
committed against the sacraments, which belong to Christ's humanity; and after these are
the other sins committed against mere creatures.
TP Q[80] A[5] Body
Accidentally, one sin can be graver than another on the sinner's part. for example, the
sin which is the result of ignorance or of weakness is lighter than one arising from
contempt, or from sure knowledge; and the same reason holds good of other circumstances.
And according to this, the above sin can be graver in some, as happens in them who from
actual contempt and with consciousness of sin approach this sacrament: but in others it is
less grave; for instance, in those who from fear of their sin being discovered, approach
this sacrament with consciousness of sin.
TP Q[80] A[5] Body
So, then, it is evident that this sin is specifically graver than many others, yet it
is not the greatest of all.
TP Q[80] A[5] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: The sin of the unworthy recipient is compared to the sin of them who slew
Christ, by way of similitude, because each is committed against Christ's body; but not
according to the degree of the crime. Because the sin of Christ's slayers was much graver,
first of all, because their sin was against Christ's body in its own species, while this
sin is against it under sacramental species; secondly, because their sin came of the
intent of injuring Christ, while this does not.
TP Q[80] A[5] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The sin of the fornicator receiving Christ's body is likened to Judas
kissing Christ, as to the resemblance of the sin, because each outrages Christ with the
sign of friendship. but not as to the extent of the sin, as was observed above (ad 1). And
this resemblance in crime applies no less to other sinners than to fornicators: because by
other mortal sins, sinners act against the charity of Christ, of which this sacrament is
the sign, and all the more according as their sins are graver. But in a measure the sin of
fornication makes one more unfit for receiving this sacrament, because thereby especially
the spirit becomes enslaved by the flesh, which is a hindrance to the fervor of love
required for this sacrament.
TP Q[80] A[5] R.O. 2
However, the hindrance to charity itself weighs more than the hindrance to its fervor.
Hence the sin of unbelief, which fundamentally severs a man from the unity of the Church,
simply speaking, makes him to be utterly unfit for receiving this sacrament; because it is
the sacrament of the Church's unity, as stated above (Q[61], A[2]). Hence the unbeliever
who receives this sacrament sins more grievously than the believer who is in sin; and
shows greater contempt towards Christ Who is in the sacrament, especially if he does not
believe Christ to be truly in this sacrament; because, so far as lies in him, he lessens
the holiness of the sacrament, and the power of Christ acting in it, and this is to
despise the sacrament in itself. But the believer who receives the sacrament with
consciousness of sin, by receiving it unworthily despises the sacrament, not in itself,
but in its use. Hence the Apostle (1 Cor. 11:29) in assigning the cause of this sin, says,
"not discerning the body of the Lord," that is, not distinguishing it from other
food: and this is what he does who disbelieves Christ's presence in this sacrament.
TP Q[80] A[5] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The man who would throw this sacrament into the mire would be guilty of
more heinous sin than another approaching the sacrament fully conscious of mortal sin.
First of all, because he would intend to outrage the sacrament, whereas the sinner
receiving Christ's body unworthily has no such intent; secondly, because the sinner is
capable of grace; hence he is more capable of receiving this sacrament than any irrational
creature. Hence he would make a most revolting use of this sacrament who would throw it to
dogs to eat, or fling it in the mire to be trodden upon.
TP Q[80] A[6] Thes.
Whether the priest ought to deny the body of Christ to the sinner seeking it?
TP Q[80] A[6] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the priest should deny the body of Christ to the sinner seeking
it. For Christ's precept is not to be set aside for the sake of avoiding scandal or on
account of infamy to anyone. But (Mt. 7:6) our Lord gave this command: "Give not that
which is holy to dogs." Now it is especially casting holy things to dogs to give this
sacrament to sinners. Therefore, neither on account of avoiding scandal or infamy should
this sacrament be administered to the sinner who asks for it.
