Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 73 [<< | >>]
Consequenter considerandum est de sacramento Eucharistiae.
|
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 73 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Eucharistia non sit sacramentum. Ad idem enim non debent ordinari duo sacramenta, quia unumquodque sacramentum efficax est ad suum effectum producendum. Cum ergo ad perfectionem ordinetur confirmatio et Eucharistia, ut Dionysius dicit, IV cap. Eccl. Hier., videtur Eucharistia non esse sacramentum, cum confirmatio sit sacramentum, ut prius habitum est. | Objection 1: It seems that the Eucharist is not a sacrament. For two sacraments ought not to be ordained for the same end, because every sacrament is efficacious in producing its effect. Therefore, since both Confirmation and the Eucharist are ordained for perfection, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iv), it seems that the Eucharist is not a sacrament, since Confirmation is one, as stated above (Question [65], Article [1]; Question [72], Article [1]). |
| Praeterea, in quolibet sacramento novae legis id quod visibiliter subiicitur sensui, efficit invisibilem effectum sacramenti, sicut ablutio aquae causat et characterem baptismalem et ablutionem spiritualem, ut supra dictum est. Sed species panis et vini, quae subiiciuntur sensui in hoc sacramento, non efficiunt neque ipsum corpus Christi verum, quod est res et sacramentum, neque corpus mysticum, quod est res tantum in Eucharistia. Ergo videtur quod Eucharistia non sit sacramentum novae legis. | Objection 2: Further, in every sacrament of the New Law, that which comes visibly under our senses causes the invisible effect of the sacrament, just as cleansing with water causes the baptismal character and spiritual cleansing, as stated above (Question [63], Article [6]; Question [66], Articles [1],3,7). But the species of bread and wine, which are the objects of our senses in this sacrament, neither produce Christ's true body, which is both reality and sacrament, nor His mystical body, which is the reality only in the Eucharist. Therefore, it seems that the Eucharist is not a sacrament of the New Law. |
| Praeterea, sacramenta novae legis habentia materiam in usu materiae perficiuntur, sicut Baptismus in ablutione, et confirmatio in chrismatis consignatione. Si ergo Eucharistia sit sacramentum, perficeretur in usu materiae, non in consecratione ipsius materiae. Quod patet esse falsum, quia forma huius sacramenti sunt verba quae in consecratione materiae dicuntur, ut infra patebit. Ergo Eucharistia non est sacramentum. | Objection 3: Further, sacraments of the New Law, as having matter, are perfected by the use of the matter, as Baptism is by ablution, and Confirmation by signing with chrism. If, then, the Eucharist be a sacrament, it would be perfected by the use of the matter, and not by its consecration. But this is manifestly false, because the words spoken in the consecration of the matter are the form of this sacrament, as will be shown later on (Question [78], Article [1]). Therefore the Eucharist is not a sacrament. |
| Sed contra est quod in collecta dicitur, hoc tuum sacramentum non sit nobis reatus ad poenam. | On the contrary, It is said in the Collect [*Postcommunion "pro vivis et defunctis"]: "May this Thy Sacrament not make us deserving of punishment." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod sacramenta Ecclesiae ordinantur ad subveniendum homini in vita spirituali. Vita autem spiritualis vitae corporali conformatur, eo quod corporalia spiritualium similitudinem gerunt. Manifestum est autem quod, sicut ad vitam corporalem requiritur generatio, per quam homo vitam accipit, et augmentum, quo homo perducitur ad perfectionem vitae; ita etiam requiritur alimentum, quo homo conservatur in vita. Et ideo, sicut ad vitam spiritualem oportuit esse Baptismum, qui est spiritualis generatio, et confirmationem, quae est spirituale augmentum; ita oportuit esse sacramentum Eucharistiae, quod est spirituale alimentum. | I answer that, The Church's sacraments are ordained for helping man in the spiritual life. But the spiritual life is analogous to the corporeal, since corporeal things bear a resemblance to spiritual. Now it is clear that just as generation is required for corporeal life, since thereby man receives life; and growth, whereby man is brought to maturity: so likewise food is required for the preservation of life. Consequently, just as for the spiritual life there had to be Baptism, which is spiritual generation; and Confirmation, which is spiritual growth: so there needed to be the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is spiritual food. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod duplex est perfectio. Una quae est in ipso homine, ad quam perducitur per augmentum. Et talis perfectio competit confirmationi. Alia autem est perfectio quam homo consequitur ex adiunctione cibi vel indumenti, vel alicuius huiusmodi. Et talis perfectio competit Eucharistiae, quae est spiritualis refectio. | Reply to Objection 1: Perfection is twofold. The first lies within man himself; and he attains it by growth: such perfection belongs to Confirmation. The other is the perfection which comes to man from the addition of food, or clothing, or something of the kind; and such is the perfection befitting the Eucharist, which is the spiritual refreshment. