D. 8 - The sacrament of the Eucharist
After the Master has examined baptism and confirmation, here he examines the sacrament of the Eucharist. And this is divided into two parts: in the first part, he defines those things that pertain to this sacrament; in the second, he considers those who administer this sacrament, in Distinction 13, at: it is usual to ask whether bad priests are able to confect this sacrament. (Peter Lombard, Sententiae IV, 13.1 (72), 1.)
The first part is in two parts: in the first part he determines what things are required for this sacrament in general; in the second, he describes these specifically, at Distinction 10: there are also others who go beyond the insanity of those already mentioned. (Sent. IV, 10.1 (58), 1.)
The first again is in two parts: in the first, he determines those things required for this sacrament; in the second, he determines the use of the sacrament, at Distinction 9: and just as there are two things of that sacrament, so also there are “two ways of eating.”
Now the first section is in three parts: in the first, he examines those things that preceded the Eucharist by which this sacrament was prefigured; in the second, he examines the concomitant things with which this sacrament is renewed, namely, its form and institution, at: here too before anything else, four things are to be considered; (Sent. IV, 8.3 (50), 1.) in the third, he examines the results that are brought about or symbolized in this sacrament, at: now let us see what in it is the sacrament and what the thing. (Sent. IV, 8.6 (53), 1.)
The second part is divided into three: in the first he examines its institution; in the second, its form, at: as for the form, it is what he himself made known; (Sent. IV, 8.4 (51), 1.) in the third, he raises a certain question and resolves it, at: here it is worth considering why he gave that sacrament to the disciples after supper. (Sent. IV, 8.5 (52), 1.)
Now let us see what in it is the sacrament and what the thing. Here he examines the sacrament of the Eucharist in reference to what it signifies or causes: and concerning this he does two things. First, he shows what is the reality in it, and what is the sacrament. Second, he draws a conclusion about their number and order, at: and so there are three things to distinguish here, etc. (Sent. IV, 8.7 (54), 2.)
Here there are two questions. The first concerns the sacrament of the Eucharist itself; the second concerns its form.
Question 1
The Eucharist in general
About the first, four questions arise:
first, whether the Eucharist is a sacrament;
- second, its signification;
- third, its institution;
- fourth, the order of consuming this food in relation to other foods.
- Article 1
Whether the Eucharist is a sacrament
Quaestiuncula 1
Obj. 1: To the first question we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST III, q. 65, a. 1; q. 73, a. 1; q. 79, aa. 5 & 7; SCG IV, ch. 61; Super I ad Cor. 11, lec. 5.) It seems that the Eucharist is not a sacrament. For different things should not be ordered to the same end. But confirmation is for perfecting, according to Dionysius. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, p. 1, n. 3 (PG 3:503).) Since therefore according to him the Eucharist is also a perfection, it seems that this sacrament is superfluous.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, in every sacrament of the New Law, what is represented is brought about by the sign representing it. But the species of bread and wine, which represent the Body of Christ really and mystically, do not bring it about. Therefore, the Eucharist is not a sacrament of the New Law.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, a sacrament is a material element externally placed before our eyes, according to Hugh. (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis fidei, Bk. 1, pt. 9, ch. 2 (PL 176:317).) But the true Body of Christ, which both this sacrament and its reality are called, is not set before our eyes. Therefore, this is not a sacrament.
Obj. 4: Furthermore, every sacrament is consecrated and completed by its very reception, as is evident in the case of baptism, which is completed by the very act of washing. But the Eucharist is consecrated before its consumption. Therefore, it is not a sacrament.
Obj. 5: Furthermore, in every other sacrament the reality-and-sacrament is a certain effect in the receiver, like the character in baptism. But the true Body of Christ which is here considered as reality-and-sacrament, is not anything effected in the receiver. Therefore, it is not a sacrament with the same nature as the others.
On the contrary (1), is what is said in the Collect: grant that this thy sacrament may not be unto us a condemnation. (This phrase is found in the third Lenten postcommunion, “for the Living and the Dead,” found in missals printed prior to the reduction of orations to one set only.)
Furthermore (2), every action administered by the ministers of the Church in which grace is conferred by the very action performed, is a sacrament. But the Eucharist is one of these. Therefore, it is a sacrament.
Quaestiuncula 2
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it is not one sacrament, but many. (Parallels: ST III, q. 73, a. 2; q. 78, a. 6, ad 2.) First, because it says in the Collect: may the sacraments that we have received purify us, we beseech thee, O Lord. (In the same postcommunion as above.)
Obj. 2: Furthermore, a sacrament is in the genus of signs. But those things that are in the genus of signs, like names, are multiplied when the signifiers are multiplied, even when they signify only one thing; for example, Marcus and Tullius are two names, although the thing signified is the same. Therefore, since in the Eucharist there are several signifying things, like the species of bread and wine, it seems that there are several sacraments.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, the singularity of a thing comes from its form. But in the Eucharist there are two forms, one at the consecration of the bread, another at the consecration of the Blood. Therefore, there are two sacraments.
Obj. 4: Furthermore, things that do not share either in genus or in species are simply different things. But the true Body of Christ is different from the appearance of bread and wine in both genus and species. Therefore, they are simply different things. Since, then, either may be called the sacrament of the Eucharist, it seems that it is not one sacrament.
Obj. 5: Furthermore, some single thing is not made out of two complete things. But Christ is completely under both species, that is, bread and wine. Therefore, one sacrament is not made out of these two things.
On the contrary (1), if these were two things, then there would not be only seven sacraments of the New Law.
Furthermore (2), any things that are ordered to effecting and signifying the same thing pertain to the same sacrament. But all the things that are in the Eucharist pertain to representing the same thing, namely, the death of the Lord; and bringing about the same thing, namely, the grace by which man is incorporated into the Mystical Body. Therefore, this is only one sacrament.
Quaestiuncula 3
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it is not named with fitting names. (Parallels: ST III, q. 73, a. 4; q. 79, a. 2, ad 1.) For a name proper to a certain thing should be imposed from what is proper to it. But the goodness of grace is common to all the sacraments. Therefore, it should not be imposed as a name proper to one sacrament, so that we call it ‘Eucharist.’
Obj. 2: Furthermore, as it says in the text, this sacrament is called viaticum, “way-bread,” because it renews us on the journey until it leads us to the heavenly fatherland. But this is common to all the sacraments, that they are only given to those on the journey in order to arrive at the glory of the homeland, which is the reality not contained but signified in all the sacraments. Therefore, it is not fittingly called ‘viaticum.’
Obj. 3: Furthermore, causes are usually named from their effects. But to lead one into communion with the faithful is the effect of baptism, according to Dionysius, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 3, p. 1 (PG 3:391).) as is clear from what was said above. Therefore, baptism, rather than this sacrament, should be called Communion or ‘synaxis.’
Obj. 4: Furthermore, in any sacrament something sacred is done. But this is what the name ‘sacrifice’ conveys. Therefore, ‘sacrifice’ is also not a name proper to this sacrament.
Obj. 5: Furthermore, ‘host,’ sacrificial offering, seems to be the same thing as ‘sacrifice.’ But Dionysius calls confirmation the host of chrism. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 4, p. 1 (PG 3:471).) Therefore, neither ‘host’ nor ‘sacrifice’ is a name proper to this sacrament.
Response to Quaestiuncula 1
To the first question, I answer that the Eucharist is a certain sacrament, but in a different way from all the other sacraments. For a sacrament, according to the property of its own name, conveys holiness in an active way; and so accordingly something has the nature of a sacrament to the extent that it has the nature of a sanctification, by which something is made holy.
But something is said to be holy in two ways. In one way, simply speaking and in itself, like something that is the subject of holiness, as a man is said to be holy. The other way is secondary and only in a certain respect, by the fact that it has an order to the first holiness, either as something having the power of sanctifying, as chrism is called holy; or in some other way it may be set aside for something holy, like a holy altar.
And therefore those things by which something becomes holy in the first way are called sacraments simply speaking. But those things by which something is made holy in the second way are not called sacraments, but rather sacramentals. Therefore, in the other sacraments, something is made holy in the first way, like the man receiving the sacrament, but not the physical element sanctifying the man, because that is holy in the second way; and so what pertains to the sanctification of the matter in all the sacraments is not a sacrament, but a sacramental; but what pertains to the use of the matter by which the man is sanctified is the sacrament.
However, in the sacrament of the Eucharist, what is sanctifying the man is holy in the first way, as the subject of holiness, because it is Christ himself; and thus the sanctification of the matter is this sacrament, but the sanctification of the man is the effect of the sacrament. And thus this sacrament considered in itself is more worthy than all the other sacraments, because it has absolute holiness even apart from anyone receiving it, but the others only have this as ordered to something else. And so this sacrament is the perfection of the other sacraments, for everything that is through another can be reduced to what is through itself, as is evident with accidents and substance.
Reply Obj. 1: Anything is perfect when it has attained its proper power, as is said in the Physics 7. (Aristotle, Physics, Bk. 7, ch. 3, 246a13–14.) However, power is what comes last in a thing, as it says in On the Heavens and the Earth 1. (Aristotle, On the Heavens and the Earth, Bk. 1, ch. 11, 281a5 ff.) And so the perfection of a thing consists in its being brought to what is last for it. However, what is last for a thing is twofold: one is in the thing, the other is outside it; just as in bodies what is last in a body is the surface of the body contained; while what comes last outside the body is its place, which is the surface of the containing body. However, what comes last for any thing in the thing itself is the thing’s very operation, for the sake of which the thing exists; for a form is the end of generation, but not of the thing generated, as the Commentator says about the Physics 2. (Comment 75 on the text of the Physics.) Hence a thing that has the substantial form by which it exists is not said to be perfect simply speaking, but perfect in being, or perfect with the first kind of perfection; and man acquires this kind of perfection as to spiritual being in baptism, by which there is a spiritual regeneration. And this is why Dionysius does not consider baptism to have simply perfective force, but rather purifying and illuminative force. (See Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, throughout ch. 2.) But what is perfect simply speaking has the operation befitting its own form. For according to the Philosopher in the Ethics 2, (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 2, ch. 1, 1109a25.) the power of a thing consists in the execution of whatever enables something to be called perfect, as was said.
Now a man’s spiritual operation is twofold. One is as a private person, and confirmation perfects him in this, for it makes a man unhindered by any earthly fear in confessing the faith or other things that regard the Christian religion. The other is as a public person, like a principal member who influences the other members, and the sacrament of holy orders perfects him in this.
But what comes last for any thing outside of itself is the beginning from which the thing has its being: for by joining with it, things are completed and strengthened, and they fail because of the distance from it, as corruptible things do because of their great distance from what is first, as it says in On the Generation of Animals 2. (Aristotle, On the Generation of Animals, Bk. 2, ch. 10, 336b30.) And so the first agent also has the nature of a perfecting last end. However, the font of Christian life is Christ, and thus the Eucharist perfects in this way, by uniting us to Christ. And so this sacrament is the perfection of all perfections, as Dionysius says; hence all who receive the other sacraments are confirmed in their end by this sacrament, as he himself says. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 3 (PG 3:423).)
Reply Obj. 2: According to Hugh, (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis fidei, Bk. 1, pt. 9, ch. 2 (PL 176:317).) as the interior power, which acquires sanctification, from which the sacrament works, stands in relation to the sensible species of the other sacraments, so in this sacrament stands the very Body of Christ, which comes to be under these species by the consecration. Hence just as in other sacraments the material element is not a cause of the power that is in it, nor of any spiritual effect in man (except by means of the power, according as an element and a power could be made to be like one thing); so also in this sacrament the species are not the cause of the Body of Christ, nor of any spiritual effect in the soul, except by means of the true Body of Christ, according as one sacrament is made out of the species and the Body of Christ. But whether those species have any physical effect in themselves, the way that water physically cleanses in baptism, even without spiritual power mediating, will be addressed below. (See d. 12, q. 1, a. 2, qa. 5.)
Reply Obj. 3: Every sacrament is visible, but nevertheless it is not necessary that whatever is in the sacrament be visible. For the visible appearance of water is seen in baptism, but its spiritual power, which works our salvation in a hidden way, is not seen. And similarly here the appearances are seen, but the true Body of Christ is not seen. Or it could be said that it is not visible in itself, but under the appearances that cover it; just as also the substance of other bodies is seen by means of color.
Reply Obj. 4: The holiness that is in the matters of the other sacraments is not the form of holiness absolutely, but a holiness that is ordered to something else, as was said in Distinction 1; and therefore it is not the same with the other sacraments as with this one, as is clear from what has been said.
Reply Obj. 5: The fact that the other sacraments are perfected in their reception or conferral means that their sacrament-and-reality is something acquired in the recipient; but in this sacrament it is different, as is clear from what has been said. (For more about the sacrament alone, reality alone, and sacrament-and-reality, see the footnote at Dist.1, q.1, a.4, qa. 1, main response.)
Response to Quaestiuncula 2
To the second question, it should be said that what is one thing in itself simply, and what is one in number, can be said in three ways. In one way, as the indivisible is one thing, like a point and oneness, which is not many things either in act or in potency. In another way, what is one thing by continuity, which is, however, many things in potency, like a line. In the third way, what is one in perfection, as a shoe is said to be one thing because it has all the parts that are required for a shoe; and this oneness is said about anything that requires several things for its integrity, like one man or one house. And because many things converge for the being of a sacrament, like form and matter and things like that, for this reason a sacrament is said to be one thing by this oneness. For those things are integral to a certain instrument which are required for whatever operation the instrument is designed for. But this sacrament is designed by its divine institution as a spiritual meal, which is signified by the physical meal. And since two things are required for a physical meal, namely, something in the mode of food and something in the mode of drink, therefore for this sacrament’s integrity by divine institution there is something in the mode of food, namely the Body of Christ, and something in the mode of drink, namely, his Blood.
Reply Obj. 1: ‘Sacraments’ is said in the plural because of the material diversity of the signs.
Reply Obj. 2: That argument works when either sign has the full signification, but that is not the case here: for a spiritual meal is not perfectly represented by the consumption of either bread or wine alone, but of both of them together, as it happens in the case of composite names.
