D. 9 - Reception of the Eucharist

After the Master has considered the sacrament of the Eucharist in itself, here he considers its use; and this is divided into three parts: in the first, he distinguishes two modes of eating the body of Christ; in the second, he excludes a certain error from the considerations, at: these words and others like them . . . have enveloped in the darkness of error some people who read them with an obtuse heart; (Peter Lombard, Sententiae IV, 9.2 (56), 1.) in the third, he shows clarifies doubts from what had already been considered, at: in accordance with these two modes of receiving, we need to distinguish the meaning of some words which have been used ambiguously. (Sent. IV, 9.3 (57), 1.) The second is divided into two parts: in the first, he sets down the error; in the second, he excludes it, at: but without a doubt it is to be held that they are received by the good not only sacramentally, but also spiritually. (Sent. IV, 9.3 (56), 1.)

Question 1

Holy Communion

Here five questions arise:

first, about eating the body of Christ;

• second, who may eat of it;
• third, whether sinners are permitted to eat the body of Christ;
• fourth, whether those who are bodily impure may eat of it;
• fifth, whether it may be given to anyone to eat.
• Article 1

About eating the body of Christ

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the first we proceed thus. It seems that the body of Christ should not be received by way of eating. For whatever is eaten enters through the mouth. But everything that enters through the mouth goes into the stomach and is expelled into the sewer (Matt 15:17), which is unbecoming to the dignity of the body of Christ. Therefore, it should not be received by way of eating.

Obj. 2: Futhermore, whatever is eaten is drawn into the eater. But as Dionysius says, we do not draw God into us, but rather we are drawn into God. (Pseudo-Dionysius, On the Divine Names, ch. 4 (PG 3:693).) Therefore, we should not be united to God by way of eating.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, this sacrament is ordered to the renewal of the mind. But the renewal of the mind that will be in the fatherland will be through vision. Therefore, the body of Christ should be given for seeing, not for eating.

On the contrary (1), it is said, my flesh is true food (Jn 6:56). But the use of food is not that it be seen, but that it be eaten. Therefore, the body of Christ should not only be seen, but eaten.

Furthermore (2), it is necessary for the members to be united with the head in reality, for them to be kept alive. But by vision nothing is joined to us in reality, but only according to a likeness. Therefore, the body of Christ should be consumed not by vision but by eating.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that eating the body of Christ is necessary to salvation. For as it is said of baptism, unless you are born again of water and the Holy Spirit, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3:5); so also it is said, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you will not have life in you (John 6:54). But because of the words mentioned baptism is called a sacrament of necessity. Therefore, by the same reasoning eating the body of Christ is necessary to salvation.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, Innocent III says that the lamb must be eaten, so that we may be protected from the destroying angel. (Innocent III, De sacro altaris mysterio, Bk. 4, ch. 42 (PL 217:883).) But to be protected from a ravaging angel is necessary to salvation. Therefore, so is this eating.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, we are incorporated into Christ by this eating. But this is necessary to salvation, as is also being cleansed from sin. Therefore, eating this is necessary to salvation, just as also penance and baptism, by which we are cleansed from sin.

On the contrary (1), baptized infants obtain salvation, since grace is given in baptism. But they are not given the body of Christ to eat. Therefore, this eating is not necessary to salvation.

Furthermore (2), it is granted to anyone to administer baptism in case of necessity, because of the fact that it is necessary for salvation. But this sacrament can be accomplished by priests alone. Therefore, it is not a sacrament of necessity.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the two modes of eating are poorly distinguished in the text. (Parallels: ST III, q. 80, a. 1; De ven. sacram. altar., serm. 17; Super Ioan. 6, lec. 6 & 7; Super I ad Cor. 11, lec. 7.) For the body of Christ is spiritual food. But eating bodily food is always bodily. Therefore, eating this food is also always spiritual, and so there are not two modes of eating it.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, in the other sacraments no distinction is found except on the part of the receiver alone, like the fact that some people receive them under false pretenses, while others do not. But this distinction seems to be on the part of the sacrament itself. Therefore, it is unfittingly set down.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, where one thing exists for the sake of another, there is only one thing. But sacramental eating is for the sake of the spiritual. Therefore, one kind of eating should not be distinguished from the other.

On the contrary (4), it seems that there are more modes. For the use of this sacrament is said to be eating. But in this sacrament there are three things, namely, what is sacrament alone, and what is reality-and-sacrament, and what is reality alone. Therefore, there should be three kinds of eating.

Furthermore (5), those who receive baptism also fall into three categories of recipients: for some receive the reality-and-sacrament; some receive the sacrament and not the ality; and some receive the reality, but not the sacrament. But the reception of this sacrament is called eating. Therefore, this too should be distinguished into three kinds of eating.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that, as was said above, (See d. 8, q. 1, a. 1, qa. 1.) for the completion of sacraments of the New Law it is required that there be a certain sacrament in which Christ is really joined and united to us, not only by participation in his power, as it is in the other sacraments; and since a sacrament is a sensible sign, therefore the use of the sacrament must be adapted to a certain sense. However, there are three differences among sensible things. For some things are neither joined nor united to the senses, like those that are sensed through an external medium, as happens in sight especially, as well as hearing and smell, where only likenesses of the sensible objects are brought to the senses. However, certain sensible objects are indeed joined, but not united in reality, but only according to the likeness of a certain quality, as happens in touch: for the qualities of tangible things change what is touched; nor, however, are the toucher and the touched made one except under a certain aspect. But some things are both joined and united, as happens in food and drink. And so the reception of this sacrament happens fittingly by way of eating. But the other sacraments of the New Law, by which we are likened to Christ through the power he bestowed on them, happen only by touching, like baptism. However, the figures of the Old Testament that had only a resemblance to the Christ who was to come were represented by the mode of vision. Eating also befits this sacrament in its representation of Christ’s Passion, by which the body of Christ was wounded; and it also suits the effect, which is the fortification of the soul.

Reply Obj. 1: That argument proceeds from the food that is ordered to the renewal of the body, which must be digested so it may be converted into the members once the impure has been separated from it; but this food is ordered to the renewal of the mind, and because of this the argument does not follow.

Reply Obj. 2: The nature of eating is that something is consumed internally through the mouth, but ‘being in’ is taken one way in spiritual things, and another way in bodily things: for in bodily things, what is ‘in’ is contained, like something in a place; but in spiritual things what is ‘in’ contains, as the soul contains the body. And so food is properly drawn into a body, as something contained into the container: but the food of the mind draws the mind into itself, as a container draws its contents: because of which Augustine speaks this as said to himself: you will not change me into you, like the food of your flesh, but you will be changed into me. (Augustine, Confessions (CCSL 27), Bk. 7, ch. 10.)

Reply Obj. 3: The reality that, once seen, beatifies by its very essence is joined to the one seeing in the fatherland; which certainly does not happen in physical vision. And since this union had to be signified by some sensible sign, that sensible object had to be assumed in such a way that it is joined and united in reality. In the fatherland, however, sacramental signs will not be needed; nevertheless, because of a resemblance to those the activities we carry on in this life, that beatific vision is often expressed to us in Scripture by the figure of eating.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that grace is a sufficient cause of glory; hence anything that grace can be had without is not necessary to salvation. But this sacrament presupposes grace, for it presupposes baptism, in which grace is given, nor should it be preceded by sin, which deprives us of grace; and so in itself it is not necessary to salvation. But by the Church’s ordination, people are obliged to receive the body of Christ once per year by Church law.

Reply Obj. 1: The Lord speaks of spiritual eating, without which there can be no salvation.

Reply Obj. 2: Innocent speaks as to the Church’s instruction, or as to spiritual eating.

Reply Obj. 3: Spiritual incorporation in Christ can take place without sacramental eating; and so the reception of this sacrament need not be necessary to salvation.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that the formal division of a thing is taken according to what applies to it per se, and not per accidens. But the use of any thing per se and not per accidens is when someone uses the thing for that for which it was instituted. Since eating is called the use of this sacrament, which was certainly instituted so that a person might possess the reality behind the sacrament, therefore eating may be distinguished according to the two realities of this sacrament. And so sacramental eating corresponds to what is the reality-and-sacrament, but spiritual eating to what is the reality alone. (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: Eating physical food does not presuppose any other eating that is its cause, as spiritual eating presupposes sacramental eating as its cause. For this reason, among those who eat sacramentally, the effect of the sacrament, which is spiritual eating, can be impeded by a defect in the ones eating. And so these two kinds of eating can be separated from each other, and because of this it is necessary to distinguish them.

Reply Obj. 2: The completion of the other sacraments consists in their very use, and so no distinction between them can be made except on the part of the recipients, but the completion of this sacrament consists in the matter’s consecration itself, and so there can be a distinction here on the part of the sacrament itself.

Reply Obj. 3: That word is understood in those things that are ordered toward each other in such a way that they cannot be separated from each other, like when a certain effect can never exist without a certain cause, nor vice versa; and even in that case the real difference between cause and caused is not excluded, but it is placed in a necessary order.

Reply Obj. 4: What is reality-and-sacrament here is never separated from what is sacrament alone; and if the use of what is sacrament alone were separated, it would be an accidental use. And so no special mode of eating pertaining to such use need be established.