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod aqua Baptismi non causat aliquem spiritualem effectum propter ipsam aquam, sed propter virtutem spiritus sancti in aqua existentem, unde Chrysostomus dicit, super illud Ioan. V, Angelus domini secundum tempus etc., in baptizatis non simpliciter aqua operatur, sed, cum spiritus sancti susceperit gratiam, tunc omnia solvit peccata. Sicut autem se habet virtus spiritus sancti ad aquam Baptismi, ita se habet corpus Christi verum ad species panis et vini. Unde species panis et vini non efficiunt aliquid nisi virtute corporis Christi veri. | Reply to Objection 2: The water of Baptism does not cause any spiritual effect by reason of the water, but by reason of the power of the Holy Ghost, which power is in the water. Hence on Jn. 5:4, "An angel of the Lord at certain times," etc., Chrysostom observes: "The water does not act simply as such upon the baptized, but when it receives the grace of the Holy Ghost, then it looses all sins." But the true body of Christ. bears the same relation to the species of the bread and wine, as the power of the Holy Ghost does to the water of Baptism: hence the species of the bread and wine produce no effect except from the virtue of Christ's true body. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod sacramentum dicitur ex eo quod continet aliquid sacrum. Potest autem aliquid esse sacrum dupliciter, scilicet absolute, et in ordine ad aliud. Haec est autem differentia inter Eucharistiam et alia sacramenta habentia materiam sensibilem, quod Eucharistia continet aliquid sacrum absolute, scilicet ipsum Christum, aqua vero Baptismi continet aliquid sacrum in ordine ad aliud, scilicet virtutem ad sanctificandum, et eadem ratio est de chrismate et similibus. Et ideo sacramentum Eucharistiae perficitur in ipsa consecratione materiae, alia vero sacramenta perficiuntur in applicatione materiae ad hominem sanctificandum. Et ex hoc etiam consequitur alia differentia. Nam in sacramento Eucharistiae id quod est res et sacramentum, est in ipsa materia; id autem quod est res tantum, est in suscipiente, scilicet gratia quae confertur. In Baptismo autem utrumque est in suscipiente, et character, qui est res et sacramentum; et gratia remissionis peccatorum, quae est res tantum. Et eadem ratio est de aliis sacramentis. | Reply to Objection 3: A sacrament is so termed because it contains something sacred. Now a thing can be styled sacred from two causes; either absolutely, or in relation to something else. The difference between the Eucharist and other sacraments having sensible matter is that whereas the Eucharist contains something which is sacred absolutely, namely, Christ's own body; the baptismal water contains something which is sacred in relation to something else, namely, the sanctifying power: and the same holds good of chrism and such like. Consequently, the sacrament of the Eucharist is completed in the very consecration of the matter, whereas the other sacraments are completed in the application of the matter for the sanctifying of the individual. And from this follows another difference. For, in the sacrament of the Eucharist, what is both reality and sacrament is in the matter itself. but what is reality only, namely, the grace bestowed, is in the recipient; whereas in Baptism both are in the recipient, namely, the character, which is both reality and sacrament, and the grace of pardon of sins, which is reality only. And the same holds good of the other sacraments. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 73 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Eucharistia non sit unum sacramentum, sed plura. Dicitur enim in collecta, purificent nos, quaesumus, domine, sacramenta quae sumpsimus, quod quidem dicitur propter Eucharistiae sumptionem. Ergo Eucharistia non est unum sacramentum, sed plura. | Objection 1: It seems that the Eucharist is not one sacrament but several, because it is said in the Collect [*Postcommunion "pro vivis et defunctis"]: "May the sacraments which we have received purify us, O Lord": and this is said on account of our receiving the Eucharist. Consequently the Eucharist is not one sacrament but several. |
| Praeterea, impossibile est, multiplicato genere, non multiplicari speciem, sicut quod unus homo sit plura animalia. Sed signum est genus sacramenti, ut supra dictum est. Cum igitur in Eucharistia sint plura signa, scilicet panis et vini, videtur consequens esse quod sint plura sacramenta. | Objection 2: Further, it is impossible for genera to be multiplied without the species being multiplied: thus it is impossible for one man to be many animals. But, as stated above (Question [60], Article [1]), sign is the genus of sacrament. Since, then, there are more signs than one, to wit, bread and wine, it seems to follow that here must be more sacraments than one. |
| Praeterea, hoc sacramentum perficitur in consecratione materiae, sicut dictum est. Sed in hoc sacramento est duplex materiae consecratio. Ergo est duplex sacramentum. | Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is perfected in the consecration of the matter, as stated above (Article [1], ad 3). But in this sacrament there is a double consecration of the matter. Therefore, it is a twofold sacrament. |
| Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, I Cor. X, unus panis et unum corpus multi sumus, omnes qui de uno pane et uno calice participamus. Ex quo patet quod Eucharistia sit sacramentum ecclesiasticae unitatis. Sed sacramentum similitudinem gerit rei cuius est sacramentum. Ergo Eucharistia est unum sacramentum. | On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:17): "For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread": from which it is clear that the Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church's unity. But a sacrament bears the likeness of the reality whereof it is the sacrament. Therefore the Eucharist is one sacrament. