Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut passio Christi, ex cuius virtute hoc sacramentum operatur, est quidem causa sufficiens gloriae, non tamen ita quod statim per ipsam introducamur in gloriam, sed oportet ut prius simul compatiamur, ut postea simul glorificemur, sicut dicitur Rom. VIII, ita hoc sacramentum non statim nos in gloriam introducit, sed dat nobis virtutem perveniendi ad gloriam. Et ideo viaticum dicitur. In cuius figuram, legitur III Reg. XIX, quod Elias comedit et bibit, et ambulavit in fortitudine cibi illius quadraginta diebus et quadraginta noctibus, usque ad montem Dei Horeb. Reply Obj. 1: As Christ’s Passion, in virtue whereof this sacrament is accomplished, is indeed the sufficient cause of glory, yet not so that we are thereby forthwith admitted to glory, but we must first suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified afterwards with Him (Rom 8:17), so this sacrament does not at once admit us to glory, but bestows on us the power of coming unto glory. And therefore it is called Viaticum, a figure whereof we read in 3 Kings 19:8: Elias ate and drank, and walked in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights unto the mount of God, Horeb. Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut passio Christi non habet suum effectum in his qui se ad eam non habent ut debent, ita et per hoc sacramentum non adipiscuntur gloriam qui indecenter ipsum suscipiunt. Unde Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., exponens illa verba, aliud est sacramentum, aliud virtus sacramenti. Multi de altari accipiunt, et accipiendo moriuntur. Panem ergo caelestem spiritualiter manducate, innocentiam ad altare apportate. Unde non est mirum si illi qui innocentiam non servant, effectum huius sacramenti non consequuntur. Reply Obj. 2: Just as Christ’s Passion has not its effect in them who are not disposed towards it as they should be, so also they do not come to glory through this sacrament who receive it unworthily. Hence Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), expounding the same passage, observes: The sacrament is one thing, the power of the sacrament another. Many receive it from the altar . . . and by receiving . . . die . . . Eat, then, spiritually the heavenly bread, bring innocence to the altar. It is no wonder, then, if those who do not keep innocence, do not secure the effect of this sacrament. Ad tertium dicendum quod hoc quod Christus sub aliena specie sumitur, pertinet ad rationem sacramenti, quod instrumentaliter agit. Nihil autem prohibet causam instrumentalem producere potiorem effectum, ut ex supra dictis patet. Reply Obj. 3: That Christ is received under another species belongs to the nature of a sacrament, which acts instrumentally. But there is nothing to prevent an instrumental cause from producing a more mighty effect, as is evident from what was said above (Q. 77, A. 3, ad 3). Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum effectus huius sacramenti sit remissio peccati mortalis Whether the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod effectus huius sacramenti sit remissio peccati mortalis. Dicitur enim in quadam collecta, sit hoc sacramentum ablutio scelerum. Sed scelera dicuntur peccata mortalia. Ergo per hoc sacramentum peccata mortalia abluuntur. Objection 1: It seems that the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament. For it is said in one of the Collects (Postcommunion, Pro vivis et defunctis): May this sacrament be a cleansing from crimes. But mortal sins are called crimes. Therefore mortal sins are blotted out by this sacrament. Praeterea, hoc sacramentum agit in virtute passionis Christi, sicut et Baptismus. Sed per Baptismum dimittuntur peccata mortalia, ut supra dictum est. Ergo et per hoc sacramentum, praesertim cum in forma huius sacramenti dicatur, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Obj. 2: Further, this sacrament, like Baptism, works by the power of Christ’s Passion. But mortal sins are forgiven by Baptism, as stated above (Q. 69, A. 1). Therefore they are forgiven likewise by this sacrament, especially since in the form of this sacrament it is said: Which shall be shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins. Praeterea, per hoc sacramentum gratia confertur, ut dictum est. Sed per gratiam iustificatur homo a peccatis mortalibus, secundum illud Rom. III, iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius. Ergo per hoc sacramentum remittuntur peccata mortalia. Obj. 3: Further, grace is bestowed through this sacrament, as stated above (A. 1). But by grace a man is justified from mortal sins, according to Rom. 3:24: Being justified freely by His grace. Therefore mortal sins are forgiven by this