Summa Theologica Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 132

Reply Obj. 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 Obj. 3: Baptism is the sacrament of Christ's death and Pa.s.sion, according as a man is born anew in Christ in virtue of His Pa.s.sion; but the Eucharist is the sacrament of Christ's Pa.s.sion 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).

_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 73, Art. 4]

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 (A. 2). Therefore, it ought not to be called by various names.

Obj. 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 "Viatic.u.m." 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.

Obj. 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 Pa.s.sion, which was a true sacrifice, as stated above (Q. 48, A. 3), and in this respect it is called a "Sacrifice."

With regard to the present it has another meaning, namely, that of Ecclesiastical unity, in which men are aggregated through this Sacrament; and in this respect it is called "Communion" or _Synaxis_.

For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that "it is called Communion because we communicate with Christ through it, both because we partake of His flesh and G.o.dhead, 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 pa.s.s in heaven; and according to this it is called "Viatic.u.m," 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 G.o.d 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. "a.s.sumption,"

because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv), "we thereby a.s.sume the G.o.dhead of the Son."

Reply Obj. 1: There is nothing to hinder the same thing from being called by several names, according to its various properties or effects.

Reply Obj. 2: What is common to all the sacraments is attributed antonomastically to this one on account of its excellence.

Reply Obj. 3: This sacrament is called a "Sacrifice" inasmuch as it represents the Pa.s.sion of Christ; but it is termed a "Host" inasmuch as it contains Christ, Who is "a host (Douay: 'sacrifice') ... of sweetness" (Eph. 5:2).

_______________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 73, Art. 5]

Whether the Inst.i.tution of This Sacrament Was Appropriate?

Objection 1: It seems that the inst.i.tution 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 inst.i.tute this sacrament as spiritual nourishment.

Obj. 2: Further, men are united with Christ through this sacrament as the members with the head. But Christ is the Head of all men, even of those who have existed from the beginning of the world, as stated above (Q. 8, AA. 3, 6). Therefore the inst.i.tution of this sacrament should not have been postponed till the Lord's supper.

Obj. 3: Further, this sacrament is called the memorial of our Lord's Pa.s.sion, according to Matt. 26 (Luke 22:19): "Do this for a commemoration of Me." But a commemoration is of things past.

Therefore, this sacrament should not have been inst.i.tuted before Christ's Pa.s.sion.

Obj. 4: Further, a man is prepared by Baptism for the Eucharist, which ought to be given only to the baptized. But Baptism was inst.i.tuted by Christ after His Pa.s.sion and Resurrection, as is evident from Matt. 28:19. Therefore, this sacrament was not suitably inst.i.tuted before Christ's Pa.s.sion.

_On the contrary,_ This sacrament was inst.i.tuted by Christ, of Whom it is said (Mk. 7:37) that "He did all things well."

_I answer that,_ This sacrament was appropriately inst.i.tuted 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 a.s.sumed 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 wors.h.i.+ped in a mystery."

Secondly, because without faith in the Pa.s.sion there could never be any salvation, according to Rom. 3:25: "Whom G.o.d 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 Pa.s.sion; 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 Pa.s.sion now past, just as the other was figurative of the Pa.s.sion to come. And so it was fitting that when the hour of the Pa.s.sion was come, Christ should inst.i.tute 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 inst.i.tuted 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 Pa.s.sion."

Reply Obj. 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 nouris.h.i.+ng 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 Obj. 2: The Eucharist is the perfect sacrament of our Lord's Pa.s.sion, as containing Christ crucified; consequently it could not be inst.i.tuted before the Incarnation; but then there was room for only such sacraments as were prefigurative of the Lord's Pa.s.sion.

Reply Obj. 3: This sacrament was inst.i.tuted during the supper, so as in the future to be a memorial of our Lord's Pa.s.sion as accomplished.

Hence He said expressively: "As often as ye shall do these things"

[*Cf. Canon of the Ma.s.s], speaking of the future.

Reply Obj. 4: The inst.i.tution 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 inst.i.tuted first. Or else it can be said that Baptism was already inst.i.tuted in Christ's Baptism; hence some were already baptized with Christ's Baptism, as we read in John 3:22.

_______________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 73, Art. 6]

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 _princ.i.p.al_ figure of this sacrament.

Obj. 2: Further, the pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage 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.

Obj. 3: Further, the princ.i.p.al power of this sacrament is that it brings us into the kingdom of heaven, being a kind of "viatic.u.m." 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 mult.i.tude of the children of Israel on the fourteenth day of the moon; and this was a figure of the Pa.s.sion of Christ, Who is called the Lamb on account of His innocence. As to the effect, because by the blood of the Paschal Lamb the children of Israel were preserved from the destroying Angel, and brought from the Egyptian captivity; and in this respect the Paschal Lamb is the chief figure of this sacrament, because it represents it in every respect.

From this the answer to the Objections is manifest.

_______________________

QUESTION 74

OF THE MATTER OF THIS SACRAMENT (In 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: