No More Learning

" But the power of the
Holy Ghost is uncreated. Therefore this sacrament is not caused by any
created power of those words.

Objection 2: Further, miraculous works are wrought not by any created
power, but solely by Divine power, as was stated in the [4599]FP,
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.

Objection 3: Further, the aforesaid words are not simple, but composed
of many; nor are they uttered simultaneously, but successively. But, as
stated above ([4600]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.

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. "

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
([4601]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 ([4602]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 ([4603]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
([4604]Q[48], A[6];[4605] Q[56], A[1], ad 3).

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the aforesaid expressions are true?

Objection 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 ([4606]AA[1],4, ad
3;[4607] 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

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

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 ([4608]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
[4609](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.

Reply to Objection 1: The term "this" points to a substance, yet
without determining its proper nature, as stated above.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the form of the consecration of the bread accomplishes its effect
before the form of the consecration of the wine be completed?

Objection 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.

Objection 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 ([4610]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.

Objection 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.

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.

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.

Reply to Objection 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 ([4611]Q[76], A[2]).

Reply to Objection 2: This sacrament is one in perfection, as stated
above ([4612]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.

Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________

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.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether grace is bestowed through this sacrament?

Objection 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 ([4613]Q[72], A[1]).
Consequently, grace is not bestowed through this sacrament.

Objection 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.

Objection 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 [4614]FS, Q[110],
A[4]. Therefore grace is not bestowed through this sacrament, at least
so far as the body is concerned.

On the contrary, Our Lord says (Jn. 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.

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 Jn. 1:17:
"Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ," so also, by coming
sacramentally into man causes the life of grace, according to Jn. 6:58:
"He that eateth Me, the same also shall live by Me. " Hence Cyril says
on Lk. 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 ([4615]Q[74],
A[1];[4616] 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" (Jn. 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 (Mat. 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 (Jn. 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.

Reply to Objection 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 ([4617]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.

Reply to Objection 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 (Is. 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 Cor. 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. "

Reply to Objection 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 ([4618]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" (Rom. 6:13), and in the
life to come our body will share in the incorruption and the glory of
the soul.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the attaining of glory is an effect of this sacrament?

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 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.

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 Heb. 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" (Jn.
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. "

Reply to Objection 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" (Rom. 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 3
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. "

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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 ([4619]Q[77],
A[3], ad 3).
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament?

Objection 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.

Objection 2: Further, this sacrament, like Baptism, works by the power
of Christ's Passion. But mortal sins are forgiven by Baptism, as stated
above ([4620]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. "

Objection 3: Further, grace is bestowed through this sacrament, as
stated above [4621](A[1]). But by grace a man is justified from mortal
sins, according to Rom. 3:24: "Being justified freely by His grace. "
Therefore mortal sins are forgiven by this sacrament.

On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor. 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.

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 Eccles. 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.

Reply to Objection 1: We ask that this sacrament may be the "cleansing
of crimes," or of those sins of which we are unconscious, according to
Ps. 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether venial sins are forgiven through this sacrament?

Objection 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 [4622]FS, Q[88], AA[1],2; [4623]SS, Q[24],
A[10]. Therefore, since contrary is taken away by its contrary, it
seems that venial sins are not forgiven by this sacrament.

Objection 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 Jn.
1:8: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. " Therefore
no venial sin is forgiven by this sacrament.

Objection 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" (Jn. 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.

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

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 [4624]SS,
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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the entire punishment due to sin is forgiven through this sacrament?

Objection 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
([4625]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.

Objection 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 (Lev. 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.

Objection 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.

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

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 ([4626]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 (Mk. 12:43: cf. Lk. 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether man is preserved by this sacrament from future sins?

Objection 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.

Objection 2: Further, the Eucharist is the sacrament of charity, as
stated above [4627](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 [4628]SS, Q[24], A[11]. Therefore it seems
that this sacrament does not preserve man from sin.

Objection 3: Further, the origin of sin within us is "the law of sin,
which is in our members," as declared by the Apostle (Rom. 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.

On the contrary, our Lord said (Jn. 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.

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 Ps. 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. "

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 2: Even charity of itself keeps man from sin,
according to Rom. 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.

Reply to Objection 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 ([4629]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.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether this sacrament benefit others besides the recipients?

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

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.

I answer that, As stated above [4630](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" (Eph.
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 (Mat. 26:28, with Lk. 22:20):
"Which for you," i. e. who receive it, "and for many," i. e. others,
"shall be shed unto remission of sins. "

Reply to Objection 1: This sacrament has this in addition to the
others, that it is a sacrifice: and therefore the comparison fails.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.