OF THE MINISTERS BY WHOM THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM IS CONFERRED (EIGHT
ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the ministers by whom the sacrament of Baptism
is conferred. And concerning this there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it belongs to a deacon to baptize?
(2) Whether this belongs to a priest, or to a bishop only?
(3) Whether a layman can confer the sacrament of Baptism?
(4) Whether a woman can do this?
(5) Whether an unbaptized person can baptize?
(6) Whether several can at the same time baptize one and the same person?
(7) Whether it is essential that someone should raise the person
baptized from the sacred font?
(8) Whether he who raises someone from the sacred font is bound to
instruct him?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is part of a deacon's duty to baptize?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that it is part of a deacon's duty to baptize. Because
the duties of preaching and of baptizing were enjoined by our Lord at the
same time, according to Mt. 28:19: "Going . . . teach ye all nations,
baptizing them," etc. But it is part of a deacon's duty to preach the
gospel. Therefore it seems that it is also part of a deacon's duty to
baptize.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) to "cleanse" is
part of the deacon's duty. But cleansing from sins is effected specially
by Baptism, according to Eph. 5:26: "Cleansing it by the laver of water
in the word of life." Therefore it seems that it belongs to a deacon to
baptize.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it is told of Blessed Laurence, who was a deacon, that
he baptized many. Therefore it seems that it belongs to deacons to
baptize.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Pope Gelasius I says (the passage is to be found in the
Decrees, dist. 93): "We order the deacons to keep within their own
province"; and further on: "Without bishop or priest they must not dare
to baptize, except in cases of extreme urgency, when the aforesaid are a
long way off."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Just as the properties and duties of the heavenly orders
are gathered from their names, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vi), so can
we gather, from the names of the ecclesiastical orders, what belongs to
each order. Now "deacons" are so called from being "ministers"; because,
to wit, it is not in the deacon's province to be the chief and official
celebrant in conferring a sacrament, but to minister to others, his
elders, in the sacramental dispensations. And so it does not belong to a
deacon to confer the sacrament of Baptism officially as it were; but to
assist and serve his elders in the bestowal of this and other sacraments.
Hence Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred.): "It is a deacon's duty to
assist and serve the priests, in all the rites of Christ's sacraments,
viz. those of Baptism, of the Chrism, of the Paten and Chalice."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: It is the deacon's duty to read the Gospel in church, and
to preach it as one catechizing; hence Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v)
that a deacon's office involves power over the unclean among whom he
includes the catechumens. But to teach, i.e. to expound the Gospel, is
the proper office of a bishop, whose action is "to perfect," as Dionysius
teaches (Eccl. Hier. v); and "to perfect" is the same as "to teach."
Consequently, it does not follow that the office of baptizing belongs to
deacons.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii), Baptism has a power not
only of "cleansing" but also of "enlightening." Consequently, it is
outside the province of the deacon whose duty it is to cleanse only: viz.
either by driving away the unclean, or by preparing them for the
reception of a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Because Baptism is a necessary sacrament, deacons are
allowed to baptize in cases of urgency when their elders are not at hand;
as appears from the authority of Gelasius quoted above. And it was thus
that Blessed Laurence, being but a deacon, baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether to baptize is part of the priestly office, or proper to that of
bishops?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that to baptize is not part of the priestly office, but
proper to that of bishops. Because, as stated above (A[1], OBJ[1]), the
duties of teaching and baptizing are enjoined in the same precept (Mt.
28:19). But to teach, which is "to perfect," belongs to the office of
bishop, as Dionysius declares (Eccl. Hier. v, vi). Therefore to baptize
also belongs to the episcopal office.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, by Baptism a man is admitted to the body of the
Christian people: and to do this seems consistent with no other than the
princely office. Now the bishops hold the position of princes in the
Church, as the gloss observes on Lk. 10:1: indeed, they even take the
place of the apostles, of whom it is written (Ps. 44:17): "Thou shalt
make them princes over all the earth." Therefore it seems that to baptize
belongs exclusively to the office of bishops.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred.) that "it belongs to
the bishop to consecrate churches, to anoint altars, to consecrate
[conficere] the chrism; he it is that confers the ecclesiastical orders,
and blesses the consecrated virgins." But the sacrament of Baptism is
greater than all these. Therefore much more reason is there why to
baptize should belong exclusively to the episcopal office.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Isidore says (De Officiis. ii): "It is certain that
Baptism was entrusted to priests alone."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Priests are consecrated for the purpose of celebrating
the sacrament of Christ's Body, as stated above (Q[65], A[3]). Now that
is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, according to the Apostle (1
Cor. 10:17): "We, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake
of one bread and one chalice." Moreover, by Baptism a man becomes a
participator in ecclesiastical unity, wherefore also he receives the
right to approach our Lord's Table. Consequently, just as it belongs to a
priest to consecrate the Eucharist, which is the principal purpose of the
priesthood, so it is the proper office of a priest to baptize: since it
seems to belong to one and the same, to produce the whole and to dispose
the part in the whole.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Our Lord enjoined on the apostles, whose place is taken by
the bishops, both duties, namely, of teaching and of baptizing, but in
different ways. Because Christ committed to them the duty of teaching,
that they might exercise it themselves as being the most important duty
of all: wherefore the apostles themselves said (Acts 6:2): "It is not
reason that we should leave the word of God and serve tables." On the
other hand, He entrusted the apostles with the office of baptizing, to be
exercised vicariously; wherefore the Apostle says (1 Cor. 1:17): "Christ
sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." And the reason for
this was that the merit and wisdom of the minister have no bearing on the
baptismal effect, as they have in teaching, as may be seen from what we
have stated above (Q[64], A[1], ad 2; AA[5],9). A proof of this is found
also in the fact that our Lord Himself did not baptize, but His
disciples, as John relates (4:2). Nor does it follow from this that
bishops cannot baptize; since what a lower power can do, that can also a
higher power. Wherefore also the Apostle says (1 Cor. 1:14,16) that he
had baptized some.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: In every commonwealth minor affairs are entrusted to lower
officials, while greater affairs are restricted to higher officials;
according to Ex. 18:22: "When any great matter soever shall fall out, let
them refer it to thee, and let them judge the lesser matters only."
Consequently it belongs to the lower officials of the state to decide
matters concerning the lower orders; while to the highest it belongs to
set in order those matters that regard the higher orders of the state.
Now by Baptism a man attains only to the lowest rank among the Christian
people: and consequently it belongs to the lesser officials of the Church
to baptize, namely, the priests, who hold the place of the seventy-two
disciples of Christ, as the gloss says in the passage quoted from Luke 10.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[65], A[3]), the sacrament of Baptism
holds the first place in the order of necessity; but in the order of
perfection there are other greater sacraments which are reserved to
bishops.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a layman can baptize?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that a layman cannot baptize. Because, as stated above
(A[2]), to baptize belongs properly to the priestly order. But those
things which belong to an order cannot be entrusted to one that is not
ordained. Therefore it seems that a layman, who has no orders, cannot
baptize.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is a greater thing to baptize, than to perform the
other sacramental rites of Baptism, such as to catechize, to exorcize,
and to bless the baptismal water. But these things cannot be done by
laymen, but only by priests. Therefore it seems that much less can laymen
baptize.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, just as Baptism is a necessary sacrament, so is Penance.
But a layman cannot absolve in the tribunal of Penance. Neither,
therefore, can he baptize.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Pope Gelasius I and Isidore say that "it is often
permissible for Christian laymen to baptize, in cases of urgent
necessity."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, It is due to the mercy of Him "Who will have all men to
be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4) that in those things which are necessary for
salvation, man can easily find the remedy. Now the most necessary among
all the sacraments is Baptism, which is man's regeneration unto spiritual
life: since for children there is no substitute, while adults cannot
otherwise than by Baptism receive a full remission both of guilt and of
its punishment. Consequently, lest man should have to go without so
necessary a remedy, it was ordained, both that the matter of Baptism
should be something common that is easily obtainable by all, i.e. water;
and that the minister of Baptism should be anyone, even not in orders,
lest from lack of being baptized, man should suffer loss of his salvation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: To baptize belongs to the priestly order by reason of a
certain appropriateness and solemnity; but this is not essential to the
sacrament. Consequently, if a layman were to baptize even outside a case
of urgency; he would sin, yet he would confer the sacrament; nor would
the person thus baptized have to be baptized again.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: These sacramental rites of Baptism belong to the solemnity
of, and are not essential to, Baptism. And therefore they neither should
nor can be done by a layman, but only by a priest, whose office it is to
baptize solemnly.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[65], AA[3],4), Penance is not so
necessary as Baptism; since contrition can supply the defect of the
priestly absolution which does not free from the whole punishment, nor
again is it given to children. Therefore the comparison with Baptism does
not stand, because its effect cannot be supplied by anything else.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a woman can baptize?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that a woman cannot baptize. For we read in the acts of
the Council of Carthage (iv): "However learned and holy a woman may be,
she must not presume to teach men in the church, or to baptize." But in
no case is a woman allowed to teach in church, according to 1 Cor. 14:35:
"It is a shame for a woman to speak in the church." Therefore it seems
that neither is a woman in any circumstances permitted to baptize.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, to baptize belongs to those having authority. wherefore
baptism should be conferred by priests having charge of souls. But women
are not qualified for this; according to 1 Tim. 2:12: "I suffer not a
woman to teach, nor to use authority over man, but to be subject to him
[Vulg.: 'but to be in silence']." Therefore a woman cannot baptize.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, in the spiritual regeneration water seems to hold the
place of the mother's womb, as Augustine says on Jn. 3:4, "Can" a man
"enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again?" While he
who baptizes seems to hold rather the position of father. But this is
unfitting for a woman. Therefore a woman cannot baptize.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Pope Urban II says (Decreta xxx): "In reply to the
questions asked by your beatitude, we consider that the following answer
should be given: that the baptism is valid when, in cases of necessity, a
woman baptizes a child in the name of the Trinity."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[4] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Christ is the chief Baptizer, according to Jn. 1:33: "He
upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He
it is that baptizeth." For it is written in Col. 3 (cf. Gal. 3:28), that
in Christ there is neither male nor female. Consequently, just as a
layman can baptize, as Christ's minister, so can a woman.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[4] Body Para. 2/2
But since "the head of the woman is the man," and "the head of . . .
man, is Christ" (1 Cor. 11:3), a woman should not baptize if a man be
available for the purpose; just as neither should a layman in the
presence of a cleric, nor a cleric in the presence of a priest. The last,
however, can baptize in the presence of a bishop, because it is part of
the priestly office.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Just as a woman is not suffered to teach in public, but is
allowed to instruct and admonish privately; so she is not permitted to
baptize publicly and solemnly, and yet she can baptize in a case of
urgency.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: When Baptism is celebrated solemnly and with due form, it
should be conferred by a priest having charge of souls, or by one
representing him. But this is not required in cases of urgency, when a
woman may baptize.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: In carnal generation male and female co-operate according
to the power of their proper nature; wherefore the female cannot be the
active, but only the passive, principle of generation. But in spiritual
generation they do not act, either of them, by their proper power, but
only instrumentally by the power of Christ. Consequently, on the same
grounds either man or woman can baptize in a case of urgency.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
If, however, a woman were to baptize without any urgency for so doing.
there would be no need of rebaptism: as we have said in regard to laymen
(A[3], ad 1). But the baptizer herself would sin, as also those who took
part with her therein, either by receiving Baptism from her, or by
bringing someone to her to be baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether one that is not baptized can confer the sacrament of Baptism?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that one that is not baptized cannot confer the
sacrament of Baptism. For "none gives what he has not." But a
non-baptized person has not the sacrament of Baptism. Therefore he cannot
give it.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a man confers the sacrament of Baptism inasmuch as he is
a minister of the Church. But one that is not baptized, belongs nowise to
the Church, i.e. neither really nor sacramentally. Therefore he cannot
confer the sacrament of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it is more to confer a sacrament than to receive it. But
one that is not baptized, cannot receive the other sacraments. Much less,
therefore, can he confer any sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Isidore says: "The Roman Pontiff does not consider it
to be the man who baptizes, but that the Holy Ghost confers the grace of
Baptism, though he that baptizes be a pagan." But he who is baptized, is
not called a pagan. Therefore he who is not baptized can confer the
sacrament of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Augustine left this question without deciding it. For he
says (Contra Ep. Parmen. ii): "This is indeed another question, whether
even those can baptize who were never Christians; nor should anything be
rashly asserted hereupon, without the authority of a sacred council such
as suffices for so great a matter." But afterwards it was decided by the
Church that the unbaptized, whether Jews or pagans, can confer the
sacrament of Baptism, provided they baptize in the form of the Church.
Wherefore Pope Nicolas I replies to the questions propounded by the
Bulgars: "You say that many in your country have been baptized by
someone, whether Christian or pagan you know not. If these were baptized
in the name of the Trinity, they must not be rebaptized." But if the form
of the Church be not observed, the sacrament of Baptism is not conferred.
