Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 74 [<< | >>]
Deinde considerandum est de materia huius sacramenti.
|
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 74 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod materia huius sacramenti non sit panis et vinum. Hoc enim sacramentum perfectius debet repraesentare passionem Christi quam sacramenta veteris legis. Sed carnes animalium, quae erant materia sacramentorum veteris legis, expressius repraesentant passionem Christi quam panis et vinum. Ergo materia huius sacramenti magis debent esse carnes animalium quam panis et vinum. | Objection 1: It seems that the matter of this sacrament is not bread and wine. Because this sacrament ought to represent Christ's Passion more fully than did the sacraments of the Old Law. But the flesh of animals, which was the matter of the sacraments under the Old Law, shows forth Christ's Passion more fully than bread and wine. Therefore the matter of this sacrament ought rather to be the flesh of animals than bread and wine. |
| Praeterea, hoc sacramentum est ubique celebrandum. Sed in multis terris non invenitur panis, et in multis non invenitur vinum. Ergo panis et vinum non est conveniens materia huius sacramenti. | Objection 2: Further, this sacrament is to be celebrated in every place. But in many lands bread is not to be found, and in many places wine is not to be found. Therefore bread and wine are not a suitable matter for this sacrament. |
| Praeterea, hoc sacramentum competit sanis et infirmis. Sed vinum nocet quibusdam infirmis. Ergo videtur quod vinum non debeat esse materia huius sacramenti. | Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is for both hale and weak. But to some weak persons wine is hurtful. Therefore it seems that wine ought not to be the matter of this sacrament. |
| Sed contra est quod Alexander Papa dicit, in sacramentorum oblationibus panis tantum et vinum aqua permixtum in sacrificium offerantur. | On the contrary, Pope Alexander I says (Ep. ad omnes orth. i): "In oblations of the sacraments only bread and wine mixed with water are to be offered." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod circa materiam huius sacramenti aliqui multipliciter erraverunt. Quidam enim, qui dicuntur Artotyritae, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de haeresibus, offerunt panem et caseum in hoc sacramento, dicentes a primis hominibus oblationes de fructibus terrae et ovium fuisse celebratas. Alii vero, scilicet Cataphrygae et Pepuziani, de infantis sanguine, quem de toto eius corpore minutis punctionum vulneribus extorquent, quasi Eucharistiam suam conficere perhibentur, miscendo eum farinae, panem inde facientes. Quidam vero, qui dicuntur aquarii, aquam solam, sub specie sobrietatis, in hoc sacramento offerunt. | I answer that, Some have fallen into various errors about the matter of this sacrament. Some, known as the Artotyrytae, as Augustine says (De Haeres. xxviii), "offer bread and cheese in this sacrament, contending that oblations were celebrated by men in the first ages, from fruits of the earth and sheep." Others, called Cataphrygae and Pepuziani, "are reputed to have made their Eucharistic bread with infants' blood drawn from tiny punctures over the entire body, and mixed with flour." Others, styled Aquarii, under guise of sobriety, offer nothing but water in this sacrament. |
| Omnes autem hi errores, et similes, excluduntur per hoc quod Christus hoc sacramentum sub specie panis et vini instituit, sicut patet Matth. XXVI. Unde panis et vinum sunt materia conveniens huius sacramenti. Et hoc rationabiliter. Primo quidem, quantum ad usum huius sacramenti, qui est manducatio. Sicut enim aqua assumitur in sacramento Baptismi ad usum spiritualis ablutionis quia corporalis ablutio communiter fit in aqua, ita panis et vinum, quibus communius homines reficiuntur, assumuntur in hoc sacramento ad usum spiritualis manducationis. | Now all these and similar errors are excluded by the fact that Christ instituted this sacrament under the species of bread and wine, as is evident from Mt. 26. Consequently, bread and wine are the proper matter of this sacrament. And the reasonableness of this is seen first, in the use of this sacrament, which is eating: for, as water is used in the sacrament of Baptism for the purpose of spiritual cleansing, since bodily cleansing is commonly done with water; so bread and wine, wherewith men are commonly fed, are employed in this sacrament for the use of spiritual eating. |
| Secundo, quantum ad passionem Christi, in qua sanguis a corpore est separatus. Et ideo in hoc sacramento, quod est memoriale dominicae passionis, seorsum sumitur panis ut sacramentum corporis, et vinum ut sacramentum sanguinis. | Secondly, in relation to Christ's Passion, in which the blood was separated from the body. And therefore in this sacrament, which is the memorial of our Lord's Passion, the bread is received apart as the sacrament of the body, and the wine as the sacrament of the blood. |
| Tertio, quantum ad effectum consideratum in unoquoque sumentium. Quia, ut Ambrosius dicit, super epistolam ad Corinthios, hoc sacramentum valet ad tuitionem corporis et animae, et ideo caro Christi sub specie panis pro salute corporis, sanguis vero sub specie vini pro salute animae offertur, sicut dicitur Levit. XVII, quod animalis anima in sanguine est. | Thirdly, as to the effect, considered in each of the partakers. For, as Ambrose (Mag. Sent. iv, D, xi) says on 1 Cor. 11:20, this sacrament "avails for the defense of soul and body"; and therefore "Christ's body is offered" under the species of bread "for the health of the body, and the blood" under the species of wine "for the health of the soul," according to Lev. 17:14: "The life of the animal [Vulg.: 'of all flesh'] is in the blood." |
| Quarto, quantum ad effectum respectu totius Ecclesiae, quae constituitur ex diversis fidelibus, sicut panis conficitur ex diversis granis, et vinum fluit ex diversis uvis, ut dicit Glossa super illud I Cor. X, multi unum corpus sumus, et cetera. | Fourthly, as to the effect with regard to the whole Church, which is made up of many believers, just "as bread is composed of many grains, and wine flows from many grapes," as the gloss observes on 1 Cor. 10:17: "We being many are . . . one body," etc. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet carnes animalium occisorum expresse repraesentent Christi passionem, tamen minus competunt ad communem usum huius sacramenti, et ad ecclesiasticam unitatem significandam. | Reply to Objection 1: Although the flesh of slaughtered animals represents the Passion more forcibly, nevertheless it is less suitable for the common use of this sacrament, and for denoting the unity of the Church. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, licet non in omnibus terris nascatur triticum et vinum, tamen de facili ad omnes terras deferri potest quantum sufficit ad usum huius sacramenti. Nec propter defectum alterius, est unum tantum sine altero consecrandum, quia non esset perfectum sacrificium. | Reply to Objection 2: Although wheat and wine are not produced in every country, yet they can easily be conveyed to every land, that is, as much as is needful for the use of this sacrament: at the same time one is not to be consecrated when the other is lacking, because it would not be a complete sacrament. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod vinum in modica quantitate sumptum non potest aegrotanti multum nocere. Et tamen, si nocumentum timeatur, non est necesse quod omnes accipientes corpus Christi, etiam sanguinem accipiant, ut infra dicetur. | Reply to Objection 3: Wine taken in small quantity cannot do the sick much harm: yet if there be fear of harm, it is not necessary for all who take Christ's body to partake also of His blood, as will be stated later (Question [80], Article [12]). |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 74 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod requiratur determinata quantitas panis et vini ad materiam huius sacramenti. Effectus enim gratiae non sunt minus ordinati quam effectus naturae. Sed, sicut dicitur in II de anima, omnium natura constantium positus est terminus et ratio magnitudinis et augmenti. Ergo multo magis in hoc sacramento, quod dicitur Eucharistia, idest bona gratia, requiritur determinata quantitas panis et vini. | Objection 1: It seems that a determinate quantity of bread and wine is required for the matter of this sacrament. Because the effects of grace are no less set in order than those of nature. But, "there is a limit set by nature upon all existing things, and a reckoning of size and development" (De Anima ii). Consequently, in this sacrament, which is called "Eucharist," that is, "a good grace," a determinate quantity of the bread and wine is required. |
| Praeterea, ministris Ecclesiae non est a Christo data potestas ad ea quae pertinent ad irrisionem fidei et sacramentorum eius, secundum illud II Cor. X, secundum potestatem quam dedit mihi Deus in aedificationem, et non in destructionem. Sed hoc esset ad irrisionem sacramenti, si sacerdos vellet consecrare totum panem qui venditur in foro, et totum vinum quod est in cellario. Ergo hoc facere non potest. | Objection 2: Further, Christ gave no power to the ministers of the Church regarding matters which involve derision of the faith and of His sacraments, according to 2 Cor. 10:8: "Of our power which the Lord hath given us unto edification, and not for your destruction." But it would lead to mockery of this sacrament if the priest were to wish to consecrate all the bread which is sold in the market and all the wine in the cellar. Therefore he cannot do this. |
| Praeterea, si aliquis baptizetur in mari, non tota aqua maris sanctificatur per formam Baptismi, sed sola illa aqua qua corpus baptizati abluitur. Ergo nec in hoc sacramento superflua quantitas panis consecrari potest. | Objection 3: Further, if anyone be baptized in the sea, the entire sea-water is not sanctified by the form of baptism, but only the water wherewith the body of the baptized is cleansed. Therefore, neither in this sacrament can a superfluous quantity of bread be consecrated. |
| Sed contra est quod multum opponitur pauco, et magnum parvo. Sed nulla est ita parva quantitas panis aut vini quae non possit consecrari. Ergo nulla est ita magna quae consecrari non possit. | On the contrary, Much is opposed to little, and great to small. But there is no quantity, however small, of the bread and wine which cannot be consecrated. Therefore, neither is there any quantity, however great, which cannot be consecrated. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod quidam dixerunt quod sacerdos non posset consecrare immensam quantitatem panis aut vini, puta totum panem qui venditur in foro, aut totum vinum quod est in dolio. Sed hoc non videtur esse verum. Quia in omnibus habentibus materiam, ratio determinationis materiae sumitur ex ordine ad finem, sicut materia serrae est ferrum, ut sit apta sectioni. Finis autem huius sacramenti est usus fidelium. Unde oportet quod quantitas materiae huius sacramenti determinetur per comparationem ad usum fidelium. Non autem potest esse quod determinetur per comparationem ad usum fidelium qui nunc occurrunt, alioquin sacerdos habens paucos parochianos, non posset consecrare multas hostias. Unde relinquitur quod materia huius sacramenti determinetur per comparationem ad usum fidelium absolute. Numerus autem fidelium est indeterminatus. Unde non potest dici quod quantitas materiae huius sacramenti sit determinata. | I answer that, Some have maintained that the priest could not consecrate an immense quantity of bread and wine, for instance, all the bread in the market or all the wine in a cask. But this does not appear to be true, because in all things containing matter, the reason for the determination of the matter is drawn from its disposition to an end, just as the matter of a saw is iron, so as to adapt it for cutting. But the end of this sacrament is the use of the faithful. Consequently, the quantity of the matter of this sacrament must be determined by comparison with the use of the faithful. But this cannot be determined by comparison with the use of the faithful who are actually present; otherwise the parish priest having few parishioners could not consecrate many hosts. It remains, then, for the matter of this sacrament to be determined in reference to the number of the faithful absolutely. But the number of the faithful is not a determinate one. Hence it cannot be said that the quantity of the matter of this sacrament is restricted. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod cuiuslibet rei naturalis materia accipit determinatam quantitatem secundum comparationem ad formam determinatam. Sed numerus fidelium, ad quorum usum ordinatur hoc sacramentum, est indeterminatus. Unde non est simile. | Reply to Objection 1: The matter of every natural object has its determinate quantity by comparison with its determinate form. But the number of the faithful, for whose use this sacrament is ordained, is not a determinate one. Consequently there is no comparison. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod potestas ministrorum Ecclesiae ad duo ordinatur, primo quidem, ad effectum proprium; secundo, ad finem effectus. Secundum autem non tollit primum. Unde, si sacerdos intendat consecrare corpus Christi propter aliquem malum finem, puta ut irrideat vel veneficia faciat, propter intentionem mali finis peccat, nihilominus tamen, propter potestatem sibi datam, perficit sacramentum. | Reply to Objection 2: The power of the Church's ministers is ordained for two purposes: first for the proper effect, and secondly for the end of the effect. But the second does not take away the first. Hence, if the priest intends to consecrate the body of Christ for an evil purpose, for instance, to make mockery of it, or to administer poison through it, he commits sin by his evil intention, nevertheless, on account of the power committed to him, he accomplishes the sacrament. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod Baptismi sacramentum perficitur in usu materiae. Et ideo per formam Baptismi non plus de aqua sanctificatur quam quantum venit in usum. Sed hoc sacramentum perficitur in consecratione materiae. Et ideo non est simile. | Reply to Objection 3: The sacrament of Baptism is perfected in the use of the matter: and therefore no more of the water is hallowed than what is used. But this sacrament is wrought in the consecration of the matter. Consequently there is no parallel. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 74 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod non requiratur ad materiam huius sacramenti quod sit panis triticeus. Hoc enim sacramentum est rememorativum dominicae passionis. Sed magis videtur esse consonum dominicae passioni panis hordeaceus, qui est asperior, et de quo etiam turbas pavit in monte, ut dicitur Ioan. VI, quam panis triticeus. Ergo non est propria materia huius sacramenti panis triticeus. | Objection 1: It seems that wheaten bread is not requisite for the matter of this sacrament, because this sacrament is a reminder of our Lord's Passion. But barley bread seems to be more in keeping with the Passion than wheaten bread, as being more bitter, and because Christ used it to feed the multitudes upon the mountain, as narrated in Jn. 6. Therefore wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament. |