Reply Obj. 5: Here, too, a distinction like that could be made. For some people, the two kinds of eating are joined, and these people receive the reality and the sacrament; and in some people, they are separated, and these receive either the reality alone or the sacrament alone. But because this division has more to do with the ones receiving than with the sacrament, for this reason it is not proper to this sacrament as it is for baptism.

Article 2

Who may eat of the body of Christ

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the second we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST III, q. 80, a. 3; Super I ad Cor. 11, lec. 7.) It seems that a sinner may not eat the body of Christ sacramentally. For, as it says, wisdom will not enter a deceitful soul, nor dwell in a body enslaved to sin (Wis 1:4). But Christ, who is the reality contained in this sacrament, is the wisdom of God, as is maintained by 1 Corinthians 1:24. Therefore he cannot be received by a sinner.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, this food does not enter the stomach but the mind. However, it does not enter the mind of a sinner. Therefore, in no way does he receive the body of Christ.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, nothing indecent should be done by a wise man. But it is extremely indecent that a body so precious should be placed in a body so unclean. Therefore, since the body of a sinner is unclean, he will not receive the true body of Christ.

On the contrary (1), it is a greater thing to consecrate the body of Christ than to consume it. But a sinner can consecrate. Therefore, he also can receive it.

Furthermore (2), the body of Christ is not more noble under this sacrament than in its proper species. But in his proper species, he permitted himself to be handled by sinners. Therefore, also under the species of the sacrament he can be eaten by sinners.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that unbelievers eat sacramentally. (Parallels: ST III, q. 80, a. 3; Super I ad Cor. 11, lec. 7.) For as Hugh of St. Victor says, (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis fidei, Bk. 2, pt. 8, ch. 13 (PL 176:471).) as long as bodily sense is affected, the presence of the flesh is not taken away. But the physical sense of an unbeliever is affected. Therefore, he does not lose the physical presence of the flesh.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, an unbeliever can receive a character, which is the reality-and-sacrament in baptism. But faith works in baptism just as in the Eucharist. Therefore, he can also eat the body of Christ sacramentally.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, it is a greater thing to consecrate the body of Christ than to consume it. But a heretic who has holy orders can consecrate, as will be said further on. (See d. 13, q. 1, a. 1, qa. 3.) Therefore, he can also eat sacramentally.

On the contrary (1), in the form of this sacrament is included the mystery of faith. Therefore, those who lack faith cannot eat sacramentally.

Furthermore (2), it is in the definition of a sacrament that it signifies and effects. But in someone who does not have faith, it does not effect anything, nor does it represent anything to him. Therefore, he cannot eat it sacramentally.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that an irrational creature may not receive the body of Christ in any way. (Parallel: ST III, q. 80, a. 3.) First, because of what the Master says below, namely that what is consumed by animals is not the body of Christ.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, this sacrament is of greater perfection than baptism. But no matter how much a brute animal is washed with water, it is not said to receive the sacrament of baptism in any way. Therefore, neither could it receive the sacrament of the body of Christ in any way.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, it is clear that it does not receive it spiritually, for it does not believe; nor sacramentally, since the sacraments are given to rational creation. If therefore it received in any way, it would be in a third way of eating besides those two that were assigned in the text.

On the contrary (1), God abominates a sinner more than an irrational creature, in whom there is nothing but what God made, who alone does no wrong. But as is determined in the text, the body of Christ is consumed by sinners. Therefore, also by animals.

Furthermore (2), if through negligence or carelessness the body of Christ were thrown out into some unclean place, it is not said that the body of Christ would cease to exist under these species. Therefore, it must not be said that if it were eaten by animals under these species, it would cease to be the body of Christ. But these species can be eaten by animals. Therefore, so can the body of Christ.

Quaestiuncula 4

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that whoever does not eat sacramentally does not eat spiritually. (Parallel: ST III, q. 80, a. 2.) For sacramental eating is for the sake of spiritual eating. If therefore spiritual eating can be had without physical, sacramental eating would serve no purpose.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, spiritual eating takes place through faith and charity, by which one is incorporated into Christ. But the ancient fathers had faith and charity. Therefore if spiritual eating could exist without sacramental eating, they would have eaten spiritually; which cannot be, since the sacrament’s use cannot exist before its institution.

On the contrary, someone can receive the reality of baptism without the sacrament, as was said above, in Distinction 4. (See d. 4, q. 3, a. 3.) But the sacrament of baptism is of greater necessity than this one. Therefore, someone can also eat spiritually without eating of the sacrament.

Quaestiuncula 5

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that even an angel can eat the body of Christ spiritually. (Parallel: ST III, q. 80, a. 2.) For commenting on the psalm, man ate the bread of angels (Ps 78 [72]:25), the Gloss says, that is, the body of Christ, which is the true food of angels. (See the Glossa ordinaria, PL 113:969.)

Obj. 2: Furthermore, whoever can eat sacramentally can also eat spiritually. But an angel who has assumed flesh can eat sacramentally. Therefore also, without assuming flesh, it can eat spiritually.

On the contrary, eating is the use of the sacrament. But sacraments are not given to angels to use, but to men. Therefore, the angels cannot eat spiritually.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that some people said the body of Christ was not received by sinners according to the truth of reality, for as soon as it was touched by the lips of sinners, it would cease to be the body of Christ under those appearances: deferring so much to the dignity of the sacrament that they detracted from its truth. For if indeed the body of Christ under the appearances was by the conversion of bread and wine into the substance of the body of Christ, with the appearances remaining, it could not cease to be the body of Christ except by a certain contrary change of what before was converted into the body of Christ. And because nothing of that remains except the appearances alone, which are related in common to both substances, as a subject in natural changes is related to both forms, therefore as long as the appearances do not change, in no way does the body of Christ cease to be there, just as neither in formal changes does the form introduced cease to be in the subject, until the subject is transformed into another form. However, it does not belong to the appearances to be changed into something except according as they have a certain property of substance in the fact that they are without a subject; hence nothing can change them into another substance, except what would have changed the substance of bread and wine, if it were there; which a mere touch of the lips or biting of the teeth or transferal to the stomach would not do, but only digestion, which comes from natural heat converting the food. Hence it is clear that anyone who says that the body of Christ received by a sinner stops existing at the mere touch of his lips, detracts from the truth of the sacrament. And so such a heretical opinion having been put out of the way, its opposite is held by all.

Reply Obj. 1: That authority speaks of spiritual indwelling, and not sacramental or physical: for Christ also presented his own body to sinners to handle.

Reply Obj. 2: When it is said, this food does not go into the stomach, but into the mind, this preposition into denotes not the terminus of local motion, but the end of consumption: for in terms of place it goes wherever the species go, but it is not consumed for the sake of filling the stomach, like physical food, but for the sake of renewing the mind, in which its effect is received, not the very matter of the body, for only divinity can inhabit the mind by its essence.

Reply Obj. 3: The body of Christ in no way contracts any impurity from the fact that it is received by sinners: for the lips of sinners touch nothing but the appearances under which the body of Christ exists according to truth; and furthermore, in this he gives an example of meekness and humility.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that eating is an act passing from the eater into what is eaten. Hence to eat something sacramentally can be understood in two ways. In one way so that the adverb describes the eating on the part of what is eaten; and in this way whoever consumes the outward appearances eats sacramentally, i.e., he consumes what is sacrament in the Eucharist, i.e., the true body of Christ. In another way, so that the adverb describes the eating on the part of the eater; and in this way only the person who uses this visible food as a sacrament eats it sacramentally. However, an unbeliever, who is in error about what is represented in this sacrament, does not use those appearances as a sacrament, or he does not believe in Christ as contained under this sacrament. And so someone like this does not eat sacramentally. And since action is closer to the agent than what is acted upon, for this reason the second meaning is more proper; and so according to this meaning it should be said that an unbeliever who does not believe in the reality behind this sacrament does not eat sacramentally.

Reply Obj. 1: That objection proceeds according to the first meaning.

Reply Obj. 2: The person receiving baptism is only having something done to him. For this reason, to receive baptism sacramentally requires only that one subject himself to the action of the Church, namely that he intend to receive whatever the Church does, although sometimes he may believe that she does nothing. But someone receiving the Eucharist is not only related to it as recipient, or having something done to him, but also as agent, inasmuch as he eats. And so in order to eat this sacramentally, it is necessary that he himself use the sacrament as a sacrament.

Reply Obj. 3: To consecrate the Eucharist is not to use the sacrament, but in a certain way to effect it. But to eat is to use the sacrament; however, the action of the one using receives its mode from what someone uses, but the action of the one effecting does not receive its mode from what someone effects, but from an active power. Hence someone is said to confect the sacrament and not to confect sacramentally, but he is said both to eat the sacrament and to eat sacramentally. And so it is not surprising if something is required for someone to eat sacramentally that is not required for someone to effect the sacrament.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that concerning this there are two opinions. For some people say that the body of Christ is not eaten by animals such that it is transferred into their stomach, because the body of Christ is only under those appearances as available to human use. However, by the fact that the species descend into the stomach of a mouse, they cannot be put to human use; and so it ceases to be the body of Christ. But this reasoning is not strong enough, for two reasons. First, because it supposes something false. For when the species are swallowed into the stomach they do not cease to exist or become converted into something else immediately, so for a while they can be taken out of the stomach of the animal, and come into use. Second, because although something is ordered to a certain use, nevertheless it is not necessary that it cease to exist when someone cannot use it. And so according to others it should be said that the true body of Christ still remains, under its appearances, when taken into the mouth of an animal and swallowed into its stomach.