And thus is to be explained what Gregory II [*Gregory III] writes to
Bishop Boniface: "Those whom you assert to have been baptized by pagans,"
namely, with a form not recognized by the Church, "we command you to
rebaptize in the name of the Trinity." And the reason of this is that,
just as on the part of the matter, as far as the essentials of the
sacrament are concerned, any water will suffice, so, on the part of the
minister, any man is competent. Consequently, an unbaptized person can
baptize in a case of urgency. So that two unbaptized persons may baptize
one another, one baptizing the other and being afterwards baptized by
him: and each would receive not only the sacrament but also the reality
of the sacrament. But if this were done outside a case of urgency, each
would sin grievously, both the baptizer and the baptized, and thus the
baptismal effect would be frustrated, although the sacrament itself would
not be invalidated.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The man who baptizes offers but his outward ministration;
whereas Christ it is Who baptizes inwardly, Who can use all men to
whatever purpose He wills. Consequently, the unbaptized can baptize:
because, as Pope Nicolas I says, "the Baptism is not theirs," i.e. the
baptizers', "but His," i.e. Christ's.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: He who is not baptized, though he belongs not to the Church
either in reality or sacramentally, can nevertheless belong to her in
intention and by similarity of action, namely, in so far as he intends to
do what the Church does, and in baptizing observes the Church's form, and
thus acts as the minister of Christ, Who did not confine His power to
those that are baptized, as neither did He to the sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The other sacraments are not so necessary as Baptism. And
therefore it is allowable that an unbaptized person should baptize rather
than that he should receive other sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether several can baptize at the same time?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that several can baptize at the same time. For unity is
contained in multitude, but not "vice versa." Wherefore it seems that
many can do whatever one can but not "vice versa": thus many draw a ship
which one could draw. But one man can baptize. Therefore several, too,
can baptize one at the same time.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is more difficult for one agent to act on many
things, than for many to act at the same time on one. But one man can
baptize several at the same time. Much more, therefore, can many baptize
one at the same time.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Baptism is a sacrament of the greatest necessity. Now in
certain cases it seems necessary for several to baptize one at the same
time; for instance, suppose a child to be in danger of death, and two
persons present, one of whom is dumb, and the other without hands or
arms; for then the mutilated person would have to pronounce the words,
and the dumb person would have to perform the act of baptizing. Therefore
it seems that several can baptize one at the same time.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Where there is one agent there is one action. If,
therefore, several were to baptize one, it seems to follow that there
would be several baptisms: and this is contrary to Eph. 4:5: "one Faith,
one Baptism."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[6] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, The Sacrament of Baptism derives its power principally
from its form, which the Apostle calls "the word of life" (Eph. 5:26).
Consequently, if several were to baptize one at the same time, we must
consider what form they would use. For were they to say: "We baptize thee
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," some
maintain that the sacrament of Baptism would not be conferred, because
the form of the Church would not be observed, i.e. "I baptize thee in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." But this
reasoning is disproved by the form observed in the Greek Church. For they
might say: "The servant of God, N . . ., is baptized in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," under which form the Greeks
receive the sacrament of Baptism: and yet this form differs far more from
the form that we use, than does this: "We baptize thee."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[6] Body Para. 2/3
The point to be observed, however, is this, that by this form, "We
baptize thee," the intention expressed is that several concur in
conferring one Baptism: and this seems contrary to the notion of a
minister; for a man does not baptize save as a minister of Christ, and as
standing in His place; wherefore just as there is one Christ, so should
there be one minister to represent Christ. Hence the Apostle says
pointedly (Eph. 4:5): "one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism." Consequently,
an intention which is in opposition to this seems to annul the sacrament
of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[6] Body Para. 3/3
On the other hand, if each were to say: "I baptize thee in the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," each would signify his
intention as though he were conferring Baptism independently of the
other. This might occur in the case where both were striving to baptize
someone; and then it is clear that whichever pronounced the words first
would confer the sacrament of Baptism; while the other, however great his
right to baptize, if he presume to utter the words, would be liable to be
punished as a rebaptizer. If, however, they were to pronounce the words
absolutely at the same time, and dipped or sprinkled the man together,
they should be punished for baptizing in an improper manner, but not for
rebaptizing: because each would intend to baptize an unbaptized person,
and each, so far as he is concerned, would baptize. Nor would they confer
several sacraments: but the one Christ baptizing inwardly would confer
one sacrament by means of both together.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This argument avails in those agents that act by their own
power. But men do not baptize by their own, but by Christ's power, Who,
since He is one, perfects His work by means of one minister.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: In a case of necessity one could baptize several at the
same time under this form: "I baptize ye": for instance, if they were
threatened by a falling house, or by the sword or something of the kind,
so as not to allow of the delay involved by baptizing them singly. Nor
would this cause a change in the Church's form, since the plural is
nothing but the singular doubled: especially as we find the plural
expressed in Mt. 28:19: "Baptizing them," etc. Nor is there parity
between the baptizer and the baptized; since Christ, the baptizer in
chief, is one: while many are made one in Christ by Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[66], A[1]), the integrity of Baptism
consists in the form of words and the use of the matter. Consequently,
neither he who only pronounces the words, baptizes, nor he who dips.
Where fore if one pronounces the words and the other dips, no form of
words can be fitting. For neither could he say: "I baptize thee": since
he dips not, and therefore baptizes not. Nor could they say: "We baptize
thee": since neither baptizes. For if of two men, one write one part of a
book, and the other write the other, it would not be a proper form of
speech to say: "We wrote this book," but the figure of synecdoche in
which the whole is put for the part.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether in Baptism it is necessary for someone to raise the baptized from
the sacred font?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that in Baptism it is not necessary for someone to raise
the baptized from the sacred font. For our Baptism is consecrated by
Christ's Baptism and is conformed thereto. But Christ when baptized was
not raised by anyone from the font, but according to Mt. 3:16, "Jesus
being baptized, forthwith came out of the water." Therefore it seems that
neither when others are baptized should anyone raise the baptized from
the sacred font.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Baptism is a spiritual regeneration, as stated above
(A[3]). But in carnal generation nothing else is required but the active
principle, i.e. the father, and the passive principle, i.e. the mother.
Since, then, in Baptism he that baptizes takes the place of the father,
while the very water of Baptism takes the place of the mother, as
Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cxxxv); it seems that there
is no further need for someone to raise the baptized from the sacred
font.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, nothing ridiculous should be observed in the sacraments
of the Church. But it seems ridiculous that after being baptized, adults
who can stand up of themselves and leave the sacred font, should be held
up by another. Therefore there seems no need for anyone, especially in
the Baptism of adults, to raise the baptized from the sacred font.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii) that "the priests
taking the baptized hand him over to his sponsor and guide."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[7] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The spiritual regeneration, which takes place in Baptism,
is in a certain manner likened to carnal generation: wherefore it is
written (1 Pt. 2:2): "As new-born babes, endowed with reason desire milk
[Vulg.: 'desire reasonable milk'] without guile." Now, in carnal
generation the new-born child needs nourishment and guidance: wherefore,
in spiritual generation also, someone is needed to undertake the office
of nurse and tutor by forming and instructing one who is yet a novice in
the Faith, concerning things pertaining to Christian faith and mode of
life, which the clergy have not the leisure to do through being busy with
watching over the people generally: because little children and novices
need more than ordinary care. Consequently someone is needed to receive
the baptized from the sacred font as though for the purpose of
instructing and guiding them. It is to this that Dionysius refers (Eccl.
Hier. xi) saying: "It occurred to our heavenly guides," i.e. the
Apostles, "and they decided, that infants should be taken charge of thus:
that the parents of the child should hand it over to some instructor
versed in holy things, who would thenceforth take charge of the child,
and be to it a spiritual father and a guide in the road of salvation."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ was baptized not that He might be regenerated, but
that He might regenerate others: wherefore after His Baptism He needed no
tutor like other children.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: In carnal generation nothing is essential besides a father
and a mother: yet to ease the latter in her travail, there is need for a
midwife; and for the child to be suitably brought up there is need for a
nurse and a tutor: while their place is taken in Baptism by him who
raises the child from the sacred font. Consequently this is not essential
to the sacrament, and in a case of necessity one alone can baptize with
water.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: It is not on account of bodily weakness that the baptized
is raised from the sacred font by the godparent, but on account of
spiritual weakness, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether he who raises anyone from the sacred font is bound to instruct
him?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that he who raises anyone from the sacred font is not
bound to instruct him. For none but those who are themselves instructed
can give instruction. But even the uneducated and ill-instructed are
allowed to raise people from the sacred font. Therefore he who raises a
baptized person from the font is not bound to instruct him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a son is instructed by his father better than by a
stranger: for, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii), a son receives from
his father, "being, food, and education." If, therefore, godparents are
bound to instruct their godchildren, it would be fitting for the carnal
father, rather than another, to be the godparent of his own child. And
yet this seems to be forbidden, as may be seen in the Decretals (xxx, qu.
1, Cap. Pervenit and Dictum est).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it is better for several to instruct than for one only.
If, therefore, godparents are bound to instruct their godchildren, it
would be better to have several godparents than only one. Yet this is
forbidden in a decree of Pope Leo, who says: "A child should not have
more than one godparent, be this a man or a woman."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon for Easter (clxviii): "In
the first place I admonish you, both men and women, who have raised
children in Baptism, that ye stand before God as sureties for those whom
you have been seen to raise from the sacred font."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[8] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Every man is bound to fulfil those duties which he has
undertaken to perform. Now it has been stated above (A[7]) that
godparents take upon themselves the duties of a tutor. Consequently they
are bound to watch over their godchildren when there is need for them to
do so: for instance when and where children are brought up among
unbelievers. But if they are brought up among Catholic Christians, the
godparents may well be excused from this responsibility, since it may be
presumed that the children will be carefully instructed by their parents.
If, however, they perceive in any way that the contrary is the case, they
would be bound, as far as they are able, to see to the spiritual welfare
of their godchildren.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Where the danger is imminent, the godparent, as Dionysius
says (Eccl. Hier. vii), should be someone "versed in holy things." But
where the danger is not imminent, by reason of the children being brought
up among Catholics, anyone is admitted to this position, because the
things pertaining to the Christian rule of life and faith are known
openly by all. Nevertheless an unbaptized person cannot be a godparent,
as was decreed in the Council of Mainz, although an unbaptized person:
because the person baptizing is essential to the sacrament, wherefore as
the godparent is not, as stated above (A[7], ad 2).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Just as spiritual generation is distinct from carnal
generation, so is spiritual education distinct from that of the body;
according to Heb. 12:9: "Moreover we have had fathers of our flesh for
instructors, and we reverenced them: shall we not much more obey the
Father of Spirits, and live?" Therefore the spiritual father should be
distinct from the carnal father, unless necessity demanded otherwise.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[67] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Education would be full of confusion if there were more
than one head instructor. Wherefore there should be one principal sponsor
in Baptism: but others can be allowed as assistants.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM (TWELVE ARTICLES)
We have now to consider those who receive Baptism; concerning which
there are twelve points of inquiry:
(1) Whether all are bound to receive Baptism?
(2) Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
(3) Whether Baptism should be deferred?
(4) Whether sinners should be baptized?
(5) Whether works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that
have been baptized?
(6) Whether Confession of sins is necessary?
(7) Whether an intention is required on the part of the one baptized?
(8) Whether faith is necessary?
(9) Whether infants should be baptized?
(10) Whether the children of Jews should be baptized against the will of
their parents?
(11) Whether anyone should be baptized in the mother's womb?
(12) Whether madmen and imbeciles should be baptized?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether all are bound to receive Baptism?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that not all are bound to receive Baptism. For Christ
did not narrow man's road to salvation. But before Christ's coming men
could be saved without Baptism: therefore also after Christ's coming.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Baptism seems to have been instituted principally as a
remedy for original sin. Now, since a man who is baptized is without
original sin, it seems that he cannot transmit it to his children.
Therefore it seems that the children of those who have been baptized,
should not themselves be baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Baptism is given in order that a man may, through grace,
be cleansed from sin. But those who are sanctified in the womb, obtain
this without Baptism. Therefore they are not bound to receive Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of
water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Again
it is stated in De Eccl. Dogm. xli, that "we believe the way of salvation
to be open to those only who are baptized."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain
salvation. Now it is manifest that no one can obtain salvation but
through Christ; wherefore the Apostle says (Rm. 5:18): "As by the offense
of one unto all men unto condemnation; so also by the justice of one,
unto all men unto justification of life." But for this end is Baptism
conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be
incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: wherefore it is written
(Gal. 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on
Christ." Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized:
and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: At no time, not even before the coming of Christ, could men
be saved unless they became members of Christ: because, as it is written
(Acts 4:12), "there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby
we must be saved." But before Christ's coming, men were incorporated in
Christ by faith in His future coming: of which faith circumcision was the
"seal," as the Apostle calls it (Rm. 4:11): whereas before circumcision
was instituted, men were incorporated in Christ by "faith alone," as
Gregory says (Moral. iv), together with the offering of sacrifices, by
means of which the Fathers of old made profession of their faith. Again,
since Christ's coming, men are incorporated in Christ by faith; according
to Eph. 3:17: "That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts." But faith
in a thing already present is manifested by a sign different from that by
which it was manifested when that thing was yet in the future: just as we
use other parts of the verb, to signify the present, the past, and the
future. Consequently although the sacrament itself of Baptism was not
always necessary for salvation, yet faith, of which Baptism is the
sacrament, was always necessary.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As we have stated in the FS, Q[81], A[3], ad 2, those who
are baptized are renewed in spirit by Baptism, while their body remains
subject to the oldness of sin, according to Rm. 8:10: "The body, indeed,
is dead because of sin, but the spirit liveth because of justification."
Wherefore Augustine (Contra Julian. vi) proves that "not everything that
is in man is baptized." Now it is manifest that in carnal generation man
does not beget in respect of his soul, but in respect of his body.