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dicitur V Metaphys., unum dicitur non solum quod est indivisibile vel quod est continuum, sed etiam quod est perfectum, sicut cum dicitur una domus, et unus homo. Est autem unum perfectione ad cuius integritatem concurrunt omnia quae requiruntur ad finem eiusdem, sicut homo integratur ex omnibus membris necessariis operationi animae, et domus ex partibus quae sunt necessariae ad inhabitandum. Et sic hoc sacramentum dicitur unum. Ordinatur enim ad spiritualem refectionem, quae corporali conformatur. Ad corporalem autem refectionem duo requiruntur, scilicet cibus, qui est alimentum siccum; et potus, qui est alimentum humidum. Et ideo etiam ad integritatem huius sacramenti duo concurrunt, scilicet spiritualis cibus et spiritualis potus, secundum illud Ioan. VI, caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus. Ergo hoc sacramentum multa quidem materialiter est, sed unum formaliter et perfective. | I answer that, As stated in Metaph. v, a thing is said to be one, not only from being indivisible, or continuous, but also when it is complete; thus we speak of one house, and one man. A thing is one in perfection, when it is complete through the presence of all that is needed for its end; as a man is complete by having all the members required for the operation of his soul, and a house by having all the parts needful for dwelling therein. And so this sacrament is said to be one. Because it is ordained for spiritual refreshment, which is conformed to corporeal refreshment. Now there are two things required for corporeal refreshment, namely, food, which is dry sustenance, and drink, which is wet sustenance. Consequently, two things concur for the integrity of this sacrament, to wit, spiritual food and spiritual drink, according to John: "My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." Therefore, this sacrament is materially many, but formally and perfectively one. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in collecta eadem et pluraliter dicitur primo, purificent nos sacramenta quae sumpsimus; et postea singulariter subditur, hoc tuum sacramentum non sit nobis reatus ad poenam, ad ostendendum quod hoc sacramentum quodammodo est multa, simpliciter autem unum. | Reply to Objection 1: The same Collect at first employs the plural: "May the sacraments which we have received purify us"; and afterwards the singular number: "May this sacrament of Thine not make us worthy of punishment": so as to show that this sacrament is in a measure several, yet simply one. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod panis et vinum materialiter quidem sunt plura signa, formaliter vero et perfective unum, inquantum ex eis perficitur una refectio. | Reply to Objection 2: The bread and wine are materially several signs, yet formally and perfectively one, inasmuch as one refreshment is prepared therefrom. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ex hoc quod est duplex consecratio huius sacramenti, non potest plus haberi nisi quod hoc sacramentum materialiter est multa, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 3: From the double consecration of the matter no more can be gathered than that the sacrament is several materially, as stated above. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 73 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod hoc sacramentum sit de necessitate salutis. Dicit enim dominus, Ioan. VI, nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis et biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Sed in hoc sacramento manducatur caro Christi et bibitur sanguis eius. Ergo sine hoc sacramento non potest homo habere salutem spiritualis vitae. | Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament is necessary for salvation. For our Lord said (Jn. 6:54): "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you." But Christ's flesh is eaten and His blood drunk in this sacrament. Therefore, without this sacrament man cannot have the health of spiritual life. |
| Praeterea, hoc sacramentum est quoddam spirituale alimentum. Sed alimentum corporale est de necessitate corporalis salutis. Ergo etiam hoc sacramentum est de necessitate salutis spiritualis. | Objection 2: Further, this sacrament is a kind of spiritual food. But bodily food is requisite for bodily health. Therefore, also is this sacrament, for spiritual health. |
| Praeterea, sicut Baptismus est sacramentum dominicae passionis, sine qua non est salus, ita et Eucharistia, dicit enim apostolus, I Cor. XI, quotiescumque manducaveritis panem hunc et calicem biberitis, mortem domini annuntiabitis, donec veniat. Ergo, sicut Baptismus est de necessitate salutis, ita hoc sacramentum. | Objection 3: Further, as Baptism is the sacrament of our Lord's Passion, without which there is no salvation, so also is the Eucharist. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:26): "For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He come." Consequently, as Baptism is necessary for salvation, so also is this sacrament. |
| Sed contra est quod scribit Augustinus Bonifacio, contra Pelagianos, nec id cogitetis, parvulos vitam habere non posse, qui sunt expertes corporis et sanguinis Christi. | On the contrary, Augustine writes (Ad Bonifac. contra Pelag. I): "Nor are you to suppose that children cannot possess life, who are deprived of the body and blood of Christ." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod in hoc sacramento duo est considerare, scilicet ipsum sacramentum, et rem sacramenti. Dictum est autem quod res sacramenti est unitas corporis mystici, sine qua non potest esse salus, nulli enim patet aditus salutis extra Ecclesiam, sicut nec in diluvio absque arca Noe, quae significat Ecclesiam, ut habetur I Petr. III. Dictum est autem supra quod res alicuius sacramenti haberi potest ante perceptionem sacramenti, ex ipso voto sacramenti percipiendi. Unde ante perceptionem huius sacramenti, potest homo habere salutem ex voto percipiendi hoc sacramentum, sicut et ante Baptismum ex voto Baptismi, ut supra dictum est. Tamen est differentia quantum ad duo. Primo quidem, quia Baptismus est principium spiritualis vitae, et ianua sacramentorum. Eucharistia vero est quasi consummatio spiritualis vitae, et omnium sacramentorum finis, ut supra dictum est, per sanctificationes enim omnium sacramentorum fit praeparatio ad suscipiendam vel consecrandam Eucharistiam. Et ideo perceptio Baptismi est necessaria ad inchoandam spiritualem vitam, perceptio autem Eucharistiae est necessaria ad consummandam ipsam, non ad hoc quod simpliciter habeatur, sed sufficit eam habere in voto, sicut et finis habetur in desiderio et intentione. Alia differentia est, quia per Baptismum ordinatur homo ad Eucharistiam. Et ideo ex hoc ipso quod pueri baptizantur, ordinantur per Ecclesiam ad Eucharistiam. Et sic, sicut ex fide Ecclesiae credunt, sic ex intentione Ecclesiae desiderant Eucharistiam, et per consequens recipiunt rem ipsius. Sed ad Baptismum non ordinantur per aliud praecedens sacramentum. Et ideo, ante susceptionem Baptismi, non habent pueri aliquo modo Baptismum in voto, sed soli adulti. Unde rem sacramenti percipere non possunt sine perceptione sacramenti. Et ideo hoc sacramentum non hoc modo est de necessitate salutis sicut Baptismus. | I answer that, Two things have to be considered in this sacrament, namely, the sacrament itself, and what is contained in it. Now it was stated above (Article [1], Objection [2]) that the reality of the sacrament is the unity of the mystical body, without which there can be no salvation; for there is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the Ark, which denotes the Church, according to 1 Pt. 3:20,21. And it has been said above (Question [68], Article [2]), that before receiving a sacrament, the reality of the sacrament can be had through the very desire of receiving the sacrament. Accordingly, before actual reception of this sacrament, a man can obtain salvation through the desire of receiving it, just as he can before Baptism through the desire of Baptism, as stated above (Question [68], Article [2]). Yet there is a difference in two respects. First of all, because Baptism is the beginning of the spiritual life, and the door of the sacraments; whereas the Eucharist is, as it were, the consummation of the spiritual life, and the end of all the sacraments, as was observed above (Question [63], Article [6]): for by the hallowings of all the sacraments preparation is made for receiving or consecrating the Eucharist. Consequently, the reception of Baptism is necessary for starting the spiritual life, while the receiving of the Eucharist is requisite for its consummation; by partaking not indeed actually, but in desire, as an end is possessed in desire and intention. Another difference is because by Baptism a man is ordained to the Eucharist, and therefore from the fact of children being baptized, they are destined by the Church to the Eucharist; and just as they believe through the Church's faith, so they desire the Eucharist through the Church's intention, and, as a result, receive its reality. But they are not disposed for Baptism by any previous sacrament, and consequently before receiving Baptism, in no way have they Baptism in desire; but adults alone have: consequently, they cannot have the reality of the sacrament without receiving the sacrament itself. Therefore this sacrament is not necessary for salvation in the same way as Baptism is. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, exponens illud verbum Ioannis, hunc cibum et potum, scilicet carnis suae et sanguinis, societatem vult intelligi corporis et membrorum suorum, quod est Ecclesia, in praedestinatis et vocatis et iustificatis et glorificatis sanctis et fidelibus eius. Unde, sicut ipse dicit, in epistola ad Bonifacium, nulli est aliquatenus ambigendum tunc unumquemque fidelium corporis sanguinisque domini participem fieri, quando in Baptismate membrum corporis Christi efficitur, nec alienari ab illius panis calicisque consortio, etiam si, antequam panem illum comedat et calicem bibat, de hoc saeculo in unitate corporis Christi constitutus abscedat. | Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says, explaining Jn. 6:54, "This food and this drink," namely, of His flesh and blood: "He would have us understand the fellowship of His body and members, which is the Church in His predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified, His holy and believing ones." Hence, as he says in his Epistle to Boniface (Pseudo-Beda, in 1 Cor. 10:17): "No one should entertain the slightest doubt, that then every one of the faithful becomes a partaker of the body and blood of Christ, when in Baptism he is made a member of Christ's body; nor is he deprived of his share in that body and chalice even though he depart from this world in the unity of Christ's body, before he eats that bread and drinks of that chalice." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod haec est differentia inter alimentum corporale et spirituale, quod alimentum corporale convertitur in substantiam eius qui nutritur, et ideo non potest homini valere ad vitae conservationem alimentum corporale nisi realiter sumatur. Sed alimentum spirituale convertit hominem in seipsum, secundum illud quod Augustinus dicit, in libro Confess., quod quasi audivit vocem Christi dicentis, nec tu me mutabis in te, sicut cibum carnis tuae, sed tu mutaberis in me. Potest autem aliquis in Christum mutari et ei incorporari voto mentis, etiam sine huius sacramenti perceptione. Et ideo non est simile. | Reply to Objection 2: The difference between corporeal and spiritual food lies in this, that the former is changed into the substance of the person nourished, and consequently it cannot avail for supporting life except it be partaken of; but spiritual food changes man into itself, according to that saying of Augustine (Confess. vii), that he heard the voice of Christ as it were saying to him: "Nor shalt thou change Me into thyself, as food of thy flesh, but thou shalt be changed into Me." But one can be changed into Christ, and be incorporated in Him by mental desire, even without receiving this sacrament. And consequently the comparison does not hold. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod Baptismus est sacramentum mortis et passionis Christi prout homo regeneratur in Christo virtute passionis eius. Sed Eucharistia est sacramentum passionis Christi prout homo perficitur in unione ad Christum passum. Unde, sicut Baptismus dicitur sacramentum fidei, quae est fundamentum spiritualis vitae; ita Eucharistia dicitur sacramentum caritatis, quae est vinculum perfectionis, ut dicitur Coloss. III. | Reply to Objection 3: Baptism is the sacrament of Christ's death and Passion, according as a man is born anew in Christ in virtue of His Passion; but the Eucharist is the sacrament of Christ's Passion according as a man is made perfect in union with Christ Who suffered. Hence, as Baptism is called the sacrament of Faith, which is the foundation of the spiritual life, so the Eucharist is termed the sacrament of Charity, which is "the bond of perfection" (Col. 3:14). |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 73 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter hoc sacramentum pluribus nominibus nominetur. Nomina enim debent respondere rebus. Sed hoc sacramentum est unum, ut dictum est. Ergo non debet pluribus nominibus nominari. | Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament is not suitably called by various names. For names should correspond with things. But this sacrament is one, as stated above (Article [2]). Therefore, it ought not to be called by various names. |
| Praeterea, species non notificatur convenienter per id quod est commune toti generi. Sed Eucharistia est sacramentum novae legis. Omnibus autem sacramentis commune est quod in eis confertur gratia, quod significat nomen Eucharistiae, quod est idem quod bona gratia. Omnia etiam sacramenta remedium nobis afferunt in via praesentis vitae, quod pertinet ad rationem viatici. In omnibus etiam sacramentis fit aliquid sacrum, quod pertinet ad rationem sacrificii. Et per omnia sacramenta sibi invicem fideles communicant, quod significat hoc nomen synaxis in Graeco, vel communio in Latino. Ergo haec nomina non convenienter adaptantur huic sacramento. | Objection 2: Further, a species is not properly denominated by what is common to the whole genus. But the Eucharist is a sacrament of the New Law; and it is common to all the sacraments for grace to be conferred by them, which the name "Eucharist" denotes, for it is the same thing as "good grace." Furthermore, all the sacraments bring us help on our journey through this present life, which is the notion conveyed by "Viaticum." Again something sacred is done in all the sacraments, which belongs to the notion of "Sacrifice"; and the faithful intercommunicate through all the sacraments, which this Greek word {Synaxis} and the Latin "Communio" express. Therefore, these names are not suitably adapted to this sacrament. |
| Praeterea, hostia videtur idem esse quod sacrificium. Sicut ergo non proprie dicitur sacrificium, ita nec proprie dicitur hostia. | Objection 3: Further, a host [*From Latin "hostia," a victim] seems to be the same as a sacrifice. Therefore, as it is not properly called a sacrifice, so neither is it properly termed a "Host." |
| Sed contra est quod usus fidelium habet. | On the contrary, is the use of these expressions by the faithful. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod hoc sacramentum habet triplicem significationem. Unam quidem respectu praeteriti, inquantum scilicet est commemorativum dominicae passionis, quae fuit verum sacrificium, ut supra dictum est. Et secundum hoc nominatur sacrificium. | I answer that, This sacrament has a threefold significance. one with regard to the past, inasmuch as it is commemorative of our Lord's Passion, which was a true sacrifice, as stated above (Question [48], Article [3]), and in this respect it is called a "Sacrifice." |
| Aliam autem significationem habet respectu rei praesentis, scilicet ecclesiasticae unitatis, cui homines congregantur per hoc sacramentum. Et secundum hoc nominatur communio vel synaxis, dicit enim Damascenus, IV libro, quod dicitur communio, quia communicamus per ipsam Christo; et quia participamus eius carne et deitate; et quia communicamus et unimur ad invicem per ipsam. | With regard to the present it has another meaning, namely, that of Ecclesiastical unity, in which men are aggregated through this Sacrament; and in this respect it is called "Communion" or {Synaxis}. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that "it is called Communion because we communicate with Christ through it, both because we partake of His flesh and Godhead, and because we communicate with and are united to one another through it." |
| Tertiam significationem habet respectu futuri, inquantum scilicet hoc sacramentum est praefigurativum fruitionis Dei, quae erit in patria. Et secundum hoc dicitur viaticum, quia hoc praebet nobis viam illuc perveniendi. Et secundum hoc etiam dicitur Eucharistia, idest bona gratia, quia gratia Dei est vita aeterna, ut dicitur Rom. VI; vel quia realiter continet Christum, qui est plenus gratia. | With regard to the future it has a third meaning, inasmuch as this sacrament foreshadows the Divine fruition, which shall come to pass in heaven; and according to this it is called "Viaticum," because it supplies the way of winning thither. And in this respect it is also called the "Eucharist," that is, "good grace," because "the grace of God is life everlasting" (Rm. 6:23); or because it really contains Christ, Who is "full of grace." |
