QUESTIONS 73-83 QUESTION OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST (SIX ARTICLES)

We have now to consider the sacrament of the Eucharist; and first of all we treat of the sacrament itself; secondly, of its matter; thirdly, of its form; fourthly, of its effects; fifthly, of the recipients of this sacrament; sixthly, of the minister; seventhly, of the rite.

Under the first heading there are six points of inquiry: (1) Whether the Eucharist is a sacrament? (2) Whether it is one or several sacraments? (3) Whether it is necessary for salvation? (4) Its names; (5) Its institution; (6) Its figures.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(1) Whether the Eucharist is a sacrament?

P(3)- Q(73)- A(1)- O(1) —

It seems that the Eucharist is not a sacrament.

For two sacraments ought not to be ordained for the same end, because every sacrament is efficacious in producing its effect. Therefore, since both Confirmation and the Eucharist are ordained for perfection, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iv), it seems that the Eucharist is not a sacrament, since Confirmation is one, as stated above ( Q(65), A(1) ; Q(72), A(1) ).

P(3)- Q(73)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, in every sacrament of the New Law, that which comes visibly under our senses causes the invisible effect of the sacrament, just as cleansing with water causes the baptismal character and spiritual cleansing, as stated above ( Q(63), A(6) ; Q(66), AA(1),3 ,7). But the species of bread and wine, which are the objects of our senses in this sacrament, neither produce Christ’s true body, which is both reality and sacrament, nor His mystical body, which is the reality only in the Eucharist. Therefore, it seems that the Eucharist is not a sacrament of the New Law.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, sacraments of the New Law, as having matter, are perfected by the use of the matter, as Baptism is by ablution, and Confirmation by signing with chrism. If, then, the Eucharist be a sacrament, it would be perfected by the use of the matter, and not by its consecration. But this is manifestly false, because the words spoken in the consecration of the matter are the form of this sacrament, as will be shown later on ( Q(78), A(1) ). Therefore the Eucharist is not a sacrament.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(1) —

On the contrary, It is said in the Collect [*Postcommunion “pro vivis et defunctis”]: “May this Thy Sacrament not make us deserving of punishment.”

P(3)- Q(73)- A(1) —

I answer that, The Church’s sacraments are ordained for helping man in the spiritual life. But the spiritual life is analogous to the corporeal, since corporeal things bear a resemblance to spiritual. Now it is clear that just as generation is required for corporeal life, since thereby man receives life; and growth, whereby man is brought to maturity: so likewise food is required for the preservation of life. Consequently, just as for the spiritual life there had to be Baptism, which is spiritual generation; and Confirmation, which is spiritual growth: so there needed to be the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is spiritual food.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(1)- RO(1) —

Perfection is twofold. The first lies within man himself; and he attains it by growth: such perfection belongs to Confirmation. The other is the perfection which comes to man from the addition of food, or clothing, or something of the kind; and such is the perfection befitting the Eucharist, which is the spiritual refreshment.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(1)- RO(2) —

The water of Baptism does not cause any spiritual effect by reason of the water, but by reason of the power of the Holy Ghost, which power is in the water. Hence on John 5:4, “An angel of the Lord at certain times,” etc., Chrysostom observes: “The water does not act simply as such upon the baptized, but when it receives the grace of the Holy Ghost, then it looses all sins.” But the true body of Christ. bears the same relation to the species of the bread and wine, as the power of the Holy Ghost does to the water of Baptism: hence the species of the bread and wine produce no effect except from the virtue of Christ’s true body.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(1)- RO(3) —

A sacrament is so termed because it contains something sacred. Now a thing can be styled sacred from two causes; either absolutely, or in relation to something else. The difference between the Eucharist and other sacraments having sensible matter is that whereas the Eucharist contains something which is sacred absolutely, namely, Christ’s own body; the baptismal water contains something which is sacred in relation to something else, namely, the sanctifying power: and the same holds good of chrism and such like. Consequently, the sacrament of the Eucharist is completed in the very consecration of the matter, whereas the other sacraments are completed in the application of the matter for the sanctifying of the individual. And from this follows another difference.

For, in the sacrament of the Eucharist, what is both reality and sacrament is in the matter itself. but what is reality only, namely, the grace bestowed, is in the recipient; whereas in Baptism both are in the recipient, namely, the character, which is both reality and sacrament, and the grace of pardon of sins, which is reality only. And the same holds good of the other sacraments.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(2) Whether the Eucharist is one sacrament or several?

P(3)- Q(73)- A(2)- O(1) —

It seems that the Eucharist is not one sacrament but several, because it is said in the Collect [*Postcommunion “pro vivis et defunctis”]: “May the sacraments which we have received purify us, O Lord”: and this is said on account of our receiving the Eucharist.

Consequently the Eucharist is not one sacrament but several.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, it is impossible for genera to be multiplied without the species being multiplied: thus it is impossible for one man to be many animals. But, as stated above ( Q(60), A(1) ), sign is the genus of sacrament. Since, then, there are more signs than one, to wit, bread and wine, it seems to follow that here must be more sacraments than one.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, this sacrament is perfected in the consecration of the matter, as stated above ( A(1), ad 3). But in this sacrament there is a double consecration of the matter. Therefore, it is a twofold sacrament.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(2) —

On the contrary, The Apostle says ( 1 Corinthians 10:17): “For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread”: from which it is clear that the Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church’s unity. But a sacrament bears the likeness of the reality whereof it is the sacrament. Therefore the Eucharist is one sacrament.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(2) —

I answer that, As stated in Metaph. v, a thing is said to be one, not only from being indivisible, or continuous, but also when it is complete; thus we speak of one house, and one man. A thing is one in perfection, when it is complete through the presence of all that is needed for its end; as a man is complete by having all the members required for the operation of his soul, and a house by having all the parts needful for dwelling therein. And so this sacrament is said to be one. Because it is ordained for spiritual refreshment, which is conformed to corporeal refreshment. Now there are two things required for corporeal refreshment, namely, food, which is dry sustenance, and drink, which is wet sustenance.

Consequently, two things concur for the integrity of this sacrament, to wit, spiritual food and spiritual drink, according to John: “My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.” Therefore, this sacrament is materially many, but formally and perfectively one.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(2)- RO(1) —

The same Collect at first employs the plural: “May the sacraments which we have received purify us”; and afterwards the singular number: “May this sacrament of Thine not make us worthy of punishment”: so as to show that this sacrament is in a measure several, yet simply one.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(2)- RO(2) —

The bread and wine are materially several signs, yet formally and perfectively one, inasmuch as one refreshment is prepared therefrom.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(2)- RO(3) —

From the double consecration of the matter no more can be gathered than that the sacrament is several materially, as stated above.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(3) Whether the Eucharist is necessary for salvation?

P(3)- Q(73)- A(3)- O(1) —

It seems that this sacrament is necessary for salvation. For our Lord said ( John 6:54): “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.” But Christ’s flesh is eaten and His blood drunk in this sacrament. Therefore, without this sacrament man cannot have the health of spiritual life.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, this sacrament is a kind of spiritual food. But bodily food is requisite for bodily health. Therefore, also is this sacrament, for spiritual health.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, as Baptism is the sacrament of our Lord’s Passion, without which there is no salvation, so also is the Eucharist. For the Apostle says ( 1 Corinthians 11:26): “For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He come.”

Consequently, as Baptism is necessary for salvation, so also is this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(3) —

On the contrary, Augustine writes (Ad Bonifac. contra Pelag. I): “Nor are you to suppose that children cannot possess life, who are deprived of the body and blood of Christ.”

P(3)- Q(73)- A(3) —

I answer that, Two things have to be considered in this sacrament, namely, the sacrament itself, and what is contained in it.

Now it was stated above ( A(1), O(2) ) that the reality of the sacrament is the unity of the mystical body, without which there can be no salvation; for there is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the Ark, which denotes the Church, according to 1 Peter 3:20,21. And it has been said above ( Q(68), A(2) ), that before receiving a sacrament, the reality of the sacrament can be had through the very desire of receiving the sacrament.

Accordingly, before actual reception of this sacrament, a man can obtain salvation through the desire of receiving it, just as he can before Baptism through the desire of Baptism, as stated above ( Q(68), A(2) ). Yet there is a difference in two respects. First of all, because Baptism is the beginning of the spiritual life, and the door of the sacraments; whereas the Eucharist is, as it were, the consummation of the spiritual life, and the end of all the sacraments, as was observed above ( Q(63), A(6) ): for by the hallowings of all the sacraments preparation is made for receiving or consecrating the Eucharist. Consequently, the reception of Baptism is necessary for starting the spiritual life, while the receiving of the Eucharist is requisite for its consummation; by partaking not indeed actually, but in desire, as an end is possessed in desire and intention. Another difference is because by Baptism a man is ordained to the Eucharist, and therefore from the fact of children being baptized, they are destined by the Church to the Eucharist; and just as they believe through the Church’s faith, so they desire the Eucharist through the Church’s intention, and, as a result, receive its reality. But they are not disposed for Baptism by any previous sacrament, and consequently before receiving Baptism, in no way have they Baptism in desire; but adults alone have: consequently, they cannot have the reality of the sacrament without receiving the sacrament itself. Therefore this sacrament is not necessary for salvation in the same way as Baptism is.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(3)- RO(1) —

As Augustine says, explaining John 6:54, “This food and this drink,” namely, of His flesh and blood: “He would have us understand the fellowship of His body and members, which is the Church in His predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified, His holy and believing ones.” Hence, as he says in his Epistle to Boniface (Pseudo-Beda, in 1 Corinthians 10:17): “No one should entertain the slightest doubt, that then every one of the faithful becomes a partaker of the body and blood of Christ, when in Baptism he is made a member of Christ’s body; nor is he deprived of his share in that body and chalice even though he depart from this world in the unity of Christ’s body, before he eats that bread and drinks of that chalice.”

P(3)- Q(73)- A(3)- RO(2) —

The difference between corporeal and spiritual food lies in this, that the former is changed into the substance of the person nourished, and consequently it cannot avail for supporting life except it be partaken of; but spiritual food changes man into itself, according to that saying of Augustine (Confess. vii), that he heard the voice of Christ as it were saying to him: “Nor shalt thou change Me into thyself, as food of thy flesh, but thou shalt be changed into Me.” But one can be changed into Christ, and be incorporated in Him by mental desire, even without receiving this sacrament. And consequently the comparison does not hold.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(3)- RO(3) —

Baptism is the sacrament of Christ’s death and Passion, according as a man is born anew in Christ in virtue of His Passion; but the Eucharist is the sacrament of Christ’s Passion according as a man is made perfect in union with Christ Who suffered. Hence, as Baptism is called the sacrament of Faith, which is the foundation of the spiritual life, so the Eucharist is termed the sacrament of Charity, which is “the bond of perfection” ( Colossians 3:14).

P(3)- Q(73)- A(4) Whether this sacrament is suitably called by various names?

P(3)- Q(73)- A(4)- O(1) —

It seems that this sacrament is not suitably called by various names. For names should correspond with things. But this sacrament is one, as stated above ( A(2) ). Therefore, it ought not to be called by various names.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, a species is not properly denominated by what is common to the whole genus. But the Eucharist is a sacrament of the New Law; and it is common to all the sacraments for grace to be conferred by them, which the name “Eucharist” denotes, for it is the same thing as “good grace.” Furthermore, all the sacraments bring us help on our journey through this present life, which is the notion conveyed by “Viaticum.” Again something sacred is done in all the sacraments, which belongs to the notion of “Sacrifice”; and the faithful intercommunicate through all the sacraments, which this Greek word \Synaxis\ and the Latin “Communio” express. Therefore, these names are not suitably adapted to this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, a host [*From Latin “hostia,” a victim] seems to be the same as a sacrifice. Therefore, as it is not properly called a sacrifice, so neither is it properly termed a “Host.”

P(3)- Q(73)- A(4) —

On the contrary, is the use of these expressions by the faithful.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(4) —

I answer that, This sacrament has a threefold significance. one with regard to the past, inasmuch as it is commemorative of our Lord’s Passion, which was a true sacrifice, as stated above ( Q(48), A(3) ), and in this respect it is called a “Sacrifice.”

With regard to the present it has another meaning, namely, that of Ecclesiastical unity, in which men are aggregated through this Sacrament; and in this respect it is called “Communion” or \Synaxis\. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that “it is called Communion because we communicate with Christ through it, both because we partake of His flesh and Godhead, and because we communicate with and are united to one another through it.”

With regard to the future it has a third meaning, inasmuch as this sacrament foreshadows the Divine fruition, which shall come to pass in heaven; and according to this it is called “Viaticum,” because it supplies the way of winning thither. And in this respect it is also called the “Eucharist,” that is, “good grace,” because “the grace of God is life everlasting” ( Romans 6:23); or because it really contains Christ, Who is “full of grace.”

In Greek, moreover, it is called \Metalepsis\, i.e. “Assumption,” because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv), “we thereby assume the Godhead of the Son.”

P(3)- Q(73)- A(4)- RO(1) —

There is nothing to hinder the same thing from being called by several names, according to its various properties or effects.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(4)- RO(2) —

What is common to all the sacraments is attributed antonomastically to this one on account of its excellence.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(4)- RO(3) —

This sacrament is called a “Sacrifice” inasmuch as it represents the Passion of Christ; but it is termed a “Host” inasmuch as it contains Christ, Who is “a host (Douay: ‘sacrifice’)... of sweetness” ( Ephesians 5:2).

P(3)- Q(73)- A(5) Whether the institution of this sacrament was appropriate?

P(3)- Q(73)- A(5)- O(1) —

It seems that the institution of this sacrament was not appropriate, because as the Philosopher says (De Gener. ii): “We are nourished by the things from whence we spring.” But by Baptism, which is spiritual regeneration, we receive our spiritual being, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii). Therefore we are also nourished by Baptism.

Consequently there was no need to institute this sacrament as spiritual nourishment.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, men are united with Christ through this sacrament as the members with the head. But Christ is the Head of all men, even of those who have existed from the beginning of the world, as stated above ( Q(8) , AA(3),6 ). Therefore the institution of this sacrament should not have been postponed till the Lord’s supper.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, this sacrament is called the memorial of our Lord’s Passion, according to Matthew 26 ( Luke 22:19): “Do this for a commemoration of Me.” But a commemoration is of things past.

Therefore, this sacrament should not have been instituted before Christ’s Passion.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(5)- O(4) —

Further, a man is prepared by Baptism for the Eucharist, which ought to be given only to the baptized. But Baptism was instituted by Christ after His Passion and Resurrection, as is evident from Matthew 28:19. Therefore, this sacrament was not suitably instituted before Christ’s Passion.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(5) —

On the contrary, This sacrament was instituted by Christ, of Whom it is said ( Mark 7:37) that “He did all things well.”

P(3)- Q(73)- A(5) —

I answer that, This sacrament was appropriately instituted at the supper, when Christ conversed with His disciples for the last time. First of all, because of what is contained in the sacrament: for Christ is Himself contained in the Eucharist sacramentally. Consequently, when Christ was going to leave His disciples in His proper species, He left Himself with them under the sacramental species; as the Emperor’s image is set up to be reverenced in his absence. Hence Eusebius says: “Since He was going to withdraw His assumed body from their eyes, and bear it away to the stars, it was needful that on the day of the supper He should consecrate the sacrament of His body and blood for our sakes, in order that what was once offered up for our ransom should be fittingly worshiped in a mystery.”

Secondly, because without faith in the Passion there could never be any salvation, according to Romans 3:25: “Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood.” It was necessary accordingly that there should be at all times among men something to show forth our Lord’s Passion; the chief sacrament of which in the old Law was the Paschal Lamb. Hence the Apostle says ( 1 Corinthians 5:7): “Christ our Pasch is sacrificed.” But its successor under the New Testament is the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is a remembrance of the Passion now past, just as the other was figurative of the Passion to come. And so it was fitting that when the hour of the Passion was come, Christ should institute a new Sacrament after celebrating the old, as Pope Leo I says (Serm. lviii).

Thirdly, because last words, chiefly such as are spoken by departing friends, are committed most deeply to memory; since then especially affection for friends is more enkindled, and the things which affect us most are impressed the deepest in the soul. Consequently, since, as Pope Alexander I says, “among sacrifices there can be none greater than the body and blood of Christ, nor any more powerful oblation”; our Lord instituted this sacrament at His last parting with His disciples, in order that it might be held in the greater veneration. And this is what Augustine says (Respons. ad Januar. i): “In order to commend more earnestly the death of this mystery, our Saviour willed this last act to be fixed in the hearts and memories of the disciples whom He was about to quit for the Passion.”

P(3)- Q(73)- A(5)- RO(1) —

We are nourished from the same things of which we are made, but they do not come to us in the same way; for those out of which we are made come to us through generation, while the same, as nourishing us, come to us through being eaten. Hence, as we are newborn in Christ through Baptism, so through the Eucharist we eat Christ.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(5)- RO(2) —

The Eucharist is the perfect sacrament of our Lord’s Passion, as containing Christ crucified; consequently it could not be instituted before the Incarnation; but then there was room for only such sacraments as were prefigurative of the Lord’s Passion.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(5)- RO(3) —

This sacrament was instituted during the supper, so as in the future to be a memorial of our Lord’s Passion as accomplished. Hence He said expressively: “As often as ye shall do these things” [*Cf. Canon of the Mass], speaking of the future.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(5)- RO(4) —

The institution responds to the order of intention. But the sacrament of the Eucharist, although after Baptism in the receiving, is yet previous to it in intention; and therefore it behooved to be instituted first. or else it can be said that Baptism was already instituted in Christ’s Baptism; hence some were already baptized with Christ’s Baptism, as we read in John 3:22.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(6) Whether the Paschal Lamb was the chief figure of this sacrament?

P(3)- Q(73)- A(6)- O(1) —

It seems that the Paschal Lamb was not the chief figure of this sacrament, because ( <19A904> Psalm 109:4) Christ is called “a priest according to the order of Melchisedech,” since Melchisedech bore the figure of Christ’s sacrifice, in offering bread and wine. But the expression of likeness causes one thing to be named from another.

Therefore, it seems that Melchisedech’s offering was the “principal” figure of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(6)- O(2) —

Further, the passage of the Red Sea was a figure of Baptism, according to 1 Corinthians 10:2: “All... were baptized in the cloud and in the sea.” But the immolation of the Paschal Lamb was previous to the passage of the Red Sea, and the Manna came after it, just as the Eucharist follows Baptism. Therefore the Manna is a more expressive figure of this sacrament than the Paschal Lamb.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(6)- O(3) —

Further, the principal power of this sacrament is that it brings us into the kingdom of heaven, being a kind of “viaticum.”

But this was chiefly prefigured in the sacrament of expiation when the “high-priest entered once a year into the Holy of Holies with blood,” as the Apostle proves in Hebrews 9. Consequently, it seems that that sacrifice was a more significant figure of this sacrament than was the Paschal Lamb.

P(3)- Q(73)- A(6) —

On the contrary, The Apostle says ( 1 Corinthians 5:7,8): “Christ our Pasch is sacrificed; therefore let us feast... with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”

P(3)- Q(73)- A(6) —

I answer that, We can consider three things in this sacrament: namely, that which is sacrament only, and this is the bread and wine; that which is both reality and sacrament, to wit, Christ’s true body; and lastly that which is reality only, namely, the effect of this sacrament.

Consequently, in relation to what is sacrament only, the chief figure of this sacrament was the oblation of Melchisedech, who offered up bread and wine. In relation to Christ crucified, Who is contained in this sacrament, its figures were all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, especially the sacrifice of expiation, which was the most solemn of all. While with regard to its effect, the chief figure was the Manna, “having in it the sweetness of every taste” (Wis. 16:20), just as the grace of this sacrament refreshes the soul in all respects.

The Paschal Lamb foreshadowed this sacrament in these three ways. First of all, because it was eaten with unleavened loaves, according to Exodus 12:8: “They shall eat flesh... and unleavened bread.” As to the second because it was immolated by the entire multitude of the children of Israel on the fourteenth day of the moon; and this was a figure of the Passion of Christ, Who is called the Lamb on account of His innocence. As to the effect, because by the blood of the Paschal Lamb the children of Israel were preserved from the destroying Angel, and brought from the Egyptian captivity; and in this respect the Paschal Lamb is the chief figure of this sacrament, because it represents it in every respect.

From this the answer to the Objections is manifest.

QUESTION OF THE MATTER OF THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)

We have now to consider the matter of this sacrament: and first of all as to its species; secondly, the change of the bread and wine into the body of Christ; thirdly, the manner in which Christ’s body exists in this sacrament; fourthly, the accidents of bread and wine which continue in this sacrament.

Under the first heading there are eight points for inquiry: (1) Whether bread and wine are the matter of this sacrament? (2) Whether a determinate quantity of the same is required for the matter of this sacrament? (3) Whether the matter of this sacrament is wheaten bread? (4) Whether it is unleavened or fermented bread? (5) Whether the matter of this sacrament is wine from the grape? (6) Whether water should be mixed with it? (7) Whether water is of necessity for this sacrament? (8) Of the quantity of the water added.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(1) Whether the matter of this sacrament is bread and wine?

P(3)- Q(74)- A(1)- O(1) —

It seems that the matter of this sacrament is not bread and wine. Because this sacrament ought to represent Christ’s Passion more fully than did the sacraments of the Old Law. But the flesh of animals, which was the matter of the sacraments under the Old Law, shows forth Christ’s Passion more fully than bread and wine. Therefore the matter of this sacrament ought rather to be the flesh of animals than bread and wine.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, this sacrament is to be celebrated in every place. But in many lands bread is not to be found, and in many places wine is not to be found. Therefore bread and wine are not a suitable matter for this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, this sacrament is for both hale and weak. But to some weak persons wine is hurtful. Therefore it seems that wine ought not to be the matter of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(1) —

On the contrary, Pope Alexander I says (Ep. ad omnes orth. i): “In oblations of the sacraments only bread and wine mixed with water are to be offered.”

P(3)- Q(74)- A(1) —

I answer that, Some have fallen into various errors about the matter of this sacrament. Some, known as the Artotyrytae, as Augustine says (De Haeres. xxviii), “offer bread and cheese in this sacrament, contending that oblations were celebrated by men in the first ages, from fruits of the earth and sheep.” Others, called Cataphrygae and Pepuziani, “are reputed to have made their Eucharistic bread with infants’ blood drawn from tiny punctures over the entire body, and mixed with flour.” Others, styled Aquarii, under guise of sobriety, offer nothing but water in this sacrament.

Now all these and similar errors are excluded by the fact that Christ instituted this sacrament under the species of bread and wine, as is evident from Matthew 26. Consequently, bread and wine are the proper matter of this sacrament. And the reasonableness of this is seen first, in the use of this sacrament, which is eating: for, as water is used in the sacrament of Baptism for the purpose of spiritual cleansing, since bodily cleansing is commonly done with water; so bread and wine, wherewith men are commonly fed, are employed in this sacrament for the use of spiritual eating.

Secondly, in relation to Christ’s Passion, in which the blood was separated from the body. And therefore in this sacrament, which is the memorial of our Lord’s Passion, the bread is received apart as the sacrament of the body, and the wine as the sacrament of the blood.

Thirdly, as to the effect, considered in each of the partakers. For, as Ambrose (Mag. Sent. iv, D, xi) says on 1 Corinthians 11:20, this sacrament “avails for the defense of soul and body”; and therefore “Christ’s body is offered” under the species of bread “for the health of the body, and the blood” under the species of wine “for the health of the soul,” according to Leviticus 17:14: “The life of the animal [Vulg.: ‘of all flesh’] is in the blood.”

Fourthly, as to the effect with regard to the whole Church, which is made up of many believers, just “as bread is composed of many grains, and wine flows from many grapes,” as the gloss observes on 1 Corinthians 10:17: “We being many are... one body,” etc.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(1)- RO(1) —

Although the flesh of slaughtered animals represents the Passion more forcibly, nevertheless it is less suitable for the common use of this sacrament, and for denoting the unity of the Church.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(1)- RO(2) —

Although wheat and wine are not produced in every country, yet they can easily be conveyed to every land, that is, as much as is needful for the use of this sacrament: at the same time one is not to be consecrated when the other is lacking, because it would not be a complete sacrament.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(1)- RO(3) —

Wine taken in small quantity cannot do the sick much harm: yet if there be fear of harm, it is not necessary for all who take Christ’s body to partake also of His blood, as will be stated later ( Q(80), A(12) ).

P(3)- Q(74)- A(2) Whether a determinate quantity of bread and wine is required for the matter of this sacrament?

P(3)- Q(74)- A(2)- O(1) —

It seems that a determinate quantity of bread and wine is required for the matter of this sacrament. Because the effects of grace are no less set in order than those of nature. But, “there is a limit set by nature upon all existing things, and a reckoning of size and development” (De Anima ii). Consequently, in this sacrament, which is called “Eucharist,” that is, “a good grace,” a determinate quantity of the bread and wine is required.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, Christ gave no power to the ministers of the Church regarding matters which involve derision of the faith and of His sacraments, according to 2 Corinthians 10:8: “Of our power which the Lord hath given us unto edification, and not for your destruction.”

But it would lead to mockery of this sacrament if the priest were to wish to consecrate all the bread which is sold in the market and all the wine in the cellar. Therefore he cannot do this.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, if anyone be baptized in the sea, the entire sea-water is not sanctified by the form of baptism, but only the water wherewith the body of the baptized is cleansed. Therefore, neither in this sacrament can a superfluous quantity of bread be consecrated.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(2) —

On the contrary, Much is opposed to little, and great to small. But there is no quantity, however small, of the bread and wine which cannot be consecrated. Therefore, neither is there any quantity, however great, which cannot be consecrated.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(2) —

I answer that, Some have maintained that the priest could not consecrate an immense quantity of bread and wine, for instance, all the bread in the market or all the wine in a cask. But this does not appear to be true, because in all things containing matter, the reason for the determination of the matter is drawn from its disposition to an end, just as the matter of a saw is iron, so as to adapt it for cutting. But the end of this sacrament is the use of the faithful. Consequently, the quantity of the matter of this sacrament must be determined by comparison with the use of the faithful. But this cannot be determined by comparison with the use of the faithful who are actually present; otherwise the parish priest having few parishioners could not consecrate many hosts. It remains, then, for the matter of this sacrament to be determined in reference to the number of the faithful absolutely. But the number of the faithful is not a determinate one.

Hence it cannot be said that the quantity of the matter of this sacrament is restricted.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(2)- RO(1) —

The matter of every natural object has its determinate quantity by comparison with its determinate form. But the number of the faithful, for whose use this sacrament is ordained, is not a determinate one. Consequently there is no comparison.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(2)- RO(2) —

The power of the Church’s ministers is ordained for two purposes: first for the proper effect, and secondly for the end of the effect. But the second does not take away the first. Hence, if the priest intends to consecrate the body of Christ for an evil purpose, for instance, to make mockery of it, or to administer poison through it, he commits sin by his evil intention, nevertheless, on account of the power committed to him, he accomplishes the sacrament.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(2)- RO(3) —

The sacrament of Baptism is perfected in the use of the matter: and therefore no more of the water is hallowed than what is used. But this sacrament is wrought in the consecration of the matter. Consequently there is no parallel.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(3) Whether wheaten bread is required for the matter of this sacrament?

P(3)- Q(74)- A(3)- O(1) —

It seems that wheaten bread is not requisite for the matter of this sacrament, because this sacrament is a reminder of our Lord’s Passion. But barley bread seems to be more in keeping with the Passion than wheaten bread, as being more bitter, and because Christ used it to feed the multitudes upon the mountain, as narrated in John 6.

Therefore wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, in natural things the shape is a sign of species. But some cereals resemble wheat, such as spelt and maize, from which in some localities bread is made for the use of this sacrament.

Therefore wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, mixing dissolves species. But wheaten flour is hardly to be found unmixed with some other species of grain, except in the instance of specially selected grain. Therefore it does not seem that wheaten bread is the proper matter for this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(3)- O(4) —

Further, what is corrupted appears to be of another species. But some make the sacrament from bread which is corrupted, and which no longer seems to be wheaten bread. Therefore, it seems that such bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(3) —

On the contrary, Christ is contained in this sacrament, and He compares Himself to a grain of wheat, saying ( John 12:24): “Unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, itself remaineth alone.”

Therefore bread from corn, i.e. wheaten bread, is the matter of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(3) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(1) ), for the use of the sacraments such matter is adopted as is commonly made use of among men. Now among other breads wheaten bread is more commonly used by men; since other breads seem to be employed when this fails. And consequently Christ is believed to have instituted this sacrament under this species of bread. Moreover this bread strengthens man, and so it denotes more suitably the effect of this sacrament. Consequently, the proper matter for this sacrament is wheaten bread.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(3)- RO(1) —

Barley bread serves to denote the hardness of the Old Law; both on account of the hardness of the bread, and because, as Augustine says ( Q(83) ): “The flour within the barley, wrapped up as it is within a most tenacious fibre, denotes either the Law itself, which was given in such manner as to be vested in bodily sacraments; or else it denotes the people themselves, who were not yet despoiled of carnal desires, which clung to their hearts like fibre.” But this sacrament belongs to Christ’s “sweet yoke,” and to the truth already manifested, and to a spiritual people. Consequently barley bread would not be a suitable matter for this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(3)- RO(2) —

A begetter begets a thing like to itself in species. yet there is some unlikeness as to the accidents, owing either to the matter, or to weakness within the generative power. And therefore, if there be any cereals which can be grown from the seed of the wheat (as wild wheat from wheat seed grown in bad ground), the bread made from such grain can be the matter of this sacrament: and this does not obtain either in barley, or in spelt, or even in maize, which is of all grains the one most resembling the wheat grain. But the resemblance as to shape in such seems to denote closeness of species rather than identity; just as the resemblance in shape between the dog and the wolf goes to show that they are allied but not of the same species. Hence from such grains, which cannot in any way be generated from wheat grain, bread cannot be made such as to be the proper matter of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(3)- RO(3) —

A moderate mixing does not alter the species, because that little is as it were absorbed by the greater. Consequently, then, if a small quantity of another grain be mixed with a much greater quantity of wheat, bread may be made therefrom so as to be the proper matter of this sacrament; but if the mixing be notable, for instance, half and half; or nearly so, then such mixing alters the species; consequently, bread made therefrom will not be the proper matter of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(3)- RO(4) —

Sometimes there is such corruption of the bread that the species of bread is lost, as when the continuity of its parts is destroyed, and the taste, color, and other accidents are changed; hence the body of Christ may not be made from such matter. But sometimes there is not such corruption as to alter the species, but merely disposition towards corruption, which a slight change in the savor betrays, and from such bread the body of Christ may be made: but he who does so, sins from irreverence towards the sacrament. And because starch comes of corrupted wheat, it does not seem as if the body of Christ could be made of the bread made therefrom, although some hold the contrary.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(4) Whether this sacrament ought to be made of unleavened bread?

P(3)- Q(74)- A(4)- O(1) —

It seems that this sacrament ought not to be made of unleavened bread. because in this sacrament we ought to imitate Christ’s institution. But Christ appears to have instituted this sacrament in fermented bread, because, as we have read in Exodus 12, the Jews, according to the Law, began to use unleavened bread on the day of the Passover which is celebrated on the fourteenth day of the moon; and Christ instituted this sacrament at the supper which He celebrated “before the festival day of the Pasch” ( John 13:1,4). Therefore we ought likewise to celebrate this sacrament with fermented bread.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, legal observances ought not to be continued in the time of grace. But the use of unleavened bread was a ceremony of the Law, as is clear from Exodus 12. Therefore we ought not to use unfermented bread in this sacrament of grace.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, as stated above ( Q(65), A(1) ; Q(73), A(3) ), the Eucharist is the sacrament of charity just as Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But the fervor of charity is signified by fermented bread, as is declared by the gloss on Matthew 13:33: “The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven,” etc. Therefore this sacrament ought to be made of leavened bread.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(4)- O(4) —

Further, leavened or unleavened are mere accidents of bread, which do not vary the species. But in the matter for the sacrament of Baptism no difference is observed regarding the variation of the accidents, as to whether it be salt or fresh, warm or cold water.

Therefore neither ought any distinction to be observed, as to whether the bread be unleavened or leavened.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(4) —

On the contrary, According to the Decretals (Extra, De Celebr. Miss.), a priest is punished “for presuming to celebrate, using fermented bread and a wooden cup.”

P(3)- Q(74)- A(4) —

I answer that, Two things may be considered touching the matter of this sacrament namely, what is necessary, and what is suitable. It is necessary that the bread be wheaten, without which the sacrament is not valid, as stated above ( A(3) ). It is not, however, necessary for the sacrament that the bread be unleavened or leavened, since it can be celebrated in either.

But it is suitable that every priest observe the rite of his Church in the celebration of the sacrament. Now in this matter there are various customs of the Churches: for, Gregory says: “The Roman Church offers unleavened bread, because our Lord took flesh without union of sexes: but the Greek Churches offer leavened bread, because the Word of the Father was clothed with flesh; as leaven is mixed with the flour.” Hence, as a priest sins by celebrating with fermented bread in the Latin Church, so a Greek priest celebrating with unfermented bread in a church of the Greeks would also sin, as perverting the rite of his Church. Nevertheless the custom of celebrating with unleavened bread is more reasonable. First, on account of Christ’s institution: for He instituted this sacrament “on the first day of the Azymes” ( Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7), on which day there ought to be nothing fermented in the houses of the Jews, as is stated in Exodus 12:15,19. Secondly, because bread is properly the sacrament of Christ’s body, which was conceived without corruption, rather than of His Godhead, as will be seen later ( Q(76), A(1), ad 1).

Thirdly, because this is more in keeping with the sincerity of the faithful, which is required in the use of this sacrament, according to 1 Corinthians 5:7: “Christ our Pasch is sacrificed: therefore let us feast... with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”

However, this custom of the Greeks is not unreasonable both on account of its signification, to which Gregory refers, and in detestation of the heresy of the Nazarenes, who mixed up legal observances with the Gospel.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(4)- RO(1) —

As we read in Exodus 12, the paschal solemnity began on the evening of the fourteenth day of the moon. So, then, after immolating the Paschal Lamb, Christ instituted this sacrament: hence this day is said by John to precede the day of the Pasch, while the other three Evangelists call it “the first day of the Azymes,” when fermented bread was not found in the houses of the Jews, as stated above.

Fuller mention was made of this in the treatise on our Lord’s Passion ( Q(46), A(9), ad 1).

P(3)- Q(74)- A(4)- RO(2) —

Those who celebrate the sacrament with unleavened bread do not intend to follow the ceremonial of the Law, but to conform to Christ’s institution; so they are not Judaizing; otherwise those celebrating in fermented bread would be Judaizing, because the Jews offered up fermented bread for the first-fruits.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(4)- RO(3) —

Leaven denotes charity on account of one single effect, because it makes the bread more savory and larger; but it also signifies corruption from its very nature.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(4)- RO(4) —

Since whatever is fermented partakes of corruption, this sacrament may not be made from corrupt bread, as stated above ( A(3), ad 4); consequently, there is a wider difference between unleavened and leavened bread than between warm and cold baptismal water: because there might be such corruption of fermented bread that it could not be validly used for the sacrament.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(5) Whether wine of the grape is the proper matter of this sacrament?

P(3)- Q(74)- A(5)- O(1) —

It seems that wine of the grape is not the proper matter of this sacrament. Because, as water is the matter of Baptism, so is wine the matter of this sacrament. But Baptism can be conferred with any kind of water. Therefore this sacrament can be celebrated in any kind of wine, such as of pomegranates, or of mulberries; since vines do not grow in some countries.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, vinegar is a kind of wine drawn from the grape, as Isidore says (Etym. xx). But this sacrament cannot be celebrated with vinegar. Therefore, it seems that wine from the grape is not the proper matter of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, just as the clarified wine is drawn from grapes, so also are the juice of unripe grapes and must. But it does not appear that this sacrament may be made from such, according to what we read in the Sixth Council (Trull., Can. 28): “We have learned that in some churches the priests add grapes to the sacrifice of the oblation; and so they dispense both together to the people. Consequently we give order that no priest shall do this in future.” And Pope Julius I rebukes some priests “who offer wine pressed from the grape in the sacrament of the Lord’s chalice.” Consequently, it seems that wine from the grape is not the proper matter of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(5) —

On the contrary, As our Lord compared Himself to the grain of wheat, so also He compared Himself to the vine, saying ( John 15:1): “I am the true vine.” But only bread from wheat is the matter of this sacrament, as stated above ( A(3) ). Therefore, only wine from the grape is the proper matter of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(5) —

I answer that, This sacrament can only be performed with wine from the grape. First of all on account of Christ’s institution, since He instituted this sacrament in wine from the grape, as is evident from His own words, in instituting this sacrament ( Matthew 26:29): “I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine.” Secondly, because, as stated above ( A(3) ), that is adopted as the matter of the sacraments which is properly and universally considered as such. Now that is properly called wine, which is drawn from the grape, whereas other liquors are called wine from resemblance to the wine of the grape. Thirdly, because the wine from the grape is more in keeping with the effect of this sacrament, which is spiritual; because it is written ( <19A315> Psalm 103:15): “That wine may cheer the heart of man.”

P(3)- Q(74)- A(5)- RO(1) —

Such liquors are called wine, not properly but only from their resemblance thereto. But genuine wine can be conveyed to such countries wherein the grape-vine does not flourish, in a quantity sufficient for this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(5)- RO(2) —

Wine becomes vinegar by corruption; hence there is no returning from vinegar to wine, as is said in Metaph. 8:And consequently, just as this sacrament may not be made from bread which is utterly corrupt, so neither can it be made from vinegar. It can, however, be made from wine which is turning sour, just as from bread turning corrupt, although he who does so sins, as stated above ( A(3) ).

P(3)- Q(74)- A(5)- RO(3) —

The juice of unripe grapes is at the stage of incomplete generation, and therefore it has not yet the species of wine: on which account it may not be used for this sacrament. Must, however, has already the species of wine, for its sweetness [*”Aut dulcis musti Vulcano decoquit humorem”; Virgil, Georg. i, 295] indicates fermentation which is “the result of its natural heat” (Meteor. iv); consequently this sacrament can be made from must. Nevertheless entire grapes ought not to be mixed with this sacrament, because then there would be something else besides wine. It is furthermore forbidden to offer must in the chalice, as soon as it has been squeezed from the grape, since this is unbecoming owing to the impurity of the must. But in case of necessity it may be done: for it is said by the same Pope Julius, in the passage quoted in the argument: “If necessary, let the grape be pressed into the chalice.”

P(3)- Q(74)- A(6) Whether water should be mixed with the wine?