sacrament. Sed contra est quod dicitur I Cor. XI, qui manducat et bibit indigne, iudicium sibi manducat et bibit. Dicit autem Glossa ibidem quod ille manducat et bibit indigne qui in crimine est, vel irreverenter tractat, et talis manducat et bibit sibi iudicium, idest damnationem. Ergo ille qui est in peccato mortali, per hoc quod accipit hoc sacramentum, magis accumulat sibi peccatum, quam remissionem sui peccati consequatur. On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor 11:29): He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself: and a gloss of the same passage makes the following commentary: He eats and drinks unworthily who is in the state of sin, or who handles (the sacrament) irreverently; and such a one eats and drinks judgment, i.e., damnation, unto himself. Therefore, he that is in mortal sin, by taking the sacrament heaps sin upon sin, rather than obtains forgiveness of his sin. Respondeo dicendum quod virtus huius sacramenti potest considerari dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum se. Et sic hoc sacramentum habet virtutem ad remittendum quaecumque peccata, ex passione Christi, quae est fons et causa remissionis peccatorum I answer that, The power of this sacrament can be considered in two ways. First of all, in itself: and thus this sacrament has from Christ’s Passion the power of forgiving all sins, since the Passion is the fount and cause of the forgiveness of sins. alio modo potest considerari per comparationem ad eum qui recipit hoc sacramentum, prout in eo invenitur vel non invenitur impedimentum percipiendi hoc sacramentum. Quicumque autem habet conscientiam peccati mortalis, habet in se impedimentum percipiendi effectum huius sacramenti, eo quod non est conveniens susceptor huius sacramenti, tum quia non vivit spiritualiter, et ita non debet spirituale nutrimentum suscipere, quod non est nisi viventis; tum quia non potest uniri Christo, quod fit per hoc sacramentum, dum est in affectu peccandi mortaliter. Et ideo, ut dicitur in libro de ecclesiasticis Dogmat., si mens in affectu peccandi est, gravatur magis Eucharistiae perceptione quam purificetur. Unde hoc sacramentum in eo qui ipsum percipit cum conscientia peccati mortalis, non operatur remissionem peccati. Second, it can be considered in comparison with the recipient of the sacrament, in so far as there is, or is not, found in him an obstacle to receiving the fruit of this sacrament. Now whoever is conscious of mortal sin, has within him an obstacle to receiving the effect of this sacrament; since he is not a proper recipient of this sacrament, both because he is not alive spiritually, and so he ought not to eat the spiritual nourishment, since nourishment is confined to the living; and because he cannot be united with Christ, which is the effect of this sacrament, as long as he retains an attachment towards mortal sin. Consequently, as is said in the book De Eccles. Dogm.: If the soul leans towards sin, it is burdened rather than purified from partaking of the Eucharist. Hence, in him who is conscious of mortal sin, this sacrament does not cause the forgiveness of sin. Potest tamen hoc sacramentum operari remissionem peccati dupliciter. Uno modo, non perceptum actu, sed voto, sicut cum quis primo iustificatur a peccato. Alio modo, etiam perceptum ab eo qui est in peccato mortali, cuius conscientiam et affectum non habet. Forte enim primo non fuit sufficienter contritus, sed, devote et reverenter accedens, consequetur per hoc sacramentum gratiam caritatis, quae contritionem perficiet et remissionem peccati. Nevertheless this sacrament can effect the forgiveness of sin in two ways. First of all, by being received, not actually, but in desire; as when a man is first justified from sin. Second, when received by one in mortal sin of which he is not conscious, and for which he has no attachment; since possibly he was not sufficiently contrite at first, but by approaching this sacrament devoutly and reverently he obtains the grace of charity, which will perfect his contrition and bring forgiveness of sin. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod petimus quod illud sacramentum nobis sit ablutio scelerum, vel eorum quorum conscientiam non habemus, secundum illud Psalmi, ab occultis meis munda me, domine; vel ut contritio in nobis perficiatur ad scelerum remissionem; vel etiam ut robur nobis detur contra scelera vitanda. Reply Obj. 1: We ask that this sacrament may be the cleansing of crimes, or of those sins of which we are unconscious, according to Ps. 18:13: Lord, cleanse me from my hidden sins; or that our contrition may be perfected for the forgiveness of our sins; or that strength be bestowed on us to avoid sin. Ad secundum dicendum quod Baptismus est spiritualis generatio, quae est mutatio de non esse spirituali in esse spirituale; et datur per modum ablutionis. Et ideo, quantum ad utrumque, non inconvenienter accedit ad Baptismum qui habet conscientiam peccati mortalis. Sed per hoc sacramentum homo sumit in se Christum per modum spiritualis nutrimenti, quod non competit mortuo in peccatis. Et ideo non est similis ratio. Reply Obj. 2: Baptism is spiritual generation, which is a transition from spiritual non-being into spiritual being, and is given by way of ablution. Consequently, in both respects he who is conscious of mortal sin does not improperly approach Baptism. But in this sacrament man receives Christ within himself by way of spiritual nourishment, which is unbecoming to one that lies dead in his sins. Therefore the comparison does not hold good. Ad tertium dicendum quod gratia est sufficiens causa remissionis peccati mortalis, non tamen actu remittit peccatum mortale nisi cum primo datur peccatori. Sic autem non datur in hoc sacramento. Unde ratio non sequitur. Reply Obj. 3: Grace is the sufficient cause of the forgiveness of mortal sin; yet it does not forgive sin except when it is first bestowed on the sinner. But it is not given so in this sacrament. Hence the argument does not prove. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum per hoc sacramentum remittantur peccata venialia Whether venial sins are forgiven through this sacrament? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod per hoc sacramentum non remittantur peccata venialia. Hoc enim sacramentum, ut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., est sacramentum caritatis. Sed venialia peccata non contrariantur caritati, ut in secunda parte habitum est. Cum ergo contrarium tollatur per suum contrarium, videtur quod peccata venialia per hoc sacramentum non remittantur. Objection 1: It seems that venial sins are not forgiven by this sacrament, because this is the sacrament of charity, as Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.). But venial sins are not contrary to charity, as was shown in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 88, AA. 1, 2; II-II, Q. 24, A. 10). Therefore, since contrary is taken away by its contrary, it seems that venial sins are not forgiven by this sacrament. Praeterea, si peccata venialia per hoc sacramentum remittantur, qua ratione unum remittitur, et omnia remittentur. Sed non videtur quod omnia remittantur, quia sic frequenter aliquis esset absque omni peccato veniali, quod est contra id quod dicitur I Ioan. I, si dixerimus quoniam peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus. Non ergo per hoc sacramentum remittitur aliquod peccatum veniale. Obj. 2: Further, if venial sins be forgiven by this sacrament, then all of them are forgiven for the same reason as one is. But it does not appear that all are forgiven, because thus one might frequently be without any venial sin, against what is said in 1 John 1:8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. Therefore no venial sin is forgiven by this sacrament. Praeterea, contraria mutuo se expellunt. Sed peccata venialia non prohibent a perceptione huius sacramenti, dicit enim Augustinus, super illud Ioan. VI, si quis ex ipso manducaverit, non morietur in aeternum, innocentiam, inquit, ad altare apportate, peccata, etsi sint quotidiana, non sint mortifera. Ergo neque peccata venialia per hoc sacramentum tolluntur. Obj. 3: Further, contraries mutually exclude each other. But venial sins do not forbid the receiving of this sacrament: because Augustine says on the words, If any man eat of it he shall not die for ever (John 6:50): Bring innocence to the altar: your sins, though they be daily . . . let them not be deadly. Therefore neither are venial sins taken away by this sacrament. Sed contra est quod Innocentius III dicit, quod hoc sacramentum veniale delet et cavet mortalia. On the contrary, Innocent III says (De S. Alt. Myst. iv) that this sacrament blots out venial sins, and wards off mortal sins. Respondeo dicendum quod in hoc sacramento duo possunt considerari, scilicet ipsum sacramentum, et res sacramenti. Et ex utroque apparet quod hoc sacramentum habet virtutem ad remissionem venialium peccatorum. Nam hoc sacramentum sumitur sub specie cibi nutrientis. Nutrimentum autem cibi necessarium est corpori ad restaurandum id quod quotidie deperditur ex calore naturali. Spiritualiter autem quotidie in nobis aliquid deperditur ex calore concupiscentiae per peccata venialia, quae diminuunt fervorem caritatis, ut in secunda parte habitum est. Et ideo competit huic sacramento ut remittat peccata venialia. Unde et Ambrosius dicit, in libro de sacramentis, quod iste panis quotidianus sumitur in remedium