Reply Obj. 3: That argument would work if either form corresponded to the whole sacrament; but this is false: for one form corresponds to one and the other to the other of those things that are required for the sacrament.
Reply Obj. 4: Although they are not one thing in natural genus or species, nevertheless they can be one thing by their relation to one operation, and the oneness of the sacrament is taken from this unity.
Reply Obj. 4: Although Christ is perfect under either species, he is not under each as to the integral use of the sacrament, but as to different uses.
Response to Quaestiuncula 3
To the third question, it should be said that in any sacrament there are three things to consider: namely, its origin, its perfection, and the end it is directed to. Now the origin of all the sacraments is the Passion of Christ, from whose side the sacraments poured forth while he was hanging on the Cross, as the saints say. And a sacrament’s perfection resides in the fact that it contains grace. However, a sacrament’s end is twofold: the proximate end, namely, the sanctification of the recipient, and the ultimate end, namely, eternal life. But these things are found with a certain excellence in the Eucharist. For this sacrament is especially a memorial of the Lord’s Passion; hence Matthew 26: whenever you do this, you will do it in memory of me; (In fact, Luke 22:18; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:25.) and so in regard to its origin it is called ‘sacrifice’ or ‘host,’ which means ‘victim.’ Likewise it also does not contain grace in the mode of intention, like the other sacraments, but the fullness of grace in its source; and so it is called ‘Eucharist’ antonomastically. Likewise also because it is the consummation of all sanctifications, as Dionysius says, whatever belongs to all of them, namely, to bring together into one, is particularly attributed to this sacrament; and so it is called ‘Communion’ or ‘synaxis,’ which is the same thing, because a man is brought together in one both in himself and with others, since he is united to that which is most one. Likewise, as to attaining the ultimate end, it has the greatest efficacy, inasmuch as it really contains what opened the gates of heaven for us, namely, the Blood of Christ; and so it is especially called ‘viaticum,’ food for the journey.
And from this the answers to the objections are clear: for something can be named antonomastically from what is common to all.
Article 2
The signification of the Eucharist
Quaestiuncula 1
Obj. 1: To the second question we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST III, q. 61, a. 3, ad 3; q. 73, a. 6; q. 80, a. 10, ad 2.) It seems that figures should not be assigned to this sacrament. For nothing is disposed by anything of its own kind; for there is not a whiteness of white, nor a motion of motion. But a sacrament is a sign. Therefore, no figure should be applied to a sacrament, for it will result in an infinite regress.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, sacraments of the Old Law are said to correspond to sacraments of the New Law, inasmuch as they represent them. But the sacraments of the New Law that are of the greatest perfection have no correspondents in the Old Law, as some people say. Since therefore this sacrament is of the greatest perfection, it seems that there should not be any figures assigned to it.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, just as the Eucharist is prefigured in the Paschal lamb, so also baptism is prefigured in the crossing of the Red Sea, as it says in 1 Corinthians 10:1–2. Therefore, since the Master did not assign any figures to baptism, it seems that neither should he assign any figures to the Eucharist.
On the contrary (1), this sacrament is especially the memorial of the Passion of Christ. But it was particularly fitting that the Passion of Christ, by which he redeemed us, be prefigured, so that the faith of the ancients might be raised toward their redeemer. Therefore it was most of all fitting that this sacrament be prefigured.
Furthermore (2), this sacrament is the most noble and the most difficult to believe in. But that kind of thing is the most likely to be prefigured. Therefore, etc.
Quaestiuncula 2
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the Master inappropriately assigns figures to this sacrament. (Parallel: ST III, q. 73, a. 6.) For this sacrament is given after baptism. But the Paschal lamb preceded the crossing of the Red Sea, in which baptism is prefigured. Therefore, it is not a fitting figure for this sacrament.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, in this sacrament something is offered to God. But Melchizedek is not read to have offered to God but to a man, namely, Abraham, to whom he offered bread and wine, as it says in Genesis 14:18. Therefore, that offering is not an appropriate figure for this sacrament.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, the same thing is not a sign of itself. But the Blood that is consecrated on the altar is the very same that Christ shed for us on the Cross. Therefore, it is not a sign or figure of itself.
Obj. 4: Furthermore, manna had in itself all sweetness of flavor, as it says in Wisdom 16:20. But this sacrament does not have in itself all spiritual flavor, for then it would have the effect of all the sacraments, and the other sacraments would be superfluous. Therefore, manna is not a figure of this sacrament.
Obj. 5: Furthermore, something nobler should be the figure of a nobler thing. But the Eucharist is a nobler sacrament than baptism. Therefore, since there was a figure of baptism which furnished a remedy against original sin by its very act being performed, namely, circumcision, while the figures mentioned above had nothing like that, it seems that those figures were inadequate.
Obj. 6: Furthermore, in the canon of the Mass mention is made of the sacrifice of Abraham and Abel; *(St. Thomas is referring to the Roman Canon or Eucharistic Prayer I, which includes the following petition: “Upon which vouchsafe to look with a propitious and serene countenance, and to accept them, as Thou wert graciously pleased to accept the gifts of Thy just servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham, and that which Thy high priest Melchisedek offered to Thee, a holy Sacrifice, a stainless Victim.”)*and likewise all the sacrifices of the law were figures of this true sacrifice. Therefore, the Master has not sufficiently listed the figures of this sacrament.
Quaestiuncula 3
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that this sacrament was more explicitly prefigured under the law of Moses than under the law of nature. For, according to Hugh, as the Passion of the Savior grew closer, the signs became more evident. (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis fidei, Bk. 2, pt. 6, ch. 3 (PL 176:447).) But the ones under the law of Moses were closer. Therefore, they were more explicit.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, in the sacrifices of the law of Moses, blood was spilled. But the offering of Melchizedek was of blood without spilling it. Therefore, the sacrifices of the law prefigured the sacrament of the Passion of Christ more explicitly than the offering of Melchizedek.
On the contrary, Christ is said to be a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, but not according to the priesthood of the law of Moses, which is the levitical priesthood, as is clear from Hebrews 7. (See verses 11 and 17.) Therefore, the offering of Melchizedek fits more with Christ’s sacrifice than any sacrifice of the law of Moses.
Response to Quaestiuncula 1
To the first question, I answer that the sacraments of the New Law are related in three ways to the Old Law. For certain of them essentially existed in the Old Law, although not as they exist as sacraments of the New Law, but rather as an office or an act of virtue, like penance, holy orders, and marriage. Some of them existed in something corresponding to them non-essentially, like baptism and the Eucharist. But some had nothing corresponding to them under the Old Law, like confirmation and extreme unction. The reason for this is that the first three sacraments mentioned are not only sacraments, but penance is an act of virtue, holy orders pertains to the office of administering sacraments, and marriage is an office of nature; and so these are required under any law.
Baptism and the Eucharist, however, only exist as sacraments containing grace, and therefore before the time of grace they could not exist. But because they are necessary sacraments, baptism as regards its effect and the Eucharist as regards faith in what it represents, for this reason it was fitting that they have something corresponding to them under the law of Moses. But confirmation and extreme unction are sacraments containing grace, and so they could not exist under the Old Law. And since these sacraments are not necessary but exist for the sake of a superabundant perfection, for this reason it is not necessary for them to have anything corresponding to them when it was not the time of the fullness of grace; and therefore these two did not need to be prefigured by any explicit figures, nor did the first three mentioned, but only the middle two, the Eucharist and baptism.
Reply Obj. 1: Opposite relations can be in the same things with respect to different things by the fact that to be related is to be related to another; however, absolute properties cannot. And this is why in relative things it happens that something may be disposed by something of its own genus accidentally, and not essentially, as a son may have a son, not as a son, but as a father; and in the same way a thing signified can also be a sign. However, this does not happen among absolutes; hence no quality is of a quality, whether essentially or accidentally.
Reply Obj. 2: One perfection is said to be greater than another in two ways: either simply, or according to one’s status; just as the essential reward, which is called the golden crown of heaven, is simply speaking greater than the accidental reward, which is called a special distinction; but the special distinction is greater with respect to the status of the one having it, for it is not given to just anyone, but only to those who are in the state of perfection. And in the same way I say that the perfection of the Eucharist is simply speaking greater than the perfection of confirmation and extreme unction, but those are greater according to their state: for the perfection of the Eucharist, which is by the union to the principle of holiness, is necessary for the salvation of all; but the perfection of the Holy Spirit for strengthening, which is in confirmation, or the perfection of purification from the last traces of sin, which is in extreme unction, are not necessary for all; and so something must correspond to the perfection of the Eucharist in every law, but not to the perfection of confirmation and extreme unction, except in a law in which there is a state of perfection, which is the law of grace.
Reply Obj. 3: The prefiguring of the Eucharist was more necessary than baptism, both by reason of its dignity and by reason of its difficulty, as well as because of the necessity of faith in what is figured in the Eucharist. Nevertheless, the Master listed above (See Distinctions 1 and 2.) certain figures of baptism, namely, circumcision and the baptism of John.
Response to Quaestiuncula 2
To the second question, it should be said that anything can be prefigured in two ways. In one way, by that which is sign and cause, and in this way, the shedding of blood and of water from Christ’s side were a figure of this sacrament. In another way, by what is only a sign, and in this way, regarding what is sacrament alone in the Eucharist, the offering of Melchizedek was a figure of it; but regarding what is reality-and-sacrament, namely, Christ himself crucified, the figure was the Paschal lamb; but regarding what is reality alone, namely, grace, the sign was manna, which refreshed, having all flavor of sweetness. (For more about the sacrament alone, reality alone, and sacrament-and-reality, see the footnote at Dist.1, q.1, a.4, qa. 1, main response.)
Reply Obj. 1: That argument would hold if there were only one figure of baptism and Eucharist; however, there are several, and so it is not unfitting that a certain figure of the Eucharist should precede a certain figure of baptism, and be preceded by a certain other, as the Paschal lamb came before the crossing of the Red Sea, and followed circumcision.
Reply Obj. 2: The Eucharist is offered to God in the sanctification of the host, and it is offered to the people in its consumption; and this was represented in the offering of Melchizedek, who offered bread and wine to Abraham and blessed the Most High God.
Reply Obj. 3: Nothing remaining under the same species is a sign of itself, but something according as it is in one species can be a sign of itself as it is under another species; and it is the same way in the example given: the water flowing from Christ’s side symbolized the people who were to be redeemed and remade by his blood; and so the water mixed with blood represented the use of this sacrament.
Reply Obj. 4: This sacrament has all sweetness inasmuch as it contains the fount of all grace, although its use is not ordered to all effects of sacramental grace. Or it could be said that even in its effect it has every effect of sweetness in refreshing, for this sacrament alone works by the mode of refreshing. Or it could be said that, according to Dionysius, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 3 (PG 3:423).) the effect of all the sacraments can be ascribed to this sacrament, inasmuch as it is the perfection of every sacrament, having in capsule and sum, as it were, all that the other sacraments contain piecemeal.
Reply Obj. 5: Baptism is a necessary sacrament in its effect of blotting out original sin, for there is no salvation where original sin remains. And so Baptism had to have some corresponding figure in the Old Law, which would furnish a remedy against original sin, namely, circumcision. But the Eucharist is a necessary sacrament as regards faith in what it represents, namely, the work of our redemption; and so it was not necessary that it have figures presenting a remedy, but only representing.
Reply Obj. 6: Although in the Old Law there had been several material figures, nevertheless all are reducible to these: for in all the sacrifices and offerings of the ancients was signified what is reality-and-sacrament in the Eucharist, which is also signified by the Paschal lamb, namely, Christ himself, who offered himself to God the Father as offering and victim on our behalf. Or it could be said that those figures represent the Body of Christ according as it is for the use of the faithful by eating, which is clear from the offering of Melchizedek, who offered bread and wine to Abraham to eat. And likewise, the Paschal lamb was killed to be eaten by the people, and also manna was provided by God for the people to eat; also, water mixed with blood in Christ’s Passion symbolized the people partaking of the blood of Christ. However, it is not this way in other sacrifices; and so although they may be figures of the suffering Christ, they are nevertheless not proper figures of this sacrament. However, mention is made in the canon of the Mass of the offerings of Abraham and Abel because of the devotion of the ones making the sacrifice rather than because of any figure in the thing offered.
Response to Quaestiuncula 3
To the third question, it should be said that as for what is sign alone in this sacrament, the oblation of Melchizedek was a more explicit figure of this sacrament than the figures in the law of Moses; but as for what is reality-and-sacrament, the Mosaic law’s figure was more explicit, for the suffering Christ was more expressly symbolized in it. And because a sacrament’s rite consists in outward signs, for this reason Christ’s priesthood as to the rite shares more with the priesthood of Melchizedek than with the levitical priesthood; and also as to the other conditions of Melchizedek, which the Apostle describes more fully.
And from this the solutions to the objections are evident.
Article 3
The institution of the Eucharist
Quaestiuncula 1
Obj. 1: To the third we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST III, q. 73, a. 5; q. 83, a. 2, ad 3; De ven. sacram. altar., ch. 1; Super Matt. 26; Super I ad Cor.* 11, lec. 4.)* It seems that it was not necessary to institute this sacrament. For when the truth comes, the figure must cease. But this sacrament is performed as a figure of the Lord’s Passion, which has now come in reality. Therefore, this sacrament did not need to be instituted.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, by the same action, something is instituted and removed from contrary dispositions. But for the same action only one sacrament needs to be instituted, since a single action only needs a single instrument. Therefore, since one is cleansed from evil by baptism, it seems that it was not necessary to institute another sacrament by which one is strengthened in good, namely the Eucharist, as it says in the text.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, we are nourished from the same things of which we are made, as it says in On Generation and Corruption 2. (Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption, Bk. 2, ch. 8, 335a10.) But by baptism, which is a spiritual regeneration, we acquire spiritual being, as Dionysius says. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 2, p. 1 (PG 3:391).) Therefore, we are re-made by baptismal grace; and so it is not necessary to institute this sacrament for spiritual renewal, as it says in the text.
