" 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.
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.
Summa Theologica
And in virtue of
this fulness of power the Pope, Blessed Gregory, allowed simple priests
to confer this sacrament, so long as the scandal was ended.
Reply to Objection 2: The sacrament of Baptism is more efficacious than
this sacrament as to the removal of evil, since it is a spiritual
birth, that consists in change from non-being to being. But this
sacrament is more efficacious for progress in good; since it is a
spiritual growth from imperfect being to perfect being. And hence this
sacrament is committed to a more worthy minister.
Reply to Objection 3: As Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i), "the
baptized is signed by the priest with chrism on the top of the head,
but by the bishop on the forehead; that the former unction may
symbolize the descent of the Holy Ghost on hint, in order to consecrate
a dwelling to God: and that the second also may teach us that the
sevenfold grace of the same Holy Ghost descends on man with all fulness
of sanctity, knowledge and virtue. " Hence this unction is reserved to
bishops, not on account of its being applied to a more worthy part of
the body, but by reason of its having a more powerful effect.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the rite of this sacrament is appropriate?
Objection 1: It seems that the rite of this sacrament is not
appropriate. For the sacrament of Baptism is of greater necessity than
this, as stated above (A[2], ad 4;[4503] Q[65], AA[3],4). But certain
seasons are fixed for Baptism, viz. Easter and Pentecost. Therefore
some fixed time of the year should be chosen for this sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, just as this sacrament requires devotion both in
the giver and in the receiver, so also does the sacrament of Baptism.
But in the sacrament of Baptism it is not necessary that it should be
received or given fasting. Therefore it seems unfitting for the Council
of Orleans to declare that "those who come to Confirmation should be
fasting"; and the Council of Meaux, "that bishops should not give the
Holy Ghost with imposition of the hand except they be fasting. "
Objection 3: Further, chrism is a sign of the fulness of the Holy
Ghost, as stated above [4504](A[2]). But the fulness of the Holy Ghost
was given to Christ's faithful on the day of Pentecost, as related in
Acts 2:1. Therefore the chrism should be mixed and blessed on the day
of Pentecost rather than on Maundy Thursday.
On the contrary, Is the use of the Church, who is governed by the Holy
Ghost.
I answer that, Our Lord promised His faithful (Mat. 18:20) saying:
"Where there are two or three gathered together in My name, there am I
in the midst of them. " And therefore we must hold firmly that the
Church's ordinations are directed by the wisdom of Christ. And for this
reason we must look upon it as certain that the rite observed by the
Church, in this and the other sacraments, is appropriate.
Reply to Objection 1: As Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Epis. Hispan. ),
"these two sacraments," viz. Baptism and Confirmation, "are so closely
connected that they can nowise be separated save by death intervening,
nor can one be duly celebrated without the other. " Consequently the
same seasons are fixed for the solemn celebration of Baptism and of
this sacrament. But since this sacrament is given only by bishops, who
are not always present where priests are baptizing, it was necessary,
as regards the common use, to defer the sacrament of Confirmation to
other seasons also.
Reply to Objection 2: The sick and those in danger of death are exempt
from this prohibition, as we read in the decree of the Council of
Meaux. And therefore, on account of the multitude of the faithful, and
on account of imminent dangers, it is allowed for this sacrament, which
can be given by none but a bishop, to be given or received even by
those who are not fasting: since one bishop, especially in a large
diocese, would not suffice to confirm all, if he were confined to
certain times. But where it can be done conveniently, it is more
becoming that both giver and receiver should be fasting.
Reply to Objection 3: According to the acts of the Council of Pope
Martin, "it was lawful at all times to prepare the chrism. " But since
solemn Baptism, for which chrism has to be used, is celebrated on
Easter Eve, it was rightly decreed, that chrism should be consecrated
by the bishop two days beforehand, that it may be sent to the various
parts of the diocese. Moreover, this day is sufficiently appropriate to
the blessing of sacramental matter, since thereon was the Eucharist
instituted, to which, in a certain way, all the other sacraments are
ordained, as stated above ([4505]Q[65], A[3]).
__________________________________________________________________
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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Eucharist is a sacrament?
Objection 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 ([4506]Q[65],
A[1];[4507] Q[72], A[1]).
Objection 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 ([4508]Q[63], A[6];[4509]
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.
Objection 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 ([4510]Q[78], A[1]). Therefore the
Eucharist is not a sacrament.
