Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 80 [<< | >>]
Deinde considerandum est de usu sive sumptione huius sacramenti.
|
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 80 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non debeant distingui duo modi manducandi corpus Christi, scilicet spiritualiter et sacramentaliter. Sicut enim Baptismus est spiritualis regeneratio, secundum illud Ioan. III, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto etc., ita etiam hoc sacramentum est cibus spiritualis, unde dominus, loquens de hoc sacramento, dicit, Ioan. VI, verba quae ego locutus sum vobis, spiritus et vita sunt. Sed circa Baptismum non distinguitur duplex modus sumendi, scilicet sacramentalis et spiritualis. Ergo neque circa hoc sacramentum debet haec distinctio adhiberi. | Objection 1: It seems that two ways ought not to be distinguished of eating Christ's body, namely, sacramentally and spiritually. For, as Baptism is spiritual regeneration, according to Jn. 3:5: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost," etc., so also this sacrament is spiritual food: hence our Lord, speaking of this sacrament, says (Jn. 6:64): "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." But there are no two distinct ways of receiving Baptism, namely, sacramentally and spiritually. Therefore neither ought this distinction to be made regarding this sacrament. |
| Praeterea, ea quorum unum est propter alterum, non debent ad invicem dividi, quia unum ab alio speciem trahit. Sed sacramentalis manducatio ordinatur ad spiritualem sicut ad finem. Non ergo debet sacramentalis manducatio contra spiritualem dividi. | Objection 2: Further, when two things are so related that one is on account of the other, they should not be put in contra-distinction to one another, because the one derives its species from the other. But sacramental eating is ordained for spiritual eating as its end. Therefore sacramental eating ought not to be divided in contrast with spiritual eating. |
| Praeterea, ea quorum unum non potest esse sine altero, non debent contra se dividi. Sed videtur quod nullus possit manducare spiritualiter nisi etiam sacramentaliter manducet, alioquin antiqui patres hoc sacramentum spiritualiter manducassent. Frustra etiam esset sacramentalis manducatio, si sine ea spiritualis esse posset. Non ergo convenienter distinguitur duplex manducatio, scilicet sacramentalis et spiritualis. | Objection 3: Further, things which cannot exist without one another ought not to be divided in contrast with each other. But it seems that no one can eat spiritually without eating sacramentally; otherwise the fathers of old would have eaten this sacrament spiritually. Moreover, sacramental eating would be to no purpose, if the spiritual eating could be had without it. Therefore it is not right to distinguish a twofold eating, namely, sacramental and spiritual. |
| Sed contra est quod, super illud I Cor. XI, qui manducat et bibit indigne etc., dicit Glossa, duos dicimus esse modos manducandi, unum sacramentalem, et alium spiritualem. | On the contrary, The gloss says on 1 Cor. 11:29: "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily," etc.: "We hold that there are two ways of eating, the one sacramental, and the other spiritual." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod in sumptione huius sacramenti duo sunt consideranda, scilicet ipsum sacramentum, et effectus ipsius, de quorum utroque supra iam dictum est. Perfectus igitur modus sumendi hoc sacramentum est quando aliquis ita hoc sacramentum suscipit quod percipit eius effectum. Contingit autem quandoque, sicut supra dictum est, quod aliquis impeditur a percipiendo effectum huius sacramenti, et talis sumptio huius sacramenti est imperfecta. Sicut igitur perfectum contra imperfectum dividitur, ita sacramentalis manducatio, per quam sumitur solum sacramentum sine effectu ipsius, dividitur contra spiritualem manducationem, per quam aliquis percipit effectum huius sacramenti quo spiritualiter homo Christo coniungitur per fidem et caritatem. | I answer that, There are two things to be considered in the receiving of this sacrament, namely, the sacrament itself, and its fruits, and we have already spoken of both (Questions [73],79). The perfect way, then, of receiving this sacrament is when one takes it so as to partake of its effect. Now, as was stated above (Question [79], Articles [3],8), it sometimes happens that a man is hindered from receiving the effect of this sacrament; and such receiving of this sacrament is an imperfect one. Therefore, as the perfect is divided against the imperfect, so sacramental eating, whereby the sacrament only is received without its effect, is divided against spiritual eating, by which one receives the effect of this sacrament, whereby a man is spiritually united with Christ through faith and charity. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod etiam circa Baptismum, et alia huiusmodi sacramenta, similis distinctio adhibetur, nam quidam suscipiunt tantum sacramentum, quidam vero sacramentum et rem sacramenti. Hic tamen differt quia, cum alia sacramenta perficiantur in usu materiae, percipere sacramentum est ipsa perfectio sacramenti, hoc autem sacramentum perficitur in consecratione materiae, et ideo uterque usus est consequens hoc sacramentum. In Baptismo autem, et aliis sacramentis characterem imprimentibus, illi qui accipiunt sacramentum, recipiunt aliquem spiritualem effectum, scilicet characterem, quod non accidit in hoc sacramento. Et ideo magis in hoc sacramento distinguitur usus sacramentalis a spirituali quam in Baptismo. | Reply to Objection 1: The same distinction is made regarding Baptism and the other sacraments: for, some receive the sacrament only, while others receive the sacrament and the reality of the sacrament. However, there is a difference, because, since the other sacraments are accomplished in the use of the matter, the receiving of the sacrament is the actual perfection of the sacrament; whereas this sacrament is accomplished in the consecration of the matter: and consequently both uses follow the sacrament. On the other hand, in Baptism and in the other sacraments that imprint a character, they who receive the sacrament receive some spiritual effect, that is, the character. which is not the case in this sacrament. And therefore, in this sacrament, rather than in Baptism, the sacramental use is distinguished from the spiritual use. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod sacramentalis manducatio quae pertingit ad spiritualem, non dividitur contra spiritualem, sed includitur ab ea. Sed illa sacramentalis manducatio contra spiritualem dividitur quae effectum non consequitur, sicut imperfectum quod non pertingit ad perfectionem speciei, dividitur contra perfectum. | Reply to Objection 2: That sacramental eating which is also a spiritual eating is not divided in contrast with spiritual eating, but is included under it; but that sacramental eating which does not secure the effect, is divided in contrast with spiritual eating; just as the imperfect, which does not attain the perfection of its species, is divided in contrast with the perfect. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, effectus sacramenti potest ab aliquo percipi, si sacramentum habeatur in voto, quamvis non habeatur in re. Et ideo, sicut aliqui baptizantur Baptismo flaminis, propter desiderium Baptismi, antequam baptizentur Baptismo aquae; ita etiam aliqui manducant spiritualiter hoc sacramentum antequam sacramentaliter sumant. Sed hoc contingit dupliciter. Uno modo, propter desiderium sumendi ipsum sacramentum, et hoc modo dicuntur baptizari et manducare spiritualiter et non sacramentaliter, illi qui desiderant sumere haec sacramenta iam instituta. Alio modo, propter figuram, sicut dicit apostolus, I Cor. X, quod antiqui patres baptizati sunt in nube et in mari, et quod spiritualem escam manducaverunt et spiritualem potum biberunt. Nec tamen frustra adhibetur sacramentalis manducatio, quia plenius inducit sacramenti effectum ipsa sacramenti susceptio quam solum desiderium, sicut supra circa Baptismum dictum est. | Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (Question [73], Article [3]), the effect of the sacrament can be secured by every man if he receive it in desire, though not in reality. Consequently, just as some are baptized with the Baptism of desire, through their desire of baptism, before being baptized in the Baptism of water; so likewise some eat this sacrament spiritually ere they receive it sacramentally. Now this happens in two ways. First of all, from desire of receiving the sacrament itself, and thus are said to be baptized, and to eat spiritually, and not sacramentally, they who desire to receive these sacraments since they have been instituted. Secondly, by a figure: thus the Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:2), that the fathers of old were "baptized in the cloud and in the sea," and that "they did eat . . . spiritual food, and . . . drank . . . spiritual drink." Nevertheless sacramental eating is not without avail, because the actual receiving of the sacrament produces more fully the effect of the sacrament than does the desire thereof, as stated above of Baptism (Question [69], Article [4], ad 2). |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 80 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non solius hominis sit hoc sacramentum sumere spiritualiter, sed etiam Angelorum. Quia super illud Psalmi, panem Angelorum manducavit homo, dicit Glossa, idest, corpus Christi, qui est vere cibus Angelorum. Sed hoc non esset si Angeli spiritualiter Christum non manducarent. Ergo Angeli spiritualiter Christum manducant. | Objection 1: It seems that it does not belong to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually, but likewise to angels. Because on Ps. 77:25: "Man ate the bread of angels," the gloss says: "that is, the body of Christ, Who i's truly the food of angels." But it would not be so unless the angels were to eat Christ spiritually. Therefore the angels eat Christ spiritually. |
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., hunc cibum et potum societatem vult intelligi corporis et membrorum suorum, quod est Ecclesia in praedestinatis. Sed ad istam societatem non solum pertinent homines, sed etiam sancti Angeli. Ergo etiam sancti Angeli spiritualiter manducant. | Objection 2: Further, Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.) says: By "this meat and drink, He would have us to understand the fellowship of His body and members, which is the Church in His predestinated ones." But not only men, but also the holy angels belong to that fellowship. Therefore the holy angels eat of it spiritually. |
| Praeterea, Augustinus, in libro de verbis domini, dicit, spiritualiter manducandus est Christus, quomodo ipse dicit, qui manducat meam carnem et bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet et ego in eo. Sed hoc convenit non solum hominibus, sed etiam sanctis Angelis, in quibus per caritatem est Christus, et ipsi in eo. Ergo videtur quod spiritualiter manducare non solum sit hominum, sed etiam Angelorum. | Objection 3: Further, Augustine in his book De Verbis Domini (Serm. cxlii) says: "Christ is to be eaten spiritually, as He Himself declares: 'He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him.'" But this belongs not only to men, but also to the holy angels, in whom Christ dwells by charity, and they in Him. Consequently, it seems that to eat Christ spiritually is not for men only, but also for the angels. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., panem de altari spiritualiter manducate, innocentiam ad altare portate. Sed Angelorum non est accedere ad altare, tanquam aliquid inde sumpturi. Ergo Angelorum non est spiritualiter manducare. | On the contrary, Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.) says: "Eat the bread" of the altar "spiritually; take innocence to the altar." But angels do not approach the altar as for the purpose of taking something therefrom. Therefore the angels do not eat spiritually. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod in hoc sacramento continetur ipse Christus, non quidem in specie propria, sed in specie sacramenti. Dupliciter ergo contingit manducare spiritualiter. Uno modo, ipsum Christum prout in sua specie consistit. Et hoc modo Angeli spiritualiter manducant ipsum Christum, inquantum ei uniuntur fruitione caritatis perfectae et visione manifesta (quem panem expectamus in patria), non per fidem, sicut nos hic ei unimur. | I answer that, Christ Himself is contained in this sacrament, not under His proper species, but under the sacramental species. Consequently there are two ways of eating spiritually. First, as Christ Himself exists under His proper species, and in this way the angels eat Christ spiritually inasmuch as they are united with Him in the enjoyment of perfect charity, and in clear vision (and this is the bread we hope for in heaven), and not by faith, as we are united with Him here. |
| Alio modo contingit spiritualiter manducare Christum prout est sub speciebus huius sacramenti, inquantum scilicet aliquis credit in Christum cum desiderio sumendi hoc sacramentum. Et hoc non solum est manducare Christum spiritualiter, sed etiam spiritualiter manducare hoc sacramentum. Quod non competit Angelis. Et ideo Angeli, etsi spiritualiter manducent Christum, non convenit tamen eis spiritualiter manducare hoc sacramentum. | In another way one may eat Christ spiritually, as He is under the sacramental species, inasmuch as a man believes in Christ, while desiring to receive this sacrament; and this is not merely to eat Christ spiritually, but likewise to eat this sacrament; which does not fall to the lot of the angels. And therefore although the angels feed on Christ spiritually, yet it does not belong to them to eat this sacrament spiritually. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sumptio Christi sub hoc sacramento ordinatur, sicut ad finem, ad fruitionem patriae, qua Angeli eo fruuntur. Et quia ea quae sunt ad finem, derivantur a fine, inde est quod ista manducatio Christi qua eum sumimus sub hoc sacramento, quodammodo derivatur ab illa manducatione qua Angeli fruuntur Christo in patria. Et ideo dicitur homo manducare panem Angelorum, quia primo et principaliter est Angelorum, qui eo fruuntur in propria specie; secundario autem est hominum, qui Christum sub sacramento accipiunt. | Reply to Objection 1: The receiving of Christ under this sacrament is ordained to the enjoyment of heaven, as to its end, in the same way as the angels enjoy it; and since the means are gauged by the end, hence it is that such eating of Christ whereby we receive Him under this sacrament, is, as it were, derived from that eating whereby the angels enjoy Christ in heaven. Consequently, man is said to eat the "bread of angels," because it belongs to the angels to do so firstly and principally, since they enjoy Him in his proper species; and secondly it belongs to men, who receive Christ under this sacrament. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ad societatem corporis mystici pertinent quidem et homines per fidem, Angeli autem per manifestam visionem. Sacramenta autem proportionantur fidei, per quam veritas videtur in speculo et in aenigmate. Et ideo hic, proprie loquendo, non Angelis, sed hominibus proprie convenit manducare spiritualiter hoc sacramentum. | Reply to Objection 2: Both men and angels belong to the fellowship of His mystical body; men by faith, and angels by manifest vision. But the sacraments are proportioned to faith, through which the truth is seen "through a glass" and "in a dark manner." And therefore, properly speaking, it does not belong to angels, but to men, to eat this sacrament spiritually. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod Christus manet in hominibus secundum praesentem statum per fidem, sed in Angelis beatis est per manifestam visionem. Et ideo non est simile, sicut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 3: Christ dwells in men through faith, according to their present state, but He is in the blessed angels by manifest vision. Consequently the comparison does not hold, as stated above (ad 2). |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 80 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod nullus possit manducare Christum sacramentaliter nisi homo iustus. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de remedio poenitentiae ut quid paras dentem et ventrem? Crede, et manducasti. Credere enim in eum, hoc est panem vivum manducare. Sed peccator non credit in eum, quia non habet fidem formatam, ad quam pertinet credere in Deum, ut in secunda parte habitum est. Ergo peccator non potest manducare hoc sacramentum, qui est panis vivus. | Objection 1: It seems that none but the just man may eat Christ sacramentally. For Augustine says in his book De Remedio Penitentiae (cf. Tract. in Joan. xxv, n. 12; xxvi, n. 1): "Why make ready tooth and belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten . . . For to believe in Him, this it is, to eat the living bread." But the sinner does not believe in Him; because he has not living faith, to which it belongs to believe "in God," as stated above in the SS, Question [2], Article [2]; SS, Question [4], Article [5]. Therefore the sinner cannot eat this sacrament, which is the living bread. |