Consequently the children of those who are baptized are born with
original sin; wherefore they need to be baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Those who are sanctified in the womb, receive indeed grace
which cleanses them from original sin, but they do not therefore receive
the character, by which they are conformed to Christ. Consequently, if
any were to be sanctified in the womb now, they would need to be
baptized, in order to be conformed to Christ's other members by receiving
the character.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord
said (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,
he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter
God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a
man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We
believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have
eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the
sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be
saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens
who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that
worketh by charity" (Gal. 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved
without Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, as stated above (A[1]; Q[65], A[4]), the sacrament of
Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which
something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain
salvation without Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have
received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to
their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible
sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible
sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament
of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man
can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the
invisible sanctification.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two
ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who
neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates
contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the
free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot
obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they
incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality
but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by
some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And
such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on
account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith
that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible
sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian,
who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate:
but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As it is written (1 Kgs. 16:7), "man seeth those things
that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to
be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated
in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rm. 2:29) that "the
circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter;
whose praise is not of men but of God."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all
guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a
man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated
that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as
to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a
catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to
die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by
charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to
eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he
himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Cor. 3:15.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for
salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of
desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps.
57).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Baptism should be deferred?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that Baptism should be deferred. For Pope Leo says
(Epist. xvi): "Two seasons," i.e. Easter and Whitsuntide, "are fixed by
the Roman Pontiff for the celebration of Baptism. Wherefore we admonish
your Beatitude not to add any other days to this custom." Therefore it
seems that Baptism should be conferred not at once, but delayed until the
aforesaid seasons.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, we read in the decrees of the Council of Agde (Can.
xxxiv): "If Jews whose bad faith often "returns to the vomit," wish to
submit to the Law of the Catholic Church, let them for eight months enter
the porch of the church with the catechumens; and if they are found to
come in good faith then at last they may deserve the grace of Baptism."
Therefore men should not be baptized at once, and Baptism should be
deferred for a certain fixed time.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, as we read in Is. 27:9, "this is all the fruit, that the
sin . . . should be taken away." Now sin seems to be taken away, or at
any rate lessened, if Baptism be deferred. First, because those who sin
after Baptism, sin more grievously, according to Heb. 10:29: "How much
more, do you think, he deserveth worse punishments, who hath . . .
esteemed the blood of the testament," i.e. Baptism, "unclean, by which he
was sanctified?" Secondly, because Baptism takes away past, but not
future, sins: wherefore the more it is deferred, the more sins it takes
away. Therefore it seems that Baptism should be deferred for a long time.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Ecclus. 5:8): "Delay not to be
converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day." But the perfect
conversion to God is of those who are regenerated in Christ by Baptism.
Therefore Baptism should not be deferred from day to day.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[3] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, In this matter we must make a distinction and see whether
those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if they be
children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do
not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because
of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides
the sacrament of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[3] Body Para. 2/3
On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism,
as stated above (A[2]). And therefore Baptism should not be conferred on
adults as soon as they are converted, but it should be deferred until
some fixed time. First, as a safeguard to the Church, lest she be
deceived through baptizing those who come to her under false pretenses,
according to 1 Jn. 4:1: "Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits,
if they be of God." And those who approach Baptism are put to this test,
when their faith and morals are subjected to proof for a space of time.
Secondly, this is needful as being useful for those who are baptized; for
they require a certain space of time in order to be fully instructed in
the faith, and to be drilled in those things that pertain to the
Christian mode of life. Thirdly, a certain reverence for the sacrament
demands a delay whereby men are admitted to Baptism at the principal
festivities, viz. of Easter and Pentecost, the result being that they
receive the sacrament with greater devotion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[3] Body Para. 3/3
There are, however, two reasons for forgoing this delay. First, when
those who are to be baptized appear to be perfectly instructed in the
faith and ready for Baptism; thus, Philip baptized the Eunuch at once
(Acts 8); and Peter, Cornelius and those who were with him (Acts 10).
Secondly, by reason of sickness or some kind of danger of death.
Wherefore Pope Leo says (Epist. xvi): "Those who are threatened by death,
sickness, siege, persecution, or shipwreck, should be baptized at any
time." Yet if a man is forestalled by death, so as to have no time to
receive the sacrament, while he awaits the season appointed by the
Church, he is saved, yet "so as by fire," as stated above (A[2], ad 2).
Nevertheless he sins if he defer being baptized beyond the time appointed
by the Church, except this be for an unavoidable cause and with the
permission of the authorities of the Church. But even this sin, with his
other sins, can be washed away by his subsequent contrition, which takes
the place of Baptism, as stated above (Q[66], A[11]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This decree of Pope Leo, concerning the celebration of
Baptism at two seasons, is to be understood "with the exception of the
danger of death" (which is always to be feared in children) as stated
above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This decree concerning the Jews was for a safeguard to the
Church, lest they corrupt the faith of simple people, if they be not
fully converted. Nevertheless, as the same passage reads further on, "if
within the appointed time they are threatened with danger of sickness,
they should be baptized."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Baptism, by the grace which it bestows, removes not only
past sins, but hinders the commission of future sins. Now this is the
point to be considered---that men may not sin: it is a secondary
consideration that their sins be less grievous, or that their sins be
washed away, according to 1 Jn. 2:1,2: "My little children, these things
I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an
advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just; and He is the
propitiation for our sins."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether sinners should be baptized?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that sinners should be baptized. For it is written
(Zach. 13:1): "In that day there shall be a fountain open to the House of
David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem: for the washing of the sinner
and of the unclean woman": and this is to be understood of the fountain
of Baptism. Therefore it seems that the sacrament of Baptism should be
offered even to sinners.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, our Lord said (Mt. 9:12): "They that are in health need
not a physician, but they that are ill." But they that are ill are
sinners. Therefore since Baptism is the remedy of Christ the physician of
our souls, it seems that this sacrament should be offered to sinners.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, no assistance should be withdrawn from sinners. But
sinners who have been baptized derive spiritual assistance from the very
character of Baptism, since it is a disposition to grace. Therefore it
seems that the sacrament of Baptism should be offered to sinners.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Serm. clxix): "He Who created thee
without thee, will not justify thee without thee." But since a sinner's
will is ill-disposed, he does not co-operate with God. Therefore it is
useless to employ Baptism as a means of justification.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[4] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, A man may be said to be a sinner in two ways. First, on
account of the stain and the debt of punishment incurred in the past: and
on sinners in this sense the sacrament of Baptism should be conferred,
since it is instituted specially for this purpose, that by it the
uncleanness of sin may be washed away, according to Eph. 5:26: "Cleansing
it by the laver of water in the word of life."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[4] Body Para. 2/2
Secondly, a man may be called a sinner because he wills to sin and
purposes to remain in sin: and on sinners in this sense the sacrament of
Baptism should not be conferred. First, indeed, because by Baptism men
are incorporated in Christ, according to Gal. 3:27: "As many of you as
have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Now so long as a man
wills to sin, he cannot be united to Christ, according to 2 Cor. 6:14:
"What participation hath justice with injustice?" Wherefore Augustine
says in his book on Penance (Serm. cccli) that "no man who has the use of
free-will can begin the new life, except he repent of his former life."
Secondly, because there should be nothing useless in the works of Christ
and of the Church. Now that is useless which does not reach the end to
which it is ordained; and, on the other hand, no one having the will to
sin can, at the same time, be cleansed from sin, which is the purpose of
Baptism; for this would be to combine two contradictory things. Thirdly,
because there should be no falsehood in the sacramental signs. Now a sign
is false if it does not correspond with the thing signified. But the very
fact that a man presents himself to be cleansed by Baptism, signifies
that he prepares himself for the inward cleansing: while this cannot be
the case with one who purposes to remain in sin. Therefore it is manifest
that on such a man the sacrament of Baptism is not to be conferred.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The words quoted are to be understood of those sinners
whose will is set on renouncing sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The physician of souls, i.e. Christ, works in two ways.
First, inwardly, by Himself: and thus He prepares man's will so that it
wills good and hates evil. Secondly, He works through ministers, by the
outward application of the sacraments: and in this way His work consists
in perfecting what was begun outwardly. Therefore the sacrament of
Baptism is not to be conferred save on those in whom there appears some
sign of their interior conversion: just as neither is bodily medicine
given to a sick man, unless he show some sign of life.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Baptism is the sacrament of faith. Now dead faith does not
suffice for salvation; nor is it the foundation, but living faith alone,
"that worketh by charity" (Gal. 5:6), as Augustine says (De Fide et
oper.). Neither, therefore, can the sacrament of Baptism give salvation
to a man whose will is set on sinning, and hence expels the form of
faith. Moreover, the impression of the baptismal character cannot dispose
a man for grace as long as he retains the will to sin; for "God compels
no man to be virtuous," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that have
been baptized?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners
that have been baptized. For God's justice seems to demand that a man
should be punished for every sin of his, according to Eccles. 12:14: "All
things that are done, God will bring into judgment." But works of
satisfaction are enjoined on sinners in punishment of past sins.
Therefore it seems that works of satisfaction should be enjoined on
sinners that have been baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, by means of works of satisfaction sinners recently
converted are drilled into righteousness, and are made to avoid the
occasions of sin: "for satisfaction consists in extirpating the causes of
vice, and closing the doors to sin" (De Eccl. Dogm. iv). But this is most
necessary in the case of those who have been baptized recently. Therefore
it seems that works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, man owes satisfaction to God not less than to his
neighbor. But if those who were recently baptized have injured their
neighbor, they should be told to make reparation to God by works of
penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Ambrose commenting on Rm. 11:29: "The gifts and the
calling of God are without repentance," says: "The grace of God requires
neither sighs nor groans in Baptism, nor indeed any work at all, but
faith alone; and remits all, gratis."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As the Apostle says (Rm. 6:3,4), "all we who are baptized
in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death: for we are buried together
with Him, by Baptism unto death"; which is to say that by Baptism man is
incorporated in the very death of Christ. Now it is manifest from what
has been said above (Q[48], AA[2],4; Q[49], A[3]) that Christ's death
satisfied sufficiently for sins, "not for ours only, but also for those
of the whole world," according to 1 Jn. 2:2. Consequently no kind of
satisfaction should be enjoined on one who is being baptized, for any
sins whatever: and this would be to dishonor the Passion and death of
Christ, as being insufficient for the plenary satisfaction for the sins
of those who were to be baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Augustine says in his book on Infant Baptism (De Pecc.
Merit. et Remiss. i), "the effect of Baptism is to make those, who are
baptized, to be incorporated in Christ as His members." Wherefore the
very pains of Christ were satisfactory for the sins of those who were to
be baptized; just as the pain of one member can be satisfactory for the
sin of another member. Hence it is written (Is. 53:4): "Surely He hath
borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Those who have been lately baptized should be drilled into
righteousness, not by penal, but by "easy works, so as to advance to
perfection by taking exercise, as infants by taking milk," as a gloss
says on Ps. 130:2: "As a child that is weaned is towards his mother." For
this reason did our Lord excuse His disciples from fasting when they were
recently converted, as we read in Mt. 9:14,15: and the same is written 1
Pt. 2:2: "As new-born babes desire . . . milk . . . that thereby you may
grow unto salvation."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: To restore what has been ill taken from one's neighbor, and
to make satisfaction for wrong done to him, is to cease from sin: for the
very fact of retaining what belongs to another and of not being
reconciled to one's neighbor, is a sin. Wherefore those who are baptized
should be enjoined to make satisfaction to their neighbor, as also to
desist from sin. But they are not to be enjoined to suffer any punishment
for past sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether sinners who are going to be baptized are bound to confess their
sins?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that sinners who are going to be baptized are bound to
confess their sins. For it is written (Mt. 3:6) that many "were baptized"
by John "in the Jordan confessing their sins." But Christ's Baptism is
more perfect than John's. Therefore it seems that there is yet greater
reason why they who are about to receive Christ's Baptism should confess
their sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 28:13): "He that hideth his sins,
shall not prosper; but he that shall confess and forsake them, shall
obtain mercy." Now for this is a man baptized, that he may obtain mercy
for his sins. Therefore those who are going to be baptized should confess
their sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Penance is required before Baptism, according to Acts
2:38: "Do penance and be baptized every one of you." But confession is a
part of Penance. Therefore it seems that confession of sins should take
place before Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Confession of sins should be sorrowful: thus Augustine
says (De Vera et Falsa Poenit. xiv): "All these circumstances should be
taken into account and deplored." Now, as Ambrose says on Rm. 11:29, "the
grace of God requires neither sighs nor groans in Baptism." Therefore
confession of sins should not be required of those who are going to be
baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[6] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Confession of sins is twofold. One is made inwardly to
God: and such confession of sins is required before Baptism: in other
words, man should call his sins to mind and sorrow for them; since "he
cannot begin the new life, except he repent of his former life," as
Augustine says in his book on Penance (Serm. cccli). The other is the
outward confession of sins, which is made to a priest; and such
confession is not required before Baptism. First, because this
confession, since it is directed to the person of the minister, belongs
to the sacrament of Penance, which is not required before Baptism, which
is the door of all the sacraments. Secondly, because the reason why a man
makes outward confession to a priest, is that the priest may absolve him
from his sins, and bind him to works of satisfaction, which should not be
enjoined on the baptized, as stated above (A[5]). Moreover those who are
being baptized do not need to be released from their sins by the keys of
the Church, since all are forgiven them in Baptism. Thirdly, because the
very act of confession made to a man is penal, by reason of the shame it
inflicts on the one confessing: whereas no exterior punishment is
enjoined on a man who is being baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[6] Body Para. 2/3
Therefore no special confession of sins is required of those who are
being baptized; but that general confession suffices which they make when
in accordance with the Church's ritual they "renounce Satan and all his
works." And in this sense a gloss explains Mt. 3:6, saying that in John's
Baptism "those who are going to be baptized learn that they should
confess their sins and promise to amend their life."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[6] Body Para. 3/3
If, however, any persons about to be baptized, wish, out of devotion, to
confess their sins, their confession should be heard; not for the purpose
of enjoining them to do satisfaction, but in order to instruct them in
the spiritual life as a remedy against their vicious habits.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Sins were not forgiven in John's Baptism, which, however,
was the Baptism of Penance. Consequently it was fitting that those who
went to receive that Baptism, should confess their sins, so that they
should receive a penance in proportion to their sins. But Christ's
Baptism is without outward penance, as Ambrose says (on Rm. 11:29); and
therefore there is no comparison.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: It is enough that the baptized make inward confession to
God, and also an outward general confession, for them to "prosper and
obtain mercy": and they need no special outward confession, as stated
above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Confession is a part of sacramental Penance, which is not
required before Baptism, as stated above: but the inward virtue of
Penance is required.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the intention of receiving the sacrament of Baptism is required
on the part of the one baptized?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the intention of receiving the sacrament of Baptism
is not required on the part of the one baptized. For the one baptized is,
as it were, "patient" in the sacrament. But an intention is required not
on the part of the patient but on the part of the agent. Therefore it
seems that the intention of receiving Baptism is not required on the part
of the one baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, if what is necessary for Baptism be omitted, the Baptism
must be repeated; for instance, if the invocation of the Trinity be
omitted, as stated above (Q[66], A[9], ad 3). But it does not seem that a
man should be rebaptized through not having had the intention of
receiving Baptism: else, since his intention cannot be proved, anyone
might ask to be baptized again on account of his lack of intention.
