Respondeo dicendum quod in hoc sacramento duo est considerare, scilicet ipsum sacramentum, et rem sacramenti. Dictum est autem quod res sacramenti est unitas corporis mystici, sine qua non potest esse salus, nulli enim patet aditus salutis extra Ecclesiam, sicut nec in diluvio absque arca Noe, quae significat Ecclesiam, ut habetur I Petr. III. Dictum est autem supra quod res alicuius sacramenti haberi potest ante perceptionem sacramenti, ex ipso voto sacramenti percipiendi. Unde ante perceptionem huius sacramenti, potest homo habere salutem ex voto percipiendi hoc sacramentum, sicut et ante Baptismum ex voto Baptismi, ut supra dictum est. Tamen est differentia quantum ad duo. Primo quidem, quia Baptismus est principium spiritualis vitae, et ianua sacramentorum. Eucharistia vero est quasi consummatio spiritualis vitae, et omnium sacramentorum finis, ut supra dictum est, per sanctificationes enim omnium sacramentorum fit praeparatio ad suscipiendam vel consecrandam Eucharistiam. Et ideo perceptio Baptismi est necessaria ad inchoandam spiritualem vitam, perceptio autem Eucharistiae est necessaria ad consummandam ipsam, non ad hoc quod simpliciter habeatur, sed sufficit eam habere in voto, sicut et finis habetur in desiderio et intentione. Alia differentia est, quia per Baptismum ordinatur homo ad Eucharistiam. Et ideo ex hoc ipso quod pueri baptizantur, ordinantur per Ecclesiam ad Eucharistiam. Et sic, sicut ex fide Ecclesiae credunt, sic ex intentione Ecclesiae desiderant Eucharistiam, et per consequens recipiunt rem ipsius. Sed ad Baptismum non ordinantur per aliud praecedens sacramentum. Et ideo, ante susceptionem Baptismi, non habent pueri aliquo modo Baptismum in voto, sed soli adulti. Unde rem sacramenti percipere non possunt sine perceptione sacramenti. Et ideo hoc sacramentum non hoc modo est de necessitate salutis sicut Baptismus. 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 (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 (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 (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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, exponens illud verbum Ioannis, hunc cibum et potum, scilicet carnis suae et sanguinis, societatem vult intelligi corporis et membrorum suorum, quod est Ecclesia, in praedestinatis et vocatis et iustificatis et glorificatis sanctis et fidelibus eius. Unde, sicut ipse dicit, in epistola ad Bonifacium, nulli est aliquatenus ambigendum tunc unumquemque fidelium corporis sanguinisque domini participem fieri, quando in Baptismate membrum corporis Christi efficitur, nec alienari ab illius panis calicisque consortio, etiam si, antequam panem illum comedat et calicem bibat, de hoc saeculo in unitate corporis Christi constitutus abscedat. Reply Obj. 1: As Augustine says, explaining John 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 predestined, 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. Ad secundum dicendum quod haec est differentia inter alimentum corporale et spirituale, quod alimentum corporale convertitur in substantiam eius qui nutritur, et ideo non potest homini valere ad vitae conservationem alimentum corporale nisi realiter sumatur. Sed alimentum spirituale convertit hominem in seipsum, secundum illud quod Augustinus dicit, in libro Confess., quod quasi audivit vocem Christi dicentis, nec tu me mutabis in te, sicut cibum carnis tuae, sed tu mutaberis in me. Potest autem aliquis in Christum mutari et ei incorporari voto mentis, etiam sine huius sacramenti perceptione. Et ideo non est simile. 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod Baptismus est sacramentum mortis et passionis Christi prout homo regeneratur in Christo virtute passionis eius. Sed Eucharistia est sacramentum passionis Christi prout homo perficitur in unione ad Christum passum. Unde, sicut Baptismus dicitur sacramentum fidei, quae est fundamentum spiritualis vitae; ita Eucharistia dicitur sacramentum caritatis, quae est vinculum perfectionis, ut dicitur Coloss. III. Reply Obj. 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). Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum convenienter hoc sacramentum pluribus nominibus nominetur Whether this sacrament is suitably called by various names? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter hoc sacramentum pluribus nominibus nominetur. Nomina enim debent respondere rebus. Sed hoc sacramentum est unum, ut dictum est. Ergo non debet pluribus nominibus nominari. 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. Praeterea, species non notificatur convenienter per id quod est commune toti generi. Sed Eucharistia est sacramentum novae legis. Omnibus autem sacramentis commune est quod in eis confertur gratia, quod significat nomen Eucharistiae, quod est idem quod bona gratia. Omnia etiam sacramenta remedium nobis afferunt in via praesentis vitae, quod pertinet ad rationem viatici. In omnibus etiam sacramentis fit aliquid sacrum, quod pertinet ad rationem sacrificii. Et per omnia sacramenta sibi invicem fideles communicant, quod significat hoc nomen synaxis in Graeco, vel communio in Latino. Ergo haec nomina non convenienter adaptantur huic sacramento. 