Lecture 3 — Institution of the Eucharist

^26:26^ And while they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to his disciples, and said: take, and eat. This is my body. [n. 2168]

2167. Above the Evangelist set down the celebration of the old Pasch; here he sets down the institution of the sacrament of the altar. And

first, the sacrament is instituted;

second, the disciples’ future scandal is foretold, at **then Jesus said to them: you will all be scandalized **(Matt 26:31).

First, he does two things:

first, the paschal sacrament is instituted;

second, the hymn of thanksgiving, at **and a hymn being said, they went out to Mount Olivet **(Matt 26:30).

And concerning the first, he does two things:

first, he sets down the institution of the sacrament under the appearance of bread;

second, under the appearance of wine, at, **and taking the chalice, he gave thanks **(Matt 26:27).

Concerning the first,

first, he touches on Christ’s deeds;

second, the words, at take, and eat. This is my body.

In the deeds, there are five things to be noticed: first, the time is set down; second, the matter is designated; third, the blessing; fourth, the breaking; fifth, the communication, or distribution.

2168. The time is touched upon when he says, and while they were at supper, i.e., while they were in the midst of eating, i.e., while they were eating.

And why did he establish this during the meal itself, and not before? There are two reasons. For the Lord willed that it take the place of the old sacrament as the truth takes the place of the figure; so after the establishment of the old sacrament, he establishes the new. New coming on, you will cast away the old (Lev 26:10). Likewise for another reason, for he wished to fix it in the memory: for the last thing heard is more profoundly fixed in the memory. Remember my poverty, and transgression, the wormwood, and the gall (Lam 3:19).

2169. Why then did the Church decree that men should receive this sacrament while fasting?

One should say that this is for reverence for the sacrament: for it is fitting that it be taken before food. And this should be understood as on the same day. For since the day begins from midnight, one should not take anything from midnight until the reception of this sacrament.

2170. But some have asked if one loses the reception of the sacrament if anything at all enters the mouth, as for instance if someone drinks water.

One should understand that there are two fasts, namely the fast of the Church and the fast of nature. Drinking water does not break the fast of the Church, but it does break the fast of nature; for although water does not nourish by itself, it does nourish with other things. And you should understand that if someone washes his mouth and accidentally swallows one drop, he receives water and drink. Yet he should not lose the reception of the sacrament on this account, but rather it is counted with his saliva. I say similarly, with regard to food, that if someone eats an herb in the evening, and something remains in his teeth, and he swallows it by chance, he should not lose the reception of the sacrament on this account.

2171. Similarly, some have made it a matter of conscience that if they do not sleep, they do not receive the sacrament. This has no place, because it was not decreed by the Church. Hence it makes no difference whether one sleeps or does not sleep.

2172. Jesus took bread. Here the material is touched upon. Note that this sacrament retains the old in a certain respect, as the truth retains the figure. That sacrament was taken as food, for it had been commanded that they should eat the lamb; and this sacrament, which takes its place, should be taken as food. And just as that one was truly food, so also this lamb; for my flesh is meat indeed (John 6:56). Hence the opinion which held that Christ was there only in sign is false, because if it were so, what more would this sign have than that one? But that one was a sign only, while this one is figure and truth.

2173. But is it an irreverence that someone should eat the Lord’s body?

One should say that this food and other foods are different, because other foods are turned into our body; and if Christ were thus changed, it would be an irreverence. But it is not so, but rather the other way around, as Augustine says: you will not change me into you, but you will be changed into me. Hence this sacrament is the end and perfection of all the sacraments. And the reason is that being which is by essence is the end and perfection of those which are by participation: for the other sacraments contain Christ by participation, while Christ is in this one in substance. For this reason, Dionysius says that there is no sacrament which is not perfected in the Eucharist. Hence if an adult is baptized, the Eucharist should be given to him. It should, therefore, be taken in food, that the truth may correspond to the figure.

2174. And why not under his own appearance? One reason is for the sake of the merit of faith, because faith has no merit where human reason offers evidence. Likewise, that those who receive the sacrament might be spared, because it is not customary to eat human flesh. Likewise, that it might be defended against the mockery of unbelievers.

2175. And why under this sort of appearance? Because he wished it to be celebrated by all men everywhere on earth: so he wished to give them a matter which is common to all. Now men’s common food is bread, and their common drink is wine: hence bread and wine are the principal food; the others are rather, so to speak, edible. Similarly in the other sacraments, not just any oil is used in anointing, but the common one which is called oil from many olives; even so, the unity of the Church is out of the multitude of the faithful.

And thus it is clear that our sacraments are older than the sacraments of the old law; for the sacraments of the old law had their beginning from Moses and Aaron, but the sacraments of the new law from Melchisedech, who brought bread and wine to Abraham. For this reason Christ is said to be made a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech (Ps 109:4).

2176. Next, he treats of the blessing; and this blessing is referred to three things. To the matter, because he blessed the fruit of the earth, which signifies that the curse of Adam was revoked through Christ, when he said to him, cursed is the earth in your work . . . Thorns and thistles will it bring forth to you (Gen 3:17–18). Likewise, it is referred to what was contained in it, namely Christ; above, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (Matt 21:9). Likewise, to the fruit of the sacrament, because the faithful are blessed through it, and it passes from the head to the members; the blessing of the Lord is upon the head of the just (Prov 10:6).

