Articulus 11 Article 11 Utrum liceat cessare omnino a communione Whether it is lawful to abstain altogether from Communion? Ad undecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod liceat cessare omnino a communione. Laudatur enim centurio de hoc quod dicit, Matth. VIII domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum. Cui comparatur ille qui reputat sibi a communione esse abstinendum, ut dictum est. Cum ergo nunquam legatur Christum in eius domum venisse, videtur quod liceat alicui toto tempore vitae suae a communione abstinere. Objection 1: It seems to be lawful to abstain altogether from Communion. Because the Centurion is praised for saying (Matt 8:8): Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof; and he who deems that he ought to refrain entirely from Communion can be compared to the Centurion, as stated above (A. 10, ad 3). Therefore, since we do not read of Christ entering his house, it seems to be lawful for any individual to abstain from Communion his whole life long. Praeterea, cuilibet licet abstinere ab his quae non sunt de necessitate salutis. Sed hoc sacramentum non est de necessitate salutis, ut supra dictum est. Ergo licet a susceptione huius sacramenti omnino cessare. Obj. 2: Further, it is lawful for anyone to refrain from what is not of necessity for salvation. But this sacrament is not of necessity for salvation, as was stated above (Q. 73, A. 3). Therefore it is permissible to abstain from Communion altogether. Praeterea, peccatores non tenentur communicare, unde Fabianus Papa, cum dixisset, ter in anno omnes communicent, adiunxit nisi forte quis maioribus criminibus impediatur. Si ergo illi qui non sunt in peccato, tenentur communicare, videtur quod melioris conditionis sint peccatores quam iusti, quod est inconveniens. Ergo videtur quod etiam iustis liceat a communione cessare. Obj. 3: Further, sinners are not bound to go to Communion: hence Pope Fabian (Third Council of Tours, Canon 1) after saying, Let all communicate thrice each year, adds: Except those who are hindered by grievous crimes. Consequently, if those who are not in the state of sin are bound to go to Communion, it seems that sinners are better off than good people, which is unfitting. Therefore, it seems lawful even for the godly to refrain from Communion. Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Ioan. VI, nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis et biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis. On the contrary, Our Lord said (John 6:54): Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, duplex est modus percipiendi hoc sacramentum, spiritualis scilicet et sacramentalis. Manifestum est autem quod omnes tenentur saltem spiritualiter manducare, quia hoc est Christo incorporari, ut supra dictum est. Spiritualis autem manducatio includit votum seu desiderium percipiendi hoc sacramentum, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo sine voto percipiendi hoc sacramentum non potest homini esse salus. I answer that, As stated above (A. 1), there are two ways of receiving this sacrament namely, spiritually and sacramentally. Now it is clear that all are bound to eat it at least spiritually, because this is to be incorporated in Christ, as was said above (Q. 73, A. 3, ad 1). Now spiritual eating comprises the desire or yearning for receiving this sacrament, as was said above (A. 1, ad 3, A. 2). Therefore, a man cannot be saved without desiring to receive this sacrament. Frustra autem esset votum nisi impleretur quando opportunitas adesset. Et ideo manifestum est quod homo tenetur hoc sacramentum sumere, non solum ex statuto Ecclesiae, sed etiam ex mandato domini, dicentis, Matth. XXVI, hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Ex statuto autem Ecclesiae sunt determinata tempora exequendi Christi praeceptum. Now a desire would be vain except it were fulfilled when opportunity presented itself. Consequently, it is evident that a man is bound to receive this sacrament, not only by virtue of the Church’s precept, but also by virtue of the Lord’s command (Luke 22:19): Do this in memory of Me. But by the precept of the Church there are fixed times for fulfilling Christ’s command. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Gregorius dicit, in pastorali, illa est vera humilitas, cum ad respuendum hoc quod utiliter praecipitur, pertinax non est. Et ideo non potest esse laudabilis humilitas si contra praeceptum Christi et Ecclesiae aliquis a communione abstineat. Neque enim centurioni praeceptum fuit ut Christum in sua domo reciperet. Reply Obj. 1: As Gregory says: He is truly humble, who is not obstinate in rejecting what is commanded for his good. Consequently, humility is not praiseworthy if anyone abstains altogether from Communion against the precept of Christ and the Church. Again the Centurion was not commanded to receive Christ into his house. Ad secundum dicendum quod hoc sacramentum dicitur non esse necessitatis sicut Baptismus, quantum ad pueros, quibus potest esse salus sine hoc sacramento, non autem sine sacramento Baptismi. Quantum vero ad adultos, utrumque est necessitatis. Reply Obj. 2: This sacrament is said not to be as necessary as Baptism, with regard to children, who can be saved without the Eucharist, but not without the sacrament of Baptism: both, however, are of necessity with regard to adults. Ad tertium dicendum quod peccatores magnum detrimentum patiuntur ex hoc quod repelluntur a perceptione huius sacramenti, unde per hoc non sunt melioris conditionis. Et licet in peccatis permanentes non excusentur propter hoc a transgressione praecepti, poenitens tamen, qui, ut Innocentius dicit, secundum consilium sacerdotis abstinet, excusatur. Reply Obj. 3: Sinners suffer great loss in being kept back from receiving this sacrament, so that they are not better off on that account; and although while continuing in their sins they are not on that account excused from transgressing the precept, nevertheless, as Pope Innocent III says, penitents, who refrain on the advice of their priest, are excused. Articulus 12 Article 12 Utrum liceat sumere corpus Domini sine sanguine Whether it is lawful to receive the body of Christ without the blood? Ad duodecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non liceat sumere corpus domini sine sanguine. Dicit enim Gelasius Papa, et habetur de Consecrat., dist. II, comperimus quod quidam, sumpta tantummodo corporis sacri portione, a calice sacrati cruoris abstinent. Qui procul dubio, quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur adstringi, aut integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur. Non ergo licet corpus Christi sumere sine sanguine. Objection 1: It seems unlawful to receive the body of Christ without the blood. For Pope Gelasius says (cf. De Consecr. ii): We have learned that some persons after taking only a portion of the sacred body, abstain from the chalice of the sacred blood. I know not for what superstitious motive they do this: therefore let them either receive the entire sacrament, or let them be withheld from the sacrament altogether. Therefore it is not lawful to receive the body of Christ without His blood. Praeterea, ad perfectionem huius sacramenti concurrit manducatio corporis et potatio sanguinis, ut supra habitum est. Si ergo sumatur corpus sine sanguine, erit sacramentum imperfectum. Quod ad sacrilegium pertinere videtur. Unde ibidem Gelasius subdit, quia divisio unius eiusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire. Obj. 2: Further, the eating of the body and the drinking of the blood are required for the perfection of this sacrament, as stated above (Q. 73, A. 2; Q. 76, A. 2, ad 1). Consequently, if the body be taken without the blood, it will be an imperfect sacrament, which seems to savor of sacrilege; hence Pope Gelasius adds (cf. De Consecr. ii), because the dividing of one and the same mystery cannot happen without a great sacrilege. Praeterea, hoc sacramentum celebratur in memoriam dominicae passionis, ut supra habitum est, et sumitur pro animae salute. Sed passio Christi magis exprimitur in sanguine quam in corpore, sanguis etiam pro salute animae offertur, ut supra habitum est. Ergo potius esset abstinendum a sumptione corporis quam a sumptione sanguinis. Non ergo accedentes ad hoc sacramentum debent sumere corpus sine eius sanguine. Obj. 3: Further, this sacrament is celebrated in memory of our Lord’s Passion, as stated above (Q. 73, AA. 4, 5; Q. 74, A. 1), and is received for the health of soul. But the Passion is expressed in the blood rather than in the body; moreover, as stated above (Q. 74, A. 1), the blood is offered for the health of the soul. Consequently, one ought to refrain from receiving the body rather than the blood. Therefore, such as approach this sacrament ought not to take Christ’s body without His blood. Sed contra est multarum Ecclesiarum usus, in quibus populo communicanti datur corpus Christi sumendum, non autem sanguis. On the contrary, It