| Dicitur etiam in Graeco metalepsis, idest assumptio, quia, ut Damascenus dicit, per hoc filii deitatem assumimus. | In Greek, moreover, it is called {Metalepsis}, i.e. "Assumption," because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv), "we thereby assume the Godhead of the Son." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nihil prohibet idem pluribus nominibus nominari secundum diversas proprietates vel effectus. | Reply to Objection 1: There is nothing to hinder the same thing from being called by several names, according to its various properties or effects. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod id quod est commune omnibus sacramentis, attribuitur antonomastice ei, propter eius excellentiam. | Reply to Objection 2: What is common to all the sacraments is attributed antonomastically to this one on account of its excellence. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod hoc sacramentum dicitur sacrificium, inquantum repraesentat ipsam passionem Christi. Dicitur autem hostia, inquantum continet ipsum Christum, qui est hostia suavitatis, ut dicitur Ephes. V. | Reply to Objection 3: This sacrament is called a "Sacrifice" inasmuch as it represents the Passion of Christ; but it is termed a "Host" inasmuch as it contains Christ, Who is "a host (Douay: 'sacrifice') . . . of sweetness" (Eph. 5:2). |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 73 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit conveniens institutio istius sacramenti. Ut enim philosophus dicit, in II de Generat., ex eisdem nutrimur ex quibus sumus. Sed per Baptismum, qui est spiritualis regeneratio, accipimus esse spirituale, ut Dionysius dicit, II cap. Eccles. Hier. Ergo per Baptismum etiam nutrimur. Non ergo fuit necessarium instituere hoc sacramentum quasi spirituale nutrimentum. | Objection 1: It seems that the institution of this sacrament was not appropriate, because as the Philosopher says (De Gener. ii): "We are nourished by the things from whence we spring." But by Baptism, which is spiritual regeneration, we receive our spiritual being, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii). Therefore we are also nourished by Baptism. Consequently there was no need to institute this sacrament as spiritual nourishment. |
| Praeterea, per hoc sacramentum homines Christo uniuntur sicut membra capiti. Sed Christus est caput omnium hominum, etiam qui fuerunt ab initio mundi, ut supra dictum est. Ergo non debuit institutio huius sacramenti differri usque ad cenam domini. | Objection 2: Further, men are united with Christ through this sacrament as the members with the head. But Christ is the Head of all men, even of those who have existed from the beginning of the world, as stated above (Question [8], Articles [3],6). Therefore the institution of this sacrament should not have been postponed till the Lord's supper. |
| Praeterea, hoc sacramentum dicitur esse memoriale dominicae passionis, secundum illud Matth. XXVI, hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Sed memoria est praeteritorum. Ergo hoc sacramentum non debuit institui ante Christi passionem. | Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is called the memorial of our Lord's Passion, according to Mt. 26 (Lk. 22:19): "Do this for a commemoration of Me." But a commemoration is of things past. Therefore, this sacrament should not have been instituted before Christ's Passion. |
| Praeterea, per Baptismum aliquis ordinatur ad Eucharistiam, quae non nisi baptizatis dari debet. Sed Baptismus institutus fuit post Christi passionem et resurrectionem, ut patet Matth. ult. Ergo inconvenienter hoc sacramentum fuit ante passionem Christi institutum. | Objection 4: Further, a man is prepared by Baptism for the Eucharist, which ought to be given only to the baptized. But Baptism was instituted by Christ after His Passion and Resurrection, as is evident from Mt. 28:19. Therefore, this sacrament was not suitably instituted before Christ's Passion. |
| Sed contra est quod hoc sacramentum institutum est a Christo, de quo dicitur Marc. VII, bene omnia fecit. | On the contrary, This sacrament was instituted by Christ, of Whom it is said (Mk. 7:37) that "He did all things well." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod convenienter hoc sacramentum institutum fuit in cena, in qua scilicet Christus ultimo cum discipulis suis fuit conversatus. Primo quidem, ratione continentiae huius sacramenti. Continetur enim ipse Christus in Eucharistia sicut in sacramento. Et ideo, quando ipse Christus in propria specie a discipulis discessurus erat, in sacramentali specie seipsum eis reliquit, sicut in absentia imperatoris exhibetur veneranda eius imago. Unde Eusebius dicit, quia corpus assumptum ablaturus erat ab oculis et illaturus sideribus, necesse erat ut die cenae sacramentum corporis et sanguinis sui consecraret nobis, ut coleretur iugiter per mysterium quod semel offerebatur in pretium. | I answer that, This sacrament was appropriately instituted at the supper, when Christ conversed with His disciples for the last time. First of all, because of what is contained in the sacrament: for Christ is Himself contained in the Eucharist sacramentally. Consequently, when Christ was going to leave His disciples in His proper species, He left Himself with them under the sacramental species; as the Emperor's image is set up to be reverenced in his absence. Hence Eusebius says: "Since He was going to withdraw His assumed body from their eyes, and bear it away to the stars, it was needful that on the day of the supper He should consecrate the sacrament of His body and blood for our sakes, in order that what was once offered up for our ransom should be fittingly worshiped in a mystery." |