P(3)- Q(74)- A(6)- O(1) —

It seems that water ought not to be mixed with the wine, since Christ’s sacrifice was foreshadowed by that of Melchisedech, who ( Genesis 14:18) is related to have offered up bread and wine only. Consequently it seems that water should not be added in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(6)- O(2) —

Further, the various sacraments have their respective matters. But water is the matter of Baptism. Therefore it should not be employed as the matter of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(6)- O(3) —

Further, bread and wine are the matter of this sacrament. But nothing is added to the bread. Therefore neither should anything be added to the wine.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(6) —

On the contrary, Pope Alexander I writes (Ep. 1 ad omnes orth.): “In the sacramental oblations which in mass are offered to the Lord, only bread and wine mixed with water are to be offered in sacrifice.”

P(3)- Q(74)- A(6) —

I answer that, Water ought to be mingled with the wine which is offered in this sacrament. First of all on account of its institution: for it is believed with probability that our Lord instituted this sacrament in wine tempered with water according to the custom of that country: hence it is written ( Proverbs 9:5): “Drink the wine which I have mixed for you.” Secondly, because it harmonizes with the representation of our Lord’s Passion: hence Pope Alexander I says (Ep. ad omnes orth.): “In the Lord’s chalice neither wine only nor water only ought to be offered, but both mixed because we read that both flowed from His side in the Passion.” Thirdly, because this is adapted for signifying the effect of this sacrament, since as Pope Julius says (Concil. Bracarens iii, Can. 1): “We see that the people are signified by the water, but Christ’s blood by the wine. Therefore when water is mixed with the wine in the chalice, the people is made one with Christ.” Fourthly, because this is appropriate to the fourth effect of this sacrament, which is the entering into everlasting life: hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. v): “The water flows into the chalice, and springs forth unto everlasting life.”

P(3)- Q(74)- A(6)- RO(1) —

As Ambrose says (De Sacram. v), just as Christ’s sacrifice is denoted by the offering of Melchisedech, so likewise it is signified by the water which flowed from the rock in the desert, according to 1 Corinthians 10:4: “But they drank of the spiritual rock which came after them.”

P(3)- Q(74)- A(6)- RO(2) —

In Baptism water is used for the purpose of ablution: but in this sacrament it is used by way of refreshment, according to Psalm 22:3: “He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment.”

P(3)- Q(74)- A(6)- RO(3) —

Bread is made of water and flour; and therefore, since water is mixed with the wine, neither is without water.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(7) Whether the mixing with water is essential to this sacrament?

P(3)- Q(74)- A(7)- O(1) —

It seems that the mixing with water is essential to this sacrament. Because Cyprian says to Cecilius (Ep. lxiii): “Thus the Lord’s chalice is not water only and wine only, but both must be mixed together: in the same way as neither the Lord’s body be of flour only, except both,” i.e. the flour and the water “be united as one.” But the admixture of water with the flour is necessary for this sacrament.

Consequently, for the like reason, so is the mixing of water with the wine.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(7)- O(2) —

Further, at our Lord’s Passion, of which this is the memorial, water as well as blood flowed from His side. But wine, which is the sacrament of the blood, is necessary for this sacrament. For the same reason, therefore, so is water.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(7)- O(3) —

Further, if water were not essential to this sacrament, it would not matter in the least what kind of water was used; and so water distilled from roses, or any other kind might be employed; which is contrary to the usage of the Church. Consequently water is essential to this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(7) —

On the contrary, Cyprian says (Ep. lxiii): “If any of our predecessors, out of ignorance or simplicity, has not kept this usage,” i.e. of mixing water with the wine, “one may pardon his simplicity”; which would not be the case if water were essential to the sacrament, as the wine or the bread. Therefore the mingling of water with the wine is not essential to the sacrament.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(7) —

I answer that, Judgment concerning a sign is to be drawn from the thing signified. Now the adding of water to the wine is for the purpose of signifying the sharing of this sacrament by the faithful, in this respect that by the mixing of the water with the wine is signified the union of the people with Christ, as stated ( A(6) ). Moreover, the flowing of water from the side of Christ hanging on the cross refers to the same, because by the water is denoted the cleansing from sins, which was the effect of Christ’s Passion. Now it was observed above ( Q(73), A(1), ad 3), that this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the matter: while the usage of the faithful is not essential to the sacrament, but only a consequence thereof. Consequently, then, the adding of water is not essential to the sacrament.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(7)- RO(1) —

Cyprian’s expression is to be taken in the same sense in which we say that a thing cannot be, which cannot be suitably. And so the comparison refers to what ought to be done, not to what is essential to be done; since water is of the essence of bread, but not of the essence of wine.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(7)- RO(2) —

The shedding of the blood belonged directly to Christ’s Passion: for it is natural for blood to flow from a wounded human body. But the flowing of the water was not necessary for the Passion; but merely to show its effect, which is to wash away sins, and to refresh us from the heat of concupiscence. And therefore the water is not offered apart from the wine in this sacrament, as the wine is offered apart from the bread; but the water is offered mixed with the wine to show that the wine belongs of itself to this sacrament, as of its very essence; but the water as something added to the wine.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(7)- RO(3) —

Since the mixing of water with the wine is not necessary for the sacrament, it does not matter, as to the essence of the sacrament, what kind of water is added to the wine, whether natural water, or artificial, as rose-water, although, as to the propriety of the sacrament, he would sin who mixes any other than natural and true water, because true water flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross, and not phlegm, as some have said, in order to show that Christ’s body was truly composed of the four elements; as by the flowing blood, it was shown to be composed of the four humors, as Pope Innocent III says in a certain Decree. But because the mixing of water with flour is essential to this sacrament, as making the composition of bread, if rose-water, or any other liquor besides true water, be mixed with the flour, the sacrament would not be valid, because it would not be true bread.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(8) Whether water should be added in great quantity?

P(3)- Q(74)- A(8)- O(1) —

It seems that water ought to be added in great quantity, because as blood flowed sensibly from Christ’s side, so did water: hence it is written ( John 19:35): “He that saw it, hath given testimony.” But water could not be sensibly present in this sacrament except it were used in great quantity. Consequently it seems that water ought to be added in great quantity.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(8)- O(2) —

Further, a little water mixed with much wine is corrupted. But what is corrupted no longer exists. Therefore, it is the same thing to add a little water in this sacrament as to add none. But it is not lawful to add none. Therefore, neither is it lawful to add a little.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(8)- O(3) —

Further, if it sufficed to add a little, then as a consequence it would suffice to throw one drop of water into an entire cask. But this seems ridiculous. Therefore it does not suffice for a small quantity to be added.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(8) —

On the contrary, It is said in the Decretals (Extra, De Celeb. Miss.): “The pernicious abuse has prevailed in your country of adding water in greater quantity than the wine, in the sacrifice, where according to the reasonable custom of the entire Church more wine than water ought to be employed.”

P(3)- Q(74)- A(8) —

I answer that, There is a threefold opinion regarding the water added to the wine, as Pope Innocent III says in a certain Decretal. For some say that the water remains by itself when the wine is changed into blood: but such an opinion cannot stand, because in the sacrament of the altar after the consecration there is nothing else save the body and the blood of Christ. Because, as Ambrose says in De Officiis (De Mysteriis ix): “Before the blessing it is another species that is named, after the blessing the Body is signified; otherwise it would not be adored with adoration of latria.” And therefore others have said that as the wine is changed into blood, so the water is changed into the water which flowed from Christ’s side. But this cannot be maintained reasonably, because according to this the water would be consecrated apart from the wine, as the wine is from the bread.

And therefore as he (Innocent III, Decretals, Extra, De Celeb. Miss.) says, the more probable opinion is that which holds that the water is changed into wine, and the wine into blood. Now, this could not be done unless so little water was used that it would be changed into wine. Consequently, it is always safer to add little water, especially if the wine be weak, because the sacrament could not be celebrated if there were such addition of water as to destroy the species of the wine. Hence Pope Julius I reprehends some who “keep throughout the year a linen cloth steeped in must, and at the time of sacrifice wash a part of it with water, and so make the offering.”

P(3)- Q(74)- A(8)- RO(1) —

For the signification of this sacrament it suffices for the water to be appreciable by sense when it is mixed with the wine: but it is not necessary for it to be sensible after the mingling.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(8)- RO(2) —

If no water were added, the signification would be utterly excluded: but when the water is changed into wine, it is signified that the people is incorporated with Christ.

P(3)- Q(74)- A(8)- RO(3) —

If water were added to a cask, it would not suffice for the signification of this sacrament, but the water must be added to the wine at the actual celebration of the sacrament.

QUESTION OF THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE INTO THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST (EIGHT ARTICLES)

We have to consider the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ; under which head there are eight points of inquiry: (1) Whether the substance of bread and wine remain in this sacrament after the consecration?* (2) Whether it is annihilated? (3) Whether it is changed into the body and blood of Christ? (4) Whether the accidents remain after the change? (5) Whether the substantial form remains there? (6) Whether this change is instantaneous? (7) Whether it is more miraculous than any other change? (8) By what words it may be suitably expressed? [*The titles of the Articles here given were taken by St. Thomas from his Commentary on the Sentences (Sent. iv, D, 90). However, in writing the Articles he introduced a new point of inquiry, that of the First Article; and substituted another division of the matter under discussion, as may be seen by referring to the titles of the various Articles. Most editions have ignored St. Thomas’s original division, and give the one to which he subsequently adhered.]

P(3)- Q(75)- A(1) Whether the body of Christ be in this sacrament in very truth, or merely as in a figure or sign?

P(3)- Q(75)- A(1)- O(1) —

It seems that the body of Christ is not in this sacrament in very truth, but only as in a figure, or sign. For it is written ( John 6:54) that when our Lord had uttered these words: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood,” etc., “Many of His disciples on hearing it said: ‘this is a hard saying’“: to whom He rejoined: “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing”: as if He were to say, according to Augustine’s exposition on Psalm 4 [*On Psalm 98:9]: “Give a spiritual meaning to what I have said. You are not to eat this body which you see, nor to drink the blood which they who crucify Me are to spill. It is a mystery that I put before you: in its spiritual sense it will quicken you; but the flesh profiteth nothing.”

P(3)- Q(75)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, our Lord said ( Matthew 28:20): “Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.”

Now in explaining this, Augustine makes this observation (Tract. xxx in Joan.): “The Lord is on high until the world be ended; nevertheless the truth of the Lord is here with us; for the body, in which He rose again, must be in one place; but His truth is spread abroad everywhere.”

Therefore, the body of Christ is not in this sacrament in very truth, but only as in a sign.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, no body can be in several places at the one time. For this does not even belong to an angel; since for the same reason it could be everywhere. But Christ’s is a true body, and it is in heaven. Consequently, it seems that it is not in very truth in the sacrament of the altar, but only as in a sign.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(1)- O(4) —

Further, the Church’s sacraments are ordained for the profit of the faithful. But according to Gregory in a certain Homily (xxviii in Evang.), the ruler is rebuked “for demanding Christ’s bodily presence.” Moreover the apostles were prevented from receiving the Holy Ghost because they were attached to His bodily presence, as Augustine says on John 16:7: “Except I go, the Paraclete will not come to you” (Tract. xciv in Joan.). Therefore Christ is not in the sacrament of the altar according to His bodily presence.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(1) —

On the contrary, Hilary says (De Trin. viii): “There is no room for doubt regarding the truth of Christ’s body and blood; for now by our Lord’s own declaring and by our faith His flesh is truly food, and His blood is truly drink.” And Ambrose says (De Sacram. vi): “As the Lord Jesus Christ is God’s true Son so is it Christ’s true flesh which we take, and His true blood which we drink.”

P(3)- Q(75)- A(1) —

I answer that, The presence of Christ’s true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority. Hence, on Luke 22:19: “This is My body which shall be delivered up for you,” Cyril says: “Doubt not whether this be true; but take rather the Saviour’s words with faith; for since He is the Truth, He lieth not.”

Now this is suitable, first for the perfection of the New Law. For, the sacrifices of the Old Law contained only in figure that true sacrifice of Christ’s Passion, according to Hebrews 10:1: “For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things.”

And therefore it was necessary that the sacrifice of the New Law instituted by Christ should have something more, namely, that it should contain Christ Himself crucified, not merely in signification or figure, but also in very truth. And therefore this sacrament which contains Christ Himself, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), is perfective of all the other sacraments, in which Christ’s virtue is participated.

Secondly, this belongs to Christ’s love, out of which for our salvation He assumed a true body of our nature. And because it is the special feature of friendship to live together with friends, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix), He promises us His bodily presence as a reward, saying ( Matthew 24:28): “Where the body is, there shall the eagles be gathered together.”

Yet meanwhile in our pilgrimage He does not deprive us of His bodily presence; but unites us with Himself in this sacrament through the truth of His body and blood. Hence ( John 6:57) he says: “He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him.”

Hence this sacrament is the sign of supreme charity, and the uplifter of our hope, from such familiar union of Christ with us.

Thirdly, it belongs to the perfection of faith, which concerns His humanity just as it does His Godhead, according to John 14:1: “You believe in God, believe also in Me.” And since faith is of things unseen, as Christ shows us His Godhead invisibly, so also in this sacrament He shows us His flesh in an invisible manner.

Some men accordingly, not paying heed to these things, have contended that Christ’s body and blood are not in this sacrament except as in a sign, a thing to be rejected as heretical, since it is contrary to Christ’s words.

Hence Berengarius, who had been the first deviser of this heresy, was afterwards forced to withdraw his error, and to acknowledge the truth of the faith.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(1)- RO(1) —

From this authority the aforesaid heretics have taken occasion to err from evilly understanding Augustine’s words. For when Augustine says: “You are not to eat this body which you see,” he means not to exclude the truth of Christ’s body, but that it was not to be eaten in this species in which it was seen by them. And by the words: “It is a mystery that I put before you; in its spiritual sense it will quicken you,” he intends not that the body of Christ is in this sacrament merely according to mystical signification, but “spiritually,” that is, invisibly, and by the power of the spirit. Hence (Tract. xxvii), expounding John 6:64: “the flesh profiteth nothing,” he says: “Yea, but as they understood it, for they understood that the flesh was to be eaten as it is divided piecemeal in a dead body, or as sold in the shambles, not as it is quickened by the spirit... Let the spirit draw nigh to the flesh... then the flesh profiteth very much: for if the flesh profiteth nothing, the Word had not been made flesh, that It might dwell among us.”

P(3)- Q(75)- A(1)- RO(2) —

That saying of Augustine and all others like it are to be understood of Christ’s body as it is beheld in its proper species; according as our Lord Himself says ( Matthew 26:11): “But Me you have not always.” Nevertheless He is invisibly under the species of this sacrament, wherever this sacrament is performed.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(1)- RO(3) —

Christ’s body is not in this sacrament in the same way as a body is in a place, which by its dimensions is commensurate with the place; but in a special manner which is proper to this sacrament. Hence we say that Christ’s body is upon many altars, not as in different places, but “sacramentally”: and thereby we do not understand that Christ is there only as in a sign, although a sacrament is a kind of sign; but that Christ’s body is here after a fashion proper to this sacrament, as stated above.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(1)- RO(4) —

This argument holds good of Christ’s bodily presence, as He is present after the manner of a body, that is, as it is in its visible appearance, but not as it is spiritually, that is, invisibly, after the manner and by the virtue of the spirit. Hence Augustine (Tract. xxvii in Joan.) says: “If thou hast understood” Christ’s words spiritually concerning His flesh, “they are spirit and life to thee; if thou hast understood them carnally, they are also spirit and life, but not to thee.”

P(3)- Q(75)- A(2) Whether in this sacrament the substance of the bread and wine remains after the consecration?

P(3)- Q(75)- A(2)- O(1) —

It seems that the substance of the bread and wine does remain in this sacrament after the consecration: because Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): “Since it is customary for men to eat bread and drink wine, God has wedded his Godhead to them, and made them His body and blood”: and further on: “The bread of communication is not simple bread, but is united to the Godhead.” But wedding together belongs to things actually existing. Therefore the bread and wine are at the same time, in this sacrament, with the body and the blood of Christ.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, there ought to be conformity between the sacraments. But in the other sacraments the substance of the matter remains, like the substance of water in Baptism, and the substance of chrism in Confirmation. Therefore the substance of the bread and wine remains also in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, bread and wine are made use of in this sacrament, inasmuch as they denote ecclesiastical unity, as “one bread is made from many grains and wine from many grapes,” as Augustine says in his book on the Creed (Tract. xxvi in Joan.). But this belongs to the substance of bread and wine. Therefore, the substance of the bread and wine remains in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(2) —

On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): “Although the figure of the bread and wine be seen, still, after the Consecration, they are to be believed to be nothing else than the body end blood of Christ.”

P(3)- Q(75)- A(2) —

I answer that, Some have held that the substance of the bread and wine remains in this sacrament after the consecration. But this opinion cannot stand: first of all, because by such an opinion the truth of this sacrament is destroyed, to which it belongs that Christ’s true body exists in this sacrament; which indeed was not there before the consecration. Now a thing cannot be in any place, where it was not previously, except by change of place, or by the conversion of another thing into itself; just as fire begins anew to be in some house, either because it is carried thither, or because it is generated there. Now it is evident that Christ’s body does not begin to be present in this sacrament by local motion. First of all, because it would follow that it would cease to be in heaven: for what is moved locally does not come anew to some place unless it quit the former one. Secondly, because every body moved locally passes through all intermediary spaces, which cannot be said here. Thirdly, because it is not possible for one movement of the same body moved locally to be terminated in different places at the one time, whereas the body of Christ under this sacrament begins at the one time to be in several places. And consequently it remains that Christ’s body cannot begin to be anew in this sacrament except by change of the substance of bread into itself. But what is changed into another thing, no longer remains after such change. Hence the conclusion is that, saving the truth of this sacrament, the substance of the bread cannot remain after the consecration.

Secondly, because this position is contrary to the form of this sacrament, in which it is said: “This is My body,” which would not be true if the substance of the bread were to remain there; for the substance of bread never is the body of Christ. Rather should one say in that case: “Here is My body.”

Thirdly, because it would be opposed to the veneration of this sacrament, if any substance were there, which could not be adored with adoration of latria.

Fourthly, because it is contrary to the rite of the Church, according to which it is not lawful to take the body of Christ after bodily food, while it is nevertheless lawful to take one consecrated host after another. Hence this opinion is to be avoided as heretical.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(2)- RO(1) —

God “wedded His Godhead,” i.e. His Divine power, to the bread and wine, not that these may remain in this sacrament, but in order that He may make from them His body and blood.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(2)- RO(2) —

Christ is not really present in the other sacraments, as in this; and therefore the substance of the matter remains in the other sacraments, but not in this.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(2)- RO(3) —

The species which remain in this sacrament, as shall be said later ( A(5) ), suffice for its signification; because the nature of the substance is known by its accidents.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(3) Whether the substance of the bread or wine is annihilated after the consecration of this sacrament, or dissolved into their original matter?

P(3)- Q(75)- A(3)- O(1) —

It seems that the substance of the bread is annihilated after the consecration of this sacrament, or dissolved into its original matter. For whatever is corporeal must be somewhere. But the substance of bread, which is something corporeal, does not remain, in this sacrament, as stated above ( A(2) ); nor can we assign any place where it may be. Consequently it is nothing after the consecration. Therefore, it is either annihilated, or dissolved into its original matter.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, what is the term “wherefrom” in every change exists no longer, except in the potentiality of matter; e.g. when air is changed into fire, the form of the air remains only in the potentiality of matter; and in like fashion when what is white becomes black. But in this sacrament the substance of the bread or of the wine is the term “wherefrom,” while the body or the blood of Christ is the term “whereunto”: for Ambrose says in De Officiis (De Myster. ix): “Before the blessing it is called another species, after the blessing the body of Christ is signified.” Therefore, when the consecration takes place, the substance of the bread or wine no longer remains, unless perchance dissolved into its (original) matter.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, one of two contradictories must be true. But this proposition is false: “After the consecration the substance of the bread or wine is something.” Consequently, this is true: “The substance of the bread or wine is nothing.”

P(3)- Q(75)- A(3) —

On the contrary, Augustine says ( Q(83) ): “God is not the cause of tending to nothing.” But this sacrament is wrought by Divine power. Therefore, in this sacrament the substance of the bread or wine is not annihilated.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(3) —

I answer that, Because the substance of the bread and wine does not remain in this sacrament, some, deeming that it is impossible for the substance of the bread and wine to be changed into Christ’s flesh and blood, have maintained that by the consecration, the substance of the bread and wine is either dissolved into the original matter, or that it is annihilated.

Now the original matter into which mixed bodies can be dissolved is the four elements. For dissolution cannot be made into primary matter, so that a subject can exist without a form, since matter cannot exist without a form. But since after the consecration nothing remains under the sacramental species except the body and the blood of Christ, it will be necessary to say that the elements into which the substance of the bread and wine is dissolved, depart from thence by local motion, which would be perceived by the senses. In like manner also the substance of the bread or wine remains until the last instant of the consecration; but in the last instant of the consecration there is already present there the substance of the body or blood of Christ, just as the form is already present in the last instant of generation. Hence no instant can be assigned in which the original matter can be there. For it cannot be said that the substance of the bread or wine is dissolved gradually into the original matter, or that it successively quits the species, for if this began to be done in the last instant of its consecration, then at the one time under part of the host there would be the body of Christ together with the substance of bread, which is contrary to what has been said above ( A(2) ). But if this begin to come to pass before the consecration, there will then be a time in which under one part of the host there will be neither the substance of bread nor the body of Christ, which is not fitting. They seem indeed to have taken this into careful consideration, wherefore they formulated their proposition with an alternative viz. that (the substance) may be annihilated. But even this cannot stand, because no way can be assigned whereby Christ’s true body can begin to be in this sacrament, except by the change of the substance of bread into it, which change is excluded the moment we admit either annihilation of the substance of the bread, or dissolution into the original matter. Likewise no cause can be assigned for such dissolution or annihilation, since the effect of the sacrament is signified by the form: “This is My body.” Hence it is clear that the aforesaid opinion is false.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(3)- RO(1) —

The substance of the bread or wine, after the consecration, remains neither under the sacramental species, nor elsewhere; yet it does not follow that it is annihilated; for it is changed into the body of Christ; just as if the air, from which fire is generated, be not there or elsewhere, it does not follow that it is annihilated.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(3)- RO(2) —

The form, which is the term “wherefrom,” is not changed into another form; but one form succeeds another in the subject; and therefore the first form remains only in the potentiality of matter. But here the substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, as stated above. Hence the conclusion does not follow.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(3)- RO(3) —

Although after the consecration this proposition is false: “The substance of the breed is something,” still that into which the substance of the bread is changed, is something, and consequently the substance of the bread is not annihilated.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(4) Whether bread can be converted into the body of Christ?

P(3)- Q(75)- A(4)- O(1) —

It seems that bread cannot be converted into the body of Christ. For conversion is a kind of change. But in every change there must be some subject, which from being previously in potentiality is now in act. because as is said in Phys. iii: “motion is the act of a thing existing in potentiality.” But no subject can be assigned for the substance of the bread and of the body of Christ, because it is of the very nature of substance for it “not to be in a subject,” as it is said in Praedic. 3:Therefore it is not possible for the whole substance of the bread to be converted into the body of Christ.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, the form of the thing into which another is converted, begins anew to inhere in the matter of the thing converted into it: as when air is changed into fire not already existing, the form of fire begins anew to be in the matter of the air; and in like manner when food is converted into non-pre-existing man, the form of the man begins to be anew in the matter of the food. Therefore, if bread be changed into the body of Christ, the form of Christ’s body must necessarily begin to be in the matter of the bread, which is false. Consequently, the bread is not changed into the substance of Christ’s body.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, when two things are diverse, one never becomes the other, as whiteness never becomes blackness, as is stated in Phys. 1:But since two contrary forms are of themselves diverse, as being the principles of formal difference, so two signate matters are of themselves diverse, as being the principles of material distinction.

Consequently, it is not possible for this matter of bread to become this matter whereby Christ’s body is individuated, and so it is not possible for this substance of bread to be changed into the substance of Christ’s body.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(4) —

On the contrary, Eusebius Emesenus says: “To thee it ought neither to be a novelty nor an impossibility that earthly and mortal things be changed into the substance of Christ.”

P(3)- Q(75)- A(4) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(2) ), since Christ’s true body is in this sacrament, and since it does not begin to be there by local motion, nor is it contained therein as in a place, as is evident from what was stated above ( A(1), ad 2), it must be said then that it begins to be there by conversion of the substance of bread into itself.

Yet this change is not like natural changes, but is entirely supernatural, and effected by God’s power alone. Hence Ambrose says [(De Sacram. iv): “See how Christ’s word changes nature’s laws, as He wills: a man is not wont to be born save of man and woman: see therefore that against the established law and order a man is born of a Virgin”: and] [*The passage in the brackets is not in the Leonine edition] (De Myster. iv): “It is clear that a Virgin begot beyond the order of nature: and what we make is the body from the Virgin. Why, then, do you look for nature’s order in Christ’s body, since the Lord Jesus was Himself brought forth of a Virgin beyond nature?” Chrysostom likewise (Hom. xlvii), commenting on John 6:64: “The words which I have spoken to you,” namely, of this sacrament, “are spirit and life,” says: i.e. “spiritual, having nothing carnal, nor natural consequence; but they are rent from all such necessity which exists upon earth, and from the laws here established.”

For it is evident that every agent acts according as it is in act. But every created agent is limited in its act, as being of a determinate genus and species: and consequently the action of every created agent bears upon some determinate act. Now the determination of every thing in actual existence comes from its form. Consequently, no natural or created agent can act except by changing the form in something; and on this account every change made according to nature’s laws is a formal change. But God is infinite act, as stated in the P(1), Q(7) , A(1) ; Q(26), A(2) ; hence His action extends to the whole nature of being. Therefore He can work not only formal conversion, so that diverse forms succeed each other in the same subject; but also the change of all being, so that, to wit, the whole substance of one thing be changed into the whole substance of another.

And this is done by Divine power in this sacrament; for the whole substance of the bread is changed into the whole substance of Christ’s body, and the whole substance of the wine into the whole substance of Christ’s blood. Hence this is not a formal, but a substantial conversion; nor is it a kind of natural movement: but, with a name of its own, it can be called “transubstantiation.”

P(3)- Q(75)- A(4)- RO(1) —

This objection holds good in respect of formal change, because it belongs to a form to be in matter or in a subject; but it does not hold good in respect of the change of the entire substance. Hence, since this substantial change implies a certain order of substances, one of which is changed into the other, it is in both substances as in a subject, just as order and number.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(4)- RO(2) —

This argument also is true of formal conversion or change, because, as stated above (ad 1), a form must be in some matter or subject. But this is not so in a change of the entire substance; for in this case no subject is possible.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(4)- RO(3) —

Form cannot be changed into form, nor matter into matter by the power of any finite agent. Such a change, however, can be made by the power of an infinite agent, which has control over all being, because the nature of being is common to both forms and to both matters; and whatever there is of being in the one, the author of being can change into whatever there is of being in the other, withdrawing that whereby it was distinguished from the other.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(5) Whether the accidents of the bread and wine remain in this sacrament after the change?

P(3)- Q(75)- A(5)- O(1) —

It seems that the accidents of the bread and wine do not remain in this sacrament. For when that which comes first is removed, that which follows is also taken away. But substance is naturally before accident, as is proved in Metaph. 7 Since, then, after consecration, the substance of the bread does not remain in this sacrament, it seems that its accidents cannot remain.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, there ought not to be any deception in a sacrament of truth. But we judge of substance by accidents. It seems, then, that human judgment is deceived, if, while the accidents remain, the substance of the bread does not. Consequently this is unbecoming to this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, although our faith is not subject to reason, still it is not contrary to reason, but above it, as was said in the beginning of this work ( P(1), Q(1) , A(6), ad 2; A(8) ). But our reason has its origin in the senses. Therefore our faith ought not to be contrary to the senses, as it is when sense judges that to be bread which faith believes to be the substance of Christ’s body. Therefore it is not befitting this sacrament for the accidents of bread to remain subject to the senses, and for the substance of bread not to remain.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(5)- O(4) —

Further, what remains after the change has taken place seems to be the subject of change. If therefore the accidents of the bread remain after the change has been effected, it seems that the accidents are the subject of the change. But this is impossible; for “an accident cannot have an accident” (Metaph. iii). Therefore the accidents of the bread and wine ought not to remain in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(5) —

On the contrary, Augustine says in his book on the Sentences of Prosper (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xiii): “Under the species which we behold, of bread and wine, we honor invisible things, i.e. flesh and blood.”

P(3)- Q(75)- A(5) —

I answer that, It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood.

And therefore Christ’s flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might be derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own species.

Thirdly, that while we receive our Lord’s body and blood invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(5)- RO(1) —

As is said in the book De Causis, an effect depends more on the first cause than on the second. And therefore by God’s power, which is the first cause of all things, it is possible for that which follows to remain, while that which is first is taken away.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(5)- RO(2) —

There is no deception in this sacrament; for the accidents which are discerned by the senses are truly present. But the intellect, whose proper object is substance as is said in De Anima iii, is preserved by faith from deception.

And this serves as answer to the third argument; because faith is not contrary to the senses, but concerns things to which sense does not reach.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(5)- RO(4) —

This change has not properly a subject, as was stated above ( A(4), ad 1); nevertheless the accidents which remain have some resemblance of a subject.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(6) Whether the substantial form of the bread remains in this sacrament after the consecration?

P(3)- Q(75)- A(6)- O(1) —

It seems that the substantial form of the bread remains in this sacrament after the consecration. For it has been said ( A(5) ) that the accidents remain after the consecration. But since bread is an artificial thing, its form is an accident. Therefore it remains after the consecration.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(6)- O(2) —

Further, the form of Christ’s body is His soul: for it is said in De Anima ii, that the soul “is the act of a physical body which has life in potentiality”. But it cannot be said that the substantial form of the bread is changed into the soul. Therefore it appears that it remains after the consecration.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(6)- O(3) —

Further, the proper operation of a things follows its substantial form. But what remains in this sacrament, nourishes, and performs every operation which bread would do were it present. Therefore the substantial form of the bread remains in this sacrament after the consecration.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(6) —

On the contrary, The substantial form of bread is of the substance of bread. But the substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, as stated above ( AA(2),3,4 ). Therefore the substantial form of the bread does not remain.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(6) —

I answer that, Some have contended that after the consecration not only do the accidents of the bread remain, but also its substantial form. But this cannot be. First of all, because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain, nothing of the bread would be changed into the body of Christ, excepting the matter; and so it would follow that it would be changed, not into the whole body of Christ, but into its matter, which is repugnant to the form of the sacrament, wherein it is said: “This is My body.”

Secondly, because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain, it would remain either in matter, or separated from matter. The first cannot be, for if it were to remain in the matter of the bread, then the whole substance of the bread would remain, which is against what was said above ( A(2) ). Nor could it remain in any other matter, because the proper form exists only in its proper matter. But if it were to remain separate from matter, it would then be an actually intelligible form, and also an intelligence; for all forms separated from matter are such.

Thirdly, it would be unbefitting this sacrament: because the accidents of the bread remain in this sacrament, in order that the body of Christ may be seen under them, and not under its proper species, as stated above ( A(5) ).

And therefore it must be said that the substantial form of the bread does not remain.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(6)- RO(1) —

There is nothing to prevent art from making a thing whose form is not an accident, but a substantial form; as frogs and serpents can be produced by art: for art produces such forms not by its own power, but by the power of natural energies. And in this way it produces the substantial forms of bread, by the power of fire baking the matter made up of flour and water.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(6)- RO(2) —

The soul is the form of the body, giving it the whole order of perfect being, i.e. being, corporeal being, and animated being, and so on. Therefore the form of the bread is changed into the form of Christ’s body, according as the latter gives corporeal being, but not according as it bestows animated being.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(6)- RO(3) —

Some of the operations of bread follow it by reason of the accidents, such as to affect the senses, and such operations are found in the species of the bread after the consecration on account of the accidents which remain. But some other operations follow the bread either by reason of the matter, such as that it is changed into something else, or else by reason of the substantial form, such as an operation consequent upon its species, for instance, that it “strengthens man’s heart” ( <19A315> Psalm 103:15); and such operations are found in this sacrament, not on account of the form or matter remaining, but because they are bestowed miraculously upon the accidents themselves, as will be said later ( Q(77), A(3), ad 2,3; AA(5),6 ).

P(3)- Q(75)- A(7) Whether this change is wrought instantaneously?

P(3)- Q(75)- A(7)- O(1) —

It seems that this change is not wrought instantaneously, but successively. For in this change there is first the substance of bread, and afterwards the substance of Christ’s body.

Neither, then, is in the same instant, but in two instants. But there is a mid-time between every two instants. Therefore this change must take place according to the succession of time, which is between the last instant in which the bread is there, and the first instant in which the body of Christ is present.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(7)- O(2) —

Further, in every change something is “in becoming” and something is “in being.” But these two things do not exist at the one time for, what is “in becoming,” is not yet, whereas what is “in being,” already is. Consequently, there is a before and an after in such change: and so necessarily the change cannot be instantaneous, but successive.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(7)- O(3) —

Further, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv) that this sacrament “is made by the words of Christ.” But Christ’s words are pronounced successively. Therefore the change takes place successively.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(7) —

On the contrary, This change is effected by a power which is infinite, to which it belongs to operate in an instant.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(7) —

I answer that, A change may be instantaneous from a threefold reason. First on the part of the form, which is the terminus of the change. For, if it be a form that receives more and less, it is acquired by its subject successively, such as health; and therefore because a substantial form does not receive more and less, it follows that its introduction into matter is instantaneous.

Secondly on the part of the subject, which sometimes is prepared successively for receiving the form; thus water is heated successively.

When, however, the subject itself is in the ultimate disposition for receiving the form, it receives it suddenly, as a transparent body is illuminated suddenly. Thirdly on the part of the agent, which possesses infinite power: wherefore it can instantly dispose the matter for the form.

Thus it is written ( Mark 7:34) that when Christ had said, “‘Ephpheta,’ which is ‘Be thou opened,’ immediately his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed.”

For these three reasons this conversion is instantaneous. First, because the substance of Christ’s body which is the term of this conversion, does not receive more or less. Secondly, because in this conversion there is no subject to be disposed successively. Thirdly, because it is effected by God’s infinite power.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(7)- RO(1) —

Some [*Cf. Albert the Great, Sent. iv, D, 11; St. Bonaventure, Sent., iv, D, 11] do not grant simply that there is a midtime between every two instants. For they say that this is true of two instants referring to the same movement, but not if they refer to different things. Hence between the instant that marks the close of rest, and another which marks the beginning of movement, there is no mid-time. But in this they are mistaken, because the unity of time and of instant, or even their plurality, is not taken according to movements of any sort, but according to the first movement of the heavens, which is the measure of all movement and rest.

Accordingly others grant this of the time which measures movement depending on the movement of the heavens. But there are some movements which are not dependent on the movement of the heavens, nor measured by it, as was said in the P(1), Q(53), A(3)- concerning the movements of the angels. Hence between two instants responding to those movements there is no mid-time. But this is not to the point, because although the change in question has no relation of itself to the movement of the heavens, still it follows the pronouncing of the words, which (pronouncing) must necessarily be measured by the movement of the heavens. And therefore there must of necessity be a mid-time between every two signate instants in connection with that change.

Some say therefore that the instant in which the bread was last, and the instant in which the body of Christ is first, are indeed two in comparison with the things measured, but are one comparatively to the time measuring; as when two lines touch, there are two points on the part of the two lines, but one point on the part of the place containing them. But here there is no likeness, because instant and time is not the intrinsic measure of particular movements, as a line and point are of a body, but only the extrinsic measure, as place is to bodies.

Hence others say that it is the same instant in fact, but another according to reason. But according to this it would follow that things really opposite would exist together; for diversity of reason does not change a thing objectively.

And therefore it must be said that this change, as stated above, is wrought by Christ’s words which are spoken by the priest, so that the last instant of pronouncing the words is the first instant in which Christ’s body is in the sacrament; and that the substance of the bread is there during the whole preceding time. Of this time no instant is to be taken as proximately preceding the last one, because time is not made up of successive instants, as is proved in Phys. 6. And therefore a first instant can be assigned in which Christ’s body is present; but a last instant cannot be assigned in which the substance of bread is there, but a last time can be assigned. And the same holds good in natural changes, as is evident from the Philosopher (Phys. viii).

P(3)- Q(75)- A(7)- RO(2) —

In instantaneous changes a thing is “in becoming,” and is “in being” simultaneously; just as becoming illuminated and to be actually illuminated are simultaneous: for in such, a thing is said to be “in being” according as it now is; but to be “in becoming,” according as it was not before.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(7)- RO(3) —

As stated above (ad 1), this change comes about in the last instant of the pronouncing of the words. for then the meaning of the words is finished, which meaning is efficacious in the forms of the sacraments. And therefore it does not follow that this change is successive.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(8) Whether this proposition is false: “The body of Christ is made out of bread”?

P(3)- Q(75)- A(8)- O(1) —

It seems that this proposition is false: “The body of Christ is made out of bread.” For everything out of which another is made, is that which is made the other; but not conversely: for we say that a black thing is made out of a white thing, and that a white thing is made black: and although we may say that a man becomes black still we do not say that a black thing is made out of a man, as is shown in Phys. 1:If it be true, then, that Christ’s body is made out of bread, it will be true to say that bread is made the body of Christ. But this seems to be false, because the bread is not the subject of the making, but rather its term. Therefore, it is not said truly that Christ’s body is made out of bread.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(8)- O(2) —

Further, the term of “becoming” is something that is, or something that is “made.” But this proposition is never true: “The bread is the body of Christ”; or “The bread is made the body of Christ”; or again, “The bread will be the body of Christ.” Therefore it seems that not even this is true: “The body of Christ is made out of bread.”

P(3)- Q(75)- A(8)- O(3) —

Further, everything out of which another is made is converted into that which is made from it. But this proposition seems to be false: “The bread is converted into the body of Christ,” because such conversion seems to be more miraculous than the creation of the world, in which it is not said that non-being is converted into being.

Therefore it seems that this proposition likewise is false: “The body of Christ is made out of bread.”

P(3)- Q(75)- A(8)- O(4) —

Further, that out of which something is made, can be that thing. But this proposition is false: “Bread can be the body of Christ.” Therefore this is likewise false: “The body of Christ is made out of bread.”

P(3)- Q(75)- A(8) —

On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): “When the consecration takes place, the body of Christ is made out of the bread.”