Reply Obj. 1: Animals have no ordering to the body of Christ according to which they could be incorporated into Christ, and so they do not receive the body of Christ except incidentally, inasmuch as they consume something under which the body of Christ exists; and this is how the Master understood that the body of Christ is not received by animals; or else he speaks according to the other opinion.

Reply Obj. 2: What is sacrament in baptism is a certain effect brought about in the recipient, which an irrational creature is not capable of receiving. And that is why an irrational creature receives the sacrament of baptism neither per se nor incidentally. But the sacrament of the Eucharist consists in the very matter of consecration; and so an irrational creature can receive it not per se, but incidentally.

Reply Obj. 3: An irrational creature cannot at all eat spiritually, nor sacramentally, for it neither uses what is eaten as a sacrament, nor eats the sacrament according to the notion of sacrament, as neither is an unbeliever said to eat sacramentally when he intends to receive what the Church receives, although he believes that to be nothing. And likewise also a person who ate the consecrated host without knowing that it was consecrated would not be eating sacramentally in any way, since he would only be eating the sacrament incidentally; except that he would come closer to sacramental eating, inasmuch as he is fit by nature to eat this sacrament as a sacrament, which does not apply to an animal. Nor, however, need there be another, third, mode of eating besides the two mentioned, for what is incidental is not the basis for division.

Response to Quaestiuncula 4

To the fourth question, it is to be said that Christ is the spiritual food of the elect, not indeed changing into them, but changing into himself those whom he refreshes; and so to eat Christ spiritually is to be incorporated into Christ, which happens by faith and charity. And since Christ in himself is spiritual food, he is signified and contained in sacramental food. Therefore, it is naturally prior for Christ to be spiritual food than to be spiritual food contained under a sacrament; for it is prior for something to have a certain property naturally than for a certain signification to apply a likeness of that property to it. Hence not everyone who spiritually eats Christ eats this sacrament spiritually; nevertheless in both ways it happens that someone not eating sacramentally eats spiritually. For someone spiritually eats Christ who has faith and charity for him without relation to this sacrament; however, someone like that does not eat this sacrament spiritually, but only the person who has faith and charity for Christ with devotion and the purpose of receiving this sacrament, even if he does not eat it sacramentally.

Reply Obj. 1: One baptized with the baptism of the Spirit has obtained cleansing because of his aim of sacramental baptism, and when he receives the sacrament he acquires even more abundant grace; so also whoever has eaten spiritually in his purpose and devotion has had sacramental eating, and when he does approach the sacrament he obtains greater grace by the very force of the sacrament. Hence it does not follow that sacramental eating is superfluous.

Reply Obj. 2: The ancient fathers did not eat this sacrament spiritually because it had not been instituted, nor had its consecration ever happened before. Nevertheless they did eat Christ spiritually, and according to this it is said that all have eaten the same spiritual food (1 Cor 10:3).

Response to Quaestiuncula 5

To the fifth question, it should be said that to eat this sacrament spiritually does not apply to angels, for Christ is not presented to them under a sacrament, but in naked truth. However, they eat Christ spiritually in a certain way and in a certain way not. For since to eat spiritually is to be incorporated into Christ, someone can eat Christ to the extent that he can be made his member and Christ can be his head. Now Christ is head of the angels in a certain way, namely according to the notion of influence and according to a conformity of nature in genus; and in a certain way he is not, namely according to a conformity in species, as was said in Book III, Distinction 13, Question 1, Article 2, Subquestion 1, main response. And so in one way they eat Christ spiritually, and in another way they do not.

Reply Obj. 1: Christ is called the food of angels both according to his divinity, inasmuch as he refreshes the angels, and according to his humanity, according to which the angels long to gaze on him (1 Pet 1:12); not, however, according to a conformity of nature in species.

Reply Obj. 2: If an angel, having assumed a body, chewed, he would still not eat sacramentally, for he would not eat the sacrament according to the nature of a sacrament, since he would not have faith, but manifest vision; nor does he have the likeness of nature, and so he would not eat the sacrament except accidentally.

Article 3

Whether sinners are permitted to eat the body of Christ

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the third we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST III, q. 80, a. 4; q. 79, a. 3; Super I ad Cor. 11, lec. 7.) It seems that someone who ate the body of Christ with the consciousness of mortal sin would not sin. For according to Augustine, no one uses the greatest goods badly. (Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will (CCSL 29), Bk. 2, ch. 19.) But the body of Christ is one of the greatest goods. Therefore, no one can use it to sin.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the sick do not need less medicine than a doctor. But Christ coming in his own appearance as doctor did not recoil from fellowship with sinners, for as he himself says, those who are well do not need a doctor, but those who are ill (Luke 5:31). Therefore, since Christ is presented under the sacrament as a medicine, he should not be taken away from sinners.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, no one sins by doing what he is bound to do. But any sinner is bound by the precept of the Church to receive the body of Christ once a year. Therefore, even if he intends to sin, he does not sin by receiving the body of Christ.

On the contrary (1), Whoever eats unworthily, eats to his own judgment (1 Cor 11:29). But whoever eats while conscious of mortal sin eats unworthily. Therefore, etc.

Furthermore (2), God abhors spiritual filth, which is sin, more than physical filth. But one would sin if he threw the body of Christ into the mud. Therefore, he sins who takes Christ into his own body infected with sin.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that even someone existing in mortal sin who is not conscious of it would sin by receiving the body of Christ. (Parallels: ST III, q. 79, a. 3; q. 80, a. 4; Super I ad Cor. 11, lec. 7.) For sin makes a man unworthy of approaching the body of Christ. But ignorance of a sin to which a man is subject does not take away the sin; rather, he sins most gravely who is unaware, according to Ambrose. Therefore, since someone approaching unworthily sins mortally, it seems that someone having a sin of which he is not conscious would sin by approaching the body of Christ.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the just man who thinks he has a mortal sin which he has not committed is in a better state than a sinner guilty of sin that he is not conscious of. For the latter seems to have presumption, while the former has humility, for according to Gregory, it belongs to good minds to admit to guilt where there is no guilt. (Gregory the Great, Epistles, Bk. 11, Epistle 64 (PL 77:1195).) But the just man without sin sins if he approaches the sacrament believing he is in mortal sin. Therefore, much more would the sinner who is not conscious of his own sin.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, wherever examination is required, there the truth of the matter is necessary, and not just opinion. But for someone to worthily approach the body of Christ, a diligent examination of himself is required, as is clear: let every man examine himself, and then he may eat of the bread (1 Cor 11:28). Therefore, it is necessary that there be purity from sin according to the truth, and not just according to one’s estimation.

On the contrary (1), it is said, no one knows whether he is worthy of love or of hatred (Eccl 9:1). Therefore, if someone having a sin of which he is not conscious should sin by receiving the body of Christ, whoever consumes it would expose himself to the danger of mortal sin, and then no one should consume it.

Furthermore (2), ignorance of a deed excuses it. But ignorance of sin is of this kind. Therefore, it excuses it.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the one eating the body of Christ unworthily sins more than someone who commits any other sin. (Parallels: ST III, q. 80, a. 5; Super I ad Cor. 11, lec. 7.) For commenting on the text, woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed, etc. (Mark 14:21), the Gloss says, woe to that man who approaches the table of the Lord unworthily: for he follows the example of Judas in handing over the Son of Man. (Glossa ordinaria, PL 114:231.) And it is said that he is answerable for the blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:27). But Judas and those who shed the blood of the Lord, sinned most gravely. Therefore, this sin is also more grave than the rest.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, a person who threw Christ’s body into the mud would sin more than someone who committed any other sin, for instance, fornication, or something like that. But God abhors the filth of sin more than the filth of mud. Therefore, a sinner receiving the body of Christ sins more gravely than someone committing any other sin.

On the contrary, what is evil in itself is a greater evil than what is evil incidentally. But other sins, like fornication, are evil in themselves, whereas eating the body of the Lord is good in itself, and evil incidentally. Therefore, it is a lesser evil.

Quaestiuncula 4

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that a heretic eating the body of Christ sins less than a sinful believer. For it is worse to despise Christ than to despise the sacrament of Christ. But a sinful believer who eats, despises Christ, whom he believes to be truly present under the sacrament; but an unbeliever despises the sacrament in the fact that he does not believe Christ to be in it. Therefore, the unbeliever sins less.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the more a certain sin is at odds with reason, the more grave it is. But the sin of a believer unworthily receiving is manifestly against natural reason, but not the sin of someone who does not believe Christ to exist according to the truth under this sacrament: for this is above reason, and above sense. Therefore, an unbeliever sins less.

On the contrary, the more removed someone is from Christ in reality, the more removed he should be from him sacramentally. But an unbeliever is more distant in reality, since he lacks the first union to Christ, which is by faith. Therefore, he sins more by approaching Christ sacramentally.