| Secundo, quia sine fide passionis Christi nunquam potuit esse salus, secundum illud Rom. III, quem proposuit Deus propitiatorem per fidem in sanguine ipsius. Et ideo oportuit omni tempore apud homines esse aliquod repraesentativum dominicae passionis. Cuius in veteri quidem testamento praecipuum sacramentum erat agnus paschalis, unde et apostolus dicit, I Cor. V, Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus. Successit autem ei in novo testamento Eucharistiae sacramentum, quod est rememorativum praeteritae passionis, sicut et illud fuit praefigurativum futurae. Et ideo conveniens fuit, imminente passione, celebrato priori sacramento, novum sacramentum instituere, ut Leo Papa dicit. | Secondly, because without faith in the Passion there could never be any salvation, according to Rm. 3:25: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood." It was necessary accordingly that there should be at all times among men something to show forth our Lord's Passion; the chief sacrament of which in the old Law was the Paschal Lamb. Hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:7): "Christ our Pasch is sacrificed." But its successor under the New Testament is the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is a remembrance of the Passion now past, just as the other was figurative of the Passion to come. And so it was fitting that when the hour of the Passion was come, Christ should institute a new Sacrament after celebrating the old, as Pope Leo I says (Serm. lviii). |
| Tertio, quia ea quae ultimo dicuntur, maxime ab amicis recedentibus, magis memoriae commendantur, praesertim quia tunc magis inflammatur affectus ad amicos, ea vero ad quae magis afficimur, profundius animo imprimuntur. Quia igitur, ut beatus Alexander Papa dicit, nihil in sacrificiis maius esse potest quam corpus et sanguis Christi, nec ulla oblatio hac potior est, ideo, ut in maiori veneratione haberetur, dominus in ultimo discessu suo a discipulis hoc sacramentum instituit. Et hoc est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro responsionum ad Ianuarium, salvator, quo vehementius commendaret mysterii illius altitudinem, ultimum hoc voluit infigere cordibus et memoriae discipulorum, a quibus ad passionem discessurus erat. | Thirdly, because last words, chiefly such as are spoken by departing friends, are committed most deeply to memory; since then especially affection for friends is more enkindled, and the things which affect us most are impressed the deepest in the soul. Consequently, since, as Pope Alexander I says, "among sacrifices there can be none greater than the body and blood of Christ, nor any more powerful oblation"; our Lord instituted this sacrament at His last parting with His disciples, in order that it might be held in the greater veneration. And this is what Augustine says (Respons. ad Januar. i): "In order to commend more earnestly the death of this mystery, our Saviour willed this last act to be fixed in the hearts and memories of the disciples whom He was about to quit for the Passion." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex eisdem nutrimur ex quibus sumus, non tamen eodem modo nobis advenientibus. Nam ea ex quibus sumus, nobis adveniunt per generationem, eadem autem, inquantum ex eis nutrimur, nobis adveniunt per manducationem. Unde et, sicut per Baptismum regeneramur in Christo, ita per Eucharistiam manducamus Christum. | Reply to Objection 1: We are nourished from the same things of which we are made, but they do not come to us in the same way; for those out of which we are made come to us through generation, while the same, as nourishing us, come to us through being eaten. Hence, as we are new-born in Christ through Baptism, so through the Eucharist we eat Christ. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod Eucharistia est sacramentum perfectum dominicae passionis, tanquam continens ipsum Christum passum. Et ideo non potuit institui ante incarnationem, sed tunc habebant locum sacramenta quae erant tantum praefigurativa dominicae passionis. | Reply to Objection 2: The Eucharist is the perfect sacrament of our Lord's Passion, as containing Christ crucified; consequently it could not be instituted before the Incarnation; but then there was room for only such sacraments as were prefigurative of the Lord's Passion. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod sacramentum illud fuit institutum in cena ut in futurum esset memoriale dominicae passionis, ea perfecta. Unde signanter dicit, haec quotiescumque feceritis, de futuro loquens. | Reply to Objection 3: This sacrament was instituted during the supper, so as in the future to be a memorial of our Lord's Passion as accomplished. Hence He said expressively: "As often as ye shall do these things" [*Cf. Canon of the Mass], speaking of the future. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod institutio respondet ordini intentionis. Sacramentum autem Eucharistiae, quamvis sit posterius Baptismo in perceptione, est tamen prius in intentione. Et ideo debuit prius institui. Vel potest dici quod Baptismus iam erat institutus in ipso Christi Baptismo. Unde et iam aliqui ipso Christi Baptismo erant baptizati, ut legitur Ioan. III. | Reply to Objection 4: The institution responds to the order of intention. But the sacrament of the Eucharist, although after Baptism in the receiving, is yet previous to it in intention; and therefore it behooved to be instituted first. or else it can be said that Baptism was already instituted in Christ's Baptism; hence some were already baptized with Christ's Baptism, as we read in Jn. 3:22. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 73 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod agnus paschalis non fuerit praecipua figura huius sacramenti. Christus enim dicitur sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedech, propter hoc quod Melchisedech gessit figuram sacrificii Christi, offerens panem et vinum. Sed expressio similitudinis facit quod unum ab alio denominetur. Ergo videtur quod oblatio Melchisedech fuerit potissima figura huius sacramenti. | Objection 1: It seems that the Paschal Lamb was not the chief figure of this sacrament, because (Ps. 109:4) Christ is called "a priest according to the order of Melchisedech," since Melchisedech bore the figure of Christ's sacrifice, in offering bread and wine. But the expression of likeness causes one thing to be named from another. Therefore, it seems that Melchisedech's offering was the "principal" figure of this sacrament. |