P(3)- Q(75)- A(8) —

I answer that, This conversion of bread into the body of Christ has something in common with creation, and with natural transmutation, and in some respect differs from both. For the order of the terms is common to these three; that is, that after one thing there is another (for, in creation there is being after non-being; in this sacrament, Christ’s body after the substance of bread; in natural transmutation white after black, or fire after air); and that the aforesaid terms are not coexistent.

Now the conversion, of which we are speaking, has this in common with creation, that in neither of them is there any common subject belonging to either of the extremes; the contrary of which appears in every natural transmutation.

Again, this conversion has something in common with natural transmutation in two respects, although not in the same fashion. First of all because in both, one of the extremes passes into the other, as bread into Christ’s body, and air into fire; whereas non-being is not converted into being. But this comes to pass differently on the one side and on the other; for in this sacrament the whole substance of the bread passes into the whole body of Christ; whereas in natural transmutation the matter of the one receives the form of the other, the previous form being laid aside.

Secondly, they have this in common, that on both sides something remains the same; whereas this does not happen in creation: yet differently; for the same matter or subject remains in natural transmutation; whereas in this sacrament the same accidents remain.

From these observations we can gather the various ways of speaking in such matters. For, because in no one of the aforesaid three things are the extremes coexistent, therefore in none of them can one extreme be predicated of the other by the substantive verb of the present tense: for we do not say, “Non-being is being” or, “Bread is the body of Christ,” or, “Air is fire,” or, “White is black.” Yet because of the relationship of the extremes in all of them we can use the preposition “ex” [out of], which denotes order; for we can truly and properly say that “being is made out of non-being,” and “out of bread, the body of Christ,” and “out of air, fire,” and “out of white, black.” But because in creation one of the extremes does not pass into the other, we cannot use the word “conversion” in creation, so as to say that “non-being is converted into being”: we can, however, use the word in this sacrament, just as in natural transmutation. But since in this sacrament the whole substance is converted into the whole substance, on that account this conversion is properly termed transubstantiation.

Again, since there is no subject of this conversion, the things which are true in natural conversion by reason of the subject, are not to be granted in this conversion. And in the first place indeed it is evident that potentiality to the opposite follows a subject, by reason whereof we say that “a white thing can be black,” or that “air can be fire”; although the latter is not so proper as the former: for the subject of whiteness, in which there is potentiality to blackness, is the whole substance of the white thing; since whiteness is not a part thereof; whereas the subject of the form of air is part thereof: hence when it is said, “Air can be fire,” it is verified by synecdoche by reason of the part. But in this conversion, and similarly in creation, because there is no subject, it is not said that one extreme can be the other, as that “non-being can be being,” or that “bread can be the body of Christ”: and for the same reason it cannot be properly said that “being is made of [de] non-being,” or that “the body of Christ is made of bread,” because this preposition “of” [de] denotes a consubstantial cause, which consubstantiality of the extremes in natural transmutations is considered according to something common in the subject. And for the same reason it is not granted that “bread will be the body of Christ,” or that it “may become the body of Christ,” just as it is not granted in creation that “nonbeing will be being,” or that “non-being may become being,” because this manner of speaking is verified in natural transmutations by reason of the subject: for instance, when we say that “a white thing becomes black,” or “a white thing will be black.”

Nevertheless, since in this sacrament, after the change, something remains the same, namely, the accidents of the bread, as stated above ( A(5) ), some of these expressions may be admitted by way of similitude, namely, that “bread is the body of Christ,” or, “bread will be the body of Christ,” or “the body of Christ is made of bread”; provided that by the word “bread” is not understood the substance of bread, but in general “that which is contained under the species of bread,” under which species there is first contained the substance of bread, and afterwards the body of Christ.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(8)- RO(1) —

That out of which something else is made, sometimes implies together with the subject, one of the extremes of the transmutation, as when it is said “a black thing is made out of a white one”; but sometimes it implies only the opposite or the extreme, as when it is said — ”out of morning comes the day.” And so it is not granted that the latter becomes the former, that is, “that morning becomes the day.” So likewise in the matter in hand, although it may be said properly that “the body of Christ is made out of bread,” yet it is not said properly that “bread becomes the body of Christ,” except by similitude, as was said above.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(8)- RO(2) —

That out of which another is made, will sometimes be that other because of the subject which is implied. And therefore, since there is no subject of this change, the comparison does not hold.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(8)- RO(3) —

In this change there are many more difficulties than in creation, in which there is but this one difficulty, that something is made out of nothing; yet this belongs to the proper mode of production of the first cause, which presupposes nothing else. But in this conversion not only is it difficult for this whole to be changed into that whole, so that nothing of the former may remain (which does not belong to the common mode of production of a cause), but furthermore it has this difficulty that the accidents remain while the substance is destroyed, and many other difficulties of which we shall treat hereafter ( Q(77) ). Nevertheless the word “conversion” is admitted in this sacrament, but not in creation, as stated above.

P(3)- Q(75)- A(8)- RO(4) —

As was observed above, potentiality belongs to the subject, whereas there is no subject in this conversion. And therefore it is not granted that bread can be the body of Christ: for this conversion does not come about by the passive potentiality of the creature, but solely by the active power of the Creator.

QUESTION OF THE WAY IN WHICH CHRIST IS IN THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)

We have now to consider the manner in which Christ exists in this sacrament; and under this head there are eight points of inquiry: (1) Whether the whole Christ is under this sacrament? (2) Whether the entire Christ is under each species of the sacrament? (3) Whether the entire Christ is under every part of the species? (4) Whether all the dimensions of Christ’s body are in this sacrament? (5) Whether the body of Christ is in this sacrament locally? (6) Whether after the consecration, the body of Christ is moved when the host or chalice is moved? (7) Whether Christ’s body, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by the eye? (8) Whether the true body of Christ remains in this sacrament when He is seen under the appearance of a child or of flesh?

P(3)- Q(76)- A(1) Whether the whole Christ is contained under this sacrament?

P(3)- Q(76)- A(1)- O(1) —

It seems that the whole Christ is not contained under this sacrament, because Christ begins to be in this sacrament by conversion of the bread and wine. But it is evident that the bread and wine cannot be changed either into the Godhead or into the soul of Christ. Since therefore Christ exists in three substances, namely, the Godhead, soul and body, as shown above ( Q(2) , A(5) ; Q(5) , AA(1),3 ), it seems that the entire Christ is not under this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, Christ is in this sacrament, forasmuch as it is ordained to the refection of the faithful, which consists in food and drink, as stated above ( Q(74), A(1) ). But our Lord said ( John 6:56): “My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.” Therefore, only the flesh and blood of Christ are contained in this sacrament. But there are many other parts of Christ’s body, for instance, the nerves, bones, and such like. Therefore the entire Christ is not contained under this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, a body of greater quantity cannot be contained under the measure of a lesser. But the measure of the bread and wine is much smaller than the measure of Christ’s body. Therefore it is impossible that the entire Christ be contained under this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(1) —

On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Officiis): “Christ is in this sacrament.”

P(3)- Q(76)- A(1) —

I answer that, It is absolutely necessary to confess according to Catholic faith that the entire Christ is in this sacrament. Yet we must know that there is something of Christ in this sacrament in a twofold manner: first, as it were, by the power of the sacrament; secondly, from natural concomitance. By the power of the sacrament, there is under the species of this sacrament that into which the pre-existing substance of the bread and wine is changed, as expressed by the words of the form, which are effective in this as in the other sacraments; for instance, by the words: “This is My body,” or, “This is My blood.” But from natural concomitance there is also in this sacrament that which is really united with that thing wherein the aforesaid conversion is terminated. For if any two things be really united, then wherever the one is really, there must the other also be: since things really united together are only distinguished by an operation of the mind.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(1)- RO(1) —

Because the change of the bread and wine is not terminated at the Godhead or the soul of Christ, it follows as a consequence that the Godhead or the soul of Christ is in this sacrament not by the power of the sacrament, but from real concomitance. For since the Godhead never set aside the assumed body, wherever the body of Christ is, there, of necessity, must the Godhead be; and therefore it is necessary for the Godhead to be in this sacrament concomitantly with His body.

Hence we read in the profession of faith at Ephesus (P. I., chap. xxvi): “We are made partakers of the body and blood of Christ, not as taking common flesh, nor as of a holy man united to the Word in dignity, but the truly life-giving flesh of the Word Himself.”

On the other hand, His soul was truly separated from His body, as stated above ( Q(50), A(5) ). And therefore had this sacrament been celebrated during those three days when He was dead, the soul of Christ would not have been there, neither by the power of the sacrament, nor from real concomitance. But since “Christ rising from the dead dieth now no more” ( Romans 6:9), His soul is always really united with His body. And therefore in this sacrament the body indeed of Christ is present by the power of the sacrament, but His soul from real concomitance.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(1)- RO(2) —

By the power of the sacrament there is contained under it, as to the species of the bread, not only the flesh, but the entire body of Christ, that is, the bones the nerves, and the like. And this is apparent from the form of this sacrament, wherein it is not said: “This is My flesh,” but “This is My body.” Accordingly, when our Lord said ( John 6:56): “My flesh is meat indeed,” there the word flesh is put for the entire body, because according to human custom it seems to be more adapted for eating, as men commonly are fed on the flesh of animals, but not on the bones or the like.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(1)- RO(3) —

As has been already stated ( Q(75), A(5) ), after the consecration of the bread into the body of Christ, or of the wine into His blood, the accidents of both remain. From which it is evident that the dimensions of the bread or wine are not changed into the dimensions of the body of Christ, but substance into substance. And so the substance of Christ’s body or blood is under this sacrament by the power of the sacrament, but not the dimensions of Christ’s body or blood. Hence it is clear that the body of Christ is in this sacrament “by way of substance,” and not by way of quantity. But the proper totality of substance is contained indifferently in a small or large quantity; as the whole nature of air in a great or small amount of air, and the whole nature of a man in a big or small individual. Wherefore, after the consecration, the whole substance of Christ’s body and blood is contained in this sacrament, just as the whole substance of the bread and wine was contained there before the consecration.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(2) Whether the whole Christ is contained under each species of this sacrament?

P(3)- Q(76)- A(2)- O(1) —

It seems that the whole Christ is not contained under both species of this sacrament. For this sacrament is ordained for the salvation of the faithful, not by virtue of the species, but by virtue of what is contained under the species, because the species were there even before the consecration, from which comes the power of this sacrament. If nothing, then, be contained under one species, but what is contained under the other, and if the whole Christ be contained under both, it seems that one of them is superfluous in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, it was stated above ( A(1), ad 1) that all the other parts of the body, such as the bones, nerves, and the like, are comprised under the name of flesh. But the blood is one of the parts of the human body, as Aristotle proves (De Anima Histor. i). If, then, Christ’s blood be contained under the species of bread, just as the other parts of the body are contained there, the blood ought not to be consecrated apart, just as no other part of the body is consecrated separately.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, what is once “in being” cannot be again “in becoming.” But Christ’s body has already begun to be in this sacrament by the consecration of the bread. Therefore, it cannot begin again to be there by the consecration of the wine; and so Christ’s body will not be contained under the species of the wine, and accordingly neither the entire Christ. Therefore the whole Christ is not contained under each species.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(2) —

On the contrary, The gloss on 1 Corinthians 11:25, commenting on the word “Chalice,” says that “under each species,” namely, of the bread and wine, “the same is received”; and thus it seems that Christ is entire under each species.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(2) —

I answer that, After what we have said above ( A(1) ), it must be held most certainly that the whole Christ is under each sacramental species yet not alike in each. For the body of Christ is indeed present under the species of bread by the power of the sacrament, while the blood is there from real concomitance, as stated above ( A(1), ad 1) in regard to the soul and Godhead of Christ; and under the species of wine the blood is present by the power of the sacrament, and His body by real concomitance, as is also His soul and Godhead: because now Christ’s blood is not separated from His body, as it was at the time of His Passion and death. Hence if this sacrament had been celebrated then, the body of Christ would have been under the species of the bread, but without the blood; and, under the species of the wine, the blood would have been present without the body, as it was then, in fact.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(2)- RO(1) —

Although the whole Christ is under each species, yet it is so not without purpose. For in the first place this serves to represent Christ’s Passion, in which the blood was separated from the body; hence in the form for the consecration of the blood mention is made of its shedding. Secondly, it is in keeping with the use of this sacrament, that Christ’s body be shown apart to the faithful as food, and the blood as drink. Thirdly, it is in keeping with its effect, in which sense it was stated above ( Q(74), A(1) ) that “the body is offered for the salvation of the body, and the blood for the salvation of the soul.”

P(3)- Q(76)- A(2)- RO(2) —

In Christ’s Passion, of which this is the memorial, the other parts of the body were not separated from one another, as the blood was, but the body remained entire, according to Exodus 12:46: “You shall not break a bone thereof.” And therefore in this sacrament the blood is consecrated apart from the body, but no other part is consecrated separately from the rest.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(2)- RO(3) —

As stated above, the body of Christ is not under the species of wine by the power of the sacrament, but by real concomitance: and therefore by the consecration of the wine the body of Christ is not there of itself, but concomitantly.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(3) Whether Christ is entire under every part of the species of the bread and wine?

P(3)- Q(76)- A(3)- O(1) —

It seems that Christ is not entire under every part of the species of bread and wine. Because those species can be divided infinitely. If therefore Christ be entirely under every part of the said species, it would follow that He is in this sacrament an infinite number of times: which is unreasonable; because the infinite is repugnant not only to nature, but likewise to grace.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, since Christ’s is an organic body, it has parts determinately distant. for a determinate distance of the individual parts from each other is of the very nature of an organic body, as that of eye from eye, and eye from ear. But this could not be so, if Christ were entire under every part of the species; for every part would have to be under every other part, and so where one part would be, there another part would be. It cannot be then that the entire Christ is under every part of the host or of the wine contained in the chalice.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, Christ’s body always retains the true nature of a body, nor is it ever changed into a spirit. Now it is the nature of a body for it to be “quantity having position” (Predic. iv). But it belongs to the nature of this quantity that the various parts exist in various parts of place. Therefore, apparently it is impossible for the entire Christ to be under every part of the species.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(3) —

On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon (Gregory, Sacramentarium): “Each receives Christ the Lord, Who is entire under every morsel, nor is He less in each portion, but bestows Himself entire under each.”

P(3)- Q(76)- A(3) —

I answer that, As was observed above ( A(1), ad 3), because the substance of Christ’s body is in this sacrament by the power of the sacrament, while dimensive quantity is there by reason of real concomitance, consequently Christ’s body is in this sacrament substantively, that is, in the way in which substance is under dimensions, but not after the manner of dimensions, which means, not in the way in which the dimensive quantity of a body is under the dimensive quantity of place.

Now it is evident that the whole nature of a substance is under every part of the dimensions under which it is contained; just as the entire nature of air is under every part of air, and the entire nature of bread under every part of bread; and this indifferently, whether the dimensions be actually divided (as when the air is divided or the bread cut), or whether they be actually undivided, but potentially divisible. And therefore it is manifest that the entire Christ is under every part of the species of the bread, even while the host remains entire, and not merely when it is broken, as some say, giving the example of an image which appears in a mirror, which appears as one in the unbroken mirror, whereas when the mirror is broken, there is an image in each part of the broken mirror: for the comparison is not perfect, because the multiplying of such images results in the broken mirror on account of the various reflections in the various parts of the mirror; but here there is only one consecration, whereby Christ’s body is in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(3)- RO(1) —

Number follows division, and therefore so long as quantity remains actually undivided, neither is the substance of any thing several times under its proper dimensions, nor is Christ’s body several times under the dimensions of the bread; and consequently not an infinite number of times, but just as many times as it is divided into parts.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(3)- RO(2) —

The determinate distance of parts in an organic body is based upon its dimensive quantity; but the nature of substance precedes even dimensive quantity. And since the conversion of the substance of the bread is terminated at the substance of the body of Christ, and since according to the manner of substance the body of Christ is properly and directly in this sacrament; such distance of parts is indeed in Christ’s true body, which, however, is not compared to this sacrament according to such distance, but according to the manner of its substance, as stated above ( A(1), ad 3).

P(3)- Q(76)- A(3)- RO(3) —

This argument is based on the nature of a body, arising from dimensive quantity. But it was said above (ad 2) that Christ’s body is compared with this sacrament not by reason of dimensive quantity, but by reason of its substance, as already stated.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(4) Whether the whole dimensive quantity of Christ’s body is in this sacrament?

P(3)- Q(76)- A(4)- O(1) —

It seems that the whole dimensive quantity of Christ’s body is not in this sacrament. For it was said ( A(3) ) that Christ’s entire body is contained under every part of the consecrated host. But no dimensive quantity is contained entirely in any whole, and in its every part. Therefore it is impossible for the entire dimensive quantity of Christ’s body to be there.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, it is impossible for two dimensive quantities to be together, even though one be separate from its subject, and the other in a natural body, as is clear from the Philosopher (Metaph. iii).

But the dimensive quantity of the bread remains in this sacrament, as is evident to our senses. Consequently, the dimensive quantity of Christ’s body is not there.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, if two unequal dimensive quantities be set side by side, the greater will overlap the lesser. But the dimensive quantity of Christ’s body is considerably larger than the dimensive quantity of the consecrated host according to every dimension. Therefore, if the dimensive quantity of Christ’s body be in this sacrament together with the dimensive quantity of the host, the dimensive quantity of Christ’s body is extended beyond the quantity of the host, which nevertheless is not without the substance of Christ’s body. Therefore, the substance of Christ’s body will be in this sacrament even outside the species of the bread, which is unreasonable, since the substance of Christ’s body is in this sacrament, only by the consecration of the bread, as stated above ( A(2) ). Consequently, it is impossible for the whole dimensive quantity of Christ’s body to be in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(4) —

On the contrary, The existence of the dimensive quantity of any body cannot be separated from the existence of its substance. But in this sacrament the entire substance of Christ’s body is present, as stated above ( AA(1),3 ). Therefore the entire dimensive quantity of Christ’s body is in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(4) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(1) ), any part of Christ is in this sacrament in two ways: in one way, by the power of the sacrament; in another, from real concomitance. By the power of the sacrament the dimensive quantity of Christ’s body is not in this sacrament; for, by the power of the sacrament that is present in this sacrament, whereat the conversion is terminated. But the conversion which takes place in this sacrament is terminated directly at the substance of Christ’s body, and not at its dimensions; which is evident from the fact that the dimensive quantity of the bread remains after the consecration, while only the substance of the bread passes away.

Nevertheless, since the substance of Christ’s body is not really deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents, hence it comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of Christ’s body and all its other accidents are in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(4)- RO(1) —

The manner of being of every thing is determined by what belongs to it of itself, and not according to what is coupled accidentally with it: thus an object is present to the sight, according as it is white, and not according as it is sweet, although the same object may be both white and sweet; hence sweetness is in the sight after the manner of whiteness, and not after that of sweetness. Since, then, the substance of Christ’s body is present on the altar by the power of this sacrament, while its dimensive quantity is there concomitantly and as it were accidentally, therefore the dimensive quantity of Christ’s body is in this sacrament, not according to its proper manner (namely, that the whole is in the whole, and the individual parts in individual parts), but after the manner of substance, whose nature is for the whole to be in the whole, and the whole in every part.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(4)- RO(2) —

Two dimensive quantities cannot naturally be in the same subject at the same time, so that each be there according to the proper manner of dimensive quantity. But in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of the bread is there after its proper manner, that is, according to commensuration: not so the dimensive quantity of Christ’s body, for that is there after the manner of substance, as stated above (ad 1).

P(3)- Q(76)- A(4)- RO(3) —

The dimensive quantity of Christ’s body is in this sacrament not by way of commensuration, which is proper to quantity, and to which it belongs for the greater to be extended beyond the lesser; but in the way mentioned above (ad 1,2).

P(3)- Q(76)- A(5) Whether Christ’s body is in this sacrament as in a place?

P(3)- Q(76)- A(5)- O(1) —

It seems that Christ’s body is in this sacrament as in a place. Because, to be in a place definitively or circumscriptively belongs to being in a place. But Christ’s body seems to be definitively in this sacrament, because it is so present where the species of the bread and wine are, that it is nowhere else upon the altar: likewise it seems to be there circumscriptively, because it is so contained under the species of the consecrated host, that it neither exceeds it nor is exceeded by it. Therefore Christ’s body is in this sacrament as in a place.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, the place of the bread and wine is not empty, because nature abhors a vacuum; nor is the substance of the bread there, as stated above ( Q(75), A(2) ); but only the body of Christ is there.

Consequently the body of Christ fills that place. But whatever fills a place is there locally. Therefore the body of Christ is in this sacrament locally.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, as stated above ( A(4) ), the body of Christ is in this sacrament with its dimensive quantity, and with all its accidents. But to be in a place is an accident of a body; hence “where” is numbered among the nine kinds of accidents. Therefore Christ’s body is in this sacrament locally.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(5) —

On the contrary, The place and the object placed must be equal, as is clear from the Philosopher (Phys. iv). But the place, where this sacrament is, is much less than the body of Christ. Therefore Christ’s body is not in this sacrament as in a place.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(5) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(1), ad 3; A(3) ), Christ’s body is in this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity, but rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a place is in the place according to the manner of dimensive quantity, namely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that Christ’s body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ’s body succeeds the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ’s body. Nevertheless the substance of Christ’s body is not the subject of those dimensions, as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was there locally by reason of its dimensions, because it was compared with that place through the medium of its own dimensions; but the substance of Christ’s body is compared with that place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper dimensions of Christ’s body are compared with that place through the medium of substance; which is contrary to the notion of a located body.

Hence in no way is Christ’s body locally in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(5)- RO(1) —

Christ’s body is not in this sacrament definitively, because then it would be only on the particular altar where this sacrament is performed: whereas it is in heaven under its own species, and on many other altars under the sacramental species. Likewise it is evident that it is not in this sacrament circumscriptively, because it is not there according to the commensuration of its own quantity, as stated above. But that it is not outside the superficies of the sacrament, nor on any other part of the altar, is due not to its being there definitively or circumscriptively, but to its being there by consecration and conversion of the bread and wine, as stated above ( A(1) ; Q(15), A(2), sqq.).

P(3)- Q(76)- A(5)- RO(2) —

The place in which Christ’s body is, is not empty; nor yet is it properly filled with the substance of Christ’s body, which is not there locally, as stated above; but it is filled with the sacramental species, which have to fill the place either because of the nature of dimensions, or at least miraculously, as they also subsist miraculously after the fashion of substance.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(5)- RO(3) —

As stated above ( A(4) ), the accidents of Christ’s body are in this sacrament by real concomitance. And therefore those accidents of Christ’s body which are intrinsic to it are in this sacrament. But to be in a place is an accident when compared with the extrinsic container. And therefore it is not necessary for Christ to be in this sacrament as in a place.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(6) Whether Christ’s body is in this sacrament movably?

P(3)- Q(76)- A(6)- O(1) —

It seems that Christ’s body is movably in this sacrament, because the Philosopher says (Topic. ii) that “when we are moved, the things within us are moved”: and this is true even of the soul’s spiritual substance. “But Christ is in this sacrament,” as shown above ( Q(74), A(1) ). Therefore He is moved when it is moved.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(6)- O(2) —

Further, the truth ought to correspond with the figure. But, according to the commandment ( Exodus 12:10), concerning the Paschal Lamb, a figure of this sacrament, “there remained nothing until the morning.” Neither, therefore, if this sacrament be reserved until morning, will Christ’s body be there; and so it is not immovably in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(6)- O(3) —

Further, if Christ’s body were to remain under this sacrament even until the morrow, for the same reason it will remain there during all coming time; for it cannot be said that it ceases to be there when the species pass, because the existence of Christ’s body is not dependent on those species. Yet Christ does not remain in this sacrament for all coming time. It seems, then, that straightway on the morrow, or after a short time, He ceases to be under this sacrament. And so it seems that Christ is in this sacrament movably.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(6) —

On the contrary, it is impossible for the same thing to be in motion and at rest, else contradictories would be verified of the same subject. But Christ’s body is at rest in heaven. Therefore it is not movably in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(6) —

I answer that, When any thing is one, as to subject, and manifold in being, there is nothing to hinder it from being moved in one respect, and yet to remain at rest in another just as it is one thing for a body to be white, and another thing, to be large; hence it can be moved as to its whiteness, and yet continue unmoved as to its magnitude. But in Christ, being in Himself and being under the sacrament are not the same thing, because when we say that He is under this sacrament, we express a kind of relationship to this sacrament. According to this being, then, Christ is not moved locally of Himself, but only accidentally, because Christ is not in this sacrament as in a place, as stated above ( A(5) ). But what is not in a place, is not moved of itself locally, but only according to the motion of the subject in which it is.

In the same way neither is it moved of itself according to the being which it has in this sacrament, by any other change whatever, as for instance, that it ceases to be under this sacrament: because whatever possesses unfailing existence of itself, cannot be the principle of failing; but when something else fails, then it ceases to be in it; just as God, Whose existence is unfailing and immortal, ceases to be in some corruptible creature because such corruptible creature ceases to exist. And in this way, since Christ has unfailing and incorruptible being, He ceases to be under this sacrament, not because He ceases to be, nor yet by local movement of His own, as is clear from what has been said, but only by the fact that the sacramental species cease to exist.

Hence it is clear that Christ, strictly speaking is immovably in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(6)- RO(1) —

This argument deals with accidental movement, whereby things within us are moved together with us. But with things which can of themselves be in a place, like bodies, it is otherwise than with things which cannot of themselves be in a place, such as forms and spiritual substances. And to this mode can be reduced what we say of Christ, being moved accidentally, according to the existence which He has in this sacrament, in which He is not present as in a place.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(6)- RO(2) —

It was this argument which seems to have convinced those who held that Christ’s body does not remain under this sacrament if it be reserved until the morrow. It is against these that Cyril says (Ep. lxxxiii): “Some are so foolish as to say that the mystical blessing departs from the sacrament, if any of its fragments remain until the next day: for Christ’s consecrated body is not changed, and the power of the blessing, and the life-giving grace is perpetually in it.” Thus are all other consecrations irremovable so long as the consecrated things endure; on which account they are not repeated. And although the truth corresponds with the figure, still the figure cannot equal it.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(6)- RO(3) —

The body of Christ remains in this sacrament not only until the morrow, but also in the future, so long as the sacramental species remain: and when they cease, Christ’s body ceases to be under them, not because it depends on them, but because the relationship of Christ’s body to those species is taken away, in the same way as God ceases to be the Lord of a creature which ceases to exist.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(7) Whether the body of Christ, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by any eye, at least by a glorified one?

P(3)- Q(76)- A(7)- O(1) —

It seems that the body of Christ, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by the eye, at least by a glorified one. For our eyes are hindered from beholding Christ’s body in this sacrament, on account of the sacramental species veiling it. But the glorified eye cannot be hindered by anything from seeing bodies as they are. Therefore, the glorified eye can see Christ’s body as it is in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(7)- O(2) —

Further, the glorified bodies of the saints will be “made like to the body” of Christ’s “glory,” according to Philippians 3:21. But Christ’s eye beholds Himself as He is in this sacrament.

Therefore, for the same reason, every other glorified eye can see Him.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(7)- O(3) —

Further, in the resurrection the saints will be equal to the angels, according to Luke 20:36. But the angels see the body of Christ as it is in this sacrament, for even the devils are found to pay reverence thereto, and to fear it. Therefore, for like reason, the glorified eye can see Christ as He is in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(7) —

On the contrary, As long as a thing remains the same, it cannot at the same time be seen by the same eye under diverse species.

But the glorified eye sees Christ always, as He is in His own species, according to Isaiah 33:17: “(His eyes) shall see the king in his beauty.”

It seems, then, that it does not see Christ, as He is under the species of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(7) —

I answer that, The eye is of two kinds, namely, the bodily eye properly so-called, and the intellectual eye, so-called by similitude. But Christ’s body as it is in this sacrament cannot be seen by any bodily eye. First of all, because a body which is visible brings about an alteration in the medium, through its accidents. Now the accidents of Christ’s body are in this sacrament by means of the substance; so that the accidents of Christ’s body have no immediate relationship either to this sacrament or to adjacent bodies; consequently they do not act on the medium so as to be seen by any corporeal eye. Secondly, because, as stated above ( A(1), ad 3; A(3) ), Christ’s body is substantially present in this sacrament. But substance, as such, is not visible to the bodily eye, nor does it come under any one of the senses, nor under the imagination, but solely under the intellect, whose object is “what a thing is” (De Anima iii).

And therefore, properly speaking, Christ’s body, according to the mode of being which it has in this sacrament, is perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but only by the intellect, which is called the spiritual eye.

Moreover it is perceived differently by different intellects. For since the way in which Christ is in this sacrament is entirely supernatural, it is visible in itself to a supernatural, i.e. the Divine, intellect, and consequently to a beatified intellect, of angel or of man, which, through the participated glory of the Divine intellect, sees all supernatural things in the vision of the Divine Essence. But it can be seen by a wayfarer through faith alone, like other supernatural things. And not even the angelic intellect of its own natural power is capable of beholding it; consequently the devils cannot by their intellect perceive Christ in this sacrament, except through faith, to which they do not pay willing assent; yet they are convinced of it from the evidence of signs, according to James 2:19: “The devils believe, and tremble.”

P(3)- Q(76)- A(7)- RO(1) —

Our bodily eye, on account of the sacramental species, is hindered from beholding the body of Christ underlying them, not merely as by way of veil (just as we are hindered from seeing what is covered with any corporeal veil), but also because Christ’s body bears a relation to the medium surrounding this sacrament, not through its own accidents, but through the sacramental species.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(7)- RO(2) —

Christ’s own bodily eye sees Himself existing under the sacrament, yet it cannot see the way in which it exists under the sacrament, because that belongs to the intellect. But it is not the same with any other glorified eye, because Christ’s eye is under this sacrament, in which no other glorified eye is conformed to it.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(7)- RO(3) —

No angel, good or bad, can see anything with a bodily eye, but only with the mental eye. Hence there is no parallel reason, as is evident from what was said above.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(8) Whether Christ’s body is truly there when flesh or a child appears miraculously in this sacrament?

P(3)- Q(76)- A(8)- O(1) —

It seems that Christ’s body is not truly there when flesh or a child appears miraculously in this sacrament. Because His body ceases to be under this sacrament when the sacramental species cease to be present, as stated above ( A(6) ). But when flesh or a child appears, the sacramental species cease to be present. Therefore Christ’s body is not truly there.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(8)- O(2) —

Further, wherever Christ’s body is, it is there either under its own species, or under those of the sacrament. But when such apparitions occur, it is evident that Christ is not present under His own species, because the entire Christ is contained in this sacrament, and He remains entire under the form in which He ascended to heaven: yet what appears miraculously in this sacrament is sometimes seen as a small particle of flesh, or at times as a small child. Now it is evident that He is not there under the sacramental species, which is that of bread or wine.

Consequently, it seems that Christ’s body is not there in any way.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(8)- O(3) —

Further, Christ’s body begins to be in this sacrament by consecration and conversion, as was said above ( Q(75), AA(2),3,4 ). But the flesh and blood which appear by miracle are not consecrated, nor are they converted into Christ’s true body and blood.

Therefore the body or the blood of Christ is not under those species.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(8) —

On the contrary, When such apparition takes place, the same reverence is shown to it as was shown at first, which would not be done if Christ were not truly there, to Whom we show reverence of “latria.” Therefore, when such apparition occurs, Christ is under the sacrament.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(8) —

I answer that, Such apparition comes about in two ways, when occasionally in this sacrament flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. Sometimes it happens on the part of the beholders, whose eyes are so affected as if they outwardly saw flesh, or blood, or a child, while no change takes place in the sacrament. And this seems to happen when to one person it is seen under the species of flesh or of a child, while to others it is seen as before under the species of bread; or when to the same individual it appears for an hour under the appearance of flesh or a child, and afterwards under the appearance of bread. Nor is there any deception there, as occurs in the feats of magicians, because such species is divinely formed in the eye in order to represent some truth, namely, for the purpose of showing that Christ’s body is truly under this sacrament; just as Christ without deception appeared to the disciples who were going to Emmaus. For Augustine says (De Qq. Evang. ii) that “when our pretense is referred to some significance, it is not a lie, but a figure of the truth.”

And since in this way no change is made in the sacrament, it is manifest that, when such apparition occurs, Christ does not cease to be under this sacrament.

But it sometimes happens that such apparition comes about not merely by a change wrought in the beholders, but by an appearance which really exists outwardly. And this indeed is seen to happen when it is beheld by everyone under such an appearance, and it remains so not for an hour, but for a considerable time; and, in this case some think that it is the proper species of Christ’s body. Nor does it matter that sometimes Christ’s entire body is not seen there, but part of His flesh, or else that it is not seen in youthful guise. but in the semblance of a child, because it lies within the power of a glorified body for it to be seen by a non-glorified eye either entirely or in part, and under its own semblance or in strange guise, as will be said later ( P(4), Q(85), AA(2),3 ).

But this seems unlikely. First of all, because Christ’s body under its proper species can be seen only in one place, wherein it is definitively contained. Hence since it is seen in its proper species, and is adored in heaven, it is not seen under its proper species in this sacrament. Secondly, because a glorified body, which appears at will, disappears when it wills after the apparition; thus it is related ( Luke 24:31) that our Lord “vanished out of sight” of the disciples. But that which appears under the likeness of flesh in this sacrament, continues for a long time; indeed, one reads of its being sometimes enclosed, and, by order of many bishops, preserved in a pyx, which it would be wicked to think of Christ under His proper semblance.

Consequently, it remains to be said, that, while the dimensions remain the same as before, there is a miraculous change wrought in the other accidents, such as shape, color, and the rest, so that flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen.

And, as was said already, this is not deception, because it is done “to represent the truth,” namely, to show by this miraculous apparition that Christ’s body and blood are truly in this sacrament. And thus it is clear that as the dimensions remain, which are the foundation of the other accidents, as we shall see later on ( Q(77), A(2) ), the body of Christ truly remains in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(8)- RO(1) —

When such apparition takes place, the sacramental species sometimes continue entire in themselves; and sometimes only as to that which is principal, as was said above.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(8)- RO(2) —

As stated above, during such apparitions Christ’s proper semblance is not seen, but a species miraculously formed either in the eyes of the beholders, or in the sacramental dimensions themselves, as was said above.

P(3)- Q(76)- A(8)- RO(3) —

The dimensions of the consecrated bread and wine continue, while a miraculous change is wrought in the other accidents, as stated above.

QUESTION OF THE ACCIDENTS WHICH REMAIN IN THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)

We must now consider the accidents which remain in this sacrament; under which head there are eight points of inquiry: (1) Whether the accidents which remain are without a subject? (2) Whether dimensive quantity is the subject of the other accidents? (3) Whether such accidents can affect an extrinsic body? (4) Whether they can be corrupted? (5) Whether anything can be generated from them? (6) Whether they can nourish? (7) Of the breaking of the consecrated bread? (8) Whether anything can be mixed with the consecrated wine?

P(3)- Q(77)- A(1) Whether the accidents remain in this sacrament without a subject?

P(3)- Q(77)- A(1)- O(1) —

It seems that the accidents do not remain in this sacrament without a subject, because there ought not to be anything disorderly or deceitful in this sacrament of truth. But for accidents to be without a subject is contrary to the order which God established in nature; and furthermore it seems to savor of deceit, since accidents are naturally the signs of the nature of the subject. Therefore the accidents are not without a subject in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, not even by miracle can the definition of a thing be severed from it, or the definition of another thing be applied to it; for instance, that, while man remains a man, he can be an irrational animal. For it would follow that contradictories can exist at the one time: for the “definition of a thing is what its name expresses,” as is said in Metaph. 4:But it belongs to the definition of an accident for it to be in a subject, while the definition of substance is that it must subsist of itself, and not in another. Therefore it cannot come to pass, even by miracle, that the accidents exist without a subject in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, an accident is individuated by its subject. If therefore the accidents remain in this sacrament without a subject, they will not be individual, but general, which is clearly false, because thus they would not be sensible, but merely intelligible.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(1)- O(4) —

Further, the accidents after the consecration of this sacrament do not obtain any composition. But before the consecration they were not composed either of matter and form, nor of existence [quo est] and essence [quod est]. Therefore, even after consecration they are not composite in either of these ways. But this is unreasonable, for thus they would be simpler than angels, whereas at the same time these accidents are perceptible to the senses. Therefore, in this sacrament the accidents do not remain without a subject.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(1) —

On the contrary, Gregory says in an Easter Homily (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xx) that “the sacramental species are the names of those things which were there before, namely, of the bread and wine.” Therefore since the substance of the bread and the wine does not remain, it seems that these species remain without a subject.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(1) —

I answer that, The species of the bread and wine, which are perceived by our senses to remain in this sacrament after consecration, are not subjected in the substance of the bread and wine, for that does not remain, as stated above ( Q(75), A(2) ); nor in the substantial form, for that does not remain ( Q(75), A(6) ), and if it did remain, “it could not be a subject,” as Boethius declares (De Trin. i). Furthermore it is manifest that these accidents are not subjected in the substance of Christ’s body and blood, because the substance of the human body cannot in any way be affected by such accidents; nor is it possible for Christ’s glorious and impassible body to be altered so as to receive these qualities.

Now there are some who say that they are in the surrounding atmosphere as in a subject. But even this cannot be: in the first place, because atmosphere is not susceptive of such accidents. Secondly, because these accidents are not where the atmosphere is, nay more, the atmosphere is displaced by the motion of these species. Thirdly, because accidents do not pass from subject to subject, so that the same identical accident which was first in one subject be afterwards in another; because an accident is individuated by the subject; hence it cannot come to pass for an accident remaining identically the same to be at one time in one subject, and at another time in another. Fourthly, since the atmosphere is not deprived of its own accidents, it would have at the one time its own accidents and others foreign to it. Nor can it be maintained that this is done miraculously in virtue of the consecration, because the words of consecration do not signify this, and they effect only what they signify.

Therefore it follows that the accidents continue in this sacrament without a subject. This can be done by Divine power: for since an effect depends more upon the first cause than on the second, God Who is the first cause both of substance and accident, can by His unlimited power preserve an accident in existence when the substance is withdrawn whereby it was preserved in existence as by its proper cause, just as without natural causes He can produce other effects of natural causes, even as He formed a human body in the Virgin’s womb, “without the seed of man” (Hymn for Christmas, First Vespers).