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 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. Praeterea, hostia videtur idem esse quod sacrificium. Sicut ergo non proprie dicitur sacrificium, ita nec proprie dicitur hostia. Obj. 3: Further, a host 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. Sed contra est quod usus fidelium habet. On the contrary, is the use of these expressions by the faithful. Respondeo dicendum quod hoc sacramentum habet triplicem significationem. Unam quidem respectu praeteriti, inquantum scilicet est commemorativum dominicae passionis, quae fuit verum sacrificium, ut supra dictum est. Et secundum hoc nominatur sacrificium. 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 (Q. 48, A. 3), and in this respect it is called a Sacrifice. Aliam autem significationem habet respectu rei praesentis, scilicet ecclesiasticae unitatis, cui homines congregantur per hoc sacramentum. Et secundum hoc nominatur communio vel synaxis, dicit enim Damascenus, IV libro, quod dicitur communio, quia communicamus per ipsam Christo; et quia participamus eius carne et deitate; et quia communicamus et unimur ad invicem per ipsam. 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. Tertiam significationem habet respectu futuri, inquantum scilicet hoc sacramentum est praefigurativum fruitionis Dei, quae erit in patria. Et secundum hoc dicitur viaticum, quia hoc praebet nobis viam illuc perveniendi. Et secundum hoc etiam dicitur Eucharistia, idest bona gratia, quia gratia Dei est vita aeterna, ut dicitur Rom. VI; vel quia realiter continet Christum, qui est plenus gratia. 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. Dicitur etiam in Graeco metalepsis, idest assumptio, quia, ut Damascenus dicit, per hoc filii deitatem assumimus. 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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nihil prohibet idem pluribus nominibus nominari secundum diversas proprietates vel effectus. Reply Obj. 1: There is nothing to hinder the same thing from being called by several names, according to its various properties or effects. Ad secundum dicendum quod id quod est commune omnibus sacramentis, attribuitur antonomastice ei, propter eius excellentiam. Reply Obj. 2: What is common to all the sacraments is attributed antonomastically to this one on account of its excellence. Ad tertium dicendum quod hoc sacramentum dicitur sacrificium, inquantum repraesentat ipsam passionem Christi. Dicitur autem hostia, inquantum continet ipsum Christum, qui est hostia suavitatis, ut dicitur Ephes. V. Reply Obj. 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 (sacrifice) . . . of sweetness (Eph 5:2). Articulus 5 Article 5 Utrum fuerit conveniens institutio istius sacramenti Whether the institution of this sacrament was appropriate? Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit conveniens institutio istius sacramenti. Ut enim philosophus dicit, in II de Generat., ex eisdem nutrimur ex quibus sumus. Sed per Baptismum, qui est spiritualis regeneratio, accipimus esse spirituale, ut Dionysius dicit, II cap. Eccles. Hier. Ergo per Baptismum etiam nutrimur. Non ergo fuit necessarium instituere hoc sacramentum quasi spirituale nutrimentum. 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. Praeterea, per hoc sacramentum homines Christo uniuntur sicut membra capiti. Sed Christus est caput omnium hominum, etiam qui fuerunt ab initio mundi, ut supra dictum est. Ergo non debuit institutio huius sacramenti differri usque ad cenam domini. 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 institution of this sacrament should not have been postponed till the Lord’s supper. Praeterea, hoc sacramentum dicitur esse memoriale dominicae passionis, secundum illud Matth. XXVI, hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Sed memoria est praeteritorum. Ergo hoc sacramentum non debuit institui ante Christi passionem. Obj. 3: Further, this sacrament is called the memorial of our Lord’s Passion, 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 instituted before Christ’s Passion. Praeterea, per Baptismum aliquis ordinatur ad Eucharistiam, quae non nisi baptizatis dari debet. Sed Baptismus institutus fuit post Christi passionem et resurrectionem, ut patet Matth. ult. Ergo inconvenienter hoc sacramentum fuit ante passionem Christi institutum. Obj. 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 Matt. 28:19. Therefore, this sacrament was not suitably instituted before Christ’s Passion. Sed contra est quod hoc sacramentum institutum est a Christo, de quo dicitur Marc. VII, bene omnia fecit. On the contrary, This sacrament was instituted by Christ, of Whom it is said (Mark 7:37) that He did all things well. Respondeo dicendum quod convenienter hoc sacramentum institutum fuit in cena, in qua scilicet Christus ultimo cum discipulis suis fuit conversatus. Primo quidem, ratione continentiae huius sacramenti. Continetur enim ipse Christus in Eucharistia sicut in sacramento. Et ideo, quando ipse Christus in propria specie a discipulis discessurus erat, in sacramentali specie seipsum eis reliquit, sicut in absentia imperatoris exhibetur veneranda eius imago. Unde Eusebius dicit, quia corpus assumptum ablaturus erat ab oculis et illaturus sideribus, necesse erat ut die cenae sacramentum corporis et sanguinis sui consecraret nobis, ut coleretur iugiter per mysterium quod semel offerebatur in pretium. 