| Praeterea, transitus maris rubri fuit figura Baptismi, secundum illud I Cor. X, omnes baptizati sunt in nube et in mari. Sed immolatio agni paschalis praecessit transitum maris rubri, quem subsecutum est manna, sicut Eucharistia sequitur Baptismum. Ergo manna est expressior figura huius sacramenti quam agnus paschalis. | Objection 2: Further, the passage of the Red Sea was a figure of Baptism, according to 1 Cor. 10:2: "All . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea." But the immolation of the Paschal Lamb was previous to the passage of the Red Sea, and the Manna came after it, just as the Eucharist follows Baptism. Therefore the Manna is a more expressive figure of this sacrament than the Paschal Lamb. |
| Praeterea, potissima virtus huius sacramenti est quod introducit nos in regnum caelorum, sicut quoddam viaticum. Sed hoc maxime figuratum fuit in sacramento expiationis, quando pontifex intrabat semel in anno cum sanguine in sancta sanctorum, sicut apostolus probat, Heb. IX. Ergo videtur quod illud sacrificium fuerit expressior figura huius sacramenti quam agnus paschalis. | Objection 3: Further, the principal power of this sacrament is that it brings us into the kingdom of heaven, being a kind of "viaticum." But this was chiefly prefigured in the sacrament of expiation when the "high-priest entered once a year into the Holy of Holies with blood," as the Apostle proves in Heb. 9. Consequently, it seems that that sacrifice was a more significant figure of this sacrament than was the Paschal Lamb. |
| Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, I Cor. V, Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus. Itaque epulemur in azymis sinceritatis et veritatis. | On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:7,8): "Christ our Pasch is sacrificed; therefore let us feast . . . with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod in hoc sacramento tria considerare possumus, scilicet id quod est sacramentum tantum, scilicet panis et vinum; et id quod est res et sacramentum, scilicet corpus Christi verum; et id quod est res tantum, scilicet effectus huius sacramenti. Quantum igitur ad id quod est sacramentum tantum potissima figura fuit huius sacramenti oblatio Melchisedech, qui obtulit panem et vinum. Quantum autem ad ipsum Christum passum, qui continetur in hoc sacramento, figurae eius fuerunt omnia sacrificia veteris testamenti; et praecipue sacrificium expiationis, quod erat solemnissimum. Quantum autem ad effectum, fuit praecipua eius figura manna, quod habebat in se omnis saporis suavitatem, ut dicitur Sap. XVI, sicut et gratia huius sacramenti quantum ad omnia reficit mentem. | I answer that, We can consider three things in this sacrament: namely, that which is sacrament only, and this is the bread and wine; that which is both reality and sacrament, to wit, Christ's true body; and lastly that which is reality only, namely, the effect of this sacrament. Consequently, in relation to what is sacrament only, the chief figure of this sacrament was the oblation of Melchisedech, who offered up bread and wine. In relation to Christ crucified, Who is contained in this sacrament, its figures were all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, especially the sacrifice of expiation, which was the most solemn of all. While with regard to its effect, the chief figure was the Manna, "having in it the sweetness of every taste" (Wis. 16:20), just as the grace of this sacrament refreshes the soul in all respects. |
| Sed agnus paschalis quantum ad haec tria praefigurabat hoc sacramentum. Quantum enim ad primum, quia manducabatur cum panibus azymis, secundum illud Exod. XII, edent carnes et azymos panes. Quantum vero ad secundum, quia immolabatur ab omni multitudine filiorum Israel quartadecima luna, quod fuit figura passionis Christi, qui propter innocentiam dicitur agnus. Quantum vero ad effectum, quia per sanguinem agni paschalis protecti sunt filii Israel a devastante Angelo, et educti de Aegyptiaca servitute. Et quantum ad hoc, ponitur figura huius sacramenti praecipua agnus paschalis, quia secundum omnia eam repraesentat. | The Paschal Lamb foreshadowed this sacrament in these three ways. First of all, because it was eaten with unleavened loaves, according to Ex. 12:8: "They shall eat flesh . . . and unleavened bread." As to the second because it was immolated by the entire multitude of the children of Israel on the fourteenth day of the moon; and this was a figure of the Passion of Christ, Who is called the Lamb on account of His innocence. As to the effect, because by the blood of the Paschal Lamb the children of Israel were preserved from the destroying Angel, and brought from the Egyptian captivity; and in this respect the Paschal Lamb is the chief figure of this sacrament, because it represents it in every respect. |
| Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. | From this the answer to the Objections is manifest. |