On the contrary (1), for the perfection of the body, it is required that members be united with the head. But by this sacrament the members of the Church are united with their head; for this reason it is said, whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him (John 6:56). Therefore, the institution of this sacrament was necessary.
Furthermore (2), charity is not less necessary than faith. But we have one sacrament of faith, namely, baptism. Therefore, since the sacrament of charity is the Eucharist, which is why it is also called ‘Communion,’ it seems that its institution was necessary.
Quaestiuncula 2
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it should have been instituted before Christ’s coming. For Christ is the head of the just men who were from the beginning of the world, as was said in Book III, Distinction 13, Question 2, Article 2, Subquestion 2, reply to the fourth objection. If therefore the members of the body are united to their mystical head by this sacrament, it seems that it should have been instituted at the beginning of the world.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, the people of Israel was a people most beloved by God; hence it says, Israel is my firstborn son (Exod 4:22). But this sacrament is the sacrament of charity, as was said. Therefore, it should have been instituted before, for the nation first having that status.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, this sacrament is called ‘viaticum,’ for it strengthens those striving on their way to the fatherland, and it revives as well those who tend to fall. But the patriarchs who were before Christ’s coming were striving for the fatherland, calling themselves strangers and pilgrims on earth, as it says in Hebrews 11:13; and they too were hindered by habitual sins. Therefore, this sacrament should have been instituted before Christ’s coming.
On the contrary (1), this sacrament really contains the Incarnate Word. Therefore, it could not have been instituted before the Incarnation of the Word.
Furthermore (2), this sacrament contains the fullness of grace; hence it is also called ‘Eucharist.’ But the time of fullness began at Christ’s Incarnation. Therefore, before the Incarnation this sacrament could not have been instituted.
Quaestiuncula 3
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it should have been instituted after the Passion. For this sacrament is in memory of the Lord’s Passion, as is clear from 1 Corinthians 11:24–26. But a memorial has to do with the past. Therefore, it should have been instituted once Christ’s Passion was past.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, the Eucharist should not be given to anyone but the baptized. But baptism was instituted after Christ’s Passion, when the Lord gave the form of baptizing to his disciples (Matt 28:19). Therefore, the Eucharist should also have been instituted after the Passion.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, among those things that succeed each other in a continuous way, the end of the first should be joined to the beginning of the second. But in the Last Supper the Lord wanted to display the end of the Old Law, and the continuation of the New Law with it, as is maintained in the text. Therefore, he should have instituted the first sacrament of the New Law immediately after the Passover supper, and the others in order; and so after the Passion, the Eucharist, which is last.
On the contrary, it seems that it should have been instituted at the beginning of Christ’s preaching. For the things that are grasped first are imprinted more firmly on the memory, as is evident from those things that a man holds from his childhood. But the Lord wanted this sacrament to be committed most firmly to memory. Therefore, he should have instituted it from the beginning.
Response to Quaestiuncula 1
To the first question, I answer that in any category of actions where many ordered actions are found distributed to diverse ordered agents, the chief of these actions must be attributed to the principal agent, by whose power the secondary agents work secondary actions; and this is clear in the case of arts that are subsumed under each other, as the art of harness-making is under the art of horsemanship, which is under the art of warfare. And since we find diverse sacramental actions distributed to diverse sacraments, which act in virtue of the Incarnate Word, it is necessary that for a complete action of this kind there must be some sacramental action that is attributed to the principal agent, which is the Incarnate Word. And so it was necessary that there be the sacrament of the Eucharist, which would contain the Incarnate Word himself, while the other sacraments work only in virtue of him.
And therefore this sacrament was fittingly instituted in the figure of food: for among the other senses, only touch is united to its sensible object in a real way, for the sensible object only reaches the other senses in a likeness through a medium. However, taste is a kind of touch, and among the other things that pertain to touch, food is the only one that acts by joining itself to the one fed, for nourishment and the one nourished become one thing; but other tangible things act by bringing about certain impressions on whatever is touched, as is seen in the case of hot and cold, and things like that. And so since every sacrament should be set forth in the figure of a certain sensible thing, the sacrament in which the Incarnate Word himself is contained for the purpose of being joined to us, is fittingly set before us in the figure of food, not of course changing into us by his union with us, but rather changing us into himself by his union, as Augustine says in the person of the Incarnate Word: you will not change me into you, like food of your flesh; but you will be changed into me. (Augustine, Confessions (CCSL 27), Bk. 7, ch. 10.)
Reply Obj. 1: According to Dionysius, our hierarchy is a middle one between the heavenly one and the one that was in the Old Law. (See Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, p. 1.) For at the time of the law, the truth was only promised; but in the state of the New Law, truth has been initiated by Jesus Christ; however, in the fatherland the truth will be consummated. And so under the Old Law, figures were set forth without realities, while in the New Law, figures are set forth with realities; but in the fatherland there will be realities without figures. And this is why the Church prays that what we now bear in hope on the way, we may possess in the truth of reality in the fatherland. (From the Postcommunion of the Mass of Ember Saturday in September. The full text as it appears in the Missale Romanum 1962: “Perficiant in nobis, Domine, quaesumus, tua sacramenta quod continent; ut quae nunc spe gerimus, rerum veritate capiamus.”)
Reply Obj. 2: That objection proceeds from the perfection with which something is perfected when it receives a form, which is the kind of perfection that happens through baptism; however, it is not the kind that occurs in being joined to the principle of perfection, which happens through the Eucharist, as was said above.
Reply Obj. 3: Concerning physical nourishment it is true that we are nourished by the same things from which we exist, for the food of our flesh ought to be transformed into us, and that is why it must be appropriate to us in its matter. However, it is different with spiritual food, which transforms us into it.
Response to Quaestiuncula 2
To the second question, it should be said that, as has been said, in this sacrament Christ himself, who is the principal agent of sanctification, is really set before us. Now in the Old Law he was not presented, but he was promised, for the Incarnation had not yet happened; and so in the Old Law this sacrament could not have been instituted. Hence sacraments of the Old Law were like the mode of sensible things that are known through a medium, which are not joined to the one sensing them in a real way, but transmit their likenesses to the senses from afar. But the sacraments of the New Law in which the power of Christ is working, although they do not contain him in reality, are like the sensed objects just mentioned, which indeed are not incorporated into the one sensing, but alter him according to a certain quality. This sacrament, however, as was said, as belongs to greater perfection, is like that sensible object that is incorporated into the one sensing it, namely, food; hence it is more distant from the mode of sacraments of the Old Law than the other sacraments of the New Law.
Reply Obj. 1: From the beginning of the world Christ was head of holy men, not as though having actual conformity of nature with the members of the Church, since the Incarnation had not yet happened, but only according to the faith of the ones awaiting the Incarnation; and this is why the union of the Mystical Body with its head could not have happened for that time through any sacrament really containing the head himself similar to his members, but it could be prefigured by certain other sacraments.
Reply Obj. 2: The people of Israel was most beloved for that time by comparison with the other peoples, who served idols, but not by comparison with the people of the New Testament, of whom it says, you are a holy nation, a purchased people (1 Pet 2:9). Or it could be said, according to the Apostle in Romans 9:8: not those who are according to the flesh, but who are from the promise, these are counted as descendents. Therefore, the people of the New Testament are not excluded from that privilege of love by reason of which Israel was called God’s firstborn.
Reply Obj. 3: Although the ancient patriarchs were journeying and striving for the fatherland, nevertheless they were not in the state of arriving there before the Incarnation of Christ. And so it was not appropriate at that time for there to be that viaticum by which we are led immediately to heaven.
Response to Quaestiuncula 3
To the third question, it should be said that for four reasons this sacrament had to be instituted at the Last Supper and not before. The first appears from the very necessity ascribed to the sacrament: for it was necessary for our perfection that our head be joined also to us in a real way. And so as long as he was keeping company with men under his proper appearance, (Species has many meanings. Here it refers to Christ’s appearance in his humanity as contrasted with his existence under the appearance of bread and wine in the Eucharist.) it was not necessary to institute this sacrament, but only when the Church was to be deprived of his physical presence. And this reason is touched upon in the letter from Eusebius: since he was going to withdraw his assumed body from their eyes, etc. (Eusebius of Gaul, Homilia XVII seu VI de Pascha, n.1; elsewhere as Pseudo-Jerome, Epistle 38.)
The second reason is taken from its figure. For as long as Christ was spending time in the world, he wished to observe the figures of the law, he who was made under the law, that he might redeem those who were under the law (Gal 4:4–5). And since figures cease when the truth comes, for this reason this sacrament should not have been instituted unless Christ had withdrawn through death, when the figures of the Old Law were to be ended.
The third reason is taken from the representation itself of this sacrament. For it represents the Lord’s Passion; and so it is fittingly instituted at the moment the Passion was imminent.
The fourth reason is taken from the rite by which this sacrament is to be repeated, so that, handed down last, it might be held better in the memory.
Reply Obj. 1: Since the Passion was imminent, the hearts of the disciples were more affected toward the Passion than if the Passion had already been accomplished, when the pressures of the Passion had been forgotten because of the joy of the resurrection. And this is why the memorial of the Passion had to be set forth for them before rather than after. Nor was it a memorial then, but it was instituted as something to be celebrated in memorial afterwards.
Reply Obj. 2: Baptism was instituted even before the Passion in a certain respect, as was said above; and furthermore it is not necessary that the sacraments have the same order of institution and of receiving, since we attain to that end last which was predetermined for us. But the Eucharist is in a way the end of baptism: for by baptism someone is consecrated for the reception of the Eucharist, just as someone is set aside for its consecration by holy orders. And so the argument does not proceed.
Reply Obj. 3: Although this sacrament is like the last one in reception, it is nevertheless the first one in intention. However, the institution corresponds to the order of intention; and so when the sacraments of the law were ended, this one was the first to be instituted.
Reply Obj. 4: That argument proceeds from those things that someone can understand from the beginning. However, the apostles were not ready for so great a mystery in the beginning; and so this had to be set down for them at the end. And furthermore, that argument deals with things that are imprinted on the memory for their own sake; but in these things that affection for the speaker impressed upon their memories, it is different: for when the emotion of affection for the speaker is more strongly felt, then the impressions are fixed more strongly. However, the more someone spends time with a friend, the greater his love becomes, and when he is separated from his friends, he feels the emotion of love more fervently because of the sorrow of separation; and this is why the last words spoken by friends as they leave us are more impressed upon our memory.
Article 4
The order of consuming this food in relation to other foods
Quaestiuncula 1
Obj. 1: To the fourth we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST II-II, q. 147, a. 6, ad 2; ST III, q. 80, a. 8; Super I ad Cor. 11, lec. 4.) It seems that this sacrament can be licitly received by those who have not fasted. For this sacrament was instituted by the Lord at supper. But in handing down the sacraments, the Church observes what the Lord kept, like form and matter. Therefore, it should have also kept the rite, so that this sacrament would be given out to those who have just eaten.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, it is said, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home (1 Cor 11:33–34). However, he is speaking about eating the body of Christ. Therefore, after someone has eaten at home, he can licitly eat the body of Christ in the Church.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, Distinction 1 of On Consecration says, the sacraments of the altar are not to be celebrated by any but fasting men, except for on the one day in the year when the Lord’s Supper is celebrated. (Gratian’s Decretals, Part 3, De consecratione, d. 1 (PL 187:1721); cf. Third Council of Carthage, can. 29.) Therefore, at least on that day someone can receive the body of Christ after other foods.
On the contrary (1), in On Consecration, Distinction 2, it says: it pleased the Holy Spirit in honor of so great a sacrament for the Lord’s body to enter first into the mouths of Christians. (Gratian’s Decretals, Part 3, De consecratione, d. 2 (PL 187:1757).)
Furthermore (2), this sacrament is to be consumed with the greatest reverence. But after a meal one is not as sober and reserved as before. Therefore, it should not be consumed after a meal.
Quaestiuncula 2
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that not every consumption of food would prevent the reception of this sacrament. For the consumption of food and drink in small quantities diminishes sobriety in no one, but on the contrary, rather increases nature by strengthening. But the reason it must be consumed by those who have fasted is so that it is received with reverence and sobriety. Therefore, not every consumption of food hampers the reception of this sacrament.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, it is required for the reception of this sacrament that a person be fasting. But there are certain things that do not break one’s fast, like water and certain medicines. Therefore, it seems that after taking them a man could receive this sacrament.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, just as the body of Christ enters into the mouth, so it is also passed into the stomach. But if certain traces of food remain in the mouth, and afterward in the morning they are passed into the stomach, one is not prevented from receiving the body of Christ, for this could happen to a priest even while he is in the middle of celebrating the sacrament, when he could not abstain from receiving the body of Christ. Therefore, neither should food left behind in the mouth, if consumed in small amount, prevent the reception of this sacrament.
On the contrary, reverence is shown to this sacrament by this very fact, that the body of the Lord is consumed in the mouth of Christians first. But if any food were taken beforehand, in any amount whatsoever, then the body of the Lord would not be received first. Therefore, any consumption of food impedes one from receiving this sacrament.
Quaestiuncula 3
Obj. 1: It seems that a person should not immediately eat after receiving the body of Christ, by the fact that it says in On Consecration, Distinction 2: if Sunday morning a portion is eaten, let the ministers who have consumed it fast until the sixth hour, and if they have received it in the third or fourth hour, let them fast until evening. (Gratian’s Decretals, Part 3, De consecratione, d. 2 (PL 187:740).)
Obj. 2: Furthermore, no less reverence is to be shown to this sacrament once it has been received than when it is about to be received. But before its reception no food is to be taken. Therefore, neither should it be taken afterward, as long as it remains in the stomach.
On the contrary stands the contrary custom of the entire Church.
Response to Quaestiuncula 1
To the first question, I answer that this sacrament should only be received by those who are fasting, unless out of necessity because of imminent death, lest it happen that someone should have to exit this life without viaticum. Fasting must be established in reverence for such a sacrament, for three reasons in particular. First, because of the very sanctity of the sacrament; so that the mouth of a Christian, by which it is to be consumed, would not be first drenched with other food, but would be reserved for its reception as something new and pure. Second, because of the devotion that is required on the part of the one receiving, and the attention that could be distracted by having taken food, with gases rising from the stomach to the head. Third, because of the danger of vomiting, and other things like that.
