Lecture 4
Lectio 4
Consecration of the chalice
Consecratio calicis
26:27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: drink, all of you, of this. [n. 2191]
26:27 Et accipiens calicem gratias egit, et dedit illis dicens: bibite ex hoc omnes. [n. 2191]
26:28 For this is my blood of the New Testament, which will be shed for many unto the remission of sins. [n. 2200]
26:28 Hic est enim sanguis meus Novi Testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. [n. 2200]
26:29 And I say to you, from this time forward, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I will drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. [n. 2203]
26:29 Dico autem vobis, non bibam amodo de hoc genimine vitis, usque in diem illum, cum illud bibam vobiscum novum in regno Patris mei. [n. 2203]
2190. Above, he treated of the institution of the new sacrament with regard to the sacrament of the Lord’s body (C. 26, L. 2); here he treats of the institution of the same sacrament with regard to the sacrament of the blood.
2190. Supra actum est de institutione novi sacramenti quantum ad sacramentum corporis Domini, hic agitur de institutione eiusdem quantum ad sacramentum sanguinis:
And concerning this he does two things:
et circa hoc duo facit.
first, Christ’s deeds are set down;
Primo ponuntur facta Christi;
second, his words, at drink, all of you, of this.
secundo dicta, ibi bibite ex hoc omnes.
Concerning the first, three deeds are set down:
Circa primum tria facta ponuntur.
first, that he took the chalice;
Primo quod accepit calicem;
second, that he gave thanks;
secundo quod gratias egit;
third, that he gave to the disciples.
tertio quod discipulis dedit.
2191. Hence it says, and taking the chalice, which indicates that it was not instituted that the sacrament be done under one appearance, but under two.
2191. Unde dicit et accipiens calicem etc.; per quod signatum est, quod non fuit institutum quod agatur sub una specie, sed sub duabus.
And what is the reason for this? One reason is that there are three things in this sacrament: one which is a sacrament only, another which is a reality only, and another which is both sacrament and reality. The appearances of bread and wine are a sacrament only, the spiritual effect is a reality only, and the body contained is both reality and sacrament. If therefore we consider that which is a sacrament only, in this way it is quite fitting that the body be signified under the appearance of bread, and the blood under the appearance of wine, for it is signified as indicating spiritual refreshment; but refreshment is found properly in food and drink. Likewise, if it be taken as both reality and sacrament, it pertains to this that the sacrament is commemorative of the Lord’s passion. And it could not signify better than in this way, that it signify the blood as poured out and separated from the body. It is likewise with regard to that which is taken as reality only, for the blood pertains to the soul, not because the blood is the soul, but because life is preserved in the blood. Hence it signifies that, since this sacrament is for the health of the faithful, the bread is offered for the health of the body, and the blood for the health of the soul. Come, eat my bread, and drink the wine which I have mingled for you (Prov 9:5), for this refreshment is with bread and wine. Likewise another reason, because the whole Christ is contained in the body.
Et quae est ratio huius? Una ratio est, quia tria sunt in hoc sacramento: unum quod est sacramentum tantum, aliud quod est res tantum, aliud quod est sacramentum et res. Sacramentum tantum sunt species panis et vini, res tantum est effectus spiritualis, res et sacramentum est corpus contentum. Si ergo consideremus sacramentum tantum, sic bene competit ut corpus signetur sub specie panis, sanguis sub specie vini, quia signatur ut indicans refectionem spiritualem; sed refectio est proprie in cibo et potu, ideo et cetera. Item si sumatur ut res et sacramentum, ad hoc competit quod illud sacramentum est rememorativum Dominicae passionis. Et non potuit melius significare quam sic, ut significetur sanguis ut effusus et separatus a corpore. Item quantum ad id quod sumitur ut res tantum, quia sanguis pertinet ad animam, non quia sanguis sit anima, sed in sanguine vita conservatur: unde signatur quod cum illud sacramentum sit ad salutem fidelium, quod panis offertur pro salute corporis, sed sanguis pro salute animae. Prov. IX, 5: venite, comedite panem meum, et bibite vinum quod miscui vobis, quia refectio ista est in pane et vino. Item alia ratio, quia totus Christus continetur in corpore.