TP Q[80] A[6] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, one must choose the lesser of two evils. But it seems to be the lesser
evil if the sinner incur infamy; or if an unconsecrated host be given to him; than for him
to sin mortally by receiving the body of Christ. Consequently, it seems that the course to
be adopted is either that the sinner seeking the body of Christ be exposed to infamy, or
that an unconsecrated host be given to him.
TP Q[80] A[6] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, the body of Christ is sometimes given to those suspected of crime in
order to put them to proof. Because we read in the Decretals: "It often happens that
thefts are perpetrated in monasteries of monks; wherefore we command that when the
brethren have to exonerate themselves of such acts, that the abbot shall celebrate Mass,
or someone else deputed by him, in the presence of the community; and so, when the Mass is
over, all shall communicate under these words: 'May the body of Christ prove thee
today.'" And further on: "If any evil deed be imputed to a bishop or priest, for
each charge he must say Mass and communicate, and show that he is innocent of each act
imputed." But secret sinners must not be disclosed, for, once the blush of shame is
set aside, they will indulge the more in sin, as Augustine says (De Verbis. Dom.; cf.
Serm. lxxxii). Consequently, Christ's body is not to be given to occult sinners, even if
they ask for it.
TP Q[80] A[6] OTC
On the contrary, on Ps. 21:30: "All the fat ones of the earth have eaten and have
adored," Augustine says: "Let not the dispenser hinder the fat ones of the
earth," i.e. sinners, "from eating at the table of the Lord."
TP Q[80] A[6] Body
I answer that, A distinction must be made among sinners: some are secret; others are
notorious, either from evidence of the fact, as public usurers, or public robbers, or from
being denounced as evil men by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. Therefore Holy
Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it. Hence Cyprian writes
to someone (Ep. lxi): "You were so kind as to consider that I ought to be consulted
regarding actors, end that magician who continues to practice his disgraceful arts among
you; as to whether I thought that Holy Communion ought to be given to such with the other
Christians. I think that it is beseeming neither the Divine majesty, nor Christian
discipline, for the Church's modesty and honor to be defiled by such shameful and infamous
contagion."
TP Q[80] A[6] Body
But if they be not open sinners, but occult, the Holy Communion should not be denied
them if they ask for it. For since every Christian, from the fact that he is baptized, is
admitted to the Lord's table, he may not be robbed of his right, except from some open
cause. Hence on 1 Cor. 5:11, "If he who is called a brother among you," etc.,
Augustine's gloss remarks: "We cannot inhibit any person from Communion, except he
has openly confessed, or has been named and convicted by some ecclesiastical or lay
tribunal." Nevertheless a priest who has knowledge of the crime can privately warn
the secret sinner, or warn all openly in public, from approaching the Lord's table, until
they have repented of their sins and have been reconciled to the Church; because after
repentance and reconciliation, Communion must not be refused even to public sinners,
especially in the hour of death. Hence in the (3rd) Council of Carthage (Can. xxxv) we
read: "Reconciliation is not to be denied to stage-players or actors, or others of
the sort, or to apostates, after their conversion to God."
TP Q[80] A[6] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Holy things are forbidden to be given to dogs, that is, to notorious
sinners: whereas hidden deeds may not be published, but are to be left to the Divine
judgment.
TP Q[80] A[6] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Although it is worse for the secret sinner to sin mortally in taking the
body of Christ, rather than be defamed, nevertheless for the priest administering the body
of Christ it is worse to commit mortal sin by unjustly defaming the hidden sinner than
that the sinner should sin mortally; because no one ought to commit mortal sin in order to
keep another out of mortal sin. Hence Augustine says (Quaest. super Gen. 42): "It is
a most dangerous exchange, for us to do evil lest another perpetrate a greater evil."
But the secret sinner ought rather to prefer infamy than approach the Lord's table
unworthily.
TP Q[80] A[6] R.O. 2
Yet by no means should an unconsecrated host be given in place of a consecrated one;
because the priest by so doing, so far as he is concerned, makes others, either the
bystanders or the communicant, commit idolatry by believing that it is a consecrated host;
because, as Augustine says on Ps. 98:5: "Let no one eat Christ's flesh, except he
first adore it." Hence in the Decretals (Extra, De Celeb. Miss., Ch. De Homine) it is
said: "Although he who reputes himself unworthy of the Sacrament, through
consciousness of his sin, sins gravely, if he receive; still he seems to offend more
deeply who deceitfully has presumed to simulate it."
TP Q[80] A[6] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Those decrees were abolished by contrary enactments of Roman Pontiffs:
because Pope Stephen V writes as follows: "The Sacred Canons do not allow of a
confession being extorted from any person by trial made by burning iron or boiling water;
it belongs to our government to judge of public crimes committed, and that by means of
confession made spontaneously, or by proof of witnesses: but private and unknown crimes
are to be left to Him Who alone knows the hearts of the sons of men." And the same is
found in the Decretals (Extra, De Purgationibus, Ch. Ex tuarum). Because in all such
practices there seems to be a tempting of God; hence such things cannot be done without
sin. And it would seem graver still if anyone were to incur judgment of death through this
sacrament, which was instituted as a means of salvation. Consequently, the body of Christ
should never be given to anyone suspected of crime, as by way of examination.
TP Q[80] A[7] Thes.
Whether the seminal loss that occurs during sleep hinders anyone from receiving this
sacrament?
TP Q[80] A[7] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that seminal loss does not hinder anyone from receiving the body of
Christ: because no one is prevented from receiving the body of Christ except on account of
sin. But seminal loss happens without sin: for Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii) that
"the same image that comes into the mind of a speaker may present itself to the mind
of the sleeper, so that the latter be unable to distinguish the image from the reality,
and is moved carnally and with the result that usually follows such motions; and there is
as little sin in this as there is in speaking and therefore thinking about such
things." Consequently these motions do not prevent one from receiving this sacrament.
TP Q[80] A[7] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, Gregory says in a Letter to Augustine, Bishop of the English (Regist.
xi): "Those who pay the debt of marriage not from lust, but from desire to have
children, should be left to their own judgment, as to whether they should enter the church
and receive the mystery of our Lord's body, after such intercourse: because they ought not
to be forbidden from receiving it, since they have passed through the fire
unscorched."
TP Q[80] A[7] Obj. 2
From this it is evident that seminal loss even of one awake, if it be without sin, is
no hindrance to receiving the body of Christ. Consequently, much less is it in the case of
one asleep.
TP Q[80] A[7] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, these movements of the flesh seem to bring with them only bodily
uncleanness. But there are other bodily defilements which according to the Law forbade
entrance into the holy places, yet which under the New Law do not prevent receiving this
sacrament: as, for instance, in the case of a woman after child-birth, or in her periods,
or suffering from issue of blood, as Gregory writes to Augustine, Bishop of the English
(Regist. xi). Therefore it seems that neither do these movements of the flesh hinder a man
from receiving this sacrament.
TP Q[80] A[7] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, venial sin is no hindrance to receiving the sacrament, nor is mortal
sin after repentance. But even supposing that seminal loss arises from some foregoing sin,
whether of intemperance, or of bad thoughts, for the most part such sin is venial; and if
occasionally it be mortal, a man may repent of it by morning and confess it. Consequently,
it seems that he ought not to be prevented from receiving this sacrament.
TP Q[80] A[7] Obj. 5
OBJ 5: Further, a sin against the Fifth Commandment is greater than a sin against the
Sixth. But if a man dream that he has broken the Fifth or Seventh or any other
Commandment, he is not on that account debarred from receiving this sacrament. Therefore
it seems that much less should he be debarred through defilement resulting from a dream
against the Sixth Commandment.
TP Q[80] A[7] OTC
On the contrary, It is written (Lev. 15:16): "The man from whom the seed of
copulation goeth out . . . shall be unclean until evening." But for the unclean there
is no approaching to the sacraments. Therefore, it seems that owing to such defilement of
the flesh a man is debarred from taking this which is the greatest of the sacraments.