P(3)- Q(77)- A(1)- RO(1) —

There is nothing to hinder the common law of nature from ordaining a thing, the contrary of which is nevertheless ordained by a special privilege of grace, as is evident in the raising of the dead, and in the restoring of sight to the blind: even thus in human affairs, to some individuals some things are granted by special privilege which are outside the common law. And so, even though it be according to the common law of nature for an accident to be in a subject, still for a special reason, according to the order of grace, the accidents exist in this sacrament without a subject, on account of the reasons given above ( Q(75), A(5) ).

P(3)- Q(77)- A(1)- RO(2) —

Since being is not a genus, then being cannot be of itself the essence of either substance or accident. Consequently, the definition of substance is not — ”a being of itself without a subject,” nor is the definition of accident — ”a being in a subject”; but it belongs to the quiddity or essence of substance “to have existence not in a subject”; while it belongs to the quiddity or essence of accident “to have existence in a subject.” But in this sacrament it is not in virtue of their essence that accidents are not in a subject, but through the Divine power sustaining them; and consequently they do not cease to be accidents, because neither is the definition of accident withdrawn from them, nor does the definition of substance apply to them.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(1)- RO(3) —

These accidents acquired individual being in the substance of the bread and wine; and when this substance is changed into the body and blood of Christ, they remain in that individuated being which they possessed before, hence they are individual and sensible.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(1)- RO(4) —

These accidents had no being of their own nor other accidents, so long as the substance of the bread and wine remained; but their subjects had “such” being through them, just as snow is “white” through whiteness. But after the consecration the accidents which remain have being; hence they are compounded of existence and essence, as was said of the angels, in the P(1), Q(50), A(2), ad 3; and besides they have composition of quantitative parts.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(2) Whether in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of the bread or wine is the subject of the other accidents?

P(3)- Q(77)- A(2)- O(1) —

It seems that in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of the bread or wine is not the subject of the other accidents. For accident is not the subject of accident; because no form can be a subject, since to be a subject is a property of matter. But dimensive quantity is an accident. Therefore dimensive quantity cannot be the subject of the other accidents.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, just as quantity is individuated by substance, so also are the other accidents. If, then, the dimensive quantity of the bread or wine remains individuated according to the being it had before, in which it is preserved, for like reason the other accidents remain individuated according to the existence which they had before in the substance. Therefore they are not in dimensive quantity as in a subject, since every accident is individuated by its own subject.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, among the other accidents that remain, of the bread and wine, the senses perceive also rarity and density, which cannot be in dimensive quantity existing outside matter; because a thing is rare which has little matter under great dimensions. while a thing is dense which has much matter under small dimensions, as is said in Phys. 4. It does not seem, then, that dimensive quantity can be the subject of the accidents which remain in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(2)- O(4) —

Further, quantity abstract from matter seems to be mathematical quantity, which is not the subject of sensible qualities.

Since, then, the remaining accidents in this sacrament are sensible, it seems that in this sacrament they cannot be subjected in the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine that remains after consecration.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(2) —

On the contrary, Qualities are divisible only accidentally, that is, by reason of the subject. But the qualities remaining in this sacrament are divided by the division of dimensive quantity, as is evident through our senses. Therefore, dimensive quantity is the subject of the accidents which remain in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(2) —

I answer that, It is necessary to say that the other accidents which remain in this sacrament are subjected in the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine that remains: first of all, because something having quantity and color and affected by other accidents is perceived by the senses; nor is sense deceived in such. Secondly, because the first disposition of matter is dimensive quantity, hence Plato also assigned “great” and “small” as the first differences of matter (Aristotle, Metaph. iv). And because the first subject is matter, the consequence is that all other accidents are related to their subject through the medium of dimensive quantity; just as the first subject of color is said to be the surface, on which account some have maintained that dimensions are the substances of bodies, as is said in Metaph. 3. And since, when the subject is withdrawn, the accidents remain according to the being which they had before, it follows that all accidents remain founded upon dimensive quantity.

Thirdly, because, since the subject is the principle of individuation of the accidents, it is necessary for what is admitted as the subject of some accidents to be somehow the principle of individuation: for it is of the very notion of an individual that it cannot be in several; and this happens in two ways. First, because it is not natural to it to be in any one; and in this way immaterial separated forms, subsisting of themselves, are also individuals of themselves. Secondly, because a form, be it substantial or accidental, is naturally in someone indeed, not in several, as this whiteness, which is in this body. As to the first, matter is the principle of individuation of all inherent forms, because, since these forms, considered in themselves, are naturally in something as in a subject, from the very fact that one of them is received in matter, which is not in another, it follows that neither can the form itself thus existing be in another. As to the second, it must be maintained that the principle of individuation is dimensive quantity. For that something is naturally in another one solely, is due to the fact that that other is undivided in itself, and distinct from all others. But it is on account of quantity that substance can be divided, as is said in Phys. 1.

And therefore dimensive quantity itself is a particular principle of individuation in forms of this kind, namely, inasmuch as forms numerically distinct are in different parts of the matter. Hence also dimensive quantity has of itself a kind of individuation, so that we can imagine several lines of the same species, differing in position, which is included in the notion of this quantity; for it belongs to dimension for it to be “quantity having position” (Aristotle, Categor. iv), and therefore dimensive quantity can be the subject of the other accidents, rather than the other way about.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(2)- RO(1) —

One accident cannot of itself be the subject of another, because it does not exist of itself. But inasmuch as an accident is received in another thing, one is said to be the subject of the other, inasmuch as one is received in a subject through another, as the surface is said to be the subject of color. Hence when God makes an accident to exist of itself, it can also be of itself the subject of another.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(2)- RO(2) —

The other accidents, even as they were in the substance of the bread, were individuated by means of dimensive quantity, as stated above. And therefore dimensive quantity is the subject of the other accidents remaining in this sacrament, rather than conversely.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(2)- RO(3) —

Rarity and density are particular qualities accompanying bodies, by reason of their having much or little matter under dimensions; just as all other accidents likewise follow from the principles of substance. And consequently, as the accidents are preserved by Divine power when the substance is withdrawn, so, when matter is withdrawn, the qualities which go with matter, such as rarity and density, are preserved by Divine power.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(2)- RO(4) —

Mathematical quantity abstracts not from intelligible matter, but from sensible matter, as is said in Metaph. 7. But matter is termed sensible because it underlies sensible qualities. And therefore it is manifest that the dimensive quantity, which remains in this sacrament without a subject, is not mathematical quantity.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(3) Whether the species remaining in this sacrament can change external objects?

P(3)- Q(77)- A(3)- O(1) —

It seems that the species which remain in this sacrament cannot affect external objects. For it is proved in Phys. vii, that forms which are in matter are produced by forms that are in matter, but not from forms which are without matter, because like makes like. But the sacramental species are species without matter, since they remain without a subject, as is evident from what was said above ( A(1) ). Therefore they cannot affect other matter by producing any form in it.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, when the action of the principal agent ceases, then the action of the instrument must cease, as when the carpenter rests, the hammer is moved no longer. But all accidental forms act instrumentally in virtue of the substantial form as the principal agent.

Therefore, since the substantial form of the bread and wine does not remain in this sacrament, as was shown above ( Q(75), A(6) ), it seems that the accidental forms which remain cannot act so as to change external matter.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, nothing acts outside its species, because an effect cannot surpass its cause. But all the sacramental species are accidents. Therefore they cannot change external matter, at least as to a substantial form.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(3) —

On the contrary, If they could not change external bodies, they could not be felt; for a thing is felt from the senses being changed by a sensible thing, as is said in De Anima ii.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(3) —

I answer that, Because everything acts in so far as it is an actual being, the consequence is that everything stands in the same relation to action as it does to being. Therefore, because, according to what was said above ( A(1) ), it is an effect of the Divine power that the sacramental species continue in the being which they had when the substance of the bread and wine was present, it follows that they continue in their action. Consequently they retain every action which they had while the substance of the bread and wine remained, now that the substance of the bread and wine has passed into the body and blood of Christ. Hence there is no doubt but that they can change external bodies.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(3)- RO(1) —

The sacramental species, although they are forms existing without matter, still retain the same being which they had before in matter, and therefore as to their being they are like forms which are in matter.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(3)- RO(2) —

The action of an accidental form depends upon the action of a substantial form in the same way as the being of accident depends upon the being of substance; and therefore, as it is an effect of Divine power that the sacramental species exist without substance, so is it an effect of Divine power that they can act without a substantial form, because every action of a substantial or accidental form depends upon God as the first agent.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(3)- RO(3) —

The change which terminates in a substantial form is not effected by a substantial form directly, but by means of the active and passive qualities, which act in virtue of the substantial form.

But by Divine power this instrumental energy is retained in the sacramental species, just as it was before: and consequently their action can be directed to a substantial form instrumentally, just in the same way as anything can act outside its species, not as by its own power, but by the power of the chief agent.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(4) Whether the sacramental species can be corrupted?

P(3)- Q(77)- A(4)- O(1) —

It seems that the sacramental species cannot be corrupted, because corruption comes of the separation of the form from the matter. But the matter of the bread does not remain in this sacrament, as is clear from what was said above ( Q(75), A(2) ). Therefore these species cannot be corrupted.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, no form is corrupted except accidentally, that is, when its subject is corrupted; hence self-subsisting forms are incorruptible, as is seen in spiritual substances. But the sacramental species are forms without a subject. Therefore they cannot be corrupted.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, if they be corrupted, it will either be naturally or miraculously. But they cannot be corrupted naturally, because no subject of corruption can be assigned as remaining after the corruption has taken place. Neither can they be corrupted miraculously, because the miracles which occur in this sacrament take place in virtue of the consecration, whereby the sacramental species are preserved: and the same thing is not the cause of preservation and of corruption. Therefore, in no way can the sacramental species be corrupted.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(4) —

On the contrary, We perceive by our senses that the consecrated hosts become putrefied and corrupted.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(4) —

I answer that, Corruption is “movement from being into non-being” (Aristotle, Phys. v). Now it has been stated ( A(3) ) that the sacramental species retain the same being as they had before when the substance of the bread was present. Consequently, as the being of those accidents could be corrupted while the substance of the bread and wine was present, so likewise they can be corrupted now that the substance has passed away.

But such accidents could have been previously corrupted in two ways: in one way, of themselves; in another way, accidentally. They could be corrupted of themselves, as by alteration of the qualities, and increase or decrease of the quantity, not in the way in which increase or decrease is found only in animated bodies, such as the substances of the bread and wine are not, but by addition or division; for, as is said in Metaph. iii, one dimension is dissolved by division, and two dimensions result; while on the contrary, by addition, two dimensions become one. And in this way such accidents can be corrupted manifestly after consecration, because the dimensive quantity which remains can receive division and addition; and since it is the subject of sensible qualities, as stated above ( A(1) ), it can likewise be the subject of their alteration, for instance, if the color or the savor of the bread or wine be altered.

An accident can be corrupted in another way, through the corruption of its subject, and in this way also they can be corrupted after consecration; for although the subject does not remain, still the being which they had in the subject does remain, which being is proper, and suited to the subject. And therefore such being can be corrupted by a contrary agent, as the substance of the bread or wine was subject to corruption, and, moreover, was not corrupted except by a preceding alteration regarding the accidents.

Nevertheless, a distinction must be made between each of the aforesaid corruptions; because, when the body and the blood of Christ succeed in this sacrament to the substance of the bread and wine, if there be such change on the part of the accidents as would not have sufficed for the corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood of Christ do not cease to be under this sacrament on account of such change, whether the change be on the part of the quality, as for instance, when the color or the savor of the bread or wine is slightly modified; or on the part of the quantity, as when the bread or the wine is divided into such parts as to keep in them the nature of bread or of wine. But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ’s body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(4)- RO(1) —

Since it belongs essentially to corruption to take away the being of a thing, in so far as the being of some form is in matter, it results that by corruption the form is separated from the matter.

But if such being were not in matter, yet like such being as is in matter, it could be taken away by corruption, even where there is no matter; as takes place in this sacrament, as is evident from what was said above.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(4)- RO(2) —

Although the sacramental species are forms not in matter, yet they have the being which they had in matter.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(4)- RO(3) —

This corruption of species is not miraculous, but natural; nevertheless, it presupposes the miracle which is wrought in the consecration, namely, that those sacramental species retain without a subject, the same being as they had in a subject; just as a blind man, to whom sight is given miraculously, sees naturally.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(5) Whether anything can be generated from the sacramental species?

P(3)- Q(77)- A(5)- O(1) —

It seems that nothing can be generated from the sacramental species: because, whatever is generated, is generated out of some matter: for nothing is generated out of nothing, although by creation something is made out of nothing. But there is no matter underlying the sacramental species except that of Christ’s body, and that body is incorruptible. Therefore it seems that nothing can be generated from the sacramental species.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, things which are not of the same genus cannot spring from one another: thus a line is not made of whiteness. But accident and substance differ generically. Therefore, since the sacramental species are accidents, it seems that no substance can be generated from them.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, if any corporeal substance be generated from them, such substance will not be without accident. Therefore, if any corporeal substance be generated from the sacramental species, then substance and accident would be generated from accident, namely, two things from one, which is impossible. Consequently, it is impossible for any corporeal substance to be generated out of the sacramental species.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(5) —

On the contrary, The senses are witness that something is generated out of the sacramental species, either ashes, if they be burned, worms if they putrefy, or dust if they be crushed.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(5) —

I answer that, Since “the corruption of one thing is the generation of another” (De Gener. i), something must be generated necessarily from the sacramental species if they be corrupted, as stated above ( A(4) ); for they are not corrupted in such a way that they disappear altogether, as if reduced to nothing; on the contrary, something sensible manifestly succeeds to them.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to see how anything can be generated from them. For it is quite evident that nothing is generated out of the body and blood of Christ which are truly there, because these are incorruptible. But if the substance, or even the matter, of the bread and wine were to remain in this sacrament, then, as some have maintained, it would be easy to account for this sensible object which succeeds to them. But that supposition is false, as was stated above ( Q(75), AA(2),4,8 ).

Hence it is that others have said that the things generated have not sprung from the sacramental species, but from the surrounding atmosphere. But this can be shown in many ways to be impossible. In the first place, because when a thing is generated from another, the latter at first appears changed and corrupted; whereas no alteration or corruption appeared previously in the adjacent atmosphere; hence the worms or ashes are not generated therefrom. Secondly, because the nature of the atmosphere is not such as to permit of such things being generated by such alterations.

Thirdly, because it is possible for many consecrated hosts to be burned or putrefied; nor would it be possible for an earthen body, large enough to be generated from the atmosphere, unless a great and, in fact, exceedingly sensible condensation of the atmosphere took place. Fourthly, because the same thing can happen to the solid bodies surrounding them, such as iron or stone, which remain entire after the generation of the aforesaid things.

Hence this opinion cannot stand, because it is opposed to what is manifest to our senses.

And therefore others have said that the substance of the bread and wine returns during the corruption of the species, and so from the returning substance of the bread and wine, ashes or worms or something of the kind are generated. But this explanation seems an impossible one. First of all, because if the substance of the bread and wine be converted into the body and blood of Christ, as was shown above ( Q(75), AA(2),4 ), the substance of the bread and wine cannot return, except the body and blood of Christ be again changed back into the substance of bread and wine, which is impossible: thus if air be turned into fire, the air cannot return without the fire being again changed into air. But if the substance of bread or wine be annihilated, it cannot return again, because what lapses into nothing does not return numerically the same. Unless perchance it be said that the said substance returns, because God creates anew another new substance to replace the first. Secondly, this seems to be impossible, because no time can be assigned when the substance of the bread returns. For, from what was said above ( A(4) ; Q(76), A(6), ad 3), it is evident that while the species of the bread and wine remain, there remain also the body and blood of Christ, which are not present together with the substance of the bread and wine in this sacrament, according to what was stated above ( Q(75), A(2) ). Hence the substance of the bread and wine cannot return while the sacramental species remain; nor, again, when these species pass away; because then the substance of the bread and wine would be without their proper accidents, which is impossible. Unless perchance it be said that in the last instant of the corruption of the species there returns (not, indeed, the substance of bread and wine, because it is in that very instant that they have the being of the substance generated from the species, but) the matter of the bread and wine; which, matter, properly speaking, would be more correctly described as created anew, than as returning. And in this sense the aforesaid position might be held.

However, since it does not seem reasonable to say that anything takes place miraculously in this sacrament, except in virtue of the consecration itself, which does not imply either creation or return of matter, it seems better to say that in the actual consecration it is miraculously bestowed on the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine to be the subject of subsequent forms. Now this is proper to matter; and therefore as a consequence everything which goes with matter is bestowed on dimensive quantity; and therefore everything which could be generated from the matter of bread or wine, if it were present, can be generated from the aforesaid dimensive quantity of the bread or wine, not, indeed, by a new miracle, but by virtue of the miracle which has already taken place.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(5)- RO(1) —

Although no matter is there out of which a thing may be generated, nevertheless dimensive quantity supplies the place of matter, as stated above.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(5)- RO(2) —

Those sacramental species are indeed accidents, yet they have the act and power of substance, as stated above ( A(3) ).

P(3)- Q(77)- A(5)- RO(3) —

The dimensive quantity of the bread and wine retains its own nature, and receives miraculously the power and property of substance; and therefore it can pass to both, that is, into substance and dimension.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(6) Whether the sacramental species can nourish?

P(3)- Q(77)- A(6)- O(1) —

It seems that the sacramental species cannot nourish, because, as Ambrose says (De Sacram. v), “it is not this bread that enters into our body, but the bread of everlasting life, which supports the substance of our soul.” But whatever nourishes enters into the body.

Therefore this bread does not nourish: and the same reason holds good of the wine.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(6)- O(2) —

Further, as is said in De Gener. ii, “We are nourished by the very things of which we are made.” But the sacramental species are accidents, whereas man is not made of accidents, because accident is not a part of substance. Therefore it seems that the sacramental species cannot nourish.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(6)- O(3) —

Further, the Philosopher says (De Anima ii) that “food nourishes according as it is a substance, but it gives increase by reason of its quantity.” But the sacramental species are not a substance.

Consequently they cannot nourish.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(6) —

On the contrary, The Apostle speaking of this sacrament says ( 1 Corinthians 11:21): “One, indeed, is hungry, and another is drunk”: upon which the gloss observes that “he alludes to those who after the celebration of the sacred mystery, and after the consecration of the bread and wine, claimed their oblations, and not sharing them with others, took the whole, so as even to become intoxicated thereby.” But this could not happen if the sacramental species did not nourish. Therefore the sacramental species do nourish.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(6) —

I answer that, This question presents no difficulty, now that we have solved the preceding question. Because, as stated in De Anima ii, food nourishes by being converted into the substance of the individual nourished. Now it has been stated ( A(5) ) that the sacramental species can be converted into a substance generated from them. And they can be converted into the human body for the same reason as they can into ashes or worms. Consequently, it is evident that they nourish.

But the senses witness to the untruth of what some maintain; viz. that the species do not nourish as though they were changed into the human body, but merely refresh and hearten by acting upon the senses (as a man is heartened by the odor of meat, and intoxicated by the fumes of wine).

Because such refreshment does not suffice long for a man, whose body needs repair owing to constant waste: and yet a man could be supported for long if he were to take hosts and consecrated wine in great quantity.

In like manner the statement advanced by others cannot stand, who hold that the sacramental species nourish owing to the remaining substantial form of the bread and wine: both because the form does not remain, as stated above ( Q(75), A(6) ): and because to nourish is the act not of a form but rather of matter, which takes the form of the one nourished, while the form of the nourishment passes away: hence it is said in De Anima ii that nourishment is at first unlike, but at the end is like.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(6)- RO(1) —

After the consecration bread can be said to be in this sacrament in two ways. First, as to the species, which retain the name of the previous substance, as Gregory says in an Easter Homily (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xx). Secondly, Christ’s very body can be called bread, since it is the mystical bread “coming down from heaven.”

Consequently, Ambrose uses the word “bread” in this second meaning, when he says that “this bread does not pass into the body,” because, to wit, Christ’s body is not changed into man’s body, but nourishes his soul.

But he is not speaking of bread taken in the first acceptation.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(6)- RO(2) —

Although the sacramental species are not those things out of which the human body is made, yet they are changed into those things stated above.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(6)- RO(3) —

Although the sacramental species are not a substance, still they have the virtue of a substance, as stated above.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(7) Whether the sacramental species are broken in this sacrament?

P(3)- Q(77)- A(7)- O(1) —

It seems that the sacramental species are not broken in this sacrament, because the Philosopher says in Meteor. iv that bodies are breakable owing to a certain disposition of the pores; a thing which cannot be attributed to the sacramental species. Therefore the sacramental species cannot be broken.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(7)- O(2) —

Further, breaking is followed by sound. But the sacramental species emit no sound: because the Philosopher says (De Anima ii), that what emits sound is a hard body, having a smooth surface.

Therefore the sacramental species are not broken.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(7)- O(3) —

Further, breaking and mastication are seemingly of the same object. But it is Christ’s true body that is eaten, according to John 6:57: “He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood.”

Therefore it is Christ’s body that is broken and masticated: and hence it is said in the confession of Berengarius: “I agree with the Holy Catholic Church, and with heart and lips I profess, that the bread and wine which are placed on the altar, are the true body and blood of Christ after consecration, and are truly handled and broken by the priest’s hands, broken and crushed by the teeth of believers.” Consequently, the breaking ought not to be ascribed to the sacramental species.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(7) —

On the contrary, Breaking arises from the division of that which has quantity. But nothing having quantity except the sacramental species is broken here, because neither Christ’s body is broken, as being incorruptible, nor is the substance of the bread, because it no longer remains. Therefore the sacramental species are broken.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(7) —

I answer that, Many opinions prevailed of old on this matter. Some held that in this sacrament there was no breaking at all in reality, but merely in the eyes of the beholders. But this contention cannot stand, because in this sacrament of truth the sense is not deceived with regard to its proper object of judgment, and one of these objects is breaking, whereby from one thing arise many: and these are common sensibles, as is stated in De Anima ii.

Others accordingly have said that there was indeed a genuine breaking, but without any subject. But this again contradicts our senses; because a quantitative body is seen in this sacrament, which formerly was one, and is now divided into many, and this must be the subject of the breaking.

But it cannot be said that Christ’s true body is broken. First of all, because it is incorruptible and impassible: secondly, because it is entire under every part, as was shown above ( Q(76), A(3) ), which is contrary to the nature of a thing broken.

It remains, then, that the breaking is in the dimensive quantity of the bread, as in a subject, just as the other accidents. And as the sacramental species are the sacrament of Christ’s true body, so is the breaking of these species the sacrament of our Lord’s Passion, which was in Christ’s true body.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(7)- RO(1) —

As rarity and density remain under the sacramental species, as stated above ( A(2), ad 3), so likewise porousness remains, and in consequence breakableness.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(7)- RO(2) —

Hardness results from density; therefore, as density remains under the sacramental species, hardness remains there too, and the capability of sound as a consequence.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(7)- RO(3) —

What is eaten under its own species, is also broken and masticated under its own species; but Christ’s body is eaten not under its proper, but under the sacramental species. Hence in explaining John 6:64, “The flesh profiteth nothing,” Augustine (Tract. xxvii in Joan.) says that this is to be taken as referring to those who understood carnally: “for they understood the flesh, thus, as it is divided piecemeal, in a dead body, or as sold in the shambles.” Consequently, Christ’s very body is not broken, except according to its sacramental species. And the confession made by Berengarius is to be understood in this sense, that the breaking and the crushing with the teeth is to be referred to the sacramental species, under which the body of Christ truly is.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(8) Whether any liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine?

P(3)- Q(77)- A(8)- O(1) —

It seems that no liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine, because everything mingled with another partakes of its quality. But no liquid can share in the quality of the sacramental species, because those accidents are without a subject, as stated above ( A(1) ).

Therefore it seems that no liquid can be mingled with the sacramental species of the wine.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(8)- O(2) —

Further, if any kind of liquid be mixed with those species, then some one thing must be the result. But no one thing can result from the liquid, which is a substance, and the sacramental species, which are accidents; nor from the liquid and Christ’s blood, which owing to its incorruptibility suffers neither increase nor decrease. Therefore no liquid can be mixed with the consecrated wine.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(8)- O(3) —

Further, if any liquid be mixed with the consecrated wine, then that also would appear to be consecrated; just as water added to holy-water becomes holy. But the consecrated wine is truly Christ’s blood. Therefore the liquid added would likewise be Christ’s blood otherwise than by consecration, which is unbecoming. Therefore no liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(8)- O(4) —

Further, if one of two things be entirely corrupted, there is no mixture (De Gener. i). But if we mix any liquid, it seems that the entire species of the sacramental wine is corrupted, so that the blood of Christ ceases to be beneath it; both because great and little are difference of quantity, and alter it, as white and black cause a difference of color; and because the liquid mixed, as having no obstacle, seems to permeate the whole, and so Christ’s blood ceases to be there, since it is not there with any other substance. Consequently, no liquid can be mixed with the consecrated wine.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(8) —

On the contrary, It is evident to our senses that another liquid can be mixed with the wine after it is consecrated, just as before.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(8) —

I answer that, The truth of this question is evident from what has been said already. For it was said above ( A(3) ; A(5), ad 2) that the species remaining in this sacrament, as they acquire the manner of being of substance in virtue of the consecration, so likewise do they obtain the mode of acting and of being acted upon, so that they can do or receive whatever their substance could do or receive, were it there present. But it is evident that if the substance of wine were there present, then some other liquid could be mingled with it.

Nevertheless there would be a different effect of such mixing both according to the form and according to the quantity of the liquid. For if sufficient liquid were mixed so as to spread itself all through the wine, then the whole would be a mixed substance. Now what is made up of things mixed is neither of them, but each passes into a third resulting from both: hence it would result that the former wine would remain no longer. But if the liquid added were of another species, for instance, if water were mixed, the species of the wine would be dissolved, and there would be a liquid of another species. But if liquid of the same species were added, of instance, wine with wine, the same species would remain, but the wine would not be the same numerically, as the diversity of the accidents shows: for instance, if one wine were white and the other red.

But if the liquid added were of such minute quantity that it could not permeate the whole, the entire wine would not be mixed, but only part of it, which would not remain the same numerically owing to the blending of extraneous matter: still it would remain the same specifically, not only if a little liquid of the same species were mixed with it, but even if it were of another species, since a drop of water blended with much wine passes into the species of wine (De Gener. i).

Now it is evident that the body and blood of Christ abide in this sacrament so long as the species remain numerically the same, as stated above ( A(4) ; Q(76), A(6), ad 3); because it is this bread and this wine which is consecrated. Hence, if the liquid of any kind whatsoever added be so much in quantity as to permeate the whole of the consecrated wine, and be mixed with it throughout, the result would be something numerically distinct, and the blood of Christ will remain there no longer. But if the quantity of the liquid added be so slight as not to permeate throughout, but to reach only a part of the species, Christ’s blood will cease to be under that part of the consecrated wine, yet will remain under the rest.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(8)- RO(1) —

Pope Innocent III in a Decretal writes thus: “The very accidents appear to affect the wine that is added, because, if water is added, it takes the savor of the wine. The result is, then, that the accidents change the subject, just as subject changes accidents; for nature yields to miracle, and power works beyond custom.” But this must not be understood as if the same identical accident, which was in the wine previous to consecration, is afterwards in the wine that is added; but such change is the result of action; because the remaining accidents of the wine retain the action of substance, as stated above, and so they act upon the liquid added, by changing it.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(8)- RO(2) —

The liquid added to the consecrated wine is in no way mixed with the substance of Christ’s blood. Nevertheless it is mixed with the sacramental species, yet so that after such mixing the aforesaid species are corrupted entirely or in part, after the way mentioned above ( A(5) ), whereby something can be generated from those species.

And if they be entirely corrupted, there remains no further question, because the whole will be uniform. But if they be corrupted in part, there will be one dimension according to the continuity of quantity, but not one according to the mode of being, because one part thereof will be without a subject while the other is in a subject; as in a body that is made up of two metals, there will be one body quantitatively, but not one as to the species of the matter.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(8)- RO(3) —

As Pope Innocent says in the aforesaid Decretal, “if after the consecration other wine be put in the chalice, it is not changed into the blood, nor is it mingled with the blood, but, mixed with the accidents of the previous wine, it is diffused throughout the body which underlies them, yet without wetting what surrounds it.” Now this is to be understood when there is not sufficient mixing of extraneous liquid to cause the blood of Christ to cease to be under the whole; because a thing is said to be “diffused throughout,” not because it touches the body of Christ according to its proper dimensions, but according to the sacramental dimensions, under which it is contained. Now it is not the same with holy water, because the blessing works no change in the substance of the water, as the consecration of the wine does.

P(3)- Q(77)- A(8)- RO(4) —

Some have held that however slight be the mixing of extraneous liquid, the substance of Christ’s blood ceases to be under the whole, and for the reason given above ( O(4) ); which, however, is not a cogent one; because “more” or “less” diversify dimensive quantity, not as to its essence, but as to the determination of its measure. In like manner the liquid added can be so small as on that account to be hindered from permeating the whole, and not simply by the dimensions; which, although they are present without a subject, still they are opposed to another liquid, just as substance would be if it were present, according to what was said at the beginning of the article.

QUESTION OF THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT (SIX ARTICLES)

We must now consider the form of this sacrament; concerning which there are six points of inquiry: (1) What is the form of this sacrament? (2) Whether the form for the consecration of the bread is appropriate? (3) Whether the form for the consecration of the blood is appropriate? (4) Of the power of each form? (5) Of the truth of the expression? (6) Of the comparison of the one form with the other?

P(3)- Q(78)- A(1) Whether this is the form of this sacrament: “This is My body,” and “This is the chalice of My blood”?

P(3)- Q(78)- A(1)- O(1) —

It seems that this is not the form of this sacrament: “This is My body,” and, “This is the chalice of My blood.”

Because those words seem to belong to the form of this sacrament, wherewith Christ consecrated His body and blood. But Christ first blessed the bread which He took, and said afterwards: “Take ye and eat; this is My body” ( Matthew 26:26). Therefore the whole of this seems to belong to the form of this sacrament: and the same reason holds good of the words which go with the consecration of the blood.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, Eusebius Emissenus (Pseudo-Hieron:

Ep. xxix; Pseudo-Isid.: Hom. iv) says: “The invisible Priest changes visible creatures into His own body, saying: ‘Take ye and eat; this is My body.’“ Therefore, the whole of this seems to belong to the form of this sacrament: and the same hold good of the works appertaining to the blood.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, in the form of Baptism both the minister and his act are expressed, when it is said, “I baptize thee.” But in the words set forth above there is no mention made either of the minister or of his act. Therefore the form of the sacrament is not a suitable one.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(1)- O(4) —

Further, the form of the sacrament suffices for its perfection; hence the sacrament of Baptism can be performed sometimes by pronouncing the words of the form only, omitting all the others. Therefore, if the aforesaid words be the form of this sacrament, it would seem as if this sacrament could be performed sometimes by uttering those words alone, while leaving out all the others which are said in the mass; yet this seems to be false, because, were the other words to be passed over, the said words would be taken as spoken in the person of the priest saying them, whereas the bread and wine are not changed into his body and blood. Consequently, the aforesaid words are not the form of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(1) —

On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): “The consecration is accomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus. Because, by all the other words spoken, praise is rendered to God, prayer is put up for the people, for kings, and others; but when the time comes for perfecting the sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words, but the words of Christ. Therefore, it is Christ’s words that perfect this sacrament.”

P(3)- Q(78)- A(1) —

I answer that, This sacrament differs from the other sacraments in two respects. First of all, in this, that this sacrament is accomplished by the consecration of the matter, while the rest are perfected in the use of the consecrated matter. Secondly, because in the other sacraments the consecration of the matter consists only in a blessing, from which the matter consecrated derives instrumentally a spiritual power, which through the priest who is an animated instrument, can pass on to inanimate instruments. But in this sacrament the consecration of the matter consists in the miraculous change of the substance, which can only be done by God; hence the minister in performing this sacrament has no other act save the pronouncing of the words. And because the form should suit the thing, therefore the form of this sacrament differs from the forms of the other sacraments in two respects. First, because the form of the other sacraments implies the use of the matter, as for instance, baptizing, or signing; but the form of this sacrament implies merely the consecration of the matter, which consists in transubstantiation, as when it is said, “This is My body,” or, “This is the chalice of My blood.” Secondly, because the forms of the other sacraments are pronounced in the person of the minister, whether by way of exercising an act, as when it is said, “I baptize thee,” or “I confirm thee,” etc.; or by way of command, as when it is said in the sacrament of order, “Take the power,” etc.; or by way of entreaty, as when in the sacrament of Extreme Unction it is said, “By this anointing and our intercession,” etc. But the form of this sacrament is pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person, so that it is given to be understood that the minister does nothing in perfecting this sacrament, except to pronounce the words of Christ.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(1)- RO(1) —

There are many opinions on this matter. Some have said that Christ, Who had power of excellence in the sacraments, performed this sacrament without using any form of words, and that afterwards He pronounced the words under which others were to consecrate thereafter. And the words of Pope Innocent III seem to convey the same sense (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), where he says: “In good sooth it can be said that Christ accomplished this sacrament by His Divine power, and subsequently expressed the form under which those who came after were to consecrate.” But in opposition to this view are the words of the Gospel in which it is said that Christ “blessed,” and this blessing was effected by certain words. Accordingly those words of Innocent are to be considered as expressing an opinion, rather than determining the point.

Others, again, have said that the blessing was effected by other words not known to us. But this statement cannot stand, because the blessing of the consecration is now performed by reciting the things which were then accomplished; hence, if the consecration was not performed then by these words, neither would it be now.

Accordingly, others have maintained that this blessing was effected by the same words as are used now; but that Christ spoke them twice, at first secretly, in order to consecrate, and afterwards openly, to instruct others.

But even this will not hold good, because the priest in consecrating uses these words, not as spoken in secret, but as openly pronounced.

Accordingly, since these words have no power except from Christ pronouncing them, it seems that Christ also consecrated by pronouncing them openly.

And therefore others said that the Evangelists did not always follow the precise order in their narrative as that in which things actually happened, as is seen from Augustine (De Consens. Evang. ii). Hence it is to be understood that the order of what took place can be expressed thus: “Taking the bread He blessed it, saying: This is My body, and then He broke it, and gave it to His disciples.” But the same sense can be had even without changing the words of the Gospel; because the participle “saying” implies sequence of the words uttered with what goes before. And it is not necessary for the sequence to be understood only with respect to the last word spoken, as if Christ had just then pronounced those words, when He gave it to His disciples; but the sequence can be understood with regard to all that had gone before; so that the sense is: “While He was blessing, and breaking, and giving it to His disciples, He spoke the words, ‘Take ye,’“ etc.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(1)- RO(2) —

In these words, “Take ye and eat,” the use of the consecrated, matter is indicated, which is not of the necessity of this sacrament, as stated above ( Q(74), A(7) ). And therefore not even these words belong to the substance of the form. Nevertheless, because the use of the consecrated matter belongs to a certain perfection of the sacrament, in the same way as operation is not the first but the second perfection of a thing, consequently, the whole perfection of this sacrament is expressed by all those words: and it was in this way that Eusebius understood that the sacrament was accomplished by those words, as to its first and second perfection.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(1)- RO(3) —

In the sacrament of Baptism the minister exercises an act regarding the use of the matter, which is of the essence of the sacrament: such is not the case in this sacrament; hence there is no parallel.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(1)- RO(4) —

Some have contended that this sacrament cannot be accomplished by uttering the aforesaid words, while leaving out the rest, especially the words in the Canon of the Mass. But that this is false can be seen both from Ambrose’s words quoted above, as well as from the fact that the Canon of the Mass is not the same in all places or times, but various portions have been introduced by various people.

Accordingly it must be held that if the priest were to pronounce only the aforesaid words with the intention of consecrating this sacrament, this sacrament would be valid because the intention would cause these words to be understood as spoken in the person of Christ, even though the words were pronounced without those that precede. The priest, however, would sin gravely in consecrating the sacrament thus, as he would not be observing the rite of the Church. Nor does the comparison with Baptism prove anything; for it is a sacrament of necessity: whereas the lack of this sacrament can be supplied by the spiritual partaking thereof, as Augustine says (cf. Q(73), A(3), ad 1).

P(3)- Q(78)- A(2) Whether this is the proper form for the consecration of the bread: “This is My body”?

P(3)- Q(78)- A(2)- O(1) —

It seems that this is not the proper form of this sacrament: “This is My body.” For the effect of a sacrament ought to be expressed in its form. But the effect of the consecration of the bread is the change of the substance of the bread into the body of Christ, and this is better expressed by the word “becomes” than by “is.” Therefore, in the form of the consecration we ought to say: “This becomes My body.”

P(3)- Q(78)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv), “Christ’s words consecrate this sacrament. What word of Christ? This word, whereby all things are made. The Lord commanded, and the heavens and earth were made. “ Therefore, it would be a more proper form of this sacrament if the imperative mood were employed, so as to say: “Be this My body.”

P(3)- Q(78)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, that which is changed is implied in the subject of this phrase, just as the term of the change is implied in the predicate. But just as that into which the change is made is something determinate, for the change is into nothing else but the body of Christ, so also that which is converted is determinate, since only bread is converted into the body of Christ. Therefore, as a noun is inserted on the part of the predicate, so also should a noun be inserted in the subject, so that it be said: “This bread is My body.”

P(3)- Q(78)- A(2)- O(4) —

Further, just as the term of the change is determinate in nature, because it is a body, so also is it determinate in person. Consequently, in order to determine the person, it ought to be said: “This is the body of Christ.”

P(3)- Q(78)- A(2)- O(5) —

Further, nothing ought to be inserted in the form except what is substantial to it. Consequently, the conjunction “for” is improperly added in some books, since it does not belong to the substance of the form.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(2) —

On the contrary, our Lord used this form in consecrating, as is evident from Matthew 26:26.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(2) —

I answer that, This is the proper form for the consecration of the bread. For it was said ( A(1) ) that this consecration consists in changing the substance of bread into the body of Christ. Now the form of a sacrament ought to denote what is done in the sacrament.

Consequently the form for the consecration of the bread ought to signify the actual conversion of the bread into the body of Christ. And herein are three things to be considered: namely, the actual conversion, the term “whence,” and the term “whereunto.”

Now the conversion can be considered in two ways: first, in “becoming,” secondly, in “being.” But the conversion ought not to be signified in this form as in “becoming,” but as in “being.” First, because such conversion is not successive, as was said above ( Q(75), A(7) ), but instantaneous; and in such changes the “becoming” is nothing else than the “being.” Secondly, because the sacramental forms bear the same relation to the signification of the sacramental effect as artificial forms to the representation of the effect of art. Now an artificial form is the likeness of the ultimate effect, on which the artist’s intention is fixed ;. just as the art-form in the builder’s mind is principally the form of the house constructed, and secondarily of the constructing. Accordingly, in this form also the conversion ought to be expressed as in “being,” to which the intention is referred.