Quaestiuncula 5

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that someone subject to sin of the flesh sins more by approaching this sacrament than someone subject to spiritual sin. For the sin of those eating the body of Christ while existing in sins of the flesh is compared to the sin of Judas; hence Jerome says, what do you mean by conversing with women, you who do the same with God at the altar? . . . Tell, priest, tell, cleric, how you kiss the Son of God with those same lips, with which you have kissed the daughter of a prostitute? O Judas, you hand over the Son of man with a kiss. (Jerome, Epistle 69, to Oceanum, n. 2 (CSEL 54:680).) But the sin of Judas was the most grave. Therefore, such a person sins more gravely.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, in a sin of flesh there is an uncleanness of the mind and of the body. Therefore, someone who eats the body of Christ while guilty of a sin of the flesh does a greater disgrace to the sacrament than someone who eats it with spiritual sin, where there is only uncleanness of mind.

On the contrary, Gregory says that spiritual sins have greater guilt, (Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob (CCSL 143B), Bk. 31, ch. 45.) and the reason for this is that sins of the flesh happen more from weakness. But someone is unworthy of the Lord’s body and blood who is subject to guilt. Therefore, he sins less by approaching the sacrament with sin of the flesh than with spiritual sin.

Quaestiuncula 6

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that a sinner sins by seeing the body of Christ. For the body of Christ is more noble than the ark of the covenant. But the Bethshemites who saw the ark of the Lord, since they were sinners, were struck down, as it says in 1 Sam 6:19. Therefore, much more would any sinner who saw the body of the Lord sin.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the tax collector is praised for not raising his eyes to heaven (Luke 18:13). But the body of Christ is more noble than heaven. Therefore, sinners should abstain from looking on the body of Christ.

On the contrary, is the custom of the Church, according to which the body of Christ is elevated for all to look upon without any distinction of those looking. Therefore, a sinner does not sin by looking.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that anyone conscious of mortal sin who eats the body of the Lord sins mortally, for he abuses the sacrament, and the greater the dignity of the sacrament, the more dangerous is the abuse. Now the reason for this can be taken from three things. First, from that which is sacrament alone, from which it is apparent that this sacrament is set forth in the mode of food; but food belongs only to the living: hence if someone who lacks spiritual life through mortal sin receives this sacrament, he abuses it. Second, from that which is reality-and-sacrament here, (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.) which is Christ himself, who is the holy of holies; hence his receptacle should be holy, and so if anyone receives the body of Christ with the opposite of sanctity, he abuses the sacrament. Third, from that which is reality alone, which is the mystical body of Christ; since by the fact that someone approaches this sacrament, he signifies that he longs for unity with the mystical body; hence if he holds any sin in his conscience by which he is separated from the mystical body, he incurs the guilt of false pretenses, and so he abuses the sacrament.

Reply Obj. 1: The word of Augustine is to be understood as having to do with what someone uses as the thing eliciting the act of use: for this is how no one uses the virtues badly, which he calls the greatest goods. But this is not to be understood of the object of use: for this is how someone does use the virtues badly, when he glories in the virtues and grows proud; and likewise someone can use the body of Christ badly, as an object.

Reply Obj. 2: There are two kinds of medicine. One is what removes disease, and this kind is owed to the sick; and baptism and penance are compared to this. The other is what advances someone to perfect health, and this kind is not owed to the sick, but to those already healthy; and this medicine is compared to this. However, both medicines are given by the doctor. Hence it does not follow, if the doctor does not refuse the fellowship of the sick, that he should give every medicine he has to them.

Reply Obj. 3: Someone having on his conscience a mortal sin that he does not plan to give up, sins if he approaches to receive the body of Christ, for he approaches unworthily. He also sins if he does not receive at the time established by the Church, since he is disobedient. However, he is not stuck in a predicament, for he can tear himself from this doubt by giving up the fixed purpose of sin. Nevertheless, if he still remains intent on such a purpose, he sins less by not receiving than by receiving, for what is evil in itself is more evil than what is evil because it is prohibited; hence he should rather give himself up to be excommunicated than receive the body of Christ with the fixed purpose of sinning.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that ignorance of the circumstances excuses from sin, if due diligence has been applied, particularly when the circumstances are the kind of which certitude cannot be had fully. However, that man is completely free from sin cannot be known with certainty: I am not conscious of anything in me, but I am not thereby justified (1 Cor 4:4). However, some conjecture can be had about this, particularly by four signs, as Bernard says. (Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermones in Septuagesima, Sermon 1 (Bernardi opera, ed. Leclercq and Rochais, 4:344ff.).) First, when someone listens devoutly to the word of God: for anyone who is of God, hears the word of God (John 8:47). Second, when someone finds himself prompt in doing good works: for the display of a work is the proof of love, as Gregory says. (Gregory the Great, Homilies on the Gospels, Homily 30, n. 1 (CCSL 141:256).) Third, when someone has the purpose of abstaining from sin in the future. Fourth, when he grieves over past sins: for in these true repentance consists, according to Gregory. (Gregory the Great, Epistles, Bk. 11, Epistle 45 (PL 77:1163).) Hence if someone having made a diligent search of his conscience by signs like this, although perhaps not sufficiently, approaches the body of Christ devoutly, with some mortal sin remaining in him, which has escaped his awareness, he does not sin, but rather he obtains the remission of the sin by the force of the sacrament. Hence Augustine says in a certain sermon that when the body of Christ is eaten, it gives life to the dead. (See Gratian’s Decretals, Part 3, De consecratione, d. 2, ch. “Invitat” (PL 187:1766).)

Reply Obj. 1: There are two kinds of ignorance of sin. One in which one does not know whether something is a sin, and this kind of ignorance, if it consists in the understanding alone, sometimes excuses the sin, as when someone is ignorant of the circumstances that make a sin, like if someone lay with someone else’s wife, whom he believed his own; and here the text of Ambrose is irrelevant.

Sometimes, though, it does not excuse the sin, as when it is ignorance of universal law; rather, that kind of ignorance is itself a grave sin; and among those things that are evil in themselves it seems to pertain to infidelity; but among those things that are evil because they are prohibited, it pertains to negligence. And the word of Ambrose is relevant here in a certain way because of the danger of ignorance, for medicine is not sought for a disease that is unknown; and also because of infidelity, which is the gravest sin. But if it is the kind of ignorance that consists both in the understanding and the emotions, like ignorance of choice, when someone is carried away unrestrained into something illicit as if it were licit, like the Philosopher says about those who operate from the habit of a certain vice, like the intemperate, then he sins most gravely who does not know, for this ignorance arises from scorn. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 7, ch. 8 (1151a10–20).)

There is another kind of ignorance of sin, in which what is known to be a sin, is not believed to be present, but is dismissed by oneself; and this kind of ignorance neither excuses nor worsens that sin of which the ignorance is said; but it can excuse with respect to what follows after the sin, with respect to which the preceding sin, which was unknown, is related as circumstances, which would have made the following act a sin, if it had been known, and this is how it is in this case. Hence although he is unworthy by reason of the preceding sin, nevertheless he does not approach unworthily, since ignorance excuses his reception from sin, as was said.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as the ignorance of a circumstance that causes sin also excuses from sin, so does the error of such a circumstance cause sin, as is clear in the case of someone who approaches his wife, believing her not to be his wife. And it is the same in this case: for the just man who believes himself a sinner errs in this circumstance. Hence if he, remaining in this opinion, were to eat the body of Christ, it is clear that he would be choosing to eat the body of Christ as a sinner and so his choice would be wrong, and he would sin. But the choice is not wrong in someone who has a sin that he does not know; and so although the just man is simply-speaking better disposed, nevertheless, he is worse disposed in this respect.

Reply Obj. 3: An examination of conscience is required lest ignorance come from negligence, for that kind of ignorance would not excuse.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that just as merit especially consists in charity, likewise demerit especially consists in contempt of God; hence according as someone shows more contempt for God by an act of sin, he incurs greater culpability; and so those sins that consist in actual contempt are more grave than those in which contempt is shown only as a consequence, and interpreted in a certain way; as happens in the enjoyment of creatures, by which someone intends pleasure, and by intending it he departs from God’s commands, and, in this way, he holds in contempt the one who gave the commands. But the sin of blasphemy consists in contempt principally; and likewise the sin of approaching the body of Christ unworthily is essentially a certain irreverence and contempt.

However, it should be known that contempt can be measured by two things. In one way, on the part of the one showing contempt, and in this way a sin from one genus cannot be compared with a sin from another, only one particular sin with another particular sin, for one sin that is venial in kind may turn out to show greater actual contempt than a sin that is mortal in kind. In another way, it may be measured on the part of what is contemned, and in this way the order of sins is such that the sin that shows contempt of God in himself is the gravest sin, like a sin of unbelief and blasphemy; and after that the sin that shows contempt for God in a sacrament, and among those, especially in this sacrament, in which Christ is contained essentially as God and man (not that this contempt is directed at Christ as he is God and man, but only as he is in the sacrament); and after that a sin that shows contempt for God in his members; and after that a sin that shows contempt for God in his commands, which is common to every mortal sin; and according to this it is clear that the sin now under discussion is neither the most grave of all, nor is it the least of all, but it is in the middle between sins that are committed against God and other sins that are committed against one’s neighbor or oneself; hence it is necessary to respond to both arguments.