On the contrary, It is said in the Collect [*Postcommunion "pro vivis
et defunctis"]: "May this Thy Sacrament not make us deserving of
punishment. "
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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 Jn. 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Eucharist is one sacrament or several?
Objection 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.
Objection 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 ([4511]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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 2: The bread and wine are materially several signs,
yet formally and perfectively one, inasmuch as one refreshment is
prepared therefrom.
Reply to Objection 3: From the double consecration of the matter no
more can be gathered than that the sacrament is several materially, as
stated above.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Eucharist is necessary for salvation?
Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament is necessary for salvation.
For our Lord said (Jn. 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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 Cor. 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.
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. "
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], OBJ[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 Pet. 3:20,21. And it has been said above
([4512]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
([4513]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 ([4514]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.
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says, explaining Jn. 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 Cor. 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. "
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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" (Col. 3:14).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament is suitably called by various names?
Objection 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 [4515](A[2]). Therefore, it ought not
to be called by various names.
Objection 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.
Objection 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. "
On the contrary, is the use of these expressions by the faithful.
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 ([4516]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" (Rom. 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. "
Reply to Objection 1: There is nothing to hinder the same thing from
being called by several names, according to its various properties or
effects.
Reply to Objection 2: What is common to all the sacraments is
attributed antonomastically to this one on account of its excellence.
Reply to Objection 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" (Eph. 5:2).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the institution of this sacrament was appropriate?
Objection 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.
Objection 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 ([4517]Q[8], AA[3],6). Therefore the institution of this
sacrament should not have been postponed till the Lord's supper.
Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is called the memorial of our
Lord's Passion, according to Mat. 26 (Lk. 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.
Objection 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 Mat. 28:19. Therefore, this sacrament was not suitably instituted
before Christ's Passion.
On the contrary, This sacrament was instituted by Christ, of Whom it is
said (Mk. 7:37) that "He did all things well. "
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 Rom. 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 Cor. 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. "
Reply to Objection 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
new-born in Christ through Baptism, so through the Eucharist we eat
Christ.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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 Jn. 3:22.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Paschal Lamb was the chief figure of this sacrament?
Objection 1: It seems that the Paschal Lamb was not the chief figure of
this sacrament, because (Ps. 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.
Objection 2: Further, the passage of the Red Sea was a figure of
Baptism, according to 1 Cor. 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.
Objection 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 Heb. 9. Consequently, it seems that that
sacrifice was a more significant figure of this sacrament than was the
Paschal Lamb.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:7,8): "Christ our Pasch is
sacrificed; therefore let us feast . . . with the unleavened bread of
sincerity and truth. "
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 Ex.
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.
__________________________________________________________________
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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the matter of this sacrament is bread and wine?
Objection 1: It seems that the matter of this sacrament is not bread
and wine. Because this sacrament ought to represent Christ's Passion
more fully than did the sacraments of the Old Law. But the flesh of
animals, which was the matter of the sacraments under the Old Law,
shows forth Christ's Passion more fully than bread and wine. Therefore
the matter of this sacrament ought rather to be the flesh of animals
than bread and wine.
Objection 2: Further, this sacrament is to be celebrated in every
place. But in many lands bread is not to be found, and in many places
wine is not to be found. Therefore bread and wine are not a suitable
matter for this sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is for both hale and weak. But to
some weak persons wine is hurtful. Therefore it seems that wine ought
not to be the matter of this sacrament.
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. "
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 Mat. 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 Cor. 11:20, this sacrament
"avails for the defense of soul and body"; and therefore "Christ's body
is offered" under the species of bread "for the health of the body, and
the blood" under the species of wine "for the health of the soul,"
according to Lev. 17:14: "The life of the animal [Vulg. : 'of all
flesh'] is in the blood. "
Fourthly, as to the effect with regard to the whole Church, which is
made up of many believers, just "as bread is composed of many grains,
and wine flows from many grapes," as the gloss observes on 1 Cor.
10:17: "We being many are . . . one body," etc.
Reply to Objection 1: Although the flesh of slaughtered animals
represents the Passion more forcibly, nevertheless it is less suitable
for the common use of this sacrament, and for denoting the unity of the
Church.