Therefore it seems that no intention is required on the part of the one
baptized, in order that he receive the sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Baptism is given as a remedy for original sin. But
original sin is contracted without the intention of the person born.
Therefore, seemingly, Baptism requires no intention on the part of the
person baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, According to the Church's ritual, those who are to be
baptized ask of the Church that they may receive Baptism: and thus they
express their intention of receiving the sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[7] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, By Baptism a man dies to the old life of sin, and begins
a certain newness of life, according to Rm. 6:4: "We are buried together
with" Christ "by Baptism into death; that, as Christ is risen from the
dead . . . so we also may walk in newness of life." Consequently, just
as, according to Augustine (Serm. cccli), he who has the use of
free-will, must, in order to die to the old life, "will to repent of his
former life"; so must he, of his own will, intend to lead a new life, the
beginning of which is precisely the receiving of the sacrament. Therefore
on the part of the one baptized, it is necessary for him to have the will
or intention of receiving the sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: When a man is justified by Baptism, his passiveness is not
violent but voluntary: wherefore it is necessary for him to intend to
receive that which is given him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: If an adult lack the intention of receiving the sacrament,
he must be rebaptized. But if there be doubt about this, the form to be
used should be: "If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Baptism is a remedy not only against original, but also
against actual sins, which are caused by our will and intention.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether faith is required on the part of the one baptized?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that faith is required on the part of the one baptized.
For the sacrament of Baptism was instituted by Christ. But Christ, in
giving the form of Baptism, makes faith to precede Baptism (Mk. 16:16):
"He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." Therefore it seems
that without faith there can be no sacrament of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, nothing useless is done in the sacraments of the Church.
But according to the Church's ritual, the man who comes to be baptized is
asked concerning his faith: "Dost thou believe in God the Father
Almighty?" Therefore it seems that faith is required for Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the intention of receiving the sacrament is required for
Baptism. But this cannot be without right faith, since Baptism is the
sacrament of right faith: for thereby men "are incorporated in Christ,"
as Augustine says in his book on Infant Baptism (De Pecc. Merit. et
Remiss. i); and this cannot be without right faith, according to Eph.
3:17: "That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts." Therefore it
seems that a man who has not right faith cannot receive the sacrament of
Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, unbelief is a most grievous sin, as we have shown in the
SS, Q[10], A[3]. But those who remain in sin should not be baptized:
therefore neither should those who remain in unbelief.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory writing to the bishop Quiricus says: "We have
learned from the ancient tradition of the Fathers that when heretics,
baptized in the name of the Trinity, come back to Holy Church, they are
to be welcomed to her bosom, either with the anointing of chrism, or the
imposition of hands, or the mere profession of faith." But such would not
be the case if faith were necessary for a man to receive Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As appears from what has been said above (Q[63], A[6];
Q[66], A[9]) Baptism produces a twofold effect in the soul, viz. the
character and grace. Therefore in two ways may a thing be necessary for
Baptism. First, as something without which grace, which is the ultimate
effect of the sacrament, cannot be had. And thus right faith is necessary
for Baptism, because, as it appears from Rm. 3:22, the justice of God is
by faith of Jesus Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] Body Para. 2/2
Secondly, something is required of necessity for Baptism, because
without it the baptismal character cannot be imprinted And thus right
faith is not necessary in the one baptized any more than in the one who
baptizes: provided the other conditions are fulfilled which are essential
to the sacrament. For the sacrament is not perfected by the righteousness
of the minister or of the recipient of Baptism, but by the power of God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Our Lord is speaking there of Baptism as bringing us to
salvation by giving us sanctifying grace: which of course cannot be
without right faith: wherefore He says pointedly: "He that believeth and
is baptized, shall be saved."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The Church's intention in Baptizing men is that they may be
cleansed from sin, according to Is. 27:9: "This is all the fruit, that
the sin . . . should be taken away." And therefore, as far as she is
concerned, she does not intend to give Baptism save to those who have
right faith, without which there is no remission of sins. And for this
reason she asks those who come to be baptized whether they believe. If,
on the contrary, anyone, without right faith, receive Baptism outside the
Church, he does not receive it unto salvation. Hence Augustine says (De
Baptism. contr. Donat. iv): "From the Church being compared to Paradise
we learn that men can receive her Baptism even outside her fold, but that
elsewhere none can receive or keep the salvation of the blessed."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Even he who has not right faith on other points, can have
right faith about the sacrament of Baptism: and so he is not hindered
from having the intention of receiving that sacrament. Yet even if he
think not aright concerning this sacrament, it is enough, for the
receiving of the sacrament, that he should have a general intention of
receiving Baptism, according as Christ instituted, and as the Church
bestows it.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[8] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Just as the sacrament of Baptism is not to be conferred on
a man who is unwilling to give up his other sins, so neither should it be
given to one who is unwilling to renounce his unbelief. Yet each receives
the sacrament if it be conferred on him, though not unto salvation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[9] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether children should be baptized?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[9] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that children should not be baptized. For the intention
to receive the sacrament is required in one who is being baptized, as
stated above (A[7]). But children cannot have such an intention, since
they have not the use of free-will. Therefore it seems that they cannot
receive the sacrament of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[9] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Baptism is the sacrament of faith, as stated above
(Q[39], A[5]; Q[66], A[1], ad 1). But children have not faith, which
demands an act of the will on the part of the believer, as Augustine says
(Super Joan. xxvi). Nor can it be said that their salvation is implied in
the faith of their parents; since the latter are sometimes unbelievers,
and their unbelief would conduce rather to the damnation of their
children. Therefore it seems that children cannot be baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[9] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it is written (1 Pt. 3:21) that "Baptism saveth" men;
"not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a
good conscience towards God." But children have no conscience, either
good or bad, since they have not the use of reason: nor can they be
fittingly examined, since they understand not. Therefore children should
not be baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[9] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii): "Our heavenly
guides," i.e. the Apostles, "approved of infants being admitted to
Baptism."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[9] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As the Apostle says (Rm. 5:17), "if by one man's offense
death reigned through one," namely Adam, "much more they who receive
abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life
through one, Jesus Christ." Now children contract original sin from the
sin of Adam; which is made clear by the fact that they are under the ban
of death, which "passed upon all" on account of the sin of the first man,
as the Apostle says in the same passage (Rm. 5:12). Much more, therefore,
can children receive grace through Christ, so as to reign in eternal
life. But our Lord Himself said (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of
water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Consequently it became necessary to baptize children, that, as in birth
they incurred damnation through Adam so in a second birth they might
obtain salvation through Christ. Moreover it was fitting that children
should receive Baptism, in order that being reared from childhood in
things pertaining to the Christian mode of life, they may the more easily
persevere therein; according to Prov. 22:5: "A young man according to his
way, even when he is old, he will not depart from it." This reason is
also given by Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The spiritual regeneration effected by Baptism is somewhat
like carnal birth, in this respect, that as the child while in the
mother's womb receives nourishment not independently, but through the
nourishment of its mother, so also children before the use of reason,
being as it were in the womb of their mother the Church, receive
salvation not by their own act, but by the act of the Church. Hence
Augustine says (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i): "The Church, our mother,
offers her maternal mouth for her children, that they may imbibe the
sacred mysteries: for they cannot as yet with their own hearts believe
unto justice, nor with their own mouths confess unto salvation . . . And
if they are rightly said to believe, because in a certain fashion they
make profession of faith by the words of their sponsors, why should they
not also be said to repent, since by the words of those same sponsors
they evidence their renunciation of the devil and this world?" For the
same reason they can be said to intend, not by their own act of
intention, since at times they struggle and cry; but by the act of those
who bring them to be baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[9] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says, writing to Boniface (Cont. duas Ep.
Pelag. i), "in the Church of our Saviour little children believe through
others, just as they contracted from others those sins which are remitted
in Baptism." Nor is it a hindrance to their salvation if their parents be
unbelievers, because, as Augustine says, writing to the same Boniface
(Ep. xcviii), "little children are offered that they may receive grace in
their souls, not so much from the hands of those that carry them (yet
from these too, if they be good and faithful) as from the whole company
of the saints and the faithful. For they are rightly considered to be
offered by those who are pleased at their being offered, and by whose
charity they are united in communion with the Holy Ghost." And the
unbelief of their own parents, even if after Baptism these strive to
infect them with the worship of demons, hurts not the children. For as
Augustine says (Cont. duas Ep. Pelag. i) "when once the child has been
begotten by the will of others, he cannot subsequently be held by the
bonds of another's sin so long as he consent not with his will, according
to" Ezech. 18:4: "'As the soul of the Father, so also the soul of the son
is mine; the soul that sinneth, the same shall die.' Yet he contracted
from Adam that which was loosed by the grace of this sacrament, because
as yet he was not endowed with a separate existence." But the faith of
one, indeed of the whole Church, profits the child through the operation
of the Holy Ghost, Who unites the Church together, and communicates the
goods of one member to another.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[9] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Just as a child, when he is being baptized, believes not by
himself but by others, so is he examined not by himself but through
others, and these in answer confess the Church's faith in the child's
stead, who is aggregated to this faith by the sacrament of faith. And the
child acquires a good conscience in himself, not indeed as to the act,
but as to the habit, by sanctifying grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[10] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether children of Jews or other unbelievers be baptized against the
will of their parents?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[10] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that children of Jews or other unbelievers should be
baptized against the will of their parents. For it is a matter of greater
urgency to rescue a man from the danger of eternal death than from the
danger of temporal death. But one ought to rescue a child that is
threatened by the danger of temporal death, even if its parents through
malice try to prevent its being rescued. Therefore much more reason is
there for rescuing the children of unbelievers from the danger of eternal
death, even against their parents' will.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[10] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: The children of slaves are themselves slaves, and in the power of
their masters. But Jews and all other unbelievers are the slaves of kings
and rulers. Therefore without any injustice rulers can have the children
of Jews baptized, as well as those of other slaves who are unbelievers.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[10] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, every man belongs more to God, from Whom he has his
soul, than to his carnal father, from whom he has his body. Therefore it
is not unjust if the children of unbelievers are taken away from their
carnal parents, and consecrated to God by Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[10] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written in the Decretals (Dist. xlv), quoting the
council of Toledo: "In regard to the Jews the holy synod commands that
henceforward none of them be forced to believe: for such are not to be
saved against their will, but willingly, that their righteousness may be
without flaw."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[10] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The children of unbelievers either have the use of reason
or they have not. If they have, then they already begin to control their
own actions, in things that are of Divine or natural law. And therefore
of their own accord, and against the will of their parents, they can
receive Baptism, just as they can contract marriage. Consequently such
can lawfully be advised and persuaded to be baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[10] Body Para. 2/2
If, however, they have not yet the use of free-will, according to the
natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they
cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the
children of the ancients "were saved through the faith of their parents."
Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were
baptized against their parents' will; just as it would be if one having
the use of reason were baptized against his will. Moreover under the
circumstances it would be dangerous to baptize the children of
unbelievers; for they would be liable to lapse into unbelief, by reason
of their natural affection for their parents. Therefore it is not the
custom of the Church to baptize the children of unbelievers against their
parents' will.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: It is not right to rescue a man from death of the body
against the order of civil law: for instance, if a man be condemned to
death by the judge who has tried him, none should use force in order to
rescue him from death. Consequently, neither should anyone infringe the
order of the natural law, in virtue of which a child is under the care of
its father, in order to rescue it from the danger of eternal death.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[10] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Jews are slaves of rulers by civil slavery, which does not
exclude the order of the natural and Divine law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[10] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Man is ordained unto God through his reason, by which he
can know God. Wherefore a child, before it has the use of reason, is
ordained to God, by a natural order, through the reason of its parents,
under whose care it naturally lies, and it is according to their ordering
that things pertaining to God are to be done in respect of the child.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[11] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a child can be baptized while yet in its mother's womb?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[11] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that a child can be baptized while yet in its mother's
womb. For the gift of Christ is more efficacious unto salvation than
Adam's sin unto condemnation, as the Apostle says (Rm. 5:15). But a child
while yet in its mother's womb is under sentence of condemnation on
account of Adam's sin. For much more reason, therefore, can it be saved
through the gift of Christ, which is bestowed by means of Baptism.