And since the conversion is expressed in this form as in “being,” it is necessary for the extremes of the conversion to be signified as they exist in the fact of conversion. But then the term “whereunto” has the proper nature of its own substance; whereas the term “whence” does not remain in its own substance, but only as to the accidents whereby it comes under the senses, and can be determined in relation to the senses. Hence the term “whence” of the conversion is conveniently expressed by the demonstrative pronoun, relative to the sensible accidents which continue; but the term “whereunto” is expressed by the noun signifying the nature of the thing which terminates the conversion, and this is Christ’s entire body, and not merely His flesh; as was said above ( Q(76), A(1), ad 2). Hence this form is most appropriate: “This is My body.”

P(3)- Q(78)- A(2)- RO(1) —

The ultimate effect of this conversion is not a “becoming” but a “being,” as stated above, and consequently prominence should be given to this in the form.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(2)- RO(2) —

God’s word operated in the creation of things, and it is the same which operates in this consecration, yet each in different fashion: because here it operates effectively and sacramentally, that is, in virtue of its signification. And consequently the last effect of the consecration must needs be signified in this sentence by a substantive verb of the indicative mood and present time. But in the creation of things it worked merely effectively, and such efficiency is due to the command of His wisdom; and therefore in the creation of things the Lord’s word is expressed by a verb in the imperative mood, as in Genesis 1:3: “Let there be light, and light was made.”

P(3)- Q(78)- A(2)- RO(3) —

The term “whence” does not retain the nature of its substance in the “being” of the conversion, as the term “whereunto” does. Therefore there is no parallel.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(2)- RO(4) —

The pronoun “My,” which implicitly points to the chief person, i.e. the person of the speaker, sufficiently indicates Christ’s person, in Whose person these words are uttered, as stated above ( A(1) ).

P(3)- Q(78)- A(2)- RO(5) —

The conjunction “for” is set in this form according to the custom of the Roman Church, who derived it from Peter the Apostle; and this on account of the sequence with the words preceding: and therefore it is not part of the form, just as the words preceding the form are not.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(3) Whether this is the proper form for the consecration of the wine: “This is the chalice of My blood,” etc.?

P(3)- Q(78)- A(3)- O(1) —

It seems that this is not the proper form for the consecration of the wine. “This is the chalice of My blood, of the New and Eternal Testament, the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins.” For as the bread is changed by the power of consecration into Christ’s body, so is the wine changed into Christ’s blood, as is clear from what was said above ( Q(76), AA(1),2,3 ).

But in the form of the consecration of the bread, the body of Christ is expressly mentioned, without any addition. Therefore in this form the blood of Christ is improperly expressed in the oblique case, and the chalice in the nominative, when it is said: “This is the chalice of My blood.”

P(3)- Q(78)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, the words spoken in the consecration of the bread are not more efficacious than those spoken in the consecration of the wine, since both are Christ’s words. But directly the words are spoken — ”This is My body,” there is perfect consecration of the bread.

Therefore, directly these other words are uttered — ”This is the chalice of My blood,” there is perfect consecration of the blood; and so the words which follow do not appeal to be of the substance of the form, especially since they refer to the properties of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, the New Testament seems to be an internal inspiration, as is evident from the Apostle quoting the words of Jeremiah ( 31:31): “I will perfect unto the house of Israel a New Testament... I will give My laws into their mind” ( Hebrews 8:8). But a sacrament is an outward visible act. Therefore, in the form of the sacrament the words “of the New Testament” are improperly added.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(3)- O(4) —

Further, a thing is said to be new which is near the beginning of its existence. But what is eternal has no beginning of its existence. Therefore it is incorrect to say “of the New and Eternal,” because it seems to savor of a contradiction.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(3)- O(5) —

Further, occasions of error ought to be withheld from men, according to Isaiah 57:14: “Take away the stumbling blocks out of the way of My people.” But some have fallen into error in thinking that Christ’s body and blood are only mystically present in this sacrament. Therefore it is out of place to add “the mystery of faith.”

P(3)- Q(78)- A(3)- O(6) —

Further, it was said above ( Q(73), A(3), ad 3), that as Baptism is the sacrament of faith, so is the Eucharist the sacrament of charity. Consequently, in this form the word “charity” ought rather to be used than “faith.”

P(3)- Q(78)- A(3)- O(7) —

Further, the whole of this sacrament, both as to body and blood, is a memorial of our Lord’s Passion, according to Corinthians 11:26: “As often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord.”

Consequently, mention ought to be made of Christ’s Passion and its fruit rather in the form of the consecration of the blood, than in the form of the consecration of the body, especially since our Lord said: “This is My body, which shall be delivered up for you” ( Luke 22:19).

P(3)- Q(78)- A(3)- O(8) —

Further, as was already observed ( Q(48), A(2) ; Q(49), A(3) ), Christ’s Passion sufficed for all; while as to its efficacy it was profitable for many. Therefore it ought to be said: “Which shall be shed for all,” or else “for many,” without adding, “for you.”

P(3)- Q(78)- A(3)- O(9) —

Further, the words whereby this sacrament is consecrated draw their efficacy from Christ’s institution. But no Evangelist narrates that Christ spoke all these words. Therefore this is not an appropriate form for the consecration of the wine.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(3) —

On the contrary, The Church, instructed by the apostles, uses this form.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(3) —

I answer that, There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words “This is the chalice of My blood” alone belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ’s blood. consequently they belong to the integrity of the expression.

And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, “As often as ye shall do this,” which belong to the use of this sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance of the form. Hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words, under the same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands. Moreover, in Luke 22:20, the words that follow are interposed with the preceding words: “This is the chalice, the new testament in My blood.”

Consequently it must be said that all the aforesaid words belong to the substance of the form; but that by the first words, “This is the chalice of My blood,” the change of the wine into blood is denoted, as explained above ( A(2) ) in the form for the consecration of the bread; but by the words which come after is shown the power of the blood shed in the Passion, which power works in this sacrament, and is ordained for three purposes. First and principally for securing our eternal heritage, according to Hebrews 10:19: “Having confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ”; and in order to denote this, we say, “of the New and Eternal Testament.” Secondly, for justifying by grace, which is by faith according to Romans 3:25,26: “Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood... that He Himself may be just, and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ”: and on this account we add, “The Mystery of Faith.” Thirdly, for removing sins which are the impediments to both of these things, according to Hebrews 9:14: “The blood of Christ... shall cleanse our conscience from dead works,” that is, from sins; and on this account, we say, “which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins.”

P(3)- Q(78)- A(3)- RO(1) —

The expression “This is the chalice of My blood” is a figure of speech, which can be understood in two ways. First, as a figure of metonymy; because the container is put for the contained, so that the meaning is: “This is My blood contained in the chalice”; of which mention is now made, because Christ’s blood is consecrated in this sacrament, inasmuch as it is the drink of the faithful, which is not implied under the notion of blood; consequently this had to be denoted by the vessel adapted for such usage.

Secondly, it can be taken by way of metaphor, so that Christ’s Passion is understood by the chalice by way of comparison, because, like a cup, it inebriates, according to Lamentations 3:15: “He hath filled me with bitterness, he hath inebriated me with wormwood”: hence our Lord Himself spoke of His Passion as a chalice, when He said ( Matthew 26:39): “Let this chalice pass away from Me”: so that the meaning is: “This is the chalice of My Passion.” This is denoted by the blood being consecrated apart from the body; because it was by the Passion that the blood was separated from the body.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(3)- RO(2) —

As was said above (ad 1; Q(76), A(2), ad 1), the blood consecrated apart expressly represents Christ’s Passion, and therefore mention is made of the fruits of the Passion in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body, since the body is the subject of the Passion. This is also pointed out in our Lord’s saying, “which shall be delivered up for you,” as if to say, “which shall undergo the Passion for you.”

P(3)- Q(78)- A(3)- RO(3) —

A testament is the disposal of a heritage. But God disposed of a heavenly heritage to men, to be bestowed through the virtue of the blood of Jesus Christ; because, according to Hebrews 9:16: “Where there is a testament the death of the testator must of necessity come in.” Now Christ’s blood was exhibited to men in two ways. First of all in figure, and this belongs to the Old Testament; consequently the Apostle concludes ( Hebrews 9:16): “Whereupon neither was the first indeed dedicated without blood,” which is evident from this, that as related in Exodus 24:7,8, “when every” commandment of the law “had been read” by Moses, “he sprinkled all the people” saying: “This is the blood of the testament which the Lord hath enjoined unto you.”

Secondly, it was shown in very truth; and this belongs to the New Testament. This is what the Apostle premises when he says ( Romans 9:15): “Therefore He is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of His death... they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”

Consequently, we say here, “The blood of the New Testament,” because it is shown now not in figure but in truth; and therefore we add, “which shall be shed for you.” But the internal inspiration has its origin in the power of this blood, according as we are justified by Christ’s Passion.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(3)- RO(4) —

This Testament is a “new one” by reason of its showing forth: yet it is called “eternal” both on account of God’s eternal pre-ordination, as well as on account of the eternal heritage which is prepared by this testament. Moreover, Christ’s Person is eternal, in Whose blood this testament is appointed.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(3)- RO(5) —

The word “mystery” is inserted, not in order to exclude reality, but to show that the reality is hidden, because Christ’s blood is in this sacrament in a hidden manner, and His Passion was dimly foreshadowed in the Old Testament.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(3)- RO(6) —

It is called the “Sacrament of Faith,” as being an object of faith: because by faith alone do we hold the presence of Christ’s blood in this sacrament. Moreover Christ’s Passion justifies by faith. Baptism is called the “Sacrament of Faith” because it is a profession of faith. This is called the “Sacrament of Charity,” as being figurative and effective thereof.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(3)- RO(7) —

As stated above (ad 2), the blood consecrated apart represents Christ’s blood more expressively; and therefore mention is made of Christ’s Passion and its fruits, in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(3)- RO(8) —

The blood of Christ’s Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the Jews, to whom the blood of the Old Testament was exhibited, but also in the Gentiles; nor only in priests who consecrate this sacrament, and in those others who partake of it; but likewise in those for whom it is offered. And therefore He says expressly, “for you,” the Jews, “and for many,” namely the Gentiles; or, “for you” who eat of it, and “for many,” for whom it is offered.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(3)- RO(9) —

The Evangelists did not intend to hand down the forms of the sacraments, which in the primitive Church had to be kept concealed, as Dionysius observes at the close of his book on the ecclesiastical hierarchy; their object was to write the story of Christ.

Nevertheless nearly all these words can be culled from various passages of the Scriptures. Because the words, “This is the chalice,” are found in Luke 22:20, and 1 Corinthians 11:25, while Matthew says in chapter 26:28: “This is My blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins.” The words added, namely, “eternal” and “mystery of faith,” were handed down to the Church by the apostles, who received them from our Lord, according to 1 Corinthians 11:23: “I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.”

P(3)- Q(78)- A(4) Whether in the aforesaid words of the forms there be any created power which causes the consecration?

P(3)- Q(78)- A(4)- O(1) —

It seems that in the aforesaid words of the forms there is no created power which causes the consecration. Because Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): “The change of the bread into Christ’s body is caused solely by the power of the Holy Ghost.” But the power of the Holy Ghost is uncreated. Therefore this sacrament is not caused by any created power of those words.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, miraculous works are wrought not by any created power, but solely by Divine power, as was stated in the P(1), Q(110), A(4) . But the change of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood is a work not less miraculous than the creation of things, or than the formation of Christ’s body in the womb of a virgin: which things could not be done by any created power. Therefore, neither is this sacrament consecrated by any created power of the aforesaid words.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, the aforesaid words are not simple, but composed of many; nor are they uttered simultaneously, but successively.

But, as stated above ( Q(75), A(7) ), this change is wrought instantaneously. hence it must be done by a simple power. Therefore it is not effected by the power of those words.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(4) —

On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): “If there be such might in the word of the Lord Jesus that things non-existent came into being, how much more efficacious is it to make things existing to continue, and to be changed into something else? And so, what was bread before consecration is now the body of Christ after consecration, because Christ’s word changes a creature into something different.”

P(3)- Q(78)- A(4) —

I answer that, Some have maintained that neither in the above words is there any created power for causing the transubstantiation, nor in the other forms of the sacraments, or even in the sacraments themselves, for producing the sacramental effects. This, as was shown above ( Q(62), A(1) ), is both contrary to the teachings of the saints, and detracts from the dignity of the sacraments of the New Law. Hence, since this sacrament is of greater worth than the others, as stated above ( Q(65), A(3) ), the result is that there is in the words of the form of this sacrament a created power which causes the change to be wrought in it: instrumental, however, as in the other sacraments, as stated above ( Q(62), AA(3),4 ). For since these words are uttered in the person of Christ, it is from His command that they receive their instrumental power from Him, just as His other deeds and sayings derive their salutary power instrumentally, as was observed above ( Q(48), A(6) ; Q(56), A(1), ad 3).

P(3)- Q(78)- A(4)- RO(1) —

When the bread is said to be changed into Christ’s body solely by the power of the Holy Ghost, the instrumental power which lies in the form of this sacrament is not excluded: just as when we say that the smith alone makes a knife we do not deny the power of the hammer.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(4)- RO(2) —

No creature can work miracles as the chief agent. yet it can do so instrumentally, just as the touch of Christ’s hand healed the leper. And in this fashion Christ’s words change the bread into His body. But in Christ’s conception, whereby His body was fashioned, it was impossible for anything derived from His body to have the instrumental power of forming that very body. Likewise in creation there was no term wherein the instrumental action of a creature could be received. Consequently there is no comparison.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(4)- RO(3) —

The aforesaid words, which work the consecration, operate sacramentally. Consequently, the converting power latent under the forms of these sacraments follows the meaning, which is terminated in the uttering of the last word. And therefore the aforesaid words have this power in the last instant of their being uttered, taken in conjunction with those uttered before. And this power is simple by reason of the thing signified, although there be composition in the words uttered outwardly.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(5) Whether the aforesaid expressions are true?

P(3)- Q(78)- A(5)- O(1) —

It seems that the aforesaid expressions are not true. Because when we say: “This is My body,” the word “this” designates a substance. But according to what was said above ( AA(1),4 , ad 3; Q(75), AA(2),7 ), when the pronoun “this” is spoken, the substance of the bread is still there, because the transubstantiation takes place in the last instant of pronouncing the words. But it is false to say: “Bread is Christ’s body.” Consequently this expression, “This is My body,” is false.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, the pronoun “this” appeals to the senses. But the sensible species in this sacrament are neither Christ’s body nor even its accidents. Therefore this expression, “This is My body,” cannot be true.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, as was observed above ( A(4), ad 3), these words, by their signification, effect the change of the bread into the body of Christ. But an effective cause is understood as preceding its effect.

Therefore the meaning of these words is understood as preceding the change of the bread into the body of Christ. But previous to the change this expression, “This is My body,” is false. Therefore the expression is to be judged as false simply; and the same reason holds good of the other phrase: “This is the chalice of My blood,” etc.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(5) —

On the contrary, These words are pronounced in the person of Christ, Who says of Himself ( John 14:6): “I am the truth.”

P(3)- Q(78)- A(5) —

I answer that, There have been many opinions on this point. Some have said that in this expression, “This is My body,” the word “this” implies demonstration as conceived, and not as exercised, because the whole phrase is taken materially, since it is uttered by a way of narration: for the priest relates that Christ said: “This is My body.”

But such a view cannot hold good, because then these words would not be applied to the corporeal matter present, and consequently the sacrament would not be valid: for Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.): “The word is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament.” Moreover this solution ignores entirely the difficulty which this question presents: for there is still the objection in regard to the first uttering of these words by Christ; since it is evident that then they were employed, not materially, but significatively. And therefore it must be said that even when spoken by the priest they are taken significatively, and not merely materially. Nor does it matter that the priest pronounces them by way of recital, as though they were spoken by Christ, because owing to Christ’s infinite power, just as through contact with His flesh the regenerative power entered not only into the waters which came into contact with Christ, but into all waters throughout the whole world and during all future ages, so likewise from Christ’s uttering these words they derived their consecrating power, by whatever priest they be uttered, as if Christ present were saying them.

And therefore others have said that in this phrase the word “this” appeals, not to the senses, but to the intellect; so that the meaning is, “This is My body” — i.e. “The thing signified by ‘this’ is My body.” But neither can this stand, because, since in the sacraments the effect is that which is signified, from such a form it would not result that Christ’s body was in very truth in this sacrament, but merely as in a sign, which is heretical, as stated above ( Q(85), A(1) ).

Consequently, others have said that the word “this” appeals to the senses; not at the precise instant of its being uttered, but merely at the last instant thereof; as when a man says, “Now I am silent,” this adverb “now” points to the instant immediately following the speech: because the sense is: “Directly these words are spoken I am silent.” But neither can this hold good, because in that case the meaning of the sentence would be: “My body is My body,” which the above phrase does not effect, because this was so even before the utterance of the words: hence neither does the aforesaid sentence mean this.

Consequently, then, it remains to be said, as stated above ( A(4) ), that this sentence possesses the power of effecting the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ. And therefore it is compared to other sentences, which have power only of signifying and not of producing, as the concept of the practical intellect, which is productive of the thing, is compared to the concept of our speculative intellect which is drawn from things. because “words are signs of concepts,” as the Philosopher says (Peri Herm. i). And therefore as the concept of the practical intellect does not presuppose the thing understood, but makes it, so the truth of this expression does not presuppose the thing signified, but makes it; for such is the relation of God’s word to the things made by the Word. Now this change takes place not successively, but in an instant, as stated above ( Q(77), A(7) ).

Consequently one must understand the aforesaid expression with reference to the last instant of the words being spoken, yet not so that the subject may be understood to have stood for that which is the term of the conversion; viz. that the body of Christ is the body of Christ; nor again that the subject be understood to stand for that which it was before the conversion, namely, the bread. but for that which is commonly related to both, i.e. that which is contained in general under those species. For these words do not make the body of Christ to be the body of Christ, nor do they make the bread to be the body of Christ; but what was contained under those species, and was formerly bread, they make to be the body of Christ. And therefore expressly our Lord did not say: “This bread is My body,” which would be the meaning of the second opinion; nor “This My body is My body,” which would be the meaning of the third opinion: but in general: “This is My body,” assigning no noun on the part of the subject, but only a pronoun, which signifies substance in common, without quality, that is, without a determinate form.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(5)- RO(1) —

The term “this” points to a substance, yet without determining its proper nature, as stated above.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(5)- RO(2) —

The pronoun “this” does not indicate the accidents, but the substance underlying the accidents, which at first was bread, and is afterwards the body of Christ, which body, although not informed by those accidents, is yet contained under them.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(5)- RO(3) —

The meaning of this expression is, in the order of nature, understood before the thing signified, just as a cause is naturally prior to the effect; but not in order of time, because this cause has its effect with it at the same time, and this suffices for the truth of the expression.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(6) Whether the form of the consecration of the bread accomplishes its effect before the form of the consecration of the wine be completed?

P(3)- Q(78)- A(6)- O(1) —

It seems that the form of the consecration of the bread does not accomplish its effect until the form for the consecration of the wine be completed. For, as Christ’s body begins to be in this sacrament by the consecration of the bread, so does His blood come to be there by the consecration of the wine. If, then, the words for consecrating the bread were to produce their effect before the consecration of the wine, it would follow that Christ’s body would be present in this sacrament without the blood, which is improper.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(6)- O(2) —

Further, one sacrament has one completion: hence although there be three immersions in Baptism, yet the first immersion does not produce its effect until the third be completed. But all this sacrament is one, as stated above ( Q(73), A(2) ). Therefore the words whereby the bread is consecrated do not bring about their effect without the sacramental words whereby the wine is consecrated.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(6)- O(3) —

Further, there are several words in the form for consecrating the bread, the first of which do not secure their effect until the last be uttered, as stated above ( A(4), ad 3). Therefore, for the same reason, neither do the words for the consecration of Christ’s body produce their effect, until the words for consecrating Christ’s blood are spoken.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(6) —

On the contrary, Directly the words are uttered for consecrating the bread, the consecrated host is shown to the people to be adored, which would not be done if Christ’s body were not there, for that would be an act of idolatry. Therefore the consecrating words of the bread produce their effect before. the words are spoken for consecrating the wine.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(6) —

I answer that, Some of the earlier doctors said that these two forms, namely, for consecrating the bread and the wine, await each other’s action, so that the first does not produce its effect until the second be uttered.

But this cannot stand, because, as stated above ( A(5), ad 3), for the truth of this phrase, “This is My body,” wherein the verb is in the present tense, it is required for the thing signified to be present simultaneously in time with the signification of the expression used; otherwise, if the thing signified had to be awaited for afterwards, a verb of the future tense would be employed, and not one of the present tense, so that we should not say, “This is My body,” but “This will be My body.” But the signification of this speech is complete directly those words are spoken. And therefore the thing signified must be present instantaneously, and such is the effect of this sacrament; otherwise it would not be a true speech. Moreover, this opinion is against the rite of the Church, which forthwith adores the body of Christ after the words are uttered.

Hence it must be said that the first form does not await the second in its action, but has its effect on the instant.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(6)- RO(1) —

It is on this account that they who maintained the above opinion seem to have erred. Hence it must be understood that directly the consecration of the bread is complete, the body of Christ is indeed present by the power of the sacrament, and the blood by real concomitance; but afterwards by the consecration of the wine, conversely, the blood of Christ is there by the power of the sacrament, and the body by real concomitance, so that the entire Christ is under either species, as stated above ( Q(76), A(2) ).

P(3)- Q(78)- A(6)- RO(2) —

This sacrament is one in perfection, as stated above ( Q(73), A(2) ), namely, inasmuch as it is made up of two things, that is, of food and drink, each of which of itself has its own perfection; but the three immersions of Baptism are ordained to one simple effect, and therefore there is no resemblance.

P(3)- Q(78)- A(6)- RO(3) —

The various words in the form for consecrating the bread constitute the truth of one speech, but the words of the different forms do not, and consequently there is no parallel.

QUESTION OF THE EFFECTS OF THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)

We must now consider the effects of this sacrament, and under this head there are eight points of inquiry: (1) Whether this sacrament bestows grace? (2) Whether the attaining of glory is an effect of this sacrament? (3) Whether the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament? (4) Whether venial sin is forgiven by this sacrament? (5) Whether the entire punishment due for sin is forgiven by this sacrament? (6) Whether this sacrament preserves man from future sins? (7) Whether this sacrament benefits others besides the recipients? (8) Of the obstacles to the effect of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(1) Whether grace is bestowed through this sacrament?

P(3)- Q(79)- A(1)- O(1) —

It seems that grace is not bestowed through this sacrament. For this sacrament is spiritual nourishment. But nourishment is only given to the living. Therefore since the spiritual life is the effect of grace, this sacrament belongs only to one in the state of grace. Therefore grace is not bestowed through this sacrament for it to be had in the first instance. In like manner neither is it given so as grace may be increased, because spiritual growth belongs to the sacrament of Confirmation, as stated above ( Q(72), A(1) ). Consequently, grace is not bestowed through this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, this sacrament is given as a spiritual refreshment. But spiritual refreshment seems to belong to the use of grace rather than to its bestowal. Therefore it seems that grace is not given through this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, as was said above ( Q(74), A(1) ), “Christ’s body is offered up in this sacrament for the salvation of the body, and His blood for that of the soul.” Now it is not the body which is the subject of grace, but the soul, as was shown in the P(2a), Q(110), A(4) . Therefore grace is not bestowed through this sacrament, at least so far as the body is concerned.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(1) —

On the contrary, Our Lord says ( John 6:52): “The bread which I will give, is My flesh for the life of the world.” But the spiritual life is the effect of grace. Therefore grace is bestowed through this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(1) —

I answer that, The effect of this sacrament ought to be considered, first of all and principally, from what is contained in this sacrament, which is Christ; Who, just as by coming into the world, He visibly bestowed the life of grace upon the world, according to John 1:17: “Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ,” so also, by coming sacramentally into man causes the life of grace, according to John 6:58: “He that eateth Me, the same also shall live by Me.” Hence Cyril says on Luke 22:19: “God’s life-giving Word by uniting Himself with His own flesh, made it to be productive of life. For it was becoming that He should be united somehow with bodies through His sacred flesh and precious blood, which we receive in a life-giving blessing in the bread and wine.”

Secondly, it is considered on the part of what is represented by this sacrament, which is Christ’s Passion, as stated above ( Q(74), A(1) ; Q(76), A(2), ad 1). And therefore this sacrament works in man the effect which Christ’s Passion wrought in the world. Hence, Chrysostom says on the words, “Immediately there came out blood and water” ( John 19:34): “Since the sacred mysteries derive their origin from thence, when you draw nigh to the awe-inspiring chalice, so approach as if you were going to drink from Christ’s own side.” Hence our Lord Himself says ( Matthew 26:28): “This is My blood... which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins.”

Thirdly, the effect of this sacrament is considered from the way in which this sacrament is given; for it is given by way of food and drink. And therefore this sacrament does for the spiritual life all that material food does for the bodily life, namely, by sustaining, giving increase, restoring, and giving delight. Accordingly, Ambrose says (De Sacram. v): “This is the bread of everlasting life, which supports the substance of our soul.” And Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi in Joan.): “When we desire it, He lets us feel Him, and eat Him, and embrace Him.” And hence our Lord says ( John 6:56): “My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.”

Fourthly, the effect of this sacrament is considered from the species under which it is given. Hence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.): “Our Lord betokened His body and blood in things which out of many units are made into some one whole: for out of many grains is one thing made,” viz. bread; “and many grapes flow into one thing,” viz. wine. And therefore he observes elsewhere (Tract. xxvi in Joan.): “O sacrament of piety, O sign of unity, O bond of charity!”

And since Christ and His Passion are the cause of grace. and since spiritual refreshment, and charity cannot be without grace, it is clear from all that has been set forth that this sacrament bestows grace.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(1)- RO(1) —

This sacrament has of itself the power of bestowing grace; nor does anyone possess grace before receiving this sacrament except from some desire thereof; from his own desire, as in the case of the adult. or from the Church’s desire in the case of children, as stated above ( Q(73), A(3) ). Hence it is due to the efficacy of its power, that even from desire thereof a man procures grace whereby he is enabled to lead the spiritual life. It remains, then, that when the sacrament itself is really received, grace is increased, and the spiritual life perfected: yet in different fashion from the sacrament of Confirmation, in which grace is increased and perfected for resisting the outward assaults of Christ’s enemies. But by this sacrament grace receives increase, and the spiritual life is perfected, so that man may stand perfect in himself by union with God.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(1)- RO(2) —

This sacrament confers grace spiritually together with the virtue of charity. Hence Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) compares this sacrament to the burning coal which Isaias saw ( Isaiah 6:6): “For a live ember is not simply wood, but wood united to fire; so also the bread of communion is not simple bread but bread united with the Godhead.”

But as Gregory observes in a Homily for Pentecost, “God’s love is never idle; for, wherever it is it does great works.” And consequently through this sacrament, as far as its power is concerned, not only is the habit of grace and of virtue bestowed, but it is furthermore aroused to act, according to 2 Corinthians 5:14: “The charity of Christ presseth us.”

Hence it is that the soul is spiritually nourished through the power of this sacrament, by being spiritually gladdened, and as it were inebriated with the sweetness of the Divine goodness, according to Cant 5:1: “Eat, O friends, and drink, and be inebriated, my dearly beloved.”

P(3)- Q(79)- A(1)- RO(3) —

Because the sacraments operate according to the similitude by which they signify, therefore by way of assimilation it is said that in this sacrament “the body is offered for the salvation of the body, and the blood for the salvation of the soul,” although each works for the salvation of both, since the entire Christ is under each, as stated above ( Q(76), A(2) ). And although the body is not the immediate subject of grace, still the effect of grace flows into the body while in the present life we present “our [Vulg.: ‘your’] members” as “instruments of justice unto God” ( Romans 6:13), and in the life to come our body will share in the incorruption and the glory of the soul.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(2) Whether the attaining of glory is an effect of this sacrament?

P(3)- Q(79)- A(2)- O(1) —

It seems that the attaining of glory is not an effect of this sacrament. For an effect is proportioned to its cause. But this sacrament belongs to “wayfarers” [viatoribus], and hence it is termed “Viaticum.” Since, then, wayfarers are not yet capable of glory, it seems that this sacrament does not cause the attaining of glory.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, given sufficient cause, the effect follows. But many take this sacrament who will never come to glory, as Augustine declares (De Civ. Dei xxi). Consequently, this sacrament is not the cause of attaining unto glory.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, the greater is not brought about by the lesser, for nothing acts outside its species. But it is the lesser thing to receive Christ under a strange species, which happens in this sacrament, than to enjoy Him in His own species, which belongs to glory. Therefore this sacrament does not cause the attaining of glory.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(2) —

On the contrary, It is written ( John 6:52): “If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever.” But eternal life is the life of glory. Therefore the attaining of glory is an effect of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(2) —

I answer that, In this sacrament we may consider both that from which it derives its effect, namely, Christ contained in it, as also His Passion represented by it; and that through which it works its effect, namely, the use of the sacrament, and its species.

Now as to both of these it belongs to this sacrament to cause the attaining of eternal life. Because it was by His Passion that Christ opened to us the approach to eternal life, according to Hebrews 9:15: “He is the Mediator of the New Testament; that by means of His death... they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”

Accordingly in the form of this sacrament it is said: “This is the chalice of My blood, of the New and Eternal Testament.”

In like manner the refreshment of spiritual food and the unity denoted by the species of the bread and wine are to be had in the present life, although imperfectly. but perfectly in the state of glory. Hence Augustine says on the words, “My flesh is meat indeed” ( John 6:56): “Seeing that in meat and drink, men aim at this, that they hunger not nor thirst, this verily nought doth afford save only this meat and drink which maketh them who partake thereof to be immortal and incorruptible, in the fellowship of the saints, where shall be peace, and unity, full and perfect.”

P(3)- Q(79)- A(2)- RO(1) —

As Christ’s Passion, in virtue whereof this sacrament is accomplished, is indeed the sufficient cause of glory, yet not so that we are thereby forthwith admitted to glory, but we must first “suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified” afterwards “with Him” ( Romans 8:17), so this sacrament does not at once admit us to glory, but bestows on us the power of coming unto glory. And therefore it is called “Viaticum,” a figure whereof we read in 1 Kings 19:8: “Elias ate and drank, and walked in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights unto the mount of God, Horeb.”

P(3)- Q(79)- A(2)- RO(2) —

Just as Christ’s Passion has not its effect in them who are not disposed towards it as they should be, so also they do not come to glory through this sacrament who receive it unworthily. Hence Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), expounding the same passage, observes: “The sacrament is one thing, the power of the sacrament another. Many receive it from the altar... and by receiving”... die... Eat, then, spiritually the heavenly “bread, bring innocence to the altar.” It is no wonder, then, if those who do not keep innocence, do not secure the effect of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(2)- RO(3) —

That Christ is received under another species belongs to the nature of a sacrament, which acts instrumentally. But there is nothing to prevent an instrumental cause from producing a more mighty effect, as is evident from what was said above ( Q(77), A(3), ad 3).

P(3)- Q(79)- A(3) Whether the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament?

P(3)- Q(79)- A(3)- O(1) —

It seems that the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament. For it is said in one of the Collects (Postcommunion, Pro vivis et defunctis): “May this sacrament be a cleansing from crimes.” But mortal sins are called crimes. Therefore mortal sins are blotted out by this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, this sacrament, like Baptism, works by the power of Christ’s Passion. But mortal sins are forgiven by Baptism, as stated above ( Q(69), A(1) ). Therefore they are forgiven likewise by this sacrament, especially since in the form of this sacrament it is said: “Which shall be shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins.”

P(3)- Q(79)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, grace is bestowed through this sacrament, as stated above ( A(1) ). But by grace a man is justified from mortal sins, according to Romans 3:24: “Being justified freely by His grace.” Therefore mortal sins are forgiven by this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(3) —

On the contrary, It is written ( 1 Corinthians 11:29): “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself”: and a gloss of the same passage makes the following commentary: “He eats and drinks unworthily who is in the state of sin, or who handles (the sacrament) irreverently; and such a one eats and drinks judgment, i.e. damnation, unto himself.” Therefore, he that is in mortal sin, by taking the sacrament heaps sin upon sin, rather than obtains forgiveness of his sin.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(3) —

I answer that, The power of this sacrament can be considered in two ways. First of all, in itself: and thus this sacrament has from Christ’s Passion the power of forgiving all sins, since the Passion is the fount and cause of the forgiveness of sins.

Secondly, it can be considered in comparison with the recipient of the sacrament, in so far as there is, or is not, found in him an obstacle to receiving the fruit of this sacrament. Now whoever is conscious of mortal sin, has within him an obstacle to receiving the effect of this sacrament; since he is not a proper recipient of this sacrament, both because he is not alive spiritually, and so he ought not to eat the spiritual nourishment, since nourishment is confined to the living; and because he cannot be united with Christ, which is the effect of this sacrament, as long as he retains an attachment towards mortal sin. Consequently, as is said in the book De Ecclesiastes Dogm.: “If the soul leans towards sin, it is burdened rather than purified from partaking of the Eucharist.” Hence, in him who is conscious of mortal sin, this sacrament does not cause the forgiveness of sin.

Nevertheless this sacrament can effect the forgiveness of sin in two ways.

First of all, by being received, not actually, but in desire; as when a man is first justified from sin. Secondly, when received by one in mortal sin of which he is not conscious, and for which he has no attachment; since possibly he was not sufficiently contrite at first, but by approaching this sacrament devoutly and reverently he obtains the grace of charity, which will perfect his contrition and bring forgiveness of sin.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(3)- RO(1) —

We ask that this sacrament may be the “cleansing of crimes,” or of those sins of which we are unconscious, according to Psalm 18:13: “Lord, cleanse me from my hidden sins”; or that our contrition may be perfected for the forgiveness of our sins; or that strength be bestowed on us to avoid sin.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(3)- RO(2) —

Baptism is spiritual generation, which is a transition from spiritual non-being into spiritual being, and is given by way of ablution. Consequently, in both respects he who is conscious of mortal sin does not improperly approach Baptism. But in this sacrament man receives Christ within himself by way of spiritual nourishment, which is unbecoming to one that lies dead in his sins. Therefore the comparison does not hold good.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(3)- RO(3) —

Grace is the sufficient cause of the forgiveness of mortal sin; yet it does not forgive sin except when it is first bestowed on the sinner. But it is not given so in this sacrament. Hence the argument does not prove.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(4) Whether venial sins are forgiven through this sacrament?

P(3)- Q(79)- A(4)- O(1) —

It seems that venial sins are not forgiven by this sacrament, because this is the “sacrament of charity,” as Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.). But venial sins are not contrary to charity, as was shown in the P(2a), Q(88), AA(1),2 ; P(2b), Q(24), A(10) . Therefore, since contrary is taken away by its contrary, it seems that venial sins are not forgiven by this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, if venial sins be forgiven by this sacrament, then all of them are forgiven for the same reason as one is. But it does not appear that all are forgiven, because thus one might frequently be without any venial sin, against what is said in 1 John 1:8: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.” Therefore no venial sin is forgiven by this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, contraries mutually exclude each other.

But venial sins do not forbid the receiving of this sacrament: because Augustine says on the words, “If any man eat of it he shall [Vulg.: ‘may’] not die for ever” ( John 6:50): “Bring innocence to the altar: your sins, though they be daily... let them not be deadly.” Therefore neither are venial sins taken away by this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(4) —

On the contrary, Innocent III says (De S. Alt. Myst. iv) that this sacrament “blots out venial sins, and wards off mortal sins.”

P(3)- Q(79)- A(4) —

I answer that, Two things may be considered in this sacrament, to wit, the sacrament itself, and the reality of the sacrament: and it appears from both that this sacrament has the power of forgiving venial sins. For this sacrament is received under the form of nourishing food. Now nourishment from food is requisite for the body to make good the daily waste caused by the action of natural heat. But something is also lost daily of our spirituality from the heat of concupiscence through venial sins, which lessen the fervor of charity, as was shown in the P(2b), Q(24), A(10) . And therefore it belongs to this sacrament to forgive venial sins.

Hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. v) that this daily bread is taken “as a remedy against daily infirmity.”

The reality of this sacrament is charity, not only as to its habit, but also as to its act, which is kindled in this sacrament; and by this means venial sins are forgiven. Consequently, it is manifest that venial sins are forgiven by the power of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(4)- RO(1) —

Venial sins, although not opposed to the habit of charity, are nevertheless opposed to the fervor of its act, which act is kindled by this sacrament; by reason of which act venial sins are blotted out.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(4)- RO(1) —

The passage quoted is not to be understood as if a man could not at some time be without all guilt of venial sin: but that the just do not pass through this life without committing venial sins.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(4)- RO(3) —

The power of charity, to which this sacrament belongs, is greater than that of venial sins: because charity by its act takes away venial sins, which nevertheless cannot entirely hinder the act of charity. And the same holds good of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(5) Whether the entire punishment due to sin is forgiven through this sacrament?

P(3)- Q(79)- A(5)- O(1) —

It seems that the entire punishment due to sin is forgiven through this sacrament. For through this sacrament man receives the effect of Christ’s Passion within himself as stated above ( AA(1),2 ), just as he does through Baptism. But through Baptism man receives forgiveness of all punishment, through the virtue of Christ’s Passion, which satisfied sufficiently for all sins, as was explained above ( Q(69), A(2) ). Therefore it seems the whole debt of punishment is forgiven through this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, Pope Alexander I says (Ep. ad omnes orth.): “No sacrifice can be greater than the body and the blood of Christ.”

But man satisfied for his sins by the sacrifices of the old Law: for it is written ( Leviticus 4,5): “If a man shall sin, let him offer” (so and so) “for his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.”

Therefore this sacrament avails much more for the forgiveness of all punishment.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, it is certain that some part of the debt of punishment is forgiven by this sacrament; for which reason it is sometimes enjoined upon a man, by way of satisfaction, to have masses said for himself. But if one part of the punishment is forgiven, for the same reason is the other forgiven: owing to Christ’s infinite power contained in this sacrament. Consequently, it seems that the whole punishment can be taken away by this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(5) —

On the contrary, In that case no other punishment would have to be enjoined; just as none is imposed upon the newly baptized.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(5) —

I answer that, This sacrament is both a sacrifice and a sacrament. it has the nature of a sacrifice inasmuch as it is offered up; and it has the nature of a sacrament inasmuch as it is received. And therefore it has the effect of a sacrament in the recipient, and the effect of a sacrifice in the offerer, or in them for whom it is offered.

