No More Learning

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.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the effect of this sacrament is hindered by venial sin?

Objection 1: It seems that the effect of this sacrament is not hindered
by venial sin. For Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan. ), commenting on Jn.
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.

Objection 2: Further, this sacrament is not less powerful than Baptism.
But, as stated above ([4631]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.

Objection 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.

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 [4632]FS, Q[81], A[4]; [4633]SS, Q[24], A[10].
Therefore venial sins hinder the effect of this sacrament.

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
[4634](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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 3: This argument deals with past venial sins, which
are taken away by this sacrament.
__________________________________________________________________

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?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether there are two ways to be distinguished of eating Christ's body?

Objection 1: It seems that two ways ought not to be distinguished of
eating Christ's body, namely, sacramentally and spiritually. For, as
Baptism is spiritual regeneration, according to Jn. 3:5: "Unless a man
be born again of water and the Holy Ghost," etc. , so also this
sacrament is spiritual food: hence our Lord, speaking of this
sacrament, says (Jn. 6:64): "The words that I have spoken to you are
spirit and life. " But there are no two distinct ways of receiving
Baptism, namely, sacramentally and spiritually. Therefore neither ought
this distinction to be made regarding this sacrament.

Objection 2: Further, when two things are so related that one is on
account of the other, they should not be put in contra-distinction to
one another, because the one derives its species from the other. But
sacramental eating is ordained for spiritual eating as its end.
Therefore sacramental eating ought not to be divided in contrast with
spiritual eating.

Objection 3: Further, things which cannot exist without one another
ought not to be divided in contrast with each other. But it seems that
no one can eat spiritually without eating sacramentally; otherwise the
fathers of old would have eaten this sacrament spiritually. Moreover,
sacramental eating would be to no purpose, if the spiritual eating
could be had without it. Therefore it is not right to distinguish a
twofold eating, namely, sacramental and spiritual.

On the contrary, The gloss says on 1 Cor. 11:29: "He that eateth and
drinketh unworthily," etc. : "We hold that there are two ways of eating,
the one sacramental, and the other spiritual. "

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 ([4635]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.

Reply to Objection 1: The same distinction is made regarding Baptism
and the other sacraments: for, some receive the sacrament only, while
others receive the sacrament and the reality of the sacrament. However,
there is a difference, because, since the other sacraments are
accomplished in the use of the matter, the receiving of the sacrament
is the actual perfection of the sacrament; whereas this sacrament is
accomplished in the consecration of the matter: and consequently both
uses follow the sacrament. On the other hand, in Baptism and in the
other sacraments that imprint a character, they who receive the
sacrament receive some spiritual effect, that is, the character. which
is not the case in this sacrament. And therefore, in this sacrament,
rather than in Baptism, the sacramental use is distinguished from the
spiritual use.

Reply to Objection 2: That sacramental eating which is also a spiritual
eating is not divided in contrast with spiritual eating, but is
included under it; but that sacramental eating which does not secure
the effect, is divided in contrast with spiritual eating; just as the
imperfect, which does not attain the perfection of its species, is
divided in contrast with the perfect.

Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([4636]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 Cor. 10:2), that the fathers of old were "baptized
in the cloud and in the sea," and that "they did eat . . . spiritual
food, and . . . drank . . . spiritual drink. " Nevertheless sacramental
eating is not without avail, because the actual receiving of the
sacrament produces more fully the effect of the sacrament than does the
desire thereof, as stated above of Baptism ([4637]Q[69] , A[4], ad 2).
__________________________________________________________________

Whether it belongs to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually?

Objection 1: It seems that it does not belong to man alone to eat this
sacrament spiritually, but likewise to angels. Because on Ps. 77:25:
"Man ate the bread of angels," the gloss says: "that is, the body of
Christ, Who i's truly the food of angels. " But it would not be so
unless the angels were to eat Christ spiritually. Therefore the angels
eat Christ spiritually.

Objection 2: Further, Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan. ) says: By "this
meat and drink, He would have us to understand the fellowship of His
body and members, which is the Church in His predestinated ones. " But
not only men, but also the holy angels belong to that fellowship.
Therefore the holy angels eat of it spiritually.

Objection 3: Further, Augustine in his book De Verbis Domini (Serm.
cxlii) says: "Christ is to be eaten spiritually, as He Himself
declares: 'He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, abideth in
Me, and I in him. '" But this belongs not only to men, but also to the
holy angels, in whom Christ dwells by charity, and they in Him.
Consequently, it seems that to eat Christ spiritually is not for men
only, but also for the angels.

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.

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.