Reply Obj. 1: Form and matter are preserved from the Lord’s instituting of this sacrament as essentials for the sacrament, and so the Church had to retain these. But the Lord observed the order of consuming as befitting the sacrament’s institution; and so it is not necessary that the Church preserve this: for something that befits the beginning or the generation of a certain thing does not necessarily apply to it when it has reached its perfect being; and likewise, what applies to the sacrament at its institution does not necessarily apply to it in its use.
Reply Obj. 2: The Apostle does not intend that the faithful consume Christ’s body in the Church after having eaten at home; but he refuted those who wanted to commingle this food with other foods, which they would consume in the Church.
Reply Obj. 3: Perhaps at one time the Church permitted the body of Christ to be consumed on the day of the Lord’s Supper after other foods representing the Last Supper, but now that decree has been repealed by common custom; or it speaks about those in attendance who do not consume.
Response to Quaestiuncula 2
To the second question, it should be said that, just as has been said, in reverence for the holiness of this sacrament it was established that the mouth of a Christian receiving the body of Christ should be presented to receive it as though new. However, even the slightest consumption of food would strip away this newness; and so any consumption of food presents an impediment to the consumption of the Eucharist.
Reply Obj. 1: The precepts of the law are ordered to those things that must be done as universals to singulars, as it says in the Ethics 5. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 5, ch. 14, 1137b13–14.) For since a lawmaker cannot foresee all events, he must establish a universal law in attending to those things that happen most of the time, so that the law may be universal. And since as frequently happens, a person’s discretion and sobriety, which is particularly required in this sacrament, is disturbed by food, this is the reason that it is universally prohibited to receive the body of Christ after food, even though some consumption of food may not impede reason; particularly since no danger occurs, if after taking food one abstains from receiving this sacrament, since in an emergency it is permitted to take it after other foods.
Reply Obj. 2: There are two kinds of fasts: namely, natural fasts and ecclesial fasts. A natural fast is when someone is said to have fasted before the first food taken that day, even if he will eat several times afterward: and since this is called a fast because of the lack of food taken beforehand, any consumption of food whatsoever breaks this fast. However, the Church’s fast is when someone is said to be fasting according to the mode established by the Church for the affliction of the flesh; and this fast remains even after eating one thing, nor is it broken except by a second consumption of those things that were customarily taken in the meal and for the sake of replenishment; and so those things that were customarily taken for the sake of other foods, either for digesting them, like electuaries, or for drawing them out to the members, like a drink of wine or water, do not break this kind of fast although they do also nourish in some way. Therefore, for the right consumption of the Lord’s body, a Church fast is not required, since even outside fasting days this sacrament is celebrated. Rather it requires a natural fast out of reverence for the sacrament; and so according to the common opinion, electuaries and wine taken beforehand impede the reception of the Eucharist. But concerning water, there are different opinions. For some people say that since it does not nourish in any way, it neither breaks the natural fast nor the Church’s fast. But although water in itself does not nourish, nevertheless, it does nourish when mixed with other things. Now in the stomach it must mix with other fluids, and so it can result in nourishment; and because of this, others say more probably and securely that also after drinking water the body of the Lord is not to be received.
Reply Obj. 3: A fast is called natural by the absence of the act of eating, where eating also includes drinking. However, ‘eating’ mainly refers to the consumption of external food, although it ends in the passing of food into the stomach, and finally in nourishment; and so the foods that are borne internally without the consumption of external food do not seem to break a natural fast, nor prevent the reception of the Eucharist, just like the swallowing of saliva. And it seems to be the same with those things that remain stuck in the teeth, and also those that are burped up. Nevertheless, for the sake of reverence, if necessary one can abstain from receiving without danger.
Response to Quaestiuncula 3
To the third question, it should be said that according to the custom of the Church, out of reverence for so great a sacrament, after having received it, a man should remain in thanksgiving; and the prayer of thanksgiving after Communion in the Mass is also said, and the priests after celebrating Mass have special prayers for thanksgiving. And so it is fitting that there should be a certain interval between consuming the Eucharist and other foods. But since a great interval is not required, and what lacks something small seems to lack nothing, as it says in the Physics 2, (Aristotle, Physics, Bk. 2, ch. 5, 197a29–30.) for this reason we might concede that in this sense a person can take other food immediately after receiving the Eucharist.
Reply Obj. 1: That decree speaks according to the custom of the early Church, when because of the scarcity of ministers, the solemn rites of Masses were rarely celebrated, and then, with greater preparation. Hence Dionysius tells of Carpus in his letters that he never celebrated Mass unless he had first received a divine revelation; (Pseudo-Dionysius, Epistle 8, n. 6 (PG 3:1098).) and so nowadays this has been repealed by the contrary custom.
Reply Obj. 2: After a sacrament’s reception, it causes its proper effect, and so a man’s heart must actually persist in devotion during the reception itself; but after the reception of it, it is enough that devotion be held habitually, for it cannot always be in act; and so those things that can impede the act are prohibited before the sacrament’s reception, rather than after.
Question 2
The form of the sacrament
Next inquiry is made about the form of this sacrament; and concerning this, four questions arise:
first, the form with which the body of Christ is consecrated;
- second, the form with which his blood is consecrated;
- third, the power of each;
- fourth, a comparison of the two.
- Article 1
The form with which the body of Christ is consecrated
Quaestiuncula 1
Obj. 1: To the first we proceed thus. (Parallels: below, a. 2, qa. 1; a. 4, qa. 3; ST III, q. 78, a. 1; Super Matt. 26; Super I ad Cor. 11, lec. 5.) It seems that this is not the form of consecrating the bread: this is my body. For sacraments have their efficacy from divine institution. But when the Lord was instituting this sacrament, he did not consecrate with these words, but uttered them after the consecration and breaking of the bread; hence it says, while they were eating, Jesus took the bread and blessed it and broke it, and gave it to his disciples and said: take and eat; this is my body (Matt 26:26). Therefore, the form of the consecration of the bread does not consist in the words mentioned.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, the form of baptism consists in the words that are said in the use itself of baptism. But these words are not said in the use of the Eucharist, but rather in the sanctification of its matter. Therefore, the form of this sacrament does not consist in these words.
Quaestiuncula 2
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the form does not only consist in these words: this is my body. (Parallel: ST III, q. 78, a. 1, ad 2.) For as Eusebius of Emesa says, the invisible priest changes visible creatures into his own body when he says, ‘Take and eat’, etc. (See Gratian’s Decretals, Part 3, De consecratione, d. 2, ch. 35 (PL 187:1745).) Therefore, the form is also this: Take and eat.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, whatever is not of the form’s substance must not be interposed between the substantial elements of the form in this sacrament, just as neither in the others. But in the Roman canon is found interposed between these words the conjunction for. Therefore, this is also part of the form, and not only the words mentioned.
Quaestiuncula 3
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that this form is not fitting. (Parallels: ST III, q. 75, a. 2; q. 78, a. 2; Super Matt. 26; Super I ad Cor. 11, lec. 5.) For in the form of a sacrament should be expressed what is carried out in the sacrament by the act suited to its matter, as in the form of baptism it is said, I baptize you, and in the form of confirmation, I confirm you with the chrism of salvation. But in the words mentioned nothing is included that pertains to transubstantiation, which is the turning of the bread into the body of Christ that happens in this sacrament. Therefore, the form is not fitting.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, this sacrament is administered by the ministers of the Church, just like the other sacraments. But in the form of the other sacraments, something is included that pertains to the minister. Therefore, since the act of the minister is not included in this form, it seems that it is inadequate.
Quaestiuncula 4
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the individual parts are unfittingly laid down. (Parallels: ST III, q. 78, a. 2; Super Matt. 26; Super I ad Cor. 11, lec. 5.) For the pronoun ‘this’ is demonstrative. Therefore, it conveys demonstration as conceived or as carried out in practice. If as conceived, then it is taken as a certain thing, and not as something having an order to another thing, as it would be if I were to say, This pronoun this. But the sanctification of the sacrament only happens by the fact that the words of the form are directed to the matter by the intention of the one uttering them. Therefore, according to this no consecration of the body of Christ could be done by the words mentioned. But if it conveys demonstration as carried out in practice, either it makes a demonstration for the intellect or for the senses. If for the intellect, so that the sense would be, this, i.e., what is represented by this, is my body, then again the meaning of the words does not refer to this matter of bread. But sacraments bring about by signifying, and concerning the forms of the sacraments Augustine says, the word is combined with the element and the sacrament occurs. (Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus (CCSL 36), Tract. 80, par. 3.) Therefore no transubstantiation has happened up to the point of the words mentioned. But if it makes a demonstration for the senses, then it will demonstrate the substance contained under those sensible appearances. But that substance is bread, about which it cannot be said that it is the body of Christ. Therefore this sentence will not be true: this is my body.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, what is transformed into something is not it in the first place: for every motion and doing is from not-happening, as the Philosopher says in the Physics 1. (Aristotle, Physics, Bk. 1, ch. 4, 188a31ff.) But it is true to say that this substance indicated becomes the body of Christ or turns into the body of Christ. Therefore, one cannot say truly, this is my body.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, what is signified by a sign must correspond to the sign. But bread is a homogeneous body. Therefore, its signification regards some homogeneous part of the body of Christ. But this could only be his flesh, for the Lord says about this, my flesh is true food (John 6:56). Therefore it should have been said, this is my flesh, rather than, this is my body.
Obj. 4: Furthermore, as was said, this pronoun ‘this’ must make a demonstration in practice for the consecration of the body of Christ to happen from this matter. But this can only happen when the demonstration is uttered in the person of the one speaking; for if it were uttered by reciting the words of another, it would not be a demonstration to this matter, but it would be taken quasi-materially. Therefore, the words mentioned must be uttered as though in the person of the priest pronouncing them. But bread is not changed into the body of the priest, but into the body of Christ. Therefore he should have said: this is the body of Christ, and not, this is my body: for this could be matter for error.
Quaestiuncula 5
Obj. 1: It seems that the words that are spoken surrounding the form are not fittingly set down. (Parallel: ST III, q. 78, a. 1.) For as Dionysius says in the beginning of the Divine Names, we must not dare to say anything about divine things apart from those things that are expressed for us in the sacred words. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Divine Names, ch. 1 (PG 3:587).) But in the Gospels it is not read that when the Lord was instituting this sacrament at Supper, he lifted his eyes to heaven. (Yet this phrase is found in the Roman Canon: “Who, the day before He suffered, took bread into His holy and venerable hands, and with His eyes lifted up towards heaven, unto Thee, God, His almighty Father...”) Therefore, it is unfittingly said beforehand, with eyes raised to heaven.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, in baptism no changing of the words is permitted, even by words of the same meaning, as if in place of Father, ‘Creator’ were said. But in no Gospel are these words: take and eat [manducate], but take and eat [comedite]. Therefore, ‘manducate’ is unfittingly said.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, in none of the Gospels is all of you set down. Therefore, it seems that it was a presumptuous thing to add.
Response to Quaestiuncula 1
To the first question, I answer that the form of any sacrament must express what the substance of the sacrament consists in; as in the form of baptism cleansing is expressed, in which the sacrament of baptism is completed. But the whole perfection of this sacrament consists in the very consecration of its matter, which is by the transubstantiation of bread into the body of Christ. And these words express this transubstantiation: this is my body; and so these words are the form of this sacrament.
Reply Obj. 1: There are four opinions about this.
For some people have said that Christ, who had the power of excellence in the sacraments, consecrated without any form, by divine power, and afterward pronounced the words by which others consecrated thereafter; and Innocent touches on this opinion, saying: it can be soundly said that Christ consecrated by divine power, and afterward expressed the form under which future generations would bless it. (Pope Innocent, De Myster. Missae, Bk. 4, ch. 6 (PL 217:859).) But this does not seem fitting: for in the text of the Gospel it says, he blessed it, which was done by certain words. However, Innocent states this opinion by way of giving his own view, or by referring to the order by which the power of consecrating was imparted to the words from Christ, in whom this power first existed.
And so others say that he did consecrate under a certain form of words, though not these, but other words we do not know. But this also seems unfitting: for a priest consecrating by these words utters them as uttered by Christ at that moment. For this reason if at that moment the consecration was not happening through them, then it would not happen now either.
And so others say that he consecrated under these same words, but he pronounced them twice: the first time, silently, when he blessed the bread, and the second time, openly, when he distributed it, so that he might impart to the others the form of consecrating. But even this seems unfitting: for they are not uttered by the consecrating priest in the person of Christ as uttered in secret: for he did not bless it saying, this is my body, but he gave it saying, take and eat, etc.
And so others say, and this is better, that Christ uttered these words only once, and by uttering them once, he both consecrated the bread and gave the form of consecrating. For this participle, saying, does not convey simultaneity only with the word gave, but with all the other things mentioned, so that the sense would be: while he blessed it and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, he uttered these words: take and eat, etc. Or, according to certain others, the Gospel writer does not observe the order in which the words were uttered by the Lord; for the order went like this: he took the bread, and blessed it, saying, take and eat, etc. But the former explanation is better.
Reply Obj. 2: The completion of the other sacraments consists in the use of the matter, but this one in the consecration of the matter. And this is why in the other sacraments the form too is in the words that are said in the use of the sacrament, while in this one, the form of the sacrament is in the words that are said in the consecration of the matter.
Response to Quaestiuncula 2
To the second question, it should be said that in this sacrament, as in the others, there are two things: namely, the consecration of matter and the use of the consecrated matter; and these two things are expressed by the words of the Lord. For in saying, take and eat of it all of you, the use of the sacrament is commanded; but in saying, this is my body, the consecration of the matter is given. And since the consecration of the matter is for the use of the faithful, for this reason the use is stated first in the sacrament’s demonstration, although it follows in execution: since the end is prior in intention and understanding, and last in operation. But since, as was said, the use of the matter in this sacrament is not of the essence of the sacrament, as it is in the others, for that reason those words that pertain to the use do not belong to the form, but only the words that pertain to the consecration of the matter, namely, this is my body.