quotidianae infirmitatis. I answer that, Two things may be considered in this sacrament, to wit, the sacrament itself, and the reality of the sacrament: and it appears from both that this sacrament has the power of forgiving venial sins. For this sacrament is received under the form of nourishing food. Now nourishment from food is requisite for the body to make good the daily waste caused by the action of natural heat. But something is also lost daily of our spirituality from the heat of concupiscence through venial sins, which lessen the fervor of charity, as was shown in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 24, A. 10). And therefore it belongs to this sacrament to forgive venial sins. Hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. v) that this daily bread is taken as a remedy against daily infirmity. Res autem huius sacramenti est caritas, non solum quantum ad habitum, sed etiam quantum ad actum, qui excitatur in hoc sacramento, per quod peccata venialia solvuntur. Unde manifestum est quod virtute huius sacramenti remittuntur peccata venialia. The reality of this sacrament is charity, not only as to its habit, but also as to its act, which is kindled in this sacrament; and by this means venial sins are forgiven. Consequently, it is manifest that venial sins are forgiven by the power of this sacrament. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod peccata venialia, etsi non contrarientur caritati quantum ad habitum, contrariantur tamen ei quantum ad fervorem actus, qui excitatur per hoc sacramentum. Ratione cuius peccata venialia tolluntur. Reply Obj. 1: Venial sins, although not opposed to the habit of charity, are nevertheless opposed to the fervor of its act, which act is kindled by this sacrament; by reason of which act venial sins are blotted out. Ad secundum dicendum quod illud verbum non est intelligendum quin aliqua hora possit homo esse absque omni reatu peccati venialis, sed quia vitam istam sancti non ducunt sine peccatis venialibus. Reply Obj. 2: The passage quoted is not to be understood as if a man could not at some time be without all guilt of venial sin: but that the just do not pass through this life without committing venial sins. Ad tertium dicendum quod maior est virtus caritatis, cuius est hoc sacramentum, quam venialium peccatorum, nam caritas tollit per suum actum peccata venialia, quae tamen non possunt totaliter impedire actum caritatis. Et eadem ratio est de hoc sacramento. Reply Obj. 3: The power of charity, to which this sacrament belongs, is greater than that of venial sins: because charity by its act takes away venial sins, which nevertheless cannot entirely hinder the act of charity. And the same holds good of this sacrament. Articulus 5 Article 5 Utrum per hoc sacramentum tota poena peccati remittatur Whether the entire punishment due to sin is forgiven through this sacrament? Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod per hoc sacramentum tota poena peccati remittatur. Homo enim per hoc sacramentum suscipit in se effectum passionis Christi, ut dictum est, sicut et per Baptismum. Sed per Baptismum percipit homo remissionem omnis poenae virtute passionis Christi, quae sufficienter satisfecit pro omnibus peccatis, ut ex supra dictis patet. Ergo videtur quod per hoc sacramentum homini remittatur totus reatus poenae. Objection 1: It seems that the entire punishment due to sin is forgiven through this sacrament. For through this sacrament man receives the effect of Christ’s Passion within himself as stated above (AA. 1, 2), just as he does through Baptism. But through Baptism man receives forgiveness of all punishment, through the virtue of Christ’s Passion, which satisfied sufficiently for all sins, as was explained above (Q. 69, A. 2). Therefore it seems the whole debt of punishment is forgiven through this sacrament. Praeterea, Alexander Papa dicit, nihil in sacrificiis maius esse potest quam corpus et sanguis Christi. Sed per sacrificia veteris legis homo satisfaciebat pro peccatis suis, dicitur enim Levit. IV et V, si peccaverit homo, offeret (hoc vel illud) pro peccato suo, et remittetur ei. Ergo multo magis hoc sacramentum valet ad remissionem omnis poenae. Obj. 2: Further, Pope Alexander I says (Ep. ad omnes orth.): No sacrifice can be greater than the body and the blood of Christ. But man satisfied for his sins by the sacrifices of the old Law: for it is written (Lev 4, 5): If a man shall sin, let him offer (so and so) for his sin, and it shall be forgiven him. Therefore this sacrament avails much more for the forgiveness of all punishment. Praeterea, constat quod per hoc sacramentum aliquid de reatu poenae dimittitur, unde et in satisfactione quibusdam iniungitur quod pro se faciant Missas