2192. What need then is there that the blood be by itself? Hence one should consider what was said above, that one thing is there directly, by the strength of the sacrament, and another by a natural concomitance. The body of Christ is contained under the appearance of bread by the strength of the sacrament, and the blood by concomitance. But it is the other way around with the blood contained under the appearance of wine, for the blood is there by the strength of the sacrament, and the body by concomitance.
2192. Quae est ergo necessitas quod sanguis per se? Ideo est accipiendum quod dictum est supra, quod aliud est ibi ex vi sacramenti directe, aliud ex naturali concomitantia. Sub panis specie continetur corpus Christi de vi sacramenti, sed sanguis per concomitantiam. In sanguine vero e converso, quia sanguis est de vi sacramenti, sed corpus per concomitantiam.
Hence when the blood of Christ was poured out on the ground, if the sacrament had been celebrated, the blood would only have been present separately. So, since some had not understood this, they said that this form is continued. Hence they say that when the body is consecrated, the blood is not there until the wine has been consecrated. But this is not so, because if the priest were to die before he consecrated the wine, both the body and the blood would be present in the host.
Unde sanguine Christi effuso in terram, si fuisset celebratum, non fuisset sanguis nisi seorsum. Ideo quia haec non intellexerunt quidam, dixerunt quod formae istae continuantur. Unde dicunt quod cum consecratur corpus, non est ibi sanguis donec vinum fuerit consecratum. Sed hoc non est ita, quia si moreretur sacerdos antequam consecraret vinum, esset in hostia et corpus et sanguis.
2193. Likewise, it says, taking the chalice, and does not say, taking the wine, and because of this some have said that the sacrament should be performed with water. And this is ruled out, because there follows, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine. Second, it is clear that it was wine mixed with water. And one reason for this is on the side of the sacrament, for it was going to be celebrated as the Lord instituted. But it is customary in hot regions that wine is not drunk without water; so one should not believe that he confected the sacrament with pure wine. It also befits the thing contained, for this sacrament is commemorative of the Lord’s passion; but from Christ’s side flowed out blood and water, as is said in John (John 19:34).
2193. Item dicit accipiens calicem, et non dicit accipiens vinum, ideo quidam dixerunt quod debebat fieri in aqua. Et hoc excluditur, quia sequitur non bibam de genimine vitis et cetera. Secundo patet quod fuit vinum et aqua mixtum. Et huius ratio est ex parte sacramenti, quia celebrandum est ut Dominus instituit. Sed in terra calida consuetudo est quod non bibatur vinum sine aqua; ideo non est credendum quod in puro vino confecerit. Competit et contento, quia illud sacramentum est rememorativum Dominicae passionis; sed a latere Christi exivit sanguis et aqua, ut habetur Io. XIX, 34.
Likewise, to signify the effect of the sacrament, and this in two ways: for it signifies the memory of Christ’s passion, so it produces in us the effect of Christ’s passion. Now, there are two effects, to purify and to redeem. He redeemed us through his blood; and has redeemed us to God, in your blood (Rev 5:9). Similarly, he purified the unclean; who has loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood (Rev 1:5). And these things were necessary, that he should purify and redeem. And the purification is signified by the water, the redemption by the wine. Likewise, the water signifies the people; many waters, a great people (Rev 17:1). And through this sacrament, the people is united to Christ; so this mixing together of water and wine signifies that the people is united to Christ.
Item ad significandum effectus, et hoc dupliciter: quia istud significat memoriam passionis Christi; ergo inducit in nos effectus passionis Christi. Effectus autem est duplex, abluere et redimere. Redemit nos per sanguinem suum; Apoc. V, v. 9: redemisti nos Deo in sanguine tuo. Item abluit sordes; Apoc. I, 5: dilexit nos, et lavit nos a peccatis nostris in sanguine suo. Et haec erant necessaria ut ablueret et redimeret. Et ablutio signatur per aquam, redemptio per vinum. Item per aquam populus; Apoc. XVII, 1: aquae multae, populus multus. Et per istud sacramentum populus unitur Christo; ideo per istam admixtionem signatur populus uniri Christo.
