Utroque autem modo hoc sacramentum praeservat a peccato. Nam primo quidem, per hoc quod Christo coniungit per gratiam, roborat spiritualem vitam hominis, tanquam spiritualis cibus et spiritualis medicina, secundum illud Psalmi, panis cor hominis confirmat. Et Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., securus accede, panis est, non venenum. Alio modo, inquantum signum est passionis Christi, per quam victi sunt Daemones, repellit enim omnem Daemonum impugnationem. Unde Chrysostomus dicit, super Ioan., ut leones flammam spirantes, sic ab illa mensa discedimus, terribiles effecti Diabolo. Now this sacrament preserves man from sin in both of these ways. For, first of all, by uniting man with Christ through grace, it strengthens his spiritual life, as spiritual food and spiritual medicine, according to Ps. 103:5: (That) bread strengthens man’s heart. Augustine likewise says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.): Approach without fear; it is bread, not poison. Second, inasmuch as it is a sign of Christ’s Passion, whereby the devils are conquered, it repels all the assaults of demons. Hence Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi in Joan.): Like lions breathing forth fire, thus do we depart from that table, being made terrible to the devil. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod effectus huius sacramenti recipitur in homine secundum hominis conditionem, sicut contingit de qualibet causa activa quod eius effectus recipitur in materia secundum modum materiae. Homo autem in statu viae est huius conditionis quod liberum arbitrium eius potest flecti in bonum et in malum. Unde, licet hoc sacramentum, quantum est de se habeat virtutem praeservativam a peccato, non tamen aufert homini possibilitatem peccandi. Reply Obj. 1: The effect of this sacrament is received according to man’s condition: such is the case with every active cause in that its effect is received in matter according to the condition of the matter. But such is the condition of man on earth that his free-will can be bent to good or evil. Hence, although this sacrament of itself has the power of preserving from sin, yet it does not take away from man the possibility of sinning. Ad secundum dicendum quod etiam caritas, quantum est de se, praeservat hominem a peccato, secundum illud Rom. XIII, dilectio proximi malum non operatur. Sed ex mutabilitate liberi arbitrii contingit quod aliquis post habitam caritatem peccat, sicut et post susceptionem huius sacramenti. Reply Obj. 2: Even charity of itself keeps man from sin, according to Rom. 13:10: The love of our neighbor worketh no evil: but it is due to the mutability of free-will that a man sins after possessing charity, just as after receiving this sacrament. Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet hoc sacramentum non directe ordinetur ad diminutionem fomitis, diminuit tamen fomitem ex quadam consequentia, inquantum auget caritatem, quia, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro octogintatrium quaestionum, augmentum caritatis est diminutio cupiditatis. Directe autem confirmat cor hominis in bono. Per quod etiam praeservatur homo a peccato. Reply Obj. 3: Although this sacrament is not ordained directly to lessen the fomes, yet it does lessen it as a consequence, inasmuch as it increases charity, because, as Augustine says (Q. 83), the increase of charity is the lessening of concupiscence. But it directly strengthens man’s heart in good; whereby he is also preserved from sin. Articulus 7 Article 7 Utrum hoc sacramentum prosit nisi sumenti Whether this sacrament benefits others besides the recipients? Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod hoc sacramentum non prosit nisi sumenti. Hoc enim sacramentum est unius generis cum aliis sacramentis, utpote aliis condivisum. Sed alia sacramenta non prosunt nisi sumentibus, sicut effectum Baptismi non suscipit nisi baptizatus. Ergo nec hoc sacramentum prodest aliis nisi sumenti. Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament benefits only the recipients. For this sacrament is of the same genus as the other sacraments, being one of those into which that genus is divided. But the other sacraments only benefit the recipients; thus the baptized person alone receives effect of Baptism. Therefore, neither does this sacrament benefit others than the recipients. Praeterea, effectus huius sacramenti est adeptio gratiae et gloriae, et remissio culpae, ad minus venialis. Si ergo hoc sacramentum haberet effectum in aliis quam in sumentibus, posset contingere quod aliquis adipisceretur gloriam et gratiam et remissionem culpae absque actione et passione propria, alio offerente vel sumente hoc sacramentum. Obj. 2: Further, the effects of this sacrament are the attainment of grace and glory, and the forgiveness of sin, at least of venial sin. If therefore this sacrament were to produce its effects in others besides the recipients, a man