__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Eucharist is a sacrament?
Whether the Eucharist is a sacrament?
Summa Theologica
iii) that "men should come to Confirmation fasting; and should be
admonished to confess their sins first, so that being cleansed they may
be able to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. " And then this sacrament
perfects the effects of Penance, as of Baptism: because by the grace
which he has received in this sacrament, the penitent will obtain
fuller remission of his sin. And if any adult approach, being in a
state of sin of which he is not conscious or for which he is not
perfectly contrite, he will receive the remission of his sins through
the grace bestowed in this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([4495]Q[62], A[2]), the
sacramental grace adds to the sanctifying grace taken in its wide
sense, something that produces a special effect, and to which the
sacrament is ordained. If, then, we consider, in its wide sense, the
grace bestowed in this sacrament, it does not differ from that bestowed
in Baptism, but increases what was already there. On the other hand, if
we consider it as to that which is added over and above, then one
differs in species from the other.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament should be given to all?
Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament should not be given to all.
For this sacrament is given in order to confer a certain excellence, as
stated above (A[11], ad 2). But all are not suited for that which
belongs to excellence. Therefore this sacrament should not be given to
all.
Objection 2: Further, by this sacrament man advances spiritually to
perfect age. But perfect age is inconsistent with childhood. Therefore
at least it should not be given to children.
Objection 3: Further, as Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Episc. Hispan. )
"after Baptism we are strengthened for the combat. " But women are
incompetent to combat, by reason of the frailty of their sex. Therefore
neither should women receive this sacrament.
Objection 4: Further, Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Episc. Hispan. ):
"Although the benefit of Regeneration suffices for those who are on the
point of death, yet the graces of Confirmation are necessary for those
who are to conquer. Confirmation arms and strengthens those to whom the
struggles and combats of this world are reserved. And he who comes to
die, having kept unsullied the innocence he acquired in Baptism, is
confirmed by death; for after death he can sin no more. " Therefore this
sacrament should not be given to those who are on the point of death:
and so it should not be given to all.
On the contrary, It is written (Acts 2:2) that the Holy Ghost in
coming, "filled the whole house," whereby the Church is signified; and
afterwards it is added that "they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. "
But this sacrament is given that we may receive that fulness. Therefore
it should be given to all who belong to the Church.
I answer that, As stated above [4496](A[1]), man is spiritually
advanced by this sacrament to perfect age. Now the intention of nature
is that everyone born corporally, should come to perfect age: yet this
is sometimes hindered by reason of the corruptibility of the body,
which is forestalled by death. But much more is it God's intention to
bring all things to perfection, since nature shares in this intention
inasmuch as it reflects Him: hence it is written (Dt. 32:4): "The works
of God are perfect. " Now the soul, to which spiritual birth and perfect
spiritual age belong, is immortal; and just as it can in old age attain
to spiritual birth, so can it attain to perfect (spiritual) age in
youth or childhood; because the various ages of the body do not affect
the soul. Therefore this sacrament should be given to all.
Reply to Objection 1: This sacrament is given in order to confer a
certain excellence, not indeed, like the sacrament of order, of one man
over another, but of man in regard to himself: thus the same man, when
arrived at maturity, excels himself as he was when a boy.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above, the age of the body does not
affect the soul. Consequently even in childhood man can attain to the
perfection of spiritual age, of which it is written (Wis. 4:8):
"Venerable old age is not that of long time, nor counted by the number
of years. " And hence it is that many children, by reason of the
strength of the Holy Ghost which they had received, fought bravely for
Christ even to the shedding of their blood.
Reply to Objection 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. i De Machab. ), "in
earthly contests fitness of age, physique and rank are required; and
consequently slaves, women, old men, and boys are debarred from taking
part therein. But in the heavenly combats, the Stadium is open equally
to all, to every age, and to either sex. " Again, he says (Hom. de
Militia Spirit. ): "In God's eyes even women fight, for many a woman has
waged the spiritual warfare with the courage of a man. For some have
rivaled men in the courage with which they have suffered martyrdom; and
some indeed have shown themselves stronger than men. " Therefore this
sacrament should be given to women.