Reply Obj. 1: The sin of those who eat the body of Christ unworthily is compared to the sin of those who killed Christ inasmuch as both sins were committed against Christ, but even so the sin of those killing Christ is greater; for that sin was committed against Christ in his very person, but this sin is committed against Christ according as he is under the sacrament.

Reply Obj. 2: Anyone who threw the body of Christ in the mud would sin more than a sinner eating it, for there is greater abuse of the sacrament according as it departs farther from the right use of the sacrament, by which it is to be received by a just man.

Reply Obj. 3: Although eating the body of Christ is not evil except incidentally, nevertheless to eat the body of Christ unworthily is evil in itself. For no sin is called evil in itself except because of a corruption in some circumstance.

Response to Quaestiuncula 4

To the fourth question, it should be said that there are two sins to consider in someone who eats unworthily, namely, the sin by which he was rendered unworthy for eating, and the sin of eating unworthily. Therefore, since the sin of unbelief is graver than all other sins, the unbeliever eating is more unworthy to eat. But since he does not believe that what is received is of such great dignity as it is, he does not only sin in abuse, for the ignorance of unbelief, although it does not excuse what follows from sin completely, nevertheless it excuses it somewhat, as is seen in the sin of those killing Christ: for if they had known, they never would have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor 2:8). And by this ignorance of theirs their sin was lightened, as Anselm says; (See Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, Bk. 2, ch. 15 (Opera Omnia, ed. Schmitt, 2:115).) and likewise Paul says about himself, I received mercy because I acted ignorantly in my unbelief (1 Tim 1:13). And so an unbeliever is more unworthy to eat, but a believing sinner eats more unworthily.

Reply Obj. 1: An unbeliever shows contempt for Christ in his own person in the sin of unbelief, for he rejects his teaching; but in eating the body of Christ he shows contempt not expressly but implicitly, inasmuch as that ignorance by which he does not believe Christ to be present under the sacrament is not invincible ignorance; hence because he can act as if he believed, likewise he is judged as if he believed, in that genus of sin; although actual and explicit contempt would worsen the quantity of this sin, and so as to the eating itself a sinful believer sins more.

Reply Obj. 2: Although those things that belong to faith, and particularly those surrounding this sacrament, are not so consonant with human reason considered in themselves, nevertheless as spoken by God and proved by portents they are extremely consonant with reason. For nothing is as consonant with reason as that God is to be believed in everything that he says and attests. However, the teaching of the faith, since it had taken its beginning in being told by the Lord, with signs and portents attesting, and various distributions of the Holy Spirit, was confirmed in us by those who heard him (Heb 2:3); and so the sin of unbelief is more grave even than the sin of eating unworthily.

Reply Obj. 3: However, the third objection concludes that an unbeliever is more unworthy, and this should be granted.

Response to Quaestiuncula 5

To the fifth question, it should be said that for someone to eat the body of Christ worthily, two things are required: namely, that he be in the state of grace, by which he is united to Christ the head; and that his mind be actually directed toward divine things; hence also the priest advises the people to have their hearts lifted to God. However, the more grave the sin, the more it removes one from grace; hence since spiritual sins are more grave according to their kind than fleshly sins, as Gregory shows, (Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob (CCSL 143B), Bk. 31, ch. 45.) although some carnal sin may be more grave than a spiritual one when speaking in kind, by spiritual sin someone is made more unworthy of eating the body of Christ than by carnal sin as to the first thing that was required for eating worthily. But since by carnal sin, particularly lust, the human mind is pressed down so that it cannot be directed to higher things—for even in the matrimonial act the Holy Spirit does not touch the hearts of the prophets, as Jerome says, (Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum, Bk. 1, n. 36 (PL 23:255).) and according to the Philosopher in the Ethics 7, (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 7, ch. 5 (1147a15).) it is impossible for a man to understand anything in the moment of sexual pleasure—thus by carnal sin a man is rendered more unworthy as to the second thing that is required for eating worthily. But since it is much graver to take away a habit of grace than to prevent an act of virtue, since the former always pertains to mortal sin, while the latter is sometimes venial, a greater unworthiness remains from the defect of the first kind than from a defect of the second kind. And so, simply speaking, someone sins more who approaches entangled in a greater sin, unless he is excused by ignorance. However, mortal sin can more certainly be recognized in sins of the flesh, particularly lust, than in spiritual sins. And so in that respect someone sins more incidentally by approaching the sacrament with carnal sin, although simply and essentially speaking he sins more who approaches with spiritual sin, if the spiritual is more grave than the carnal.

Reply Obj. 1: The same thing that Jerome says about the sin of lust can be said about any mortal sin: for whoever eats unworthily is answerable for the body and blood of the Lord in some way, as has been said.

Reply Obj. 2: That uncleanliness of body proceeds from an uncleanliness of mind, for the body is not polluted without the consent of the mind, as Lucy says. (See The Golden Legend, ch. 4, in Ryan, 1:28.) Hence it is considered a greater indignity from the mind than from the body.

Response to Quaestiuncula 6

To the sixth question, it should be said that the things that are done outwardly in the sacraments should correspond to those things that are accomplished inwardly; hence according as a man comes close to Christ inwardly, in his mind, so he should approach the sacrament of him bodily. However, some people approach with neither faith nor charity; hence they are to be kept away from looking at or receiving the sacrament. But some people approach with faith but without charity; and they can see, but not receive, because by charity someone is incorporated into Christ, but someone who approaches with faith is still standing a long way off.

Reply Obj. 1: It was not because of the dignity of the Ark that it was forbidden to be seen, but because of the figure: for everything happened to them in figure (1 Cor 10:11). For the secrets of the faith, which were symbolized by the Ark, were only permitted to be gazed upon intently by the greater and more perfect, since whoever is a searcher of majesty, shall be overwhelmed by glory (Prov 25:27).

Reply Obj. 2: Someone’s humility is revealed in the fact that he even abstains from what is permitted; and so it does not follow, if some sinner abstaining from this for a time is praised, that because of this he would sin if he did not abstain.

Article 4

Whether those who are bodily impure may eat of the body of Christ

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the fourth we proceed thus. (Parallel: ST III, q. 80, a. 7.) It seems that nightime ejaculations that happen during sleep are a sin. For merit and demerit, since they are opposites, come to be regarding the same thing. But a man can merit while asleep, as is clear from the case of Solomon, who begged the gift of wisdom from the Lord while sleeping (2 Chr 1:10). Therefore, someone can also demerit, for if he consents to any sin during sleep, it is a sin, and this frequently happens during nocturnal emissions.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, anyone whose mind is not bound is not excused from sin, if he consents to commit anything base. But the mind of someone sleeping does not seem to be bound, since it is not the act of the body by whose passion sleep happens, but rather it seems to be more free, since when the external senses are immobilized, the interior senses, from which the mind receives directly, are strengthened; and some people sometimes perceive future things in their minds while sleeping, which the waking mind cannot perceive. Therefore, it is not excused from sin, if it consents to anything base, and so, the same as in the first objection.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, anyone who is able to deliberate and reason seems to have the use of his free will, which chooses by inquiring. But when we are sleeping, as is known by experience, sometimes we debate and resolve a debate. Therefore, we have the use of free will, and so the same as above.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, anyone who can consent to and dissent from something base seems to be culpable if he consents, for a person like this seems to be master of his own acts. But someone who is sleeping sometimes dissents from the baseness that is presented to him, and sometimes consents. Therefore, when he consents, he seems to be culpable for sin.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, actions and motions are judged by their ends. But nocturnal emission frequently ends in waking, although it starts during sleep. Therefore, it is to be judged as though it happened while awake, and then it is a sin.

On the contrary (1), as Augustine says in his literal commentary on Genesis: when those imaginations that happen in someone’s thought while talking, have been made explicit in the mind’s eye of someone sleeping, so that the distinction between that union and the true union of bodies cannot be discerned, the flesh is moved persistently, and what follows is what usually follows this movement; since this happens as much without sin as it is spoken of without sin by those who are awake, which was thought so that it might be said without doubt. (Augustine, On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, Bk. 12, par. 15 (CSEL 28.1:400).)

Furthermore (2), the Philosopher says in the Ethics 1 that in the half of life, namely sleep, there is no difference between a happy man and a miserable one, or between a vicious one and a diligent one. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 1, ch. 13 (1102b5).) But these do differ in sin. Therefore, sin cannot happen in sleep.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it would not prevent the reception of the body of Christ. For venial sin displeases God more than any bodily uncleanness that happens without sin. But nocturnal emission is not a sin, as can be concluded from the authority of Augustine. Therefore, since venial sin would not prevent someone from receiving the body of Christ, much less should nocturnal emission.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, there is no doubt whether mortal sin prevents more than nocturnal emission. But someone after confessing a mortal sin can eat the body of Christ. Therefore, much more can someone who has confessed nighttime emission eat the body of Christ on the same day.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, a man should prevent the mortal sin of another as much as he can. But if someone should celebrate Mass in mortal sin, it is clear that he sins mortally. Therefore, if someone who is not conscious of mortal sin could prevent this by celebrating Mass in his place, it seems he should celebrate, even if he had been soiled by nighttime emission.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, base thoughts sometimes happen to one, without sin, as is evident from the words of Augustine cited. However, intoxication cannot happen without sin. But according to Gregory, (Gregory the Great, Epistles, Bk. 9, Epistle 64 (PL 77:1198).) the soiling that happens by intoxication does not prevent someone from Holy Communion, if necessity presses him. Therefore, neither do those things that proceed from base thoughts one had while awake, nor those things that proceed from the weakness of nature, as Gregory says. Therefore, no pollution prevents it.