is the custom of many churches for the body of Christ to be given to the communicant without His blood. Respondeo dicendum quod circa usum huius sacramenti duo possunt considerari, unum ex parte ipsius sacramenti; aliud ex parte sumentium. Ex parte ipsius sacramenti convenit quod utrumque sumatur, scilicet et corpus et sanguis, quia in utroque consistit perfectio sacramenti. Et ideo, quia ad sacerdotem pertinet hoc sacramentum consecrare et perficere, nullo modo debet corpus Christi sumere sine sanguine. I answer that, Two points should be observed regarding the use of this sacrament, one on the part of the sacrament, the other on the part of the recipients; on the part of the sacrament it is proper for both the body and the blood to be received, since the perfection of the sacrament lies in both, and consequently, since it is the priest’s duty both to consecrate and finish the sacrament, he ought on no account to receive Christ’s body without the blood. Ex parte autem sumentium requiritur summa reverentia, et cautela ne aliquid accidat quod vergat in iniuriam tanti mysterii. Quod praecipue posset accidere in sanguinis sumptione, qui quidem, si incaute sumeretur, de facili posset effundi. Et quia, crescente multitudine populi Christiani, in qua continentur senes et iuvenes et parvuli, quorum quidam non sunt tantae discretionis ut cautelam debitam circa usum huius sacramenti adhiberent, ideo provide in quibusdam Ecclesiis observatur ut populo sanguis sumendus non detur, sed solum a sacerdote sumatur. But on the part of the recipient the greatest reverence and caution are called for, lest anything happen which is unworthy of so great a mystery. Now this could especially happen in receiving the blood, for, if incautiously handled, it might easily be spilt. And because the multitude of the Christian people increased, in which there are old, young, and children, some of whom have not enough discretion to observe due caution in using this sacrament, on that account it is a prudent custom in some churches for the blood not to be offered to the reception of the people, but to be received by the priest alone. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Gelasius Papa loquitur quantum ad sacerdotes, qui, sicut totum consecrant sacramentum, ita etiam toti communicare debent. Ut enim legitur in Concilio Toletano, quale erit sacrificium, ubi nec ipse sacrificans esse dignoscitur? Reply Obj. 1: Pope Gelasius is speaking of priests, who, as they consecrate the entire sacrament, ought to communicate in the entire sacrament. For, as we read in the (Twelfth) Council of Toledo, What kind of a sacrifice is that, wherein not even the sacrificer is known to have a share? Ad secundum dicendum quod perfectio huius sacramenti non est in usu fidelium, sed in consecratione materiae. Et ideo nihil derogat perfectioni huius sacramenti si populus sumat corpus sine sanguine, dummodo sacerdos consecrans sumat utrumque. Reply Obj. 2: The perfection of this sacrament does not lie in the use of the faithful, but in the consecration of the matter. And hence there is nothing derogatory to the perfection of this sacrament; if the people receive the body without the blood, provided that the priest who consecrates receive both. Ad tertium dicendum quod repraesentatio dominicae passionis agitur in ipsa consecratione huius sacramenti, in qua non debet corpus sine sanguine consecrari. Potest autem a populo corpus sine sanguine sumi, nec exinde aliquod sequitur detrimentum. Quia sacerdos in persona omnium sanguinem offert et sumit, et sub utraque specie totus Christus continetur, ut supra habitum est. Reply Obj. 3: Our Lord’s Passion is represented in the very consecration of this sacrament, in which the body ought not to be consecrated without the blood. But the body can be received by the people without the blood: nor is this detrimental to the sacrament. Because the priest both offers and consumes the blood on behalf of all; and Christ is fully contained under either species, as was shown above (Q. 76, A. 2). Quaestio 81 Question 81 De usu huius sacramenti quo Christus usus est The Use Which Christ Made of This Sacrament Deinde considerandum est de usu huius sacramenti quo Christus usus est in prima sui institutione. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. We have now to consider the use which Christ made of this sacrament at its institution; under which heading there are four points of inquiry: Primo, utrum ipse Christus sumpserit corpus et sanguinem suum. (1) Whether Christ received His own body and blood? Secundo, utrum Iudae dederit. (2) Whether He gave it to Judas? Tertio, quale corpus sumpserit aut dederit, scilicet passibile vel impassibile. (3) What kind of body did He receive or give, namely, was it passible or impassible? Quarto, quomodo se habuisset Christus sub hoc sacramento si fuisset in triduo mortis reservatum, aut etiam consecratum. (4) What would have been the condition of Christ’s body under this sacrament, if it had been reserved or consecrated during the three days He lay dead? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum Christus sumpserit corpus suum et sanguinem Whether Christ received his own body and blood? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus non sumpserit corpus suum et sanguinem. Non enim de factis Christi et dictis asseri debet quod auctoritate sacrae Scripturae non traditur. Sed in Evangeliis non habetur quod Christus corpus suum manducaverit aut sanguinem biberit. Non ergo est hoc asserendum. Objection 1: It seems that Christ did not receive His own body and blood, because nothing ought to be asserted of either Christ’s doings or sayings, which is not handed down by the authority of Sacred Scripture. But it is not narrated in the gospels that He ate His own body or drank His own blood. Therefore we must not assert this as a fact. Praeterea, nihil potest esse in seipso, nisi forte ratione partium, prout scilicet una pars eius est in alia, ut habetur in IV Physic. sed illud quod manducatur et bibitur, est in manducante et bibente. Cum ergo totus Christus sit in utraque specie sacramenti, videtur impossibile fuisse quod ipse sumpserit hoc sacramentum. Obj. 2: Further, nothing can be within itself except perchance by reason of its parts, for instance, as one part is in another, as is stated in Phys. iv. But what is eaten and drunk is in the eater and drinker. Therefore, since the entire Christ is under each species of the sacrament, it seems impossible for Him to have received this sacrament. Praeterea, duplex est assumptio huius sacramenti, scilicet spiritualis et sacramentalis. Sed spiritualis non competebat Christo, quia nihil a sacramento accepit. Et per consequens nec sacramentalis, quae sine spirituali est imperfecta, ut supra habitum est. Ergo Christus nullo modo hoc sacramentum sumpsit. Obj. 3: Further, the receiving of this sacrament is twofold, namely, spiritual and sacramental. But the spiritual was unsuitable for Christ, as He derived no benefit from the sacrament; and in consequence so was the sacramental, since it is imperfect without the spiritual, as was observed above (Q. 80, A. 1). Consequently, in no way did Christ partake of this sacrament. Sed contra est quod Hieronymus dicit, ad Heldibiam, dominus Iesus ipse conviva et convivium, ipse comedens et qui comeditur. On the contrary, Jerome says (Ad Hedib., Ep. xxx), The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself the guest and banquet, is both the partaker and what is eaten. Respondeo dicendum quod quidam dixerunt quod Christus in cena corpus et sanguinem suum discipulis tradidit, non tamen ipse sumpsit. Sed hoc non videtur convenienter dici. Quia Christus ea quae ab aliis observanda instituit, ipse primitus observavit, unde et ipse prius baptizari voluit quam aliis Baptismum imponeret, secundum illud Act. I, coepit Iesus facere et docere. Unde et ipse primo corpus suum et sanguinem sumpsit, et postea discipulis suis tradidit sumendum. Et hoc est quod, Ruth III, super illud, cumque comedisset et bibisset etc., dicit Glossa, quod Christus comedit et bibit in cena, cum corporis et sanguinis sui sacramentum discipulis tradidit. Unde, quia pueri communicaverunt carni et sanguini, et ipse participavit eisdem. I answer that, Some have said that Christ during the supper gave His body and blood to His disciples, but did not partake of it Himself. But this seems improbable. Because Christ Himself was the first to fulfill what He required others to observe: hence He willed first to be baptized when imposing Baptism upon others: as we read in Acts 1:1: Jesus began to do and to teach. Hence He first of all took His own body and blood, and afterwards gave it to be taken by the disciples. And hence the gloss upon Ruth 3:7, When he had eaten and drunk, says: Christ ate and drank at the supper, when He gave to the disciples the sacrament of His body and blood. Hence, ‘because the children partook of His flesh and blood, He also hath been partaker in the same.’