might happen to acquire grace and glory and forgiveness of sin without doing or receiving anything himself, through another receiving or offering this sacrament. Praeterea, multiplicata causa, multiplicatur effectus. Si ergo hoc sacramentum prodest aliis quam sumentibus, sequeretur quod magis prodesset alicui si sumeret hoc sacramentum in multis hostiis in una Missa consecratis, quod non habet Ecclesiae consuetudo, ut scilicet multi communicent pro alicuius salute. Non ergo videtur quod hoc sacramentum prosit nisi sumenti. Obj. 3: Further, when the cause is multiplied, the effect is likewise multiplied. If therefore this sacrament benefit others besides the recipients, it would follow that it benefits a man more if he receive this sacrament through many hosts being consecrated in one Mass, whereas this is not the Church’s custom: for instance, that many receive communion for the salvation of one individual. Consequently, it does not seem that this sacrament benefits anyone but the recipient. Sed contra est quod in celebratione huius sacramenti fit pro multis aliis deprecatio. Quod frustra fieret nisi hoc sacramentum aliis prodesset. Ergo hoc sacramentum non solum sumentibus prodest. On the contrary, Prayer is made for many others during the celebration of this sacrament; which would serve no purpose were the sacrament not beneficial to others. Therefore, this sacrament is beneficial not merely to them who receive it. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut prius dictum est, hoc sacramentum non solum est sacramentum, sed etiam est sacrificium. Inquantum enim in hoc sacramento repraesentatur passio Christi, qua Christus obtulit se hostiam Deo, ut dicitur Ephes. V, habet rationem sacrificii, inquantum vero in hoc sacramento traditur invisibiliter gratia sub visibili specie, habet rationem sacramenti. Sic igitur hoc sacramentum sumentibus quidem prodest per modum sacramenti et per modum sacrificii, quia pro omnibus sumentibus offertur, dicitur enim in canone Missae, quotquot ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum corpus et sanguinem filii tui sumpserimus, omni benedictione caelesti et gratia repleamur. I answer that, As stated above (A. 3), this sacrament is not only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice. For, it has the nature of a sacrifice inasmuch as in this sacrament Christ’s Passion is represented, whereby Christ offered Himself a Victim to God (Eph 5:2), and it has the nature of a sacrament inasmuch as invisible grace is bestowed in this sacrament under a visible species. So, then, this sacrament benefits recipients by way both of sacrament and of sacrifice, because it is offered for all who partake of it. For it is said in the Canon of the Mass: May as many of us as, by participation at this Altar, shall receive the most sacred body and blood of Thy Son, be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace. Sed aliis, qui non sumunt, prodest per modum sacrificii, inquantum pro salute eorum offertur, unde et in canone Missae dicitur, memento, domine, famulorum famularumque tuarum, pro quibus tibi offerimus, vel qui tibi offerunt, hoc sacrificium laudis, pro se suisque omnibus, pro redemptione animarum suarum, pro spe salutis et incolumitatis suae. Et utrumque modum dominus exprimit, dicens, Matth. XXVI, qui pro vobis, scilicet sumentibus, et pro multis aliis, effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. But to others who do not receive it, it is beneficial by way of sacrifice, inasmuch as it is offered for their salvation. Hence it is said in the Canon of the Mass: Be mindful, O Lord, of Thy servants, men and women . . . for whom we offer, or who offer up to Thee, this sacrifice of praise for themselves and for all their own, for the redemption of their souls, for the hope of their safety and salvation. And our Lord expressed both ways, saying (Matt 26:28, with Luke 22:20): Which for you, i.e., who receive it, and for many, i.e., others, shall be shed unto remission of sins. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hoc sacramentum prae aliis habet quod est sacrificium. Et ideo non est similis ratio. Reply Obj. 1: This sacrament has this in addition to the others, that it is a sacrifice: and therefore the comparison fails. Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut passio Christi prodest quidem omnibus ad remissionem culpae et adeptionem gratiae et gloriae, sed effectum non habet nisi in illis qui passioni Christi coniunguntur per fidem et caritatem; ita etiam hoc sacrificium, quod est memoriale dominicae passionis, non habet effectum nisi in illis qui coniunguntur huic sacramento per fidem et caritatem. Unde et Augustinus dicit, ad renatum, quis offerat corpus Christi nisi pro his qui sunt membra Christi? Unde et in canone Missae non oratur pro his qui sunt extra Ecclesiam. Illis tamen prodest plus vel minus, secundum modum devotionis eorum. Reply Obj. 2: As Christ’s Passion benefits all, for the forgiveness of sin and the attaining of grace and glory, whereas it produces no effect except in those who are united with Christ’s Passion through faith and charity, so likewise this sacrifice, which is the memorial of our Lord’s Passion, has no effect except in those who are united with this sacrament through faith and charity. Hence Augustine says to Renatus (De Anima et ejus origine i): Who may offer Christ’s body except for them who are Christ’s members? Hence in the Canon of the Mass no prayer is made for them who are outside the pale of the Church. But it benefits them who are members, more or less, according to the measure of their devotion. Ad tertium dicendum quod sumptio pertinet ad rationem sacramenti, sed oblatio pertinet ad rationem sacrificii. Et ideo ex hoc quod aliquis sumit corpus Christi, vel etiam plures, non accrescit aliis aliquod iuvamentum. Similiter etiam neque ex hoc quod sacerdos plures hostias consecrat in una Missa, non multiplicatur effectus huius sacramenti, quia non est nisi unum sacrificium, nihil enim virtutis plus est in multis hostiis consecratis quam in una, cum sub omnibus et sub una non sit nisi totus Christus. Unde nec si aliquis simul in una Missa multas hostias consecratas sumat, participabit maiorem effectum sacramenti. In pluribus vero Missis multiplicatur sacrificii oblatio. Et ideo multiplicatur effectus sacrificii et sacramenti. Reply Obj. 3: Receiving is of the very nature of the sacrament, but offering belongs to the nature of sacrifice: consequently, when one or even several receive the body of Christ, no help accrues to others. In like fashion even when the priest consecrates several hosts in one mass, the effect of this sacrament is not increased, since there is only one sacrifice; because there is no more power in several hosts than in one, since there is only one Christ present under all the hosts and under one. Hence, neither will any one receive greater effect from the sacrament by taking many consecrated hosts in one mass. But the oblation of the sacrifice is multiplied in several masses, and therefore the effect of the sacrifice and of the sacrament is multiplied. Articulus 8 Article 8 Utrum per veniale peccatum impediatur effectus huius sacramenti Whether the effect of this sacrament is hindered by venial sin? Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod per veniale peccatum non impediatur effectus huius sacramenti. Dicit enim Augustinus, super illud Ioan. VI, si quis ex ipso manducaverit etc., panem caelestem spiritualiter manducate; innocentiam ad altare portate; peccata, etsi sint quotidiana, non sint mortifera. Ex quo patet quod quotidiana peccata, quae dicuntur venialia, spiritualem manducationem non impediunt. Sed spiritualiter manducantes effectum huius sacramenti percipiunt. Ergo peccata venialia non impediunt effectum huius sacramenti. Objection 1: It seems that the effect of this sacrament is not hindered by venial sin. For Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), commenting on John 6:52, If any man eat of this bread, etc., says: Eat the heavenly bread spiritually; bring innocence to the altar; your sins, though they be daily, let them not be deadly. From this it is evident that venial sins, which are called daily sins, do not prevent spiritual eating. But they who eat spiritually, receive the effect of this sacrament. Therefore, venial sins do not hinder the effect of this sacrament. Praeterea, hoc sacramentum non est minoris virtutis quam Baptismus. Sed effectum Baptismi, sicut supra dictum est, impedit sola fictio, ad quam non pertinent peccata venialia, quia, sicut Sap. I dicitur, Spiritus Sanctus disciplinae effugiet fictum, qui tamen per peccata venialia non fugatur. Ergo neque effectum huius sacramenti impediunt peccata venialia. Obj. 2: Further, this sacrament is not less powerful than Baptism. But, as stated above (Q. 69, AA. 9, 10), only pretense checks the effect of Baptism, and venial sins do not belong to pretense; because according to Wis. 1:5: the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee from the deceitful, yet He is not put to flight by venial sins. Therefore neither do venial sins hinder the effect of this sacrament. Praeterea, nihil quod removetur per actionem alicuius causae, potest impedire eius effectum. Sed peccata venialia tolluntur per hoc sacramentum. Ergo non impediunt eius effectum. Obj. 3: Further, nothing which is removed by the action of any cause, can hinder the effect of such cause. But venial sins are taken away by this sacrament. Therefore, they do not hinder its effect. Sed contra est quod Damascenus dicit, in IV libro, ignis eius quod in nobis est desiderii, assumens eam quae ex carbone, idest hoc sacramento, ignitionem, comburet nostra peccata, et illuminabit nostra corda, ut participatione divini ignis igniamur et deificemur. Sed ignis nostri desiderii vel amoris impeditur per peccata venialia, quae impediunt