Reply to Objection 2: Although wheat and wine are not produced in every
country, yet they can easily be conveyed to every land, that is, as
much as is needful for the use of this sacrament: at the same time one
is not to be consecrated when the other is lacking, because it would
not be a complete sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: Wine taken in small quantity cannot do the sick
much harm: yet if there be fear of harm, it is not necessary for all
who take Christ's body to partake also of His blood, as will be stated
later ([4518]Q[80], A[12]).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a determinate quantity of bread and wine is required for the matter
of this sacrament?
Objection 1: It seems that a determinate quantity of bread and wine is
required for the matter of this sacrament. Because the effects of grace
are no less set in order than those of nature. But, "there is a limit
set by nature upon all existing things, and a reckoning of size and
development" (De Anima ii). Consequently, in this sacrament, which is
called "Eucharist," that is, "a good grace," a determinate quantity of
the bread and wine is required.
Objection 2: Further, Christ gave no power to the ministers of the
Church regarding matters which involve derision of the faith and of His
sacraments, according to 2 Cor. 10:8: "Of our power which the Lord hath
given us unto edification, and not for your destruction. " But it would
lead to mockery of this sacrament if the priest were to wish to
consecrate all the bread which is sold in the market and all the wine
in the cellar. Therefore he cannot do this.
Objection 3: Further, if anyone be baptized in the sea, the entire
sea-water is not sanctified by the form of baptism, but only the water
wherewith the body of the baptized is cleansed. Therefore, neither in
this sacrament can a superfluous quantity of bread be consecrated.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 1: The matter of every natural object has its
determinate quantity by comparison with its determinate form. But the
number of the faithful, for whose use this sacrament is ordained, is
not a determinate one. Consequently there is no comparison.
Reply to Objection 2: The power of the Church's ministers is ordained
for two purposes: first for the proper effect, and secondly for the end
of the effect. But the second does not take away the first. Hence, if
the priest intends to consecrate the body of Christ for an evil
purpose, for instance, to make mockery of it, or to administer poison
through it, he commits sin by his evil intention, nevertheless, on
account of the power committed to him, he accomplishes the sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: The sacrament of Baptism is perfected in the use
of the matter: and therefore no more of the water is hallowed than what
is used. But this sacrament is wrought in the consecration of the
matter. Consequently there is no parallel.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether wheaten bread is required for the matter of this sacrament?
Objection 1: It seems that wheaten bread is not requisite for the
matter of this sacrament, because this sacrament is a reminder of our
Lord's Passion. But barley bread seems to be more in keeping with the
Passion than wheaten bread, as being more bitter, and because Christ
used it to feed the multitudes upon the mountain, as narrated in Jn. 6.
Therefore wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, in natural things the shape is a sign of species.
But some cereals resemble wheat, such as spelt and maize, from which in
some localities bread is made for the use of this sacrament. Therefore
wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, mixing dissolves species. But wheaten flour is
hardly to be found unmixed with some other species of grain, except in
the instance of specially selected grain. Therefore it does not seem
that wheaten bread is the proper matter for this sacrament.
Objection 4: Further, what is corrupted appears to be of another
species. But some make the sacrament from bread which is corrupted, and
which no longer seems to be wheaten bread. Therefore, it seems that
such bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
On the contrary, Christ is contained in this sacrament, and He compares
Himself to a grain of wheat, saying (Jn. 12:24): "Unless the grain of
wheat falling into the ground die, itself remaineth alone. " Therefore
bread from corn, i. e. wheaten bread, is the matter of this sacrament.
I answer that, As stated above [4519](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.
Reply to Objection 1: Barley bread serves to denote the hardness of the
Old Law; both on account of the hardness of the bread, and because, as
Augustine says ([4520]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.
Reply to Objection 2: A begetter begets a thing like to itself in
species. yet there is some unlikeness as to the accidents, owing either
to the matter, or to weakness within the generative power. And
therefore, if there be any cereals which can be grown from the seed of
the wheat (as wild wheat from wheat seed grown in bad ground), the
bread made from such grain can be the matter of this sacrament: and
this does not obtain either in barley, or in spelt, or even in maize,
which is of all grains the one most resembling the wheat grain. But the
resemblance as to shape in such seems to denote closeness of species
rather than identity; just as the resemblance in shape between the dog
and the wolf goes to show that they are allied but not of the same
species. Hence from such grains, which cannot in any way be generated
from wheat grain, bread cannot be made such as to be the proper matter
of this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: A moderate mixing does not alter the species,
because that little is as it were absorbed by the greater.