Therefore a child can be baptized while yet in its mother's womb.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[11] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a child, while yet in its mother's womb, seems to be
part of its mother. Now, when the mother is baptized, whatever is in her
and part of her, is baptized. Therefore it seems that when the mother is
baptized, the child in her womb is baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[11] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, eternal death is a greater evil than death of the body.
But of two evils the less should be chosen. If, therefore, the child in
the mother's womb cannot be baptized, it would be better for the mother
to be opened, and the child to be taken out by force and baptized, than
that the child should be eternally damned through dying without Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[11] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, it happens at times that some part of the child comes
forth first, as we read in Gn. 38:27: "In the very delivery of the
infants, one put forth a hand, whereon the midwife tied a scarlet thread,
saying: This shall come forth the first. But he drawing back his hand,
the other came forth." Now sometimes in such cases there is danger of
death. Therefore it seems that that part should be baptized, while the
child is yet in its mother's womb.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[11] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Ep. ad Dardan.): "No one can be born a
second time unless he be born first." But Baptism is a spiritual
regeneration. Therefore no one should be baptized before he is born from
the womb.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[11] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, It is essential to Baptism that some part of the body of
the person baptized be in some way washed with water, since Baptism is a
kind of washing, as stated above (Q[66], A[1]). But an infant's body,
before being born from the womb, can nowise be washed with water; unless
perchance it be said that the baptismal water, with which the mother's
body is washed, reaches the child while yet in its mother's womb. But
this is impossible: both because the child's soul, to the sanctification
of which Baptism is ordained, is distinct from the soul of the mother;
and because the body of the animated infant is already formed, and
consequently distinct from the body of the mother. Therefore the Baptism
which the mother receives does not overflow on to the child which is in
her womb. Hence Augustine says (Cont. Julian. vi): "If what is conceived
within a mother belonged to her body, so as to be considered a part
thereof, we should not baptize an infant whose mother, through danger of
death, was baptized while she bore it in her womb. Since, then, it," i.e.
the infant, "is baptized, it certainly did not belong to the mother's
body while it was in the womb." It follows, therefore, that a child can
nowise be baptized while in its mother's womb.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[11] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Children while in the mother's womb have not yet come forth
into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be
subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the
hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action
of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to
receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were
sanctified in the womb.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[11] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: An internal member of the mother is something of hers by
continuity and material union of the part with the whole: whereas a child
while in its mother's womb is something of hers through being joined
with, and yet distinct from her. Wherefore there is no comparison.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[11] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: We should "not do evil that there may come good" (Rm. 3:8).
Therefore it is wrong to kill a mother that her child may be baptized.
If, however, the mother die while the child lives yet in her womb, she
should be opened that the child may be baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[11] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Unless death be imminent, we should wait until the child
has entirely come forth from the womb before baptizing it. If, however,
the head, wherein the senses are rooted, appear first, it should be
baptized, in cases of danger: nor should it be baptized again, if perfect
birth should ensue. And seemingly the same should be done in cases of
danger no matter what part of the body appear first. But as none of the
exterior parts of the body belong to its integrity in the same degree as
the head, some hold that since the matter is doubtful, whenever any other
part of the body has been baptized, the child, when perfect birth has
taken place, should be baptized with the form: "If thou art not baptized,
I baptize thee," etc.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether madmen and imbeciles should be baptized?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that madmen and imbeciles should not be baptized. For in
order to receive Baptism, the person baptized must have the intention, as
stated above (A[7]). But since madmen and imbeciles lack the use of
reason, they can have but a disorderly intention. Therefore they should
not be baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, man excels irrational animals in that he has reason. But
madmen and imbeciles lack the use of reason, indeed in some cases we do
not expect them ever to have it, as we do in the case of children. It
seems, therefore, that just as irrational animals are not baptized, so
neither should madmen and imbeciles in those cases be baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the use of reason is suspended in madmen and imbeciles
more than it is in one who sleeps. But it is not customary to baptize
people while they sleep. Therefore it should not be given to madmen and
imbeciles.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Confess. iv) of his friend that "he was
baptized when his recovery was despaired of": and yet Baptism was
efficacious with him. Therefore Baptism should sometimes be given to
those who lack the use of reason.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, In the matter of madmen and imbeciles a distinction is to
be made. For some are so from birth, and have no lucid intervals, and
show no signs of the use of reason. And with regard to these it seems
that we should come to the same decision as with regard to children who
are baptized in the Faith of the Church, as stated above (A[9], ad 2).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] Body Para. 2/4
But there are others who have fallen from a state of sanity into a state
of insanity. And with regard to these we must be guided by their wishes
as expressed by them when sane: so that, if then they manifested a desire
to receive Baptism, it should be given to them when in a state of madness
or imbecility, even though then they refuse. If, on the other hand, while
sane they showed no desire to receive Baptism, they must not be baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] Body Para. 3/4
Again, there are some who, though mad or imbecile from birth, have,
nevertheless, lucid intervals, in which they can make right use of
reason. Wherefore, if then they express a desire for Baptism, they can be
baptized though they be actually in a state of madness. And in this case
the sacrament should be bestowed on them if there be fear of danger
otherwise it is better to wait until the time when they are sane, so that
they may receive the sacrament more devoutly. But if during the interval
of lucidity they manifest no desire to receive Baptism, they should not
be baptized while in a state of insanity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] Body Para. 4/4
Lastly there are others who, though not altogether sane, yet can use
their reason so far as to think about their salvation, and understand the
power of the sacrament. And these are to be treated the same as those who
are sane, and who are baptized if they be willing, but not against their
will.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Imbeciles who never had, and have not now, the use of
reason, are baptized, according to the Church's intention, just as
according to the Church's ritual, they believe and repent; as we have
stated above of children (A[9], ad OBJ). But those who have had the use
of reason at some time, or have now, are baptized according to their own
intention, which they have now, or had when they were sane.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Madmen and imbeciles lack the use of reason accidentally,
i.e. through some impediment in a bodily organ; but not like irrational
animals through want of a rational soul. Consequently the comparison does
not hold.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[68] A[12] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: A person should not be baptized while asleep, except he be
threatened with the danger of death. In which case he should be baptized,
if previously he has manifested a desire to receive Baptism, as we have
stated in reference to imbeciles: thus Augustine relates of his friend
that "he was baptized while unconscious," because he was in danger of
death (Confess. iv).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE EFFECTS OF BAPTISM (TEN ARTICLES)
We must now consider the effects of Baptism, concerning which there are
ten points of inquiry:
(1) Whether all sins are taken away by Baptism?
(2) Whether man is freed from all punishment by Baptism?
(3) Whether Baptism takes away the penalties of sin that belong to this
life?
(4) Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism?
(5) Of the effects of virtue which are conferred by Baptism?
(6) Whether even children receive grace and virtues in Baptism?
(7) Whether Baptism opens the gates of the heavenly kingdom to those who
are baptized?
(8) Whether Baptism produces an equal effect in all who are baptized?
(9) Whether insincerity hinders the effect of Baptism?
(10) Whether Baptism takes effect when the insincerity ceases?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether all sins are taken away by Baptism?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that not all sins are taken away by Baptism. For Baptism
is a spiritual regeneration, which corresponds to carnal generation. But
by carnal generation man contracts none but original sin. Therefore none
but original sin is taken away by Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Penance is a sufficient cause of the remission of actual
sins. But penance is required in adults before Baptism, according to Acts
2:38: "Do penance and be baptized every one of you." Therefore Baptism
has nothing to do with the remission of actual sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, various diseases demand various remedies: because as
Jerome says on Mk. 9:27,28: "What is a cure for the heel is no cure for
the eye." But original sin, which is taken away by Baptism, is
generically distinct from actual sin. Therefore not all sins are taken
away by Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Ezech. 36:25): "I will pour upon you
clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As the Apostle says (Rm. 6:3), "all we, who are baptized
in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death." And further on he concludes
(Rm. 6:11): "So do you also reckon that you are dead to sin, but alive
unto God in Christ Jesus our Lord." Hence it is clear that by Baptism man
dies unto the oldness of sin, and begins to live unto the newness of
grace. But every sin belongs to the primitive oldness. Consequently every
sin is taken away by Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As the Apostle says (Rm. 5:15,16), the sin of Adam was not
so far-reaching as the gift of Christ, which is bestowed in Baptism: "for
judgment was by one unto condemnation; but grace is of many offenses,
unto justification." Wherefore Augustine says in his book on Infant
Baptism (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i), that "in carnal generation,
original sin alone is contracted; but when we are born again of the
Spirit, not only original sin but also wilful sin is forgiven."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: No sin can be forgiven save by the power of Christ's
Passion: hence the Apostle says (Heb. 9:22) that "without shedding of
blood there is no remission." Consequently no movement of the human will
suffices for the remission of sin, unless there be faith in Christ's
Passion, and the purpose of participating in it, either by receiving
Baptism, or by submitting to the keys of the Church. Therefore when an
adult approaches Baptism, he does indeed receive the forgiveness of all
his sins through his purpose of being baptized, but more perfectly
through the actual reception of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: This argument is true of special remedies. But Baptism
operates by the power of Christ's Passion, which is the universal remedy
for all sins; and so by Baptism all sins are loosed.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether man is freed by Baptism from all debt of punishment due to sin?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that man is not freed by Baptism from all debt of
punishment due to sin. For the Apostle says (Rm. 13:1): "Those things
that are of God are well ordered [Vulg.: 'Those that are, are ordained of
God']." But guilt is not set in order save by punishment, as Augustine
says (Ep. cxl). Therefore Baptism does not take away the debt of
punishment due to sins already committed.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the effect of a sacrament has a certain likeness to the
sacrament itself; since the sacraments of the New Law "effect what they
signify," as stated above (Q[62], A[1], ad 1). But the washing of Baptism
has indeed a certain likeness with the cleansing from the stain of sin,
but none, seemingly, with the remission of the debt of punishment.
Therefore the debt of punishment is not taken away by Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, when the debt of punishment has been remitted, a man no
longer deserves to be punished, and so it would be unjust to punish him.
If, therefore, the debt of punishment be remitted by Baptism, it would be
unjust, after Baptism, to hang a thief who had committed murder before.
Consequently the severity of human legislation would be relaxed on
account of Baptism; which is undesirable. Therefore Baptism does not
remit the debt of punishment.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Ambrose, commenting on Rm. 11:29, "The gifts and the
calling of God ate without repentance," says: "The grace of God in
Baptism remits all, gratis."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[49], A[3], ad 2; Q[68], AA[1],4,5) by
Baptism a man is incorporated in the Passion and death of Christ,
according to Rm. 6:8: "If we be dead with Christ, we believe that we
shall live also together with Christ." Hence it is clear that the Passion
of Christ is communicated to every baptized person, so that he is healed
just as if he himself had suffered and died. Now Christ's Passion, as
stated above (Q[68], A[5]), is a sufficient satisfaction for all the sins
of all men. Consequently he who is baptized, is freed from the debt of
all punishment due to him for his sins, just as if he himself had offered
sufficient satisfaction for all his sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Since the pains of Christ's Passion are communicated to the
person baptized, inasmuch as he is made a member of Christ, just as if he
himself had borne those pains, his sins are set in order by the pains of
Christ's Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Water not only cleanses but also refreshes. And thus by
refreshing it signifies the remission of the debt of punishment, just as
by cleansing it signifies the washing away of guilt.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: In punishments inflicted by a human tribunal, we have to
consider not only what punishment a man deserves in respect of God, but
also to what extent he is indebted to men who are hurt and scandalized by
another's sin. Consequently, although a murderer is freed by Baptism from
his debt of punishment in respect of God, he remains, nevertheless, in
debt to men; and it is right that they should be edified at his
punishment, since they were scandalized at his sin. But the sovereign may
remit the penalty to such like out of kindness.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Baptism should take away the penalties of sin that belong to this
life?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that Baptism should take away the penalties of sin that
belong to this life. For as the Apostle says (Rm. 5:15), the gift of
Christ is farther-reaching than the sin of Adam. But through Adam's sin,
as the Apostle says (Rm. 5:12), "death entered into this world," and,
consequently, all the other penalties of the present life. Much more,
therefore, should man be freed from the penalties of the present life, by
the gift of Christ which is received in Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Baptism takes away the guilt of both original and actual
sin. Now it takes away the guilt of actual sin in such a way as to free
man from all debt of punishment resulting therefrom. Therefore it also
frees man from the penalties of the present life, which are a punishment
of original sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, if the cause be removed, the effect is removed. But the
cause of these penalties is original sin, which is taken away by Baptism.
Therefore such like penalties should not remain.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, on Rm. 6:6, "that the body of sin may be destroyed," a
gloss says: "The effect of Baptism is that the old man is crucified, and
the body of sin destroyed, not as though the living flesh of man were
delivered by the destruction of that concupiscence with which it has been
bespattered from its birth; but that it may not hurt him, when dead,
though it was in him when he was born." Therefore for the same reason
neither are the other penalties taken away by Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[3] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Baptism has the power to take away the penalties of the
present life yet it does not take them away during the present life, but
by its power they will be taken away from the just in the resurrection
when "this mortal hath put on immortality" (1 Cor. 15:54). And this is
reasonable. First, because, by Baptism, man is incorporated in Christ,
and is made His member, as stated above (A[3]; Q[68], A[5]). Consequently
it is fitting that what takes place in the Head should take place also in
the member incorporated. Now, from the very beginning of His conception
Christ was "full of grace and truth," yet He had a passible body, which
through His Passion and death was raised up to a life of glory.