On the contrary (1), it is said: a man from whom seed of copulation goes out . . . will be unclean until evening (Lev 15:16). But it is not permitted to the unclean to touch holy things. Therefore, much less to eat the body of Christ.

Furthermore (2), Isidore says, and it is had in the Decretal, Distinction 6: whoever is polluted by nocturnal illusion, although he feels himself stained without the memory of base thoughts, nevertheless, so that he may be tried, let him attribute this to his own guilt, and immediately wash away his uncleanness with tears. (Isidore, Sententiae, Bk. 3, ch. 6, sent. 14 (CCSL 111:220); Gratian’s Decretals, p. 1, d. 6, can. 3 (PL 187:42).) But a person who needs purification should abstain from receiving this sacrament. Therefore, someone polluted by nocturnal emission is impeded from receiving the body of Christ.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that because of purely bodily uncleanness someone is impeded from receiving this sacrament. For the Gloss on this text, you will have a place outside the camp (Deut 23:12), says, God loves bodily cleanliness. (Glossa ordinaria, PL 113:478.) Therefore, he hates bodily uncleanness, and so because of bodily uncleanness a man should abstain from this sacrament.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the dignity of this sacrament is greater than all of the sacraments of the Old Testament. But in the Old Law, women after childbirth, and those suffering their monthly period, and men suffering a flow of semen were all considered unclean with regards to the sacraments of the Old Testament. Therefore, much more should they abstain from the reception of this sacrament.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the faculty of celebrating Mass is forbidden to a leprous priest, as is evident from the Decretals concerning sick or debilitated clergy. Therefore, by the same reasoning a lay person should abstain from this sacrament on account of leprosy.

On the contrary (1), no punishment is due to a punishment, but only to a fault; otherwise two troubles would arise, which is against what is said in Nahum 1:9. But all the bodily uncleannesses that have been mentioned are some kind of punishment. Therefore, no one should be prevented from the sacrament of the altar because of them, for this is the greatest punishment.

Furthermore (2), we neither merit nor demerit by natural things. But all the mentioned uncleannesses happen from natural causes. Therefore, someone does not deserve to be impeded from partaking of this sacrament by them.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that every sin, according to Augustine, is in the will; (Augustine, De libero arbitrio (CCSL 29), Bk. III, ch. 17; De duabus animabus (CSEL 25), ch. 10.) but the movement of the will presupposes the judgment of reason, by the fact that it moves toward an apparent good either truly or falsely. For this reason, where there is no judgment of reason there cannot be a movement of the will. Now in sleep the judgment of reason is impeded. For a perfect judgment cannot be had about any thought, except through retracing back to the beginning whence the thought arose; just as it is clear that the knowledge of conclusions has its source in the principles. And so a right judgment of a conclusion cannot be had without retracing it to indemonstrable principles. Since, therefore, every thought of our intellect arises from the senses, there cannot be a right judgment that is not tracable to sensation. And so the Philosopher says, in the Ethics 6, (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 6, ch. 12 (1143a36 et seq.).) that just as indemonstrable principles, which pertain to the understanding, are at the ends, namely of logical reasoning, so also are the singulars, which pertain to the senses. However, in sleep the senses are bound; and so no judgment of the soul is free, whether of reason or of the common sense; and so neither is any movement of the appetitive part free, and because of this a person can neither sin during sleep, nor merit. But nevertheless there can be a sign of sin or merit in sleep, inasmuch as the causes of images in dreams come from waking images; hence the Philosopher says, in the Ethics 1, (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 1, ch. 13 (1102b10).) that inasmuch as certain movements only pass little by little, namely from waking to sleeping, the imaginations of the diligent are better than anyone else’s; and Augustine says in his Commentary on Genesis that because of a soul’s good affections, certain of its merits may shine even in sleep. (Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram, Bk. 12, ch. 15 (CSEL, 28,1:400).)

Reply Obj. 1: According to what Augustine says in the same place, Solomon’s request made in sleep is said to have pleased God and found reward because of the good desire he already had, which shone forth in his dream by the sign of this holy request, not because he had understanding of anything in his sleep.

Reply Obj. 2: The human mind has two considerations: one is from higher things, by which it is illuminated; the other is for the body from which it receives and which it rules. On the side of the soul’s reception of things from above, it is not bound by sleep, but on the contrary, it is rendered more free to the extent that it is more released from bodily cares. And so also by the inflowing of higher light someone can perceive things about the future while sleeping, which, awake, he could not know. However, on the side of its reception from the body, it must be bound as to the last and complete judgment, since the senses are bound from which its thinking takes its beginning; although its imagination is not also bound, which directly supplies to it the species of things.

Reply Obj. 3: It pertains to free will to choose, as is clear from the definition of Augustine in Book II, Distinction 24, Question 1, Article 1. But choice is like the conclusion of counsel, as it says in the Ethics 3. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 3, ch. 5 (1113a4).) And so it pertains to judgment, or presupposes judgment. And so although a man asleep may have a certain use of some reason, according as his senses are less bound, nevertheless, he cannot have the use of free will in choosing.

Reply Obj. 4: To the degree that the senses are more or less bound by the passion of sleep, this judgment of reason is also more or less impeded. And this is why whenever a man asleep considers something, those things that appear are dreams. But since while sleeping the senses are never completely shut off, for this reason also the judgment of reason is not completely free; hence the judgment of reason is always with a certain falsity, even if it is true in a certain respect; and so it happens that someone asleep sometimes consents to something base, but sometimes does not. For nevertheless the judgment of reason is not entirely free, and as a result neither is the free will; and so this kind of consent or dissent cannot be meritorious or demeritorious in itself.

Reply Obj. 5: Bodily movements do not pertain to merit or demerit, except to the extent that they are caused by the will as their principle. And so nighttime emission is judged as to merit or demerit more according to the beginning that is in sleeping, rather than the end terminus that is in waking, because from the fact that the movement of the flesh was excited while asleep, that final movement is not subject to the will once awake, nor is it considered to have been awake until the point that it recovered the perfect use of the free will. Nevertheless it can happen that at the moment of waking a sin will arise, if someone should enjoy the emission because of pleasure, which indeed would be a venial sin, if this pleasure should be unexpected; but it would be mortal if it were with the consent of someone deliberating, and particularly with a future desire. However, this pleasure does not make the foregoing emission a sin, for it did not cause it, but is a sin on its own. However, if someone were pleased at the natural unburdening or relief, that is not believed to be a sin.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that for a man to be worthy to approach the sacrament, three things are required. First, cleanness of conscience, which can only be taken away by sin. Second, raising the mind to God by active devotion, and this is lost sometimes without sin by the mind’s being sluggish, or distracted, or wandering. Third, also cleanness of body, which is why those celebrating or about to handle some sacrament also wash their hands out of reverence. And this is why sin impedes, first and principally; second, lack of devotion or sluggishness of mind; third, bodily uncleanness. And sometimes in nighttime emission, these three things come together, or sometimes two of them, sometimes just one; and according to this, a man is more or less impeded. And so the different kinds of pollution are to be distinguished, and this in two ways.

First, as to cause. For there can be three causes for things that appear in dreams. One is external and spiritual, like in those things that are revealed to us by spiritual substances. Another is internal and spiritual, as when the images that appear to us asleep are left behind by the thoughts we had before. Third is internal and physical, as when sweet mucus runs onto the tongue, a man dreams that he is eating sweets; and this is how doctors infer the disposition of the body from dreams. Therefore, pollution sometimes happens from an illusion, when images are provoked by extrinsic spiritual causes, namely, demons; sometimes from the remains of past thoughts, which is the intrinsic spiritual cause; sometimes from an intrinsic natural cause, which cause was either subject to the will, as it is when pollution happens from an excess of food or drink beforehand; or else it was not subject to the will, as if it happens from the natural weakness of someone unable to retain semen, or from an excessive power of expelling it, or in any other way that ends up the same.

Second, pollution is distinguished as to its mode, for sometimes it happens without imagination, sometimes with imagination, and this in two ways: for sometimes in the dreaming itself a man consents to something base, and sometimes he dissents, and still the pollution occurs. Therefore, when the pollution occurs without imagination, it is a sign that the pollution is from an internal physical cause. But when it happens with images, it can be this way or that way. Therefore all the pollutions brought up have bodily uncleanness in common. But a certain stupor of the mind only exists in those pollutions that happen with imagination, since in those that happen without imagining, the soul seems to take no part. However, none of the examples given is a sin, as is clear from what has been said, but it can be an effect of sin, signifying a foregoing sin that was venial or mortal. Now a mortal sin impedes the reception of the Eucharist by the necessity of a precept, for anyone conscious of mortal sin who approaches this sacrament sins mortally. But mental stupor and bodily uncleannness are a kind of unbecomingness of honor; for it seems to be a certain lack of devotion to approach in this condition, unless necessity should urge one.