Consequently, then, if a small quantity of another grain be mixed with
a much greater quantity of wheat, bread may be made therefrom so as to
be the proper matter of this sacrament; but if the mixing be notable,
for instance, half and half; or nearly so, then such mixing alters the
species; consequently, bread made therefrom will not be the proper
matter of this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 4: Sometimes there is such corruption of the bread
that the species of bread is lost, as when the continuity of its parts
is destroyed, and the taste, color, and other accidents are changed;
hence the body of Christ may not be made from such matter. But
sometimes there is not such corruption as to alter the species, but
merely disposition towards corruption, which a slight change in the
savor betrays, and from such bread the body of Christ may be made: but
he who does so, sins from irreverence towards the sacrament. And
because starch comes of corrupted wheat, it does not seem as if the
body of Christ could be made of the bread made therefrom, although some
hold the contrary.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament ought to be made of unleavened bread?
Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament ought not to be made of
unleavened bread. because in this sacrament we ought to imitate
Christ's institution. But Christ appears to have instituted this
sacrament in fermented bread, because, as we have read in Ex. 12, the
Jews, according to the Law, began to use unleavened bread on the day of
the Passover which is celebrated on the fourteenth day of the moon; and
Christ instituted this sacrament at the supper which He celebrated
"before the festival day of the Pasch" (Jn. 13:1, 4). Therefore we
ought likewise to celebrate this sacrament with fermented bread.
Objection 2: Further, legal observances ought not to be continued in
the time of grace. But the use of unleavened bread was a ceremony of
the Law, as is clear from Ex. 12. Therefore we ought not to use
unfermented bread in this sacrament of grace.
Objection 3: Further, as stated above ([4521]Q[65], A[1];[4522] 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 Mat. 13:33: "The kingdom of
heaven is like unto leaven," etc. Therefore this sacrament ought to be
made of leavened bread.
Objection 4: Further, leavened or unleavened are mere accidents of
bread, which do not vary the species. But in the matter for the
sacrament of Baptism no difference is observed regarding the variation
of the accidents, as to whether it be salt or fresh, warm or cold
water. Therefore neither ought any distinction to be observed, as to
whether the bread be unleavened or leavened.
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. "
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 [4523](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.
this fulness of power the Pope, Blessed Gregory, allowed simple priests
to confer this sacrament, so long as the scandal was ended.
Reply to Objection 2: The sacrament of Baptism is more efficacious than
this sacrament as to the removal of evil, since it is a spiritual
birth, that consists in change from non-being to being. But this
sacrament is more efficacious for progress in good; since it is a
spiritual growth from imperfect being to perfect being. And hence this
sacrament is committed to a more worthy minister.
Reply to Objection 3: As Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i), "the
baptized is signed by the priest with chrism on the top of the head,
but by the bishop on the forehead; that the former unction may
symbolize the descent of the Holy Ghost on hint, in order to consecrate
a dwelling to God: and that the second also may teach us that the
sevenfold grace of the same Holy Ghost descends on man with all fulness
of sanctity, knowledge and virtue. " Hence this unction is reserved to
bishops, not on account of its being applied to a more worthy part of
the body, but by reason of its having a more powerful effect.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the rite of this sacrament is appropriate?
Objection 1: It seems that the rite of this sacrament is not
appropriate. For the sacrament of Baptism is of greater necessity than
this, as stated above (A[2], ad 4;[4503] Q[65], AA[3],4). But certain
seasons are fixed for Baptism, viz. Easter and Pentecost. Therefore
some fixed time of the year should be chosen for this sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, just as this sacrament requires devotion both in
the giver and in the receiver, so also does the sacrament of Baptism.
But in the sacrament of Baptism it is not necessary that it should be
received or given fasting. Therefore it seems unfitting for the Council
of Orleans to declare that "those who come to Confirmation should be
fasting"; and the Council of Meaux, "that bishops should not give the
Holy Ghost with imposition of the hand except they be fasting. "
Objection 3: Further, chrism is a sign of the fulness of the Holy
Ghost, as stated above [4504](A[2]). But the fulness of the Holy Ghost
was given to Christ's faithful on the day of Pentecost, as related in
Acts 2:1. Therefore the chrism should be mixed and blessed on the day
of Pentecost rather than on Maundy Thursday.
On the contrary, Is the use of the Church, who is governed by the Holy
Ghost.