| Praeterea, hoc sacramentum dicitur esse maxime sacramentum caritatis, ut supra dictum est. Sed, sicut infideles privantur fide, ita omnes peccatores sunt privati caritate. Infideles autem non videntur sacramentaliter posse sumere hoc sacramentum, cum in forma huius sacramenti dicatur, mysterium fidei. Ergo, pari ratione, nec aliquis peccatorum potest corpus Christi sacramentaliter manducare. | Objection 2: Further, this sacrament is specially called "the sacrament of charity," as stated above (Question [78], Article [3], ad 6). But as unbelievers lack faith, so all sinners lack charity. Now unbelievers do not seem to be capable of eating this sacrament, since in the sacramental form it is called the "Mystery of Faith." Therefore, for like reason, the sinner cannot eat Christ's body sacramentally. |
| Praeterea, peccator magis est abominabilis Deo quam creatura irrationalis, dicitur enim in Psalmo de homine peccatore, homo, cum in honore esset, non intellexit, comparatus est iumentis insipientibus, et similis factus est illis. Sed animal brutum, puta mus aut canis, non potest sumere hoc sacramentum, sicut etiam non potest sumere sacramentum Baptismi. Ergo videtur quod, pari ratione, neque peccatores hoc sacramentum manducent. | Objection 3: Further, the sinner is more abominable before God than the irrational creature: for it is said of the sinner (Ps. 48:21): "Man when he was in honor did not understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them." But an irrational animal, such as a mouse or a dog, cannot receive this sacrament, just as it cannot receive the sacrament of Baptism. Therefore it seems that for the like reason neither may sinners eat this sacrament. |
| Sed contra est quod super illud Ioan. VI, ut si quis manducaverit non moriatur, dicit Augustinus, multi de altari accipiunt, et accipiendo moriuntur, unde dicit apostolus, iudicium sibi manducat et bibit. Sed non moriuntur sumendo nisi peccatores. Ergo peccatores corpus Christi sacramentaliter manducant, et non solum iusti. | On the contrary, Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), commenting on the words, "that if any man eat of it he may not die," says: "Many receive from the altar, and by receiving die: whence the Apostle saith, 'eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.'" But only sinners die by receiving. Therefore sinners eat the body of Christ sacramentally, and not the just only. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod circa hoc quidam antiqui erraverunt, dicentes quod corpus Christi nec etiam a peccatoribus sacramentaliter sumitur, sed, quam cito labiis peccatoris figitur, tam cito sub speciebus sacramentalibus desinit esse corpus Christi. | I answer that, In the past, some have erred upon this point, saying that Christ's body is not received sacramentally by sinners; but that directly the body is touched by the lips of sinners, it ceases to be under the sacramental species. |
| Sed hoc est erroneum. Derogat enim veritati huius sacramenti, ad quam pertinet, sicut supra dictum est, quod, manentibus speciebus corpus Christi sub eis esse non desinat. Species autem manent quandiu substantia panis maneret si ibi adesset, ut supra dictum est. Manifestum est autem quod substantia panis assumpta a peccatore non statim esse desinit, sed manet quandiu per calorem naturalem digeratur. Unde tandiu corpus Christi sub speciebus sacramentalibus manet a peccatoribus sumptis. Unde dicendum est quod peccator sacramentaliter corpus Christi manducare potest, et non solum iustus. | But this is erroneous; because it detracts from the truth of this sacrament, to which truth it belongs that so long as the species last, Christ's body does not cease to be under them, as stated above (Question [76], Article [6], ad 3; Question [77], Article [8]). But the species last so long as the substance of the bread would remain, if it were there, as was stated above (Question [77], Article [4]). Now it is clear that the substance of bread taken by a sinner does not at once cease to be, but it continues until digested by natural heat: hence Christ's body remains just as long under the sacramental species when taken by sinners. Hence it must be said that the sinner, and not merely the just, can eat Christ's body. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod verba illa, et similia, sunt intelligenda de spirituali manducatione, quae peccatoribus non convenit. Et ideo ex pravo intellectu horum verborum videtur praedictus error processisse, dum nescierunt distinguere inter corporalem et spiritualem manducationem. | Reply to Objection 1: Such words and similar expressions are to be understood of spiritual eating, which does not belong to sinners. Consequently, it is from such expressions being misunderstood that the above error seems to have arisen, through ignorance of the distinction between corporeal and spiritual eating. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod etiam si infidelis sumat species sacramentales, corpus Christi sub sacramento sumit. Unde manducat Christum sacramentaliter, si ly sacramentaliter determinat verbum ex parte manducati. Si autem ex parte manducantis, tunc, proprie loquendo, non manducat sacramentaliter, quia non utitur eo quod accipit ut sacramento, sed ut simplici cibo. Nisi forte infidelis intenderet recipere id quod Ecclesia confert, licet non haberet fidem veram circa alios articulos, vel circa hoc sacramentum. | Reply to Objection 2: Should even an unbeliever receive the sacramental species, he would receive Christ's body under the sacrament: hence he would eat Christ sacramentally, if the word "sacramentally" qualify the verb on the part of the thing eaten. But if it qualify the verb on the part of the one eating, then, properly speaking, he does not eat sacramentally, because he uses what he takes, not as a sacrament, but as simple food. Unless perchance the unbeliever were to intend to receive what the Church bestows; without having proper faith regarding the other articles, or regarding this sacrament. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, etiam si mus aut canis hostiam consecratam manducet, substantia corporis Christi non desinet esse sub speciebus quandiu species illae manent, hoc est, quandiu substantia panis maneret, sicut etiam si proiiceretur in lutum. Nec hoc vergit in detrimentum dignitatis Christi, qui voluit a peccatoribus crucifigi absque diminutione suae dignitatis, praesertim cum mus aut canis non tangat ipsum corpus Christi secundum propriam speciem, sed solum secundum species sacramentales. Quidam autem dixerunt quod, statim cum sacramentum tangitur a mure vel cane, desinit ibi esse corpus Christi. Quod etiam derogat veritati sacramenti, sicut supra dictum est. Nec tamen dicendum est quod animal brutum sacramentaliter corpus Christi manducet, quia non est natum uti eo ut sacramento. Unde non sacramentaliter, sed per accidens corpus Christi manducat sicut manducaret ille qui sumeret hostiam consecratam quia nesciens eam esse consecratam. Et quia id quod est per accidens non cadit in divisione alicuius generis, ideo hic modus manducandi corpus Christi non ponitur tertius, praeter sacramentalem et spiritualem. | Reply to Objection 3: Even though a mouse or a dog were to eat the consecrated host, the substance of Christ's body would not cease to be under the species, so long as those species remain, and that is, so long as the substance of bread would have remained; just as if it were to be cast into the mire. Nor does this turn to any indignity regarding Christ's body, since He willed to be crucified by sinners without detracting from His dignity; especially since the mouse or dog does not touch Christ's body in its proper species, but only as to its sacramental species. Some, however, have said that Christ's body would cease to be there, directly it were touched by a mouse or a dog; but this again detracts from the truth of the sacrament, as stated above. None the less it must not be said that the irrational animal eats the body of Christ sacramentally; since it is incapable of using it as a sacrament. Hence it eats Christ's body "accidentally," and not sacramentally, just as if anyone not knowing a host to be consecrated were to consume it. And since no genus is divided by an accidental difference, therefore this manner of eating Christ's body is not set down as a third way besides sacramental and spiritual eating. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 80 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccator sumens corpus Christi sacramentaliter non peccet. Non enim est maioris dignitatis Christus sub specie sacramenti quam sub specie propria. Sed peccatores tangentes corpus Christi in substantia propria non peccabant, quin immo veniam peccatorum consequebantur, sicut legitur Luc. VII de muliere peccatrice; et Matth. XIV dicitur, quicumque tetigerunt fimbriam vestimenti eius, salvi facti sunt. Ergo non peccant, sed magis salutem consequuntur, sacramentum corporis Christi sumendo. | Objection 1: It seems that the sinner does not sin in receiving Christ's body sacramentally, because Christ has no greater dignity under the sacramental species than under His own. But sinners did not sin when they touched Christ's body under its proper species; nay, rather they obtained forgiveness of their sins, as we read in Lk. 7 of the woman who was a sinner; while it is written (Mt. 14:36) that "as many as touched the hem of His garment were healed." Therefore, they do not sin, but rather obtain salvation, by receiving the body of Christ. |
| Praeterea, hoc sacramentum, sicut et alia, est quaedam spiritualis medicina. Sed medicina datur infirmis ad salutem, secundum illud Matth. IX, non est opus valentibus medicus, sed male habentibus. Infirmi autem vel male habentes spiritualiter sunt peccatores. Ergo hoc sacramentum sumi potest absque culpa. | Objection 2: Further, this sacrament, like the others, is a spiritual medicine. But medicine is given to the sick for their recovery, according to Mt. 9:12: "They that are in health need not a physician." Now they that are spiritually sick or infirm are sinners. Therefore this sacrament can be received by them without sin. |
| Praeterea, hoc sacramentum, cum in se Christum contineat, est de maximis bonis. Maxima autem bona sunt, secundum Augustinum, in libro de Lib. Arbit., quibus nullus male potest uti. Nullus autem peccat nisi per abusum alicuius rei. Ergo nullus peccator sumens hoc sacramentum peccat. | Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is one of our greatest gifts, since it contains Christ. But according to Augustine (De Lib. Arb. ii), the greatest gifts are those "which no one can abuse." Now no one sins except by abusing something. Therefore no sinner sins by receiving this sacrament. |
| Praeterea, sicut hoc sacramentum sentitur gustu et tactu, ita et visu. Si ergo peccator peccet ex eo quod sumit hoc sacramentum gustu et tactu, videtur quod etiam peccaret videndo. Quod patet esse falsum, cum Ecclesia omnibus hoc sacramentum videndum et adorandum proponat. Ergo peccator non peccat ex hoc quod manducat hoc sacramentum. | Objection 4: Further, as this sacrament is perceived by taste and touch, so also is it by sight. Consequently, if the sinner sins by receiving the sacrament, it seems that he would sin by beholding it, which is manifestly untrue, since the Church exposes this sacrament to be seen and adored by all. Therefore the sinner does not sin by eating this sacrament. |
| Praeterea, contingit quandoque quod aliquis peccator non habet conscientiam sui peccati. Nec tamen talis peccare videtur corpus Christi sumendo, quia, secundum hoc, omnes peccarent qui sumunt, quasi periculo se exponentes; cum apostolus dicit, I Cor. IV, nihil mihi conscius sum, sed non in hoc iustificatus sum. Non ergo videtur quod peccatori cedat in culpam si hoc sacramentum sumat. | Objection 5: Further, it happens sometimes that the sinner is unconscious of his sin. Yet such a one does not seem to sin by receiving the body of Christ, for according to this all who receive it would sin, as exposing themselves to danger, since the Apostle says (1 Cor. 4:4): "I am not conscious to myself of anything, yet I am not hereby justified." Therefore, the sinner, if he receive this sacrament, does not appear to be guilty of sin. |
| Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, I Cor. XI, qui manducat et bibit indigne, iudicium sibi manducat et bibit. Dicit autem Glossa ibidem, indigne manducat et bibit qui in crimine est, vel irreverenter tractat. Ergo qui est in peccato mortali, si hoc sacramentum accipiat, damnationem acquirit, mortaliter peccans. | On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:29): "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself." Now the gloss says on this passage: "He eats and drinks unworthily who is in sin, or who handles it irreverently." Therefore, if anyone, while in mortal sin, receives this sacrament, he purchases damnation, by sinning mortally. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod in hoc sacramento, sicut in aliis, id quod est sacramentum est signum eius quod est res sacramenti. Duplex autem est res huius sacramenti, sicut supra dictum est, una quidem quae est significata et contenta, scilicet ipse Christus; alia autem est significata et non contenta, scilicet corpus Christi mysticum, quod est societas sanctorum. Quicumque ergo hoc sacramentum sumit, ex hoc ipso significat se esse Christo unitum et membris eius incorporatum. Quod quidem fit per fidem formatam, quam nullus habet cum peccato mortali. Et ideo manifestum est quod quicumque cum peccato mortali hoc sacramentum sumit, falsitatem in hoc sacramento committit. Et ideo incurrit sacrilegium, tanquam sacramenti violator. Et propter hoc mortaliter peccat. | I answer that, In this sacrament, as in the others, that which is a sacrament is a sign of the reality of the sacrament. Now there is a twofold reality of this sacrament, as stated above (Question [73], Article [6]): one which is signified and contained, namely, Christ Himself; while the other is signified but not contained, namely, Christ's mystical body, which is the fellowship of the saints. Therefore, whoever receives this sacrament, expresses thereby that he is made one with Christ, and incorporated in His members; and this is done by living faith, which no one has who is in mortal sin. And therefore it is manifest that whoever receives this sacrament while in mortal sin, is guilty of lying to this sacrament, and consequently of sacrilege, because he profanes the sacrament: and therefore he sins mortally. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus in propria specie apparens non exhibebat se tangendum hominibus in signum spiritualis unionis ad ipsum, sicut exhibetur sumendus in hoc sacramento. Et ideo peccatores eum in propria specie tangentes non incurrebant crimen falsitatis circa divina, sicut peccatores sumentes hoc sacramentum. | Reply to Objection 1: When Christ appeared under His proper species, He did not give Himself to be touched by men as a sign of spiritual union with Himself, as He gives Himself to be received in this sacrament. And therefore sinners in touching Him under His proper species did not incur the sin of lying to Godlike things, as sinners do in receiving this sacrament. |