| Praeterea, figura est signum speciei in rebus naturalibus. Sed quaedam frumenta sunt quae habent similem figuram grano tritici, sicut far et spelta, de qua etiam in quibusdam locis panis conficitur ad usum huius sacramenti. Ergo panis triticeus non est propria materia huius sacramenti. | Objection 2: Further, in natural things the shape is a sign of species. But some cereals resemble wheat, such as spelt and maize, from which in some localities bread is made for the use of this sacrament. Therefore wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament. |
| Praeterea, permixtio speciem solvit. Sed vix invenitur farina triticea quae alterius frumenti permixtionem non habeat, nisi forte electis granis studiose fiat. Non ergo videtur quod panis triticeus sit propria materia huius sacramenti. | Objection 3: Further, mixing dissolves species. But wheaten flour is hardly to be found unmixed with some other species of grain, except in the instance of specially selected grain. Therefore it does not seem that wheaten bread is the proper matter for this sacrament. |
| Praeterea, illud quod est corruptum, videtur esse alterius speciei. Sed aliqui conficiunt ex pane corrupto, qui iam non videtur esse panis triticeus. Ergo videtur quod talis panis non sit propria materia huius sacramenti. | Objection 4: Further, what is corrupted appears to be of another species. But some make the sacrament from bread which is corrupted, and which no longer seems to be wheaten bread. Therefore, it seems that such bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament. |
| Sed contra est quod in hoc sacramento continetur Christus, qui se grano frumenti comparat, Ioan. XII, dicens, nisi granum frumenti, cadens in terram, mortuum fuerit, ipsum solum manet. Ergo panis frumentinus, sive triticeus, est materia huius sacramenti. | On the contrary, Christ is contained in this sacrament, and He compares Himself to a grain of wheat, saying (Jn. 12:24): "Unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, itself remaineth alone." Therefore bread from corn, i.e. wheaten bread, is the matter of this sacrament. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, ad usum sacramentorum assumitur talis materia quae communius apud homines in talem usum venit. Inter alios autem panes communius homines utuntur pane triticeo, nam alii panes videntur esse introducti in huius panis defectum. Et ideo Christus creditur in huius panis specie hoc sacramentum instituisse. Qui etiam panis confortat hominem, et ita convenientius significat effectum huius sacramenti. Et ideo propria materia huius sacramenti est panis triticeus. | I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]), for the use of the sacraments such matter is adopted as is commonly made use of among men. Now among other breads wheaten bread is more commonly used by men; since other breads seem to be employed when this fails. And consequently Christ is believed to have instituted this sacrament under this species of bread. Moreover this bread strengthens man, and so it denotes more suitably the effect of this sacrament. Consequently, the proper matter for this sacrament is wheaten bread. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod panis hordeaceus competit ad significandum duritiem veteris legis. Tum propter duritiem panis. Tum quia etiam, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro octogintatrium quaestionum, hordei medulla, quae tenacissima palea tegitur, vel ipsam legem significat, quae ita data erat ut in ea vitale animae alimentum corporalibus sacramentis obtegeretur, vel ipsum populum, nondum exspoliatum carnali desiderio, quod tanquam palea cordi eius inhaerebat. Hoc autem sacramentum pertinet ad suave iugum Christi, et ad veritatem iam manifestatam, et ad populum spiritualem. Unde non esset materia conveniens huius sacramenti panis hordeaceus. | Reply to Objection 1: Barley bread serves to denote the hardness of the Old Law; both on account of the hardness of the bread, and because, as Augustine says (Question [83]): "The flour within the barley, wrapped up as it is within a most tenacious fibre, denotes either the Law itself, which was given in such manner as to be vested in bodily sacraments; or else it denotes the people themselves, who were not yet despoiled of carnal desires, which clung to their hearts like fibre." But this sacrament belongs to Christ's "sweet yoke," and to the truth already manifested, and to a spiritual people. Consequently barley bread would not be a suitable matter for this sacrament. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod generans generat sibi simile in specie, fit tamen aliquando aliqua dissimilitudo generantis ad genitum quantum ad accidentia, vel propter materiam, vel propter debilitatem virtutis generativae. Et ideo, si qua frumenta sunt quae ex semine tritici generari possunt, sicut ex grano seminato in malis terris nascitur siligo, ex tali frumento panis confectus potest esse materia huius sacramenti. Quod tamen non videtur habere locum neque in hordeo, neque in spelta, neque etiam in farre, quod inter omnia est grano tritici similius. Similitudo autem figurae in talibus magis videtur significare propinquitatem quam identitatem speciei, sicut ex similitudine figurae manifestatur quod canis et lupus sunt propinquae speciei, non autem eiusdem. Unde ex talibus frumentis, quae nullo modo possunt ex semine grani generari, non potest confici panis qui sit debita materia huius sacramenti. | Reply to Objection 2: A begetter begets a thing like to itself in species. yet there is some unlikeness as to the accidents, owing either to the matter, or to weakness within the generative power. And therefore, if there be any cereals which can be grown from the seed of the wheat (as wild wheat from wheat seed grown in bad ground), the bread made from such grain can be the matter of this sacrament: and this does not obtain either in barley, or in spelt, or even in maize, which is of all grains the one most resembling the wheat grain. But the resemblance as to shape in such seems to denote closeness of species rather than identity; just as the resemblance in shape between the dog and the wolf goes to show that they are allied but not of the same species. Hence from such grains, which cannot in any way be generated from wheat grain, bread cannot be made such as to be the proper matter of this sacrament. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod modica permixtio non solvit speciem, quia id quod est modicum, quodammodo absumitur a plurimo. Et ideo, si sit modica admixtio alterius frumenti ad multo maiorem quantitatem tritici, poterit exinde confici panis qui est materia huius sacramenti. Si vero sit magna permixtio, puta ex aequo vel quasi, talis commixtio speciem mutat. Unde panis inde confectus non erit materia debita huius sacramenti. | Reply to Objection 3: A moderate mixing does not alter the species, because that little is as it were absorbed by the greater. Consequently, then, if a small quantity of another grain be mixed with a much greater quantity of wheat, bread may be made therefrom so as to be the proper matter of this sacrament; but if the mixing be notable, for instance, half and half; or nearly so, then such mixing alters the species; consequently, bread made therefrom will not be the proper matter of this sacrament. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod aliquando est tanta corruptio panis quod solvitur species panis, sicut cum continuitas solvitur, et sapor et color et alia accidentia mutantur. Unde ex tali materia non potest confici corpus Christi. Aliquando vero non est tanta corruptio quae speciem solvat, sed est aliqua dispositio ad corruptionem, quod declarat aliqualis immutatio saporis. Et ex tali pane potest confici corpus Christi, sed peccat conficiens, propter irreverentiam sacramenti. Et quia amidum est ex tritico corrupto, non videtur quod panis ex eo confectus possit fieri corpus Christi, quamvis quidam contrarium dicant. | Reply to Objection 4: Sometimes there is such corruption of the bread that the species of bread is lost, as when the continuity of its parts is destroyed, and the taste, color, and other accidents are changed; hence the body of Christ may not be made from such matter. But sometimes there is not such corruption as to alter the species, but merely disposition towards corruption, which a slight change in the savor betrays, and from such bread the body of Christ may be made: but he who does so, sins from irreverence towards the sacrament. And because starch comes of corrupted wheat, it does not seem as if the body of Christ could be made of the bread made therefrom, although some hold the contrary. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 74 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod hoc sacramentum non debeat confici ex pane azymo. Debemus enim in hoc sacramento imitari institutionem Christi. Sed Christus videtur hoc sacramentum instituisse in pane fermentato, quia, sicut legitur Exod. XII, Iudaei secundum legem incipiebant uti azymis in die Paschae, quod celebratur quartadecima luna; Christus autem instituit hoc sacramentum in cena, quam celebravit ante diem Paschae, ut habetur Ioan. XIII. Ergo et nos debemus hoc sacramentum celebrare in pane fermentato. | Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament ought not to be made of unleavened bread. because in this sacrament we ought to imitate Christ's institution. But Christ appears to have instituted this sacrament in fermented bread, because, as we have read in Ex. 12, the Jews, according to the Law, began to use unleavened bread on the day of the Passover which is celebrated on the fourteenth day of the moon; and Christ instituted this sacrament at the supper which He celebrated "before the festival day of the Pasch" (Jn. 13:1,4). Therefore we ought likewise to celebrate this sacrament with fermented bread. |
| Praeterea, legalia non sunt observanda tempore gratiae. Sed uti azymis fuit quaedam legalis caeremonia, ut patet Exod. XII. Ergo in hoc sacramento gratiae non debemus azymis uti. | Objection 2: Further, legal observances ought not to be continued in the time of grace. But the use of unleavened bread was a ceremony of the Law, as is clear from Ex. 12. Therefore we ought not to use unfermented bread in this sacrament of grace. |
| Praeterea, sicut supra dictum est, Eucharistia est sacramentum caritatis, sicut Baptismus fidei. Sed fervor caritatis significatur per fermentum, ut patet in Glossa, super illud Matth. XIII, simile est regnum caelorum fermento et cetera. Ergo hoc sacramentum debet confici de pane fermentato. | Objection 3: Further, as stated above (Question [65], Article [1]; Question [73], Article [3]), the Eucharist is the sacrament of charity just as Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But the fervor of charity is signified by fermented bread, as is declared by the gloss on Mt. 13:33: "The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven," etc. Therefore this sacrament ought to be made of leavened bread. |
| Praeterea, azymum et fermentatum sunt accidentia panis, non variantia eius speciem. Sed in materia Baptismi nulla discretio adhibetur circa differentiam accidentium aquae, puta si sit salsa vel dulcis, calida vel frigida. Ergo in hoc sacramento aliqua discretio adhiberi non debet utrum panis sit azymus vel fermentatus. | Objection 4: Further, leavened or unleavened are mere accidents of bread, which do not vary the species. But in the matter for the sacrament of Baptism no difference is observed regarding the variation of the accidents, as to whether it be salt or fresh, warm or cold water. Therefore neither ought any distinction to be observed, as to whether the bread be unleavened or leavened. |
| Sed contra est quod extra, de Celebrat. Missar., cap. litteras, punitur sacerdos qui in pane fermentato et scypho ligneo Missarum solemnia celebrare praesumpsit. | On the contrary, According to the Decretals (Extra, De Celebr. Miss.), a priest is punished "for presuming to celebrate, using fermented bread and a wooden cup." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod circa materiam huius sacramenti duo possunt considerari, scilicet quid sit necessarium, et quid conveniens. Necessarium quidem est ut sit panis triticeus, sicut dictum est, sine quo non perficitur sacramentum. Non est autem de necessitate sacramenti quod sit azymus vel fermentatus, quia in utroque confici potest. | I answer that, Two things may be considered touching the matter of this sacrament namely, what is necessary, and what is suitable. It is necessary that the bread be wheaten, without which the sacrament is not valid, as stated above (Article [3]). It is not, however, necessary for the sacrament that the bread be unleavened or leavened, since it can be celebrated in either. |
| Conveniens autem est ut unusquisque servet ritum suae Ecclesiae in celebratione sacramenti. Super hoc autem sunt diversae Ecclesiarum consuetudines. Dicit enim beatus Gregorius, in registro, Romana Ecclesia offert azymos panes, propterea quod dominus sine ulla commixtione suscepit carnem. Sed ceterae Ecclesiae offerunt fermentatum, pro eo quod verbum patris indutum est carne, sicut et fermentum miscetur farinae. Unde, sicut peccat sacerdos in Ecclesia Latinorum celebrans de pane fermentato, ita peccaret presbyter Graecus in Ecclesia Graecorum celebrans de azymo pane, quasi pervertens Ecclesiae suae ritum. Et tamen consuetudo de pane azymo celebrandi rationabilior est. Primo quidem, propter institutionem Christi, qui hoc sacramentum instituit prima die azymorum, ut habetur Matth. XXVI, et Marc. XIV, et Luc. XXII, qua die nihil fermentatum in domibus Iudaeorum esse debebat, ut habetur Exod. XII. Secundo, quia panis est proprie sacramentum corporis Christi, quod sine corruptione conceptum est, magis quam divinitatis ipsius, ut infra patebit. Tertio, quia hoc magis competit sinceritati fidelium, quae requiritur ad usum huius sacramenti, secundum illud I Cor. V, Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus, itaque epulemur in azymis sinceritatis et veritatis. | But it is suitable that every priest observe the rite of his Church in the celebration of the sacrament. Now in this matter there are various customs of the Churches: for, Gregory says: "The Roman Church offers unleavened bread, because our Lord took flesh without union of sexes: but the Greek Churches offer leavened bread, because the Word of the Father was clothed with flesh; as leaven is mixed with the flour." Hence, as a priest sins by celebrating with fermented bread in the Latin Church, so a Greek priest celebrating with unfermented bread in a church of the Greeks would also sin, as perverting the rite of his Church. Nevertheless the custom of celebrating with unleavened bread is more reasonable. First, on account of Christ's institution: for He instituted this sacrament "on the first day of the Azymes" (Mt. 26:17; Mk. 14:12; Lk. 22:7), on which day there ought to be nothing fermented in the houses of the Jews, as is stated in Ex. 12:15,19. Secondly, because bread is properly the sacrament of Christ's body, which was conceived without corruption, rather than of His Godhead, as will be seen later (Question [76], Article [1], ad 1). Thirdly, because this is more in keeping with the sincerity of the faithful, which is required in the use of this sacrament, according to 1 Cor. 5:7: "Christ our Pasch is sacrificed: therefore let us feast . . . with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." |