I answer that, Our Lord promised His faithful (Mat. 18:20) saying:
"Where there are two or three gathered together in My name, there am I
in the midst of them. " And therefore we must hold firmly that the
Church's ordinations are directed by the wisdom of Christ. And for this
reason we must look upon it as certain that the rite observed by the
Church, in this and the other sacraments, is appropriate.
Reply to Objection 1: As Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Epis. Hispan. ),
"these two sacraments," viz. Baptism and Confirmation, "are so closely
connected that they can nowise be separated save by death intervening,
nor can one be duly celebrated without the other. " Consequently the
same seasons are fixed for the solemn celebration of Baptism and of
this sacrament. But since this sacrament is given only by bishops, who
are not always present where priests are baptizing, it was necessary,
as regards the common use, to defer the sacrament of Confirmation to
other seasons also.
Reply to Objection 2: The sick and those in danger of death are exempt
from this prohibition, as we read in the decree of the Council of
Meaux. And therefore, on account of the multitude of the faithful, and
on account of imminent dangers, it is allowed for this sacrament, which
can be given by none but a bishop, to be given or received even by
those who are not fasting: since one bishop, especially in a large
diocese, would not suffice to confirm all, if he were confined to
certain times. But where it can be done conveniently, it is more
becoming that both giver and receiver should be fasting.
Reply to Objection 3: According to the acts of the Council of Pope
Martin, "it was lawful at all times to prepare the chrism. " But since
solemn Baptism, for which chrism has to be used, is celebrated on
Easter Eve, it was rightly decreed, that chrism should be consecrated
by the bishop two days beforehand, that it may be sent to the various
parts of the diocese. Moreover, this day is sufficiently appropriate to
the blessing of sacramental matter, since thereon was the Eucharist
instituted, to which, in a certain way, all the other sacraments are
ordained, as stated above ([4505]Q[65], A[3]).
__________________________________________________________________
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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Eucharist is a sacrament?
Objection 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 ([4506]Q[65],
A[1];[4507] Q[72], A[1]).
Objection 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 ([4508]Q[63], A[6];[4509]
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.
Objection 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 ([4510]Q[78], A[1]). Therefore the
Eucharist is not a sacrament.
On the contrary, It is said in the Collect [*Postcommunion "pro vivis
et defunctis"]: "May this Thy Sacrament not make us deserving of
punishment. "
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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 Jn. 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Eucharist is one sacrament or several?
Objection 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.
Objection 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 ([4511]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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 2: The bread and wine are materially several signs,
yet formally and perfectively one, inasmuch as one refreshment is
prepared therefrom.
Reply to Objection 3: From the double consecration of the matter no
more can be gathered than that the sacrament is several materially, as
stated above.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Eucharist is necessary for salvation?
Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament is necessary for salvation.
For our Lord said (Jn. 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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 Cor. 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.
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. "
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], OBJ[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 Pet. 3:20,21. And it has been said above
([4512]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
([4513]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 ([4514]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.
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says, explaining Jn. 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 Cor. 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. "
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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" (Col. 3:14).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament is suitably called by various names?
Objection 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 [4515](A[2]). Therefore, it ought not
to be called by various names.
Objection 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.
Objection 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. "
On the contrary, is the use of these expressions by the faithful.
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 ([4516]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" (Rom. 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. "
Reply to Objection 1: There is nothing to hinder the same thing from
being called by several names, according to its various properties or
effects.
Reply to Objection 2: What is common to all the sacraments is
attributed antonomastically to this one on account of its excellence.
Reply to Objection 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" (Eph. 5:2).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the institution of this sacrament was appropriate?
Objection 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.
Objection 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 ([4517]Q[8], AA[3],6). Therefore the institution of this
sacrament should not have been postponed till the Lord's supper.
Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is called the memorial of our
Lord's Passion, according to Mat. 26 (Lk. 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.
Objection 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 Mat. 28:19. Therefore, this sacrament was not suitably instituted
before Christ's Passion.
On the contrary, This sacrament was instituted by Christ, of Whom it is
said (Mk. 7:37) that "He did all things well. "
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 Rom. 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 Cor. 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. "
Reply to Objection 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
new-born in Christ through Baptism, so through the Eucharist we eat
Christ.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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 Jn. 3:22.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Paschal Lamb was the chief figure of this sacrament?
Objection 1: It seems that the Paschal Lamb was not the chief figure of
this sacrament, because (Ps. 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.