TP Q[80] A[7] Body
I answer that, There are two things to be weighed regarding the aforesaid movements:
one on account of which they necessarily prevent a man from receiving this sacrament; the
other, on account of which they do so, not of necessity, but from a sense of propriety.
TP Q[80] A[7] Body
Mortal sin alone necessarily prevents anyone from partaking of this sacrament: and
although these movements during sleep, considered in themselves, cannot be a mortal sin,
nevertheless, owing to their cause, they have mortal sin connected with them; which cause,
therefore, must be investigated. Sometimes they are due to an external spiritual cause,
viz. the deception of the demons, who can stir up phantasms, as was stated in the FP,
Q[111], A[3], through the apparition of which, these movements occasionally follow.
Sometimes they are due to an internal spiritual cause, such as previous thoughts. At other
times they arise from some internal corporeal cause, as from abundance or weakness of
nature, or even from surfeit of meat or drink. Now every one of these three causes can be
without sin at all, or else with venial sin, or with mortal sin. If it be without sin, or
with venial sin, it does not necessarily prevent the receiving of this sacrament, so as to
make a man guilty of the body and blood of the Lord: but should it be with mortal sin, it
prevents it of necessity.
TP Q[80] A[7] Body
For such illusions on the part of demons sometimes come from one's not striving to
receive fervently; and this can be either a mortal or a venial sin. At other times it is
due to malice alone on the part of the demons who wish to keep men from receiving this
sacrament. So we read in the Conferences of the Fathers (Cassian, Collat. xxii) that when
a certain one always suffered thus on those feast-days on which he had to receive
Communion, his superiors, discovering that there was no fault on his part, ruled that he
was not to refrain from communicating on that account, and the demoniacal illusion ceased.
TP Q[80] A[7] Body
In like fashion previous evil thoughts can sometimes be without any sin whatever, as
when one has to think of such things on account of lecturing or debating; and if it be
done without concupiscence and delectation, the thoughts will not be unclean but honest;
and yet defilement can come of such thoughts, as is clear from the authority of Augustine
(OBJ[1]). At other times such thoughts come of concupiscence and delectation, and should
there be consent, it will be a mortal sin: otherwise it will be a venial sin.
TP Q[80] A[7] Body
In the same way too the corporeal cause can be without sin, as when it arises from
bodily debility, and hence some individuals suffer seminal loss without sin even in their
wakeful hours; or it can come from the abundance of nature: for, just as blood can flow
without sin, so also can the semen which is superfluity of the blood, according to the
Philosopher (De Gener. Animal. i). But occasionally it is with sin, as when it is due to
excess of food or drink. And this also can be either venial or mortal sin; although more
frequently the sin is mortal in the case of evil thoughts on account of the proneness to
consent, rather than in the case of consumption of food and drink. Hence Gregory, writing
to Augustine, Bishop of the English (Regist. xi), says that one ought to refrain from
Communion when this arises from evil thoughts, but not when it arises from excess of food
or drink, especially if necessity call for Communion. So, then, one must judge from its
cause whether such bodily defilement of necessity hinders the receiving of this sacrament.
TP Q[80] A[7] Body
At the same time a sense of decency forbids Communion on two accounts. The first of
these is always verified, viz. the bodily defilement, with which, out of reverence for the
sacrament, it is unbecoming to approach the altar (and hence those who wish to touch any
sacred object, wash their hands): except perchance such uncleanness be perpetual or of
long standing, such as leprosy or issue of blood, or anything else of the kind. The other
reason is the mental distraction which follows after the aforesaid movements, especially
when they take place with unclean imaginings. Now this obstacle, which arises from a sense
of decency, can be set aside owing to any necessity, as Gregory says (Regist. xi):
"As when perchance either a festival day calls for it, or necessity compels one to
exercise the ministry because there is no other priest at hand."
TP Q[80] A[7] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: A person is hindered necessarily, only by mortal sin, from receiving this
sacrament: but from a sense of decency one may be hindered through other causes, as stated
above.
TP Q[80] A[7] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Conjugal intercourse, if it be without sin, (for instance, if it be done
for the sake of begetting offspring, or of paying the marriage debt), does not prevent the
receiving of this sacrament for any other reason than do those movements in question which
happen without sin, as stated above; namely, on account of the defilement to the body and
distraction to the mind. On this account Jerome expresses himself in the following terms
in his commentary on Matthew (Epist. xxviii, among St. Jerome's works): "If the
loaves of Proposition might not be eaten by them who had known their wives carnally, how
much less may this bread which has come down from heaven be defiled and touched by them
who shortly before have been in conjugal embraces? It is not that we condemn marriages,
but that at the time when we are going to eat the flesh of the Lamb, we ought not to
indulge in carnal acts." But since this is to be understood in the sense of decency,
and not of necessity, Gregory says that such a person "is to be left to his own
judgment." "But if," as Gregory says (Regist. xi), "it be not desire
of begetting offspring, but lust that prevails," then such a one should be forbidden
to approach this sacrament.
TP Q[80] A[7] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: As Gregory says in his Letter quoted above to Augustine, Bishop of the
English, in the Old Testament some persons were termed polluted figuratively, which the
people of the New Law understand spiritually. Hence such bodily uncleannesses, if
perpetual or of long standing, do not hinder the receiving of this saving sacrament, as
they prevented approaching those figurative sacraments; but if they pass speedily, like
the uncleanness of the aforesaid movements, then from a sense of fittingness they hinder
the receiving of this sacrament during the day on which it happens. Hence it is written
(Dt. 23:10): "If there be among you any man, that is defiled in a dream by night, he
shall go forth out of the camp; and he shall not return before he be washed with water in
the evening."
TP Q[80] A[7] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: Although the stain of guilt be taken away by contrition and confession
nevertheless the bodily defilement is not taken away, nor the mental distraction which
follows therefrom.
TP Q[80] A[7] R.O. 5
Reply OBJ 5: To dream of homicide brings no bodily uncleanness, nor such distraction of
mind as fornication, on account of its intense delectation; still if the dream of homicide
comes of a cause sinful in itself, especially if it be mortal sin, then owing to its cause
it hinders the receiving of this sacrament.
TP Q[80] A[8] Thes.
Whether food or drink taken beforehand hinders the receiving of this sacrament?
TP Q[80] A[8] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that food or drink taken beforehand does not hinder the receiving of
this sacrament. For this sacrament was instituted by our Lord at the supper. But when the
supper was ended our Lord gave the sacrament to His disciples, as is evident from Lk.
22:20, and from 1 Cor. 11:25. Therefore it seems that we ought to take this sacrament
after receiving other food.
TP Q[80] A[8] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, it is written (1 Cor. 11:33): "When you come together to
eat," namely, the Lord's body, "wait for one another; if any man be hungry, let
him eat at home": and thus it seems that after eating at home a man may eat Christ's
body in the Church.
TP Q[80] A[8] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, we read in the (3rd) Council of Carthage (Can. xxix): "Let the
sacraments of the altar be celebrated only by men who are fasting, with the exception of
the anniversary day on which the Lord's Supper is celebrated." Therefore, at least on
that day, one may receive the body of Christ after partaking of other food.
TP Q[80] A[8] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, the taking of water or medicine, or of any other food or drink in very
slight quantity, or of the remains of food continuing in the mouth, neither breaks the
Church's fast, nor takes away the sobriety required for reverently receiving this
sacrament. Consequently, one is not prevented by the above things from receiving this
sacrament.
TP Q[80] A[8] Obj. 5
OBJ 5: Further, some eat and drink late at night, and possibly after passing a
sleepless night receive the sacred mysteries in the morning when the food it not digested.
But it would savor more of moderation if a man were to eat a little in the morning and
afterwards receive this sacrament about the ninth hour, since also there is occasionally a
longer interval of time. Consequently, it seems that such taking of food beforehand does
not keep one from this sacrament.