Reply Obj. 1: Although the sacrament’s use is not of the essence of the sacrament, nevertheless it does contribute to the sacrament’s fullness, inasmuch as it attains what it was instituted for; and so sometimes not only those words are said to be of the form that pertain to the consecration, but also those that pertain to the use; and this is how Ambrose and Eusebius are speaking, as well as the Master in the text.
Reply Obj. 2: This conjunction for conveys the order of the consecration to the use of the matter once consecrated; and thus just as words that pertain to the use are not of the form, likewise neither is the conjunction mentioned. However, it must be included according to the use of the Roman Church, which took its beginning from blessed Peter. Nor is it the same with this sacrament as with others. For the words of this sacrament’s form are uttered by the minister in the person of Christ, as though quoting. And this is why the link must be made with the previous quotation, which the conjunction for does. The forms of the other sacraments, on the other hand, are uttered in the person of the minister; and so nothing that is not of the form need be interposed to link it to something else, since it is uttered absolutely.
Response to Quaestiuncula 3
To the third question, it should be said that in the sacraments the minister can work two ways. In one way, pronouncing the words; in another way, as the one performing a certain outward act, as is evident in baptism; and both of these are the sacramental cause of what is accomplished by the divine power that is hidden in the sacraments. Now a sacramental cause effects by signifying; hence in those sacraments in which the minister works in both of these ways, the words uttered must signify the act performed, and the outward act must signify the interior effect, as is seen in baptism: for the external cleansing, which the words of the form express, signifies an interior cleansing, which divine power, hidden in the sacrament, accomplishes. Therefore, where the minister works only by pronouncing the words, it is necessary that the signification of the words refer directly to what is accomplished; however, in this sacrament, whose completion consists in the actual consecration of the matter, the minister has no act but the pronouncing of the words, nor any other sanctification of the matter. Hence the words of the form must signify what divine power is doing imperceptibly; but this is for the body of Christ to exist under those appearances, and therefore this is the fitting form for this sacrament: this is my body, which signifies what has been said.
Reply Obj. 1: In this sacrament nothing is carried out by the minister that is of the essence of the sacrament, as it was in baptism; for this reason the words must signify only what is brought about by divine power. However, everything that does something causes the very doing in the fact that it was done; nor must there be a resemblance between the doing and the one doing it, but between the deed and the one doing it, since this is the intention of the one acting. However, just as works of art and nature require a resemblance between the one doing and the deed done according to the natural and artificial form, so also sacramental causes require a likening or representation by the mode of signifying; which is why words uttered in this sacrament did not have to signify this doing or transubstantiation itself as something happening, but as something that has happened; therefore this would not be a fitting form for this sacrament: this is becoming my body, for by this no being or non-being is signified; and likewise, nor would these words: may this be changed or transubstantiated into my body, for this is not signified as being or non-being, which is chiefly intended in this sacrament. Or it could be said that other words signify acting or being passive, and thus a certain motion, and since there is no motion in transubstantiation, since there is no common subject, nor a change, since the terminus of transubstantiation is pre-existing in act; for this reason no adequate word could have been handed down as this sacrament’s form, except a substantive.
Reply Obj. 2: A minister does not have an outward act in the consecration, in which the essence of this sacrament consists; although he has an outward act in the distribution to the faithful, which comes after this sacrament; and so the minister’s act need not be included in the form that is of the essence of the sacrament.
Response to Quaestiuncula 4
To the fourth question, it should be said that as has been said, the words of the form should signify transubstantiation in its terminus, but not considered as happening. However, being is the terminus of transubstantiation, for its extremes or terminuses are the two substances; and so in the form’s words the two terminuses of transubstantiation are signified, and transubstantiation itself as it exists in its terminus by the word is. However, in the terminus of transubstantiation that was the starting terminus, the nature of the species does not remain but only the accidents, by which its individuation was recognized; but the substance that is the ending terminus is wholly contained in the sacrament, both as to the nature of the species and as to its proper accidents. And so on the part of the starting terminus, what signifies the nature of the species is not stated, but a demonstrative pronoun, which indicates its individuation by the accidents, just as it is perceived by the senses. On the part of the ending terminus, however, a noun is used designating the nature of the species, and a pronoun not demonstrative of this substance as it is under the sacrament, but as it is Christ’s in his proper visible species, for that is how he pronounced the words of the form. Hence it is evident that the form consists adequately in these four words: this is my body.
Reply Obj. 1: Concerning this there are several opinions.
For certain people say that this pronoun, this, makes no demonstration, for it is taken materially, since those words are uttered by the priest as though quoting. But this cannot stand: for then those words would have no order to the matter present, and so there would be no sacrament. For Augustine says: the word is combined with the element, and a sacrament occurs. (Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus (CCSL 36), Tract. 80, par. 3.) And furthermore, the same difficulty remains about those words as uttered by Christ himself.
And so others say that he makes a demonstration for the intellect, and the sense is: this is my body; that is, by this bread or by these appearances, my body is represented, or the thing symbolized by this, is my body. But this too, cannot stand: for since in the sacrament nothing is effected except what is signified by the power of the words spoken, the body of Christ would not come to be on the altar as to the truth of the thing, but only in symbol, which is heretical; or else the words mentioned would not be the form of this sacrament. Nor can it be said that the intention of the one uttering the words makes it so that with these words it is consecrated by power divinely conferred; for the power given to the sacraments follows on their signification, and the intention of the minister cannot direct the sacraments to an effect other than the one signified by the words.
And so others say that the this makes a demonstration for the senses, and indicates the bread not simply, but according as it is transubstantiated into the body of Christ. But against this is that the bread once transubstantiated is not bread. But when this pronoun this is uttered, the transubstantiation has not happened, for the other words to that point were not of the essence of the form. Therefore, since what is actually not sensible could not be demonstrated to the senses, it could not be taken as a demonstration in the mode mentioned; unless it were said, as others say, that the whole sense of the sentence and all parts of it is to be referred to the last instant of pronouncing the words, since in that instant where the reality is, the speech has truth. And it is the same when someone says, “Now I am silent” or “now I drink,” if he immediately begins to be silent or to drink. But this again cannot stand: for then the meaning of those words presupposes the transubstantiation to have already happened; therefore it would not happen by the power of the words. And furthermore according to this the sense of the expression would be, My body is my body, which indeed is not being done by the power of these words.
And so it is to be said rather that those things expressed by the voice are proportionate to those that are in the soul. But the soul’s concept can work in two ways. In one way as the representation of a thing alone, as is the case in all understanding taken from things; and so the truth of a concept presupposes the thing’s existence as its proper measure, as is said in the Metaphysics 10. (See Aristotle, Metaphysics, Bk. 10, ch. 1, 1053a31.) And speech that is uttered for the sake of signifying alone is characterized by this mode of concepts. In the other way, the concept in the soul is not representative of the thing, but rather presignative, like the exemplar of something to be made, as is seen in practical knowledge, which is the cause of a thing; and the truth of this concept does not presuppose the existence of the thing, but precedes it naturally as its cause, even if they are simultaneous in time; and this is the mode belonging to the words mentioned, for they are significative and effective of what they signify. This is why the truth and signification of this expression naturally precedes the existence of the thing that it signifies, and does not presuppose it, although it may be simultaneous with it in time, like a proper cause with its proper effect.
But since the signification and the truth of the speech, which is simultaneous with transubstantiation, arises from the consignifications of the parts uttered one after another, for this reason it is necessary that the last statement uttered complete the signification of the speech, like a specific difference; and the existence of the thing happens at the same time as the signification, and as a result the significations of the first parts may precede transubstantiation, which indeed does not happen successively, but in the last instant through the speech’s signification then completed. In this way, therefore, the pronoun this neither demonstrates transubstantiation’s ending terminus determinately, for now the speech’s signification would presuppose the being of the signified thing, and would not be its cause; nor again does it demonstrate the starting terminus definitely, since the signification of that would impede the whole phrase’s truth of signification, since the starting terminus does not remain in the last instant of the speech. Therefore, it is left that it demonstrate indeterminately what is shared by both terminuses. However, just as in formal changes the subject or the matter is common to both terminuses, but the terminuses are distinguished by accidental or substantial forms, so also in transubstantiation the sensible accidents that remain are shared, while the substances differ. And so this is the sense: This thing contained under these appearances is my body. And this is the reason why there is no noun set down with the pronoun, lest the demonstration be determined to a certain species of substance. For just as in the speech that signifies only change the subject per se is the shared subject of the change, as when someone says, “This is becoming white,” so also in the speech that causes transubstantiation, the subject must be what is shared in transubstantiation.
Reply Obj. 2: That argument would proceed if the demonstration of the pronoun were directed to what was contained under those appearances, according as it is determined to the appearance of bread: for the body of Christ cannot be predicated of bread, except with a word that conveys a change. But this is not how the demonstration of the pronoun is understood, but rather as was said above.
Reply Obj. 3: The Lord, in John 6, was speaking of this sacrament only as it is effectual of restoration, and since flesh is more suited for restoration than body, according to the resemblance to bodily restoration, for that reason he said ‘flesh’ at that point rather than ‘body’. But in the form of the sacrament the essence of the sacrament and its signification should be expressed; and therefore ‘body’ should be said rather than ‘flesh’, both because in this sacrament not only the flesh but the whole body of Christ is essentially contained by the sacrament’s power, and because this sacrament signifies by representing Christ’s Passion, which took place throughout his whole body. In addition it signifies, as a final reality, the mystical body, namely, the Church, which because of the distinction of offices has a resemblance to a whole body by reason of the distinction of its members. However, bread is not a figure of the reality contained in the sacrament as a homogeneous body, but as something confected from many different grains; hence its signification is more suited to a whole body than to flesh.
Reply Obj. 4: This sacrament is directly representative of the Lord’s Passion, in which Christ as priest and victim offered himself to God on the altar of the Cross. Now, the victim that the priest offers is one with the one that Christ offered according to reality, for it really contains Christ; however, the minister offering it is not really the same. Therefore, it is necessary that he be the same in representation, and so the consecrating priest, as bearing the person of Christ, utters the words of consecration as though speaking in the person of Christ, lest it seem to be a different victim. And since by those things that he enacts with regard to the external matter, he represents the person of Christ, this is how those words, at once in recitation and in signification, are bound to the matter present, which is the figure of what Christ had present. And because of this it is fittingly said, this is my body, rather than this is the body of Christ. Or also because of the fact that the priest does not have an outward act that would be the cause of the consecration sacramentally, but the power of consecration consists in the spoken words alone; and so the words are uttered in the person of him by whose power the transubstantiation happens.
Response to Quaestiuncula 5
To the fifth question, it should be said that there are many things said and done by the Lord that the Gospel writers did not write down, as is evident from John 21, which things the Church nevertheless faithfully kept afterwards as received from the apostles.
Reply Obj. 1: And accordingly, as Pope Innocent says, although nowhere in Sacred Scripture is it read that the Lord raised his eyes to heaven at the Last Supper, nevertheless the Church recites this as something handed down from the apostles, and it can be gathered reasonably enough from other places in Scripture. (Innocent, De Sacro Altaris Mysterio, Bk. 4, ch. 5 (PL 217:858).) For it is read in John 11:41 that in the raising of Lazarus he lifted his eyes to his Father, and likewise in John 17:1, when pouring out a prayer to his Father. Moreover, he often did this in difficult times, giving thanks, and presenting an example to us of turning to God, according to the Psalm, but to you I have lifted my eyes, O you who dwell in the heavens! (Ps 123[122]:1). And since this sacrament is the most difficult, for this reason when he was instituting this sacrament he probably lifted his eyes to his Father, giving thanks to his Father for the restoration of the human race, which is figured by this sacrament, and showing us that this sacrament was confected by divine power.
Reply Obj. 2: Just as has been said, these words, take and eat of it all of you, do not belong to the form’s substance. And so there is not so much effort having to be made that the same things be so carefully observed. And furthermore, ‘comedere’ and ‘manducare’ have no difference in meaning ‘eat’; and although a word from ‘manducare’ is not included among these words in the Gospels, nevertheless a little before it is written, with longing I have desired to eat [manducare] this Passover with you before I suffer (Luke 22:15).
Reply Obj. 3: Although this determination ‘all of you’ is not expressed in the Gospel, nevertheless, it is understood, for sacramental eating is for all, although not spiritual eating. Thus, the phrase mentioned is expressed concerning the consumption of the blood in the Gospels, for the blood was poured out in the redemption, and while redemption is for all as to sufficiency, it is not so as to efficacy. Or since the consumption of the blood is handed on last, what is said about it can be understood in the same way about the consumption of the body.
Article 2
The form with which his blood is consecrated
Quaestiuncula 1
Obj. 1: To the second we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST III, q. 78, a. 3; Super Matt. 26; Super I ad Cor. 11, lec. 6.) It seems that the form of the consecration of the blood consists in these words alone: this is the chalice of my blood, and what is added, the blood of the new and eternal covenant, the mystery of faith, which is poured out for you and for many in remission of sins, is not of the form. For the Gospel writers should agree on those things that are of the form of this sacrament: for words of this sacrament’s form are said quoting, as though in the person of Christ. But they do not agree in adding those words, for they are not read in any Gospel, nor can they be found in the text of the Apostle (1 Cor 11). Therefore, they are not of the form of this sacrament.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, just as bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ by the consecration, wine is transubstantiated into Christ’s blood. But the consecration that happens by these words, this is my body, suffices for transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ. Therefore also these words, this is the chalice of my blood, are sufficient for transubstantiation of the wine into the blood of Christ. Therefore the words that follow are not of the form.
Obj. 3. Furthermore, natural properties follow upon the substance of a thing. But what follows upon substance cannot be effective of transubstantiation. Therefore, since these words that follow designate certain properties of the blood into which transubstantiation happens, it seems that they are not of the form.
On the contrary (1), the words in question are interposed in the words of the form in Luke 22:20: this is the chalice of the new covenant in my blood.
Furthermore (2), this appears from the rite of consecration: since the priest does not set down the chalice until these words: however often you do this, which are not of the form, although they are the Lord’s words.