Reply to Objection 4: As we have already observed, the soul, to which
spiritual age belongs, is immortal. Wherefore this sacrament should be
given to those on the point of death, that they may be seen to be
perfect at the resurrection, according to Eph. 4:13: "Until we all meet
into the unity of faith . . . unto the measure of the age of the
fulness of Christ. " And hence Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii),
"It would be altogether hazardous, if anyone happened to go forth from
this life without being confirmed": not that such a one would be lost,
except perhaps through contempt; but that this would be detrimental to
his perfection. And therefore even children dying after Confirmation
obtain greater glory, just as here below they receive more grace. The
passage quoted is to be taken in the sense that, with regard to the
dangers of the present combat, those who are on the point of death do
not need this sacrament.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament should be given to man on the forehead?
Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament should not be given to man on
the forehead. For this sacrament perfects Baptism, as stated above
([4497]Q[65], AA[3],4). But the sacrament of Baptism is given to man
over his whole body. Therefore this sacrament should not be given on
the forehead only.
Objection 2: Further, this sacrament is given for spiritual strength,
as stated above ([4498]AA[1],2,4). But spiritual strength is situated
principally in the heart. Therefore this sacrament should be given over
the heart rather than on the forehead.
Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is given to man that he may freely
confess the faith of Christ. But "with the mouth, confession is made
unto salvation," according to Rom. 10:10. Therefore this sacrament
should be given about the mouth rather than on the forehead.
On the contrary, 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. "
I answer that, As stated above ([4499]AA[1],4), in this sacrament man
receives the Holy Ghost for strength in the spiritual combat, that he
may bravely confess the Faith of Christ even in face of the enemies of
that Faith. Wherefore he is fittingly signed with the sign of the cross
on the forehead, with chrism, for two reasons. First, because he is
signed with the sign of the cross, as a soldier with the sign of his
leader, which should be evident and manifest. Now, the forehead, which
is hardly ever covered, is the most conspicuous part of the human body.
Wherefore the confirmed is anointed with chrism on the forehead, that
he may show publicly that he is a Christian: thus too the apostles
after receiving the Holy Ghost showed themselves in public, whereas
before they remained hidden in the upper room.
Secondly, because man is hindered from freely confessing Christ's name,
by two things---by fear and by shame. Now both these things betray
themselves principally on the forehead on account of the proximity of
the imagination, and because the (vital) spirits mount directly from
the heart to the forehead: hence "those who are ashamed, blush, and
those who are afraid, pale" (Ethic. iv). And therefore man is signed
with chrism, that neither fear nor shame may hinder him from confessing
the name of Christ.
Reply to Objection 1: By baptism we are regenerated unto spiritual
life, which belongs to the whole man. But in Confirmation we are
strengthened for the combat; the sign of which should be borne on the
forehead, as in a conspicuous place.
Reply to Objection 2: The principle of fortitude is in the heart, but
its sign appears on the forehead: wherefore it is written (Ezech. 3:8):
"Behold I have made . . . thy forehead harder than their foreheads. "
Hence the sacrament of the Eucharist, whereby man is confirmed in
himself, belongs to the heart, according to Ps. 103:15: "That bread may
strengthen man's heart. " But the sacrament of Confirmation is required
as a sign of fortitude against others; and for this reason it is given
on the forehead.
Reply to Objection 3: This sacrament is given that we may confess
freely: but not that we may confess simply, for this is also the effect
of Baptism. And therefore it should not be given on the mouth, but on
the forehead, where appear the signs of those passions which hinder
free confession.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether he who is confirmed needs one to stand* for him? [*Literally, "to
hold him"]
Objection 1: It seems that he who is confirmed needs no one to stand
for him. For this sacrament is given not only to children but also to
adults. But adults can stand for themselves. Therefore it is absurd
that someone else should stand for them.
Objection 2: Further, he that belongs already to the Church, has free
access to the prince of the Church, i. e. the bishop. But this
sacrament, as stated above [4500](A[6]), is given only to one that is
baptized, who is already a member of the Church. Therefore it seems
that he should not be brought by another to the bishop in order to
receive this sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is given for spiritual strength,
which has more vigor in men than in women, according to Prov. 31:10:
"Who shall find a valiant woman? " Therefore at least a woman should not
stand for a man in confirmation.
On the contrary, Are the following words of Pope Innocent, which are to
be found in the Decretals (XXX, Q[4]): "If anyone raise the children of
another's marriage from the sacred font, or stand for them in
Confirmation," etc. Therefore, just as someone is required as sponsor
of one who is baptized, so is someone required to stand for him who is
to be confirmed .
I answer that, As stated above ([4501]AA[1],4,9), this sacrament is
given to man for strength in the spiritual combat. Now, just as one
newly born requires someone to teach him things pertaining to ordinary
conduct, according to Heb. 12:9: "We have had fathers of our flesh, for
instructors, and we obeyed [Vulg. : 'reverenced']" them; so they who are
chosen for the fight need instructors by whom they are informed of
things concerning the conduct of the battle, and hence in earthly wars,
generals and captains are appointed to the command of the others. For
this reason he also who receives this sacrament, has someone to stand
for him, who, as it were, has to instruct him concerning the fight.
Likewise, since this sacrament bestows on man the perfection of
spiritual age, as stated above ([4502]AA[2],5), therefore he who
approaches this sacrament is upheld by another, as being spiritually a
weakling and a child.
Reply to Objection 1: Although he who is confirmed, be adult in body,
nevertheless he is not yet spiritually adult.
Reply to Objection 2: Though he who is baptized is made a member of the
Church, nevertheless he is not yet enrolled as a Christian soldier. And
therefore he is brought to the bishop, as to the commander of the army,
by one who is already enrolled as a Christian soldier. For one who is
not yet confirmed should not stand for another in Confirmation.
Reply to Objection 3: According to Col. 3 *(Gal. 3:28), "in Christ
Jesus there is neither male nor female. " Consequently it matters not
whether a man or a woman stand for one who is to be confirmed.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether only a bishop can confer this sacrament?
Objection 1: It seems that not only a bishop can confer this sacrament.
For Gregory (Regist. iv), writing to Bishop Januarius, says: "We hear
that some were scandalized because we forbade priests to anoint with
chrism those who have been baptized. Yet in doing this we followed the
ancient custom of our Church: but if this trouble some so very much we
permit priests, where no bishop is to be had, to anoint the baptized on
the forehead with chrism. " But that which is essential to the
sacraments should not be changed for the purpose of avoiding scandal.
Therefore it seems that it is not essential to this sacrament that it
be conferred by a bishop.
Objection 2: Further, the sacrament of Baptism seems to be more
efficacious than the sacrament of Confirmation: since it bestows full
remission of sins, both as to guilt and as to punishment, whereas this
sacrament does not. But a simple priest, in virtue of his office, can
give the sacrament of Baptism: and in a case of necessity anyone, even
without orders, can baptize. Therefore it is not essential to this
sacrament that it be conferred by a bishop.
Objection 3: Further, the top of the head, where according to medical
men the reason is situated (i. e. the "particular reason," which is
called the "cogitative faculty"), is more noble than the forehead,
which is the site of the imagination. But a simple priest can anoint
the baptized with chrism on the top of the head. Therefore much more
can he anoint them with chrism on the forehead, which belongs to this
sacrament.
On the contrary, Pope Eusebius (Ep. iii ad Ep. Tusc. ) says: "The
sacrament of the imposition of the hand should be held in great
veneration, and can be given by none but the high priests. Nor is it
related or known to have been conf erred in apostolic times by others
than the apostles themselves; nor can it ever be either licitly or
validly performed by others than those who stand in their place. And if
anyone presume to do otherwise, it must be considered null and void;
nor will such a thing ever be counted among the sacraments of the
Church. " Therefore it is essential to this sacrament, which is called
"the sacrament of the imposition of the hand," that it be given by a
bishop.
I answer that, In every work the final completion is reserved to the
supreme act or power; thus the preparation of the matter belongs to the
lower craftsmen, the higher gives the form, but the highest of all is
he to whom pertains the use, which is the end of things made by art;
thus also the letter which is written by the clerk, is signed by his
employer. Now the faithful of Christ are a Divine work, according to 1
Cor. 3:9: "You are God's building"; and they are also "an epistle," as
it were, "written with the Spirit of God," according to 2 Cor. 3:2,3.
And this sacrament of Confirmation is, as it were, the final completion
of the sacrament of Baptism; in the sense that by Baptism man is built
up into a spiritual dwelling, and is written like a spiritual letter;
whereas by the sacrament of Confirmation, like a house already built,
he is consecrated as a temple of the Holy Ghost, and as a letter
already written, is signed with the sign of the cross. Therefore the
conferring of this sacrament is reserved to bishops, who possess
supreme power in the Church: just as in the primitive Church, the
fulness of the Holy Ghost was given by the apostles, in whose place the
bishops stand (Acts 8). Hence Pope Urban I says: "All the faithful
should. after Baptism, receive the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the
bishop's hand, that they may become perfect Christians. "
Reply to Objection 1: The Pope has the plenitude of power in the
Church, in virtue of which he can commit to certain lower orders things
that belong to the higher orders: thus he allows priests to confer
minor orders, which belong to the episcopal power. 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.