TP Q[80] A[8] Obj. 6
OBJ 6: Further, there is no less reverence due to this sacrament after receiving it,
than before. But one may take food and drink after receiving the sacrament. Therefore one
may do so before receiving it.
TP Q[80] A[8] OTC
On the contrary, Augustine says (Resp. ad Januar., Ep. liv): "It has pleased the
Holy Ghost that, out of honor for this great sacrament, the Lord's body should enter the
mouth of a Christian before other foods."
TP Q[80] A[8] Body
I answer that, A thing may prevent the receiving of this sacrament in two ways: first
of all in itself, like mortal sin, which is repugnant to what is signified by this
sacrament, as stated above (A[4]): secondly, on account of the Church's prohibition; and
thus a man is prevented from taking this sacrament after receiving food or drink, for
three reasons. First, as Augustine says (Resp. ad Januar., Ep. liv), "out of respect
for this sacrament," so that it may enter into a mouth not yet contaminated by any
food or drink. Secondly, because of its signification. i.e. to give us to understand that
Christ, Who is the reality of this sacrament, and His charity, ought to be first of all
established in our hearts, according to Mt. 6:33: "Seek first the kingdom of
God." Thirdly, on account of the danger of vomiting and intemperance, which sometimes
arise from over-indulging in food, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:21): "One, indeed,
is hungry, and another is drunk."
TP Q[80] A[8] Body
Nevertheless the sick are exempted from this general rule, for they should be given
Communion at once, even after food, should there be any doubt as to their danger, lest
they die without Communion, because necessity has no law. Hence it is said in the Canon de
Consecratione: "Let the priest at once take Communion to the sick person, lest he die
without Communion."
TP Q[80] A[8] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: As Augustine says in the same book, "the fact that our Lord gave this
sacrament after taking food is no reason why the brethren should assemble after dinner or
supper in order to partake of it, or receive it at meal-time, as did those whom the
Apostle reproves and corrects. For our Saviour, in order the more strongly to commend the
depth of this mystery, wished to fix it closely in the hearts and memories of the
disciples. and on that account He gave no command for it to be received in that order,
leaving this to the apostles, to whom He was about to entrust the government of the
churches."
TP Q[80] A[8] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The text quoted is thus paraphrased by the gloss: "If any man be
hungry and loath to await the rest, let him partake of his food at home, that is, let him
fill himself with earthly bread, without partaking of the Eucharist afterwards."
TP Q[80] A[8] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The wording of this decree is in accordance with the former custom
observed by some of receiving the body of Christ on that day after breaking their fast, so
as to represent the Lord's supper. But this is now abrogated, because as Augustine says
(Resp. ad Januar., Ep. liv), it is customary throughout the whole world for Christ's body
to be received before breaking the fast.
TP Q[80] A[8] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: As stated in the SS, Q[147], A[6], ad 2, there are two kinds of fast.
First, there is the natural fast, which implies privation of everything taken before-hand
by way of food or drink: and such fast is required for this sacrament for the reasons
given above. And therefore it is never lawful to take this sacrament after taking water,
or other food or drink, or even medicine, no matter how small the quantity be. Nor does it
matter whether it nourishes or not, whether it be taken by itself or with other things,
provided it be taken by way of food or drink. But the remains of food left in the mouth,
if swallowed accidentally, do not hinder receiving this sacrament, because they are
swallowed not by way of food but by way of saliva. The same holds good of the unavoidable
remains of the water or wine wherewith the mouth is rinsed, provided they be not swallowed
in great quantity, but mixed with saliva.
TP Q[80] A[8] R.O. 4
Secondly, there is the fast of the Church, instituted for afflicting the body: and this
fast is not hindered by the things mentioned (in the objection), because they do not give
much nourishment, but are taken rather as an alterative.