| Et praeterea Christus adhuc gerebat similitudinem carnis peccati, et ideo convenienter se peccatoribus tangendum exhibebat. Sed, remota similitudine carnis peccati per gloriam resurrectionis se tangi prohibuit a muliere, quae defectum fidei circa ipsum patiebatur, secundum illud Ioan. XX, noli me tangere, nondum enim ascendi ad patrem meum, scilicet in corde tuo, ut Augustinus exponit. Et ideo peccatores, qui defectum fidei patiuntur formatae circa ipsum, repelluntur a contactu huius sacramenti. | Furthermore, Christ still bore the likeness of the body of sin; consequently He fittingly allowed Himself to be touched by sinners. But as soon as the body of sin was taken away by the glory of the Resurrection, he forbade the woman to touch Him, for her faith in Him was defective, according to Jn. 20:17: "Do not touch Me, for I am not yet ascended to My Father," i.e. "in your heart," as Augustine explains (Tract. cxxi in Joan.). And therefore sinners, who lack living faith regarding Christ are not allowed to touch this sacrament. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod non quaelibet medicina competit secundum quemlibet statum. Nam medicina quae datur iam liberatis a febre ad confortationem, noceret si daretur adhuc febricitantibus. Ita etiam Baptismus et poenitentia sunt medicinae purgativae, quae dantur ad tollendam febrem peccati. Hoc autem sacramentum est medicina confortativa, quae non debet dari nisi liberatis a peccato. | Reply to Objection 2: Every medicine does not suit every stage of sickness; because the tonic given to those who are recovering from fever would be hurtful to them if given while yet in their feverish condition. So likewise Baptism and Penance are as purgative medicines, given to take away the fever of sin; whereas this sacrament is a medicine given to strengthen, and it ought not to be given except to them who are quit of sin. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod maxima bona ibi intelligit Augustinus virtutes animae, quibus nullus male utitur quasi principiis mali usus. Utitur tamen eis aliquis male quasi obiectis mali usus, ut patet in his qui de virtutibus superbiunt. Ita et hoc sacramentum, quantum est ex se, non est principium mali usus, sed obiectum. Unde Augustinus dicit, multi indigne accipiunt corpus domini, per quod docemur quam cavendum sit male accipere bonum. Ecce enim, factum est malum dum male accipitur bonum, sicut e contra apostolo factum est bonum cum bene accipitur malum, scilicet cum stimulus Satanae patienter portatur. | Reply to Objection 3: By the greatest gifts Augustine understands the soul's virtues, "which no one uses to evil purpose," as though they were principles of evil. Nevertheless sometimes a man makes a bad use of them, as objects of an evil use, as is seen in those who are proud of their virtues. So likewise this sacrament, so far as the sacrament is concerned, is not the principle of an evil use, but the object thereof. Hence Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan.): "Many receive Christ's body unworthily; whence we are taught what need there is to beware of receiving a good thing evilly . . . For behold, of a good thing, received evilly, evil is wrought": just as on the other hand, in the Apostle's case, "good was wrought through evil well received," namely, by bearing patiently the sting of Satan. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod per visum non accipitur ipsum corpus Christi, sed solum sacramentum eius, quia scilicet non pertingit visus ad substantiam corporis Christi, sed solum ad species sacramentales, ut supra dictum est. Sed ille qui manducat, non solum sumit species sacramentales, sed etiam Christum, qui est sub eis. Et ideo a visione corporis Christi nullus prohibetur qui sit sacramentum Christi consecutus, scilicet Baptismum, nonbaptizati autem non sunt admittendi etiam ad inspectionem huius sacramenti, ut patet per Dionysium, in libro Eccles. Hier. Sed ad manducationem non sunt admittendi nisi soli illi qui non solum sacramentaliter, sed etiam realiter sunt Christo coniuncti. | Reply to Objection 4: Christ's body is not received by being seen, but only its sacrament, because sight does not penetrate to the substance of Christ's body, but only to the sacramental species, as stated above (Question [76], Article [7]). But he who eats, receives not only the sacramental species, but likewise Christ Himself Who is under them. Consequently, no one is forbidden to behold Christ's body, when once he has received Christ's sacrament, namely, Baptism: whereas the non-baptized are not to be allowed even to see this sacrament, as is clear from Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. vii). But only those are to be allowed to share in the eating who are united with Christ not merely sacramentally, but likewise really. |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod hoc quod non habet aliquis conscientiam sui peccati, potest contingere dupliciter. Uno modo, per culpam suam, vel quia per ignorantiam iuris, quae non excusat, reputat non esse peccatum quod est peccatum, puta si aliquis fornicator reputaret simplicem fornicationem non esse peccatum mortale; vel quia negligens est in examinatione sui ipsius, contra id quod apostolus dicit, I Cor. XI, probet autem seipsum homo, et sic de pane illo edat et de calice bibat. Et sic nihilominus peccat peccator sumens corpus Christi, licet non habeat conscientiam peccati, quia ipsa ignorantia est ei peccatum. | Reply to Objection 5: The fact of a man being unconscious of his sin can come about in two ways. First of all through his own fault, either because through ignorance of the law (which ignorance does not excuse him), he thinks something not to be sinful which is a sin, as for example if one guilty of fornication were to deem simple fornication not to be a mortal sin; or because he neglects to examine his conscience, which is opposed to what the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:28): "Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice." And in this way nevertheless the sinner who receives Christ's body commits sin, although unconscious thereof, because the very ignorance is a sin on his part. |
| Alio modo potest contingere sine culpa ipsius, puta, cum doluit de peccato, sed non est sufficienter contritus. Et in tali casu non peccat sumendo corpus Christi, quia homo per certitudinem scire non potest utrum sit vere contritus. Sufficit tamen si in se signa contritionis inveniat, puta ut doleat de praeteritis et proponat cavere de futuris. Si vero ignorat hoc quod fecit esse actum peccati propter ignorantiam facti, quae excusat, puta si accessit ad non suam quam credebat esse suam, non est ex hoc dicendus peccator. Similiter etiam, si totaliter est peccatum oblitus, sufficit ad eius deletionem generalis contritio, ut infra dicetur. Unde iam non est dicendus peccator. | Secondly, it may happen without fault on his part, as, for instance, when he has sorrowed over his sin, but is not sufficiently contrite: and in such a case he does not sin in receiving the body of Christ, because a man cannot know for certain whether he is truly contrite. It suffices, however, if he find in himself the marks of contrition, for instance, if he "grieve over past sins," and "propose to avoid them in the future" [*Cf. Rule of Augustine]. But if he be ignorant that what he did was a sinful act, through ignorance of the fact, which excuses, for instance, if a man approach a woman whom he believed to be his wife whereas she was not, he is not to be called a sinner on that account; in the same way if he has utterly forgotten his sin, general contrition suffices for blotting it out, as will be said hereafter (XP, Question [2], Article [3], ad 2); hence he is no longer to be called a sinner. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 80 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod accedere ad hoc sacramentum cum conscientia peccati sit gravissimum omnium peccatorum. Dicit enim apostolus, I Cor. XI, quicumque manducaverit panem et biberit calicem domini indigne, reus erit corporis et sanguinis domini, Glossa ibidem, ac si Christum occiderit, punietur. Sed peccatum Christum occidentium videtur fuisse gravissimum. Ergo et hoc peccatum, quo aliquis cum conscientia peccati ad mensam domini accedit, videtur esse gravissimum. | Objection 1: It seems that to approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin is the gravest of all sins; because the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:27): "Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord": upon which the gloss observes: "He shall be punished as though he slew Christ." But the sin of them who slew Christ seems to have been most grave. Therefore this sin, whereby a man approaches Christ's table with consciousness of sin, appears to be the gravest. |
| Praeterea, Hieronymus dicit, in quadam epistola, quid tibi cum feminis, qui ad altare cum domino fabularis? Dic, sacerdos, dic, clerice, qualiter cum eisdem labiis filium Dei oscularis quibus osculatus es filiam meretricis. O Iuda, osculo filium hominis tradis. Et sic videtur fornicator ad mensam Christi accedens peccare sicut Iudas peccavit, cuius peccatum fuit gravissimum. Sed multa alia peccata sunt graviora quam peccatum fornicationis, et praecipue peccatum infidelitatis. Ergo cuiuslibet peccatoris ad mensam Christi accedentis peccatum est gravissimum. | Objection 2: Further, Jerome says in an Epistle (xlix): "What hast thou to do with women, thou that speakest familiarly with God at the altar?" [*The remaining part of the quotation is not from St. Jerome]. Say, priest, say, cleric, how dost thou kiss the Son of God with the same lips wherewith thou hast kissed the daughter of a harlot? "Judas, thou betrayest the Son of Man with a kiss!" And thus it appears that the fornicator approaching Christ's table sins as Judas did, whose sin was most grave. But there are many other sins which are graver than fornication, especially the sin of unbelief. Therefore the sin of every sinner approaching Christ's table is the gravest of all. |
| Praeterea, magis est abominabilis Deo immunditia spiritualis quam corporalis. Sed si quis proiiceret corpus Christi in lutum vel sterquilinium, gravissimum reputaretur esse peccatum. Ergo gravius peccat si ipsum sumat cum peccato, quod est immunditia spiritualis. Ergo hoc peccatum est gravissimum. | Objection 3: Further, spiritual uncleanness is more abominable to God than corporeal. But if anyone was to cast Christ's body into mud or a cess-pool, his sin would be reputed a most grave one. Therefore, he sins more deeply by receiving it with sin, which is spiritual uncleanness, upon his soul. |
| Sed contra est quod, super illud Ioan. XV, si non venissem, et locutus eis non fuissem, peccatum non haberent, dicit Augustinus hoc esse intelligendum de peccato infidelitatis, quo retinentur cuncta peccata. Et ita videtur hoc peccatum non esse gravissimum, sed magis peccatum infidelitatis. | On the contrary, Augustine says on the words, "If I had not come, and had not spoken to them, they would be without sin" (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.), that this is to be understood of the sin of unbelief, "in which all sins are comprised," and so the greatest of all sins appears to be, not this, but rather the sin of unbelief. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in secunda parte habitum est, dupliciter aliquod peccatum potest dici gravius alio, uno modo, per se; alio modo, per accidens. Per se quidem, secundum rationem suae speciei, quae attenditur ex parte obiecti. Et secundum hoc, quanto id contra quod peccatur est maius, tanto peccatum est gravius. Et quia divinitas Christi est maior humanitate ipsius; et ipsa humanitas est potior quam sacramenta humanitatis, inde est quod gravissima peccata sunt quae committuntur in ipsam divinitatem, sicut est peccatum infidelitatis et blasphemiae. Secundario autem sunt gravia peccata quae committuntur in humanitatem Christi, unde Matth. XII dicitur, qui dixerit verbum contra filium hominis, remittetur ei, qui autem dixerit verbum contra spiritum sanctum, non remittetur ei neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro. Tertio autem loco sunt peccata quae committuntur contra sacramenta, quae pertinent ad humanitatem Christi. Et post hoc sunt alia peccata, contra puras creaturas. | I answer that, As stated in the FS, Question [73], Articles [3],6; SS, Question [73], Article [3], one sin can be said to be graver than another in two ways: first of all essentially, secondly accidentally. Essentially, in regard to its species, which is taken from its object: and so a sin is greater according as that against which it is committed is greater. And since Christ's Godhead is greater than His humanity, and His humanity greater than the sacraments of His humanity, hence it is that those are the gravest sins which are committed against the Godhead, such as unbelief and blasphemy. The second degree of gravity is held by those sins which are committed against His humanity: hence it is written (Mt. 12:32): "Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come." In the third place come sins committed against the sacraments, which belong to Christ's humanity; and after these are the other sins committed against mere creatures. |
| Per accidens autem unum peccatum est gravius alio ex parte peccantis, puta, peccatum quod est ex ignorantia vel infirmitate, est levius peccato quod est ex contemptu vel ex certa scientia; et eadem ratio est de aliis circumstantiis. Et secundum hoc, illud peccatum in quibusdam potest esse gravius, sicut in his qui ex actuali contemptu cum conscientia peccati ad hoc sacramentum accedunt; in quibusdam vero minus grave, puta in his qui ex quodam timore ne deprehendantur in peccato, cum conscientia peccati ad hoc sacramentum accedunt. | Accidentally, one sin can be graver than another on the sinner's part. for example, the sin which is the result of ignorance or of weakness is lighter than one arising from contempt, or from sure knowledge; and the same reason holds good of other circumstances. And according to this, the above sin can be graver in some, as happens in them who from actual contempt and with consciousness of sin approach this sacrament: but in others it is less grave; for instance, in those who from fear of their sin being discovered, approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin. |
| Sic igitur patet quod hoc peccatum est multis aliis gravius secundum suam speciem, non tamen omnium gravissimum. | So, then, it is evident that this sin is specifically graver than many others, yet it is not the greatest of all. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod peccatum indigne sumentium hoc sacramentum comparatur peccato occidentium Christum secundum similitudinem, quia utrumque committitur contra corpus Christi, non tamen secundum criminis quantitatem. Peccatum enim occidentium Christum fuit multo gravius. Primo quidem, quia illud peccatum fuit contra corpus Christi in sua specie propria, hoc autem est contra corpus Christi in specie sacramenti. Secundo, quia illud peccatum processit ex intentione nocendi Christo, non autem hoc peccatum. | Reply to Objection 1: The sin of the unworthy recipient is compared to the sin of them who slew Christ, by way of similitude, because each is committed against Christ's body; but not according to the degree of the crime. Because the sin of Christ's slayers was much graver, first of all, because their sin was against Christ's body in its own species, while this sin is against it under sacramental species; secondly, because their sin came of the intent of injuring Christ, while this does not. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod fornicator accipiens corpus Christi comparatur Iudae Christum osculanti, quantum ad similitudinem criminis, quia uterque ex signo caritatis Christum offendit, non tamen quantum ad criminis quantitatem, sicut et prius dictum est. Haec tamen similitudo non minus competit aliis peccatoribus quam fornicatoribus, nam et per alia peccata mortalia agitur contra caritatem Christi, cuius signum est hoc sacramentum; et tanto magis quanto peccata sunt graviora. Secundum quid tamen peccatum fornicationis magis reddit hominem ineptum ad perceptionem huius sacramenti, inquantum scilicet per hoc peccatum spiritus maxime carni subiicitur, et ita impeditur fervor dilectionis, qui requiritur in hoc sacramento. | Reply to Objection 2: The sin of the fornicator receiving Christ's body is likened to Judas kissing Christ, as to the resemblance of the sin, because each outrages Christ with the sign of friendship. but not as to the extent of the sin, as was observed above (ad 1). And this resemblance in crime applies no less to other sinners than to fornicators: because by other mortal sins, sinners act against the charity of Christ, of which this sacrament is the sign, and all the more according as their sins are graver. But in a measure the sin of fornication makes one more unfit for receiving this sacrament, because thereby especially the spirit becomes enslaved by the flesh, which is a hindrance to the fervor of love required for this sacrament. |