2177. Then he touches upon the breaking: and broke; and it signifies three things. First, it signifies the mystery of his future passion, for his members were pierced in the passion, in accord with the Psalm, they have pierced my hands and feet. They have numbered all my bones (Ps 21:17–18). And this was done because he himself willed it; he was offered because it was his own will (Isa 53:7). Likewise, it signifies that he is broken from unity into multitude, hence it signifies the incarnation: for, while he was himself the simple Word of God, he came into this multitude, not abandoning his simplicity. Likewise, it signifies the effect which he brought to diverse men; for, according to the Apostle, there are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit (1 Cor 12:4).

2178. Likewise, the distribution is set down: and gave to his disciples; give others to eat what you have in your hand (Sir 29:33). And it says, to his disciples, because such a sacrament should not be given to anyone who is unbaptized. Just as only a consecrated priest confects the sacrament, so it should only be administered to the baptized. Similarly, it should only be given to the faithful; or rather, the unfaithful should not be let in to see this sacrament: hence in the primitive Church, when there were many catechumens, they were received in the Church until the Gospel, and then they were put out.

2179. Likewise, when it says, to his disciples, it is asked whether Judas was there. All say that he gave at once to all, and even to Judas, and this was to call him back from sin by his kindness. Likewise, to give to the Church the doctrine that when someone is a hidden sinner he is not prevented from receiving this sacrament: for men do not have judgment over hidden things. Hilary says here that Judas was not present, because he had already left. And he would prove it by what is said, when the disciples asked, Lord, who is it? to whom he said, he it is to whom I will reach bread dipped (John 13:25). So he shows that he had already left. But one should rather hold what the others say.

2180. And said: take and eat. This is my body. Here the words are set down: and he does three things in these words: first, he exhorts them to receive; second, to eat; third, he declares the truth.

He says, take and eat. And when he says take, it should be referred to spiritual reception, because one should only take it in faith and charity; he who eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me, and I in him (John 6:57).

Likewise, he urges them to eating: eat, not only spiritually, but also sacramentally; eat, O friends, and drink (Song 5:1).

Likewise, he declares the truth: this is my body. The form of the sacrament is contained in these words, which are the words of the Lord, for the sacrament is confected in the words of the Lord. For if the words of Elijah had so much strength that he made fire come down from heaven, much more can the word of God transmute one body into another.

2181. At this point it is asked whether there is power in the words. And there is no doubt that there is. For it says, behold he will give to his voice the voice of power (Ps 67:34); his word is full of power (Sir 8:4). For the priest acts in the person of Christ, and does not use the words in his own person, but in the person of Christ.

But what is this power? How is there so great a power? For this reason, some say that there is no power there, but only the power of Christ, which gives assistance. And this does not seem true, because the sacraments of the new law effect what they signify.

But what power did it have? One should say that there is a principal agent cause, and this cause has the power abiding in itself; likewise there is an instrumental cause, and this cause does not work through a power abiding in itself, but through a transient power from another: hence the sacraments are causes, not as principal causes, but instrumental, transient causes.

2182. But next a question is asked about the deed: whether take and eat is of the form of the sacrament.

And one should say that only this is my body is of the form of the sacrament. Hence one should understand that with this sacrament it is different than with the other sacraments, for sometimes the consecration of the matter is necessary for the sacrament, and sometimes not, as in baptism the consecration of the matter is not necessary for baptism, while in unction there is no unction unless the oil is blessed. Also, in the other sacraments the sacrament is not obtained in the blessing, but in the application: because oil and water, which are inanimate, do not contain grace. For since grace is the end of the sacrament, it can only be had through the reception of the sacrament. But in this sacrament he who is the fullness of grace is contained; therefore it is not perfected in us, but in the consecration of the matter. Hence given that no one received it, it would be no less a sacrament, for its use is consequent and not necessary. Whence in others that which pertains to the use is of the form; this one does not pertain to the use, but to the sanctity of the matter. Hence when he says, take and eat, which pertains to its use, it is not of the form.

2183. Likewise, there is often the question whether the Lord confected the sacrament under these words. And it seems that he did not, for it says there he took bread, and blessed. Therefore it seems that he consecrated the sacrament in the blessing. For this reason, some have said that he did not consecrate first by the words, but by a spiritual power. And this could have been, owing to the power of excellence, for he could have given the truth of the sacrament without the sacrament, since he had not bound his power to the sacraments. Hence he could have done this through the power of excellence.

Others say that he spoke first in secret, and then in public.

It is better said that he spoke once, and not twice, and consecrated in these words. Hence it should be read in such a way that when it says, and said: take and eat, this is referred to what came before; hence, speaking in this way, he said, this is my body.

2184. Here it asked what this pronoun this points to. Some have said that it does not point to the thing sensed, but to the thing understood, because it is only to the substance of bread, and is only for signifying. Hence the meaning is this is my body, i.e., the thing signified through this is my body. And this cannot stand, because the sacraments of the new law effect what they signify, so it brings about nothing other than what it signifies: and it signifies the body of Christ, and in this way only is the body of Christ under a sign.