celebrare. Sed qua ratione una pars poenae dimittitur, eadem ratione et alia, cum virtus Christi, quae in hoc sacramento continetur, sit infinita. Ergo videtur quod per hoc sacramentum tota poena tollatur. Obj. 3: Further, it is certain that some part of the debt of punishment is forgiven by this sacrament; for which reason it is sometimes enjoined upon a man, by way of satisfaction, to have masses said for himself. But if one part of the punishment is forgiven, for the same reason is the other forgiven: owing to Christ’s infinite power contained in this sacrament. Consequently, it seems that the whole punishment can be taken away by this sacrament. Sed contra est quod, secundum hoc, non esset homini alia poena iniungenda, sicut nec baptizato iniungitur. On the contrary, In that case no other punishment would have to be enjoined; just as none is imposed upon the newly baptized. Respondeo dicendum quod hoc sacramentum simul est et sacrificium et sacramentum, sed rationem sacrificii habet inquantum offertur; rationem autem sacramenti inquantum sumitur. Et ideo effectum sacramenti habet in eo qui sumit, effectum autem sacrificii in eo qui offert, vel in his pro quibus offertur. I answer that, This sacrament is both a sacrifice and a sacrament. It has the nature of a sacrifice inasmuch as it is offered up; and it has the nature of a sacrament inasmuch as it is received. And therefore it has the effect of a sacrament in the recipient, and the effect of a sacrifice in the offerer, or in them for whom it is offered. Si igitur consideretur ut sacramentum, habet dupliciter effectum, uno modo, directe ex vi sacramenti; alio modo, quasi ex quadam concomitantia; sicut et circa continentiam sacramenti dictum est. Ex vi quidem sacramenti, directe habet illum effectum ad quem est institutum. Non est autem institutum ad satisfaciendum, sed ad spiritualiter nutriendum per unionem ad Christum et ad membra eius, sicut et nutrimentum unitur nutrito. Sed quia haec unitas fit per caritatem, ex cuius fervore aliquis consequitur remissionem non solum culpae, sed etiam poenae; inde est quod ex consequenti, per quandam concomitantiam ad principalem effectum, homo consequitur remissionem poenae; non quidem totius, sed secundum modum suae devotionis et fervoris. If, then, it be considered as a sacrament, it produces its effect in two ways: first of all directly through the power of the sacrament; second as by a kind of concomitance, as was said above regarding what is contained in the sacrament (Q. 76, AA. 1, 2). Through the power of the sacrament it produces directly that effect for which it was instituted. Now it was instituted not for satisfaction, but for nourishing spiritually through union between Christ and His members, as nourishment is united with the person nourished. But because this union is the effect of charity, from the fervor of which man obtains forgiveness, not only of guilt but also of punishment, hence it is that as a consequence, and by concomitance with the chief effect, man obtains forgiveness of the punishment, not indeed of the entire punishment, but according to the measure of his devotion and fervor. Inquantum vero est sacrificium, habet vim satisfactivam. Sed in satisfactione magis attenditur affectus offerentis quam quantitas oblationis, unde et dominus dixit, Luc. XXI, de vidua quae obtulit duo aera, quod plus omnibus misit. Quamvis igitur haec oblatio ex sui quantitate sufficiat ad satisfaciendum pro omni poena, tamen fit satisfactoria illis pro quibus offertur, vel etiam offerentibus, secundum quantitatem suae devotionis, et non pro tota poena. But in so far as it is a sacrifice, it has a satisfactory power. Yet in satisfaction, the affection of the offerer is weighed rather than the quantity of the offering. Hence our Lord says (Mark 12:43: cf. Luke 21:4) of the widow who offered two mites that she cast in more than all. Therefore, although this offering suffices of its own quantity to satisfy for all punishment, yet it becomes satisfactory for them for whom it is offered, or even for the offerers, according to the measure of their devotion, and not for the whole punishment. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sacramentum Baptismi directe ordinatur ad remissionem culpae et poenae, non autem Eucharistia, quia Baptismus datur homini quasi commorienti Christo; Eucharistia autem quasi nutriendo et perficiendo per Christum. Unde non est similis ratio. Reply Obj. 1: The sacrament of Baptism is directly ordained for the remission of punishment and guilt: not so the Eucharist, because Baptism is given to man as dying with Christ, whereas the Eucharist is given as by way of nourishing and perfecting him through Christ. Consequently there is no parallel.