TP Q[80] A[8] R.O. 5
Reply OBJ 5: That this sacrament ought to enter into the mouth of a Christian before
any other food must not be understood absolutely of all time, otherwise he who had once
eaten or drunk could never afterwards take this sacrament: but it must be understood of
the same day; and although the beginning of the day varies according to different systems
of reckoning (for some begin their day at noon, some at sunset, others at midnight, and
others at sunrise), the Roman Church begins it at midnight. Consequently, if any person
takes anything by way of food or drink after midnight, he may not receive this sacrament
on that day; but he can do so if the food was taken before midnight. Nor does it matter,
so far as the precept is concerned, whether he has slept after taking food or drink, or
whether he has digested it; but it does matter as to the mental disturbance which one
suffers from want of sleep or from indigestion, for, if the mind be much disturbed, one
becomes unfit for receiving this sacrament.
TP Q[80] A[8] R.O. 6
Reply OBJ 6: The greatest devotion is called for at the moment of receiving this
sacrament, because it is then that the effect of the sacrament is bestowed, and such
devotion is hindered more by what goes before it than by what comes after it. And
therefore it was ordained that men should fast before receiving the sacrament rather than
after. Nevertheless there ought to be some interval between receiving this sacrament and
taking other food. Consequently, both the Postcommunion prayer of thanksgiving is said in
the Mass, and the communicants say their own private prayers.
TP Q[80] A[8] R.O. 6
However, according to the ancient Canons, the following ordination was made by Pope
Clement I, (Ep. ii), "If the Lord's portion be eaten in the morning, the ministers
who have taken it shall fast until the sixth hour, and if they take it at the third or
fourth hour, they shall fast until evening." For in olden times, the priest
celebrated Mass less frequently, and with greater preparation: but now, because the sacred
mysteries have to be celebrated oftener, the same could not be easily observed, and so it
has been abrogated by contrary custom.
TP Q[80] A[9] Thes.
Whether those who have not the use of reason ought to receive this sacrament?
TP Q[80] A[9] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that those who have not the use of reason ought not to receive this
sacrament. For it is required that man should approach this sacrament with devotion and
previous self-examination, according to 1 Cor. 11:28: "Let a man prove himself, and
so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice." But this is not possible for
those who are devoid of reason. Therefore this sacrament should not be given to them.
TP Q[80] A[9] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, among those who have not the use of reason are the possessed, who are
called energumens. But such persons are kept from even beholding this sacrament, according
to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii). Therefore this sacrament ought not to be given to those
who have not the use of reason.
TP Q[80] A[9] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, among those that lack the use of reason are children, the most innocent
of all. But this sacrament is not given to children. Therefore much less should it be
given to others deprived of the use of reason.
TP Q[80] A[9] OTC
On the contrary, We read in the First Council of Orange, (Canon 13); and the same is to
be found in the Decretals (xxvi, 6): "All things that pertain to piety are to be
given to the insane": and consequently, since this is the "sacrament of
piety," it must be given to them.
TP Q[80] A[9] Body
I answer that, Men are said to be devoid of reason in two ways. First, when they are
feeble-minded, as a man who sees dimly is said not to see: and since such persons can
conceive some devotion towards this sacrament, it is not to be denied them.
TP Q[80] A[9] Body
In another way men are said not to possess fully the use of reason. Either, then, they
never had the use of reason, and have remained so from birth; and in that case this
sacrament is not to be given to them, because in no way has there been any preceding
devotion towards the sacrament: or else, they were not always devoid of reason, and then,
if when they formerly had their wits they showed devotion towards this sacrament, it ought
to be given to them in the hour of death; unless danger be feared of vomiting or spitting
it out. Hence we read in the acts of the Fourth Council of Carthage (Canon 76). and the
same is to be found in the Decretals (xxvi, 6): "If a sick man ask to receive the
sacrament of Penance; and if, when the priest who has been sent for comes to him, he be so
weak as to be unable to speak, or becomes delirious, let them, who heard him ask, bear
witness, and let him receive the sacrament of Penance. then if it be thought that he is
going to die shortly, let him be reconciled by imposition of hands, and let the Eucharist
be placed in his mouth."
|