If, then, it be considered as a sacrament, it produces its effect in two ways: first of all directly through the power of the sacrament; secondly as by a kind of concomitance, as was said above regarding what is contained in the sacrament ( Q(76), AA(1),2 ). Through the power of the sacrament it produces directly that effect for which it was instituted. Now it was instituted not for satisfaction, but for nourishing spiritually through union between Christ and His members, as nourishment is united with the person nourished. But because this union is the effect of charity, from the fervor of which man obtains forgiveness, not only of guilt but also of punishment, hence it is that as a consequence, and by concomitance with the chief effect, man obtains forgiveness of the punishment, not indeed of the entire punishment, but according to the measure of his devotion and fervor.

But in so far as it is a sacrifice, it has a satisfactory power. Yet in satisfaction, the affection of the offerer is weighed rather than the quantity of the offering. Hence our Lord says ( Mark 12:43: cf. Luke 21:4) of the widow who offered “two mites” that she “cast in more than all.”

Therefore, although this offering suffices of its own quantity to satisfy for all punishment, yet it becomes satisfactory for them for whom it is offered, or even for the offerers, according to the measure of their devotion, and not for the whole punishment.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(5)- RO(1) —

The sacrament of Baptism is directly ordained for the remission of punishment and guilt: not so the Eucharist, because Baptism is given to man as dying with Christ, whereas the Eucharist is given as by way of nourishing and perfecting him through Christ.

Consequently there is no parallel.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(5)- RO(2) —

Those other sacrifices and oblations did not effect the forgiveness of the whole punishment, neither as to the quantity of the thing offered, as this sacrament does, nor as to personal devotion; from which it comes to pass that even here the whole punishment is not taken away.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(5)- RO(3) —

If part of the punishment and not the whole be taken away by this sacrament, it is due to a defect not on the part of Christ’s power, but on the part of man’s devotion.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(6) Whether man is preserved by this sacrament from future sins?

P(3)- Q(79)- A(6)- O(1) —

It seems that man is not preserved by this sacrament from future sins. For there are many that receive this sacrament worthily, who afterwards fall into sin. Now this would not happen if this sacrament were to preserve them from future sins. Consequently, it is not an effect of this sacrament to preserve from future sins.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(6)- O(2) —

Further, the Eucharist is the sacrament of charity, as stated above ( A(4) ). But charity does not seem to preserve from future sins, because it can be lost through sin after one has possessed it, as was stated in the P(2b), Q(24), A(11) . Therefore it seems that this sacrament does not preserve man from sin.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(6)- O(3) —

Further, the origin of sin within us is “the law of sin, which is in our members,” as declared by the Apostle ( Romans 7:23). But the lessening of the fomes, which is the law of sin, is set down as an effect not of this sacrament, but rather of Baptism. Therefore preservation from sin is not an effect of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(6) —

On the contrary, our Lord said ( John 6:50): “This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die”: which manifestly is not to be understood of the death of the body.

Therefore it is to be understood that this sacrament preserves from spiritual death, which is through sin.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(6) —

I answer that, Sin is the spiritual death of the soul.

Hence man is preserved from future sin in the same way as the body is preserved from future death of the body: and this happens in two ways.

First of all, in so far as man’s nature is strengthened inwardly against inner decay, and so by means of food and medicine he is preserved from death.

Secondly, by being guarded against outward assaults; and thus he is protected by means of arms by which he defends his body.

Now this sacrament preserves man from sin in both of these ways. For, first of all, by uniting man with Christ through grace, it strengthens his spiritual life, as spiritual food and spiritual medicine, according to <19A305> Psalm 103:5: “(That) bread strengthens [Vulg.: ‘may strengthen’] man’s heart.”

Augustine likewise says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.): “Approach without fear; it is bread, not poison.” Secondly, inasmuch as it is a sign of Christ’s Passion, whereby the devils are conquered, it repels all the assaults of demons. Hence Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi in Joan.): “Like lions breathing forth fire, thus do we depart from that table, being made terrible to the devil.”

P(3)- Q(79)- A(6)- RO(1) —

The effect of this sacrament is received according to man’s condition: such is the case with every active cause in that its effect is received in matter according to the condition of the matter.

But such is the condition of man on earth that his free-will can be bent to good or evil. Hence, although this sacrament of itself has the power of preserving from sin, yet it does not take away from man the possibility of sinning.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(6)- RO(2) —

Even charity of itself keeps man from sin, according to Romans 13:10: “The love of our neighbor worketh no evil”: but it is due to the mutability of free-will that a man sins after possessing charity, just as after receiving this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(6)- RO(3) —

Although this sacrament is not ordained directly to lessen the fomes, yet it does lessen it as a consequence, inasmuch as it increases charity, because, as Augustine says ( Q(83) ), “the increase of charity is the lessening of concupiscence.” But it directly strengthens man’s heart in good; whereby he is also preserved from sin.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(7) Whether this sacrament benefit others besides the recipients?

P(3)- Q(79)- A(7)- O(1) —

It seems that this sacrament benefits only the recipients. For this sacrament is of the same genus as the other sacraments, being one of those into which that genus is divided. But the other sacraments only benefit the recipients; thus the baptized person alone receives effect of Baptism. Therefore, neither does this sacrament benefit others than the recipients.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(7)- O(2) —

Further, the effects of this sacrament are the attainment of grace and glory, and the forgiveness of sin, at least of venial sin. If therefore this sacrament were to produce its effects in others besides the recipients, a man might happen to acquire grace and glory and forgiveness of sin without doing or receiving anything himself, through another receiving or offering this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(7)- O(3) —

Further, when the cause is multiplied, the effect is likewise multiplied. If therefore this sacrament benefit others besides the recipients, it would follow that it benefits a man more if he receive this sacrament through many hosts being consecrated in one mass, whereas this is not the Church’s custom: for instance, that many receive communion for the salvation of one individual. Consequently, it does not seem that this sacrament benefits anyone but the recipient.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(7) —

On the contrary, Prayer is made for many others during the celebration of this sacrament; which would serve no purpose were the sacrament not beneficial to others. Therefore, this sacrament is beneficial not merely to them who receive it.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(7) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(3) ), this sacrament is not only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice. For, it has the nature of a sacrifice inasmuch as in this sacrament Christ’s Passion is represented, whereby Christ “offered Himself a Victim to God” ( Ephesians 5:2), and it has the nature of a sacrament inasmuch as invisible grace is bestowed in this sacrament under a visible species. So, then, this sacrament benefits recipients by way both of sacrament and of sacrifice, because it is offered for all who partake of it. For it is said in the Canon of the Mass: “May as many of us as, by participation at this Altar, shall receive the most sacred body and blood of Thy Son, be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace.”

But to others who do not receive it, it is beneficial by way of sacrifice, inasmuch as it is offered for their salvation. Hence it is said in the Canon of the Mass: “Be mindful, O Lord, of Thy servants, men and women... for whom we offer, or who offer up to Thee, this sacrifice of praise for themselves and for all their own, for the redemption of their souls, for the hope of their safety and salvation.” And our Lord expressed both ways, saying ( Matthew 26:28, with Luke 22:20): “Which for you,” i.e. who receive it, “and for many,” i.e. others, “shall be shed unto remission of sins.”

P(3)- Q(79)- A(7)- RO(1) —

This sacrament has this in addition to the others, that it is a sacrifice: and therefore the comparison fails.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(7)- RO(2) —

As Christ’s Passion benefits all, for the forgiveness of sin and the attaining of grace and glory, whereas it produces no effect except in those who are united with Christ’s Passion through faith and charity, so likewise this sacrifice, which is the memorial of our Lord’s Passion, has no effect except in those who are united with this sacrament through faith and charity. Hence Augustine says to Renatus (De Anima et ejus origine i): “Who may offer Christ’s body except for them who are Christ’s members?” Hence in the Canon of the Mass no prayer is made for them who are outside the pale of the Church. But it benefits them who are members, more or less, according to the measure of their devotion.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(7)- RO(3) —

Receiving is of the very nature of the sacrament, but offering belongs to the nature of sacrifice: consequently, when one or even several receive the body of Christ, no help accrues to others. In like fashion even when the priest consecrates several hosts in one mass, the effect of this sacrament is not increased, since there is only one sacrifice; because there is no more power in several hosts than in one, since there is only one Christ present under all the hosts and under one.

Hence, neither will any one receive greater effect from the sacrament by taking many consecrated hosts in one mass. But the oblation of the sacrifice is multiplied in several masses, and therefore the effect of the sacrifice and of the sacrament is multiplied.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(8) Whether the effect of this sacrament is hindered by venial sin?

P(3)- Q(79)- A(8)- O(1) —

It seems that the effect of this sacrament is not hindered by venial sin. For Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), commenting on John 6:52, “If any man eat of this bread,” etc., says: “Eat the heavenly bread spiritually; bring innocence to the altar; your sins, though they be daily, let them not be deadly.” From this it is evident that venial sins, which are called daily sins, do not prevent spiritual eating. But they who eat spiritually, receive the effect of this sacrament. Therefore, venial sins do not hinder the effect of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(8)- O(2) —

Further, this sacrament is not less powerful than Baptism. But, as stated above ( Q(69), AA(9),10 ), only pretense checks the effect of Baptism, and venial sins do not belong to pretense; because according to Wis. 1:5: “the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee from the deceitful,” yet He is not put to flight by venial sins. Therefore neither do venial sins hinder the effect of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(8)- O(3) —

Further, nothing which is removed by the action of any cause, can hinder the effect of such cause. But venial sins are taken away by this sacrament. Therefore, they do not hinder its effect.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(8) —

On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): “The fire of that desire which is within us, being kindled by the burning coal,” i.e. this sacrament, “will consume our sins, and enlighten our hearts, so that we shall be inflamed and made godlike.” But the fire of our desire or love is hindered by venial sins, which hinder the fervor of charity, as was shown in the P(2a), Q(81), A(4) ; P(2b), Q(24), A(10) . Therefore venial sins hinder the effect of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(8) —

I answer that, Venial sins can be taken in two ways: first of all as past, secondly as in the act of being committed. Venial sins taken in the first way do not in any way hinder the effect of this sacrament. For it can come to pass that after many venial sins a man may approach devoutly to this sacrament and fully secure its effect. Considered in the second way venial sins do not utterly hinder the effect of this sacrament, but merely in part. For, it has been stated above ( A(1) ), that the effect of this sacrament is not only the obtaining of habitual grace or charity, but also a certain actual refreshment of spiritual sweetness: which is indeed hindered if anyone approach to this sacrament with mind distracted through venial sins; but the increase of habitual grace or of charity is not taken away.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(8)- RO(1) —

He that approaches this sacrament with actual venial sin, eats spiritually indeed, in habit but not in act: and therefore he shares in the habitual effect of the sacrament, but not in its actual effect.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(8)- RO(2) —

Baptism is not ordained, as this sacrament is, for the fervor of charity as its actual effect. Because Baptism is spiritual regeneration, through which the first perfection is acquired, which is a habit or form; but this sacrament is spiritual eating, which has actual delight.

P(3)- Q(79)- A(8)- RO(3) —

This argument deals with past venial sins, which are taken away by this sacrament.

QUESTION OF THE USE OR RECEIVING OF THIS SACRAMENT IN GENERAL (TWELVE ARTICLES)

We have now to consider the use or receiving of this sacrament, first of all in general; secondly, how Christ used this sacrament.

Under the first heading there are twelve points of inquiry: (1) Whether there are two ways of eating this sacrament, namely, sacramentally and spiritually? (2) Whether it belongs to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually? (3) Whether it belongs to the just man only to eat it sacramentally? (4) Whether the sinner sins in eating it sacramentally? (5) Of the degree of this sin; (6) Whether this sacrament should be refused to the sinner that approaches it? (7) Whether nocturnal pollution prevents man from receiving this sacrament? (8) Whether it is to be received only when one is fasting? (9) Whether it is to be given to them who lack the use of reason? (10) Whether it is to be received daily? (11) Whether it is lawful to refrain from it altogether? (12) Whether it is lawful to receive the body without the blood?

P(3)- Q(80)- A(1) Whether there are two ways to be distinguished of eating Christ’s body?

P(3)- Q(80)- A(1)- O(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 John 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 ( John 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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(1)- O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(1)- O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(1) —

On the contrary, The gloss says on 1 Corinthians 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.”

P(3)- Q(80)- A(1) —

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 ( QQ(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 ( Q(79), AA(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(1)- RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(1)- RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(1)- RO(3) —

As stated above ( Q(73), A(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 Corinthians 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 ( Q(69), A(4), ad 2).

P(3)- Q(80)- A(2) Whether it belongs to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually?

P(3)- Q(80)- A(2)- O(1) —

It seems that it does not belong to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually, but likewise to angels. Because on Psalm 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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(2)- O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(2)- O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(2) —

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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(2) —

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.

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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(2)- RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(2)- RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(2)- RO(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).

P(3)- Q(80)- A(3) Whether the just man alone may eat Christ sacramentally?

P(3)- Q(80)- A(3)- O(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 P(2b), Q(2) , A(2) ; P(2b), Q(4) , A(5) . Therefore the sinner cannot eat this sacrament, which is the living bread.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, this sacrament is specially called “the sacrament of charity,” as stated above ( Q(78), A(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, the sinner is more abominable before God than the irrational creature: for it is said of the sinner ( Psalm 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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(3) —

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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(3) —

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.

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 ( Q(76), A(6), ad 3; Q(77), A(8) ). But the species last so long as the substance of the bread would remain, if it were there, as was stated above ( Q(77), A(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(3)- RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(3)- RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(3)- RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(4) Whether the sinner sins in receiving Christ’s body sacramentally?

P(3)- Q(80)- A(4)- O(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 Luke 7 of the woman who was a sinner; while it is written ( Matthew 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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, this sacrament, like the others, is a spiritual medicine. But medicine is given to the sick for their recovery, according to Matthew 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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(4)- O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(4)- O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(4)- O(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 Corinthians 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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(4) —

On the contrary, The Apostle says ( 1 Corinthians 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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(4) —

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 ( Q(73), A(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(4)- RO(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.

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 John 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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(4)- RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(4)- RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(4)- RO(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 ( Q(76), A(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(4)- RO(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 Corinthians 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.

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 ( P(4), Q(2) , A(3), ad 2); hence he is no longer to be called a sinner.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(5) Whether to approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin is the gravest of all sins?

P(3)- Q(80)- A(5)- O(1) —

It seems that to approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin is the gravest of all sins; because the Apostle says ( 1 Corinthians 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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(5)- O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(5)- O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(5) —

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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(5) —

I answer that, As stated in the P(2a), Q(73), AA(3),6 ; P(2b), Q(73), A(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 ( Matthew 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.

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.

So, then, it is evident that this sin is specifically graver than many others, yet it is not the greatest of all.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(5)- RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(5)- RO(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.

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 ( Q(61), A(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 Corinthians 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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(5)- RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(6) Whether the priest ought to deny the body of Christ to the sinner seeking it?

P(3)- Q(80)- A(6)- O(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 ( Matthew 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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(6)- O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(6)- O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(6) —

On the contrary, on Psalm 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.”

P(3)- Q(80)- A(6) —

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.”

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 Corinthians 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.”

P(3)- Q(80)- A(6)- RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(6)- RO(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 Genesis 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.

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 Psalm 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.”

P(3)- Q(80)- A(6)- RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(7) Whether the seminal loss that occurs during sleep hinders anyone from receiving this sacrament?

P(3)- Q(80)- A(7)- O(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 (Genesis 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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(7)- O(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.”

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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(7)- O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(7)- O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(7)- O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(7) —

On the contrary, It is written ( Leviticus 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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(7) —

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.

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 P(1), Q(111), A(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.

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.

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 ( O(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.

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.

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.”

P(3)- Q(80)- A(7)- RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(7)- RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(7)- RO(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 ( Deuteronomy 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.”

P(3)- Q(80)- A(7)- RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(7)- RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(8) Whether food or drink taken beforehand hinders the receiving of this sacrament?

P(3)- Q(80)- A(8)- O(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 Luke 22:20, and from 1 Corinthians 11:25. Therefore it seems that we ought to take this sacrament after receiving other food.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(8)- O(2) —

Further, it is written ( 1 Corinthians 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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(8)- O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(8)- O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(8)- O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(8)- O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(8) —

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.”

P(3)- Q(80)- A(8) —

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 ( A(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 Matthew 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 Corinthians 11:21): “One, indeed, is hungry, and another is drunk.”

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.”

P(3)- Q(80)- A(8)- RO(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.”

P(3)- Q(80)- A(8)- RO(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.”

P(3)- Q(80)- A(8)- RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(8)- RO(4) —

As stated in the P(2b), Q(147), A(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.

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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(8)- RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(8)- RO(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.

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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(9) Whether those who have not the use of reason ought to receive this sacrament?

P(3)- Q(80)- A(9)- O(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 selfexamination, according to 1 Corinthians 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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(9)- O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(9)- O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(9) —

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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(9) —

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.

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.”

P(3)- Q(80)- A(9)- RO(1) —

Those lacking the use of reason can have devotion towards the sacrament; actual devotion in some cases, and past in others.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(9)- RO(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.”

P(3)- Q(80)- A(9)- RO(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 ( John 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 Corinthians 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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(10) Whether it is lawful to receive this sacrament daily?

P(3)- Q(80)- A(10) - O(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 Peter 3:18. Therefore, it seems unlawful to receive this sacrament daily.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(10) - O(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 ( Q(73), A(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(10) - O(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 ( Matthew 8:8), “Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof”; also Peter, for saying ( Luke 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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(10) - O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(10) - O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(10) —

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Verb. Dom., Serm. xxviii): “This is our daily bread; take it daily, that it may profit thee daily.”

P(3)- Q(80)- A(10) —

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 Ecclesiastes Dogmat. liii: “I neither praise nor blame daily reception of the Eucharist.”

P(3)- Q(80)- A(10) - RO(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 ( Hebrews 10:14): “By one oblation He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” Consequently, since man has daily need of Christ’s healthgiving virtue, he may commendably receive this sacrament every day.

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 John 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 ( Luke 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.”

P(3)- Q(80)- A(10) - RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(10) - RO(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 P(2a), Q(67), A(4), ad 2; P(2b), Q(19), AA(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.”

P(3)- Q(80)- A(10) - RO(4) —

Because our Lord said ( Luke 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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(10) - RO(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” ( Matthew 24:12), Pope Innocent III commanded that the faithful should communicate “at least once a year,” namely, “at Easter.”

However, in De Ecclesiastes Dogmat. xxiii, the faithful are counseled “to communicate on all Sundays.”

P(3)- Q(80)- A(11) Whether it is lawful to abstain altogether from communion?

P(3)- Q(80)- A(11) - O(1) —

It seems to be lawful to abstain altogether from Communion. Because the Centurion is praised for saying ( Matthew 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 ( A(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(11) - O(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 ( Q(73), A(3) ). Therefore it is permissible to abstain from Communion altogether.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(11) - O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(11) —

On the contrary, Our Lord said ( John 6:54): “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.”

P(3)- Q(80)- A(11) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(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 ( Q(73), A(3), ad 1). Now spiritual eating comprises the desire or yearning for receiving this sacrament, as was said above ( A(1), ad 3, A(2) ). Therefore, a man cannot be saved without desiring to receive this sacrament.

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 ( Luke 22:19): “Do this in memory of Me.” But by the precept of the Church there are fixed times for fulfilling Christ’s command.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(11) - RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(11) - RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(11) - RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(12) Whether it is lawful to receive the body of Christ without the blood?

P(3)- Q(80)- A(12) - O(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(12) - O(2) —

Further, the eating of the body and the drinking of the blood are required for the perfection of this sacrament, as stated above ( Q(73), A(2) ; Q(76), A(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.”

P(3)- Q(80)- A(12) - O(3) —

Further, this sacrament is celebrated in memory of our Lord’s Passion, as stated above ( Q(73), AA(4),5 ; Q(74), A(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 ( Q(74), A(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(12) —

On the contrary, It is the custom of many churches for the body of Christ to be given to the communicant without His blood.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(12) —

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.

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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(12) - RO(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?”

P(3)- Q(80)- A(12) - RO(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.

P(3)- Q(80)- A(12) - RO(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 ( Q(76), A(2) ).

QUESTION OF THE USE WHICH CHRIST MADE OF THIS SACRAMENT AT ITS INSTITUTION (FOUR ARTICLES)

We have now to consider the use which Christ made of this sacrament at its institution; under which heading there are four points of inquiry: (1) Whether Christ received His own body and blood? (2) Whether He gave it to Judas? (3) What kind of body did He receive or give, namely, was it passible or impassible? (4) What would have been the condition of Christ’s body under this sacrament, if it had been reserved or consecrated during the three days He lay dead?

P(3)- Q(81)- A(1) Whether Christ received His own body and blood?

P(3)- Q(81)- A(1)- O(1) —

It seems that Christ did not receive His own body and blood, because nothing ought to be asserted of either Christ’s doings or sayings, which is not handed down by the authority of Sacred Scripture. But it is not narrated in the gospels that He ate His own body or drank His own blood. Therefore we must not assert this as a fact.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, nothing can be within itself except perchance by reason of its parts, for instance. as one part is in another, as is stated in Phys. 4. But what is eaten and drunk is in the eater and drinker.

Therefore, since the entire Christ is under each species of the sacrament, it seems impossible for Him to have received this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, the receiving of this sacrament is twofold, namely, spiritual and sacramental. But the spiritual was unsuitable for Christ, as He derived no benefit from the sacrament. and in consequence so was the sacramental, since it is imperfect without the spiritual, as was observed above ( Q(80), A(1) ). Consequently, in no way did Christ partake of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(1) —

On the contrary, Jerome says (Ad Hedib., Ep. xxx), “The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself the guest and banquet, is both the partaker and what is eaten.”

P(3)- Q(81)- A(1) —

I answer that, Some have said that Christ during the supper gave His body and blood to His disciples, but did not partake of it Himself. But this seems improbable. Because Christ Himself was the first to fulfill what He required others to observe: hence He willed first to be baptized when imposing Baptism upon others: as we read in Acts 1:1: “Jesus began to do and to teach.” Hence He first of all took His own body and blood, and afterwards gave it to be taken by the disciples. And hence the gloss upon Ruth 3:7, “When he had eaten and drunk, says: Christ ate and drank at the supper, when He gave to the disciples the sacrament of His body and blood. Hence, ‘because the children partook [*Vulg.: ‘are partakers’ ( Hebrews 2:14)] of His flesh and blood, He also hath been partaker in the same.’”

P(3)- Q(81)- A(1)- RO(1) — We read in the Gospels how Christ “took the bread... and the chalice”; but it is not to be understood that He took them merely into His hands, as some say. but that He took them in the same way as He gave them to others to take. Hence when He said to the disciples, “Take ye and eat,” and again, “Take ye and drink,” it is to be understood that He Himself, in taking it, both ate and drank. Hence some have composed this rhyme: “The King at supper sits, The twelve as guests He greets, Clasping Himself in His hands, The food Himself now eats.” P(3)- Q(81)- A(1)- RO(2) — As was said above ( Q(76), A(5) ), Christ as contained under this sacrament stands in relation to place, not according to His own dimensions, but according to the dimensions of the sacramental species; so that Christ is Himself in every place where those species are.

And because the species were able to be both in the hands and the mouth of Christ, the entire Christ could be in both His hands and mouth. Now this could not come to pass were His relation to place to be according to His proper dimensions.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(1)- RO(3) —

As was stated above ( Q(79), A(1), ad 2), the effect of this sacrament is not merely an increase of habitual grace, but furthermore a certain actual delectation of spiritual sweetness. But although grace was not increased in Christ through His receiving this sacrament, yet He had a certain spiritual delectation from the new institution of this sacrament. Hence He Himself said ( Luke 22:15): “With desire I have desired to eat this Pasch with you,” which words Eusebius explains of the new mystery of the New Testament, which He gave to the disciples. And therefore He ate it both spiritually and sacramentally, inasmuch as He received His own body under the sacrament which sacrament of His own body He both understood and prepared; yet differently from others who partake of it both sacramentally and spiritually, for these receive an increase of grace, and they have need of the sacramental signs for perceiving its truth.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(2) Whether Christ gave His body to Judas?

P(3)- Q(81)- A(2)- O(1) —

It seems that Christ did not give His body to Judas. Because, as we read ( Matthew 26:29), our Lord, after giving His body and blood to the disciples, said to them: “I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of My Father.” From this it appears that those to whom He had given His body and blood were to drink of it again with Him. But Judas did not drink of it afterwards with Him. Therefore he did not receive Christ’s body and blood with the other disciples.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, what the Lord commanded, He Himself fulfilled, as is said in Acts 1:1: “Jesus began to do and to teach.” But He gave the command ( Matthew 7:6): “Give not that which is holy to dogs.” Therefore, knowing Judas to be a sinner, seemingly He did not give him His body and blood.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, it is distinctly related ( John 13:26) that Christ gave dipped bread to Judas. Consequently, if He gave His body to him, it appears that He gave it him in the morsel, especially since we read ( John 13:26) that “after the morsel, Satan entered into him.” And on this passage Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan.): “From this we learn how we should beware of receiving a good thing in an evil way... For if he be ‘chastised’ who does ‘not discern,’ i.e. distinguish, the body of the Lord from other meats, how must he be ‘condemned’ who, feigning himself a friend, comes to His table a foe?” But (Judas) did not receive our Lord’s body with the dipped morsel; thus Augustine commenting on John 13:26, “When He had dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas, the son of Simon the Iscariot [Vulg.: ‘to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon],” says (Tract. lxii in Joan.): “Judas did not receive Christ’s body then, as some think who read carelessly.” Therefore it seems that Judas did not receive the body of Christ.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(2) —

On the contrary, Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxii in Matth.): “Judas was not converted while partaking of the sacred mysteries: hence on both sides his crime becomes the more heinous, both because imbued with such a purpose he approached the mysteries, and because he became none the better for approaching, neither from fear, nor from the benefit received, nor from the honor conferred on him.”

P(3)- Q(81)- A(2) —

I answer that, Hilary, in commenting on Matthew 26:17, held that Christ did not give His body and blood to Judas. And this would have been quite proper, if the malice of Judas be considered. But since Christ was to serve us as a pattern of justice, it was not in keeping with His teaching authority to sever Judas, a hidden sinner, from Communion with the others without an accuser and evident proof. lest the Church’s prelates might have an example for doing the like, and lest Judas himself being exasperated might take occasion of sinning. Therefore, it remains to be said that Judas received our Lord’s body and blood with the other disciples, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), and Augustine (Tract. lxii in Joan.).

P(3)- Q(81)- A(2)- RO(1) —

This is Hilary’s argument, to show that Judas did not receive Christ’s body. But it is not cogent; because Christ is speaking to the disciples, from whose company Judas separated himself: and it was not Christ that excluded him. Therefore Christ for His part drinks the wine even with Judas in the kingdom of God; but Judas himself repudiated this banquet.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(2)- RO(2) —

The wickedness of Judas was known to Christ as God; but it was unknown to Him, after the manner in which men know it. Consequently, Christ did not repel Judas from Communion; so as to furnish an example that such secret sinners are not to be repelled by other priests.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(2)- RO(3) —

Without any doubt Judas did not receive Christ’s body in the dipped bread; he received mere bread. Yet as Augustine observes (Tract. lxii in Joan.), “perchance the feigning of Judas is denoted by the dipping of the bread; just as some things are dipped to be dyed. If, however, the dipping signifies here anything good” (for instance, the sweetness of the Divine goodness, since bread is rendered more savory by being dipped), “then, not undeservedly, did condemnation follow his ingratitude for that same good.” And owing to that ingratitude, “what is good became evil to him, as happens to them who receive Christ’s body unworthily.”

And as Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan.), “it must be understood that our Lord had already distributed the sacrament of His body and blood to all His disciples, among whom was Judas also, as Luke narrates: and after that, we came to this, where, according to the relation of John, our Lord, by dipping and handing the morsel, does most openly declare His betrayer.”

P(3)- Q(81)- A(3) Whether Christ received and gave to the disciples His impassible body?

P(3)- Q(81)- A(3)- O(1) —

It seems that Christ both received and gave to the disciples His impassible body. Because on Matthew 17:2, “He was transfigured before them,” the gloss says: “He gave to the disciples at the supper that body which He had through nature, but neither mortal nor passible.” And again, on Leviticus 2:5, “if thy oblation be from the frying-pan,” the gloss says: “The Cross mightier than all things made Christ’s flesh fit for being eaten, which before the Passion did not seem so suited.” But Christ gave His body as suited for eating. Therefore He gave it just as it was after the Passion, that is, impassible and immortal.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, every passible body suffers by contact and by being eaten. Consequently, if Christ’s body was passible, it would have suffered both from contact and from being eaten by the disciples.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, the sacramental words now spoken by the priest in the person of Christ are not more powerful than when uttered by Christ Himself. But now by virtue of the sacramental words it is Christ’s impassible and immortal body which is consecrated upon the altar. Therefore, much more so was it then.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(3) —

On the contrary, As Innocent III says (De Sacr. Alt.

Myst. iv), “He bestowed on the disciples His body such as it was.” But then He had a passible and a mortal body. Therefore, He gave a passible and mortal body to the disciples.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(3) —

I answer that, Hugh of Saint Victor (Innocent III, De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), maintained, that before the Passion, Christ assumed at various times the four properties of a glorified body — namely, subtlety in His birth, when He came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin; agility, when He walked dryshod upon the sea; clarity, in the Transfiguration; and impassibility at the Last Supper, when He gave His body to the disciples to be eaten. And according to this He gave His body in an impassible and immortal condition to His disciples.

But whatever may be the case touching the other qualities, concerning which we have already stated what should be held ( Q(28), A(2), ad 3; Q(45), A(2) ), nevertheless the above opinion regarding impassibility is inadmissible. For it is manifest that the same body of Christ which was then seen by the disciples in its own species, was received by them under the sacramental species. But as seen in its own species it was not impassible; nay more, it was ready for the Passion. Therefore, neither was Christ’s body impassible when given under the sacramental species.

Yet there was present in the sacrament, in an impassible manner, that which was passible of itself; just as that was there invisibly which of itself was visible. For as sight requires that the body seen be in contact with the adjacent medium of sight, so does passion require contact of the suffering body with the active agents. But Christ’s body, according as it is under the sacrament, as stated above ( A(1), ad 2; Q(76), A(5) ), is not compared with its surroundings through the intermediary of its own dimensions, whereby bodies touch each other, but through the dimensions of the bread and wine; consequently, it is those species which are acted upon and are seen, but not Christ’s own body.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(3)- RO(1) —

Christ is said not to have given His mortal and passible body at the supper, because He did not give it in mortal and passible fashion. But the Cross made His flesh adapted for eating, inasmuch as this sacrament represents Christ’s Passion.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(3)- RO(2) —

This argument would hold, if Christ’s body, as it was passible, were also present in a passible manner in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(3)- RO(3) —

As stated above ( Q(76), A(4) ), the accidents of Christ’s body are in this sacrament by real concomitance, but not by the power of the sacrament, whereby the substance of Christ’s body comes to be there. And therefore the power of the sacramental words extends to this, that the body, i.e. Christ’s, is under this sacrament, whatever accidents really exist in it.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(4) Whether, if this sacrament had been reserved in a pyx, or consecrated at the moment of Christ’s death by one of the apostles, Christ Himself would have died there?

P(3)- Q(81)- A(4)- O(1) —

It seems that if this sacrament had been reserved in a pyx at the moment of Christ’s death, or had then been consecrated by one of the apostles, that Christ would not have died there. For Christ’s death happened through His Passion. But even then He was in this sacrament in an impassible manner. Therefore, He could not die in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, on the death of Christ, His blood was separated from the body. But His flesh and blood are together in this sacrament. Therefore He could not die in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, death ensues from the separation of the soul from the body. But both the body and the soul of Christ are contained in this sacrament. Therefore Christ could not die in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(4) —

On the contrary, The same Christ Who was upon the cross would have been in this sacrament. But He died upon the cross.

Therefore, if this sacrament had been reserved, He would have died therein.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(4) —

I answer that, Christ’s body is substantially the same in this sacrament, as in its proper species, but not after the same fashion; because in its proper species it comes in contact with surrounding bodies by its own dimensions: but it does not do so as it is in this sacrament, as stated above ( A(3) ). And therefore, all that belongs to Christ, as He is in Himself, can be attributed to Him both in His proper species, and as He exists in the sacrament; such as to live, to die, to grieve, to be animate or inanimate, and the like; while all that belongs to Him in relation to outward bodies, can be attributed to Him as He exists in His proper species, but not as He is in this sacrament; such as to be mocked, to be spat upon, to be crucified, to be scourged, and the rest. Hence some have composed this verse: “Our Lord can grieve beneath the sacramental veils But cannot feel the piercing of the thorns and nails.”

P(3)- Q(81)- A(4)- RO(1) —

As was stated above, suffering belongs to a body that suffers in respect of some extrinsic body. And therefore Christ, as in this sacrament, cannot suffer; yet He can die.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(4)- RO(2) —

As was said above ( Q(76), A(2) ), in virtue of the consecration, the body of Christ is under the species of bread, while His blood is under the species of wine. But now that His blood is not really separated from His body; by real concomitance, both His blood is present with the body under the species of the bread, and His body together with the blood under the species of the wine. But at the time when Christ suffered, when His blood was really separated from His body, if this sacrament had been consecrated, then the body only would have been present under the species of the bread, and the blood only under the species of the wine.

P(3)- Q(81)- A(4)- RO(3) —

As was observed above ( Q(76), A(1), ad 1), Christ’s soul is in this sacrament by real concomitance; because it is not without the body: but it is not there in virtue of the consecration. And therefore, if this sacrament had been consecrated then, or reserved, when His soul was really separated from His body, Christ’s soul would not have been under this sacrament, not from any defect in the form of the words, but owing to the different dispositions of the thing contained.

QUESTION OF THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT (TEN ARTICLES)

We now proceed to consider the minister of this sacrament: under which head there are ten points for our inquiry: (1) Whether it belongs to a priest alone to consecrate this sacrament? (2) Whether several priests can at the same time consecrate the same host? (3) Whether it belongs to the priest alone to dispense this sacrament? (4) Whether it is lawful for the priest consecrating to refrain from communicating? (5) Whether a priest in sin can perform this sacrament? (6) Whether the Mass of a wicked priest is of less value than that of a good one? (7) Whether those who are heretics, schismatics, or excommunicated, can perform this sacrament? (8) Whether degraded priests can do so? (9) Whether communicants receiving at their hands are guilty of sinning? (10) Whether a priest may lawfully refrain altogether from celebrating? [*This is the order observed by St. Thomas in writing the Articles; but in writing this prologue, he placed Article 10 immediately after Article 4 (Cf.

Leonine edition).]

P(3)- Q(82)- A(1) Whether the consecration of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone?

P(3)- Q(82)- A(1)- O(1) —

It seems that the consecration of this sacrament does not belong exclusively to a priest. Because it was said above ( Q(78), A(4) ) that this sacrament is consecrated in virtue of the words, which are the form of this sacrament. But those words are not changed, whether spoken by a priest or by anyone else. Therefore, it seems that not only a priest, but anyone else, can consecrate this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, the priest performs this sacrament in the person of Christ. But a devout layman is united with Christ through charity. Therefore, it seems that even a layman can perform this sacrament. Hence Chrysostom (Opus imperfectum in Matth., Hom. xliii) says that “every holy man is a priest.”

P(3)- Q(82)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, as Baptism is ordained for the salvation of mankind, so also is this sacrament, as is clear from what was said above ( Q(74), A(1) ; Q(79), A(2) ). But a layman can also baptize, as was stated above ( Q(67), A(3) ). Consequently, the consecration of this sacrament is not proper to a priest.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(1)- O(4) —

Further, this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the matter. But the consecration of other matters such as the chrism, the holy oil, and blessed oil, belongs exclusively to a bishop; yet their consecration does not equal the dignity of the consecration of the Eucharist, in which the entire Christ is contained. Therefore it belongs, not to a priest, but only to a bishop, to perform this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(1) —

On the contrary, Isidore says in an Epistle to Ludifred (Decretals, dist. 25): “It belongs to a priest to consecrate this sacrament of the Lord’s body and blood upon God’s altar.”

P(3)- Q(82)- A(1) —

I answer that, As stated above ( Q(78), AA(1),4 ), such is the dignity of this sacrament that it is performed only as in the person of Christ. Now whoever performs any act in another’s stead, must do so by the power bestowed by such a one. But as the power of receiving this sacrament is conceded by Christ to the baptized person, so likewise the power of consecrating this sacrament on Christ’s behalf is bestowed upon the priest at his ordination: for thereby he is put upon a level with them to whom the Lord said ( Luke 22:19): “Do this for a commemoration of Me.” Therefore, it must be said that it belongs to priests to accomplish this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(1)- RO(1) —

The sacramental power is in several things, and not merely in one: thus the power of Baptism lies both in the words and in the water. Accordingly the consecrating power is not merely in the words, but likewise in the power delivered to the priest in his consecration and ordination, when the bishop says to him: “Receive the power of offering up the Sacrifice in the Church for the living as well as for the dead.” For instrumental power lies in several instruments through which the chief agent acts.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(1)- RO(2) —

A devout layman is united with Christ by spiritual union through faith and charity, but not by sacramental power: consequently he has a spiritual priesthood for offering spiritual sacrifices, of which it is said ( Psalm 1:19): “A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit”; and ( Romans 12:1): “Present your bodies a living sacrifice.”

Hence, too, it is written ( 1 Peter 2:5): “A holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices.”

P(3)- Q(82)- A(1)- RO(3) —

The receiving of this sacrament is not of such necessity as the receiving of Baptism, as is evident from what was said above ( Q(65), AA(3),4 ; Q(80), A(11), ad 2). And therefore, although a layman can baptize in case of necessity, he cannot perform this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(1)- RO(4) —

The bishop receives power to act on Christ’s behalf upon His mystical body, that is, upon the Church; but the priest receives no such power in his consecration, although he may have it by commission from the bishop. Consequently all such things as do not belong to the mystical body are not reserved to the bishop, such as the consecration of this sacrament. But it belongs to the bishop to deliver, not only to the people, but likewise to priests, such things as serve them in the fulfillment of their respective duties. And because the blessing of the chrism, and of the holy oil, and of the oil of the sick, and other consecrated things, such as altars, churches, vestments, and sacred vessels, makes such things fit for use in performing the sacraments which belong to the priestly duty, therefore such consecrations are reserved to the bishop as the head of the whole ecclesiastical order.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(2) Whether several priests can consecrate one and the same host?