2194. But what happens to the water? Some say that it remains. Others say that it is turned into wine, because when a very little is put in, the species is changed, and thus the whole is converted; and in this way it has to do with a mystery, that the Church’s unity is contained in this sacrament.
2194. Sed quid fit de illa aqua? Dicunt aliqui quod manet. Alii dicunt quod convertitur in vinum, quia cum ponatur parum, species mutatur, et ita totum est conversum; et ita pertinet ad mysterium, quia in hoc unitas ecclesiastica continetur.
2195. Likewise, when it says taking, it signifies that he endured the passion voluntarily; hence, I will take the chalice of salvation; and I will call upon the name of the Lord (Ps 115:4).
2195. Item in hoc quod dicit accipiens, signatur quod voluntarie sustinuit passionem; unde in Psal. CXV, 13: calicem salutaris accipiam, et nomen Domini invocabo.
2196. Likewise, he gave thanks. And for what? For the sign, and for the thing signified. For the sign, he gave thanks for the effect; for the thing signified, he gave thanks for the passion. Which indicates that we should not only give thanks for good things, but for evils and adversities as well; in all things give thanks (1 Thess 5:18); to those who love God, all things work together unto good (Rom 8:28). Likewise, he gave thanks for the institution of this sacrament, because he brought this about by the divine power; hence, I cannot of myself do anything (John 5:30). This is why he gives thanks to God the Father; Father, I give you thanks that you have heard me (John 11:41). Which gives us an example, that if Christ gave thanks, who was equal to the Father, we should give thanks. Likewise, he gives thanks for the effect, because the effect is the salvation of the whole world. And he could only have brought this about by the divinity; it is the Spirit that quickens: the flesh profits nothing (John 6:64).
2196. Item gratias egit. Et de quo? De duobus, de signo et signato. De signo, quia de effectu; de signato, quia de passione. In quo signatur quod non solum de bonis gratias reddere debemus, sed etiam de malis et adversis; I ad Thess. V, 18: in omnibus gratias agentes; ad Rom. VIII, 28: diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum. Item gratias egit de institutione huius sacramenti, quia virtute divina hoc faciebat; unde in Io. c. V, 30: a meipso facio nihil. Ideo gratias agit Deo Patri; Io. XI, 41: gratias ago tibi, quoniam audisti me. In quo datur nobis exemplum quod si Christus gratias egit, qui erat Patri aequalis, quod nos gratias agere debemus. Item gratias agit de effectu, quia effectus est salus totius mundi. Et hoc non poterat facere nisi ex divinitate; Io. VI, 64: Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro autem non prodest quicquam.
2197. There follows, and gave, that they might receive him in the sacrament. And by this he signified that the fruit of his passion should be ministered to others through others. Hence the apostles can be compared to an eagle’s young, of whom it says, as the eagle enticing her young to fly, and hovering over them (Deut 32:11).
2197. Sequitur et dedit, ut sumerent in sacramento. Et per hoc significavit quod fructus suae passionis debebat per alios aliis ministrari. Unde apostoli possunt comparari pullis aquilae, de quibus dicitur Deut. XXXII, v. 11: sicut aquila provocans pullos suos ad volandum, et super eos volitans.
2198. Then he enjoins its use. And
2198. Tunc iniungit usum. Et
first, he sets out the use;
primo ponit usum;
second, the words of the consecration of the blood;
secundo verba consecrationis sanguinis;
third, he foretells the resurrection.
tertio resurrectionem praenuntiat.
2199. He says therefore, drink, all of you, of this. Drink, and be inebriated, my dearly beloved (Song 5:1). Hence it is signified that Christians can communicate in time and place.
2199. Dicit ergo bibite ex hoc omnes; Cant. V, 1: bibite et inebriamini, carissimi. Unde signatur quod Christiani possunt communicare loco et tempore.