| Plus tamen ponderat impedimentum ipsius caritatis quam fervoris eius. Unde etiam peccatum infidelitatis, quod funditus separat hominem ab Ecclesiae unitate, simpliciter loquendo, maxime hominem ineptum reddit ad susceptionem huius sacramenti, quod est sacramentum ecclesiasticae unitatis, ut dictum est. Unde et gravius peccat infidelis accipiens hoc sacramentum quam peccator fidelis; et magis contemnit Christum secundum quod est sub hoc sacramento, praesertim si non credat Christum vere sub hoc sacramento esse, quia, quantum est in se, diminuit sanctitatem huius sacramenti, et virtutem Christi operantis in hoc sacramento, quod est contemnere ipsum sacramentum in seipso. Fidelis autem qui cum conscientia peccati sumit, contemnit hoc sacramentum non in seipso, sed quantum ad usum, indigne accipiens. Unde et apostolus, I Cor. XI, assignans rationem huius peccati, dicit, non diiudicans corpus domini, idest, non discernens ipsum ab aliis cibis, quod maxime facit ille qui non credit Christum esse sub hoc sacramento. | However, the hindrance to charity itself weighs more than the hindrance to its fervor. Hence the sin of unbelief, which fundamentally severs a man from the unity of the Church, simply speaking, makes him to be utterly unfit for receiving this sacrament; because it is the sacrament of the Church's unity, as stated above (Question [61], Article [2]). Hence the unbeliever who receives this sacrament sins more grievously than the believer who is in sin; and shows greater contempt towards Christ Who is in the sacrament, especially if he does not believe Christ to be truly in this sacrament; because, so far as lies in him, he lessens the holiness of the sacrament, and the power of Christ acting in it, and this is to despise the sacrament in itself. But the believer who receives the sacrament with consciousness of sin, by receiving it unworthily despises the sacrament, not in itself, but in its use. Hence the Apostle (1 Cor. 11:29) in assigning the cause of this sin, says, "not discerning the body of the Lord," that is, not distinguishing it from other food: and this is what he does who disbelieves Christ's presence in this sacrament. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ille qui proiiceret hoc sacramentum in lutum, gravius peccaret quam ille qui cum conscientia peccati mortalis ad hoc sacramentum accedit. Primo quidem, quia ille hoc faceret ex intentione iniuriam inferendi huic sacramento, quod non intendit peccator indigne corpus Christi accipiens. Secundo, quia homo peccator capax est gratiae, unde etiam magis est aptus ad suscipiendum hoc sacramentum quam quaecumque alia irrationalis creatura. Unde maxime inordinate uteretur hoc sacramento qui proiiceret ipsum canibus ad manducandum, vel qui proiiceret in lutum conculcandum. | Reply to Objection 3: The man who would throw this sacrament into the mire would be guilty of more heinous sin than another approaching the sacrament fully conscious of mortal sin. First of all, because he would intend to outrage the sacrament, whereas the sinner receiving Christ's body unworthily has no such intent; secondly, because the sinner is capable of grace; hence he is more capable of receiving this sacrament than any irrational creature. Hence he would make a most revolting use of this sacrament who would throw it to dogs to eat, or fling it in the mire to be trodden upon. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 80 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sacerdos debeat denegare corpus Christi peccatori petenti. Non est enim faciendum contra Christi praeceptum propter vitandum scandalum, neque propter vitandum infamiam alicuius. Sed dominus praecepit, Matth. VII, nolite sanctum dare canibus. Maxime autem datur sanctum canibus cum hoc sacramentum peccatoribus exhibetur. Ergo neque propter vitandum scandalum, neque propter vitandam infamiam alicuius, debet hoc sacramentum peccatori petenti dari. | Objection 1: It seems that the priest should deny the body of Christ to the sinner seeking it. For Christ's precept is not to be set aside for the sake of avoiding scandal or on account of infamy to anyone. But (Mt. 7:6) our Lord gave this command: "Give not that which is holy to dogs." Now it is especially casting holy things to dogs to give this sacrament to sinners. Therefore, neither on account of avoiding scandal or infamy should this sacrament be administered to the sinner who asks for it. |
| Praeterea, de duobus malis est minus malum eligendum. Sed minus malum esse videtur si peccator infametur, vel etiam si ei hostia non consecrata detur, quam si sumens corpus Christi mortaliter peccet. Ergo videtur hoc potius eligendum, quod vel infametur peccator petens corpus Christi, vel etiam detur ei hostia non consecrata. | Objection 2: Further, one must choose the lesser of two evils. But it seems to be the lesser evil if the sinner incur infamy; or if an unconsecrated host be given to him; than for him to sin mortally by receiving the body of Christ. Consequently, it seems that the course to be adopted is either that the sinner seeking the body of Christ be exposed to infamy, or that an unconsecrated host be given to him. |
| Praeterea, corpus Christi interdum datur suspectis de crimine ad eorum manifestationem, legitur enim in decretis, II, qu. IV, saepe contingit ut in monasteriis monachorum furta perpetrentur. Idcirco statuimus ut, quando ipsi fratres de talibus expurgare se debent, Missa ab abbate celebretur vel ab aliquo ex praesentibus fratribus, et sic, expleta Missa, omnes communicent in haec verba, corpus Christi sit tibi hodie ad probationem. Et infra, si episcopo vel presbytero aliquod maleficium fuerit imputatum, in singulis Missa celebrari debet et communicari, et de singulis sibi imputatis innocentem se ostendere. Sed peccatores occultos non oportet manifestari, quia, si frontem verecundiae abiecerint, liberius peccabunt, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de verbis domini. Ergo peccatoribus occultis non est corpus Christi dandum, etiam si petant. | Objection 3: Further, the body of Christ is sometimes given to those suspected of crime in order to put them to proof. Because we read in the Decretals: "It often happens that thefts are perpetrated in monasteries of monks; wherefore we command that when the brethren have to exonerate themselves of such acts, that the abbot shall celebrate Mass, or someone else deputed by him, in the presence of the community; and so, when the Mass is over, all shall communicate under these words: 'May the body of Christ prove thee today.'" And further on: "If any evil deed be imputed to a bishop or priest, for each charge he must say Mass and communicate, and show that he is innocent of each act imputed." But secret sinners must not be disclosed, for, once the blush of shame is set aside, they will indulge the more in sin, as Augustine says (De Verbis. Dom.; cf. Serm. lxxxii). Consequently, Christ's body is not to be given to occult sinners, even if they ask for it. |
| Sed contra est quod, super illud Psalmi, manducaverunt et adoraverunt omnes pingues terrae, dicit Augustinus, non prohibeat dispensator pingues terrae, idest peccatores, mensam domini manducare. | On the contrary, on Ps. 21:30: "All the fat ones of the earth have eaten and have adored," Augustine says: "Let not the dispenser hinder the fat ones of the earth," i.e. sinners, "from eating at the table of the Lord." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod circa peccatores distinguendum est. Quidam enim sunt occulti, quidam vero manifesti; scilicet per evidentiam facti, sicut publici usurarii aut publici raptores; vel etiam per aliquod iudicium ecclesiasticum vel saeculare. Manifestis ergo peccatoribus non debet, etiam petentibus, sacra communio dari. Unde Cyprianus scribit ad quendam, pro dilectione tua consulendum me existimasti quid mihi videatur de histrionibus, et mago illo qui, apud vos constitutus, adhuc in artis suae dedecore perseverat, an talibus sacra communio cum ceteris Christianis debeat dari. Puto nec maiestati divinae, nec evangelicae disciplinae congruere ut pudor et honor Ecclesiae tam turpi et infami contagione foedetur. | I answer that, A distinction must be made among sinners: some are secret; others are notorious, either from evidence of the fact, as public usurers, or public robbers, or from being denounced as evil men by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. Therefore Holy Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it. Hence Cyprian writes to someone (Ep. lxi): "You were so kind as to consider that I ought to be consulted regarding actors, end that magician who continues to practice his disgraceful arts among you; as to whether I thought that Holy Communion ought to be given to such with the other Christians. I think that it is beseeming neither the Divine majesty, nor Christian discipline, for the Church's modesty and honor to be defiled by such shameful and infamous contagion." |
| Si vero non sunt manifesti peccatores sed occulti, non potest eis petentibus sacra communio denegari. Cum enim quilibet Christianus, ex hoc ipso quod est baptizatus, sit admissus ad mensam dominicam, non potest eis ius suum tolli nisi pro aliqua causa manifesta. Unde super illud I Cor. V, si is qui frater inter vos nominatur etc., dicit Glossa Augustini, nos a communione quemquam prohibere non possumus, nisi aut sponte confessum, aut in aliquo iudicio vel ecclesiastico vel saeculari nominatum atque convictum. Potest tamen sacerdos qui est conscius criminis, occulte monere peccatorem occultum, vel etiam in publico generaliter omnes, ne ad mensam domini accedant antequam poeniteant et Ecclesiae reconcilientur. Nam post poenitentiam et reconciliationem, etiam publicis peccatoribus non est communio deneganda, praecipue in mortis articulo. Unde in Concilio Carthaginensi legitur, scenicis atque histrionibus ceterisque huiusmodi personis, vel apostatis, conversis ad Deum reconciliatio non negetur. | But if they be not open sinners, but occult, the Holy Communion should not be denied them if they ask for it. For since every Christian, from the fact that he is baptized, is admitted to the Lord's table, he may not be robbed of his right, except from some open cause. Hence on 1 Cor. 5:11, "If he who is called a brother among you," etc., Augustine's gloss remarks: "We cannot inhibit any person from Communion, except he has openly confessed, or has been named and convicted by some ecclesiastical or lay tribunal." Nevertheless a priest who has knowledge of the crime can privately warn the secret sinner, or warn all openly in public, from approaching the Lord's table, until they have repented of their sins and have been reconciled to the Church; because after repentance and reconciliation, Communion must not be refused even to public sinners, especially in the hour of death. Hence in the (3rd) Council of Carthage (Can. xxxv) we read: "Reconciliation is not to be denied to stage-players or actors, or others of the sort, or to apostates, after their conversion to God." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sancta prohibentur dari canibus, idest peccatoribus manifestis. Sed occulta non possunt publice puniri, sed sunt divino iudicio reservanda. | Reply to Objection 1: Holy things are forbidden to be given to dogs, that is, to notorious sinners: whereas hidden deeds may not be published, but are to be left to the Divine judgment. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, licet peius sit peccatori occulto peccare mortaliter sumendo corpus Christi quam infamari, tamen sacerdoti ministranti corpus Christi peius est peccare mortaliter infamando iniuste peccatorem occultum, quam quod ille mortaliter peccet, quia nullus debet peccatum mortale committere ut alium liberet a peccato. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro quaestionum super Gen., periculosissime admittitur haec compensatio, ut nos faciamus aliquid mali, ne alius gravius malum faciat. Peccator tamen occultus potius deberet eligere infamari quam indigne ad mensam Christi accedere. | Reply to Objection 2: Although it is worse for the secret sinner to sin mortally in taking the body of Christ, rather than be defamed, nevertheless for the priest administering the body of Christ it is worse to commit mortal sin by unjustly defaming the hidden sinner than that the sinner should sin mortally; because no one ought to commit mortal sin in order to keep another out of mortal sin. Hence Augustine says (Quaest. super Gen. 42): "It is a most dangerous exchange, for us to do evil lest another perpetrate a greater evil." But the secret sinner ought rather to prefer infamy than approach the Lord's table unworthily. |
| Hostia tamen non consecrata nullo modo debet dari loco consecratae, quia sacerdos hoc faciens, quantum est in se, facit idololatrare illos qui credunt hostiam consecratam, sive alios praesentes, sive etiam ipsum sumentem; quia, ut Augustinus dicit, nemo carnem Christi manducet nisi prius adoret. Unde extra, de celebratione Missarum, cap. de homine, dicitur, licet is qui pro sui criminis conscientia reputat se indignum, peccet graviter si se ingerat, tamen gravius videtur offendere qui fraudulenter illud praesumpserit simulare. | Yet by no means should an unconsecrated host be given in place of a consecrated one; because the priest by so doing, so far as he is concerned, makes others, either the bystanders or the communicant, commit idolatry by believing that it is a consecrated host; because, as Augustine says on Ps. 98:5: "Let no one eat Christ's flesh, except he first adore it." Hence in the Decretals (Extra, De Celeb. Miss., Ch. De Homine) it is said: "Although he who reputes himself unworthy of the Sacrament, through consciousness of his sin, sins gravely, if he receive; still he seems to offend more deeply who deceitfully has presumed to simulate it." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod decreta illa sunt abrogata per contraria documenta Romanorum pontificum. Dicit enim Stephanus Papa, ferri candentis vel aquae ferventis examinatione confessionem extorqueri a quolibet sacri canones non concedunt. Spontanea enim confessione, vel testium approbatione publicata, delicta commissa sunt regimini nostro iudicare, occulta vero et incognita illi sunt relinquenda qui solus novit corda filiorum hominum. Et idem habetur extra, de purgationibus, cap. ex tuarum. In omnibus enim talibus videtur Dei esse tentatio, unde sine peccato fieri non possunt. Et gravius videretur si in hoc sacramento, quod est institutum ad remedium salutis, aliquis incurreret iudicium mortis. Unde nullo modo corpus Christi debet dari alicui suspecto de crimine quasi ad examinationem. | Reply to Objection 3: Those decrees were abolished by contrary enactments of Roman Pontiffs: because Pope Stephen V writes as follows: "The Sacred Canons do not allow of a confession being extorted from any person by trial made by burning iron or boiling water; it belongs to our government to judge of public crimes committed, and that by means of confession made spontaneously, or by proof of witnesses: but private and unknown crimes are to be left to Him Who alone knows the hearts of the sons of men." And the same is found in the Decretals (Extra, De Purgationibus, Ch. Ex tuarum). Because in all such practices there seems to be a tempting of God; hence such things cannot be done without sin. And it would seem graver still if anyone were to incur judgment of death through this sacrament, which was instituted as a means of salvation. Consequently, the body of Christ should never be given to anyone suspected of crime, as by way of examination. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 80 [<< | >>]
Article: 7 [<< | >>]
| Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod nocturna pollutio non impediat aliquem a sumptione corporis Christi. Nullus enim impeditur a sumptione corporis Christi nisi propter peccatum. Sed nocturna pollutio accidit sine peccato, dicit enim Augustinus, XII super Gen. ad Litt., ipsa phantasia quae fit in cogitatione sermocinantis, cum expressa fuerit in visione somniantis, ut inter illam et veram coniunctionem corporum non discernatur, continue movetur caro et sequitur quod eum motum sequi solet, cum hoc tam sine peccato fiat quam sine peccato a vigilantibus dicitur quod, ut diceretur, procul dubio cogitatum est. Ergo nocturna pollutio non impedit hominem ab huius sacramenti perceptione. | Objection 1: It seems that seminal loss does not hinder anyone from receiving the body of Christ: because no one is prevented from receiving the body of Christ except on account of sin. But seminal loss happens without sin: for Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii) that "the same image that comes into the mind of a speaker may present itself to the mind of the sleeper, so that the latter be unable to distinguish the image from the reality, and is moved carnally and with the result that usually follows such motions; and there is as little sin in this as there is in speaking and therefore thinking about such things." Consequently these motions do not prevent one from receiving this sacrament. |
| Praeterea, Gregorius dicit, in epistola ad Augustinum episcopum Anglorum, si quis sua coniuge, non cupidine voluptatis raptus, sed tantum creandorum liberorum gratia utitur, ille profecto, sive de ingressu Ecclesiae seu de sumendo corporis dominici mysterio, suo est iudicio relinquendus, quia prohiberi a nobis non debet accipere qui, in igne positus, nescit ardere. | Objection 2: Further, Gregory says in a Letter to Augustine, Bishop of the English (Regist. xi): "Those who pay the debt of marriage not from lust, but from desire to have children, should be left to their own judgment, as to whether they should enter the church and receive the mystery of our Lord's body, after such intercourse: because they ought not to be forbidden from receiving it, since they have passed through the fire unscorched." |
| Ex quo patet quod carnalis pollutio etiam vigilantis, si sit sine peccato, non prohibet hominem a sumptione corporis Christi. Multo igitur minus prohibet nocturna pollutio dormientis. | From this it is evident that seminal loss even of one awake, if it be without sin, is no hindrance to receiving the body of Christ. Consequently, much less is it in the case of one asleep. |
| Praeterea, nocturna pollutio videtur solam immunditiam corporalem habere. Sed aliae immunditiae corporales, quae secundum legem impediebant ab ingressu sanctorum, in nova lege non impediunt a sumptione corporis Christi, sicut de muliere pariente, vel menstruata, vel fluxum sanguinis patiente, scribit beatus Gregorius Augustino Anglorum episcopo. Ergo videtur quod neque etiam nocturna pollutio impediat hominem a sumptione huius sacramenti. | Objection 3: Further, these movements of the flesh seem to bring with them only bodily uncleanness. But there are other bodily defilements which according to the Law forbade entrance into the holy places, yet which under the New Law do not prevent receiving this sacrament: as, for instance, in the case of a woman after child-birth, or in her periods, or suffering from issue of blood, as Gregory writes to Augustine, Bishop of the English (Regist. xi). Therefore it seems that neither do these movements of the flesh hinder a man from receiving this sacrament. |