Quaestiuncula 2
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that these words are unfittingly set down: this is the chalice of my blood. For transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ and of the wine into the blood of Christ happen in the same way. But in the transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ, the body of Christ is named directly. Therefore, in the consecration of the wine, the blood of Christ should be named directly, so that it would be said, as the Master says in the text: this is my blood, as Matthew 26:28 also has it.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, in the part mentioned of the transubstantiating form, the terminus to which transubstantiation happens should be included, as is clear from what has been said. But nothing is transubstantiated into a chalice. Therefore, it should not be named in the transubstantiating form.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, in the sacrament’s form nothing should be included that is not of the substance of the sacrament. But a chalice is not of the substance of the sacrament, since it is a kind of vessel. Therefore, it should not be included in the sacrament’s form.
On the contrary, it says, this is the chalice of the new covenant in my blood (Luke 22:20). And the Church’s use amounts to the same thing.
Quaestiuncula 3
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that also the words that follow are unfittingly included. For ‘covenant’ seems to pertain to the handing down of commands; hence also the tables containing the Ten Commandments are called tables of the covenant. But the handing down of sacraments is different from the handing down of commands. Therefore, in the sacraments no mention should be made of a covenant.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, Ambrose says that our sacraments are older than the sacraments of the Jews. (See Ambrose, On the Sacraments, Bk. 4, ch. 3: “Accipe, quae dico: et anteriora esse mysteria Christianorum quam Iudaeorum et diviniora esse sacramenta Christianorum quam Iudaeorum” (CSEL 73:49).) But the sacraments of the Jews do not pertain to the new covenant, but to the old. Therefore, nor should new covenant be included in the sacrament, of which Ambrose speaks.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, new and eternal seem to be contrary to each other, for the eternal is what has no beginning, but the new is what is closest to its beginning. Therefore, the adjectives are opposites.
Obj. 4: Furthermore, whatever is grounds for error should not be included in a sacrament’s form. But as Innocent III says, that which is said—*mystery—*offers grounds for error to some people, who say that the true body of Christ is not contained on the altar but is only there by signification. (Innocent III, De Sacro Altaris Mysterio, Bk. 4, ch. 35 (PL 217:878).) Therefore, it is unfittingly included in the form.
Obj. 5: Furthermore, this sacrament, as was said before, seems especially to be the sacrament of charity, as also baptism is the sacrament of faith. Therefore, it is unfittingly said, mystery of faith, but rather it should be said, mystery of charity.
Obj. 6: Furthermore, just as the blood of Christ was poured out for us, so also the body of Christ was handed over for us, so that from the Lord’s words we also have, this is my body, which will be given up for you (Luke 22:19). Since therefore this is not added to the form of consecrating the body, neither should mention be made of this outpouring in the consecration of the blood.
Obj. 7: Furthermore what is said, which will be poured out for you and for many, is to be understood concerning the effusion either to sufficiency or to efficacy. If as to sufficiency, then it was poured out for all, not only for many; but if as to efficacy, which it has only among the elect, then it seems that it did not have to distinguish between the apostles and others.
Obj. 8: Furthermore, baptism is more directed against the removal of evil than the Eucharist, which is most of all directed toward perfecting in good. But in the form of baptism no mention is made of the remission of sins. Therefore, neither should it be said, in remission of sins.
Response to Quaestiuncula 1
To the first question, I answer that concerning this people have spoken in different ways. For certain people say that this alone belongs to the form: this is the chalice of my blood, so that the form of both consecrations may be alike. But since conditions in apposition to a subject or a predicate are integral to any sentence, for this reason others say more probably that all that follows belongs to the form, since everything that is added is not a sentence on its own, but the determination of a predicate.
Reply Obj. 1: For the most part, the words above can be gathered from different places in the Sacred Scriptures, although they are not found anywhere written all together. For the phrase, this is the chalice, is found in Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:25; the phrase, of the new covenant, is had from three places, Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, and Luke 22:20; the phrases, eternal, and, the mystery of faith, are had from the Lord by the tradition that came to the Church from the apostles, as it says, I received from the Lord what I have handed on to you (1 Cor 11:23). For the Gospel writers did not intend to give the forms and rites of the sacraments, but to tell the deeds and sayings of the Lord.
Reply Obj. 2: Since the sacrament of the Eucharist is the memorial of the Lord’s Passion, the body of Christ is only represented in the consecration as the subject of the Passion; but in the consecration of the blood, the mystery of the Passion is represented, for Christ’s blood was not parted from his body except by the Passion. And so the conditions of the Lord’s Passion are expressed by the words that follow more in the consecration of the blood than in the consecration of the body.
Reply Obj. 3: Although those things said afterward are like properties of the blood of Christ consequent to it as the kind of thing it is, they are nevertheless essential to the blood of Christ as poured out through his Passion. However, the blood of Christ would not be consecrated apart from the body, just as neither would any other parts, except for the fact that it was shed in the Passion; and so the things said after are essential to the blood as it is consecrated in this sacrament; and so it is necessary that they belong to the form’s substance.
Response to Quaestiuncula 2
To the second question, it should be said that this speech, this is the chalice of my blood, is figurative, and can be understood in two ways. In one way as an expression of metonomy, so that the container is said in place of the contents, just as we often say, “Drink a cup of wine,” i.e., the wine contained in the cup. But this is why such a mode of speaking fits with this form, that blood by its own nature does not mean something to drink, but rather something that nature abhors drinking. And because in this sacrament the blood of Christ is consecrated as a drink, it is necessary for something to be added that relates it to drinking, namely, chalice. It can be understood another way, as metaphorical speech, so that by the chalice the Passion of Christ is designated. For just as a chalice of wine inebriates, so also the Passion by its bitterness rendered him a man beside himself, as it were: he has filled me with bitterness, he has inebriated me with wormwood (Lam 3:15). And this manner of speaking is used by the Lord, speaking of his Passion (as is clear from Matthew 26:39: let this cup pass from me); and this manner of speaking is also suited to this form, for as was said, in the consecration of the wine the mystery of the Passion is directly expressed. Nor is what people often object a problem, namely that figurative speech distracts the understanding, and so is a cause of the mind wandering: for the mind of the priest must be so fixed on what he is saying that it does not wander by any light action.
Reply Obj. 1: The body of its own nature does not convey anything repugnant to food by its very naming, as blood is repugnant to drinking; and so the reasoning is not the same. Moreover, the Master did not set down the form as to the words, but as to the sense.
Reply Obj. 2: Transubstantiation of wine does not happen to the chalice itself, but to the contents, namely, the blood of Christ, as it is a drink and as it is poured out through the Passion; and so the objection ceases.
Reply Obj. 3:Although this vessel does not belong to the sacrament’s substance, nevertheless what it contains and what it signifies do belong to the sacrament’s substance; and this is how the speech is understood.
Response to Quaestiuncula 3
To the third question, it should be said that, as has been said, those words that are added to the consecration of the blood express the conditions of the Passion especially as they are at work in the sacraments. However, there are three things to be considered in the Passion as it is at work in the sacraments. First, the effect that it brings about, which is the remission of sins; and this is touched upon by saying: which is poured out for you and for many for the remission of sins. Second, the medium by which this effect is transferred to others, which is faith, by means of which it has an effect on both those who went before and those who come after; and as to this it says, the mystery of faith; which indeed can be referred both to the Passion itself, which is the mystery of faith (as a certain secret thing hidden in the faith of all the Christian faithful, and particularly of the ancients, among whom it was figured in different ways in a hidden mystery) and to the blood itself as it is contained in the sacrament, which indeed hides under the appearances and holds the greatest difficulty for believing; hence it is said antonomastically, the mystery of faith. Third, the end to which it draws us, which is the reception of eternal things, which Christ led us into by the blood of his own Passion, in which the new covenant is confirmed, not indeed promising temporal things as before but eternal things; and as to this it says: of the new and eternal covenant. And since the end is first in intention, for this reason once the end is stated the words of the form lead to showing the effect of the Passion through the means.
Reply Obj. 1: Covenant is properly the establishment of an inheritance to be received by children from their father, and so covenant properly belongs to the promising of goods, which are allotted to us by our heavenly Father. To this covenant the commandments are indeed related as a path to obtaining the promised inheritance; and so the covenant pertains to the commandments per posterius.
Reply Obj. 2: That antiquity should be understood as to likeness of rite. However, this covenant is called new both by reason of this sacrament, which was established for the renewal of the world in the time of grace, and again by reason of the promise confirmed through the blood of Christ, which took away the old impediment to obtaining the inheritance; and so a certain renewal of the promise was made through the death of Christ.
Reply Obj. 3: New and eternal is said with many different notions: for new, indeed with the notion already given; eternal either with the notion of eternal goods, which the covenant is concerned with; or with the notion of this sacrament containing Christ, who is an eternal person; or with the notion of eternal predestination preparing this grace.
Reply Obj. 4: Nothing prohibits what is hidden and symbolized in a certain thing from being there according to the truth; and so those who deny that the blood of Christ is on the altar according to the truth, because of the fact that it is also there according to mystery, take foolish grounds for their error.
Reply Obj. 5: The Eucharist is called the sacrament of charity because it expresses Christ’s charity and causes ours; but faith is presupposed for the effect of this kind of sacrament, since someone may partake of the effect by means of it; and so he includes faith as a means leading to the effect rather than charity.
Reply Obj. 6: The answer to this is evident from what has been said: for this happens because of the fact that in the consecration of the body the Passion is not represented as in the consecration of the blood.
Reply Obj. 7: The blood of Christ was poured out for all as to sufficiency, but only for the elect as to efficacy; and lest it be considered poured out only for the Jewish elect to whom the promise had been made, for this reason he says, for you, who are of the Jews, and for many, namely, the multitude of gentiles. Or, in the persons of the apostles, it signifies priests, by means of whom the effect of the Passion reaches others through the administering of the sacraments, and who also pray for themselves and others.
Reply Obj. 8: The remission of sins is not included here as the proper effect of this sacrament, but as the effect of the Passion, which is expressed by the consecration of the blood. However, concerning changes, whether additions or subtractions, the same thing should be said here that was said above concerning the form of baptism, Distinction 3. (See q. 1, a. 2, qa. 2, 3, and 4.)
Article 3
The power of each consecration
Obj. 1: To the third we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST III, q. 78, a. 4; Super Matt. 26.) It seems that in the words mentioned there is no created power for bringing about transubstantiation. For Damascene says that the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ happens by the power of the Holy Spirit alone. (Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. 4, ch. 13 (PG 194:1139).) But the power of the Holy Spirit is not a created power. Therefore, no created power is in these words by which transubstantiation happens.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, the work of transubstantiation seems to be more difficult than the work of creation, for reason more quickly consents to creation than to this conversion, since even certain philosophers led by natural reason deduced creation. But no created power, according to common opinion, can cooperate with God in the work of creation. Therefore, much less in this work of conversion.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, it is more difficult to convert bread into the substance of the body of Christ than to convert the most pure blood of the Virgin into the body of Christ; for the body of Christ and the Virgin’s blood have shared matter, which is the subject of conversion; which there cannot be in the conversion of bread into the body of Christ. But in the formation of the body of Christ from the Virgin there was no created power actively working the transformation, as was said in Book III, Distinction 3. (See q. 2, a. 2.) Therefore, neither is there any created power for transubstantiating in the words mentioned.
Obj. 4: Furthermore, no created power can work something above nature. But the conversion of bread into the body of Christ is extremely beyond nature, since the mode of natural change is not preserved, for neither is there a common subject, and the ending terminus is actually pre-existing. Therefore, a conversion like this cannot happen by the created power conferred on the words of the form.
Obj. 5: An active power is directly proportionate to what its action terminates in, for this is intended by the agent, and ‘action’ is named from the agent. But the body of Christ in which the conversion ends is much more worthy than any pure creature. Therefore, since an agent should be more noble than what it makes, nothing can be converted into the body of Christ by any created power.
Obj. 6: Furthermore, the one doing and the thing done, the cause and the caused, should exist simultaneously, for what is not cannot make anything, or exist as cause of anything. But since the conversion mentioned happens in an instant, and the words of the form are uttered in succession, when the conversion happens those words cannot be simultaneous with it, except for a tiny part of them. Therefore, a conversion like this cannot happen by any power that is in the words.
Obj. 7: Furthermore, those words do not have power on their own; that is plain. Therefore, if they have any power like this, it would have had to be divinely given to them. Moreover, it is necessary for this power to be simple, since its effect is in an instant. However, a simple power cannot be given successively, and its subject must be simple. Therefore since the words mentioned are composite and successive, this power cannot be conferred on them.
Obj. 8: Furthermore, it seems unfitting to make something that is of the greatest nobility that immediately stops existing. But transubstantiating power is the most noble, which is evident from the nobility of its effect. Therefore, since the words of the form cease to exist immediately, it seems unfitting if the power of transubstantiating is given to them by God.
Obj. 9: Furthermore, those words do not bring about the conversion mentioned unless spoken by a priest. But the soul of a priest is more receptive of a divine power than words uttered by him. Therefore, it should be said that this power is in the priest rather than the words, if some created power is working transubstantiation.
On the contrary (1), Dionysius says at the end of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: in those very invocations, once completed, i.e., the forms of the sacraments, there is power working from God. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 7, p. 3, n. 10 (PG 3:566).) But the words mentioned are the form of this most worthy of sacraments. Therefore, the power of transubstantiating is in them.
Furthermore (2), Ambrose says that the words of Christ change creatures, and so the body of Christ is made out of bread with these heavenly words in the consecration. (See Ambrose, On the Sacraments, Bk. 4, ch. 4.) However, Christ’s word is the form instituted by Christ and spoken in the person of Christ. Therefore, the transubstantiation happens by the power of these words.
Furthermore (3), the priest does not work the transubstantiation except by uttering words. If therefore the power of transubstantiating was not in the words, then the priest would not have any spiritual power of consecrating, and thus he would not have holy orders, which is a kind of power directed chiefly to this.