Others say that this points to the very substance of the body. But how is this? Is it immediately the body of Christ when he says this? It is agreed that it is not, for if the priest were to die, it would not be consecrated unless he had finished.

For this reason, others say that this delays its signification, and points to that which will be after the pronunciation of the word my. This is also unfitting, because this way he would seem to say the same thing, as though he said: my body is my body; and this does not befit God.

Others say that the words are brought forth materially, but not so as to signify. And this cannot stand, for Augustine says, the words are added to the element, and the sacrament comes about.

What then? One should say that they are spoken recitatively, both recitatively and at the same time significantly. Why? Because he speaks in the person of Christ, and acts as though Christ were present: otherwise, the words would not be added to the proper matter. What therefore? One should say that it is not the same with sacramental words as with other human words: for a human word is only significant, but a divine word is significant and effective. Hence sacramental words have power from the divine power. So he simultaneously speaks and acts by the divine power. Therefore the word is not only significant, but also effective. And it effects first, and signifies second. For in a material making there necessarily pre-exists something common in any given transmutation, and that common thing is under one terminus of the transmutation and in the end under another terminus. For example, suppose that a white thing comes to be from a black thing: in that transmutation there was a body, but at the beginning it was under blackness, and afterwards under whiteness. Hence in a certain respect it is similar, namely with respect to the fact that there is something common; but it is dissimilar, because not in the same way. For in other material transmutations the subject is common, and the form is different; but here it is the other way around, because the accident is common, while the substance is different. Hence the substance is transmuted, while the common accident remains.

What, therefore, does this point to? One should say that the sense is: this is my body, i.e., the thing contained under the accident is my body. Or, it is coming about that what is contained under the accidents be my body. Hence he put a noun at the end, but at the beginning a pronoun, which signifies a substance indeterminately; while a noun signifies a determinate form.

2185. But how is the body of Christ there? One opinion was that the substance of the bread remained at the same time with the body of Christ. Hence when he says, this is my body, it is referred to the body only. Others say that the substance of the bread turns into the preexisting matter, and the body of Christ arrives there, contrary to this, that the substance of the bread changes into the body of Christ.

But this is disproved in this way. For thus it seems that something would begin to be where it was not at first, which cannot be unless either it changes place or something is turned into it. So if it be said, there is no fire here, then there can be no fire there afterwards unless either it is brought in from somewhere else, or something else which is there is changed into fire. But according to this opinion, the way of conversion is ruled out; therefore it is only a change in place. But it is impossible that the same body be in different places.

Therefore one should say otherwise, that the body begins to be there not through local motion, but through the conversion of another thing into it; and in this the form remains, and the subject passes. Hence subject is changed into subject, which is the principle of individuation, not because the body of Christ is present at the same time as the substance of the bread, or because the substance of the bread is annihilated, but because it is transmuted, through conversion into the very body of Christ.

2186. But how could it be in such a small place?

One should say that one thing is there by the strength of the sacrament, and that is there principally, while another thing is there through concomitance. That in which the conversion terminates is there by the strength of the sacrament. And since the bread is converted into the body of Christ, that which is signified, is the body of Christ, and it is neither without the soul nor without the divinity; nevertheless, the bread is not converted into the soul, or the divinity, but rather they are there through concomitance. So if someone had celebrated Mass during the three days when the soul was separated from the body, the soul would not have been there.

For there are two things in bread, substance and accidents: the accidents remain while the substance passes away. Therefore, that in which the transmutation terminates is what is principally there; but it terminates in the substance; therefore the substance is there principally, but the accidents through concomitance. Now, dimensions are accidents. Nor is the body of Christ in the sacrament brought into relation to a place through its own dimensions, but through the preexisting dimensions of the bread.

2187. Similarly, he **broke **it. But is the whole body in any given part?

I say that it is. And you should understand that to be in a place is not the same as to be located in a place: for that which is located is brought into relation to a place under its own dimensions, but this is not the case here. Therefore one should note that a difference in quantity does not always cause a difference in substance; but if there is something which follows upon quantity, it is divided according to quantity. But the soul does not have to receive its totality from quantity, but has its totality in any given part: hence the body of Christ is not brought into relation to that body according to quantity, but only according to substance. Therefore, just as the soul is in any given part of the body, so Christ is in any given part of the host.

2188. What then of the accidents? One should say that they remain without a subject, by divine power. And how can this be, since accidents depend on substance? One should say that God is the principle of being; hence he can produce an effect separated from its subject and without its principles. Therefore, since the principle of substance is to preserve accidents in being, God can preserve them without their principles.

2189. If you ask whether this is true of all the accidents, one should say that all the accidents are related to the substance through the mediation of the dimensions, hence they are in a certain way individuated. Therefore, the dimensions are without a subject, but the quality is in the dimensions as in a subject. Hence the sense is this, i.e., the thing contained under these accidents, which accidents remain in the dimensions, since the substance, which at first was underlying these accidents, is changed into the body of Christ.