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. Secundo, quia sine fide passionis Christi nunquam potuit esse salus, secundum illud Rom. III, quem proposuit Deus propitiatorem per fidem in sanguine ipsius. Et ideo oportuit omni tempore apud homines esse aliquod repraesentativum dominicae passionis. Cuius in veteri quidem testamento praecipuum sacramentum erat agnus paschalis, unde et apostolus dicit, I Cor. V, Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus. Successit autem ei in novo testamento Eucharistiae sacramentum, quod est rememorativum praeteritae passionis, sicut et illud fuit praefigurativum futurae. Et ideo conveniens fuit, imminente passione, celebrato priori sacramento, novum sacramentum instituere, ut Leo Papa dicit. Second, 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). Tertio, quia ea quae ultimo dicuntur, maxime ab amicis recedentibus, magis memoriae commendantur, praesertim quia tunc magis inflammatur affectus ad amicos, ea vero ad quae magis afficimur, profundius animo imprimuntur. Quia igitur, ut beatus Alexander Papa dicit, nihil in sacrificiis maius esse potest quam corpus et sanguis Christi, nec ulla oblatio hac potior est, ideo, ut in maiori veneratione haberetur, dominus in ultimo discessu suo a discipulis hoc sacramentum instituit. Et hoc est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro responsionum ad Ianuarium, salvator, quo vehementius commendaret mysterii illius altitudinem, ultimum hoc voluit infigere cordibus et memoriae discipulorum, a quibus ad passionem discessurus erat. Third, 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 Savior willed this last act to be fixed in the hearts and memories of the disciples whom He was about to quit for the Passion. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex eisdem nutrimur ex quibus sumus, non tamen eodem modo nobis advenientibus. Nam ea ex quibus sumus, nobis adveniunt per generationem, eadem autem, inquantum ex eis nutrimur, nobis adveniunt per manducationem. Unde et, sicut per Baptismum regeneramur in Christo, ita per Eucharistiam manducamus Christum. 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 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. Ad secundum dicendum quod Eucharistia est sacramentum perfectum dominicae passionis, tanquam continens ipsum Christum passum. Et ideo non potuit institui ante incarnationem, sed tunc habebant locum sacramenta quae erant tantum praefigurativa dominicae passionis. Reply Obj. 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod sacramentum illud fuit institutum in cena ut in futurum esset memoriale dominicae passionis, ea perfecta. Unde signanter dicit, haec quotiescumque feceritis, de futuro loquens. Reply Obj. 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, speaking of the future. Ad quartum dicendum quod institutio respondet ordini intentionis. Sacramentum autem Eucharistiae, quamvis sit posterius Baptismo in perceptione, est tamen prius in intentione. Et ideo debuit prius institui. Vel potest dici quod Baptismus iam erat institutus in ipso Christi Baptismo. Unde et iam aliqui ipso Christi Baptismo erant baptizati, ut legitur Ioan. III. Reply Obj. 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 John 3:22. Articulus 6 Article 6 Utrum agnus paschalis fuerit praecipua figura huius sacramenti Whether the Paschal Lamb was the chief figure of this sacrament? Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod agnus paschalis non fuerit praecipua figura huius sacramenti. Christus enim dicitur sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedech, propter hoc quod Melchisedech gessit figuram sacrificii Christi, offerens panem et vinum. Sed expressio similitudinis facit quod unum ab alio denominetur. Ergo videtur quod oblatio Melchisedech fuerit potissima figura huius sacramenti. 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. Praeterea, transitus maris rubri fuit figura Baptismi, secundum illud I Cor. X, omnes baptizati sunt in nube et in mari. Sed immolatio agni paschalis praecessit transitum maris rubri, quem subsecutum est manna, sicut Eucharistia sequitur Baptismum. Ergo manna est expressior figura huius sacramenti quam agnus paschalis. Obj. 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. Praeterea, potissima virtus huius sacramenti est quod introducit nos in regnum caelorum, sicut quoddam viaticum. Sed hoc maxime figuratum fuit in sacramento expiationis, quando pontifex intrabat semel in anno cum sanguine in sancta sanctorum, sicut apostolus probat, Heb. IX. Ergo videtur quod illud sacrificium fuerit expressior figura huius sacramenti quam agnus paschalis. Obj. 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.