| Habet tamen haec consuetudo Graecorum aliquam rationem, et propter significationem, quam tangit Gregorius; et in detestationem haeresis Nazaraeorum, qui legalia Evangelio miscebant. | However, this custom of the Greeks is not unreasonable both on account of its signification, to which Gregory refers, and in detestation of the heresy of the Nazarenes, who mixed up legal observances with the Gospel. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut legitur Exod. XII, solemnitas paschalis incipiebat a vesperis quartaedecimae lunae. Et tunc Christus, post immolationem agni paschalis, hoc sacramentum instituit. Unde hic dies a Ioanne dicitur praecedere sequentem diem Paschae, et a tribus aliis Evangelistis dicitur prima dies azymorum, quando fermentatum in domibus Iudaeorum non inveniebatur, ut dictum est. Et de hoc supra notatum est plenius in tractatu dominicae passionis. | Reply to Objection 1: As we read in Ex. 12, the paschal solemnity began on the evening of the fourteenth day of the moon. So, then, after immolating the Paschal Lamb, Christ instituted this sacrament: hence this day is said by John to precede the day of the Pasch, while the other three Evangelists call it "the first day of the Azymes," when fermented bread was not found in the houses of the Jews, as stated above. Fuller mention was made of this in the treatise on our Lord's Passion (Question [46], Article [9], ad 1). |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod conficientes ex azymo non intendunt caeremonias legis servare, sed conformare se institutioni Christi. Et ideo non iudaizant. Alioquin et celebrantes in pane fermentato iudaizarent, quia Iudaei panes primitiarum fermentatos offerebant. | Reply to Objection 2: Those who celebrate the sacrament with unleavened bread do not intend to follow the ceremonial of the Law, but to conform to Christ's institution; so they are not Judaizing; otherwise those celebrating in fermented bread would be Judaizing, because the Jews offered up fermented bread for the first-fruits. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod fermentum significat caritatem propter aliquem effectum, quia scilicet panem facit sapidiorem et maiorem. Sed corruptionem significat ex ipsa ratione suae speciei. | Reply to Objection 3: Leaven denotes charity on account of one single effect, because it makes the bread more savory and larger; but it also signifies corruption from its very nature. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod, quia fermentum habet aliquid corruptionis, et ex pane corrupto non potest confici hoc sacramentum, ut dictum est; ideo magis attenditur circa panem differentia azymi et fermentati quam circa aquam Baptismi differentia calidi et frigidi. Posset enim tanta esse corruptio fermenti quod ex eo non posset fieri sacramentum. | Reply to Objection 4: Since whatever is fermented partakes of corruption, this sacrament may not be made from corrupt bread, as stated above (Article [3], ad 4); consequently, there is a wider difference between unleavened and leavened bread than between warm and cold baptismal water: because there might be such corruption of fermented bread that it could not be validly used for the sacrament. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 74 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit propria materia huius sacramenti vinum vitis. Sicut enim aqua est materia Baptismi, ita vinum est materia huius sacramenti. Sed in qualibet aqua potest fieri Baptismus. Ergo in quolibet vino, puta malorum granatorum vel mororum aut huiusmodi, potest confici hoc sacramentum, praesertim cum in quibusdam terris vites non crescant. | Objection 1: It seems that wine of the grape is not the proper matter of this sacrament. Because, as water is the matter of Baptism, so is wine the matter of this sacrament. But Baptism can be conferred with any kind of water. Therefore this sacrament can be celebrated in any kind of wine, such as of pomegranates, or of mulberries; since vines do not grow in some countries. |
| Praeterea, acetum est quaedam species vini quod de vite sumitur, ut Isidorus dicit. Sed de aceto non potest confici hoc sacramentum. Ergo videtur quod vinum vitis non sit propria materia huius sacramenti. | Objection 2: Further, vinegar is a kind of wine drawn from the grape, as Isidore says (Etym. xx). But this sacrament cannot be celebrated with vinegar. Therefore, it seems that wine from the grape is not the proper matter of this sacrament. |
| Praeterea, sicut de vite sumitur vinum depuratum, ita et agresta et mustum. Sed de his non videtur confici posse hoc sacramentum, secundum illud quod in sexta synodo legitur, didicimus quod in quibusdam Ecclesiis sacerdotes sacrificio oblationis coniungunt uvas, et sic simul utrumque populo dispensant. Praecipimus igitur ut nullus sacerdos hoc ulterius faciat. Et Iulius Papa reprehendit quosdam qui expressum vinum in sacramento dominici calicis offerunt. Ergo videtur quod vinum vitis non sit propria materia huius sacramenti. | Objection 3: Further, just as the clarified wine is drawn from grapes, so also are the juice of unripe grapes and must. But it does not appear that this sacrament may be made from such, according to what we read in the Sixth Council (Trull., Can. 28): "We have learned that in some churches the priests add grapes to the sacrifice of the oblation; and so they dispense both together to the people. Consequently we give order that no priest shall do this in future." And Pope Julius I rebukes some priests "who offer wine pressed from the grape in the sacrament of the Lord's chalice." Consequently, it seems that wine from the grape is not the proper matter of this sacrament. |
| Sed contra est quod, sicut dominus comparavit se grano frumenti, ita etiam se comparavit viti, dicens, Ioan. XV, ego sum vitis vera. Sed solus panis de frumento est materia huius sacramenti, ut dictum est. Ergo solum vinum de vite est propria materia huius sacramenti. | On the contrary, As our Lord compared Himself to the grain of wheat, so also He compared Himself to the vine, saying (Jn. 15:1): "I am the true vine." But only bread from wheat is the matter of this sacrament, as stated above (Article [3]). Therefore, only wine from the grape is the proper matter of this sacrament. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod de solo vino vitis potest confici hoc sacramentum. Primo quidem, propter institutionem Christi, qui in vino vitis hoc sacramentum instituit, ut patet ex eo quod ipse dicit, Luc. XXII, circa institutionem huius sacramenti, amodo non bibam de hoc genimine vitis. Secundo quia, sicut dictum est, ad materiam sacramentorum assumitur id quod proprie et communiter habet talem speciem. Proprie autem vinum dicitur quod de vite sumitur, alii autem liquores vinum dicuntur secundum quandam similitudinem ad vinum vitis. Tertio, quia vinum vitis magis competit ad effectum huius sacramenti, qui est spiritualis laetitia, quia scriptum est quod vinum laetificat cor hominis. | I answer that, This sacrament can only be performed with wine from the grape. First of all on account of Christ's institution, since He instituted this sacrament in wine from the grape, as is evident from His own words, in instituting this sacrament (Mt. 26:29): "I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine." Secondly, because, as stated above (Article [3]), that is adopted as the matter of the sacraments which is properly and universally considered as such. Now that is properly called wine, which is drawn from the grape, whereas other liquors are called wine from resemblance to the wine of the grape. Thirdly, because the wine from the grape is more in keeping with the effect of this sacrament, which is spiritual; because it is written (Ps. 103:15): "That wine may cheer the heart of man." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illi liquores non dicuntur proprie vinum, sed secundum similitudinem. Potest autem verum vinum ad terras illas deferri in quibus vites non crescunt, quantum sufficit ad hoc sacramentum. | Reply to Objection 1: Such liquors are called wine, not properly but only from their resemblance thereto. But genuine wine can be conveyed to such countries wherein the grape-vine does not flourish, in a quantity sufficient for this sacrament. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod vinum fit acetum per corruptionem, unde non fit reditus de aceto in vinum, ut dicitur VIII Metaphys. Et ideo, sicut de pane totaliter corrupto non potest confici hoc sacramentum, ita nec de aceto potest confici. Potest tamen confici de vino acescenti, sicut de pane qui est in via ad corruptionem, licet peccet conficiens, ut prius dictum est. | Reply to Objection 2: Wine becomes vinegar by corruption; hence there is no returning from vinegar to wine, as is said in Metaph. viii. And consequently, just as this sacrament may not be made from bread which is utterly corrupt, so neither can it be made from vinegar. It can, however, be made from wine which is turning sour, just as from bread turning corrupt, although he who does so sins, as stated above (Article [3]). |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod agresta est in via generationis, et ideo nondum habet speciem vini. Et propter hoc de ea non potest confici hoc sacramentum. Mustum autem iam habet speciem vini, nam eius dulcedo attestatur digestioni, quae est completio a naturali calore, ut dicitur in IV Meteor. Et ideo de musto potest confici hoc sacramentum. Non tamen debent uvae integrae huic sacramento misceri, quia iam esset ibi aliquid praeter vinum. Prohibetur etiam ne mustum statim expressum de uva in calice offeratur, quia hoc est indecens, propter impuritatem musti. Potest tamen in necessitate fieri, dicitur enim ab eodem Iulio Papa, si necesse fuerit, botrus in calicem prematur. | Reply to Objection 3: The juice of unripe grapes is at the stage of incomplete generation, and therefore it has not yet the species of wine: on which account it may not be used for this sacrament. Must, however, has already the species of wine, for its sweetness [*"Aut dulcis musti Vulcano decoquit humorem"; Virgil, Georg. i, 295] indicates fermentation which is "the result of its natural heat" (Meteor. iv); consequently this sacrament can be made from must. Nevertheless entire grapes ought not to be mixed with this sacrament, because then there would be something else besides wine. It is furthermore forbidden to offer must in the chalice, as soon as it has been squeezed from the grape, since this is unbecoming owing to the impurity of the must. But in case of necessity it may be done: for it is said by the same Pope Julius, in the passage quoted in the argument: "If necessary, let the grape be pressed into the chalice." |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 74 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aqua non sit vino permiscenda. Sacrificium enim Christi figuratum fuit per oblationem Melchisedech, qui, Gen. XIV, non legitur obtulisse nisi panem et vinum. Ergo videtur quod in hoc sacramento non debeat adiungi aqua. | Objection 1: It seems that water ought not to be mixed with the wine, since Christ's sacrifice was foreshadowed by that of Melchisedech, who (Gn. 14:18) is related to have offered up bread and wine only. Consequently it seems that water should not be added in this sacrament. |
| Praeterea, diversorum sacramentorum diversae sunt materiae. Sed aqua est materia Baptismi. Ergo non debet ad materiam assumi huius sacramenti. | Objection 2: Further, the various sacraments have their respective matters. But water is the matter of Baptism. Therefore it should not be employed as the matter of this sacrament. |
| Praeterea, panis et vinum sunt materia huius sacramenti. Sed pani nihil adiungitur. Ergo nec vino debet aliquid adiungi. | Objection 3: Further, bread and wine are the matter of this sacrament. But nothing is added to the bread. Therefore neither should anything be added to the wine. |
| Sed contra est quod Alexander Papa scribit, in sacramentorum oblationibus quae inter Missarum solemnia domino offeruntur, panis tantum et vinum aqua permixtum in sacrificium offerantur. | On the contrary, Pope Alexander I writes (Ep. 1 ad omnes orth.): "In the sacramental oblations which in mass are offered to the Lord, only bread and wine mixed with water are to be offered in sacrifice." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod vino quod offertur in hoc sacramento debet aqua misceri. Primo quidem, propter institutionem. Probabiliter enim creditur quod dominus hoc sacramentum instituerit in vino aqua permixto, secundum morem terrae illius, unde et Proverb. IX dicitur, bibite vinum quod miscui vobis. Secundo, quia hoc convenit repraesentationi dominicae passionis. Unde dicit Alexander Papa, non debet in calice domini aut vinum solum, aut aqua sola offerri, sed utrumque permixtum, quia utrumque ex latere Christi in passione sua profluxisse legitur. Tertio, quia hoc convenit ad significandum effectum huius sacramenti, qui est unio populi Christiani ad Christum, quia, ut Iulius Papa dicit, videmus in aqua populum intelligi, in vino vero ostendi sanguinem Christi. Ergo, cum in calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus adunatur. Quarto, quia hoc competit ad ultimum effectum huius sacramenti, qui est introitus ad vitam aeternam. Unde Ambrosius dicit, in libro de sacramentis, redundat aqua in calicem, et salit in vitam aeternam. | I answer that, Water ought to be mingled with the wine which is offered in this sacrament. First of all on account of its institution: for it is believed with probability that our Lord instituted this sacrament in wine tempered with water according to the custom of that country: hence it is written (Prov. 9:5): "Drink the wine which I have mixed for you." Secondly, because it harmonizes with the representation of our Lord's Passion: hence Pope Alexander I says (Ep. 1 ad omnes orth.): "In the Lord's chalice neither wine only nor water only ought to be offered, but both mixed because we read that both flowed from His side in the Passion." Thirdly, because this is adapted for signifying the effect of this sacrament, since as Pope Julius says (Concil. Bracarens iii, Can. 1): "We see that the people are signified by the water, but Christ's blood by the wine. Therefore when water is mixed with the wine in the chalice, the people is made one with Christ." Fourthly, because this is appropriate to the fourth effect of this sacrament, which is the entering into everlasting life: hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. v): "The water flows into the chalice, and springs forth unto everlasting life." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Ambrosius dicit ibidem, sicut sacrificium Christi significatum est per oblationem Melchisedech, ita etiam significatum est per aquam quae in eremo fluxit de petra, secundum illud I Cor. X, bibebant autem de spirituali consequente eos petra. | Reply to Objection 1: As Ambrose says (De Sacram. v), just as Christ's sacrifice is denoted by the offering of Melchisedech, so likewise it is signified by the water which flowed from the rock in the desert, according to 1 Cor. 10:4: "But they drank of the spiritual rock which came after them." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod aqua sumitur in Baptismo ad usum ablutionis. In hoc autem sacramento assumitur ad usum refectionis, secundum illud Psalmi, super aquam refectionis educavit me. | Reply to Objection 2: In Baptism water is used for the purpose of ablution: but in this sacrament it is used by way of refreshment, according to Ps. 22:3: "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod panis ex aqua et farina conficitur. Et ideo, cum vino aqua miscetur, neutrum sine aqua existit. | Reply to Objection 3: Bread is made of water and flour; and therefore, since water is mixed with the wine, neither is without water. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 74 [<< | >>]
Article: 7 [<< | >>]
| Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod permixtio aquae sit de necessitate huius sacramenti. Dicit enim Cyprianus, ad Caecilium, sic calix domini non est aqua sola et vinum solum, nisi utrumque misceatur, quomodo nec corpus domini potest esse farina sola, nisi utrumque, scilicet farina et aqua, fuerit adunatum. Sed admixtio aquae ad farinam est de necessitate huius sacramenti ergo, pari ratione, admixtio aquae ad vinum. | Objection 1: It seems that the mixing with water is essential to this sacrament. Because Cyprian says to Cecilius (Ep. lxiii): "Thus the Lord's chalice is not water only and wine only, but both must be mixed together: in the same way as neither the Lord's body be of flour only, except both," i.e. the flour and the water "be united as one." But the admixture of water with the flour is necessary for this sacrament. Consequently, for the like reason, so is the mixing of water with the wine. |
| Praeterea, in passione domini, cuius hoc sacramentum est memoriale, sicut, de latere eius exivit sanguis, ita et aqua. Sed vinum, quod est sacramentum sanguinis, est de necessitate huius sacramenti. Ergo, pari ratione, et aqua. | Objection 2: Further, at our Lord's Passion, of which this is the memorial, water as well as blood flowed from His side. But wine, which is the sacrament of the blood, is necessary for this sacrament. For the same reason, therefore, so is water. |
| Praeterea, si aqua non esset de necessitate huius sacramenti, non referret quaecumque aqua huic sacramento apponeretur, et ita posset apponi aqua rosacea, vel quaecumque alia huiusmodi aqua. Quod non habet usus Ecclesiae. Aqua ergo est de necessitate huius sacramenti. | Objection 3: Further, if water were not essential to this sacrament, it would not matter in the least what kind of water was used; and so water distilled from roses, or any other kind might be employed; which is contrary to the usage of the Church. Consequently water is essential to this sacrament. |
| Sed contra est quod Cyprianus dicit, si quis de antecessoribus nostris ignoranter vel simpliciter non observavit, ut scilicet aquam vino misceret in sacramento, potest simplicitati eius venia concedi. Quod non esset si aqua esset de necessitate sacramenti, sicut est vinum vel panis. Non ergo aquae admixtio est de necessitate sacramenti. | On the contrary, Cyprian says (Ep. lxiii): "If any of our predecessors, out of ignorance or simplicity, has not kept this usage," i.e. of mixing water with the wine, "one may pardon his simplicity"; which would not be the case if water were essential to the sacrament, as the wine or the bread. Therefore the mingling of water with the wine is not essential to the sacrament. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod iudicium de signo sumendum est ex eo quod significatur. Appositio autem aquae ad vinum refertur ad significandum participationem huius sacramenti a fidelibus, quantum ad hoc quod per aquam mixtam vino significatur populus adunatus Christo, ut dictum est. Sed et hoc ipsum quod de latere Christi pendentis in cruce aqua profluxit, ad idem refertur, quia per aquam significabatur ablutio peccatorum, quae fiebat per passionem Christi. Dictum est autem supra quod hoc sacramentum perficitur in consecratione materiae, usus autem fidelium non est de necessitate sacramenti, sed est aliquid consequens ad sacramentum. Et ideo consequens est quod appositio aquae non sit de necessitate sacramenti. | I answer that, Judgment concerning a sign is to be drawn from the thing signified. Now the adding of water to the wine is for the purpose of signifying the sharing of this sacrament by the faithful, in this respect that by the mixing of the water with the wine is signified the union of the people with Christ, as stated (Article [6]). Moreover, the flowing of water from the side of Christ hanging on the cross refers to the same, because by the water is denoted the cleansing from sins, which was the effect of Christ's Passion. Now it was observed above (Question [73], Article [1], ad 3), that this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the matter: while the usage of the faithful is not essential to the sacrament, but only a consequence thereof. Consequently, then, the adding of water is not essential to the sacrament. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod verbum illud Cypriani est intelligendum secundum quod dicitur illud esse non posse quod convenienter esse non potest. Et sic similitudo illa attenditur quantum ad illud quod debet fieri, non autem quantum ad necessitatem, nam aqua est de essentia panis, non autem de essentia vini. | Reply to Objection 1: Cyprian's expression is to be taken in the same sense in which we say that a thing cannot be, which cannot be suitably. And so the comparison refers to what ought to be done, not to what is essential to be done; since water is of the essence of bread, but not of the essence of wine. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod effusio sanguinis directe pertinebat ad ipsam Christi passionem, est enim naturale corpori humano vulnerato quod ex eo profluat sanguis. Sed effusio aquae non fuit de necessitate passionis, sed ad demonstrandum effectum, qui est ablutio a peccatis et refrigerium contra ardorem concupiscentiae. Et ideo aqua non seorsum offertur a vino in hoc sacramento, sicut vinum seorsum offertur a pane, sed aqua offertur vino permixta, ut ostendatur quod vinum per se pertinet ad hoc sacramentum, tanquam de eius necessitate existens, aqua autem secundum quod adiungitur vino. | Reply to Objection 2: The shedding of the blood belonged directly to Christ's Passion: for it is natural for blood to flow from a wounded human body. But the flowing of the water was not necessary for the Passion; but merely to show its effect, which is to wash away sins, and to refresh us from the heat of concupiscence. And therefore the water is not offered apart from the wine in this sacrament, as the wine is offered apart from the bread; but the water is offered mixed with the wine to show that the wine belongs of itself to this sacrament, as of its very essence; but the water as something added to the wine. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, quia admixtio aquae ad vinum non est de necessitate sacramenti, non refert, quantum ad necessitatem sacramenti, quaecumque aqua misceatur vino, sive naturalis sive artificialis, ut rosacea. Quamvis, quantum ad convenientiam sacramenti, peccet qui aliam aquam miscet nisi naturalem et veram, quia de latere Christi pendentis in cruce vera aqua profluxit, non humor phlegmaticus, ut quidam dixerunt, ad ostendendum quod corpus Christi erat vere compositum ex quatuor elementis; sicut per sanguinem fluentem ostendebatur quod erat compositum ex quatuor humoribus; ut Innocentius III dicit in quadam decretali. Quia vero admixtio aquae ad farinam est de necessitate huius sacramenti, utpote constituens substantiam panis; si farinae admisceretur aqua rosacea, vel quicumque alius liquor quam vera aqua, non posset ex eo confici sacramentum, quia non est vere panis. | Reply to Objection 3: Since the mixing of water with the wine is not necessary for the sacrament, it does not matter, as to the essence of the sacrament, what kind of water is added to the wine, whether natural water, or artificial, as rose-water, although, as to the propriety of the sacrament, he would sin who mixes any other than natural and true water, because true water flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross, and not phlegm, as some have said, in order to show that Christ's body was truly composed of the four elements; as by the flowing blood, it was shown to be composed of the four humors, as Pope Innocent III says in a certain Decree. But because the mixing of water with flour is essential to this sacrament, as making the composition of bread, if rose-water, or any other liquor besides true water, be mixed with the flour, the sacrament would not be valid, because it would not be true bread. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 74 [<< | >>]
Article: 8 [<< | >>]
| Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod debeat aqua in magna quantitate apponi. Sicut enim sanguis de latere Christi sensibiliter fluxit, ita et aqua, unde dicitur Ioan. XIX, qui vidit, testimonium perhibuit. Sed aqua non posset sensibiliter esse in hoc sacramento nisi in magna quantitate poneretur. Ergo videtur quod aqua debeat apponi in magna quantitate. | Objection 1: It seems that water ought to be added in great quantity, because as blood flowed sensibly from Christ's side, so did water: hence it is written (Jn. 19:35): "He that saw it, hath given testimony." But water could not be sensibly present in this sacrament except it were used in great quantity. Consequently it seems that water ought to be added in great quantity. |
| Praeterea, parva aqua multo vino admixta corrumpitur. Quod autem corruptum est, non est. Ergo idem est apponere parum de aqua in hoc sacramento, et nihil apponere. Sed non licet nihil apponere. Ergo non licet parum apponere. | Objection 2: Further, a little water mixed with much wine is corrupted. But what is corrupted no longer exists. Therefore, it is the same thing to add a little water in this sacrament as to add none. But it is not lawful to add none. Therefore, neither is it lawful to add a little. |
| Praeterea, si sufficeret parum apponere, per consequens esset sufficiens quod gutta aquae in totum dolium proiiceretur. Sed hoc videtur ridiculum. Ergo non sufficit quod parva quantitas ponatur. | Objection 3: Further, if it sufficed to add a little, then as a consequence it would suffice to throw one drop of water into an entire cask. But this seems ridiculous. Therefore it does not suffice for a small quantity to be added. |
| Sed contra est quod extra, de Celebrat. Missar., dicitur, perniciosus in tuis partibus inolevit abusus, videlicet quod in maiori quantitate de aqua ponitur in sacrificio quam de vino, cum, secundum rationabilem consuetudinem Ecclesiae generalis, plus in ipso sit de vino quam de aqua ponendum. | On the contrary, It is said in the Decretals (Extra, De Celeb. Miss.): "The pernicious abuse has prevailed in your country of adding water in greater quantity than the wine, in the sacrifice, where according to the reasonable custom of the entire Church more wine than water ought to be employed." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod circa aquam adiunctam vino, ut Innocentius III dicit, in quadam decretali, triplex est opinio. Quidam enim dicunt quod aqua adiuncta vino per se manet, vino converso in sanguinem. Sed haec opinio omnino stare non potest. Quia in sacramento altaris, post consecrationem, nihil est nisi corpus et sanguis Christi, sicut Ambrosius dicit, in libro de officiis, ante benedictionem alia species nominatur, post benedictionem corpus significatur. Alioquin non adoraretur veneratione latriae. Et ideo alii dixerunt quod, sicut vinum convertitur in sanguinem, ita aqua convertitur in aquam quae de latere Christi fluxit. Sed hoc non rationabiliter dici potest. Quia secundum hoc, aqua seorsum consecraretur a vino, sicut vinum a pane. | I answer that, There is a threefold opinion regarding the water added to the wine, as Pope Innocent III says in a certain Decretal. For some say that the water remains by itself when the wine is changed into blood: but such an opinion cannot stand, because in the sacrament of the altar after the consecration there is nothing else save the body and the blood of Christ. Because, as Ambrose says in De Officiis (De Mysteriis ix): "Before the blessing it is another species that is named, after the blessing the Body is signified; otherwise it would not be adored with adoration of latria." And therefore others have said that as the wine is changed into blood, so the water is changed into the water which flowed from Christ's side. But this cannot be maintained reasonably, because according to this the water would be consecrated apart from the wine, as the wine is from the bread. |
| Et ideo, sicut ipse dicit, aliorum opinio probabilior est, qui dicunt aquam converti in vinum, et vinum in sanguinem. Hoc autem fieri non posset nisi adeo modicum apponeretur de aqua quod converteretur in vinum. Et ideo semper tutius est parum de aqua apponere, et praecipue si vinum sit debile, quia, si tanta fieret appositio aquae quod solveretur species vini, non posset perfici sacramentum. Unde Iulius Papa reprehendit quosdam qui pannum lineum musto intinctum per totum annum servant, et in tempore sacrificii aqua partem eius lavant, et sic offerunt. | And therefore as he (Innocent III, Decretals, Extra, De Celeb. Miss.) says, the more probable opinion is that which holds that the water is changed into wine, and the wine into blood. Now, this could not be done unless so little water was used that it would be changed into wine. Consequently, it is always safer to add little water, especially if the wine be weak, because the sacrament could not be celebrated if there were such addition of water as to destroy the species of the wine. Hence Pope Julius I reprehends some who "keep throughout the year a linen cloth steeped in must, and at the time of sacrifice wash a part of it with water, and so make the offering." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sufficit ad significationem huius sacramenti quod sentiatur aqua dum apponitur vino, non autem oportet quod sit sensibilis post mixtionem. | Reply to Objection 1: For the signification of this sacrament it suffices for the water to be appreciable by sense when it is mixed with the wine: but it is not necessary for it to be sensible after the mingling. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, si aqua omnino non apponeretur, totaliter excluderetur significatio, sed, cum aqua in vinum convertitur, significatur quod populus Christo incorporatur. | Reply to Objection 2: If no water were added, the signification would be utterly excluded: but when the water is changed into wine, it is signified that the people is incorporated with Christ. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, si aqua apponeretur dolio, non sufficeret ad significationem huius sacramenti, sed oportet aquam vino apponi circa ipsam celebrationem sacramenti. | Reply to Objection 3: If water were added to a cask, it would not suffice for the signification of this sacrament, but the water must be added to the wine at the actual celebration of the sacrament. |