admonished to confess their sins first, so that being cleansed they may
be able to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. " And then this sacrament
perfects the effects of Penance, as of Baptism: because by the grace
which he has received in this sacrament, the penitent will obtain
fuller remission of his sin. And if any adult approach, being in a
state of sin of which he is not conscious or for which he is not
perfectly contrite, he will receive the remission of his sins through
the grace bestowed in this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([4495]Q[62], A[2]), the
sacramental grace adds to the sanctifying grace taken in its wide
sense, something that produces a special effect, and to which the
sacrament is ordained. If, then, we consider, in its wide sense, the
grace bestowed in this sacrament, it does not differ from that bestowed
in Baptism, but increases what was already there. On the other hand, if
we consider it as to that which is added over and above, then one
differs in species from the other.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament should be given to all?
Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament should not be given to all.
For this sacrament is given in order to confer a certain excellence, as
stated above (A[11], ad 2). But all are not suited for that which
belongs to excellence. Therefore this sacrament should not be given to
all.
Objection 2: Further, by this sacrament man advances spiritually to
perfect age. But perfect age is inconsistent with childhood. Therefore
at least it should not be given to children.
Objection 3: Further, as Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Episc. Hispan. )
"after Baptism we are strengthened for the combat. " But women are
incompetent to combat, by reason of the frailty of their sex. Therefore
neither should women receive this sacrament.
Objection 4: Further, Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Episc. Hispan. ):
"Although the benefit of Regeneration suffices for those who are on the
point of death, yet the graces of Confirmation are necessary for those
who are to conquer. Confirmation arms and strengthens those to whom the
struggles and combats of this world are reserved. And he who comes to
die, having kept unsullied the innocence he acquired in Baptism, is
confirmed by death; for after death he can sin no more. " Therefore this
sacrament should not be given to those who are on the point of death:
and so it should not be given to all.
On the contrary, It is written (Acts 2:2) that the Holy Ghost in
coming, "filled the whole house," whereby the Church is signified; and
afterwards it is added that "they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. "
But this sacrament is given that we may receive that fulness. Therefore
it should be given to all who belong to the Church.
I answer that, As stated above [4496](A[1]), man is spiritually
advanced by this sacrament to perfect age. Now the intention of nature
is that everyone born corporally, should come to perfect age: yet this
is sometimes hindered by reason of the corruptibility of the body,
which is forestalled by death. But much more is it God's intention to
bring all things to perfection, since nature shares in this intention
inasmuch as it reflects Him: hence it is written (Dt. 32:4): "The works
of God are perfect. " Now the soul, to which spiritual birth and perfect
spiritual age belong, is immortal; and just as it can in old age attain
to spiritual birth, so can it attain to perfect (spiritual) age in
youth or childhood; because the various ages of the body do not affect
the soul. Therefore this sacrament should be given to all.
Reply to Objection 1: This sacrament is given in order to confer a
certain excellence, not indeed, like the sacrament of order, of one man
over another, but of man in regard to himself: thus the same man, when
arrived at maturity, excels himself as he was when a boy.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above, the age of the body does not
affect the soul. Consequently even in childhood man can attain to the
perfection of spiritual age, of which it is written (Wis. 4:8):
"Venerable old age is not that of long time, nor counted by the number
of years. " And hence it is that many children, by reason of the
strength of the Holy Ghost which they had received, fought bravely for
Christ even to the shedding of their blood.
Reply to Objection 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. i De Machab. ), "in
earthly contests fitness of age, physique and rank are required; and
consequently slaves, women, old men, and boys are debarred from taking
part therein. But in the heavenly combats, the Stadium is open equally
to all, to every age, and to either sex. " Again, he says (Hom. de
Militia Spirit. ): "In God's eyes even women fight, for many a woman has
waged the spiritual warfare with the courage of a man. For some have
rivaled men in the courage with which they have suffered martyrdom; and
some indeed have shown themselves stronger than men. " Therefore this
sacrament should be given to women.
Reply to Objection 4: As we have already observed, the soul, to which
spiritual age belongs, is immortal. Wherefore this sacrament should be
given to those on the point of death, that they may be seen to be
perfect at the resurrection, according to Eph. 4:13: "Until we all meet
into the unity of faith . . . unto the measure of the age of the
fulness of Christ. " And hence Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii),
"It would be altogether hazardous, if anyone happened to go forth from
this life without being confirmed": not that such a one would be lost,
except perhaps through contempt; but that this would be detrimental to
his perfection. And therefore even children dying after Confirmation
obtain greater glory, just as here below they receive more grace. The
passage quoted is to be taken in the sense that, with regard to the
dangers of the present combat, those who are on the point of death do
not need this sacrament.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament should be given to man on the forehead?
Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament should not be given to man on
the forehead. For this sacrament perfects Baptism, as stated above
([4497]Q[65], AA[3],4). But the sacrament of Baptism is given to man
over his whole body. Therefore this sacrament should not be given on
the forehead only.
Objection 2: Further, this sacrament is given for spiritual strength,
as stated above ([4498]AA[1],2,4). But spiritual strength is situated
principally in the heart. Therefore this sacrament should be given over
the heart rather than on the forehead.
Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is given to man that he may freely
confess the faith of Christ. But "with the mouth, confession is made
unto salvation," according to Rom. 10:10. Therefore this sacrament
should be given about the mouth rather than on the forehead.
On the contrary, 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. "
I answer that, As stated above ([4499]AA[1],4), in this sacrament man
receives the Holy Ghost for strength in the spiritual combat, that he
may bravely confess the Faith of Christ even in face of the enemies of
that Faith. Wherefore he is fittingly signed with the sign of the cross
on the forehead, with chrism, for two reasons. First, because he is
signed with the sign of the cross, as a soldier with the sign of his
leader, which should be evident and manifest. Now, the forehead, which
is hardly ever covered, is the most conspicuous part of the human body.
Wherefore the confirmed is anointed with chrism on the forehead, that
he may show publicly that he is a Christian: thus too the apostles
after receiving the Holy Ghost showed themselves in public, whereas
before they remained hidden in the upper room.
Secondly, because man is hindered from freely confessing Christ's name,
by two things---by fear and by shame. Now both these things betray
themselves principally on the forehead on account of the proximity of
the imagination, and because the (vital) spirits mount directly from
the heart to the forehead: hence "those who are ashamed, blush, and
those who are afraid, pale" (Ethic. iv). And therefore man is signed
with chrism, that neither fear nor shame may hinder him from confessing
the name of Christ.
Reply to Objection 1: By baptism we are regenerated unto spiritual
life, which belongs to the whole man. But in Confirmation we are
strengthened for the combat; the sign of which should be borne on the
forehead, as in a conspicuous place.
Reply to Objection 2: The principle of fortitude is in the heart, but
its sign appears on the forehead: wherefore it is written (Ezech. 3:8):
"Behold I have made . . . thy forehead harder than their foreheads. "
Hence the sacrament of the Eucharist, whereby man is confirmed in
himself, belongs to the heart, according to Ps. 103:15: "That bread may
strengthen man's heart. " But the sacrament of Confirmation is required
as a sign of fortitude against others; and for this reason it is given
on the forehead.
Reply to Objection 3: This sacrament is given that we may confess
freely: but not that we may confess simply, for this is also the effect
of Baptism. And therefore it should not be given on the mouth, but on
the forehead, where appear the signs of those passions which hinder
free confession.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether he who is confirmed needs one to stand* for him? [*Literally, "to
hold him"]
Objection 1: It seems that he who is confirmed needs no one to stand
for him. For this sacrament is given not only to children but also to
adults. But adults can stand for themselves. Therefore it is absurd
that someone else should stand for them.
Objection 2: Further, he that belongs already to the Church, has free
access to the prince of the Church, i. e. the bishop. But this
sacrament, as stated above [4500](A[6]), is given only to one that is
baptized, who is already a member of the Church. Therefore it seems
that he should not be brought by another to the bishop in order to
receive this sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is given for spiritual strength,
which has more vigor in men than in women, according to Prov. 31:10:
"Who shall find a valiant woman? " Therefore at least a woman should not
stand for a man in confirmation.
On the contrary, Are the following words of Pope Innocent, which are to
be found in the Decretals (XXX, Q[4]): "If anyone raise the children of
another's marriage from the sacred font, or stand for them in
Confirmation," etc. Therefore, just as someone is required as sponsor
of one who is baptized, so is someone required to stand for him who is
to be confirmed .
I answer that, As stated above ([4501]AA[1],4,9), this sacrament is
given to man for strength in the spiritual combat. Now, just as one
newly born requires someone to teach him things pertaining to ordinary
conduct, according to Heb. 12:9: "We have had fathers of our flesh, for
instructors, and we obeyed [Vulg. : 'reverenced']" them; so they who are
chosen for the fight need instructors by whom they are informed of
things concerning the conduct of the battle, and hence in earthly wars,
generals and captains are appointed to the command of the others. For
this reason he also who receives this sacrament, has someone to stand
for him, who, as it were, has to instruct him concerning the fight.