| Praeterea, peccatum veniale non impedit hominem a sumptione huius sacramenti, sed nec etiam peccatum mortale post poenitentiam sed, dato quod nocturna pollutio provenerit ex aliquo peccato praecedenti sive crapulae sive turpium cogitationum, plerumque tale peccatum est veniale, et, si aliquando sit mortale, potest contingere quod de mane poenitet et peccatum suum confitetur. Ergo videtur quod non debeat impediri a sumptione huius sacramenti. | Objection 4: Further, venial sin is no hindrance to receiving the sacrament, nor is mortal sin after repentance. But even supposing that seminal loss arises from some foregoing sin, whether of intemperance, or of bad thoughts, for the most part such sin is venial; and if occasionally it be mortal, a man may repent of it by morning and confess it. Consequently, it seems that he ought not to be prevented from receiving this sacrament. |
| Praeterea, gravius peccatum est homicidii quam fornicationis. Sed si aliquis de nocte somniet homicidium perpetrare aut furtum, vel quodcumque aliud peccatum, non propter hoc impeditur a sumptione corporis Christi. Ergo videtur quod multo minus fornicatio somniata, cum pollutione subsequente, impediat a susceptione huius sacramenti. | Objection 5: Further, a sin against the Fifth Commandment is greater than a sin against the Sixth. But if a man dream that he has broken the Fifth or Seventh or any other Commandment, he is not on that account debarred from receiving this sacrament. Therefore it seems that much less should he be debarred through defilement resulting from a dream against the Sixth Commandment. |
| Sed contra est quod Levit. XV dicitur, vir a quocumque egreditur semen coitus, immundus erit usque ad vesperam. Sed immundis non patet aditus ad sacramenta. Ergo videtur quod propter pollutionem nocturnam aliquis impeditur a sumptione huius sacramenti, quod est maximum sacramentum. | On the contrary, It is written (Lev. 15:16): "The man from whom the seed of copulation goeth out . . . shall be unclean until evening." But for the unclean there is no approaching to the sacraments. Therefore, it seems that owing to such defilement of the flesh a man is debarred from taking this which is the greatest of the sacraments. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod circa pollutionem nocturnam duo possunt considerari, unum quidem ratione cuius ex necessitate impedit hominem a sumptione huius sacramenti; aliud autem ratione cuius non ex necessitate impedit hominem, sed ex quadam congruentia. | I answer that, There are two things to be weighed regarding the aforesaid movements: one on account of which they necessarily prevent a man from receiving this sacrament; the other, on account of which they do so, not of necessity, but from a sense of propriety. |
| Ex necessitate quidem impedit hominem ab huius sacramenti perceptione solum mortale peccatum. Et quamvis ipsa nocturna pollutio, secundum se considerata, peccatum mortale esse non possit, nihilominus tamen, ratione suae causae, quandoque habet peccatum mortale annexum. Et ideo consideranda est causa pollutionis nocturnae. Quandoque enim provenit ex causa extrinseca spirituali, scilicet Daemonum illusione, qui, sicut in prima parte habitum est, phantasmata commovere possunt, ex quorum apparitione pollutio interdum subsequitur. Quandoque vero provenit pollutio ex causa intrinseca spirituali, scilicet ex praecedentibus cogitationibus. Aliquando autem ex causa intrinseca corporali, seu ex superfluitate sive debilitate naturae; seu etiam ex superfluitate cibi et potus. Quaelibet autem harum trium causarum potest et sine peccato, et cum peccato veniali vel mortali existere. Et si quidem sit sine peccato, vel cum peccato veniali, non ex necessitate impedit sumptionem huius sacramenti, ita scilicet quod homo sumendo sit reus corporis et sanguinis domini. Si vero sit cum peccato mortali impedit ex necessitate. | Mortal sin alone necessarily prevents anyone from partaking of this sacrament: and although these movements during sleep, considered in themselves, cannot be a mortal sin, nevertheless, owing to their cause, they have mortal sin connected with them; which cause, therefore, must be investigated. Sometimes they are due to an external spiritual cause, viz. the deception of the demons, who can stir up phantasms, as was stated in the FP, Question [111], Article [3], through the apparition of which, these movements occasionally follow. Sometimes they are due to an internal spiritual cause, such as previous thoughts. At other times they arise from some internal corporeal cause, as from abundance or weakness of nature, or even from surfeit of meat or drink. Now every one of these three causes can be without sin at all, or else with venial sin, or with mortal sin. If it be without sin, or with venial sin, it does not necessarily prevent the receiving of this sacrament, so as to make a man guilty of the body and blood of the Lord: but should it be with mortal sin, it prevents it of necessity. |
| Illusio enim Daemonum quandoque provenit ex praecedenti negligentia praeparationis ad devotionem, quae potest esse vel mortale vel veniale peccatum. Quandoque vero provenit ex sola nequitia Daemonum volentium impedire hominem a sumptione huius sacramenti. Unde legitur in collationibus patrum quod, cum quidam pollutionem pateretur semper in festis in quibus erat communicandum, seniores, comperto quod nulla causa ab ipso praecesserat, decreverunt quod propter hoc a communione non cessaret, et ita cessavit illusio Daemonum. | For such illusions on the part of demons sometimes come from one's not striving to receive fervently; and this can be either a mortal or a venial sin. At other times it is due to malice alone on the part of the demons who wish to keep men from receiving this sacrament. So we read in the Conferences of the Fathers (Cassian, Collat. xxii) that when a certain one always suffered thus on those feast-days on which he had to receive Communion, his superiors, discovering that there was no fault on his part, ruled that he was not to refrain from communicating on that account, and the demoniacal illusion ceased. |
| Similiter etiam praecedentes cogitationes lascivae quandoque possunt esse omnino sine peccato, puta cum aliquis causa lectionis vel disputationis cogitur de talibus cogitare. Et si hoc sit sine concupiscentia et delectatione, non erunt cogitationes immundae, sed honestae, ex quibus tamen pollutio sequi potest, sicut patet ex auctoritate Augustini inducta. Quandoque vero praecedentes cogitationes sunt cum concupiscentia et delectatione et, si adsit consensus, peccatum mortale erit, sin autem, veniale. | In like fashion previous evil thoughts can sometimes be without any sin whatever, as when one has to think of such things on account of lecturing or debating; and if it be done without concupiscence and delectation, the thoughts will not be unclean but honest; and yet defilement can come of such thoughts, as is clear from the authority of Augustine (Objection [1]). At other times such thoughts come of concupiscence and delectation, and should there be consent, it will be a mortal sin: otherwise it will be a venial sin. |
| Similiter etiam et causa corporalis quandoque est sine peccato, puta cum est ex infirmitate naturae, unde et quidam vigilando absque peccato fluxum seminis patiuntur; vel etiam si sit ex superfluitate naturae, sicut enim contingit sanguinem superfluere absque peccato, ita et semen, quod est superfluitas sanguinis, secundum philosophum. Quandoque vero est cum peccato, puta cum provenit ex superfluitate cibi vel potus. Et hoc etiam potest esse peccatum veniale vel mortale, licet frequentius peccatum mortale accidat circa turpes cogitationes, propter facilitatem consensus, quam circa sumptionem cibi et potus. Unde Gregorius, scribens Augustino Anglorum episcopo, dicit cessandum esse a communione quando ex turpibus cogitationibus provenit, non autem quando provenit ex superfluitate cibi et potus, praesertim si necessitas adsit. Sic igitur ex causa pollutionis considerari potest utrum nocturna pollutio ex necessitate impediat sumptionem huius sacramenti. | In the same way too the corporeal cause can be without sin, as when it arises from bodily debility, and hence some individuals suffer seminal loss without sin even in their wakeful hours; or it can come from the abundance of nature: for, just as blood can flow without sin, so also can the semen which is superfluity of the blood, according to the Philosopher (De Gener. Animal. i). But occasionally it is with sin, as when it is due to excess of food or drink. And this also can be either venial or mortal sin; although more frequently the sin is mortal in the case of evil thoughts on account of the proneness to consent, rather than in the case of consumption of food and drink. Hence Gregory, writing to Augustine, Bishop of the English (Regist. xi), says that one ought to refrain from Communion when this arises from evil thoughts, but not when it arises from excess of food or drink, especially if necessity call for Communion. So, then, one must judge from its cause whether such bodily defilement of necessity hinders the receiving of this sacrament. |
| Ex quadam vero congruentia impedit quantum ad duo. Quorum unum semper accidit, scilicet quaedam foeditas corporalis, cum qua, propter reverentiam sacramenti, non decet ad altare accedere, unde et volentes tangere aliquid sacrum manus lavant; nisi forte talis immunditia perpetua sit vel diuturna, sicut est lepra vel fluxus sanguinis vel aliquid huiusmodi. Aliud autem est evagatio mentis, quae sequitur pollutionem nocturnam, praecipue quando cum turpi imaginatione contingit. Hoc tamen impedimentum quod ex congruitate provenit, postponi debet propter aliquam necessitatem, puta, ut Gregorius dicit, cum fortasse aut festus dies exigit, aut exhibere ministerium, pro eo quod sacerdos alius deest, ipsa necessitas compellit. | At the same time a sense of decency forbids Communion on two accounts. The first of these is always verified, viz. the bodily defilement, with which, out of reverence for the sacrament, it is unbecoming to approach the altar (and hence those who wish to touch any sacred object, wash their hands): except perchance such uncleanness be perpetual or of long standing, such as leprosy or issue of blood, or anything else of the kind. The other reason is the mental distraction which follows after the aforesaid movements, especially when they take place with unclean imaginings. Now this obstacle, which arises from a sense of decency, can be set aside owing to any necessity, as Gregory says (Regist. xi): "As when perchance either a festival day calls for it, or necessity compels one to exercise the ministry because there is no other priest at hand." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex necessitate quidem non impeditur homo a sumptione huius sacramenti nisi propter peccatum mortale, sed ex quadam congruentia potest homo impediri propter alias causas, sicut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 1: A person is hindered necessarily, only by mortal sin, from receiving this sacrament: but from a sense of decency one may be hindered through other causes, as stated above. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod coitus coniugalis, si sit sine peccato, puta si fiat causa prolis generandae vel causa reddendi debitum, non alia ratione impedit sumptionem sacramenti nisi sicut dictum est de pollutione nocturna quae accidit sine peccato scilicet propter immunditiam corporalem et mentis distractionem. Ratione cuius Hieronymus dicit, super Matth., si panes propositionis ab his qui uxores tetigerant comedi non poterant, quanto magis panis qui de caelo descendit, non potest ab his qui coniugalibus paulo ante haesere amplexibus, violari atque contingi. Non quod nuptias condemnemus, sed quod, eo tempore quo carnes agni manducaturi sumus, vacare a carnalibus operibus debeamus. Sed quia hoc secundum congruitatem, et non secundum necessitatem est intelligendum, Gregorius dicit quod talis est suo iudicio relinquendus. Si vero non amor procreandae sobolis sed voluptas dominatur in opere, ut ibidem Gregorius subdit, tunc prohiberi debet ne accedat ad hoc sacramentum. | Reply to Objection 2: Conjugal intercourse, if it be without sin, (for instance, if it be done for the sake of begetting offspring, or of paying the marriage debt), does not prevent the receiving of this sacrament for any other reason than do those movements in question which happen without sin, as stated above; namely, on account of the defilement to the body and distraction to the mind. On this account Jerome expresses himself in the following terms in his commentary on Matthew (Epist. xxviii, among St. Jerome's works): "If the loaves of Proposition might not be eaten by them who had known their wives carnally, how much less may this bread which has come down from heaven be defiled and touched by them who shortly before have been in conjugal embraces? It is not that we condemn marriages, but that at the time when we are going to eat the flesh of the Lamb, we ought not to indulge in carnal acts." But since this is to be understood in the sense of decency, and not of necessity, Gregory says that such a person "is to be left to his own judgment." "But if," as Gregory says (Regist. xi), "it be not desire of begetting offspring, but lust that prevails," then such a one should be forbidden to approach this sacrament. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Gregorius dicit, in epistola supra dicta ad Augustinum Anglorum episcopum, in veteri testamento aliqui polluti dicebantur figuraliter, quod populus novae legis spiritualiter intelligit. Unde huiusmodi corporales immunditiae, si sint perpetuae vel diuturnae, non impediunt sumptionem huius sacramenti salutaris sicut impediebant accessum ad sacramenta figuralia. Si vero cito transeunt, sicut immunditia pollutionis nocturnae, ex quadam congruentia impedit sumptionem huius sacramenti per illum diem quo hoc accidit. Unde et Deut. XXIII dicitur, si fuerit inter vos homo qui nocturno pollutus sit somnio, egredietur extra castra, et non revertetur priusquam ad vesperam lavetur aqua. | Reply to Objection 3: As Gregory says in his Letter quoted above to Augustine, Bishop of the English, in the Old Testament some persons were termed polluted figuratively, which the people of the New Law understand spiritually. Hence such bodily uncleannesses, if perpetual or of long standing, do not hinder the receiving of this saving sacrament, as they prevented approaching those figurative sacraments; but if they pass speedily, like the uncleanness of the aforesaid movements, then from a sense of fittingness they hinder the receiving of this sacrament during the day on which it happens. Hence it is written (Dt. 23:10): "If there be among you any man, that is defiled in a dream by night, he shall go forth out of the camp; and he shall not return before he be washed with water in the evening." |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod, licet per contritionem et confessionem auferatur reatus culpae, non tamen aufertur corporalis immunditia et distractio mentis ex pollutione consecuta. | Reply to Objection 4: Although the stain of guilt be taken away by contrition and confession nevertheless the bodily defilement is not taken away, nor the mental distraction which follows therefrom. |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod somnium homicidii non inducit corporalem immunditiam, nec etiam tantam distractionem mentis sicut fornicatio, propter intensionem delectationis. Si tamen somnium homicidii proveniat ex causa quae est peccatum, praesertim mortale, impedit a sumptione huius sacramenti ratione suae causae. | Reply to Objection 5: To dream of homicide brings no bodily uncleanness, nor such distraction of mind as fornication, on account of its intense delectation; still if the dream of homicide comes of a cause sinful in itself, especially if it be mortal sin, then owing to its cause it hinders the receiving of this sacrament. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 80 [<< | >>]
Article: 8 [<< | >>]
| Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod cibus vel potus praeassumptus non impediat sumptionem huius sacramenti. Hoc enim sacramentum est a domino institutum in cena. Sed dominus, postquam cenavit, hoc sacramentum discipulis tradidit, sicut patet Luc. XXII et I Cor. XI. Ergo videtur quod etiam post alios cibos assumptos nos debeamus sumere hoc sacramentum. | Objection 1: It seems that food or drink taken beforehand does not hinder the receiving of this sacrament. For this sacrament was instituted by our Lord at the supper. But when the supper was ended our Lord gave the sacrament to His disciples, as is evident from Lk. 22:20, and from 1 Cor. 11:25. Therefore it seems that we ought to take this sacrament after receiving other food. |