P(3)- Q(82)- A(2)- O(1) —

It seems that several priests cannot consecrate one and the same host. For it was said above ( Q(67), A(6) ), that several cannot at the same time baptize one individual. But the power of a priest consecrating is not less than that of a man baptizing. Therefore, several priests cannot consecrate one host at the same time.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, what can be done by one, is superfluously done by several. But there ought to be nothing superfluous in the sacraments. Since, then, one is sufficient for consecrating, it seems that several cannot consecrate one host.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, as Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), this is “the sacrament of unity.” But multitude seems to be opposed to unity. Therefore it seems inconsistent with the sacrament for several priests to consecrate the same host.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(2) —

On the contrary, It is the custom of some Churches for priests newly ordained to co-celebrate with the bishop ordaining them.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(2) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(1) ), when a priest is ordained he is placed on a level with those who received consecrating power from our Lord at the Supper. And therefore, according to the custom of some Churches, as the apostles supped when Christ supped, so the newly ordained co-celebrate with the ordaining bishop. Nor is the consecration, on that account, repeated over the same host, because as Innocent III says (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), the intention of all should be directed to the same instant of the consecration.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(2)- RO(1) —

We do not read of Christ baptizing with the apostles when He committed to them the duty of baptizing; consequently there is no parallel.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(2)- RO(2) —

If each individual priest were acting in his own power, then other celebrants would be superfluous, since one would be sufficient. But whereas the priest does not consecrate except as in Christ’s stead; and since many are “one in Christ” ( Galatians 3:28); consequently it does not matter whether this sacrament be consecrated by one or by many, except that the rite of the Church must be observed.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(2)- RO(3) —

The Eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, which is brought about by many being “one in Christ.”

P(3)- Q(82)- A(3) Whether dispensing of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone?

P(3)- Q(82)- A(3)- O(1) —

It seems that the dispensing of this sacrament does not belong to a priest alone. For Christ’s blood belongs to this sacrament no less than His body. But Christ’s blood is dispensed by deacons: hence the blessed Lawrence said to the blessed Sixtus (Office of St. Lawrence, Resp. at Matins): “Try whether you have chosen a fit minister, to whom you have entrusted the dispensing of the Lord’s blood.”

Therefore, with equal reason the dispensing of Christ’s body does not belong to priests only.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, priests are the appointed ministers of the sacraments. But this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the matter, and not in the use, to which the dispensing belongs. Therefore it seems that it does not belong to a priest to dispense the Lord’s body.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii, iv) that this sacrament, like chrism, has the power of perfecting. But it belongs, not to priests, but to bishops, to sign with the chrism. Therefore likewise, to dispense this sacrament belongs to the bishop and not to the priest.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(3) —

On the contrary, It is written (De Consecr., dist. 12): “It has come to our knowledge that some priests deliver the Lord’s body to a layman or to a woman to carry it to the sick: The synod therefore forbids such presumption to continue; and let the priest himself communicate the sick.”

P(3)- Q(82)- A(3) —

I answer that, The dispensing of Christ’s body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above ( A(1) ), he consecrates as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His body at the supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ’s body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people; hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(3)- RO(1) —

The deacon, as being nigh to the priestly order, has a certain share in the latter’s duties, so that he may dispense the blood; but not the body, except in case of necessity, at the bidding of a bishop or of a priest. First of all, because Christ’s blood is contained in a vessel, hence there is no need for it to be touched by the dispenser, as Christ’s body is touched. Secondly, because the blood denotes the redemption derived by the people from Christ; hence it is that water is mixed with the blood, which water denotes the people. And because deacons are between priest and people, the dispensing of the blood is in the competency of deacons, rather than the dispensing of the body.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(3)- RO(2) —

For the reason given above, it belongs to the same person to dispense and to consecrate this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(3)- RO(3) —

As the deacon, in a measure, shares in the priest’s “power of enlightening” (Eccl. Hier. v), inasmuch as he dispenses the blood. so the priest shares in the “perfective dispensing” (Eccl. Hier. v) of the bishop, inasmuch as he dispenses this sacrament whereby man is perfected in himself by union with Christ. But other perfections whereby a man is perfected in relation to others, are reserved to the bishop.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(4) Whether the priest who consecrates is bound to receive this sacrament?

P(3)- Q(82)- A(4)- O(1) —

It seems that the priest who consecrates is not bound to receive this sacrament. Because, in the other consecrations, he who consecrates the matter does not use it, just as the bishop consecrating the chrism is not anointed therewith. But this sacrament consists in the consecration of the matter. Therefore, the priest performing this sacrament need not use the same, but may lawfully refrain from receiving it.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, in the other sacraments the minister does not give the sacrament to himself: for no one can baptize himself, as stated above ( Q(66), A(5), ad 4). But as Baptism is dispensed in due order, so also is this sacrament. Therefore the priest who consecrates this sacrament ought not to receive it at his own hands.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, it sometimes happens that Christ’s body appears upon the altar under the guise of flesh, and the blood under the guise of blood; which are unsuited for food and drink: hence, as was said above ( Q(75), A(5) ), it is on that account that they are given under another species, lest they beget revulsion in the communicants. Therefore the priest who consecrates is not always bound to receive this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(4) —

On the contrary, We read in the acts of the (Twelfth) Council of Toledo (Can. v), and again (De Consecr., dist. 2): “It must be strictly observed that as often as the priest sacrifices the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the altar, he must himself be a partaker of Christ’s body and blood.”

P(3)- Q(82)- A(4) —

I answer that, As stated above ( Q(79), AA(5),7 ), the Eucharist is not only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice. Now whoever offers sacrifice must be a sharer in the sacrifice, because the outward sacrifice he offers is a sign of the inner sacrifice whereby he offers himself to God, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x). Hence by partaking of the sacrifice he shows that the inner one is likewise his. In the same way also, by dispensing the sacrifice to the people he shows that he is the dispenser of Divine gifts, of which he ought himself to be the first to partake, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii). Consequently, he ought to receive before dispensing it to the people. Accordingly we read in the chapter mentioned above (Twelfth Council of Toledo, Can. v): “What kind of sacrifice is that wherein not even the sacrificer is known to have a share?” But it is by partaking of the sacrifice that he has a share in it, as the Apostle says ( Corinthians 10:18): “Are not they that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar?” Therefore it is necessary for the priest, as often as he consecrates, to receive this sacrament in its integrity.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(4)- RO(1) —

The consecration of chrism or of anything else is not a sacrifice, as the consecration of the Eucharist is: consequently there is no parallel.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(4)- RO(2) —

The sacrament of Baptism is accomplished in the use of the matter, and consequently no one can baptize himself, because the same person cannot be active and passive in a sacrament.

Hence neither in this sacrament does the priest consecrate himself, but he consecrates the bread and wine, in which consecration the sacrament is completed. But the use thereof follows the sacrament, and therefore there is no parallel.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(4)- RO(3) —

If Christ’s body appears miraculously upon the altar under the guise of flesh, or the blood under the guise of blood, it is not to be received. For Jerome says upon Leviticus (cf. De Consecr., dist. 2): “It is lawful to eat of this sacrifice which is wonderfully performed in memory of Christ: but it is not lawful for anyone to eat of that one which Christ offered on the altar of the cross.” Nor does the priest transgress on that account, because miraculous events are not subject to human laws.

Nevertheless the priest would be well advised to consecrate again and receive the Lord’s body and blood.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(5) Whether a wicked priest can consecrate the Eucharist?

P(3)- Q(82)- A(5)- O(1) —

It seems that a wicked priest cannot consecrate the Eucharist. For Jerome, commenting on Sophon. iii, 4, says: “The priests who perform the Eucharist, and who distribute our Lord’s blood to the people, act wickedly against Christ’s law, in deeming that the Eucharist is consecrated by a prayer rather than by a good life; and that only the solemn prayer is requisite, and not the priest’s merits: of whom it is said: ‘Let not the priest, in whatever defilement he may be, approach to offer oblations to the Lord’“ ( Leviticus 21:21, Septuagint). But the sinful priest, being defiled, has neither the life nor the merits befitting this sacrament. Therefore a sinful priest cannot consecrate the Eucharist.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that “the bread and wine are changed supernaturally into the body and blood of our Lord, by the coming of the Holy Ghost.” But Pope Gelasius I says (Ep. ad Elphid., cf. Decret. i, q. 1): “How shall the Holy Spirit, when invoked, come for the consecration of the Divine Mystery, if the priest invoking him be proved full of guilty deeds?” Consequently, the Eucharist cannot be consecrated by a wicked priest.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, this sacrament is consecrated by the priest’s blessing. But a sinful priest’s blessing is not efficacious for consecrating this sacrament, since it is written ( Malachi 2:2): “I will curse your blessings.” Again, Dionysius says in his Epistle (viii) to the monk Demophilus: “He who is not enlightened has completely fallen away from the priestly order; and I wonder that such a man dare to employ his hands in priestly actions, and in the person of Christ to utter, over the Divine symbols, his unclean infamies, for I will not call them prayers.”

P(3)- Q(82)- A(5) —

On the contrary, Augustine (Paschasius) says (De Corp. Dom. xii): “Within the Catholic Church, in the mystery of the Lord’s body and blood, nothing greater is done by a good priest, nothing less by an evil priest, because it is not by the merits of the consecrator that the sacrament is accomplished, but by the Creator’s word, and by the power of the Holy Spirit.”

P(3)- Q(82)- A(5) —

I answer that, As was said above ( AA(1),3 ), the priest consecrates this sacrament not by his own power, but as the minister of Christ, in Whose person he consecrates this sacrament. But from the fact of being wicked he does not cease to be Christ’s minister; because our Lord has good and wicked ministers or servants. Hence ( Matthew 24:45) our Lord says: “Who, thinkest thou, is a faithful and wise servant?” and afterwards He adds: “But if that evil servant shall say in his heart,” etc.

And the Apostle ( 1 Corinthians 4:1) says: “Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ”; and afterwards he adds: “I am not conscious to myself of anything; yet am I not hereby justified.” He was therefore certain that he was Christ’s minister; yet he was not certain that he was a just man. Consequently, a man can be Christ’s minister even though he be not one of the just. And this belongs to Christ’s excellence, Whom, as the true God, things both good and evil serve, since they are ordained by His providence for His glory. Hence it is evident that priests, even though they be not godly, but sinners, can consecrate the Eucharist.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(5)- RO(1) —

In those words Jerome is condemning the error of priests who believed they could consecrate the Eucharist worthily, from the mere fact of being priests, even though they were sinners; and Jerome condemns this from the fact that persons defiled are forbidden to approach the altar; but this does not prevent the sacrifice, which they offer, from being a true sacrifice, if they do approach.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(5)- RO(2) —

Previous to the words quoted, Pope Gelasius expresses himself as follows: “That most holy rite, which contains the Catholic discipline, claims for itself such reverence that no one may dare to approach it except with clean conscience.” From this it is evident that his meaning is that the priest who is a sinner ought not to approach this sacrament. Hence when he resumes, “How shall the Holy Spirit come when summoned,” it must be understood that He comes, not through the priest’s merits, but through the power of Christ, Whose words the priest utters.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(5)- RO(3) —

As the same action can be evil, inasmuch as it is done with a bad intention of the servant; and good from the good intention of the master; so the blessing of a sinful priest, inasmuch as he acts unworthily is deserving of a curse, and is reputed an infamy and a blasphemy, and not a prayer; whereas, inasmuch as it is pronounced in the person of Christ, it is holy and efficacious. Hence it is said with significance: “I will curse your blessings.”

P(3)- Q(82)- A(6) Whether the mass of a sinful priest is of less worth than the mass of a good priest?

P(3)- Q(82)- A(6)- O(1) —

It seems that the mass of a sinful priest is not of less worth than that of a good priest. For Pope Gregory says in the Register: “Alas, into what a great snare they fall who believe that the Divine and hidden mysteries can be sanctified more by some than by others; since it is the one and the same Holy Ghost Who hallows those mysteries in a hidden and invisible manner.” But these hidden mysteries are celebrated in the mass. Therefore the mass of a sinful priest is not of less value than the mass of a good priest.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(6)- O(2) —

Further, as Baptism is conferred by a minister through the power of Christ Who baptizes, so likewise this sacrament is consecrated in the person of Christ. But Baptism is no better when conferred by a better priest, as was said above ( Q(64), A(1), ad 2).

Therefore neither is a mass the better, which is celebrated by a better priest.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(6)- O(3) —

Further, as the merits of priests differ in the point of being good and better, so they likewise differ in the point of being good and bad. Consequently, if the mass of a better priest be itself better, it follows that the mass of a bad priest must be bad. Now this is unreasonable, because the malice of the ministers cannot affect Christ’s mysteries, as Augustine says in his work on Baptism (Contra Donat. xii).

Therefore neither is the mass of a better priest the better.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(6) —

On the contrary, It is stated in Decretal i, q. 1: “The worthier the priest, the sooner is he heard in the needs for which he prays.”

P(3)- Q(82)- A(6) —

I answer that, There are two things to be considered in the mass. namely, the sacrament itself, which is the chief thing; and the prayers which are offered up in the mass for the quick and the dead. So far as the mass itself is concerned, the mass of a wicked priest is not of less value than that of a good priest, because the same sacrifice is offered by both.

Again, the prayer put up in the mass can be considered in two respects: first of all, in so far as it has its efficacy from the devotion of the priest interceding, and in this respect there is no doubt but that the mass of the better priest is the more fruitful. In another respect, inasmuch as the prayer is said by the priest in the mass in the place of the entire Church, of which the priest is the minister; and this ministry remains even in sinful men, as was said above ( A(5) ) in regard to Christ’s ministry. Hence, in this respect the prayer even of the sinful priest is fruitful, not only that which he utters in the mass, but likewise all those he recites in the ecclesiastical offices, wherein he takes the place of the Church. on the other hand, his private prayers are not fruitful, according to Proverbs 28:9: “He that turneth away his ears from hearing the law, his prayer shall be an abomination.”

P(3)- Q(82)- A(6)- RO(1) —

Gregory is speaking there of the holiness of the Divine sacrament.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(6)- RO(2) —

In the sacrament of Baptism solemn prayers are not made for all the faithful, as in the mass; therefore there is no parallel in this respect. There is, however, a resemblance as to the effect of the sacrament.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(6)- RO(3) —

By reason of the power of the Holy Ghost, Who communicates to each one the blessings of Christ’s members on account of their being united in charity, the private blessing in the mass of a good priest is fruitful to others. But the private evil of one man cannot hurt another, except the latter, in some way, consent, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii).

P(3)- Q(82)- A(7) Whether heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons can consecrate?

P(3)- Q(82)- A(7)- O(1) —

It seems that heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons are not able to consecrate the Eucharist. For Augustine says (Liber sentent. Prosperi xv) that “there is no such thing as a true sacrifice outside the Catholic Church”: and Pope Leo I says (Ep. lxxx; cf. Decretal i, q. 1): Elsewhere “(i.e. than in the Church which is Christ’s body) there is neither valid priesthood nor true sacrifice.” But heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons are severed from the Church. Therefore they are unable to offer a true sacrifice.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(7)- O(2) —

Further (Decretal, caus. i, q. 1), Innocent I is quoted as saying: “Because we receive the laity of the Arians and other pestilential persons, if they seem to repent, it does not follow that their clergy have the dignity of the priesthood or of any other ministerial office, for we allow them to confer nothing save Baptism.” But none can consecrate the Eucharist, unless he have the dignity of the priesthood.

Therefore heretics and the like cannot consecrate the Eucharist.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(7)- O(3) —

Further, it does not seem feasible for one outside the Church to act on behalf of the Church. But when the priest consecrates the Eucharist, he does so in the person of the entire Church, as is evident from the fact of his putting up all prayers in the person of the Church. Therefore, it seems that those who are outside the Church, such as those who are heretics, schismatics, and excommunicate, are not able to consecrate the Eucharist.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(7) —

On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): “Just as Baptism remains in them,” i.e. in heretics, schismatics, and those who are excommunicate, “so do their orders remain intact.” Now, by the power of his ordination, a priest can consecrate the Eucharist. Therefore, it seems that heretics, schismatics, and those who are excommunicate, can consecrate the Eucharist, since their orders remain entire.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(7) —

I answer that, Some have contended that heretics, schismatics, and the excommunicate, who are outside the pale of the Church, cannot perform this sacrament. But herein they are deceived, because, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), “it is one thing to lack something utterly, and another to have it improperly”; and in like fashion, “it is one thing not to bestow, and quite another to bestow, but not rightly.” Accordingly, such as, being within the Church, received the power of consecrating the Eucharist through being ordained to the priesthood, have such power rightly indeed; but they use it improperly if afterwards they be separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication. But such as are ordained while separated from the Church, have neither the power rightly, nor do they use it rightly. But that in both cases they have the power, is clear from what Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), that when they return to the unity of the Church, they are not re-ordained, but are received in their orders. And since the consecration of the Eucharist is an act which follows the power of order, such persons as are separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication, can indeed consecrate the Eucharist, which on being consecrated by them contains Christ’s true body and blood; but they act wrongly, and sin by doing so; and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which is a spiritual sacrifice.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(7)- RO(1) —

Such and similar authorities are to be understood in this sense, that the sacrifice is offered wrongly outside the Church. Hence outside the Church there can be no spiritual sacrifice that is a true sacrifice with the truth of its fruit, although it be a true sacrifice with the truth of the sacrament; thus it was stated above ( Q(80), A(3) ), that the sinner receives Christ’s body sacramentally, but not spiritually.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(7)- RO(2) —

Baptism alone is allowed to be conferred by heretics, and schismatics, because they can lawfully baptize in case of necessity; but in no case can they lawfully consecrate the Eucharist, or confer the other sacraments.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(7)- RO(3) —

The priest, in reciting the prayers of the mass, speaks instead of the Church, in whose unity he remains; but in consecrating the sacrament he speaks as in the person of Christ, Whose place he holds by the power of his orders. Consequently, if a priest severed from the unity of the Church celebrates mass, not having lost the power of order, he consecrates Christ’s true body and blood; but because he is severed from the unity of the Church, his prayers have no efficacy.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(8) Whether a degraded priest can consecrate this sacrament?

P(3)- Q(82)- A(8)- O(1) —

It seems that a degraded priest cannot consecrate this sacrament. For no one can perform this sacrament except he have the power of consecrating. But the priest “who has been degraded has no power of consecrating, although he has the power of baptizing” (App. Gratiani). Therefore it seems that a degraded priest cannot consecrate the Eucharist.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(8)- O(2) —

Further, he who gives can take away. But the bishop in ordaining gives to the priest the power of consecrating.

Therefore he can take it away by degrading him.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(8)- O(3) —

Further, the priest, by degradation, loses either the power of consecrating, or the use of such power. But he does not lose merely the use, for thus the degraded one would lose no more than one excommunicated, who also lacks the use. Therefore it seems that he loses the power to consecrate, and in consequence that he cannot perform this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(8) —

On the contrary, Augustine (Contra Parmen. ii) proves that “apostates” from the faith “are not deprived of their Baptism,” from the fact that “it is not restored to them when they return repentant; and therefore it is deemed that it cannot be lost.” But in like fashion, if the degraded man be restored, he has not to be ordained over again. Consequently, he has not lost the power of consecrating, and so the degraded priest can perform this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(8) —

I answer that, The power of consecrating the Eucharist belongs to the character of the priestly order. But every character is indelible, because it is given with a kind of consecration, as was said above ( Q(63), A(5) ), just as the consecrations of all other things are perpetual, and cannot be lost or repeated. Hence it is clear that the power of consecrating is not lost by degradation. For, again, Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): “Both are sacraments,” namely Baptism and order, “and both are given to a man with a kind of consecration; the former, when he is baptized; the latter when he is ordained; and therefore it is not lawful for Catholics to repeat either of them.” And thus it is evident that the degraded priest can perform this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(8)- RO(1) —

That Canon is speaking, not as by way of assertion, but by way of inquiry, as can be gleaned from the context.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(8)- RO(2) —

The bishop gives the priestly power of order, not as though coming from himself, but instrumentally, as God’s minister, and its effect cannot be taken away by man, according to Matthew 19:6: “What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” And therefore the bishop cannot take this power away, just as neither can he who baptizes take away the baptismal character.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(8)- RO(3) —

Excommunication is medicinal. And therefore the ministry of the priestly power is not taken away from the excommunicate, as it were, perpetually, but only for a time, that they may mend; but the exercise is withdrawn from the degraded, as though condemned perpetually.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(9) Whether it is permissible to receive communion from heretical, excommunicate, or sinful priests, and to hear mass said by them?

P(3)- Q(82)- A(9)- O(1) —

It seems that one may lawfully receive Communion from heretical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, and to hear mass said by them. Because, as Augustine says (Contra Petilian. iii), “we should not avoid God’s sacraments, whether they be given by a good man or by a wicked one.” But priests, even if they be sinful, or heretics, or excommunicate, perform a valid sacrament. Therefore it seems that one ought not to refrain from receiving Communion at their hands, or from hearing their mass.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(9)- O(2) —

Further, Christ’s true body is figurative of His mystical body, as was said above ( Q(67), A(2) ). But Christ’s true body is consecrated by the priests mentioned above. Therefore it seems that whoever belongs to His mystical body can communicate in their sacrifices.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(9)- O(3) —

Further, there are many sins graver than fornication. But it is not forbidden to hear the masses of priests who sin otherwise. Therefore, it ought not to be forbidden to hear the masses of priests guilty of this sin.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(9) —

On the contrary, The Canon says (Dist. 32): “Let no one hear the mass of a priest whom he knows without doubt to have a concubine.” Moreover, Gregory says (Dial. iii) that “the faithless father sent an Arian bishop to his son, for him to receive sacrilegiously the consecrated Communion at his hands. But, when the Arian bishop arrived, God’s devoted servant rebuked him, as was right for him to do.”

P(3)- Q(82)- A(9) —

I answer that, As was said above ( AA(5),7 ), heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin. Hence we read in John’s Second Canonical Epistle (11) that “He that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.” Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass.

Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church’s sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church’s sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church’s sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass. Hence on Corinthians 5:11, “with such a one not so much as to eat,” Augustine’s gloss runs thus: “In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God’s law, according to the Church’s ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted.”

P(3)- Q(82)- A(9)- RO(1) —

By refusing to hear the masses of such priests, or to receive Communion from them, we are not shunning God’s sacraments; on the contrary, by so doing we are giving them honor (hence a host consecrated by such priests is to be adored, and if it be reserved, it can be consumed by a lawful priest): but what we shun is the sin of the unworthy ministers.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(9)- RO(2) —

The unity of the mystical body is the fruit of the true body received. But those who receive or minister unworthily, are deprived of the fruit, as was said above ( A(7) ; Q(80), A(4) ). And therefore, those who belong to the unity of the Faith are not to receive the sacrament from their dispensing.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(9)- RO(3) —

Although fornication is not graver than other sins, yet men are more prone to it, owing to fleshly concupiscence.

Consequently, this sin is specially inhibited to priests by the Church, lest anyone hear the mass of one living in concubinage. However, this is to be understood of one who is notorious, either from being convicted and sentenced, or from having acknowledged his guilt in legal form, or from it being impossible to conceal his guilt by any subterfuge.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(10) Whether it is lawful for a priest to refrain entirely from consecrating the Eucharist?

P(3)- Q(82)- A(10) - O(1) —

It seems to be lawful for a priest to refrain entirely from consecrating the Eucharist. Because, as it is the priest’s office to consecrate the Eucharist, so it is likewise to baptize and administer the other sacraments. But the priest is not bound to act as a minister of the other sacraments, unless he has undertaken the care of souls. Therefore, it seems that likewise he is not bound to consecrate the Eucharist except he be charged with the care of souls.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(10) - O(2) —

Further, no one is bound to do what is unlawful for him to do; otherwise he would be in two minds. But it is not lawful for the priest who is in a state of sin, or excommunicate, to consecrate the Eucharist, as was said above ( A(7) ). Therefore it seems that such men are not bound to celebrate, and so neither are the others; otherwise they would be gainers by their fault.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(10) - O(3) —

Further, the priestly dignity is not lost by subsequent weakness: because Pope Gelasius I says (cf. Decretal, Dist. 55): “As the canonical precepts do not permit them who are feeble in body to approach the priesthood, so if anyone be disabled when once in that state, he cannot lose that he received at the time he was well.” But it sometimes happens that those who are already ordained as priests incur defects whereby they are hindered from celebrating, such as leprosy or epilepsy, or the like. Consequently, it does not appear that priests are bound to celebrate.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(10) —

On the contrary, Ambrose says in one of his Orations (xxxiii): “It is a grave matter if we do not approach Thy altar with clean heart and pure hands; but it is graver still if while shunning sins we also fail to offer our sacrifice.”

P(3)- Q(82)- A(10) —

I answer that, Some have said that a priest may lawfully refrain altogether from consecrating, except he be bound to do so, and to give the sacraments to the people, by reason of his being entrusted with the care of souls.

But this is said quite unreasonably, because everyone is bound to use the grace entrusted to him, when opportunity serves, according to <470601> Corinthians 6:1: “We exhort you that you receive not the grace of God in vain.” But the opportunity of offering sacrifice is considered not merely in relation to the faithful of Christ to whom the sacraments must be administered, but chiefly with regard to God to Whom the sacrifice of this sacrament is offered by consecrating. Hence, it is not lawful for the priest, even though he has not the care of souls, to refrain altogether from celebrating; and he seems to be bound to celebrate at least on the chief festivals, and especially on those days on which the faithful usually communicate. And hence it is that (2 Macc. 4:14) it is said against some priests that they “were not now occupied about the offices of the altar... despising the temple and neglecting the sacrifices.”

P(3)- Q(82)- A(10) - RO(1) —

The other sacraments are accomplished in being used by the faithful, and therefore he alone is bound to administer them who has undertaken the care of souls. But this sacrament is performed in the consecration of the Eucharist, whereby a sacrifice is offered to God, to which the priest is bound from the order he has received.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(10) - RO(2) —

The sinful priest, if deprived by the Church’s sentence from exercising his order, simply or for a time, is rendered incapable of offering sacrifice; consequently, the obligation lapses. But if not deprived of the power of celebrating, the obligation is not removed; nor is he in two minds, because he can repent of his sin and then celebrate.

P(3)- Q(82)- A(10) - RO(3) —

Weakness or sickness contracted by a priest after his ordination does not deprive him of his orders; but hinders him from exercising them, as to the consecration of the Eucharist: sometimes by making it impossible to exercise them, as, for example, if he lose his sight, or his fingers, or the use of speech; and sometimes on account of danger, as in the case of one suffering from epilepsy, or indeed any disease of the mind; and sometimes, on account of loathsomeness, as is evident in the case of a leper, who ought not to celebrate in public: he can, however, say mass privately, unless the leprosy has gone so far that it has rendered him incapable owing to the wasting away of his limbs.

QUESTION OF THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT (SIX ARTICLES)

We have now to consider the Rite of this sacrament, under which head there are six points of inquiry: (1) Whether Christ is sacrificed in the celebration of this mystery? (2) Of the time of celebrating; (3) Of the place and other matters relating to the equipment for this celebration; (4) Of the words uttered in celebrating this mystery; (5) Of the actions performed in celebrating this mystery. (6) Of the defects which occur in the celebration of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(1) Whether Christ is sacrificed in this sacrament?

P(3)- Q(83)- A(1)- O(1) —

It seems that Christ is not sacrificed in the celebration of this sacrament. For it is written ( Hebrews 10:14) that “Christ by one oblation hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”

But that oblation was His oblation. Therefore Christ is not sacrificed in the celebration of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, Christ’s sacrifice was made upon the cross, whereon “He delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness,” as is said in Ephesians 5:2. But Christ is not crucified in the celebration of this mystery. Therefore, neither is He sacrificed.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, as Augustine says (De Trin. iv), in Christ’s sacrifice the priest and the victim are one and the same. But in the celebration of this sacrament the priest and the victim are not the same.

Therefore, the celebration of this sacrament is not a sacrifice of Christ.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(1) —

On the contrary, Augustine says in the Liber Sentent.

Prosp. (cf. Ep. xcviii): “Christ was sacrificed once in Himself, and yet He is sacrificed daily in the Sacrament.”

P(3)- Q(83)- A(1) —

I answer that, The celebration of this sacrament is called a sacrifice for two reasons. First, because, as Augustine says (Ad Simplician. ii), “the images of things are called by the names of the things whereof they are the images; as when we look upon a picture or a fresco, we say, ‘This is Cicero and that is Sallust.’“ But, as was said above ( Q(79), A(1) ), the celebration of this sacrament is an image representing Christ’s Passion, which is His true sacrifice. Accordingly the celebration of this sacrament is called Christ’s sacrifice. Hence it is that Ambrose, in commenting on Hebrews 10:1, says: “In Christ was offered up a sacrifice capable of giving eternal salvation; what then do we do? Do we not offer it up every day in memory of His death?” Secondly it is called a sacrifice, in respect of the effect of His Passion: because, to wit, by this sacrament, we are made partakers of the fruit of our Lord’s Passion. Hence in one of the Sunday Secrets (Ninth Sunday after Pentecost) we say: “Whenever the commemoration of this sacrifice is celebrated, the work of our redemption is enacted.” Consequently, according to the first reason, it is true to say that Christ was sacrificed, even in the figures of the Old Testament: hence it is stated in the Apocalypse ( 13:8): “Whose names are not written in the Book of Life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world.”

But according to the second reason, it is proper to this sacrament for Christ to be sacrificed in its celebration.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(1)- RO(1) —

As Ambrose says (commenting on Hebrews 10:1), “there is but one victim,” namely that which Christ offered, and which we offer, “and not many victims, because Christ was offered but once: and this latter sacrifice is the pattern of the former. For, just as what is offered everywhere is one body, and not many bodies, so also is it but one sacrifice.”

P(3)- Q(83)- A(1)- RO(2) —

As the celebration of this sacrament is an image representing Christ’s Passion, so the altar is representative of the cross itself, upon which Christ was sacrificed in His proper species.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(1)- RO(3) —

For the same reason (cf. RO(2) ) the priest also bears Christ’s image, in Whose person and by Whose power he pronounces the words of consecration, as is evident from what was said above ( Q(82), AA(1),3 ). And so, in a measure, the priest and victim are one and the same.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(2) Whether the time for celebrating this mystery has been properly determined?

P(3)- Q(83)- A(2)- O(1) —

It seems that the time for celebrating this mystery has not been properly determined. For as was observed above ( A(1) ), this sacrament is representative of our Lord’s Passion. But the commemoration of our Lord’s Passion takes place in the Church once in the year: because Augustine says (Enarr. ii in Psalm 21): “Is not Christ slain as often as the Pasch is celebrated? Nevertheless, the anniversary remembrance represents what took place in by-gone days; and so it does not cause us to be stirred as if we saw our Lord hanging upon the cross.”

Therefore this sacrament ought to be celebrated but once a year.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, Christ’s Passion is commemorated in the Church on the Friday before Easter, and not on Christmas Day.

Consequently, since this sacrament is commemorative of our Lord’s Passion, it seems unsuitable for this sacrament to be celebrated thrice on Christmas Day, and to be entirely omitted on Good Friday.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, in the celebration of this sacrament the Church ought to imitate Christ’s institution. But it was in the evening that Christ consecrated this sacrament. Therefore it seems that this sacrament ought to be celebrated at that time of day.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(2)- O(4) —

Further, as is set down in the Decretals (De Consecr., dist. i), Pope Leo I wrote to Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, that “it is permissible to celebrate mass in the first part of the day.” But the day begins at midnight, as was said above ( Q(80), A(8), ad 5).

Therefore it seems that after midnight it is lawful to celebrate.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(2)- O(5) —

Further, in one of the Sunday Secrets (Ninth Sunday after Pentecost) we say: “Grant us, Lord, we beseech Thee, to frequent these mysteries.” But there will be greater frequency if the priest celebrates several times a day. Therefore it seems that the priest ought not to be hindered from celebrating several times daily.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(2) —

On the contrary is the custom which the Church observes according to the statutes of the Canons.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(2) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(1) ), in the celebration of this mystery, we must take into consideration the representation of our Lord’s Passion, and the participation of its fruits; and the time suitable for the celebration of this mystery ought to be determined by each of these considerations. Now since, owing to our daily defects, we stand in daily need of the fruits of our Lord’s Passion, this sacrament is offered regularly every day in the Church. Hence our Lord teaches us to pray ( Luke 11:3): “Give us this day our daily bread”: in explanation of which words Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. xxviii): “If it be a daily bread, why do you take it once a year, as the Greeks have the custom in the east? Receive it daily that it may benefit you every day.”

But since our Lord’s Passion was celebrated from the third to the ninth hour, therefore this sacrament is solemnly celebrated by the Church in that part of the day.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(2)- RO(1) —

Christ’s Passion is recalled in this sacrament, inasmuch as its effect flows out to the faithful; but at Passion-tide Christ’s Passion is recalled inasmuch as it was wrought in Him Who is our Head.

This took place but once; whereas the faithful receive daily the fruits of His Passion: consequently, the former is commemorated but once in the year, whereas the latter takes place every day, both that we may partake of its fruit and in order that we may have a perpetual memorial.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(2)- RO(2) —

The figure ceases on the advent of the reality.

But this sacrament is a figure and a representation of our Lord’s Passion, as stated above. And therefore on the day on which our Lord’s Passion is recalled as it was really accomplished, this sacrament is not consecrated.

Nevertheless, lest the Church be deprived on that day of the fruit of the Passion offered to us by this sacrament, the body of Christ consecrated the day before is reserved to be consumed on that day; but the blood is not reserved, on account of danger, and because the blood is more specially the image of our Lord’s Passion, as stated above ( Q(78), A(3), ad 2). Nor is it true, as some affirm, that the wine is changed into blood when the particle of Christ’s body is dropped into it. Because this cannot be done otherwise than by consecration under the due form of words.

On Christmas Day, however, several masses are said on account of Christ’s threefold nativity. Of these the first is His eternal birth, which is hidden in our regard. and therefore one mass is sung in the night, in the “Introit” of which we say: “The Lord said unto Me: Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee.” The second is His nativity in time, and the spiritual birth, whereby Christ rises “as the day-star in our [Vulg.: ‘your’] hearts” ( 2 Peter 1:19), and on this account the mass is sung at dawn, and in the “Introit” we say: “The light will shine on us today.” The third is Christ’s temporal and bodily birth, according as He went forth from the virginal womb, becoming visible to us through being clothed with flesh: and on that account the third mass is sung in broad daylight, in the “Introit” of which we say: “A child is born to us.” Nevertheless, on the other hand, it can be said that His eternal generation, of itself, is in the full light, and on this account in the gospel of the third mass mention is made of His eternal birth. But regarding His birth in the body, He was literally born during the night, as a sign that He came to the darknesses of our infirmity; hence also in the midnight mass we say the gospel of Christ’s nativity in the flesh.

Likewise on other days upon which many of God’s benefits have to be recalled or besought, several masses are celebrated on one day, as for instance, one for the feast, and another for a fast or for the dead.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(2)- RO(3) —

As already observed ( Q(73), A(5) ), Christ wished to give this sacrament last of all, in order that it might make a deeper impression on the hearts of the disciples; and therefore it was after supper, at the close of day, that He consecrated this sacrament and gave it to His disciples. But we celebrate at the hour when our Lord suffered, i.e. either, as on feast-days, at the hour of Terce, when He was crucified by the tongues of the Jews ( Mark 15:25), and when the Holy Ghost descended upon the disciples ( Acts 2:15); or, as when no feast is kept, at the hour of Sext, when He was crucified at the hands of the soldiers ( John 19:14), or, as on fasting days, at None, when crying out with a loud voice He gave up the ghost ( Matthew 27:46,50).

Nevertheless the mass can be postponed, especially when Holy orders have to be conferred, and still more on Holy Saturday; both on account of the length of the office, and also because orders belong to the Sunday, as is set forth in the Decretals (dist. 75).

Masses, however, can be celebrated “in the first part of the day,” owing to any necessity; as is stated De Consecr., dist. 1.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(2)- RO(4) —

As a rule mass ought to be said in the day and not in the night, because Christ is present in this sacrament, Who says ( John 9:4,5): “I must work the works of Him that sent Me, whilst it is day: because the night cometh when no man can work; as long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” Yet this should be done in such a manner that the beginning of the day is not to be taken from midnight; nor from sunrise, that is, when the substance of the sun appears above the earth; but when the dawn begins to show: because then the sun is said to be risen when the brightness of his beams appears. Accordingly it is written ( Mark 16:1) that “the women came to the tomb, the sun being now risen”; though, as John relates ( John 20:1), “while it was yet dark they came to the tomb.” It is in this way that Augustine explains this difference (De Consens. Evang. iii).

Exception is made on the night of Christmas eve, when mass is celebrated, because our Lord was born in the night (De Consecr., dist. 1). And in like manner it is celebrated on Holy Saturday towards the beginning of the night, since our Lord rose in the night, that is, “when it was yet dark, before the sun’s rising was manifest.”

P(3)- Q(83)- A(2)- RO(5) —

As is set down in the decree (De Consecr., dist. 1), in virtue of a decree of Pope Alexander II, “it is enough for a priest to celebrate one mass each day, because Christ suffered once and redeemed the whole world; and very happy is he who can worthily celebrate one mass. But there are some who say one mass for the dead, and another of the day, if need be. But I do not deem that those escape condemnation who presume to celebrate several masses daily, either for the sake of money, or to gain flattery from the laity.” And Pope Innocent III says (Extra, De Celebr. Miss., chap. Consuluisti) that “except on the day of our Lord’s birth, unless necessity urges, it suffices for a priest to celebrate only one mass each day.”

P(3)- Q(83)- A(3) Whether this sacrament ought to be celebrated in a house and with sacred vessels?

P(3)- Q(83)- A(3)- O(1) —

It seems that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated in a house and with sacred vessels. For this sacrament is a representation of our Lord’s Passion. But Christ did not suffer in a house, but outside the city gate, according to Hebrews 1:12: “Jesus, that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered without the gate.”

Therefore, it seems that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated in a house, but rather in the open air.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, in the celebration of this sacrament the Church ought to imitate the custom of Christ and the apostles. But the house wherein Christ first wrought this sacrament was not consecrated, but merely an ordinary supper-room prepared by the master of the house, as related in Luke 22:11,12. Moreover, we read ( Acts 2:46) that “the apostles were continuing daily with one accord in the temple; and, breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness.”