Wherefore a Christian receives grace in Baptism, as to his soul; but he
retains a passible body, so that he may suffer for Christ therein: yet at
length he will be raised up to a life of impassibility. Hence the Apostle
says (Rm. 8:11): "He that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall
quicken also our [Vulg.: 'your'] mortal bodies, because of His Spirit
that dwelleth in us [Vulg.: 'you']": and further on in the same chapter
(Rm. 8:17): "Heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if
we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified with Him."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[3] Body Para. 2/3
Secondly, this is suitable for our spiritual training: namely, in order
that, by fighting against concupiscence and other defects to which he is
subject, man may receive the crown of victory. Wherefore on Rm. 6:6,
"that the body of sin may be destroyed," a gloss says: "If a man after
Baptism live in the flesh, he has concupiscence to fight against, and to
conquer by God's help." In sign of which it is written (Judges 3:1,2):
"These are the nations which the Lord left, that by them He might
instruct Israel . . . that afterwards their children might learn to fight
with their enemies, and to be trained up to war."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[3] Body Para. 3/3
Thirdly, this was suitable, lest men might seek to be baptized for the
sake of impassibility in the present life, and not for the sake of the
glory of life eternal. Wherefore the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:19): "If in
this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As a gloss says on Rm. 6:6, "that we may serve sin no
longer---Like a man who, having captured a redoubtable enemy, slays him
not forthwith, but suffers him to live for a little time in shame and
suffering; so did Christ first of all fetter our punishment, but at a
future time He will destroy it."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As the gloss says on the same passage (cf. ad 1), "the
punishment of sin is twofold, the punishment of hell, and temporal
punishment. Christ entirely abolished the punishment of hell, so that
those who are baptized and truly repent, should not be subject to it. He
did not, however, altogether abolish temporal punishment yet awhile; for
hunger, thirst, and death still remain. But He overthrew its kingdom and
power" in the sense that man should no longer be in fear of them: "and at
length He will altogether exterminate it at the last day."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As we stated in the FS, Q[81], A[1]; FS, Q[82], A[1], ad 2
original sin spread in this way, that at first the person infected the
nature, and afterwards the nature infected the person. Whereas Christ in
reverse order at first repairs what regards the person, and afterwards
will simultaneously repair what pertains to the nature in all men.
Consequently by Baptism He takes away from man forthwith the guilt of
original sin and the punishment of being deprived of the heavenly vision.
But the penalties of the present life, such as death, hunger, thirst, and
the like, pertain to the nature, from the principles of which they arise,
inasmuch as it is deprived of original justice. Therefore these defects
will not be taken away until the ultimate restoration of nature through
the glorious resurrection.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that grace and virtues are not bestowed on man by
Baptism. Because, as stated above (Q[62], A[1], ad 1), the sacraments of
the New Law "effect what they signify." But the baptismal cleansing
signifies the cleansing of the soul from guilt, and not the fashioning of
the soul with grace and virtues. Therefore it seems that grace and
virtues are not bestowed on man by Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, one does not need to receive what one has already
acquired. But some approach Baptism who have already grace and virtues:
thus we read (Acts 10:1,2): "There was a certain man in Cesarea, named
Cornelius, a centurion of that which is called the Italian band, a
religious man and fearing God"; who, nevertheless, was afterwards
baptized by Peter. Therefore grace and virtues are not bestowed by
Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, virtue is a habit: which is defined as a "quality not
easily removed, by which one may act easily and pleasurably." But after
Baptism man retains proneness to evil which removes virtue; and
experiences difficulty in doing good, in which the act of virtue
consists. Therefore man does not acquire grace and virtue in Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Titus 3:5,6): "He saved us by the
laver of regeneration," i.e. by Baptism, "and renovation of the Holy
Ghost, Whom He hath poured forth upon us abundantly," i.e. "unto the
remission of sins and the fulness of virtues," as a gloss expounds.
Therefore the grace of the Holy Ghost and the fulness of virtues are
given in Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As Augustine says in the book on Infant Baptism (De Pecc.
Merit. et Remiss. i) "the effect of Baptism is that the baptized are
incorporated in Christ as His members." Now the fulness of grace and
virtues flows from Christ the Head to all His members, according to Jn.
1:16: "Of His fulness we all have received." Hence it is clear that man
receives grace and virtues in Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As the baptismal water by its cleansing signifies the
washing away of guilt, and by its refreshment the remission of
punishment, so by its natural clearness it signifies the splendor of
grace and virtues.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As stated above (A[1], ad 2; Q[68], A[2]) man receives the
forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire,
explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he
receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire
punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive
grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for
Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive
a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. 22:2, "He hath
brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought
us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Difficulty in doing good and proneness to evil are in the
baptized, not through their lacking the habits of the virtues, but
through concupiscence which is not taken away in Baptism. But just as
concupiscence is diminished by Baptism, so as not to enslave us, so also
are both the aforesaid defects diminished, so that man be not overcome by
them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether certain acts of the virtues are fittingly set down as effects of
Baptism, to wit---incorporation in Christ, enlightenment, and
fruitfulness?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that certain acts of the virtues are unfittingly set
down as effects of Baptism, to wit---"incorporation in Christ,
enlightenment, and fruitfulness." For Baptism is not given to an adult,
except he believe; according to Mk. 16:16: "He that believeth and is
baptized, shall be saved." But it is by faith that man is incorporated in
Christ, according to Eph. 3:17: "That Christ may dwell by faith in your
hearts." Therefore no one is baptized except he be already incorporated
in Christ. Therefore incorporation with Christ is not the effect of
Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, enlightenment is caused by teaching, according to Eph.
3:8,9: "To me the least of all the saints, is given this grace . . . to
enlighten all men," etc. But teaching by the catechism precedes Baptism.
Therefore it is not the effect of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, fruitfulness pertains to active generation. But a man is
regenerated spiritually by Baptism. Therefore fruitfulness is not an
effect of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says in the book on Infant Baptism (De Pecc.
Merit. et Remiss. i) that "the effect of Baptism is that the baptized are
incorporated in Christ." And Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. ii) ascribes
enlightenment to Baptism. And on Ps. 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the
water of refreshment," a gloss says that "the sinner's soul, sterilized
by drought, is made fruitful by Baptism."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, By Baptism man is born again unto the spiritual life,
which is proper to the faithful of Christ, as the Apostle says (Gal.
2:20): "And that I live now in the flesh; I live in the faith of the Son
of God." Now life is only in those members that are united to the head,
from which they derive sense and movement. And therefore it follows of
necessity that by Baptism man is incorporated in Christ, as one of His
members. Again, just as the members derive sense and movement from the
material head, so from their spiritual Head, i.e. Christ, do His members
derive spiritual sense consisting in the knowledge Of truth, and
spiritual movement which results from the instinct of grace. Hence it is
written (Jn. 1:14,16): "We have seen Him . . . full of grace and truth;
and of His fulness we all have received." And it follows from this that
the baptized are enlightened by Christ as to the knowledge of truth, and
made fruitful by Him with the fruitfulness of good works by the infusion
of grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Adults who already believe in Christ are incorporated in
Him mentally. But afterwards, when they are baptized, they are
incorporated in Him, corporally, as it were, i.e. by the visible
sacrament; without the desire of which they could not have been
incorporated in Him even mentally.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The teacher enlightens outwardly and ministerially by
catechizing: but God enlightens the baptized inwardly, by preparing their
hearts for the reception of the doctrines of truth, according to Jn.
6:45: "It is written in the prophets . . . They shall all be taught of
God."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The fruitfulness which i ascribed as an effect of Baptism
is that by which man brings forth good works; not that by which he begets
others in Christ, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 4:15): "In Christ Jesus by
the Gospel I have begotten you."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether children receive grace and virtue in Baptism?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that children do not receive grace and virtues in
Baptism. For grace and virtues are not possessed without faith and
charity. But faith, as Augustine says (Ep. xcviii), "depends on the will
of the believer": and in like manner charity depends on the will of the
lover. Now children have not the use of the will, and consequently they
have neither faith nor charity. Therefore children do not receive grace
and virtues in Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, on Jn. 14:12, "Greater than these shall he do,"
Augustine says that in order for the ungodly to be made righteous "Christ
worketh in him, but not without him." But a child, through not having the
use of free-will, does not co-operate with Christ unto its justification:
indeed at times it does its best to resist. Therefore it is not justified
by grace and virtues.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it is written (Rm. 4:5): "To him that worketh not, yet
believing in Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reputed to
justice according to the purpose of the grace of God." But a child
believeth not "in Him that justifieth the ungodly." Therefore a child
receives neither sanctifying grace nor virtues.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, what is done with a carnal intention does not seem to
have a spiritual effect. But sometimes children are taken to Baptism
with a carnal intention, to wit, that their bodies may be healed.
Therefore they do not receive the spiritual effect consisting in grace
and virtue.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Enchiridion lii): "When little children
are baptized, they die to that sin which they contracted in birth: so
that to them also may be applied the words: 'We are buried together with
Him by Baptism unto death'": (and he continues thus) "'that as Christ is
risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in
newness of life.'" Now newness of life is through grace and virtues.
Therefore children receive grace and virtues in Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Some of the early writers held that children do not
receive grace and virtues in Baptism, but that they receive the imprint
of the character of Christ, by the power of which they receive grace and
virtue when they arrive at the perfect age. But this is evidently false,
for two reasons. First, because children, like adults, are made members
of Christ in Baptism; hence they must, of necessity, receive an influx of
grace and virtues from the Head. Secondly, because, if this were true,
children that die after Baptism, would not come to eternal life; since
according to Rm. 6:23, "the grace of God is life everlasting." And
consequently Baptism would not have profited them unto salvation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] Body Para. 2/2
Now the source of their error was that they did not recognize the
distinction between habit and act. And so, seeing children to be
incapable of acts of virtue, they thought that they had no virtues at all
after Baptism. But this inability of children to act is not due to the
absence of habits, but to an impediment on the part of the body: thus
also when a man is asleep, though he may have the habits of virtue, yet
is he hindered from virtuous acts through being asleep.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Faith and charity depend on man's will, yet so that the
habits of these and other virtues require the power of the will which is
in children; whereas acts of virtue require an act of the will, which is
not in children. In this sense Augustine says in the book on Infant
Baptism (Ep. xcviii): "The little child is made a believer, not as yet by
that faith which depends on the will of the believer, but by the
sacrament of faith itself," which causes the habit of faith.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says in his book on Charity (Ep. Joan. ad
Parth. iii), "no man is born of water and the Holy Ghost unwillingly
which is to be understood not of little children but of adults." In like
manner we are to understand as applying to adults, that man "without
himself is not justified by Christ." Moreover, if little children who are
about to be baptized resist as much as they can, "this is not imputed to
them, since so little do they know what they do, that they seem not to do
it at all": as Augustine says in a book on the Presence of God, addressed
to Dardanus (Ep. clxxxvii).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Augustine says (Serm. clxxvi): "Mother Church lends
other feet to the little children that they may come; another heart that
they may believe; another tongue that they may confess." So that children
believe, not by their own act, but by the faith of the Church, which is
applied to them: by the power of which faith, grace and virtues are
bestowed on them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[6] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The carnal intention of those who take children to be
baptized does not hurt the latter, as neither does one's sin hurt
another, unless he consent. Hence Augustine says in his letter to
Boniface (Ep. xcviii): "Be not disturbed because some bring children to
be baptized, not in the hope that they may be born again to eternal life
by the spiritual grace, but because they think it to be a remedy whereby
they may preserve or recover health. For they are not deprived of
regeneration, through not being brought for this intention."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the effect of Baptism is to open the gates of the heavenly
kingdom?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that it is not the effect of Baptism, to open the gates
of the heavenly kingdom. For what is already opened needs no opening. But
the gates of the heavenly kingdom were opened by Christ's Passion: hence
it is written (Apoc. 4:1): "After these things I looked and behold (a
great) door was opened in heaven." Therefore it is not the effect of
Baptism, to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Baptism has had its effects ever since it was
instituted. But some were baptized with Christ's Baptism, before His
Passion, according to Jn. 3:22,26: and if they had died then, the gates
of the heavenly kingdom would not have been opened to them, since none
entered therein before Christ, according to Mic. 2:13: "He went up
[Vulg.: 'shall go up'] that shall open the way before them." Therefore it
is not the effect of Baptism, to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the baptized are still subject to death and the other
penalties of the present life, as stated above (A[3]). But entrance to
the heavenly kingdom is opened to none that are subject to punishment: as
is clear in regard to those who are in purgatory. Therefore it is not the
effect of Baptism, to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, on Lk. 3:21, "Heaven was opened," the gloss of Bede
says: "We see here the power of Baptism; from which when a man comes
forth, the gates of the heavenly kingdom are opened unto him."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[7] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, To open the gates of the heavenly kingdom is to remove
the obstacle that prevents one from entering therein. Now this obstacle
is guilt and the debt of punishment. But it has been shown above (AA[1]
,2) that all guilt and also all debt of punishment are taken away by
Baptism. It follows, therefore, that the effect of Baptism is to open the
gates of the heavenly kingdom.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Baptism opens the gates of the heavenly kingdom to the
baptized in so far as it incorporates them in the Passion of Christ, by
applying its power to man.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: When Christ's Passion was not as yet consummated actually
but only in the faith of believers, Baptism proportionately caused the
gates to be opened, not in fact but in hope. For the baptized who died
then looked forward, with a sure hope, to enter the heavenly kingdom.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The baptized are subject to death and the penalties of the
present life, not by reason of a personal debt of punishment but by
reason of the state of their nature. And therefore this is no bar to
their entrance to the heavenly kingdom, when death severs the soul from
the body; since they have paid, as it were, the debt of nature.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Baptism has an equal effect in all?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that Baptism has not an equal effect in all. For the
effect of Baptism is to remove guilt. But in some it takes away more sins
than in others; for in children it takes away only original sins, whereas
in adults it takes away actual sins, in some many, in others few.