I answer that, there are two opinions about this. For some people say that no created power by which transubstantiation happens is in these words; but the fact that transubstantiation is sometimes said to happen by the power of those words is to be understood as that it has been established by divine institution that the conversion happen by divine power alone at the utterance of those words; and they say the same thing about all the other sacraments, as was said in Distinction 1. (See q. 2, a. 2, qa. 2.)
But this opinion disparages the dignity of the sacraments of the New Law, and it seems to go against the things the saints have said. And so it should be said that in the words mentioned, as also in the forms of the other sacraments, there is a certain power from God, but this power is not a quality having complete being in nature, like the power of any principal agent according to its own form, but it has incomplete being, like the power that is in an instrument from the intention of the principal agent, and like the similitudes of color in the air, as was said above in Distinction 1.
Reply Obj. 1: An excluding term (e.g., ‘alone’), when attributed to a principal agent does not exclude there being an instrumental agent, for it does not follow: this craftsman makes a knife alone; therefore the hammer did no work toward this. For the power of the instrument is only a certain overflow of the power of the principal agent; hence the action in whole is not attributed to the instrument, but to the principal agent, according to the Philosopher; *(Aristotle, Generation of Animals, Bk. 2, ch. 1, 734b28–30; cf. ch. 6, 742a25.)*and because of this, when it is said that this conversion happens by the power of the Holy Spirit alone, the instrumental power that is in these words is not excluded.
Reply Obj. 2: A created power presupposes matter on which it works, which indeed happens in two different ways. In one way such that it is a subject of the change, as happens in natural conversions. In another way, such that it underlies the starting terminus but not the change, as happens in the conversion stated. But creation presupposes matter in neither way; and so something can cooperate with God instrumentally more in this conversion than in the work of creation. However, whether there is greater power in this conversion or in creation, will be said further on in Distinction 11. (See q. 1, a. 3, qa. 4.)
Reply Obj. 3: If the union is included in the conception, which happened at the same time with it, then there was a greater difficulty in the conception than in transubstantiation: for that union has its terminus in a divine person’s being, while transubstantiation has its terminus in the body of Christ, for bread is not converted into anything but the body of Christ. However, if the work of conception includes only the conversion of the most pure blood of the Virgin into the body of Christ, then the greater difficulty is in this conversion rather than in that one; hence he could have also conferred on a certain creature that it cooperate with him in that conception, although for the sake of preserving the dignity of Christ it would not have been fitting, since [the body of Christ] was being made simply at that time, not existing before, which does not happen here; and therefore nothing is taken away from Christ’s dignity, if some creature should receive instrumental power of working upon what is transubstantiated into the body of Christ.
Reply Obj. 4: No creature can do those things that are above nature as principal agent; however, it can cause a motion by uncreated power as instrumental agent: for as there is an obediential potency in creation, so that whatever the Creator has disposed happens in it, thus also so that it happens by means of it, which is the definition of an instrument.
Reply Obj. 5: The power of the principal agent regards principally the ending terminus, but the power of an instrumental cause does not reach to the ending terminus, but has its own operation in those things that surround the terminus, just as active elementary qualities do not attain to introducing the rational soul. And this happens similarly, because that instrumental power that is in the words has its operation upon the substance of the bread, for the word is combined with the element according to Augustine. (Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus (CCSL 36), Tract. 80, par. 3.) However, it is not in any way a cause of those things that are in the ending terminus, as that accidents exist without a subject, or something like that; and so the objection ceases.
Reply Obj. 6: Since this power of converting which is in these words is sacramental, it follows the signification, as was said. However, the signification of a conversion of something existing, since it conveys an order of one thing to another, cannot be brought about through a word or phrase but must be brought about through a complete statement, whose signification is whole and simultaneous even if its parts are uttered successively, because the last particle of the statement completes the signification at that moment, in the manner of the final difference in definitions. And once this signification exists, the transubstantiation happens in the last instant of the utterance.
Reply Obj. 7: Although in relation to the parts that bring about its signification the signification of the statement seems composite, yet relative to the reality signified it is simple, inasmuch as it signifies one thing, namely the composition of this with that; just as the Philosopher also says in the Metaphysics 5, that the substance of six is not three twice, but six once, which names the quality there. (Aristotle, Metaphysics, Bk. 5, ch. 14, 1020b7–8.) Hence just as for this quality of six its parts are related to it as material dispositions, not as qualities of parts, like the parts of one entire quality, so also the significations of the parts are dispositions to the signification of the whole utterance, which arises from the signification of the last part, taken in an order to all those preceding it: for the power to convert follows the signification, as was said; and so in what completes the signification that power is given to the whole utterance, so that the individual parts are related only materially to that power.
Reply Obj. 8: It is extremely fitting that everything that is for the sake of something stop existing once this thing is complete that it was for the sake of; and since that power was not for the perfection of what it was given to, but rather for making the conversion of which we speak, since it is only an instrumental power, as was said, for this reason it is not unfitting if, once the conversion is done, both the words and the power of the words immediately cease to be.
Reply Obj. 9: When some work is completed by several instruments, the instrumental power is not completely in one but incompletely in each, as one writes with a pen and the hand; and it happens the same way in this case: for an instrumental power for making the conversion mentioned is not only in the word but also in the priest, yet in each incompletely: for neither the priest without the word nor the word without the priest can consecrate. And since a priest is more like the principal agent than a word, since he bears his figure, for this reason, simply speaking, his instrumental power is greater and more worthy (for which reason also it remains, and is related to many effects like this). However, the power of the word is transient, and only exists for one time; but in a certain respect, the power of the word is greater, as closer to the effect, like a sign of it; just as also a pen is closer to the writing, but a hand is closer to the writer.
Article 4
A comparison of the two consecrations
Quaestiuncula 1
Obj. 1: To the fourth we proceed thus. (Parallels: below, d. 11, q. 2, a. 1, qa. 1, ad 4; ST III, q. 78, a. 6; Super Matt. 26; Super I ad Cor. 11, lec. 6.) It seems that the forms depend on each other in working. For just as one reality is related to another reality, so also is a form related to a form. But the reality of the body does not exist without the reality of the blood: for the body of Christ is not consecrated without the blood. Therefore, neither does the form of consecrating the body work without the form of consecrating the blood.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, this sacrament is one. But because of the unity of the sacrament the two species, namely, bread and wine, are interrelated in the notion of one sign, as has been said. Therefore, in the same way, the two forms are interrelated in the notion of one form. But in one form the parts are dependent on each other in order to act, as has been said. Therefore, the form of consecrating the body also depends on the form of the blood.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, in baptism three immersions depend on each other in acting. Therefore, also these two utterances of words do in the same way.
On the contrary (1), if once the words are uttered, when there is the signification of the prayer, the true body of Christ were not there immediately, then this would be false: this is my body. But in the sacrament of truth nothing can happen that is false. Therefore, the first form does not depend on the second one to work.
Furthermore (2), the host should not be adored before its consecration. But according to the common custom of the Church, immediately once these first words of the form are said over the bread, before the form of the blood, the host is raised for the people to adore. Therefore, before the form of the blood the host is consecrated.
Quaestiuncula 2
Obj. 1: Moreover, (Parallel: ST III, q. 83, a. 6, ad 1.) it seems that if the priest fails (“Fails” is meant to cover any scenario in which the priest who consecrated the bread becomes suddenly unable to consecrate the wine, e.g., if he passes out and cannot be revived, or has a heart attack on the spot and dies.) after the consecration of the body of Christ, another should not proceed to the consecration of the blood. For one person should be the minister for one sacrament. But both consecrations belong to one priest. Therefore, they should be done by one minister.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, the consecrating priest bears the figure of Christ, in whose person the words are uttered. But Christ is not divided, as it says in 1 Corinthians 1:13. Therefore, neither should the words be divided by being uttered by different people.
On the contrary, for the completion of this sacrament both consecrations are required. If, therefore, when the body is consecrated, the blood is not consecrated, the sacrament remains incomplete, which is unfitting.
Quaestiuncula 3
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that these words, without the others that are said in the canon of the Mass, would not have the power of consecrating. For in this sacrament the intention of doing what the Church does is required, and so the intention should be according to the statutes of the Church. But uttering these words alone does not preserve the statutes of the Church. Therefore, it does not consecrate.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, the words by which the consecration happens, uttered by themselves, are referred to the person of the speaker. But the conversion of bread and wine does not happen into the body and blood of the speaker, but into the body and blood of Christ. Therefore, without the foregoing words, namely, who the day before he suffered, etc., by which the form’s words are determined to the person of Christ, this conversion cannot happen.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, if the consecration could happen by the words in question alone, then someone in danger of death could licitly consecrate without the prefatory words, just as someone can baptize in necessity while omitting those things that are for the embellishment of the sacrament. But this is never permitted. Therefore, without the other words, these words do not have the force of conversion.
On the contrary (1), Ambrose says: this sacrament which you receive is confected by the word of the Lord; (The idea is discussed in Ambrose, On the Sacraments, Bk. 4, ch. 4 (CSEL 73).) and he is speaking of the words discussed. Therefore, without any others, those have the force of consecrating once uttered.
Furthermore (2), the conversive power follows the signification of the words, as was said. But the words of the form without any preface sufficiently signify what is being done in this sacrament. Therefore, without any others they have the force to convert.
Response to Quaestiuncula 1
To the first question, I answer that certain people say that the first form does not have its effect unless the second form is uttered; nor would the second have effect unless the first had been uttered before; nor is it dangerous to adore the host before the consecration of the blood, for it is not adored as what it is, but as what it will be. But this cannot stand: for the form must be proportionate to the matter, and therefore just as there are distinct matters which are not mixed with each other, so the forms work separately, which is evident from the fact that both have complete signification in themselves. And so it should be said, with other people, that the forms in question do not mutually depend upon each other to work.
Reply Obj. 1: In this sacrament something is contained in two ways: namely, by the force of the sacrament, and by a natural concomitance. And since the sacrament is instituted for the use of the faithful, for this reason what is contained in this sacrament by the force of the sacrament is there for the use of the faithful. And since in the consecrated bread the blood of Christ is not contained as a drink available to the faithful, it is therefore not contained there by the force of the sacrament, but by natural concomitance, by which it is fitting that the body of Christ not be without its blood; and the same is true of the consecrated wine. Hence by the force of the first words the bread is not converted into bloodless body, but into the body without the blood coming into use as a drink for the faithful. However, the reason why the blood is consecrated separately from the body (although now it is not divided) can be taken from the use to which the sacrament is directed, because eating consists in food and drink, and from that which is represented by the sacrament, since the blood of Christ was divided from the body in the Passion.
Reply Obj. 2: The two forms in this sacrament do not pertain to the one sacrament as though constituting one form, as one form is instituted from many different words. Rather they pertain to the one sacrament via the different parts of this sacrament, and so each has its own separate effect upon the part that it is ordered to.
Reply Obj. 3: The three immersions are referred to one character, which is the reality-and-sacrament in baptism, but the diverse forms are referred to diverse things, which are the reality-and-sacrament here; and so it is not the same. (For more about the sacrament alone, reality alone, and sacrament-and-reality, see the footnote at Dist.1, q.1, a.4, qa. 1, main response.)
Response to Quaestiuncula 2
To the second question, it should be said that according to the Council of Toledo, (See Gratian’s Decretals, c. 7, q. 1, “Nihil contra” (PL 187:572).) if a priest is prevented so that having begun the office of the Mass he cannot complete it, another priest must complete what he has begun, so that the following priest begins where the first left off, if it is known. If it is not known, however, he should begin from the top: for what is not known to have been done is not said to have been repeated. Nor is anything detracted from the unity of the sacrament by this, for we all are one in Christ because of the unity of faith. Nevertheless, according to Innocent III, (Innocent III, De sacro altaris mysterio, Bk. 4, ch. 22 (PL 217:872).) it is more advised that that host that was already consecrated be set apart, and the entire office be repeated with another one afterward.
And by this the answers to the objections are evident.
Response to Quaestiuncula 3
To the third question, it should be said that certain people have said, as has been said, that if those words that the form consists in are said by themselves without the others, at least without those that are in the canon of the Mass, then they do not cause the conversion. But this does not seem probable, for according to Augustine, the word is combined with the element and the sacrament occurs. (Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus (CCSL 36), Tract. 80, par. 3.) However, the word that combined with the element makes the sacrament is said by the saints to be the word of the Savior. This is why the other things are of the solemnity of the sacrament, not necessary to it. And so it should be said with other people that in these words without any others the body of Christ can be confected, although one would gravely sin who did this. And that this opinion is truer is clear from the fact that the canon of the Mass is not the same for everyone, and in different ages different things are added to the canon of the Mass.
Reply Obj. 1: The intention of doing what the Church does is required for a sacrament in those things essential to it, but not in those things that pertain to the sacrament’s beauty or solemnity, as is evident in baptism.
Reply Obj. 2: By the very intention of the one uttering the words, the words of the form can be referred to the person of Christ, even without saying the prefatory words, if the priest intended to say the words mentioned in the person of Christ.
Reply Obj. 3: Baptism is a sacrament of necessity, and so it was granted that in an imminent emergency someone could baptize without the solemnity instituted by the Church. But it is different with this sacrament: because for anyone in an emergency it would be enough to spiritually eat, if he could not eat sacramentally, and therefore in no case would it be excused from sin.
Exposition of the Text
After the sacrament of baptism and the one of confirmation, follows the sacrament of the Eucharist. (Sent. IV, 8.1 (48), 1.) It seems that this is badly ordered. For what is by essence is before what is by participation. However, in this sacrament Christ is contained in his essence, but in the others by participation in his power. Therefore, this sacrament should be examined before all the others. Furthermore, Dionysius puts them in a different order. (In the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Pseudo-Dionysius first treats of illumination (baptism) in ch. 2, then the synaxis (communion) in ch. 3, and finally the ointment (chrismation, confirmation) in ch. 4.) For he examines baptism first, and then the Eucharist, and then chrismation. Therefore, it seems that the Master has disturbed this order. And it should be said to the first that the sacraments are in an order according to their use by the faithful; hence the order of the sacraments does not depend on the order of what they contain but on how they are available to the faithful. And so baptism is placed before the Eucharist by all. And to the second it should be said that Dionysius examines the sacraments according as they are hierarchical actions, as was said above in Distinction 2, Question 1, Article 2. And so he puts them in an order following how persons are distinguished by them as in the hierarchy and in orders. And because the Eucharist does not convey any distinction above baptism, since by the very fact that someone is baptized, he is authorized for reception of the Eucharist, but confirmation does add something, for this reason he places the Eucharist before confirmation, as the common before the proper. However, the Master considers the sacraments according as sacraments are a kind of sanctifying medicine. And so he ranks the sacraments according to the order of sanctifications. And because the Eucharist is of a fuller sanctification than confirmation, he considers it afterward.