Consequently, there is no need for houses, in which this sacrament is celebrated, to be consecrated.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, nothing that is to no purpose ought to be done in the Church, which is governed by the Holy Ghost. But it seems useless to consecrate a church, or an altar, or such like inanimate things, since they are not capable of receiving grace or spiritual virtue. Therefore it is unbecoming for such consecrations to be performed in the Church.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(3)- O(4) —

Further, only Divine works ought to be recalled with solemnity, according to Psalm 91:5: “I shall rejoice in the works of Thy hands.” Now the consecration of a church or altar, is the work of a man; as is also the consecration of the chalice, and of the ministers, and of other such things. But these latter consecrations are not commemorated in the Church. Therefore neither ought the consecration of a church or of an altar to be commemorated with solemnity.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(3)- O(5) —

Further, the truth ought to correspond with the figure. But in the Old Testament, which was a figure of the New, the altar was not made of hewn stones: for, it is written ( Exodus 20:24): “You shall make an altar of earth unto Me... and if thou make an altar of stone unto Me, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones.”

Again, the altar is commanded to be made of “setim-wood,” covered “with brass” ( Exodus 27:1,2), or “with gold” ( Exodus 25). Consequently, it seems unfitting for the Church to make exclusive use of altars made of stone.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(3)- O(6) —

Further, the chalice with the paten represents Christ’s tomb, which was “hewn in a rock,” as is narrated in the Gospels.

Consequently, the chalice ought to be of stone, and not of gold or of silver or tin.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(3)- O(7) —

Further, just as gold is the most precious among the materials of the altar vessels, so are cloths of silk the most precious among other cloths. Consequently, since the chalice is of gold, the altar cloths ought to be made of silk and not of linen.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(3)- O(8) —

Further, the dispensing and ordering of the sacraments belong to the Church’s ministers, just as the ordering of temporal affairs is subject to the ruling of secular princes; hence the Apostle says ( 1 Corinthians 4:1): “Let a man so esteem us as the ministers of Christ end the dispensers of the mysteries of God.”

But if anything be done against the ordinances of princes it is deemed void.

Therefore, if the various items mentioned above are suitably commanded by the Church’s prelates, it seems that the body of Christ could not be consecrated unless they be observed; and so it appears to follow that Christ’s words are not sufficient of themselves for consecrating this sacrament: which is contrary to the fact. Consequently, it does not seem fitting for such ordinances to be made touching the celebration of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(3) —

On the contrary, The Church’s ordinances are Christ’s own ordinances; since He said ( Matthew 18:20): “Wherever two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.”

P(3)- Q(83)- A(3) —

I answer that, There are two things to be considered regarding the equipment of this sacrament: one of these belongs to the representation of the events connected with our Lord’s Passion; while the other is connected with the reverence due to the sacrament, in which Christ is contained verily, and not in figure only.

Hence we consecrate those things which we make use of in this sacrament; both that we may show our reverence for the sacrament, and in order to represent the holiness which is the effect of the Passion of Christ, according to Hebrews 13:12: “Jesus, that He might sanctify the people by His own blood,” etc.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(3)- RO(1) —

This sacrament ought as a rule to be celebrated in a house, whereby the Church is signified, according to 1 Timothy 3:15: “That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God.” Because “outside the Church there is no place for the true sacrifice,” as Augustine says (Liber Sentent. Prosp. xv). And because the Church was not to be confined within the territories of the Jewish people, but was to be established throughout the whole world, therefore Christ’s Passion was not celebrated within the city of the Jews, but in the open country, that so the whole world might serve as a house for Christ’s Passion. Nevertheless, as is said in De Consecr., dist. 1, “if a church be not to hand, we permit travelers to celebrate mass in the open air, or in a tent, if there be a consecrated altartable to hand, and the other requisites belonging to the sacred function.”

P(3)- Q(83)- A(3)- RO(2) —

The house in which this sacrament is celebrated denotes the Church, and is termed a church; and so it is fittingly consecrated, both to represent the holiness which the Church acquired from the Passion, as well as to denote the holiness required of them who have to receive this sacrament. By the altar Christ Himself is signified, of Whom the Apostle says ( Hebrews 13:15): “Through Him we offer a sacrifice of praise to God.” Hence the consecration of the altar signifies Christ’s holiness, of which it was said ( Luke 1:35): “The Holy one born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Hence we read in De Consecr., dist. 1: “It has seemed pleasing for the altars to be consecrated not merely with the anointing of chrism, but likewise with the priestly blessing.”

And therefore, as a rule, it is not lawful to celebrate this sacrament except in a consecrated house. Hence it is enacted (De Consecr., dist. 1): “Let no priest presume to say mass except in places consecrated by the bishop.”

And furthermore because pagans and other unbelievers are not members of the Church, therefore we read (De Consecr., dist. 1): “It is not lawful to bless a church in which the bodies of unbelievers are buried, but if it seem suitable for consecration, then, after removing the corpses and tearing down the walls or beams, let it be rebuilt. If, however, it has been already consecrated, and the faithful lie in it, it is lawful to celebrate mass therein.”

Nevertheless in a case of necessity this sacrament can be performed in houses which have not been consecrated, or which have been profaned; but with the bishop’s consent. Hence we read in the same distinction: “We deem that masses are not to be celebrated everywhere, but in places consecrated by the bishop, or where he gives permission.” But not without a portable altar consecrated by the bishop: hence in the same distinction we read: “We permit that, if the churches be devastated or burned, masses may be celebrated in chapels, with a consecrated altar.” For because Christ’s holiness is the fount of all the Church’s holiness, therefore in necessity a consecrated altar suffices for performing this sacrament. And on this account a church is never consecrated without consecrating the altar. Yet sometimes an altar is consecrated apart from the church, with the relics of the saints, “whose lives are hidden with Christ in God” ( Colossians 3:3). Accordingly under the same distinction we read: “It is our pleasure that altars, in which no relics of saints are found enclosed, be thrown down, if possible, by the bishops presiding over such places.”

P(3)- Q(83)- A(3)- RO(3) —

The church, altar, and other like inanimate things are consecrated, not because they are capable of receiving grace, but because they acquire special spiritual virtue from the consecration, whereby they are rendered fit for the Divine worship, so that man derives devotion therefrom, making him more fitted for Divine functions, unless this be hindered by want of reverence. Hence it is written (2 Macc. 3:38): “There is undoubtedly in that place a certain power of God; for He that hath His dwelling in the heavens is the visitor, and the protector of that place.”

Hence it is that such places are cleansed and exorcised before being consecrated, that the enemy’s power may be driven forth. And for the same reason churches defiled by shedding of blood or seed are reconciled: because some machination of the enemy is apparent on account of the sin committed there. And for this reason we read in the same distinction: “Wherever you find churches of the Arians, consecrate them as Catholic churches without delay by means of devout prayers and rites.” Hence, too, it is that some say with probability, that by entering a consecrated church one obtains forgiveness of venial sins, just as one does by the sprinkling of holy water; alleging the words of Psalm 84:2,3: “Lord, Thou hast blessed Thy land...

Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of Thy people.”

And therefore, in consequence of the virtue acquired by a church’s consecration, the consecration is never repeated. Accordingly we find in the same distinction the following words quoted from the Council of Nicaea: “Churches which have once been consecrated, must not be consecrated again, except they be devastated by fire, or defiled by shedding of blood or of anyone’s seed; because, just as a child once baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, ought not to be baptized again, so neither ought a place, once dedicated to God, to be consecrated again, except owing to the causes mentioned above; provided that the consecrators held faith in the Holy Trinity”: in fact, those outside the Church cannot consecrate. But, as we read in the same distinction: “Churches or altars of doubtful consecration are to be consecrated anew.”

And since they acquire special spiritual virtue from their consecration, we find it laid down in the same distinction that “the beams of a dedicated church ought not to be used for any other purpose, except it be for some other church, or else they are to be burned, or put to the use of brethren in some monastery: but on no account are they to be discarded for works of the laity.” We read there, too, that “the altar covering, chair, candlesticks, and veil, are to be burned when warn out; and their ashes are to be placed in the baptistery, or in the walls, or else cast into the trenches beneath the flag-stones, so as not to be defiled by the feet of those that enter.”

P(3)- Q(83)- A(3)- RO(4) —

Since the consecration of the altar signifies Christ’s holiness, and the consecration of a house the holiness of the entire Church, therefore the consecration of a church or of an altar is more fittingly commemorated. And on this account the solemnity of a church dedication is observed for eight days, in order to signify the happy resurrection of Christ and of the Church’s members. Nor is the consecration of a church or altar man’s doing only, since it has a spiritual virtue. Hence in the same distinction (De Consecr.) it is said: “The solemnities of the dedication of churches are to be solemnly celebrated each year: and that dedications are to be kept up for eight days, you will find in the third book of Kings” ( 8:66).

P(3)- Q(83)- A(3)- RO(5) —

As we read in De Consecr., dist. 1, “altars, if not of stone, are not to be consecrated with the anointing of chrism.” And this is in keeping with the signification of this sacrament; both because the altar signifies Christ, for in 1 Corinthians 10:3, it is written, “But the rock was Christ”: and because Christ’s body was laid in a stone sepulchre.

This is also in keeping with the use of the sacrament. Because stone is solid, and may be found everywhere. which was not necessary in the old Law, when the altar was made in one place. As to the commandment to make the altar of earth, or of unhewn stones, this was given in order to remove idolatry.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(3)- RO(6) —

As is laid down in the same distinction, “formerly the priests did not use golden but wooden chalices; but Pope Zephyrinus ordered the mass to be said with glass patens; and subsequently Pope Urban had everything made of silver.” Afterwards it was decided that “the Lord’s chalice with the paten should be made entirely of gold, or of silver or at least of tin. But it is not to be made of brass, or copper, because the action of the wine thereon produces verdigris, and provokes vomiting. But no one is to presume to sing mass with a chalice of wood or of glass,” because as the wood is porous, the consecrated blood would remain in it; while glass is brittle and there might arise danger of breakage; and the same applies to stone. Consequently, out of reverence for the sacrament, it was enacted that the chalice should be made of the aforesaid materials.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(3)- RO(7) —

Where it could be done without danger, the Church gave order for that thing to be used which more expressively represents Christ’s Passion. But there was not so much danger regarding the body which is placed on the corporal, as there is with the blood contained in the chalice. And consequently, although the chalice is not made of stone, yet the corporal is made of linen, since Christ’s body was wrapped therein. Hence we read in an Epistle of Pope Silvester, quoted in the same distinction: “By a unanimous decree we command that no one shall presume to celebrate the sacrifice of the altar upon a cloth of silk, or dyed material, but upon linen consecrated by the bishop; as Christ’s body was buried in a clean linen winding-sheet.” Moreover, linen material is becoming, owing to its cleanness, to denote purity of conscience, and, owing to the manifold labor with which it is prepared, to denote Christ’s Passion.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(3)- RO(8) —

The dispensing of the sacraments belongs to the Church’s ministers; but their consecration is from God Himself.

Consequently, the Church’s ministers can make no ordinances regarding the form of the consecration, and the manner of celebrating. And therefore, if the priest pronounces the words of consecration over the proper matter with the intention of consecrating, then, without every one of the things mentioned above — namely, without house, and altar, consecrated chalice and corporal, and the other things instituted by the Church — he consecrates Christ’s body in very truth; yet he is guilty of grave sin, in not following the rite of the Church.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(4) Whether the words spoken in this sacrament are properly framed?

P(3)- Q(83)- A(4)- O(1) —

It seems that the words spoken in this sacrament are not properly framed. For, as Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv), this sacrament is consecrated with Christ’s own words. Therefore no other words besides Christ’s should be spoken in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, Christ’s words and deeds are made known to us through the Gospel. But in consecrating this sacrament words are used which are not set down in the Gospels: for we do not read in the Gospel, of Christ lifting up His eyes to heaven while consecrating this sacrament: and similarly it is said in the Gospel: “Take ye and eat” [comedite] without the addition of the word “all,” whereas in celebrating this sacrament we say: “Lifting up His eyes to heaven,” and again, “Take ye and eat [manducate] of this.” Therefore such words as these are out of place when spoken in the celebration of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, all the other sacraments are ordained for the salvation of all the faithful. But in the celebration of the other sacraments there is no common prayer put up for the salvation of all the faithful and of the departed. Consequently it is unbecoming in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(4)- O(4) —

Further, Baptism especially is called the sacrament of faith. Consequently, the truths which belong to instruction in the faith ought rather to be given regarding Baptism than regarding this sacrament, such as the doctrine of the apostles and of the Gospels.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(4)- O(5) —

Further, devotion on the part of the faithful is required in every sacrament. Consequently, the devotion of the faithful ought not to be stirred up in this sacrament more than in the others by Divine praises and by admonitions, such as, “Lift up your hearts.”

P(3)- Q(83)- A(4)- O(6) —

Further, the minister of this sacrament is the priest, as stated above ( Q(82), A(1) ). Consequently, all the words spoken in this sacrament ought to be uttered by the priest, and not some by the ministers, and some by the choir.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(4)- O(7) —

Further, the Divine power works this sacrament unfailingly. Therefore it is to no purpose that the priest asks for the perfecting of this sacrament, saying: “Which oblation do thou, O God, in all,” etc.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(4)- O(8) —

Further, the sacrifice of the New Law is much more excellent than the sacrifice of the fathers of old. Therefore, it is unfitting for the priest to pray that this sacrifice may be as acceptable as the sacrifice of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedech.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(4)- O(9) —

Further, just as Christ’s body does not begin to be in this sacrament by change of place, as stated above ( Q(75), A(2) ), so likewise neither does it cease to be there. Consequently, it is improper for the priest to ask: “Bid these things be borne by the hands of thy holy angel unto Thine altar on high.”

P(3)- Q(83)- A(4) —

On the contrary, We find it stated in De Consecr., dist. 1, that “James, the brother of the Lord according to the flesh, and Basil, bishop of Caesarea, edited the rite of celebrating the mass”: and from their authority it is manifest that whatever words are employed in this matter, are chosen becomingly.

I answer that, Since the whole mystery of our salvation is comprised in this sacrament, therefore is it performed with greater solemnity than the other sacraments. And since it is written ( Ecclesiastes 4:17): “Keep thy foot when thou goest into the house of God”; and (Ecclus. 18:23): “Before prayer prepare thy soul,” therefore the celebration of this mystery is preceded by a certain preparation in order that we may perform worthily that which follows after. The first part of this preparation is Divine praise, and consists in the “Introit”: according to Psalm 49:23: “The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me; and there is the way by which I will show him the salvation of God”: and this is taken for the most part from the Psalms, or, at least, is sung with a Psalm, because, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii): “The Psalms comprise by way of praise whatever is contained in Sacred Scripture.”

The second part contains a reference to our present misery, by reason of which we pray for mercy, saying: “Lord, have mercy on us,” thrice for the Person of the Father, and “Christ, have mercy on us,” thrice for the Person of the Son, and “Lord, have mercy on us,” thrice for the Person of the Holy Ghost; against the threefold misery of ignorance, sin, and punishment; or else to express the “circuminsession” of all the Divine Persons.

The third part commemorates the heavenly glory, to the possession of which, after this life of misery, we are tending, in the words, “Glory be to God on high,” which are sung on festival days, on which the heavenly glory is commemorated, but are omitted in those sorrowful offices which commemorate our unhappy state.

The fourth part contains the prayer which the priest makes for the people, that they may be made worthy of such great mysteries.

There precedes, in the second place, the instruction of the faithful, because this sacrament is “a mystery of faith,” as stated above ( Q(78), A(3), ad 5).

Now this instruction is given “dispositively,” when the Lectors and Subdeacons read aloud in the church the teachings of the prophets and apostles: after this “lesson,” the choir sing the “Gradual,” which signifies progress in life; then the “Alleluia” is intoned, and this denotes spiritual joy; or in mournful offices the “Tract”, expressive of spiritual sighing; for all these things ought to result from the aforesaid teaching. But the people are instructed “perfectly” by Christ’s teaching contained in the Gospel, which is read by the higher ministers, that is, by the Deacons. And because we believe Christ as the Divine truth, according to John 8:46, “If I tell you the truth, why do you not believe Me?” after the Gospel has been read, the “Creed” is sung in which the people show that they assent by faith to Christ’s doctrine. And it is sung on those festivals of which mention is made therein, as on the festivals of Christ, of the Blessed Virgin, and of the apostles, who laid the foundations of this faith, and on other such days.

So then, after the people have been prepared and instructed, the next step is to proceed to the celebration of the mystery, which is both offered as a sacrifice, and consecrated and received as a sacrament: since first we have the oblation; then the consecration of the matter offered; and thirdly, its reception.

In regard to the oblation, two things are done, namely, the people’s praise in singing the “offertory,” expressing the joy of the offerers, and the priest’s prayer asking for the people’s oblation to be made acceptable to God. Hence David said (1 Para 29:17): “In the simplicity of my heart, I have... offered all these things: and I have seen with great joy Thy people which are here present, offer Thee their offerings”: and then he makes the following prayer: “O Lord God... keep... this will.”

Then, regarding the consecration, performed by supernatural power, the people are first of all excited to devotion in the “Preface,” hence they are admonished “to lift up their hearts to the Lord,” and therefore when the “Preface” is ended the people devoutly praise Christ’s Godhead, saying with the angels: “Holy, Holy, Holy”; and His humanity, saying with the children: “Blessed is he that cometh.” In the next place the priest makes a “commemoration,” first of those for whom this sacrifice is offered, namely, for the whole Church, and “for those set in high places” ( Timothy 2:2), and, in a special manner, of them “who offer, or for whom the mass is offered.” Secondly, he commemorates the saints, invoking their patronage for those mentioned above, when he says: “Communicating with, and honoring the memory,” etc. Thirdly, he concludes the petition when he says: “Wherefore that this oblation,” etc., in order that the oblation may be salutary to them for whom it is offered.

Then he comes to the consecration itself. Here he asks first of all for the effect of the consecration, when he says: “Which oblation do Thou, O God,” etc. Secondly, he performs the consecration using our Saviour’s words, when he says: “Who the day before,” etc. Thirdly, he makes excuse for his presumption in obeying Christ’s command, saying: “Wherefore, calling to mind,” etc. Fourthly, he asks that the sacrifice accomplished may find favor with God, when he says: “Look down upon them with a propitious,” etc. Fifthly, he begs for the effect of this sacrifice and sacrament, first for the partakers, saying: “We humbly beseech Thee”; then for the dead, who can no longer receive it, saying: “Be mindful also, O Lord,” etc.; thirdly, for the priests themselves who offer, saying: “And to us sinners,” etc.

Then follows the act of receiving the sacrament. First of all, the people are prepared for Communion; first, by the common prayer of the congregation, which is the Lord’s Prayer, in which we ask for our daily bread to be given us; and also by private prayer, which the priest puts up specially for the people, when he says: “Deliver us, we beseech Thee, O Lord,” etc. Secondly, the people are prepared by the “Pax” which is given with the words, “Lamb of God,” etc., because this is the sacrament of unity and peace, as stated above ( Q(73), A(4) ; Q(79), A(1) ). But in masses for the dead, in which the sacrifice is offered not for present peace, but for the repose of the dead, the “Pax” is omitted.

Then follows the reception of the sacrament, the priest receiving first, and afterwards giving it to others, because, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), he who gives Divine things to others, ought first to partake thereof himself.

Finally, the whole celebration of mass ends with the thanksgiving, the people rejoicing for having received the mystery (and this is the meaning of the singing after the Communion); and the priest returning thanks by prayer, as Christ, at the close of the supper with His disciples, “said a hymn” ( Matthew 26:30).

P(3)- Q(83)- A(4)- RO(1) —

The consecration is accomplished by Christ’s words only; but the other words must be added to dispose the people for receiving it, as stated above.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(4)- RO(2) —

As is stated in the last chapter of John (verse 25), our Lord said and did many things which are not written down by the Evangelists; and among them is the uplifting of His eyes to heaven at the supper; nevertheless the Roman Church had it by tradition from the apostles. For it seems reasonable that He Who lifted up His eyes to the Father in raising Lazarus to life, as related in John 11:41, and in the prayer which He made for the disciples ( John 17:1), had more reason to do so in instituting this sacrament, as being of greater import.

The use of the word “manducate” instead of “comedite” makes no difference in the meaning, nor does the expression signify, especially since those words are no part of the form, as stated above ( Q(78), A(1), ad 2,4).

The additional word “all” is understood in the Gospels, although not expressed, because He had said ( John 6:54): “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man... you shall not have life in you.”

P(3)- Q(83)- A(4)- RO(3) —

The Eucharist is the sacrament of the unity of the whole Church: and therefore in this sacrament, more than in the others, mention ought to be made of all that belongs to the salvation of the entire Church.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(4)- RO(4) —

There is a twofold instruction in the Faith: the first is for those receiving it for the first time, that is to say, for catechumens, and such instruction is given in connection with Baptism.

The other is the instruction of the faithful who take part in this sacrament; and such instruction is given in connection with this sacrament.

Nevertheless catechumens and unbelievers are not excluded therefrom.

Hence in De Consecr., dist. 1, it is laid down: “Let the bishop hinder no one from entering the church, and hearing the word of God, be they Gentiles, heretics, or Jews, until the mass of the Catechumens begins,” in which the instruction regarding the Faith is contained.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(4)- RO(5) —

Greater devotion is required in this sacrament than in the others, for the reason that the entire Christ is contained therein.

Moreover, this sacrament requires a more general devotion, i.e. on the part of the whole people, since for them it is offered; and not merely on the part of the recipients, as in the other sacraments. Hence Cyprian observes (De Orat. Domin. 31), “The priest, in saying the Preface, disposes the souls of the brethren by saying, ‘Lift up your hearts,’ and when the people answer — ’We have lifted them up to the Lord,’ let them remember that they are to think of nothing else but God.”

P(3)- Q(83)- A(4)- RO(6) —

As was said above (ad 3), those things are mentioned in this sacrament which belong to the entire Church; and consequently some things which refer to the people are sung by the choir, and same of these words are all sung by the choir, as though inspiring the entire people with them; and there are other words which the priest begins and the people take up, the priest then acting as in the person of God; to show that the things they denote have come to the people through Divine revelation, such as faith and heavenly glory; and therefore the priest intones the “Creed” and the “Gloria in excelsis Deo.” Other words are uttered by the ministers, such as the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, as a sign that this doctrine was announced to the peoples through ministers sent by God. And there are other words which the priest alone recites, namely, such as belong to his personal office, “that he may offer up gifts and prayers for the people” ( Hebrews 5:1). Some of these, however, he says aloud, namely, such as are common to priest and people alike, such as the “common prayers”; other words, however, belong to the priest alone, such as the oblation and the consecration; consequently, the prayers that are said in connection with these have to be said by the priest in secret. Nevertheless, in both he calls the people to attention by saying: “The Lord be with you,” and he waits for them to assent by saying “Amen.” And therefore before the secret prayers he says aloud, “The Lord be with you,” and he concludes, “For ever and ever.” Or the priest secretly pronounces some of the words as a token that regarding Christ’s Passion the disciples acknowledged Him only in secret.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(4)- RO(7) —

The efficacy of the sacramental words can be hindered by the priest’s intention. Nor is there anything unbecoming in our asking of God for what we know He will do, just as Christ ( John 17:1,5) asked for His glorification.

But the priest does not seem to pray there for the consecration to be fulfilled, but that it may be fruitful in our regard, hence he says expressively: “That it may become ‘to us’ the body and the blood.” Again, the words preceding these have that meaning, when he says: “Vouchsafe to make this oblation blessed,” i.e. according to Augustine (Paschasius, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xii), “that we may receive a blessing,” namely, through grace; “‘enrolled,’ i.e. that we may be enrolled in heaven; ‘ratified,’ i.e. that we may be incorporated in Christ; ‘reasonable,’ i.e. that we may be stripped of our animal sense; ‘acceptable,’ i.e. that we who in ourselves are displeasing, may, by its means, be made acceptable to His only Son.”

P(3)- Q(83)- A(4)- RO(8) —

Although this sacrament is of itself preferable to all ancient sacrifices, yet the sacrifices of the men of old were most acceptable to God on account of their devotion. Consequently the priest asks that this sacrifice may be accepted by God through the devotion of the offerers, just as the former sacrifices were accepted by Him.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(4)- RO(9) —

The priest does not pray that the sacramental species may be borne up to heaven; nor that Christ’s true body may be borne thither, for it does not cease to be there; but he offers this prayer for Christ’s mystical body, which is signified in this sacrament, that the angel standing by at the Divine mysteries may present to God the prayers of both priest and people, according to Revelation 8:4: “And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God, from the hand of the angel.”

But God’s “altar on high” means either the Church triumphant, unto which we pray to be translated, or else God Himself, in Whom we ask to share; because it is said of this altar ( Exodus 20:26): “Thou shalt not go up by steps unto My altar, i.e. thou shalt make no steps towards the Trinity.”

Or else by the angel we are to understand Christ Himself, Who is the “Angel of great counsel” ( Isaiah 9:6: Septuagint), Who unites His mystical body with God the Father and the Church triumphant.

And from this the mass derives its name [missa]; because the priest sends [mittit] his prayers up to God through the angel, as the people do through the priest. or else because Christ is the victim sent [missa] to us: accordingly the deacon on festival days “dismisses” the people at the end of the mass, by saying: “Ite, missa est,” that is, the victim has been sent [missa est] to God through the angel, so that it may be accepted by God.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5) Whether the actions performed in celebrating this sacrament are becoming?

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- O(1) —

It seems that the actions performed in celebrating this mystery are not becoming. For, as is evident from its form, this sacrament belongs to the New Testament. But under the New Testament the ceremonies of the old are not to be observed, such as that the priests and ministers were purified with water when they drew nigh to offer up the sacrifice: for we read ( Exodus 30:19,20): “Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and feet... when they are going into the tabernacle of the testimony... and when they are to come to the altar.”

Therefore it is not fitting that the priest should wash his hands when celebrating mass.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, ( Exodus 30:7), the Lord commanded Aaron to “burn sweet-smelling incense” upon the altar which was “before the propitiatory”: and the same action was part of the ceremonies of the Old Law. Therefore it is not fitting for the priest to use incense during mass.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, the ceremonies performed in the sacraments of the Church ought not to be repeated. Consequently it is not proper for the priest to repeat the sign of the cross many times over this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- O(4) —

Further, the Apostle says ( Hebrews 7:7): “And without all contradiction, that which is less, is blessed by the better.” But Christ, Who is in this sacrament after the consecration, is much greater than the priest. Therefore quite unseemingly the priest, after the consecration, blesses this sacrament, by signing it with the cross.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- O(5) —

Further, nothing which appears ridiculous ought to be done in one of the Church’s sacraments. But it seems ridiculous to perform gestures, e.g. for the priest to stretch out his arms at times, to join his hands, to join together his fingers, and to bow down. Consequently, such things ought not to be done in this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- O(6) —

Further, it seems ridiculous for the priest to turn round frequently towards the people, and often to greet the people.

Consequently, such things ought not to be done in the celebration of this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- O(7) —

Further, the Apostle ( 1 Corinthians 13) deems it improper for Christ to be divided. But Christ is in this sacrament after the consecration. Therefore it is not proper for the priest to divide the host.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- O(8) —

Further, the ceremonies performed in this sacrament represent Christ’s Passion. But during the Passion Christ’s body was divided in the places of the five wounds. Therefore Christ’s body ought to be broken into five parts rather than into three.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- O(9) —

Further, Christ’s entire body is consecrated in this sacrament apart from the blood. Consequently, it is not proper for a particle of the body to be mixed with the blood.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- O(10) —

Further, just as, in this sacrament, Christ’s body is set before us as food, so is His blood, as drink. But in receiving Christ’s body no other bodily food is added in the celebration of the mass.

Therefore, it is out of place for the priest, after taking Christ’s blood, to receive other wine which is not consecrated.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- O(11) —

Further, the truth ought to be conformable with the figure. But regarding the Paschal Lamb, which was a figure of this sacrament, it was commanded that nothing of it should “remain until the morning.” It is improper therefore for consecrated hosts to be reserved, and not consumed at once.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- O(12) —

Further, the priest addresses in the plural number those who are hearing mass, when he says, “The Lord be with you”: and, “Let us return thanks.” But it is out of keeping to address one individual in the plural number, especially an inferior. Consequently it seems unfitting for a priest to say mass with only a single server present.

Therefore in the celebration of this sacrament it seems that some of the things done are out of place.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5) —

On the contrary, The custom of the Church stands for these things: and the Church cannot err, since she is taught by the Holy Ghost.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5) —

I answer that, As was said above ( Q(60), A(6) ), there is a twofold manner of signification in the sacraments, by words, and by actions, in order that the signification may thus be more perfect. Now, in the celebration of this sacrament words are used to signify things pertaining to Christ’s Passion, which is represented in this sacrament; or again, pertaining to Christ’s mystical body, which is signified therein; and again, things pertaining to the use of this sacrament, which use ought to be devout and reverent. Consequently, in the celebration of this mystery some things are done in order to represent Christ’s Passion, or the disposing of His mystical body, and some others are done which pertain to the devotion and reverence due to this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- RO(1) —

The washing of the hands is done in the celebration of mass out of reverence for this sacrament; and this for two reasons: first, because we are not wont to handle precious objects except the hands be washed; hence it seems indecent for anyone to approach so great a sacrament with hands that are, even literally, unclean. Secondly, on account of its signification, because, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), the washing of the extremities of the limbs denotes cleansing from even the smallest sins, according to John 13:10: “He that is washed needeth not but to wash his feet.” And such cleansing is required of him who approaches this sacrament; and this is denoted by the confession which is made before the “Introit” of the mass. Moreover, this was signified by the washing of the priests under the Old Law, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii). However, the Church observes this ceremony, not because it was prescribed under the Old Law, but because it is becoming in itself, and therefore instituted by the Church. Hence it is not observed in the same way as it was then: because the washing of the feet is omitted, and the washing of the hands is observed; for this can be done more readily, and suffices far denoting perfect cleansing. For, since the hand is the “organ of organs” (De Anima iii), all works are attributed to the hands: hence it is said in Psalm 25:6: “I will wash my hands among the innocent.”

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- RO(2) —

We use incense, not as commanded by a ceremonial precept of the Law, but as prescribed by the Church; accordingly we do not use it in the same fashion as it was ordered under the Old Law. It has reference to two things: first, to the reverence due to this sacrament, i.e. in order by its good odor, to remove any disagreeable smell that may be about the place; secondly, it serves to show the effect of grace, wherewith Christ was filled as with a good odor, according to Genesis 27:27: “Behold, the odor of my son is like the odor of a ripe field”; and from Christ it spreads to the faithful by the work of His ministers, according to 2 Corinthians 2:14: “He manifesteth the odor of his knowledge by us in every place”; and therefore when the altar which represents Christ, has been incensed on every side, then all are incensed in their proper order.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- RO(3) —

The priest, in celebrating the mass, makes use of the sign of the cross to signify Christ’s Passion which was ended upon the cross. Now, Christ’s Passion was accomplished in certain stages. First of all there was Christ’s betrayal, which was the work of God, of Judas, and of the Jews; and this is signified by the triple sign of the cross at the words, “These gifts, these presents, these holy unspotted sacrifices.”

Secondly, there was the selling of Christ. Now he was sold to the Priests, to the Scribes, and to the Pharisees: and to signify this the threefold sign of the cross is repeated, at the words, “blessed, enrolled, ratified.” Or again, to signify the price for which He was sold, viz. thirty pence. And a double cross is added at the words — ”that it may become to us the Body and the Blood,” etc., to signify the person of Judas the seller, and of Christ Who was sold.

Thirdly, there was the foreshadowing of the Passion at the last supper. To denote this, in the third place, two crosses are made, one in consecrating the body, the other in consecrating the blood; each time while saying, “He blessed.”

Fourthly, there was Christ’s Passion itself. And so in order to represent His five wounds, in the fourth place, there is a fivefold signing of the cross at the words, “a pure Victim, a holy Victim, a spotless Victim, the holy bread of eternal life, and the cup of everlasting salvation.”

Fifthly, the outstretching of Christ’s body, and the shedding of the blood, and the fruits of the Passion, are signified by the triple signing of the cross at the words, “as many as shall receive the body and blood, may be filled with every blessing,” etc.

Sixthly, Christ’s threefold prayer upon the cross is represented; one for His persecutors when He said, “Father, forgive them”; the second for deliverance from death, when He cried, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” the third referring to His entrance into glory, when He said, “Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit”; and in order to denote these there is a triple signing with the cross made at the words, “Thou dost sanctify, quicken, bless.”

Seventhly, the three hours during which He hung upon the cross, that is, from the sixth to the ninth hour, are represented; in signification of which we make once more a triple sign of the cross at the words, “Through Him, and with Him, and in Him.”

Eighthly, the separation of His soul from the body is signified by the two subsequent crosses made over the chalice.

Ninthly, the resurrection on the third day is represented by the three crosses made at the words — ”May the peace of the Lord be ever with you.”

In short, we may say that the consecration of this sacrament, and the acceptance of this sacrifice, and its fruits, proceed from the virtue of the cross of Christ, and therefore wherever mention is made of these, the priest makes use of the sign of the cross.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- RO(4) —

After the consecration, the priest makes the sign of the cross, not for the purpose of blessing and consecrating, but only for calling to mind the virtue of the cross, and the manner of Christ’s suffering, as is evident from what has been said (ad 3).

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- RO(5) —

The actions performed by the priest in mass are not ridiculous gestures, since they are done so as to represent something else. The priest in extending his arms signifies the outstretching of Christ’s arms upon the cross. He also lifts up his hands as he prays, to point out that his prayer is directed to God for the people, according to Lamentations 3:41: “Let us lift up our hearts with our hands to the Lord in the heavens”: and Exodus 17:11: “And when Moses lifted up his hands Israel overcame.” That at times he joins his hands, and bows down, praying earnestly and humbly, denotes the humility and obedience of Christ, out of which He suffered. He closes his fingers, i.e. the thumb and first finger, after the consecration, because, with them, he had touched the consecrated body of Christ; so that if any particle cling to the fingers, it may not be scattered: and this belongs to the reverence for this sacrament.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- RO(6) —

Five times does the priest turn round towards the people, to denote that our Lord manifested Himself five times on the day of His Resurrection, as stated above in the treatise on Christ’s Resurrection ( Q(55), A(3), O(3) ). But the priest greets the people seven times, namely, five times, by turning round to the people, and twice without turning round, namely, when he says, “The Lord be with you” before the “Preface,” and again when he says, “May the peace of the Lord be ever with you”: and this is to denote the sevenfold grace of the Holy Ghost. But a bishop, when he celebrates on festival days, in his first greeting says, “Peace be to you,” which was our Lord’s greeting after Resurrection, Whose person the bishop chiefly represents.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- RO(7) —

The breaking of the host denotes three things: first, the rending of Christ’s body, which took place in the Passion; secondly, the distinction of His mystical body according to its various states; and thirdly, the distribution of the graces which flow from Christ’s Passion, as Dionysius observes (Eccl. Hier. iii). Hence this breaking does not imply severance in Christ.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- RO(8) —

As Pope Sergius says, and it is to be found in the Decretals (De Consecr., dist. ii), “the Lord’s body is threefold; the part offered and put into the chalice signifies Christ’s risen body,” namely, Christ Himself, and the Blessed Virgin, and the other saints, if there be any, who are already in glory with their bodies. “The part consumed denotes those still walking upon earth,” because while living upon earth they are united together by this sacrament; and are bruised by the passions, just as the bread eaten is bruised by the teeth. “The part reserved on the altar till the close of the mass, is His body hidden in the sepulchre, because the bodies of the saints will be in their graves until the end of the world”: though their souls are either in purgatory, or in heaven.

However, this rite of reserving one part on the altar till the close of the mass is no longer observed, on account of the danger; nevertheless, the same meaning of the parts continues, which some persons have expressed in verse, thus: “The host being rent — What is dipped, means the blest; What is dry, means the living; What is kept, those at rest.” Others, however, say that the part put into the chalice denotes those still living in this world. while the part kept outside the chalice denotes those fully blessed both in soul and body; while the part consumed means the others.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- RO(9) —

Two things can be signified by the chalice: first, the Passion itself, which is represented in this sacrament, and according to this, by the part put into the chalice are denoted those who are still sharers of Christ’s sufferings; secondly, the enjoyment of the Blessed can be signified, which is likewise foreshadowed in this sacrament; and therefore those whose bodies are already in full beatitude, are denoted by the part put into the chalice. And it is to be observed that the part put into the chalice ought not to be given to the people to supplement the communion, because Christ gave dipped bread only to Judas the betrayer.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- RO(10) —

Wine, by reason of its humidity, is capable of washing, consequently it is received in order to rinse the mouth after receiving this sacrament, lest any particles remain: and this belongs to reverence for the sacrament. Hence (Extra, De Celebratione missae, chap.

Ex parte), it is said: “The priest should always cleanse his mouth with wine after receiving the entire sacrament of Eucharist: except when he has to celebrate another mass on the same day, lest from taking the ablutionwine he be prevented from celebrating again”; and it is for the same reason that wine is poured over the fingers with which he had touched the body of Christ.

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- RO(11) —

The truth ought to be conformable with the figure, in some respect: namely, because a part of the host consecrated, of which the priest and ministers or even the people communicate, ought not to be reserved until the day following. Hence, as is laid down (De Consecr., dist. ii), Pope Clement I ordered that “as many hosts are to be offered on the altar as shall suffice for the people; should any be left over, they are not to be reserved until the morrow, but let the clergy carefully consume them with fear and trembling.” Nevertheless, since this sacrament is to be received daily, whereas the Paschal Lamb was not, it is therefore necessary for other hosts to be reserved for the sick. Hence we read in the same distinction: “Let the priest always have the Eucharist ready, so that, when anyone fall sick, he may take Communion to him at once, lest he die without it.”

P(3)- Q(83)- A(5)- RO(12) —

Several persons ought to be present at the solemn celebration of the mass. Hence Pope Soter says (De Consecr., dist. 1): “It has also been ordained, that no priest is to presume to celebrate solemn mass, unless two others be present answering him, while he himself makes the third; because when he says in the plural, ‘The Lord be with you,’ and again in the Secrets, ‘Pray ye for me,’ it is most becoming that they should answer his greeting.” Hence it is for the sake of greater solemnity that we find it decreed (De Consecr. dist. 1) that a bishop is to solemnize mass with several assistants. Nevertheless, in private masses it suffices to have one server, who takes the place of the whole Catholic people, on whose behalf he makes answer in the plural to the priest.