| Praeterea, I Cor. XI dicitur, cum convenitis ad manducandum, scilicet corpus domini, invicem expectate, si quis autem esurit, domi manducet. Et ita videtur quod, postquam aliquis domi manducavit, possit in Ecclesia corpus Christi manducare. | Objection 2: Further, it is written (1 Cor. 11:33): "When you come together to eat," namely, the Lord's body, "wait for one another; if any man be hungry, let him eat at home": and thus it seems that after eating at home a man may eat Christ's body in the Church. |
| Praeterea, in Concilio Carthaginensi legitur, et habetur de Consecr., dist. I, sacramenta altaris non nisi a ieiunis hominibus celebrentur, excepto uno die anniversario quo cena domini celebratur. Ergo saltem illo die potest corpus Christi aliquis post alios cibos sumere. | Objection 3: Further, we read in the (3rd) Council of Carthage (Can. xxix): "Let the sacraments of the altar be celebrated only by men who are fasting, with the exception of the anniversary day on which the Lord's Supper is celebrated." Therefore, at least on that day, one may receive the body of Christ after partaking of other food. |
| Praeterea, sumptio aquae vel medicinae, vel alterius cibi vel potus in minima quantitate, vel etiam reliquiarum cibi in ore remanentium, neque ieiunium Ecclesiae solvit, neque sobrietatem tollit, quae exigitur ad hoc quod aliquis reverenter hoc sacramentum sumat. Ergo per praedicta non impeditur aliquis a sumptione huius sacramenti. | Objection 4: Further, the taking of water or medicine, or of any other food or drink in very slight quantity, or of the remains of food continuing in the mouth, neither breaks the Church's fast, nor takes away the sobriety required for reverently receiving this sacrament. Consequently, one is not prevented by the above things from receiving this sacrament. |
| Praeterea, quidam de nocte profunda comedunt aut bibunt, aut forte totam noctem insomnem ducentes, de mane percipiunt sacra mysteria, nondum plene digesti. Minus autem impediretur sobrietas hominis si in mane parum comederet, et postea circa nonam sumeret hoc sacramentum, cum etiam sit quandoque maior distantia temporis. Ergo videtur quod talis cibi praeassumptio non impediat hominem ab hoc sacramento. | Objection 5: Further, some eat and drink late at night, and possibly after passing a sleepless night receive the sacred mysteries in the morning when the food it not digested. But it would savor more of moderation if a man were to eat a little in the morning and afterwards receive this sacrament about the ninth hour, since also there is occasionally a longer interval of time. Consequently, it seems that such taking of food beforehand does not keep one from this sacrament. |
| Praeterea, non minor reverentia debetur huic sacramento iam sumpto quam ante sumptionem. Sed, sumpto sacramento, licet cibum aut potum sumere. Ergo et ante sumptionem. | Objection 6: Further, there is no less reverence due to this sacrament after receiving it, than before. But one may take food and drink after receiving the sacrament. Therefore one may do so before receiving it. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro responsionum ad Ianuarium, placuit spiritui sancto ut, in honorem tanti sacramenti, prius in os Christiani dominicum corpus intraret quam ceteri cibi. | On the contrary, Augustine says (Resp. ad Januar., Ep. liv): "It has pleased the Holy Ghost that, out of honor for this great sacrament, the Lord's body should enter the mouth of a Christian before other foods." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod aliquid impedit sumptionem huius sacramenti dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum se, sicut peccatum mortale, quod habet repugnantiam ad significatum huius sacramenti, ut supra dictum est. Alio modo, propter prohibitionem Ecclesiae. Et sic impeditur aliquis a sumptione huius sacramenti post cibum vel potum assumptum, triplici ratione. Primo quidem, sicut Augustinus dicit, in honorem huius sacramenti, ut scilicet in os hominis intret nondum aliquo cibo vel potu infectum. Secundo, propter significationem, ut scilicet detur intelligi quod Christus, qui est res huius sacramenti, et caritas eius, debet primo fundari in cordibus nostris; secundum illud Matth. VI, primo quaerite regnum Dei. Tertio, propter periculum vomitus et ebrietatis, quae quandoque contingunt ex hoc quod homines inordinate cibis utuntur, sicut et apostolus dicit, I Cor. XI, alius quidem esurit, alius vero ebrius est. | I answer that, A thing may prevent the receiving of this sacrament in two ways: first of all in itself, like mortal sin, which is repugnant to what is signified by this sacrament, as stated above (Article [4]): secondly, on account of the Church's prohibition; and thus a man is prevented from taking this sacrament after receiving food or drink, for three reasons. First, as Augustine says (Resp. ad Januar., Ep. liv), "out of respect for this sacrament," so that it may enter into a mouth not yet contaminated by any food or drink. Secondly, because of its signification. i.e. to give us to understand that Christ, Who is the reality of this sacrament, and His charity, ought to be first of all established in our hearts, according to Mt. 6:33: "Seek first the kingdom of God." Thirdly, on account of the danger of vomiting and intemperance, which sometimes arise from over-indulging in food, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:21): "One, indeed, is hungry, and another is drunk." |
| Ab hac tamen generali regula excipiuntur infirmi, qui statim communicandi sunt, etiam post cibum, si de eorum periculo dubitetur ne sine communione decedant, quia necessitas legem non habet. Unde dicitur de Consecr., dist. II, presbyter infirmum statim communicet, ne sine communione moriatur. | Nevertheless the sick are exempted from this general rule, for they should be given Communion at once, even after food, should there be any doubt as to their danger, lest they die without Communion, because necessity has no law. Hence it is said in the Canon de Consecratione: "Let the priest at once take Communion to the sick person, lest he die without Communion." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus in eodem libro dicit, neque, quia post cibum dominus dedit, propterea pransi aut cenati fratres ad hoc sacramentum accipiendum convenire debeant, aut mensis suis miscere, sicut faciebant quos apostolus arguit et emendat. Namque salvator, quo vehementius commendaret mysterii illius altitudinem, ultimum hoc voluit infigere cordibus et memoriae discipulorum. Et ideo non praecepit ut deinceps tali ordine sumeretur, ut apostolis, per quos Ecclesias dispositurus erat, servaret hunc locum. | Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says in the same book, "the fact that our Lord gave this sacrament after taking food is no reason why the brethren should assemble after dinner or supper in order to partake of it, or receive it at meal-time, as did those whom the Apostle reproves and corrects. For our Saviour, in order the more strongly to commend the depth of this mystery, wished to fix it closely in the hearts and memories of the disciples. and on that account He gave no command for it to be received in that order, leaving this to the apostles, to whom He was about to entrust the government of the churches." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod illud verbum in Glossa sic exponitur, si quis esurit, et impatiens non vult expectare alios, manducet domi suos cibos, idest, pane terreno pascatur, nec post Eucharistiam sumat. | Reply to Objection 2: The text quoted is thus paraphrased by the gloss: "If any man be hungry and loath to await the rest, let him partake of his food at home, that is, let him fill himself with earthly bread, without partaking of the Eucharist afterwards." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod capitulum illud loquitur secundum consuetudinem aliquando apud aliquos observatam, ut, in repraesentationem dominicae cenae, illo die a non ieiunis corpus Christi sumeretur. Sed nunc hoc est abrogatum. Nam, sicut Augustinus in libro praedicto dicit, per universum orbem mos iste servatur, ut scilicet corpus Christi a ieiunis sumatur. | Reply to Objection 3: The wording of this decree is in accordance with the former custom observed by some of receiving the body of Christ on that day after breaking their fast, so as to represent the Lord's supper. But this is now abrogated, because as Augustine says (Resp. ad Januar., Ep. liv), it is customary throughout the whole world for Christ's body to be received before breaking the fast. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut in secunda parte habitum est, duplex est ieiunium. Primum est ieiunium naturae, quod importat privationem cuiuscumque praeassumpti per modum cibi vel potus. Et tale ieiunium requiritur ad hoc sacramentum, propter praedicta. Et ideo neque post assumptionem aquae vel alterius cibi aut potus vel etiam medicinae, in quantumcumque parva quantitate, licet accipere hoc sacramentum. Nec refert utrum aliquid huiusmodi nutriat vel non nutriat, aut per se aut cum aliis, dummodo sumatur per modum cibi vel potus. Reliquiae tamen cibi remanentes in ore, si casualiter transglutiantur, non impediunt sumptionem huius sacramenti, quia non traiiciuntur per modum cibi, sed per modum salivae. Et eadem ratio est de reliquiis aquae vel vini quibus os abluitur, dummodo traiiciantur non in magna quantitate, sed permixtae salivae, quod vitari non potest. | Reply to Objection 4: As stated in the SS, Question [147], Article [6], ad 2, there are two kinds of fast. First, there is the natural fast, which implies privation of everything taken before-hand by way of food or drink: and such fast is required for this sacrament for the reasons given above. And therefore it is never lawful to take this sacrament after taking water, or other food or drink, or even medicine, no matter how small the quantity be. Nor does it matter whether it nourishes or not, whether it be taken by itself or with other things, provided it be taken by way of food or drink. But the remains of food left in the mouth, if swallowed accidentally, do not hinder receiving this sacrament, because they are swallowed not by way of food but by way of saliva. The same holds good of the unavoidable remains of the water or wine wherewith the mouth is rinsed, provided they be not swallowed in great quantity, but mixed with saliva. |
| Aliud autem est ieiunium Ecclesiae, quod instituitur ad carnis macerationem. Et tale ieiunium per praedicta non impeditur, quia praedicta non multum nutriunt, sed magis ad alterandum sumuntur. | Secondly, there is the fast of the Church, instituted for afflicting the body: and this fast is not hindered by the things mentioned (in the objection), because they do not give much nourishment, but are taken rather as an alterative. |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod, cum dicitur, hoc sacramentum prius quam alii cibi debet mitti in os Christiani, non est intelligendum absolute respectu totius temporis, alioquin qui semel comedisset et bibisset, nunquam postea posset hoc sacramentum accipere. Sed est intelligendum quantum ad eundem diem. Et licet principium diei secundum diversos diversimode sumatur, nam quidam a meridie, quidam ab occasu, quidam a media nocte, quidam ab ortu solis diem incipiunt; Ecclesia tamen, secundum Romanos, diem a media nocte incipit. Et ideo, si post mediam noctem aliquis sumpserit aliquid per modum cibi vel potus, non potest eadem die hoc sumere sacramentum, potest vero si ante mediam noctem. Nec refert utrum post cibum vel potum dormierit, aut etiam digestus sit, quantum ad rationem praecepti. Refert autem quantum ad perturbationem mentis quam patiuntur homines propter insomnietatem vel indigestionem, ex quibus si mens multum perturbetur, homo redditur ineptus ad sumptionem huius sacramenti. | Reply to Objection 5: That this sacrament ought to enter into the mouth of a Christian before any other food must not be understood absolutely of all time, otherwise he who had once eaten or drunk could never afterwards take this sacrament: but it must be understood of the same day; and although the beginning of the day varies according to different systems of reckoning (for some begin their day at noon, some at sunset, others at midnight, and others at sunrise), the Roman Church begins it at midnight. Consequently, if any person takes anything by way of food or drink after midnight, he may not receive this sacrament on that day; but he can do so if the food was taken before midnight. Nor does it matter, so far as the precept is concerned, whether he has slept after taking food or drink, or whether he has digested it; but it does matter as to the mental disturbance which one suffers from want of sleep or from indigestion, for, if the mind be much disturbed, one becomes unfit for receiving this sacrament. |
| Ad sextum dicendum quod maxima devotio requiritur in ipsa sumptione sacramenti, quia tunc percipitur sacramenti effectus. Quae quidem devotio magis impeditur per praecedentia quam per sequentia. Et ideo magis est institutum quod homines ieiunent ante sumptionem huius sacramenti quam post. Debet tamen esse aliqua mora inter sumptionem huius sacramenti et reliquos cibos. Unde et in Missa oratio gratiarum actionis post communionem dicitur; et communicantes etiam suas privatas orationes dicunt. | Reply to Objection 6: The greatest devotion is called for at the moment of receiving this sacrament, because it is then that the effect of the sacrament is bestowed, and such devotion is hindered more by what goes before it than by what comes after it. And therefore it was ordained that men should fast before receiving the sacrament rather than after. Nevertheless there ought to be some interval between receiving this sacrament and taking other food. Consequently, both the Postcommunion prayer of thanksgiving is said in the Mass, and the communicants say their own private prayers. |
| Secundum tamen antiquos canones statutum fuit a Papa Clemente, ut habetur de Consecr., dist. II, si mane dominica portio editur, usque ad sextam ieiunent ministri qui eam sumpserunt, et si tertia vel quarta acceperint, ieiunent usque ad vesperum. Antiquitus enim rarius Missarum solemnia celebrabantur, et cum maiori praeparatione. Nunc autem, quia oportet frequentius sacra mysteria celebrare, non posset de facili observari. Et ideo per contrariam consuetudinem est abrogatum. | However, according to the ancient Canons, the following ordination was made by Pope Clement I, (Ep. ii), "If the Lord's portion be eaten in the morning, the ministers who have taken it shall fast until the sixth hour, and if they take it at the third or fourth hour, they shall fast until evening." For in olden times, the priest celebrated Mass less frequently, and with greater preparation: but now, because the sacred mysteries have to be celebrated oftener, the same could not be easily observed, and so it has been abrogated by contrary custom. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 80 [<< | >>]
Article: 9 [<< | >>]
| Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non habentes usum rationis non debeant hoc sacramentum accipere. Requiritur enim quod aliquis ad hoc sacramentum cum devotione et praecedenti sui examinatione accedat, secundum illud I Cor. XI, probet autem seipsum homo, et sic de pane illo edat et de calice bibat. Sed hoc non potest esse in his qui carent usu rationis. Ergo non debet eis hoc sacramentum dari. | Objection 1: It seems that those who have not the use of reason ought not to receive this sacrament. For it is required that man should approach this sacrament with devotion and previous self-examination, according to 1 Cor. 11:28: "Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice." But this is not possible for those who are devoid of reason. Therefore this sacrament should not be given to them. |
| Praeterea, inter alios qui carent usu rationis, sunt etiam arreptitii, qui energumeni dicuntur. Sed tales etiam ab inspectione huius sacramenti arcentur, secundum Dionysium, in libro Eccles. Hier. Ergo carentibus usu rationis hoc sacramentum dari non debet. | Objection 2: Further, among those who have not the use of reason are the possessed, who are called energumens. But such persons are kept from even beholding this sacrament, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii). Therefore this sacrament ought not to be given to those who have not the use of reason. |
| Praeterea, inter alios carentes usu rationis maxime pueri videntur esse innocentes. Sed pueris hoc sacramentum non exhibetur. Ergo multo minus aliis carentibus usu rationis. | Objection 3: Further, among those that lack the use of reason are children, the most innocent of all. But this sacrament is not given to children. Therefore much less should it be given to others deprived of the use of reason. |