It is given to be understood that “the sacraments of the Christians are earlier than those of the Jews.” (Sent. IV, 8.2 (49), 4, citing Ambrose, De sacramentis, Bk. 4, ch. 3, n. 10.) This seems to be false, for this sacrament did not exist in its reality before the coming of Christ; and as to its appearance and rite, there were sacrifices, which were the sacraments of the Jews, even before Melchizedek. And it should be said that he speaks of the figure of this sacrament by the resemblance of its appearance and rite. But the sacraments which were done under the law of nature were not figures of the sacraments of the Old Law, but rather of the Passion of Christ.
”By which words is the consecration done? etc.” (Sent. IV, 8.4 (51), 1, citing Ambrose, De sacramentis, Bk. 4, chs. 4–5, nn. 14, 19, 21, 22.) What he says seems to be false: for it is not said: take and “eat” [edite], but, take and eat [manducate]; and furthermore, this does not belong to the form, as was said above in Question 2, Article 2. Besides, it is not said, this is my blood, but this is the chalice of my blood. And it should be said that the Master does not intend here to set down precisely the words by which the consecration happens, but to explain what is done by the Lord’s words; not of course in all the words that he said, nor the same in number, but the same in sense.
As for all the other things that are said, by them praise is given to God. (Sent. IV, 8.4 (51), 1, citing Ambrose, De sacramentis, Bk. 4, chs. 4–5, nn. 14, 19, 21. 22.) It should be known that of those things that are said in the office of the Mass, some are said by the priest, some by the ministers, and some by the whole choir. Those indeed by which the people are directly ordered to God are said only by the priests, who are the mediators between the people and God. And some of the priest’s words are said publicly, on behalf of the whole people, in the person of whom he alone speaks them to God, like prayers and thanksgiving. But some are said privately, which regard only his own office, like consecrations and prayers of the sort that he does for the people, but not praying in the person of the people; and in all of these he prefaces his words with, May the Lord be with you, so that the minds of the people may be united with him by a right intention. And since in what is directed to God the people have the priest as their leader, for this reason at the end of every prayer the people consent by answering amen; and this is also why every prayer of the priest ends aloud, even if it is done privately. But for those things that are divinely handed down through the ministry of others, the people are directed by the ministers of the altar. But those things that pertain to disposing the people, the choir accomplishes: of these, the ones that pertain to those things that surpass human reason are started by the priest, as though divinely received; the ones that are consonant with reason are declared by the choir by itself. Likewise, some pertain to the people as preparatory to receiving divine things; and these are said by the choir before those that are said by the ministers and priest. But some things are caused by the reception of divine things in the people, and these follow what the priest says.
Therefore, having seen these things, it should be known that since all our work is begun by God, it should end in him, coming full circle. And this is why the office of the Mass begins from a prayer and ends in thanksgiving. Hence it has three principal parts: namely, the beginning of the prayer that lasts until the epistle; the middle celebration itself that lasts until the postcommunion; and the end of thanksgiving from there until the end.
The first part contains two things, namely, the preparation of the people for prayer, and the prayer itself. Now the people are prepared for prayer in three ways. The first is by devotion, which is aroused in the Introit; hence it is taken from something pertaining to the solemnity, in the devotion of which the people are brought together, and the psalm is also added. Second, by humility, which is done by the Kyrie eleison, for the one seeking mercy declares his wretchedness; and it is said nine times because of the nine choirs of angels, or because of faith in the Trinity, according as any Person is considered in himself and in relation to the other two. Third, by right intention, which is directed to the heavenly fatherland and glory, which exceeds all human reason; and this is done by the glory to God in the highest, which the choir completes once the priest has started it. And so it is only said on solemnities which represent to us heavenly solemnity; but in the offices of mourning it is completely omitted. Next comes the prayer poured out to God for the people, which the priest publicly pronounces after the Lord be with you; which is taken from Ruth 2:4. However, the high priest says: Peace be with you, bearing the type of Christ who addressed his disciples with these words after the Resurrection, in John 20:19 and 21.
Now the second main part contains three parts. The first is the instruction of the people until the offertory; the second, the offering of the matter until the Preface; the third, the consummation of the sacrament until the postcommunion. Now the instruction of the people is done through the word of God, which indeed reaches the people from God through his ministers; and so those things that pertain to the instruction of the people are not said by the priest, but by the ministers.
Now there are three kinds of ministry of the word of God. The first is from authority, which belongs to Christ who is called ‘minister’ in Romans 15:8, of whom it is said, but he was teaching as one having power (Matt 7:29). The second is from the truth made plain which applies to the preachers of the New Testament, of whom it says, he has made us also worthy ministers, etc. (2 Cor 3:6). The third is from prefiguration, which applies to the preachers of the Old Testament. And thus a deacon sets forth Christ’s teaching; and because Christ is not only man, but God, the deacon says first, the Lord be with you, so that he might make men attentive to Christ as God. But the teaching of the preachers of the New Testament is announced by subdeacons. Nor is it inconsistent that sometimes in place of an epistle something is read by them from the Old Testament, since the preachers of the New Testament also preached the Old. But the teaching of the preachers of the Old Testament by lower ministers is not always read, but specifically on those days on which the configuration of the New and Old Testaments is indicated, as in the fasts of the four seasons, and when certain things are celebrated that were prefigured in the Old Law, like the Passion, the Nativity of Christ, his Baptism, and things like that. And since both teachings direct to Christ, both of those who went before and of those who came after, this is why the teaching of Christ is reserved for the end.
However, from the teaching that directs to Christ, two effects arise for the people, by which effects a man is also prepared for Christ’s teaching: namely, progress in the virtues, which is suggested by the Gradual, for it is named from the step by which one ascends from one virtue to another, or from the steps of the altar before which it is said; and the exultation possessed from the hope of eternal things, which the Alleluia suggests; this is also why it is repeated, because of the stole of the soul and body. But on days and in offices of mourning it is omitted, and a Tract is put in its place, which by the harshness of voices and the long duration of the words suggests our residence in this present misery. However, during Eastertide, two alleluias are said because of the joy of the Resurrection of the head and of the members. But the effect of Gospel teaching is the confession of faith, and since this is above reason, the Creed is begun by the priest and completed by the choir, nor is it said except on those solemnities that are mentioned in the Creed, like the Nativity, the Resurrection, and the feasts of the Apostles, who stood out as founders of the faith, as it says: like a skilled architect I have laid the foundation (1 Cor 3:10).
Next comes the second part of the second main part, which pertains to the offering of the matter to be consecrated; and this contains three things. For the exultation of the ones offering is stated first as preparatory, in the Offertory, for God loves a cheerful giver (2 Cor 9:7). The offering itself is expressed when it is said, Receive, O Holy Trinity; the acceptance of the offering is sought by prayers silently spoken, for it belongs to the priest alone to appease God by these offerings. The priest prepares himself for this prayer through humiliation, saying: humbled in spirit and contrite of heart may we find favor with you, O Lord. And since these three things named require that the mind be raised to God, this is why before all three is said, The Lord be with you (but in place of this he says Pray brethren when the prayer is to be said silently).
The third part of the second main part, which pertains to the sacrament’s reception, contains three things. First, preparation; second, the sacrament’s completion, at: Therefore, we humbly pray and beseech you, most merciful Father, etc.; third, the consuming of the sacrament, at: Let us pray. At the Savior’s command and formed by divine institution, we dare to say. Now, the preparation of the people, ministers, and priest for such a great sacrament is done by devout praise of God; therefore in the Preface, in which the preparation mentioned happens, three things are contained. First, the people’s arousal to praise, where the priest, having said the Lord be with you, which is to be referred to this entire third part, invites them to raise their minds, saying, Lift up your hearts, and to thanksgiving, saying, Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. Second, he implores God to receive our praise, showing that praise is due, saying: Truly it is worthy, by reason of his dominion (hence he adds, Holy Lord), and just, because of his fatherhood (hence he adds: all-powerful Father); right, because of his deity (hence he adds, eternal God); and for our salvation, because of our redemption (hence he adds: through Christ our Lord). But sometimes there is added some other matter of praise appropriate to the solemnity, such as, and to praise you in the assumption of Blessed Mary, ever Virgin; also setting forth an example of praise, through whom the angels praise your majesty. Third, the people offer up praises of the divinity, taking up the words of the angels: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of hosts (Isa 6:3); and of Christ’s humanity, taking up the words of the children: blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (Matt 21:9).
Now the part that contains the sacrament’s completion is divided in three, according to the three things that are integral to this sacrament: namely, what is the sacrament alone, what is the reality-and-sacrament, and what is the reality alone. In the first part, therefore, is contained the blessing of the matter offered, which is the sacrament alone; in the second part, the consecration of the body and blood of Christ, which is the reality-and-sacrament, at: bless and approve this our offering; in the third, the request of the sacrament’s effect, which is the reality alone, at: vouchsafe to look upon them with a gracious and tranquil countenance. Concerning the first, the priest does two things: first, he asks a blessing on the offering, which is called a gift as given to us by God, a present as something offered to God by us, and a sacrifice as something sanctified by God for our salvation. Second, he asks salvation for the ones offering it, or for whom it is offered, at: which we offer up to you in the first place, etc.
There he does three things. First, he commemorates those for whose benefit the victim is offered: for the general state of the Church, as well as for particular persons, at: Remember your servants. Second, he commemorates those in whose reverence it is offered, at: in union with the whole church, and there is included the Virgin who offered Christ in the temple, the Apostles who handed down this rite of offering to us, and the martyrs who offered themselves to God, but not confessors, because in ancient times the Church did not invoke them in solemnizing, or because they did not suffer like Christ, whose Passion this sacrament is the memorial of. Third, what is sought to be obtained by the offering of this victim is expressly concluded, at: accept this offering, etc.
Bless and approve this our offering, etc. This part belongs to the consecration, which contains three things: first, the power of consecrating is implored; second, the consecration is completed, at: who the day before he suffered, took the bread; third, the commemoration of the thing consecrated is explained, at: wherefore, calling to mind etc. However, the words that are said here: bless, consecrate, and approve this our offering, making it reasonable and acceptable, can be referred in one way to what is the reality contained in this sacrament, namely, Christ, who is the blessed victim free from any stain of sin; written down, i.e., prefigured by the figures of the Old Testament, and by divine predestination foreordained; approved, because not transitory; reasonable, because of its suitability for appeasing; acceptable, because of its efficacy. In another way it can be referred to the host itself, which is the sacrament only; which he asks to be blessed, that God consecrate it; but that he confirm it as regards memory, approved, and as regards a fixed purpose, ratified; that he may accept it, reasonable, as regards the judgment of reason; acceptable, as regards something pleasing to the will. In a third way, it can be referred to the effect, hence he says, blessed, by which we are blessed; approved, by which we may be enrolled in heaven; ratified, by which we may be counted among Christ’s members; reasonable, by which we may be torn from all beastly sensuality; acceptable, by which we may be accepted by God.
Vouchsafe to look upon them with a gracious and tranquil countenance. Here the priest asks for the effect of the sacrament; and first the effect of grace; second, the effect of glory, at: remember also your servants, Lord. Concerning the first he does two things: first, he asks that the sacrament be received, which is the cause of grace; second, he asks that the gift of grace be given, at: we humbly pray and beseech you, the exposition of which will be given further on, at Distinction 13. However, he first asks the effect of glory for those already dead, at: remember; second, for those still living, at: for us, though sinners. However, the canon of the Mass is completed by the custom of other prayers in Christ, at: through Christ our Lord, through whom this sacrament has its origin, both as to its substance, hence he says, you create, because of the natural being; you sanctify, because of the sacrament’s being; and as to its power, hence he says, you give life, because of the effect of grace, which is the life of the soul; you bless, because of the increase of grace; and as to its operation, or use, hence he says: and bestow on us.
Let us pray. At the Savior’s command and formed by divine institution, we dare to say. Here the reception of the sacrament is set down, before which is the general and specific preparation. The general preparation has three parts: for first the sacrament’s petition is set down in the Lord’s Prayer, in which is said, give us this day our daily bread; second, the expiation of those receiving through the prayer of the priest: deliver us, Lord, from all evil; third, the fulfillment of peace, at, the peace of the Lord be with you. For this is the sacrament of holiness and peace; and since the peace of Christ exceeds all the senses, for this reason the petition of peace is begun by the priest, when he says, the peace of the Lord be with you, and it is completed by the choir, when it says, Lamb of God. And in this way it finishes three things begun by the priest, namely, Glory to God in the highest, which pertains to hope; I believe in one God, which pertains to faith; and the peace of the Lord be with you, which pertains to charity. Now the people ask mercy in the removal of evil against the wretchedness of fault and punishment, and peace, in the accomplishment of all good; and for this the Lamb of God is said three times. However, the special preparation of the priest before consuming happens through the prayers he says privately, Lord, Jesus Christ, and whatever others there are.
The third main part is the thanksgiving, and it contains two things: the calling to mind of the benefit received, in singing the antiphon after Communion, and thanksgiving in prayer, which the priest carries out, so that the end of the Mass might correspond in likeness to the beginning.
Now it should be known that in the office of the Mass, where the Passion is represented, certain Greek words are contained, like kyrie eleison, i.e., Lord have mercy; and certain Hebrew words, like alleluia, i.e., praise God; Sabaoth, i.e., of hosts; hosanna, save I beg; amen, i.e., truly, or so be it; and certain Latin ones, which are evident. For the placard over the Cross of Christ was written in these three languages (Jn 19:20).
Chapter 144 of 186