Therefore Baptism has not an equal effect in all.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism. But
some, after Baptism, seem to have more grace and more perfect virtue than
others who have been baptized. Therefore Baptism has not an equal effect
in all.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, nature is perfected by grace, as matter by form. But a
form is received into matter according to its capacity. Therefore, since
some of the baptized, even children, have greater capacity for natural
gifts than others have, it seems that some receive greater grace than
others.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, in Baptism some receive not only spiritual, but also
bodily health; thus Constantine was cleansed in Baptism from leprosy. But
all the infirm do not receive bodily health in Baptism. Therefore it has
not an equal effect in all.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Eph. 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." But
a uniform cause has a uniform effect. Therefore Baptism has an equal
effect in all.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The effect of Baptism is twofold, the essential effect,
and the accidental. The essential effect of Baptism is that for which
Baptism was instituted, namely, the begetting of men unto spiritual life.
Therefore, since all children are equally disposed to Baptism, because
they are baptized not in their own faith, but in that of the Church, they
all receive an equal effect in Baptism. Whereas adults, who approach
Baptism in their own faith, are not equally disposed to Baptism; for some
approach thereto with greater, some with less, devotion. And therefore
some receive a greater, some a smaller share of the grace of newness;
just as from the same fire, he receives more heat who approaches nearest
to it, although the fire, as far as it is concerned, sends forth its heat
equally to all.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] Body Para. 2/2
But the accidental effect of Baptism, is that to which Baptism is not
ordained, but which the Divine power produces miraculously in Baptism:
thus on Rm. 6:6, "that we may serve sin no longer," a gloss says: "this
is not bestowed in Baptism, save by an ineffable miracle of the Creator,
so that the law of sin, which is in our members, be absolutely
destroyed." And such like effects are not equally received by all the
baptized, even if they approach with equal devotion: but they are
bestowed according to the ordering of Divine providence.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The least baptismal grace suffices to blot out all sins.
Wherefore that in some more sins are loosed than in others is not due to
the greater efficacy of Baptism, but to the condition of the recipient:
for in each one it looses whatever it finds.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: That greater or lesser grace appears in the baptized, may
occur in two ways. First, because one receives greater grace in Baptism
than another, on account of his greater devotion, as stated above.
Secondly, because, though they receive equal grace, they do not make an
equal use of it, but one applies himself more to advance therein, while
another by his negligence baffles grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The various degrees of capacity in men arise, not from a
variety in the mind which is renewed by Baptism (since all men, being of
one species, are of one form), but from the diversity of bodies. But it
is otherwise with the angels, who differ in species. And therefore
gratuitous gifts are bestowed on the angels according to their diverse
capacity for natural gifts, but not on men.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[8] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Bodily health is not the essential effect of Baptism, but a
miraculous work of Divine providence.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[9] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether insincerity hinders the effect of Baptism?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[9] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that insincerity does not hinder the effect of Baptism.
For the Apostle says (Gal. 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized
in Christ Jesus, have put on Christ." But all that receive the Baptism of
Christ, are baptized in Christ. Therefore they all put on Christ: and
this is to receive the effect of Baptism. Consequently insincerity does
not hinder the effect of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[9] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the Divine power which can change man's will to that
which is better, works in Baptism. But the effect of the efficient cause
cannot be hindered by that which can be removed by that cause. Therefore
insincerity cannot hinder the effect of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[9] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the effect of Baptism is grace, to which sin is in
opposition. But many other sins are more grievous than insincerity, which
are not said to hinder the effect of Baptism. Therefore neither does
insincerity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[9] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Wis. 1:5): "The Holy Spirit of
discipline will flee from the deceitful." But the effect of Baptism is
from the Holy Ghost. Therefore insincerity hinders the effect of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[9] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii), "God does not
compel man to be righteous." Consequently in order that a man be
justified by Baptism, his will must needs embrace both Baptism and the
baptismal effect. Now, a man is said to be insincere by reason of his
will being in contradiction with either Baptism or its effect. For,
according to Augustine (De Bapt. cont. Donat. vii), a man is said to be
insincere, in four ways: first, because he does not believe, whereas
Baptism is the sacrament of Faith; secondly, through scorning the
sacrament itself; thirdly, through observing a rite which differs from
that prescribed by the Church in conferring the sacrament; fourthly,
through approaching the sacrament without devotion. Wherefore it is
manifest that insincerity hinders the effect of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: "To be baptized in Christ," may be taken in two ways.
First, "in Christ," i.e. "in conformity with Christ." And thus whoever is
baptized in Christ so as to be conformed to Him by Faith and Charity,
puts on Christ by grace. Secondly, a man is said to be baptized in
Christ, in so far as he receives Christ's sacrament. And thus all put on
Christ, through being configured to Him by the character, but not through
being conformed to Him by grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[9] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: When God changes man's will from evil to good, man does not
approach with insincerity. But God does not always do this. Nor is this
the purpose of the sacrament, that an insincere man be made sincere; but
that he who comes in sincerity, be justified.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[9] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: A man is said to be insincere who makes a show of willing
what he wills not. Now whoever approaches Baptism, by that very fact
makes a show of having right faith in Christ, of veneration for this
sacrament, and of wishing to conform to the Church, and to renounce sin.
Consequently, to whatever sin a man wishes to cleave, if he approach
Baptism, he approaches insincerely, which is the same as to approach
without devotion. But this must be understood of mortal sin, which is in
opposition to grace: but not of venial sin. Consequently, here
insincerity includes, in a way, every sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[10] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Baptism produces its effect when the insincerity ceases?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[10] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that Baptism does not produce its effect, when the
insincerity ceases. For a dead work, which is void of charity, can never
come to life. But he who approaches Baptism insincerely, receives the
sacrament without charity. Therefore it can never come to life so as to
bestow grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[10] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, insincerity seems to be stronger than Baptism, because
it hinders its effect. But the stronger is not removed by the weaker.
Therefore the sin of insincerity cannot be taken away by Baptism which
has been hindered by insincerity. And thus Baptism will not receive its
full effect, which is the remission of all sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[10] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it may happen that a man approach Baptism insincerely,
and afterwards commit a number of sins. And yet these sins will not be
taken away by Baptism; because Baptism washes away past, not future,
sins. Such a Baptism, therefore, will never have its effect, which is the
remission of all sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[10] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Bapt. cont. Donat. i): "Then does
Baptism begin to have its salutary effect, when truthful confession takes
the place of that insincerity which hindered sins from being washed away,
so long as the heart persisted in malice and sacrilege."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[10] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[66], A[9]), Baptism is a spiritual
regeneration. Now when a thing is generated, it receives together with
the form, the form's effect, unless there be an obstacle; and when this
is removed, the form of the thing generated produces its effect: thus at
the same time as a weighty body is generated, it has a downward movement,
unless something prevent this; and when the obstacle is removed, it
begins forthwith to move downwards. In like manner when a man is
baptized, he receives the character, which is like a form; and he
receives in consequence its proper effect, which is grace whereby all his
sins are remitted. But this effect is sometimes hindered by insincerity.
Wherefore, when this obstacle is removed by Penance, Baptism forthwith
produces its effect.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The sacrament of Baptism is the work of God, not of man.
Consequently, it is not dead in the man, who being insincere, is baptized
without charity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[10] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Insincerity is not removed by Baptism but by Penance: and
when it is removed, Baptism takes away all guilt, and all debt of
punishment due to sins, whether committed before Baptism, or even
co-existent with Baptism. Hence Augustine says (De Bapt. cont. Donat.
i): "Yesterday is blotted out, and whatever remains over and above, even
the very last hour and moment preceding Baptism, the very moment of
Baptism. But from that moment forward he is bound by his obligations."
And so both Baptism and Penance concur in producing the effect of
Baptism, but Baptism as the direct efficient cause, Penance as the
indirect cause, i.e. as removing the obstacle.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[69] A[10] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The effect of Baptism is to take away not future, but
present and past sins. And consequently, when the insincerity passes
away, subsequent sins are indeed remitted, but by Penance, not by
Baptism. Wherefore they are not remitted, like the sins which preceded
Baptism, as to the whole debt of punishment.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] Out. Para. 1/2
OF CIRCUMCISION (FOUR ARTICLES)
We have now to consider things that are preparatory to Baptism: and (1)
that which preceded Baptism, viz. Circumcision, (2) those which accompany
Baptism, viz. Catechism and Exorcism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] Out. Para. 2/2
Concerning the first there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether circumcision was a preparation for, and a figure of, Baptism?
(2) Its institution;
(3) Its rite;
(4) Its effect.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether circumcision was a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that circumcision was not a preparation for, and a
figure of Baptism. For every figure has some likeness to that which it
foreshadows. But circumcision has no likeness to Baptism. Therefore it
seems that it was not a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the Apostle, speaking of the Fathers of old, says (1
Cor. 10:2), that "all were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea": but
not that they were baptized in circumcision. Therefore the protecting
pillar of a cloud, and the crossing of the Red Sea, rather than
circumcision, were a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it was stated above (Q[38], AA[1],3) that the baptism of
John was a preparation for Christ's. Consequently, if circumcision was a
preparation for, and a figure of Christ's Baptism, it seems that John's
baptism was superfluous: which is unseemly. Therefore circumcision was
not a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Col. 2:11,12): "You are circumcised
with circumcision, not made by hand in despoiling the body of the flesh,
but in the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in Baptism."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Baptism is called the Sacrament of Faith; in so far, to
wit, as in Baptism man makes a profession of faith, and by Baptism is
aggregated to the congregation of the faithful. Now our faith is the same
as that of the Fathers of old, according to the Apostle (2 Cor. 4:13):
"Having the same spirit of faith . . . we . . . believe." But
circumcision was a protestation of faith; wherefore by circumcision also
men of old were aggregated to the body of the faithful. Consequently, it
is manifest that circumcision was a preparation for Baptism and a figure
thereof, forasmuch as "all things happened" to the Fathers of old "in
figure" (1 Cor. 10:11); just as their faith regarded things to come.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Circumcision was like Baptism as to the spiritual effect of
the latter. For just as circumcision removed a carnal pellicule, so
Baptism despoils man of carnal behavior.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The protecting pillar of cloud and the crossing of the Red
Sea were indeed figures of our Baptism, whereby we are born again of
water, signified by the Red Sea; and of the Holy Ghost, signified by the
pillar of cloud: yet man did not make, by means of these, a profession of
faith, as by circumcision; so that these two things were figures but not
sacraments. But circumcision was a sacrament, and a preparation for
Baptism; although less clearly figurative of Baptism, as to externals,
than the aforesaid. And for this reason the Apostle mentions them rather
than circumcision.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: John's baptism was a preparation for Christ's as to the act
done: but circumcision, as to the profession of faith, which is required
in Baptism, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether circumcision was instituted in a fitting manner?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that circumcision was instituted in an unfitting manner.
For as stated above (A[1]) a profession of faith was made in
circumcision. But none could ever be delivered from the first man's sin,
except by faith in Christ's Passion, according to Rm. 3:25: "Whom God
hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood."
Therefore circumcision should have been instituted forthwith after the
first man's sin, and not at the time of Abraham.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, in circumcision man made profession of keeping the Old
Law, just as in Baptism he makes profession of keeping the New Law;
wherefore the Apostle says (Gal. 5:3): "I testify . . . to every man
circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law." But the
observance of the Law was not promulgated at the time of Abraham, but
rather at the time of Moses. Therefore it was unfitting for circumcision
to be instituted at the time of Abraham
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, circumcision was a figure of, and a preparation for,
Baptism. But Baptism is offered to all nations, according to Mt. 28:19:
"Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them." Therefore
circumcision should have been instituted as binding, not the Jews only,
but also all nations.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, carnal circumcision should correspond to spiritual
circumcision, as the shadow to the reality. But spiritual circumcision
which is of Christ, regards indifferently both sexes, since "in Christ
Jesus there is neither male nor female," as is written Col. 3 [*Gal.
3:28]. Therefore the institution of circumcision which concerns only
males, was unfitting.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, We read (Gn. 17) that circumcision was instituted by
God, Whose "works are perfect" (Dt. 32:4).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]) circumcision was a preparation for
Baptism, inasmuch as it was a profession of faith in Christ, which we
also profess in Baptism. Now among the Fathers of old, Abraham was the
first to receive the promise of the future birth of Christ, when it was
said to him: "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed"
(Gn. 22:18). Moreover, he was the first to cut himself off from the
society of unbelievers, in accordance with the commandment of the Lord,
Who said to him (Gn. 13:1): "Go forth out of thy country and from thy
kindred." Therefore circumcision was fittingly instituted in the person
of Abraham.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Immediately after the sin of our first parent, on account
of the knowledge possessed by Adam, who was fully instructed about Divine
things, both faith and natural reason flourished in man to such an
extent, that there was no need for any signs of faith and salvation to be
prescribed to him, but each one was wont to make protestation of his
faith, by outward signs of his profession, according as he thought best.
But about the time of Abraham faith was on the wane, many being given
over to idolatry. Moreover, by the growth of carnal concupiscence natural
reason was clouded even in regard to sins against nature. And therefore
it was fitting that then, and not before, circumcision should be
instituted, as a profession of faith and a remedy against carnal
concupiscence.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The observance of the Law was not to be promulgated until
the people were already gathered together: because the law is ordained to
the public good, as we have stated in the FS, Q[90], A[2]. Now it
behooved the body of the faithful to be gathered together by a sensible
sign, which is necessary in order that men be united together in any
religion, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix). Consequently, it was
necessary for circumcision to be instituted before the giving of the Law.