| Sed contra est quod legitur in Concilio Arausico, et habetur in decretis, XXVI, qu. VI, amentibus quaecumque sunt pietatis, sunt conferenda. Et ita est conferendum hoc sacramentum, quod est sacramentum pietatis. | On the contrary, We read in the First Council of Orange, (Canon 13); and the same is to be found in the Decretals (xxvi, 6): "All things that pertain to piety are to be given to the insane": and consequently, since this is the "sacrament of piety," it must be given to them. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod aliqui dicuntur non habere usum rationis dupliciter. Uno modo, quia habent debilem usum rationis, sicut dicitur non videns qui male videt. Et quia tales possunt aliquam devotionem concipere huius sacramenti, non est eis hoc sacramentum denegandum. | I answer that, Men are said to be devoid of reason in two ways. First, when they are feeble-minded, as a man who sees dimly is said not to see: and since such persons can conceive some devotion towards this sacrament, it is not to be denied them. |
| Alio modo dicuntur aliqui non habere totaliter usum rationis. Aut igitur nunquam habuerunt usum rationis, sed sic a nativitate permanserunt, et sic talibus non est hoc sacramentum exhibendum, quia in eis nullo modo praecessit huius sacramenti devotio. Aut non semper caruerunt usu rationis. Et tunc, si prius, quando erant suae mentis compotes, apparuit in eis huius sacramenti devotio, debet eis in articulo mortis hoc sacramentum exhiberi, nisi forte timeatur periculum vomitus vel exspuitionis. Unde legitur in Concilio Carthaginensi IV, et habetur in decretis, XXVI, qu. VI, is qui in infirmitate poenitentiam petit, si casu, dum ad eum invitatus sacerdos venit, oppressus infirmitate obmutuerit, vel in phrenesim conversus fuerit, dent testimonium qui eum audierunt, et accipiat poenitentiam, et, si continuo creditur moriturus, reconcilietur per manus impositionem et infundatur ori eius Eucharistia. | In another way men are said not to possess fully the use of reason. Either, then, they never had the use of reason, and have remained so from birth; and in that case this sacrament is not to be given to them, because in no way has there been any preceding devotion towards the sacrament: or else, they were not always devoid of reason, and then, if when they formerly had their wits they showed devotion towards this sacrament, it ought to be given to them in the hour of death; unless danger be feared of vomiting or spitting it out. Hence we read in the acts of the Fourth Council of Carthage (Canon 76). and the same is to be found in the Decretals (xxvi, 6): "If a sick man ask to receive the sacrament of Penance; and if, when the priest who has been sent for comes to him, he be so weak as to be unable to speak, or becomes delirious, let them, who heard him ask, bear witness, and let him receive the sacrament of Penance. then if it be thought that he is going to die shortly, let him be reconciled by imposition of hands, and let the Eucharist be placed in his mouth." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod carentes usu rationis possunt devotionem ad sacramentum habere, quantum ad aliquos quidem praesentem, quantum ad alios autem praeteritam. | Reply to Objection 1: Those lacking the use of reason can have devotion towards the sacrament; actual devotion in some cases, and past in others. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod Dionysius loquitur ibi de energumenis nondum baptizatis, in quibus scilicet nondum est vis Daemonis extincta, quae viget in eis per originale peccatum. Sed de baptizatis qui corporaliter ab immundis spiritibus vexantur, est eadem ratio et de aliis amentibus. Unde Cassianus dicit, eis, qui ab immundis vexantur spiritibus, communionem sacrosanctam a senioribus nostris nunquam meminimus interdictam. | Reply to Objection 2: Dionysius is speaking there of energumens who are not yet baptized, in whom the devil's power is not yet extinct, since it thrives in them through the presence of original sin. But as to baptized persons who are vexed in body by unclean spirits, the same reason holds good of them as of others who are demented. Hence Cassian says (Collat. vii): "We do not remember the most Holy Communion to have ever been denied by our elders to them who are vexed by unclean spirits." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod eadem ratio est de pueris recenter natis et de amentibus qui nunquam habuerunt usum rationis. Unde talibus non sunt sacra mysteria danda, quamvis quidam Graeci contrarium faciant, propter hoc quod Dionysius, II cap. Eccles. Hier., dicit baptizatis esse sacram communionem dandam, non intelligentes quod Dionysius ibi loquitur de Baptismo adultorum. Nec tamen per hoc aliquod detrimentum vitae patiuntur, propter hoc quod dominus dicit, Ioan. VI, nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis et biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis, quia, sicut Augustinus scribit Bonifacio, tunc unusquisque fidelium corporis et sanguinis domini particeps fit, scilicet spiritualiter, quando in Baptismate membrum corporis Christi efficitur. Sed quando iam pueri incipiunt aliqualem usum rationis habere, ut possint devotionem concipere huius sacramenti, tunc potest eis hoc sacramentum conferri. | Reply to Objection 3: The same reason holds good of newly born children as of the insane who never have had the use of reason: consequently, the sacred mysteries are not to be given to them. Although certain Greeks do the contrary, because Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii) that Holy Communion is to be given to them who are baptized; not understanding that Dionysius is speaking there of the Baptism of adults. Nor do they suffer any loss of life from the fact of our Lord saying (Jn. 6:54), "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you"; because, as Augustine writes to Boniface (Pseudo-Beda, Comment. in 1 Cor. 10:17), "then every one of the faithful becomes a partaker," i.e. spiritually, "of the body and blood of the Lord, when he is made a member of Christ's body in Baptism." But when children once begin to have some use of reason so as to be able to conceive some devotion for the sacrament, then it can be given to them. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 80 [<< | >>]
Article: 10 [<< | >>]
| Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non liceat quotidie hoc sacramentum suscipere. Sicut enim Baptismus repraesentat dominicam passionem, ita et hoc sacramentum. Sed non licet pluries baptizari, sed semel tantum, quia Christus semel tantum pro peccatis nostris mortuus est, ut dicitur I Pet. III. Ergo videtur quod non liceat hoc sacramentum quotidie suscipere. | Objection 1: It does not appear to be lawful to receive this sacrament daily, because, as Baptism shows forth our Lord's Passion, so also does this sacrament. Now one may not be baptized several times, but only once, because "Christ died once" only "for our sins," according to 1 Pt. 3:18. Therefore, it seems unlawful to receive this sacrament daily. |
| Praeterea, veritas debet respondere figurae. Sed agnus paschalis, qui fuit figura praecipua huius sacramenti, ut supra dictum est, non manducabatur nisi semel in anno. Sed Ecclesia semel in anno celebrat Christi passionem, cuius hoc sacramentum est memoriale. Ergo videtur quod non licet quotidie sumere hoc sacramentum, sed semel in anno. | Objection 2: Further, the reality ought to answer to the figure. But the Paschal Lamb, which was the chief figure of this sacrament, as was said above (Question [73], Article [9]) was eaten only once in the year; while the Church once a year commemorates Christ's Passion, of which this sacrament is the memorial. It seems, then, that it is lawful to receive this sacrament not daily, but only once in the year. |
| Praeterea, huic sacramento, in quo totus Christus continetur, maxima reverentia debetur. Ad reverentiam autem pertinet quod aliquis ab hoc sacramento abstineat, unde et laudatur centurio, qui dixit, Matth. VIII, domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum; et Petrus, qui dixit, Luc. V, exi a me, domine, quia homo peccator ego sum. Ergo non est laudabile quod homo quotidie hoc sacramentum suscipiat. | Objection 3: Further, the greatest reverence is due to this sacrament as containing Christ. But it is a token of reverence to refrain from receiving this sacrament; hence the Centurion is praised for saying (Mt. 8:8), "Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof"; also Peter, for saying (Lk. 5:8), "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord." Therefore, it is not praiseworthy for a man to receive this sacrament daily. |
| Praeterea, si laudabile esset frequenter hoc sacramentum suscipere quanto frequentius sumeretur, tanto esset laudabilius. Sed maior esset frequentia si homo pluries in die sumeret hoc sacramentum. Ergo esset laudabile quod homo pluries in die communicaret. Quod tamen non habet Ecclesiae consuetudo. Non ergo videtur esse laudabile quod aliquis quotidie hoc sacramentum accipiat. | Objection 4: Further, if it were a praiseworthy custom to receive this sacrament frequently, then the oftener it were taken the more praise-worthy it would be. But there would be greater frequency if one were to receive it several. times daily; and yet this is not the custom of the Church. Consequently, it does not seem praiseworthy to receive it daily. |
| Praeterea, Ecclesia intendit suis statutis fidelium utilitati providere. Sed ex statuto Ecclesiae fideles tenentur solum semel communicare in anno, unde dicitur extra, de Poenit. et Remiss., omnis utriusque sexus fidelis suscipiat reverenter ad minus in Pascha Eucharistiae sacramentum, nisi forte, de proprii sacerdotis consilio, ob aliquam rationabilem causam, ad tempus ab eius perceptione duxerit abstinendum. Non ergo est laudabile quod quotidie hoc sacramentum sumatur. | Objection 5: Further, the Church by her statutes intends to promote the welfare of the faithful. But the Church's statute only requires Communion once a year; hence it is enacted (Extra, De Poenit. et Remiss. xii): "Let every person of either sex devoutly receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least at Easter; unless by the advice of his parish priest, and for some reasonable cause, he considers he ought to refrain from receiving for a time." Consequently, it is not praiseworthy to receive this sacrament daily. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de verbis domini, iste panis quotidianus est, accipe quotidie quod quotidie tibi prosit. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Verb. Dom., Serm. xxviii): "This is our daily bread; take it daily, that it may profit thee daily." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod circa usum huius sacramenti duo possunt considerari. Unum quidem ex parte ipsius sacramenti, cuius virtus est hominibus salutaris. Et ideo utile est quotidie ipsum suscipere, ut homo quotidie eius fructum percipiat. Unde Ambrosius dicit, in libro de sacramentis, si quoties effunditur sanguis Christi, in remissionem peccatorum effunditur, debeo semper accipere, qui semper pecco, debeo semper habere medicinam. Alio modo potest considerari ex parte sumentis, in quo requiritur quod cum magna devotione et reverentia ad hoc sacramentum accedat. Et ideo, si aliquis se quotidie ad hoc paratum inveniat, laudabile est quod quotidie sumat. Unde Augustinus, cum dixisset, accipe quod quotidie tibi prosit, subiungit, sic vive ut quotidie merearis accipere. Sed quia multoties in pluribus hominum multa impedimenta huius devotionis occurrunt, propter corporis indispositionem vel animae, non est utile omnibus hominibus quotidie ad hoc sacramentum accedere, sed quotiescumque se homo ad illud paratum invenerit. Unde in libro de ecclesiasticis Dogmat. dicitur, quotidie Eucharistiae communionem accipere nec laudo nec vitupero. | I answer that, There are two things to be considered regarding the use of this sacrament. The first is on the part of the sacrament itself, the virtue of which gives health to men; and consequently it is profitable to receive it daily so as to receive its fruits daily. Hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "If, whenever Christ's blood is shed, it is shed for the forgiveness of sins, I who sin often, should receive it often: I need a frequent remedy." The second thing to be considered is on the part of the recipient, who is required to approach this sacrament with great reverence and devotion. Consequently, if anyone finds that he has these dispositions every day, he will do well to receive it daily. Hence, Augustine after saying, "Receive daily, that it may profit thee daily," adds: "So live, as to deserve to receive it daily." But because many persons are lacking in this devotion, on account of the many drawbacks both spiritual and corporal from which they suffer, it is not expedient for all to approach this sacrament every day; but they should do so as often as they find themselves properly disposed. Hence it is said in De Eccles. Dogmat. liii: "I neither praise nor blame daily reception of the Eucharist." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod per sacramentum Baptismi configuratur homo morti Christi, in se suscipiens eius characterem, et ideo, sicut Christus semel mortuus est, ita solum semel debet homo baptizari. Sed per hoc sacramentum non recipit homo Christi characterem, sed ipsum Christum, cuius virtus manet in aeternum, unde, ad Heb. X, una oblatione consummavit sanctificatos in sempiternum. Et ideo, quia quotidie homo indiget salutifera Christi virtute, quotidie potest laudabiliter hoc sacramentum percipere. | Reply to Objection 1: In the sacrament of Baptism a man is conformed to Christ's death, by receiving His character within him. And therefore, as Christ died but once, so a man ought to be baptized but once. But a man does not receive Christ's character in this sacrament; He receives Christ Himself, Whose virtue endures for ever. Hence it is written (Heb. 10:14): "By one oblation He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." Consequently, since man has daily need of Christ's health-giving virtue, he may commendably receive this sacrament every day. |
| Et quia praecipue Baptismus est spiritualis regeneratio, ideo, sicut homo semel carnaliter nascitur, ita debet semel spiritualiter renasci per Baptismum, ut Augustinus dicit, super illud Ioan. III, quomodo potest homo nasci cum sit senex? Sed hoc sacramentum est cibus spiritualis, unde, sicut cibus corporalis quotidie sumitur, ita et hoc sacramentum quotidie sumere laudabile est. Unde dominus, Luc. XI, docet petere, panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, in cuius expositione Augustinus dicit, in libro de verbis domini, si quotidie acceperis, scilicet hoc sacramentum, quotidie tibi est hodie, tibi Christus quotidie resurgit, hodie enim est quando Christus resurgit. | And since Baptism is above all a spiritual regeneration, therefore, as a man is born naturally but once, so ought he by Baptism to be reborn spiritually but once, as Augustine says (Tract. xi in Joan.), commenting on Jn. 3:4, "How can a man be born again, when he is grown old?" But this sacrament is spiritual food; hence, just as bodily food is taken every day, so is it a good thing to receive this sacrament every day. Hence it is that our Lord (Lk. 11:3), teaches us to pray, "Give us this day our daily bread": in explaining which words Augustine observes (De Verb. Dom., Serm. xxviii): "If you receive it," i.e. this sacrament, every day, "every day is today for thee, and Christ rises again every day in thee, for when Christ riseth it is today." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod agnus paschalis praecipue fuit figura huius sacramenti quantum ad passionem Christi, quae repraesentatur per hoc sacramentum. Et ideo semel tantum in anno sumebatur, quia Christus semel mortuus est. Et propter hoc etiam Ecclesia semel in anno celebrat memoriam passionis Christi. Sed in hoc sacramento traditur nobis memoriale passionis Christi per modum cibi, qui quotidie sumitur. Et ideo quantum ad hoc significatur per manna, quod quotidie populo dabatur in deserto. | Reply to Objection 2: The Paschal Lamb was the figure of this sacrament chiefly as to Christ's Passion represented therein; and therefore it was partaken of once a year only, since Christ died but once. And on this account the Church celebrates once a year the remembrance of Christ's Passion. But in this sacrament the memorial of His Passion is given by way of food which is partaken of daily; and therefore in this respect it is represented by the manna which was given daily to the people in the desert. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod reverentia huius sacramenti habet timorem amori coniunctum, unde timor reverentiae ad Deum dicitur timor filialis, ut in secunda parte dictum est. Ex amore enim provocatur desiderium sumendi, ex timore autem consurgit humilitas reverendi. Et ideo utrumque pertinet ad reverentiam huius sacramenti, et quod quotidie sumatur, et quod aliquando abstineatur. Unde Augustinus dicit, si dixerit quispiam non quotidie accipiendam Eucharistiam, alius affirmat quotidie, faciat unusquisque quod secundum fidem suam pie credit esse faciendum. Neque enim litigaverunt inter se Zacchaeus et ille centurio, cum alter eorum gaudens susceperit dominum, alter dixerit, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, ambo salvatorem honorificantes, quamvis non uno modo. Amor tamen et spes, ad quae semper Scriptura nos provocat, praeferuntur timori, unde et, cum Petrus dixisset, exi a me, domine, quia peccator homo ego sum, respondit Iesus, noli timere. | Reply to Objection 3: Reverence for this sacrament consists in fear associated with love; consequently reverential fear of God is called filial fear, as was said in the FS, Question [67], Article [4], ad 2; SS, Question [19], Articles [9],11,12; because the desire of receiving arises from love, while the humility of reverence springs from fear. Consequently, each of these belongs to the reverence due to this sacrament; both as to receiving it daily, and as to refraining from it sometimes. Hence Augustine says (Ep. liv): "If one says that the Eucharist should not be received daily, while another maintains the contrary, let each one do as according to his devotion he thinketh right; for Zaccheus and the Centurion did not contradict one another while the one received the Lord with joy, whereas the other said: 'Lord I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof'; since both honored our Saviour, though not in the same way." But love and hope, whereunto the Scriptures constantly urge us, are preferable to fear. Hence, too, when Peter had said, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord," Jesus answered: "Fear not." |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod, quia dominus dicit, panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, non est pluries in die communicandum, ut saltem per hoc quod aliquis semel in die communicat, repraesentetur unitas passionis Christi. | Reply to Objection 4: Because our Lord said (Lk. 11:3), "Give us this day our daily bread," we are not on that account to communicate several times daily, for, by one daily communion the unity of Christ's Passion is set forth. |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod, secundum statum diversum Ecclesiae, diversa circa hoc statuta emanarunt. Nam in primitiva Ecclesia, quando magis vigebat devotio fidei Christianae, statutum fuit ut quotidie fideles communicarent. Unde Anacletus Papa dicit, peracta consecratione, omnes communicent qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus, sic enim et apostoli statuerunt, et sancta Romana tenet Ecclesia. Postmodum vero, diminuto fidei fervore, Fabianus Papa indulsit ut, si non frequentius, saltem ter in anno omnes communicent, scilicet in Pascha, in Pentecoste et in nativitate domini. Soter etiam Papa in cena domini dicit esse communicandum, ut habetur in decretis, de Consecr., dist. II. Postmodum vero, propter iniquitatis abundantiam refrigescente caritate multorum, statuit Innocentius III ut saltem semel in anno, scilicet in Pascha, fideles communicent. Consulitur tamen in libro de ecclesiasticis Dogmat., omnibus diebus dominicis communicandum. | Reply to Objection 5: Various statutes have emanated according to the various ages of the Church. In the primitive Church, when the devotion of the Christian faith was more flourishing, it was enacted that the faithful should communicate daily: hence Pope Anaclete says (Ep. i): "When the consecration is finished, let all communicate who do not wish to cut themselves off from the Church; for so the apostles have ordained, and the holy Roman Church holds." Later on, when the fervor of faith relaxed, Pope Fabian (Third Council of Tours, Canon 1) gave permission "that all should communicate, if not more frequently, at least three times in the year, namely, at Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas." Pope Soter likewise (Second Council of Chalon, Canon xlvii) declares that Communion should be received "on Holy Thursday," as is set forth in the Decretals (De Consecratione, dist. 2). Later on, when "iniquity abounded and charity grew cold" (Mt. 24:12), Pope Innocent III commanded that the faithful should communicate "at least once a year," namely, "at Easter." However, in De Eccles. Dogmat. xxiii, the faithful are counseled "to communicate on all Sundays." |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 80 [<< | >>]
Article: 11 [<< | >>]
| Ad undecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod liceat cessare omnino a communione. Laudatur enim centurio de hoc quod dicit, Matth. VIII domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum. Cui comparatur ille qui reputat sibi a communione esse abstinendum, ut dictum est. Cum ergo nunquam legatur Christum in eius domum venisse, videtur quod liceat alicui toto tempore vitae suae a communione abstinere. | Objection 1: It seems to be lawful to abstain altogether from Communion. Because the Centurion is praised for saying (Mt. 8:8): "Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof"; and he who deems that he ought to refrain entirely from Communion can be compared to the Centurion, as stated above (Article [10], ad 3). Therefore, since we do not read of Christ entering his house, it seems to be lawful for any individual to abstain from Communion his whole life long. |
| Praeterea, cuilibet licet abstinere ab his quae non sunt de necessitate salutis. Sed hoc sacramentum non est de necessitate salutis, ut supra dictum est. Ergo licet a susceptione huius sacramenti omnino cessare. | Objection 2: Further, it is lawful for anyone to refrain from what is not of necessity for salvation. But this sacrament is not of necessity for salvation, as was stated above (Question [73], Article [3]). Therefore it is permissible to abstain from Communion altogether. |
| Praeterea, peccatores non tenentur communicare, unde Fabianus Papa, cum dixisset, ter in anno omnes communicent, adiunxit nisi forte quis maioribus criminibus impediatur. Si ergo illi qui non sunt in peccato, tenentur communicare, videtur quod melioris conditionis sint peccatores quam iusti, quod est inconveniens. Ergo videtur quod etiam iustis liceat a communione cessare. | Objection 3: Further, sinners are not bound to go to Communion: hence Pope Fabian (Third Council of Tours, Canon 1) after saying, "Let all communicate thrice each year," adds: "Except those who are hindered by grievous crimes." Consequently, if those who are not in the state of sin are bound to go to Communion, it seems that sinners are better off than good people, which is unfitting. Therefore, it seems lawful even for the godly to refrain from Communion. |
| Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Ioan. VI, nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis et biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis. | On the contrary, Our Lord said (Jn. 6:54): "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, duplex est modus percipiendi hoc sacramentum, spiritualis scilicet et sacramentalis. Manifestum est autem quod omnes tenentur saltem spiritualiter manducare, quia hoc est Christo incorporari, ut supra dictum est. Spiritualis autem manducatio includit votum seu desiderium percipiendi hoc sacramentum, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo sine voto percipiendi hoc sacramentum non potest homini esse salus. | I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]), there are two ways of receiving this sacrament namely, spiritually and sacramentally. Now it is clear that all are bound to eat it at least spiritually, because this is to be incorporated in Christ, as was said above (Question [73], Article [3], ad 1). Now spiritual eating comprises the desire or yearning for receiving this sacrament, as was said above (Article [1], ad 3, Article [2]). Therefore, a man cannot be saved without desiring to receive this sacrament. |
| Frustra autem esset votum nisi impleretur quando opportunitas adesset. Et ideo manifestum est quod homo tenetur hoc sacramentum sumere, non solum ex statuto Ecclesiae, sed etiam ex mandato domini, dicentis, Matth. XXVI, hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Ex statuto autem Ecclesiae sunt determinata tempora exequendi Christi praeceptum. | Now a desire would be vain except it were fulfilled when opportunity presented itself. Consequently, it is evident that a man is bound to receive this sacrament, not only by virtue of the Church's precept, but also by virtue of the Lord's command (Lk. 22:19): "Do this in memory of Me." But by the precept of the Church there are fixed times for fulfilling Christ's command. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Gregorius dicit, in pastorali, illa est vera humilitas, cum ad respuendum hoc quod utiliter praecipitur, pertinax non est. Et ideo non potest esse laudabilis humilitas si contra praeceptum Christi et Ecclesiae aliquis a communione abstineat. Neque enim centurioni praeceptum fuit ut Christum in sua domo reciperet. | Reply to Objection 1: As Gregory says: "He is truly humble, who is not obstinate in rejecting what is commanded for his good." Consequently, humility is not praiseworthy if anyone abstains altogether from Communion against the precept of Christ and the Church. Again the Centurion was not commanded to receive Christ into his house. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod hoc sacramentum dicitur non esse necessitatis sicut Baptismus, quantum ad pueros, quibus potest esse salus sine hoc sacramento, non autem sine sacramento Baptismi. Quantum vero ad adultos, utrumque est necessitatis. | Reply to Objection 2: This sacrament is said not to be as necessary as Baptism, with regard to children, who can be saved without the Eucharist, but not without the sacrament of Baptism: both, however, are of necessity with regard to adults. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod peccatores magnum detrimentum patiuntur ex hoc quod repelluntur a perceptione huius sacramenti, unde per hoc non sunt melioris conditionis. Et licet in peccatis permanentes non excusentur propter hoc a transgressione praecepti, poenitens tamen, qui, ut Innocentius dicit, secundum consilium sacerdotis abstinet, excusatur. | Reply to Objection 3: Sinners suffer great loss in being kept back from receiving this sacrament, so that they are not better off on that account; and although while continuing in their sins they are not on that account excused from transgressing the precept, nevertheless, as Pope Innocent III says, penitents, "who refrain on the advice of their priest," are excused. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 80 [<< | >>]
Article: 12 [<< | >>]
| Ad duodecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non liceat sumere corpus domini sine sanguine. Dicit enim Gelasius Papa, et habetur de Consecrat., dist. II, comperimus quod quidam, sumpta tantummodo corporis sacri portione, a calice sacrati cruoris abstinent. Qui procul dubio, quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur adstringi, aut integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur. Non ergo licet corpus Christi sumere sine sanguine. | Objection 1: It seems unlawful to receive the body of Christ without the blood. For Pope Gelasius says (cf. De Consecr. ii): "We have learned that some persons after taking only a portion of the sacred body, abstain from the chalice of the sacred blood. I know not for what superstitious motive they do this: therefore let them either receive the entire sacrament, or let them be withheld from the sacrament altogether." Therefore it is not lawful to receive the body of Christ without His blood. |
| Praeterea, ad perfectionem huius sacramenti concurrit manducatio corporis et potatio sanguinis, ut supra habitum est. Si ergo sumatur corpus sine sanguine, erit sacramentum imperfectum. Quod ad sacrilegium pertinere videtur. Unde ibidem Gelasius subdit, quia divisio unius eiusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire. | Objection 2: Further, the eating of the body and the drinking of the blood are required for the perfection of this sacrament, as stated above (Question [73], Article [2]; Question [76], Article [2], ad 1). Consequently, if the body be taken without the blood, it will be an imperfect sacrament, which seems to savor of sacrilege; hence Pope Gelasius adds (cf. De Consecr. ii), "because the dividing of one and the same mystery cannot happen without a great sacrilege." |
| Praeterea, hoc sacramentum celebratur in memoriam dominicae passionis, ut supra habitum est, et sumitur pro animae salute. Sed passio Christi magis exprimitur in sanguine quam in corpore, sanguis etiam pro salute animae offertur, ut supra habitum est. Ergo potius esset abstinendum a sumptione corporis quam a sumptione sanguinis. Non ergo accedentes ad hoc sacramentum debent sumere corpus sine eius sanguine. | Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is celebrated in memory of our Lord's Passion, as stated above (Question [73], Articles [4],5; Question [74], Article [1]), and is received for the health of soul. But the Passion is expressed in the blood rather than in the body; moreover, as stated above (Question [74], Article [1]), the blood is offered for the health of the soul. Consequently, one ought to refrain from receiving the body rather than the blood. Therefore, such as approach this sacrament ought not to take Christ's body without His blood. |
| Sed contra est multarum Ecclesiarum usus, in quibus populo communicanti datur corpus Christi sumendum, non autem sanguis. | On the contrary, It is the custom of many churches for the body of Christ to be given to the communicant without His blood. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod circa usum huius sacramenti duo possunt considerari, unum ex parte ipsius sacramenti; aliud ex parte sumentium. Ex parte ipsius sacramenti convenit quod utrumque sumatur, scilicet et corpus et sanguis, quia in utroque consistit perfectio sacramenti. Et ideo, quia ad sacerdotem pertinet hoc sacramentum consecrare et perficere, nullo modo debet corpus Christi sumere sine sanguine. | I answer that, Two points should be observed regarding the use of this sacrament, one on the part of the sacrament, the other on the part of the recipients; on the part of the sacrament it is proper for both the body and the blood to be received, since the perfection of the sacrament lies in both, and consequently, since it is the priest's duty both to consecrate and finish the sacrament, he ought on no account to receive Christ's body without the blood. |
| Ex parte autem sumentium requiritur summa reverentia, et cautela ne aliquid accidat quod vergat in iniuriam tanti mysterii. Quod praecipue posset accidere in sanguinis sumptione, qui quidem, si incaute sumeretur, de facili posset effundi. Et quia, crescente multitudine populi Christiani, in qua continentur senes et iuvenes et parvuli, quorum quidam non sunt tantae discretionis ut cautelam debitam circa usum huius sacramenti adhiberent, ideo provide in quibusdam Ecclesiis observatur ut populo sanguis sumendus non detur, sed solum a sacerdote sumatur. | But on the part of the recipient the greatest reverence and caution are called for, lest anything happen which is unworthy of so great a mystery. Now this could especially happen in receiving the blood, for, if incautiously handled, it might easily be spilt. And because the multitude of the Christian people increased, in which there are old, young, and children, some of whom have not enough discretion to observe due caution in using this sacrament, on that account it is a prudent custom in some churches for the blood not to be offered to the reception of the people, but to be received by the priest alone. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Gelasius Papa loquitur quantum ad sacerdotes, qui, sicut totum consecrant sacramentum, ita etiam toti communicare debent. Ut enim legitur in Concilio Toletano, quale erit sacrificium, ubi nec ipse sacrificans esse dignoscitur? | Reply to Objection 1: Pope Gelasius is speaking of priests, who, as they consecrate the entire sacrament, ought to communicate in the entire sacrament. For, as we read in the (Twelfth) Council of Toledo, "What kind of a sacrifice is that, wherein not even the sacrificer is known to have a share?" |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod perfectio huius sacramenti non est in usu fidelium, sed in consecratione materiae. Et ideo nihil derogat perfectioni huius sacramenti si populus sumat corpus sine sanguine, dummodo sacerdos consecrans sumat utrumque. | Reply to Objection 2: The perfection of this sacrament does not lie in the use of the faithful, but in the consecration of the matter. And hence there is nothing derogatory to the perfection of this sacrament; if the people receive the body without the blood, provided that the priest who consecrates receive both. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod repraesentatio dominicae passionis agitur in ipsa consecratione huius sacramenti, in qua non debet corpus sine sanguine consecrari. Potest autem a populo corpus sine sanguine sumi, nec exinde aliquod sequitur detrimentum. Quia sacerdos in persona omnium sanguinem offert et sumit, et sub utraque specie totus Christus continetur, ut supra habitum est. | Reply to Objection 3: Our Lord's Passion is represented in the very consecration of this sacrament, in which the body ought not to be consecrated without the blood. But the body can be received by the people without the blood: nor is this detrimental to the sacrament. Because the priest both offers and consumes the blood on behalf of all; and Christ is fully contained under either species, as was shown above (Question [76], Article [2]). |