Likewise, since this sacrament bestows on man the perfection of
spiritual age, as stated above ([4502]AA[2],5), therefore he who
approaches this sacrament is upheld by another, as being spiritually a
weakling and a child.
Reply to Objection 1: Although he who is confirmed, be adult in body,
nevertheless he is not yet spiritually adult.
Reply to Objection 2: Though he who is baptized is made a member of the
Church, nevertheless he is not yet enrolled as a Christian soldier. And
therefore he is brought to the bishop, as to the commander of the army,
by one who is already enrolled as a Christian soldier. For one who is
not yet confirmed should not stand for another in Confirmation.
Reply to Objection 3: According to Col. 3 *(Gal. 3:28), "in Christ
Jesus there is neither male nor female. " Consequently it matters not
whether a man or a woman stand for one who is to be confirmed.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether only a bishop can confer this sacrament?
Objection 1: It seems that not only a bishop can confer this sacrament.
For Gregory (Regist. iv), writing to Bishop Januarius, says: "We hear
that some were scandalized because we forbade priests to anoint with
chrism those who have been baptized. Yet in doing this we followed the
ancient custom of our Church: but if this trouble some so very much we
permit priests, where no bishop is to be had, to anoint the baptized on
the forehead with chrism. " But that which is essential to the
sacraments should not be changed for the purpose of avoiding scandal.
Therefore it seems that it is not essential to this sacrament that it
be conferred by a bishop.
Objection 2: Further, the sacrament of Baptism seems to be more
efficacious than the sacrament of Confirmation: since it bestows full
remission of sins, both as to guilt and as to punishment, whereas this
sacrament does not. But a simple priest, in virtue of his office, can
give the sacrament of Baptism: and in a case of necessity anyone, even
without orders, can baptize. Therefore it is not essential to this
sacrament that it be conferred by a bishop.
Objection 3: Further, the top of the head, where according to medical
men the reason is situated (i. e. the "particular reason," which is
called the "cogitative faculty"), is more noble than the forehead,
which is the site of the imagination. But a simple priest can anoint
the baptized with chrism on the top of the head. Therefore much more
can he anoint them with chrism on the forehead, which belongs to this
sacrament.
On the contrary, Pope Eusebius (Ep. iii ad Ep. Tusc. ) says: "The
sacrament of the imposition of the hand should be held in great
veneration, and can be given by none but the high priests. Nor is it
related or known to have been conf erred in apostolic times by others
than the apostles themselves; nor can it ever be either licitly or
validly performed by others than those who stand in their place. And if
anyone presume to do otherwise, it must be considered null and void;
nor will such a thing ever be counted among the sacraments of the
Church. " Therefore it is essential to this sacrament, which is called
"the sacrament of the imposition of the hand," that it be given by a
bishop.
I answer that, In every work the final completion is reserved to the
supreme act or power; thus the preparation of the matter belongs to the
lower craftsmen, the higher gives the form, but the highest of all is
he to whom pertains the use, which is the end of things made by art;
thus also the letter which is written by the clerk, is signed by his
employer. Now the faithful of Christ are a Divine work, according to 1
Cor. 3:9: "You are God's building"; and they are also "an epistle," as
it were, "written with the Spirit of God," according to 2 Cor. 3:2,3.
And this sacrament of Confirmation is, as it were, the final completion
of the sacrament of Baptism; in the sense that by Baptism man is built
up into a spiritual dwelling, and is written like a spiritual letter;
whereas by the sacrament of Confirmation, like a house already built,
he is consecrated as a temple of the Holy Ghost, and as a letter
already written, is signed with the sign of the cross. Therefore the
conferring of this sacrament is reserved to bishops, who possess
supreme power in the Church: just as in the primitive Church, the
fulness of the Holy Ghost was given by the apostles, in whose place the
bishops stand (Acts 8). Hence Pope Urban I says: "All the faithful
should. after Baptism, receive the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the
bishop's hand, that they may become perfect Christians. "
Reply to Objection 1: The Pope has the plenitude of power in the
Church, in virtue of which he can commit to certain lower orders things
that belong to the higher orders: thus he allows priests to confer
minor orders, which belong to the episcopal power. 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.