fervorem caritatis, ut in secunda parte habitum est. Ergo peccata venialia impediunt effectum huius sacramenti. On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): The fire of that desire which is within us, being kindled by the burning coal, i.e., this sacrament, will consume our sins, and enlighten our hearts, so that we shall be inflamed and made godlike. But the fire of our desire or love is hindered by venial sins, which hinder the fervor of charity, as was shown in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 81, A. 4; II-II, Q. 24, A. 10). Therefore venial sins hinder the effect of this sacrament. Respondeo dicendum quod peccata venialia dupliciter accipi possunt, uno modo, prout sunt praeterita; alio modo, prout sunt actu exercita. Primo quidem modo, peccata venialia nullo modo impediunt effectum huius sacramenti. Potest enim contingere quod aliquis post multa peccata commissa venialia, devote accedat ad hoc sacramentum, et plenarie huius sacramenti consequetur effectum. Secundo autem modo, peccata venialia non ex toto impediunt effectum huius sacramenti, sed in parte. Dictum est enim quod effectus huius sacramenti non solum est adeptio habitualis gratiae vel caritatis, sed etiam quaedam actualis refectio spiritualis dulcedinis. Quae quidem impeditur si aliquis accedat ad hoc sacramentum mente distracta per peccata venialia. Non autem tollitur augmentum gratiae habitualis vel caritatis. I answer that, Venial sins can be taken in two ways: first of all as past, second as in the act of being committed. Venial sins taken in the first way do not in any way hinder the effect of this sacrament. For it can come to pass that after many venial sins a man may approach devoutly to this sacrament and fully secure its effect. Considered in the second way venial sins do not utterly hinder the effect of this sacrament, but merely in part. For, it has been stated above (A. 1), that the effect of this sacrament is not only the obtaining of habitual grace or charity, but also a certain actual refreshment of spiritual sweetness: which is indeed hindered if anyone approach to this sacrament with mind distracted through venial sins; but the increase of habitual grace or of charity is not taken away. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ille qui cum actu venialis peccati ad hoc sacramentum accedit, habitualiter quidem manducat spiritualiter, sed non actualiter. Et ideo habitualem effectum huius sacramenti percipit, non autem actualem. Reply Obj. 1: He that approaches this sacrament with actual venial sin, eats spiritually indeed, in habit but not in act: and therefore he shares in the habitual effect of the sacrament, but not in its actual effect. Ad secundum dicendum quod Baptismus non ita ordinatur ad actualem effectum, idest ad fervorem caritatis, sicut hoc sacramentum. Nam Baptismus est spiritualis regeneratio, per quam acquiritur prima perfectio, quae est habitus vel forma, hoc autem sacramentum est spiritualis manducatio, quae habet actualem delectationem. Reply Obj. 2: Baptism is not ordained, as this sacrament is, for the fervor of charity as its actual effect. Because Baptism is spiritual regeneration, through which the first perfection is acquired, which is a habit or form; but this sacrament is spiritual eating, which has actual delight. Ad tertium dicendum quod illa ratio procedit de venialibus praeteritis, quae per hoc sacramentum tolluntur. Reply Obj. 3: This argument deals with past venial sins, which are taken away by this sacrament. Quaestio 80 Question 80 De usu sive sumptione huius sacramenti The Use or Receiving of This Sacrament in General Deinde considerandum est de usu sive sumptione huius sacramenti. Et primo, in communi; secundo, quomodo Christus est usus hoc sacramento. We have now to consider the use or receiving of this sacrament, first of all in general; second, how Christ used this sacrament. Circa primum quaeruntur duodecim. Under the first heading there are twelve points of inquiry: Primo, utrum sint duo modi manducandi hoc sacramentum, scilicet sacramentaliter et spiritualiter. (1) Whether there are two ways of eating this sacrament, namely, sacramentally and spiritually? Secundo, utrum soli homini conveniat manducare spiritualiter. (2) Whether it belongs to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually? Tertio, utrum solius hominis iusti sit manducare sacramentaliter. (3) Whether it belongs to the just man only to eat it sacramentally? Quarto, utrum peccator manducans sacramentaliter peccet. (4) Whether the sinner sins in eating it sacramentally? Quinto, de quantitate huius peccati. (5) Of the degree of this sin; Sexto, utrum peccator accedens ad hoc sacramentum sit repellendus. (6) Whether this sacrament should be refused to the sinner that approaches it? Septimo, utrum nocturna pollutio impediat hominem a sumptione huius sacramenti. (7) Whether nocturnal pollution prevents man from receiving this sacrament?