Objection 2: Further, the passage of the Red Sea was a figure of
Baptism, according to 1 Cor. 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.
Objection 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 Heb. 9. Consequently, it seems that that
sacrifice was a more significant figure of this sacrament than was the
Paschal Lamb.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:7,8): "Christ our Pasch is
sacrificed; therefore let us feast . . . with the unleavened bread of
sincerity and truth. "
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 Ex.
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.
__________________________________________________________________
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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the matter of this sacrament is bread and wine?
Objection 1: It seems that the matter of this sacrament is not bread
and wine. Because this sacrament ought to represent Christ's Passion
more fully than did the sacraments of the Old Law. But the flesh of
animals, which was the matter of the sacraments under the Old Law,
shows forth Christ's Passion more fully than bread and wine. Therefore
the matter of this sacrament ought rather to be the flesh of animals
than bread and wine.
Objection 2: Further, this sacrament is to be celebrated in every
place. But in many lands bread is not to be found, and in many places
wine is not to be found. Therefore bread and wine are not a suitable
matter for this sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is for both hale and weak. But to
some weak persons wine is hurtful. Therefore it seems that wine ought
not to be the matter of this sacrament.
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. "
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 Mat. 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 Cor. 11:20, this sacrament
"avails for the defense of soul and body"; and therefore "Christ's body
is offered" under the species of bread "for the health of the body, and
the blood" under the species of wine "for the health of the soul,"
according to Lev. 17:14: "The life of the animal [Vulg. : 'of all
flesh'] is in the blood. "
Fourthly, as to the effect with regard to the whole Church, which is
made up of many believers, just "as bread is composed of many grains,
and wine flows from many grapes," as the gloss observes on 1 Cor.
10:17: "We being many are . . . one body," etc.
Reply to Objection 1: Although the flesh of slaughtered animals
represents the Passion more forcibly, nevertheless it is less suitable
for the common use of this sacrament, and for denoting the unity of the
Church.
Reply to Objection 2: Although wheat and wine are not produced in every
country, yet they can easily be conveyed to every land, that is, as
much as is needful for the use of this sacrament: at the same time one
is not to be consecrated when the other is lacking, because it would
not be a complete sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: Wine taken in small quantity cannot do the sick
much harm: yet if there be fear of harm, it is not necessary for all
who take Christ's body to partake also of His blood, as will be stated
later ([4518]Q[80], A[12]).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a determinate quantity of bread and wine is required for the matter
of this sacrament?
Objection 1: It seems that a determinate quantity of bread and wine is
required for the matter of this sacrament. Because the effects of grace
are no less set in order than those of nature. But, "there is a limit
set by nature upon all existing things, and a reckoning of size and
development" (De Anima ii). Consequently, in this sacrament, which is
called "Eucharist," that is, "a good grace," a determinate quantity of
the bread and wine is required.
Objection 2: Further, Christ gave no power to the ministers of the
Church regarding matters which involve derision of the faith and of His
sacraments, according to 2 Cor. 10:8: "Of our power which the Lord hath
given us unto edification, and not for your destruction. " But it would
lead to mockery of this sacrament if the priest were to wish to
consecrate all the bread which is sold in the market and all the wine
in the cellar. Therefore he cannot do this.
Objection 3: Further, if anyone be baptized in the sea, the entire
sea-water is not sanctified by the form of baptism, but only the water
wherewith the body of the baptized is cleansed. Therefore, neither in
this sacrament can a superfluous quantity of bread be consecrated.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 1: The matter of every natural object has its
determinate quantity by comparison with its determinate form. But the
number of the faithful, for whose use this sacrament is ordained, is
not a determinate one. Consequently there is no comparison.
Reply to Objection 2: The power of the Church's ministers is ordained
for two purposes: first for the proper effect, and secondly for the end
of the effect. But the second does not take away the first. Hence, if
the priest intends to consecrate the body of Christ for an evil
purpose, for instance, to make mockery of it, or to administer poison
through it, he commits sin by his evil intention, nevertheless, on
account of the power committed to him, he accomplishes the sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: The sacrament of Baptism is perfected in the use
of the matter: and therefore no more of the water is hallowed than what
is used. But this sacrament is wrought in the consecration of the
matter. Consequently there is no parallel.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether wheaten bread is required for the matter of this sacrament?