And so it should be considered whether in the cause of the pollution a foregoing sin was to be found, for thinking about base things is sometimes without sin, as when it remains only in the thoughts, like when someone discussing these things has to think about them to speak about them. Sometimes it is also with venial sin, when the thought reaching into the emotions ends in pleasure alone; but sometimes it is mortal, when consent is given to it. And since pleasure is very close to this kind of thinking, and consent is right beside pleasure, for this reason it is open to question whether the pollution following happened from sin, or not, and whether it was venial or mortal. Nevertheless it can be deduced probably enough that consent did not happen first, when in the dream itself the soul dissented. Still, if he consented, it does not necessarily mean that consent would have preceded if he had been awake, for this can happen because of the binding of the judgment of reason, which is sometimes more and sometimes less free in sleep. For this reason, in this kind of pollution, if going back to the cause one should be unsure of whether he consented, he should abstain entirely. But if he finds explicitly that consent did not happen first, and necessity urges, or some stronger reason shapes his intention, he can approach, or even celebrate despite his uncleanness of body or stupor of mind; otherwise if necessity does not compel him, he would seem not to show due reverence to the sacrament. Still, if he celebrates, he does not sin mortally, but venially, like when someone sometimes allows his mind to wander. However, when it happens by an illusion, if the cause of the illusion was in us before, for example when someone falls asleep out of a lack of devotion, the judgment is the same as when the pollution is caused by the preceding thoughts.

However, if the cause was not in us before, but rather the opposite cause, and this happens often, and particularly on those days when someone should receive Communion, then it is a sign that the devil is trying to take away the fruit of receiving the Eucharist from a man. And so in this case a certain monk was advised, as is read in the Conferences of the Fathers, (See John Cassian, Collationes, collection 23, ch. 6 (CSEL 13:621).) that he receive Communion; and so the devil, seeing that he could not accomplish his aim, stopped the illusion. However, if it had happened from food or drink taken before, the judgment is the same as of pollution that proceeded from base thoughts, except inasmuch as it is not quite as easy to fall into mortal sin in the consumption of food as in thinking base things. And since the pollution from food sometimes happens without any imagination, but the pollution from base thoughts never does, while that which happens from the disposition of nature is not a sign of any sin, but it can introduce a mental stupor if it happens with imagination, although it has bodily uncleanness; thus if there is risk of an emergency, or devotion demands it, someone in this state is not impeded, and especially when it happens without imagination. Nevertheless, if he should abstain out of reverence, he is to be praised, when the infirmity is not perpetual. And since what caused it cannot so easily be perceived, for this reason it is safer to abstain unless necessity compels. Moreover, he should abstain, as they say, for twenty-four hours: for in such an interval nature, which was disordered by bodily uncleanness and mental stupor, is reordered.

Reply Obj. 1: Although any venial sin pertains more to impurity of the mind in itself than nighttime pollution does, and accordingly, it displeases God more, nevertheless, venial sin does not dull the soul and soil the body so much, nor is it so easily a sign of mortal sin, as pollution; and so the argument does not follow.

Reply Obj. 2: No one would be counseled to approach the Eucharist immediately after a mortal sin, even if it were repented and confessed, but he should abstain for some time out of reverence, unless a great necessity urged him. And furthermore, confession purifies the mind’s stain, but not the bodily uncleanness and stupor that happens to the mind from its sinking down to the flesh.

Reply Obj. 3: Some people say that a man should sin venially to prevent another from sinning mortally. But this saying implies a contradiction: for by the very fact that it is called sin, it is set down as the wrong thing to be done. For this reason if something is done that in no way could not be a sin, it should not be done, nor is it a good thing to do, nor is it permitted so that someone might be freed from sinning mortally; although many good men may be inclined to it out of a certain piety of soul. But it can happen that something that would otherwise be a venial sin may cease to be a sin when done for a reason like this, like saying a certain joking word that would not be idle if it were said for the sake of a pious benefit. Therefore, if there were that kind of pollution, which would not impede in a case of necessity, the one suffering it should celebrate in the case proposed, but otherwise not.

Reply Obj. 4: Thoughts are called base not only when they are about base things (since there cannot be decent thoughts about these things) but when they dwell on base things for the sake of the pleasure or consent joined to them; and this baseness is indeed more abhorrent than the kind that happens from food: both because it is more able to be avoided, since it is most difficult to keep moderate in food, and because it is closer to mortal sin.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that since that food is not for the body but for the mind, the disposition of the mind is more to be considered in its consumption than that of the body. And so the kinds of bodily uncleanness should be distinguished: for either it is perpetual or long-lasting, like leprosy, or it is temporary and quickly purified. If indeed it is perpetual or chronic, then in no way should someone abstain because of it, lest because of the uncleanness of the body the fruit of the mind should be lost, as happens among lepers suffering a hemorrhage of blood or flow of semen. However, if it is temporary and easily purified, then if someone is well disposed in mind, it is not forbidden for him to receive; although he could also abstain for a time laudably out of respect for so great a sacrament.

Reply Obj. 1: God loves bodily cleanness, and hates uncleanness, according as it is related to reverence or irreverence for the sacrament. And so if out of mental devotion, not because of irreverence, someone should approach with bodily uncleanness, God would accept him.

Reply Obj. 2: The prohibition of the unclean from holy things under the law was more for the sake of the signification than because of the things themselves; and so it is not necessary that it be done the same way in the New Testament, where, since the truth has come, the figures have ceased.

Reply Obj. 3: It is forbidden to a leprous priest to celebrate publicly before the people, on account of the shock; nevertheless, he can celebrate well privately out of devotion, unless he is so debilitated that he cannot fulfill his ministry without danger. And someone with leprosy already should not be advanced to the priesthood.

Article 5

Whether the body of Christ may be given to anyone to eat

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the fifth we proceed thus. (Parallels: below, d. 11, q. 3, a. 2, qa. 2, ad 1; ST III, q. 80, a. 6; q. 81, a. 2; Quodl. V, q. 6, a. 2.) It seems that the priest should not give the body of Christ to someone who asks, if he knows that person to be a sinner. For a doctor should not give to a sick person a medicine that he knows to be lethal. But the priest knows that the body of Christ is lethal to someone in sin. Therefore, he should not give it to him.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, nothing should be done to avoid scandal that is against the truth of life. But to give the body of Christ to a sinner is against the truth of life, since it is against the command of the Lord, do not give what is holy to dogs (Matt 7:6). Therefore, no matter how much scandal might follow, it should in no way be given to him; just as neither should it be given to a dog or thrown in the mud to avoid scandal.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the lesser of two evils should be chosen. But for a sinner it is less of an evil if he is defamed than if he eats the body of Christ unworthily. Therefore, a priest should refuse him in public, and should even make his crime publicly known, rather than give him Communion.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, if he gives him an unconsecrated host, there will be no scandal. Therefore, it seems he should rather do this.

On the contrary (1), every action of Christ is our instruction. But Christ gave his own body to Judas at the Last Supper, as it is had in John 13:26, and as Dionysius says, although he knew him to be a sinner. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 3, p. 3, n.1 (PG 3:427).) Therefore, the priest should also not refuse a sinner who asks.

Furthermore (2), Augustine says, may the steward not prohibit the fat of the land, i.e., sinners, to eat at the Lord’s table. (See the Glossa ordinaria, PL 113:875.)

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that those suspected of a crime should also be given the sacrament. For suspicion implies doubt. But doubt should be interpreted toward the better part. Therefore, it seems that it should be given to him as though he were a just man.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, no crime is tried unless there was first a suspicion of it. But the body of Christ is sometimes to be given to someone as a test of sin to be taken under these words: the body of the Lord is a test for you today, as it says in the Decretals. (See Gratian’s Decretals, d. 2, q. 5, ch. 23 (PL 187:615).) Therefore, it should be given to those suspected.

On the contrary, if those suspected of a crime were given the body of the Lord, it would be a scandal for the people who saw and knew. But scandal is to be avoided. Therefore, the body of Christ must not be given to them.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the body of Christ should not be given to the mentally disabled. (Parallels: below, d. 23, q. 2, a. 2, qa. 3 & 4; ST III, q. 80, a. 8; Super Ioan. 6, lec. 7.) For to receive the body of Christ, a diligent examination of conscience is required, as is clear from 1 Corinthians 11:28: but let a man examine himself, and then he may eat of that bread and drink of that chalice. But this cannot happen in someone mentally disabled. Therefore, he ought not to be given the Eucharist.

Obj. 2: Those possessed are also counted among the mentally disabled, according to Dionysius in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: the possessed are also to be kept away from gazing upon divine things; (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 3, p. 1 (PG 3:423).) hence immediately after the Gospel in the early Church they were sent away with the catechumens by the voice of the deacon. Therefore, the Eucharist should not be given to them.

On the contrary (1), Cassian says, we recall that the most holy Communion was never forbidden by our elders to those who are harrassed by troublesome spirits. (John Cassian, Collationes, collection 7, ch. 30 (CSEL 13:207).) Therefore, since such people are mentally disabled, it should be given to the mentally disabled.

Furthermore (2), in the Decretals it is said, whatever things belong to piety are to be conferred on the mentally disabled; (See Gratian’s Decretals, cause 26, q. 6, ch. 7 (PL 187:1359).) and it is speaking of reconciliation and sacred Communion.