2200. For this is my blood. These are the words of consecration. And notice that there is a difference between these words and those which the Church uses. The Church adds, this is the chalice. Likewise, where he says, of the new testament, the Church adds, of the new and eternal testament. And where he says, for many, the Church adds for you. So where does the Church get this form from? One should say that, as Dionysius says, the evangelists did not intend to hand down the forms of the sacraments, but kept them as secrets; hence they meant only to recount the history. So where does the Church get it from? From the apostles’ ordinance. Hence Paul said, and the rest I will set in order, when I come (1 Cor 11:34).
2200. Hic est enim sanguis meus et cetera. Haec sunt verba consecrationis. Et notate quod in his verbis est differentia cum his quibus utitur Ecclesia. Ecclesia addit: hic est calix. Item ubi dicit, Novi Testamenti, Ecclesia addit Novi et aeterni Testamenti. Item ubi dicit qui pro multis, Ecclesia addit qui pro vobis et cetera. Unde ergo Ecclesia habet istam formam? Dicendum quod, sicut dicit Dionysius, non fuit intentio Evangelistarum tradere formas sacramentorum, sed eas tamquam secretas servare; unde non intendebant nisi historiam narrare. Unde ergo habet Ecclesia? A constitutione apostolorum. Unde dixit Paulus I Cor. XI, 34: caetera cum venero, disponam.
2201. But there is a question: why does he say, this is my body (Matt 26:26), or this is my blood? Why does he not say, this is converted into a body, or into blood? But there are two reasons. The first is that the forms of the sacraments should signify what they effect. What they effect is that the bread be changed into the body of Christ; but the ultimate effect is that the body comes to be, and so the ultimate effect is what should be signified. Therefore, what should be signified is that this is the body, and not that the bread is converted into the body.
2201. Sed est quaestio: cur dicit hoc est corpus meum, vel est sanguis? Quare non dicit: hoc convertitur in corpus, aut in sanguinem? et cetera. Sed duplex est ratio. Prima est, quia formae sacramentorum debent signare quod efficiunt. Illud quod efficiunt, est quod convertatur in corpus Christi; sed ultimus effectus est quod fit corpus, ideo ultimus effectus signari debet; ideo debet signari quod hoc sit corpus, non autem quod convertatur in corpus.
2202. Now, in this form there is one thing similar to the old, and another thing dissimilar.
2202. In hac autem forma est aliquid simile cum veteri, aliquid dissimile.
They are similar in that, as is written, when Moses had written the law, he sacrificed bulls, and took the blood, and said: this is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you (Exod 24:8). Thus this blood was offered for the salvation of the people. Hebrews says, the high priest alone, once a year: not without blood, which he offers for his own, and the people’s ignorance (Heb 9:7).
Simile in hoc, sicut habetur Ex. XXIV, 8, quod cum legisset Moyses legem, immolavit vitulos, et obtulit sanguinem, et dixit: hic est sanguis foederis Domini. Sic iste sanguis oblatus est pro salute populi. Ad Hebr. IX, 7 dicitur, quod semel in anno pontifex solus introibat non sine sanguine, quem offert pro sua et populi ignorantia.
But a difference shows up with regard to four things. First, in the fact that that was the blood of bulls, and this the blood of Christ; therefore this blood is efficacious for the remission of sins. For if the blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of an heifer being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the cleansing of the flesh: how much more will the blood of Christ . . . cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God? (Heb 9:13–14). Likewise, that blood was called the blood of the testament, but this is called the testament. Again, ‘testament’ is taken commonly and properly. Commonly, it is taken to mean any given deed, because it used to be that witnesses were brought in for everything done. ‘Testament’ is said properly when something is written at death, in accord with what the Apostle says, that a testament is confirmed at the death of the one who made it (Heb 9:16). Either way of speaking fits here, for a covenant was made there, and it was made with blood, for in ancient times when they made a covenant of peace, they showed blood, and this is why it was called the blood of the covenant.
Ostenditur autem differentia quantum ad quatuor. Primo in hoc quod sanguis ille est vitulorum, iste Christi; ideo iste est efficax ad remittendum; ad Hebraeos IX, 13: si enim sanguis hircorum et taurorum, et cinis vitulae conspersus inquinatos sanctificat ad emundationem carnis, quanto magis sanguis Christi emundabit conscientiam nostram ab operibus mortuis ad serviendum Deo viventi? Item ille dicebatur sanguis testamenti, sed iste dicitur testamentum. Item accipitur ‘testamentum’ communiter et proprie. Communiter pro quocumque facto, quia ita solebat esse quod in omni facto adducebantur testes. Proprie dicitur ‘testamentum’ quando aliquid legatur in morte, secundum quod dicit Apostolus, quod testamentum in morte testatoris firmatur. Utroque modo competit hic, quia pactio fuit ibi; et fiebat sanguine, quia in confoederatione pacis antiquitus ostendebant sanguinem, ideo dicebatur sanguis foederis.
Similarly, according as it is said with reference to the dead, in this way there was a certain pact between God and men in the old and in the new law, but in different ways. For the first one, namely the old law, was about temporal things, as it is clear that he promised them the land of the Amorites; this is why it was old, for it did not renew men, but rather aged them. But this testament is about heavenly things, and about lofty things. Hence above, do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matt 4:17). This is why he says, of the New Testament, while it was said, this is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you concerning all these words (Exod 24:8). I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah (Jer 31:31). Hence, for this is my blood of the New Testament, in which you should have confidence; having therefore, brethren, a confidence . . . by the blood of Christ (Heb 10:19). Likewise, it befits the meaning of testament regarding the dead; for the promise was confirmed through Christ’s death.
Item secundum quod ad mortuos dicitur, sic erat quoddam pactum inter Deum et homines in veteri et in nova lege, sed differenter; quia primo de temporalibus, scilicet veteris legis, sicut patet quod promisit eis terram Amorrhaeorum, ideo fuit vetus, quia non innovabantur homines, sed magis inveterabantur; istud autem testamentum est de caelestibus et de supernis. Ideo supra IV, 17: agite poenitentiam, appropinquabit enim regnum caelorum. Ideo dicit Novi Testamenti; ibi vero dicebatur: hic est sanguis foederis quod pepigit Dominus vobiscum super cunctis sermonibus his et cetera. Ier. XXXI, 31: feriam domui Israel et domui Iuda foedus novum. Unde hic est enim sanguis meus Novi Testamenti, idest dedicatus ad Novum Testamentum, in quo debemus habere fiduciam; ad Hebr. X, 19: habemus fiduciam per sanguinem Christi. Item pro morte competit; quia per mortem Christi confirmata est repromissio.
Likewise there is another difference, for this adds of the New and eternal Testament, which can be referred either to the eternal inheritance, or to Christ, who is eternal. Another difference is that in that one it says, which the Lord has made with you; hence that testament was restricted to those only, but this testament is also with the nations; he will sprinkle, namely with his blood, many nations (Isa 52:15). For many and for all, because if its sufficiency is considered, he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world (1 John 2:2). But if we consider the effect, it has effect only on those who are saved, and this is due to men’s fault. But the Church adds for you, i.e., the apostles, because they are the ministers of this blood, and it passes on through them to the nations.
Item alia differentia, quia ista addit Novi et aeterni Testamenti, quod potest referri vel ad haereditatem aeternam, vel ad Christum, qui aeternus est. Alia differentia est, quia in illa habetur: quod pepigit vobiscum; unde ad illos solum restrictum est illud testamentum; sed istud etiam ad gentes, Is. c. LII, 15: ipse asperget, scilicet sanguine suo, gentes multas. Pro multis, et pro omnibus, quia si consideretur sufficientia, ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris; non pro nostris autem tantum, sed et pro totius mundi. Sed si consideremus effectum, non habet effectum nisi in his qui salvantur, et hoc ex culpa hominum. Sed Ecclesia addit, pro vobis, idest apostolis, quia ipsi ministri sunt huius sanguinis, et per istos derivatur ad gentes.
Likewise, there is set down unto remission of sins, because the blood of the Old Testament could not remit sins.
Item ponitur in remissionem peccatorum, quia ille non poterat remittere peccata.