Objection 1: It seems that wheaten bread is not requisite for the
matter of this sacrament, because this sacrament is a reminder of our
Lord's Passion. But barley bread seems to be more in keeping with the
Passion than wheaten bread, as being more bitter, and because Christ
used it to feed the multitudes upon the mountain, as narrated in Jn. 6.
Therefore wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, in natural things the shape is a sign of species.
But some cereals resemble wheat, such as spelt and maize, from which in
some localities bread is made for the use of this sacrament. Therefore
wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, mixing dissolves species. But wheaten flour is
hardly to be found unmixed with some other species of grain, except in
the instance of specially selected grain. Therefore it does not seem
that wheaten bread is the proper matter for this sacrament.
Objection 4: Further, what is corrupted appears to be of another
species. But some make the sacrament from bread which is corrupted, and
which no longer seems to be wheaten bread. Therefore, it seems that
such bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
On the contrary, Christ is contained in this sacrament, and He compares
Himself to a grain of wheat, saying (Jn. 12:24): "Unless the grain of
wheat falling into the ground die, itself remaineth alone. " Therefore
bread from corn, i. e. wheaten bread, is the matter of this sacrament.
I answer that, As stated above [4519](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.
Reply to Objection 1: Barley bread serves to denote the hardness of the
Old Law; both on account of the hardness of the bread, and because, as
Augustine says ([4520]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.
Reply to Objection 2: A begetter begets a thing like to itself in
species. yet there is some unlikeness as to the accidents, owing either
to the matter, or to weakness within the generative power. And
therefore, if there be any cereals which can be grown from the seed of
the wheat (as wild wheat from wheat seed grown in bad ground), the
bread made from such grain can be the matter of this sacrament: and
this does not obtain either in barley, or in spelt, or even in maize,
which is of all grains the one most resembling the wheat grain. But the
resemblance as to shape in such seems to denote closeness of species
rather than identity; just as the resemblance in shape between the dog
and the wolf goes to show that they are allied but not of the same
species. Hence from such grains, which cannot in any way be generated
from wheat grain, bread cannot be made such as to be the proper matter
of this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: A moderate mixing does not alter the species,
because that little is as it were absorbed by the greater.
Consequently, then, if a small quantity of another grain be mixed with
a much greater quantity of wheat, bread may be made therefrom so as to
be the proper matter of this sacrament; but if the mixing be notable,
for instance, half and half; or nearly so, then such mixing alters the
species; consequently, bread made therefrom will not be the proper
matter of this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 4: Sometimes there is such corruption of the bread
that the species of bread is lost, as when the continuity of its parts
is destroyed, and the taste, color, and other accidents are changed;
hence the body of Christ may not be made from such matter. But
sometimes there is not such corruption as to alter the species, but
merely disposition towards corruption, which a slight change in the
savor betrays, and from such bread the body of Christ may be made: but
he who does so, sins from irreverence towards the sacrament. And
because starch comes of corrupted wheat, it does not seem as if the
body of Christ could be made of the bread made therefrom, although some
hold the contrary.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament ought to be made of unleavened bread?
Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament ought not to be made of
unleavened bread. because in this sacrament we ought to imitate
Christ's institution. But Christ appears to have instituted this
sacrament in fermented bread, because, as we have read in Ex. 12, the
Jews, according to the Law, began to use unleavened bread on the day of
the Passover which is celebrated on the fourteenth day of the moon; and
Christ instituted this sacrament at the supper which He celebrated
"before the festival day of the Pasch" (Jn. 13:1, 4). Therefore we
ought likewise to celebrate this sacrament with fermented bread.
Objection 2: Further, legal observances ought not to be continued in
the time of grace. But the use of unleavened bread was a ceremony of
the Law, as is clear from Ex. 12. Therefore we ought not to use
unfermented bread in this sacrament of grace.
Objection 3: Further, as stated above ([4521]Q[65], A[1];[4522] 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 Mat. 13:33: "The kingdom of
heaven is like unto leaven," etc. Therefore this sacrament ought to be
made of leavened bread.
Objection 4: Further, leavened or unleavened are mere accidents of
bread, which do not vary the species. But in the matter for the
sacrament of Baptism no difference is observed regarding the variation
of the accidents, as to whether it be salt or fresh, warm or cold
water. Therefore neither ought any distinction to be observed, as to
whether the bread be unleavened or leavened.
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. "
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 [4523](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.