Quaestiuncula 4

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the body of Christ should also be given to children. (Parallels: below, d. 23, q. 2, a. 2, qa. 3 & 4; ST III, q. 80, a. 8; Super Ioan. 6, lec. 7.) For by baptism someone is enrolled for the consumption of the body of Christ; hence it should be conferred on one who is baptized, as Dionysius says. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 2, p. 2, n. 7 (PG 3:395).) But children have been baptized. Therefore, the body of Christ should also be given to them.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, just as by baptism there is spiritual life, so also by the Eucharist: for it says, whoever eats me, lives because of me (John 6:57). But baptism is given to children so that they may have spiritual life. Therefore, in the same way the Eucharist should also be given to them.

On the contrary, this food is for the full-grown, as is clear from Augustine. (Augustine, Confessions (CCSL 27), Bk. 7, ch. 10.) But children are not yet full-grown in faith. Therefore, it should not be given to them.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that if a priest knew the sin of someone who seeks the Eucharist, by confession or by some other way, a distinction must be made: for either the sin is hidden, or it is manifest. If it is hidden, either he demands Communion privately or publicly. But if privately, he should deny him, and warn him against asking in public. But if he asks for holy Communion in public, the priest should give it to him. First, because imposing a public penalty for a secret sin is to reveal what is heard in confession, or to betray a crime. Second, because any Christian has the right to receive the Eucharist, unless he loses it by mortal sin. Hence since it is not established in the sight of the Church that this person has lost his right, one ought not to deny it him in the sight of the Church: otherwise faculty would be given to bad priests to punish at will whomever they want with the greatest punishment. Third, because of uncertainty of the status of the recipient: for the Spirit blows where it will (John 3:8). And from that he can be suddenly contrite and divinely purified of his sin, and have come to the sacrament by divine inspiration. Fourth, because there would be scandal if he were refused. But if the sin is well known, the priest should refuse him whether he asks in secret or in public.

Reply Obj. 1: A doctor should rather choose lethal medicine for the sick person than for himself, if he must choose one or the other. And likewise, the priest should rather choose that a sinner be taken to his perdition than that he should refuse him to his own perdition, by scandalizing and revealing his secret sins. And furthermore, it is not certain whether it would be deadly to him, for by the Spirit of God a man might change in an instant. And again in his very asking the person consenting to a mortal sin has sinned mortally.

Reply Obj. 2: He is not to be sent away only because of scandal, but because of other reasons that make it advisable; nor would it be against the truth of life, if he refused. Therefore, the Lord did not simply prohibit giving it, but the will of giving it, by using the verb nolle to say, do not give what is holy to dogs. But a priest in the case proposed does not give of his own accord, but rather compelled. Nor is there any similarity to the argument about brute animals or throwing in the mud: because none of aforementioned reasons are present there.

Reply Obj. 3: According to Innocent III, (Innocent III, De sacro altaris mysterio, Bk. 4, ch. 13 (PL 217:865).) since no one should commit one mortal sin so that his neighbor does not commit another, it should be chosen rather that the priest not expose the sinner, than that he not sin himself; but the sinner should choose to make himself suspect by abstaining, rather than eat unworthily by receiving Communion.

Reply Obj. 4: In no way should an unconsecrated host be given in place of a consecrated one: both because in the sacrament of truth there should be no pretense, and because when someone who eats it adores what he eats, as Augustine says, the priest would have given him the occasion of idolatry. (Moos gives as the citation Augustine, Ennarationes in Psalmos, Psalm 18, n. 9 (PL 36:1264), which does not seem to be correct. The original passage has remained elusive.) Hence the Decretal says that in a case like this, one should reject false remedies, which are more dangerous than true dangers. (From the Decretalium Gregorii papae IX compilationis, Bk. 3, title 41, ch. 7, “De homine,” retrieved from http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost13/GregoriusIX/gre_3t41.html on January 30, 2015.)

The arguments that are made to the contrary proceed only when a secret sinner requests Communion publicly.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that there are three kinds of suspicion. One kind is violent, and admits of no evidence to the contrary, as when a man and a woman are found alone, naked in bed, in a hidden place and at a time suited to intercourse. Another is probable, as when a man and woman are found alone often, talking in a suspicious place. The third kind is presumption, which has its origin in a light conjecture. However, this last kind should be laid aside. In the second kind, a person should not be denied, because a penalty is not imposed where guilt is not known; but the first kind is judged the same as the sin. Hence if there is suspicion proceeding from public reputation, the Eucharist should not be given to him in private or in public; but if the suspicion is only in this individual priest, then it should be given to him in public, but not in private.

Reply Obj. 1: Although in the first kind of suspicion there is no sensible certitude, or certainty by demonstration, nevertheless, there is the kind of certitude that suffices for proof in the law. For the same kind of certitude is not required for everything, as it says in the Ethics 1. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 1, ch. 1 (1094b13).)

Reply Obj. 2: That decree has been repealed, because tests like that tempt God. Or it could be said that the intention of that decree is not that a purification like that be made, but that out of fear of such a purification, one would abstain in the future.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that a distinction must be made about the mentally disabled. For some of them are called mentally disabled broadly, because they have a weak mind, as something hard to see is called invisible. And nevertheless they can be taught in some way about what would pertain to faith and devotion to the sacrament, and it is not necessary to refuse the body of Christ to such as these. But some are completely lacking in any judgment of reason, and either they were this way from birth, and then it should not be given to them, for they cannot be led to the devotion that is required for this sacrament (although some people say the opposite); or else they fell into mental illness after faith and devotion to the sacrament; and then it should be given to them unless there is a danger of vomiting or spitting out or anything like this. And this is clear from what it says in the Decretals, Cause 26, Question 6: if someone who in his illness seeks penance and while the priest invited to him comes, he reverts to madness, once the testimony is taken from those standing by that they heard his request, let him be both reconciled, and let the Eucharist be placed into his mouth. (Gratian’s Decretals, cause 26, q. 6, ch. 8 (PL 187:1359).)

Reply Obj. 1: In this case, the devotion he had before is reckoned to him for a worthy reception.

Reply Obj. 2: Communion is not to be refused to demoniacs, unless perhaps it is sure that they are being tormented by the devil for some crime; and that is what Dionysius is speaking about. Or it could be said, and better, that he calls possessed those in whom the power of the devil still thrives because original sin has not yet been uprooted, by the fact that the grace of baptism has not yet been obtained, for which the exorcism is employed after the catechesis before baptism. And this is why he includes these in second place after the catechumens.

Response to Quaestiuncula 4

To the fourth question, it should be said that to children lacking the use of reason, who cannot distinguish between spiritual and bodily food, the Eucharist should not be given, although some of the Byzantines maintain the opposite, though irrationally: because actual devotion is required for the consumption of the Eucharist, which children of that age cannot have. However, once children have begun to have discretion, even before the age of maturity, for example when they are ten or eleven years old, or around then, it can be given to them, if signs of discretion and devotion appear in them.

Reply Obj. 1: Baptized infants acquire the right to receive the body of Christ, not right away though, but at the fitting time; just as they have the right of receiving their inheritance, although they do not possess it immediately. However, Dionysius describes the rite of baptism for adults, as is clear to anyone who studies his words.

Reply Obj. 2: By baptism the first act of the spiritual life is given, which is why it is necessary for salvation; and so baptism must be given to children. But by the Eucharist is given the completion of the spiritual life, and so it should be given to those who can be capable of the second perfection, which is by actual devotion, as it says in the Decretals: let them not think that those who have no share in the Lord’s body and blood can have life; and it is speaking of children. (Gratian’s Decretals, Part 3, De consecratione, d. 4, ch. 130 (PL 187:1845).) This is to be understood, however, not as to receiving the sacrament, but as to the reality behind the sacrament, which is the unity of the Church, outside of which there is no salvation, nor life.

Exposition of the Text

“Believe, and you will have eaten.” (Peter Lombard, Sententiae IV, 9.1 (55). 2 citing Augustine, In Ioannem, tr. 25 n12.) This is to be understood of spiritual eating and formed faith. However, he commemorates faith rather because it is what is most at work in the sacraments.

“We too have been made the body [of Christ].” (Sent. IV, 9.1 (55), 3, citing Augustine, Sermo 229: De sacramentis fidelium.) Thus, we eat ourselves spiritually. And it should be said that we are not his body except by reason of the union, which we acquire by eating spiritually.

“For you see, wickedness is done.” (Sent. IV, 9.2 (56), 2, citing Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus (CCSL 36), Tract. 62, n. 1.) He says the opposite below in the same chapter: “one who receives the body of the Lord unworthily, does not thereby make that which he receives evil.” (Sent. IV, 9.2 (56), 3, citing Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas, Bk. 5, ch. 8, n. 9.) And it should be said that it is not evil in itself, but it is evil, that is, harmful, to him.

So we may receive it spiritually. (Sent. IV, 9.3 (57), 3.) To the contrary: for in heaven there will be no use of the sacrament; therefore neither will there be spiritual reception. And it should be said that what is called reception is obtaining the reality behind the sacrament, which the sacrament does not cause immediately, but only signifies, namely, the enjoyment of the divinity, which sacramental eating also signifies.