Those Fathers, however, who lived before the Law, taught their families
concerning Divine things by way of paternal admonition. Hence the Lord
said of Abraham (Gn. 18:19): "I know that he will command his children,
and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Baptism contains in itself the perfection of salvation, to
which God calls all men, according to 1 Tim. 2:4: "Who will have all men
to be saved." Wherefore Baptism is offered to all nations. On the other
hand circumcision did not contain the perfection of salvation, but
signified it as to be achieved by Christ, Who was to be born of the
Jewish nation. For this reason circumcision was given to that nation
alone.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The institution of circumcision is as a sign of Abraham's
faith, who believed that himself would be the father of Christ Who was
promised to him: and for this reason it was suitable that it should be
for males only. Again, original sin, against which circumcision was
specially ordained, is contracted from the father, not from the mother,
as was stated in the FS, Q[81], A[5]. But Baptism contains the power of
Christ, Who is the universal cause of salvation for all, and is "The
Remission of all sins" (Post-Communion, Tuesday in Whitweek).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the rite of circumcision was fitting?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the rite of circumcision was unfitting. For
circumcision, as stated above (AA[1],2), was a profession of faith. But
faith is in the apprehensive power, whose operations appear mostly in the
head. Therefore the sign of circumcision should have been conferred on
the head rather than on the virile member.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, in the sacraments we make use of such things as are in
more frequent use; for instance, water, which is used for washing, and
bread, which we use for nourishment. But, in cutting, we use an iron
knife more commonly than a stone knife. Therefore circumcision should not
have been performed with a stone knife.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, just as Baptism was instituted as a remedy against
original sin, so also was circumcision, as Bede says (Hom. in Circum.).
But now Baptism is not put off until the eighth day, lest children should
be in danger of loss on account of original sin, if they should die
before being baptized. On the other hand, sometimes Baptism is put off
until after the eighth day. Therefore the eighth day should not have been
fixed for circumcision, but this day should have been anticipated, just
as sometimes it was deferred.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The aforesaid rite of circumcision is fixed by a gloss
on Rm. 4:11: "And he received the sign of circumcision."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[2]), circumcision was established, as
a sign of faith, by God "of" Whose "wisdom there is no number" (Ps.
146:5). Now to determine suitable signs is a work of wisdom.
Consequently, it must be allowed that the rite of circumcision was
fitting.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: It was fitting for circumcision to be performed on the
virile member. First, because it was a sign of that faith whereby Abraham
believed that Christ would be born of his seed. Secondly, because it was
to be a remedy against original sin, which is contracted through the act
of generation. Thirdly, because it was ordained as a remedy for carnal
concupiscence, which thrives principally in those members, by reason of
the abundance of venereal pleasure.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: A stone knife was not essential to circumcision. Wherefore
we do not find that an instrument of this description is required by any
divine precept; nor did the Jews, as a rule, make use of such a knife for
circumcision; indeed, neither do they now. Nevertheless, certain
well-known circumcisions are related as having been performed with a
stone knife, thus (Ex. 4:25) we read that "Sephora took a very sharp
stone and circumcised the foreskin of her son," and (Joshua 5:2): "Make
thee knives of stone, and circumcise the second time the children of
Israel." Which signified that spiritual circumcision would be done by
Christ, of Whom it is written (1 Cor. 10:4): "Now the rock was Christ."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 3: The eighth day was fixed for circumcision: first, because
of the mystery; since, Christ, by taking away from the elect, not only
guilt but also all penalties, will perfect the spiritual circumcision, in
the eighth age (which is the age of those that rise again), as it were,
on the eighth day. Secondly, on account of the tenderness of the infant
before the eighth day. Wherefore even in regard to other animals it is
prescribed (Lev. 22:27): "When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is
brought forth, they shall be seven days under the udder of their dam: but
the eighth day and thenceforth, they may be offered to the Lord."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 2/3
Moreover, the eighth day was necessary for the fulfilment of the
precept; so that, to wit, those who delayed beyond the eighth day,
sinned, even though it were the sabbath, according to Jn. 7:23: "(If) a
man receives circumcision on the sabbath-day, that the Law of Moses may
not be broken." But it was not necessary for the validity of the
sacrament: because if anyone delayed beyond the eighth day, they could be
circumcised afterwards.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 3/3
Some also say that in imminent danger of death, it was allowable to
anticipate the eighth day. But this cannot be proved either from the
authority of Scripture or from the custom of the Jews. Wherefore it is
better to say with Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacram. i) that the eighth day
was never anticipated for any motive, however urgent. Hence on Prov. 4:3:
"I was . . . an only son in the sight of my mother," a gloss says, that
Bersabee's other baby boy did not count because through dying before the
eighth day it received no name; and consequently neither was it
circumcised.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether circumcision bestowed sanctifying grace?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that circumcision did not bestow sanctifying grace. For
the Apostle says (Gal. 2:21): "If justice be by the Law, then Christ died
in vain," i.e. without cause. But circumcision was an obligation imposed
by the Law, according to Gal. 5:3: "I testify . . . to every man
circumcising himself, that ne is a debtor to do the whole law."
Therefore, if justice be by circumcision, "Christ died in vain," i.e.
without cause. But this cannot be allowed. Therefore circumcision did not
confer grace whereby the sinner is made righteous.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, before the institution of circumcision faith alone
sufficed for justification; hence Gregory says (Moral. iv): "Faith alone
did of old in behalf of infants that for which the water of Baptism
avails with us." But faith has lost nothing of its strength through the
commandment of circumcision. Therefore faith alone justified little ones,
and not circumcision.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, we read (Joshua 5:5,6) that "the people that were born
in the desert, during the forty years . . . were uncircumcised." If,
therefore, original sin was taken away by circumcision, it seems that all
who died in the desert, both little children and adults, were lost. And
the same argument avails in regard to those who died before the eighth
day, which was that of circumcision, which day could nol be anticipated,
as stated above (A[3], ad 3).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, nothing but sin closes the entrance to the heavenly
kingdom. But before the Passion the entrance to the heavenly kingdom was
closed to the circumcised. Therefore men were not justified from sin by
circumcision.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, original sin is not remitted without actual sin being
remitted also: because "it is wicked to hope for half forgiveness from
God," as Augustine says (De Vera et Falsa Poenit. ix). But we read
nowhere of circumcision as remitting actual sin. Therefore neither did it
remit original sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says, writing to Valerius in answer to Julian
(De Nup. et Concup. ii): "From the time that circumcision was instituted
among God's people, as 'a seal of the justice of the faith,' it availed
little children unto sanctification by cleansing them from the original
and bygone sin; just as Baptism also from the time of its institution
began to avail unto the renewal of man."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, All are agreed in saying that original sin was remitted
in circumcision. But some said that no grace was conferred, and that the
only effect was to remit sin. The Master holds this opinion (Sent. iv, D,
1), and in a gloss on Rm. 4:11. But this is impossible, since guilt is
not remitted except by grace, according to Rm. 3:2: "Being justified
freely by His grace," etc.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] Body Para. 2/4
Wherefore others said that grace was bestowed by circumcision, as to
that effect which is the remission of guilt, but not as to its positive
effects; lest they should be compelled to say that the grace bestowed in
circumcision sufficed for the fulfilling of the precepts of the Law, and
that, consequently, the coming of Christ was unnecessary. But neither can
this opinion stand. First, because by circumcision children. received the
power of obtaining glory at the allotted time, which is the last positive
effect of grace. Secondly, because, in the order of the formal cause,
positive effects naturally precede those that denote privation, although
it is the reverse in the order of the material cause: since a form does
not remove a privation save by informing the subject.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] Body Para. 3/4
Consequently, others said that grace was conferred in circumcision, also
as a particular positive effect consisting in being made worthy of
eternal life; but not as to all its effects, for it did not suffice for
the repression of the concupiscence of the fomes, nor again for the
fulfilment of the precepts of the Law. And this was my opinion at one
time (Sent. iv, D, 1; Q[2], A[4]). But if one consider the matter
carefully, it is clear that this is not true. Because the least grace can
resist any degree of concupiscence, and avoid every mortal sin, that is
committed in transgressing the precepts of the Law; for the smallest
degree of charity loves God more than cupidity loves "thousands of gold
and silver" (Ps. 118:72).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] Body Para. 4/4
We must say, therefore, that grace was bestowed in circumcision as to
all the effects of grace, but not as in Baptism. Because in Baptism grace
is bestowed by the very power of Baptism itself, which power Baptism has
as the instrument of Christ's Passion already consummated. Whereas
circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in
Christ's future Passion: so that the man who was circumcised, professed
to embrace that faith; whether, being an adult, he made profession for
himself, or, being a child, someone else made profession for him. Hence,
too, the Apostle says (Rm. 4:11), that Abraham "received the sign of
circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith": because, to wit,
justice was of faith signified: not of circumcision signifying. And since
Baptism operates instrumentally by the power of Christ's Passion, whereas
circumcision does not, therefore Baptism imprints a character that
incorporates man in Christ, and bestows grace more copiously than does
circumcision; since greater is the effect of a thing already present,
than of the hope thereof.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This argument would prove if justice were of circumcision
otherwise than through faith in Christ's Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Just as before the institution of circumcision, faith in
Christ to come justified both children and adults, so, too, after its
institution. But before, there was no need of a sign expressive of this
faith; because as yet believers had not begun to be united together apart
from unbelievers for the worship of one God. It is probable, however,
that parents who were believers offered up some prayers to God for their
children, especially if these were in any danger. Or bestowed some
blessing on them, as a "seal of faith"; just as the adults offered
prayers and sacrifices for themselves.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: There was an excuse for the people in the desert failing to
fulfil the precept of circumcision, both because they knew not when the
camp was removed, and because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) they
needed no distinctive sign while they dwelt apart from other nations.
Nevertheless, as Augustine says (QQ. in Josue vi), those were guilty of
disobedience who failed to obey through contempt.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
It seems, however, that none of the uncircumcised died in the desert,
for it is written (Ps. 104:37): "There was not among their tribes one
that was feeble": and that those alone died in the desert, who had been
circumcised in Egypt. If, however, some of the uncircumcised did die
there, the same applies to them as to those who died before the
institution of circumcision. And this applies also to those children who,
at the time of the Law, died before the eighth day.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Original sin was taken away in circumcision, in regard to
the person; but on the part of the entire nature, there remained the
obstacle to the entrance of the kingdom of heaven, which obstacle was
removed by Christ's Passion. Consequently, before Christ's Passion not
even Baptism gave entrance to the kingdom. But were circumcision to avail
after Christ's Passion, it would give entrance to the kingdom.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[70] A[4] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: When adults were circumcised, they received remission not
only of original, but also of actual sin: yet not so as to be delivered
from all debt of punishment, as in Baptism, in which grace is conferred
more copiously.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE PREPARATIONS THAT ACCOMPANY BAPTISM (FOUR ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the preparations that accompany Baptism:
concerning which there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether catechism should precede Baptism?
(2) Whether exorcism should precede Baptism?
(3) Whether what is done in catechizing and exorcizing, effects
anything, or is a mere sign?
(4) Whether those who are to be baptized should be catechized or
exorcized by priests?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether catechism should precede Baptism?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that catechism should not precede Baptism. For by
Baptism men are regenerated unto the spiritual life. But man begins to
live before being taught. Therefore man should not be catechized, i.e.
taught, before being baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Baptism is given not only to adults, but also to
children, who are not capable of being taught, since they have not the
use of reason. Therefore it is absurd to catechize them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a man, when catechized, confesses his faith. Now a child
cannot confess its faith by itself, nor can anyone else in its stead;
both because no one can bind another to do anything; and because one
cannot know whether the child, having come to the right age, will give
its assent to faith. Therefore catechism should not precede Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i): "Before Baptism
man should be prepared by catechism, in order that the catechumen may
receive the rudiments of faith."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[70], A[1]), Baptism is the Sacrament
of Faith: since it is a profession of the Christian faith. Now in order
that a man receive the faith, he must be instructed therein, according to
Rm. 10:14: "How shall they believe Him, of Whom they have not heard? And
how shall they hear without a preacher?" And therefore it is fitting that
catechism should precede Baptism. Hence when our Lord bade His disciples
to baptize, He made teaching to precede Baptism, saying: "Go ye . . . and
teach all nations, baptizing them," etc.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The life of grace unto which a man is regenerated,
presupposes the life of the rational nature, in which man is capable of
receiving instruction.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Just as Mother Church, as stated above (Q[69], A[6], ad 3),
lends children another's feet that they may come, and another's heart
that they may believe, so, too, she lends them another's ears, that they
may hear, and another's mind, that through others they may be taught. And
therefore, as they are to be baptized, on the same grounds they are to be
instructed.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: He who answers in the child's stead: "I do believe," does
not foretell that the child will believe when it comes to the right age,
else he would say: "He will believe"; but in the child's stead he
professes the Church's faith which is communicated to that child, the
sacrament of which faith is bestowed on it, and to which faith he is
bound by another. For there is nothing unfitting in a person being bound
by another in things necessary for salvation. In like manner the sponsor,
in answering for the child, promises to use his endeavors that the child
may believe. This, however, would not be sufficient in the case of adults
having the use of reason.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether exorcism should precede Baptism?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that exorcism should not precede Baptism. For exorcism
is ordained against energumens or those who are possessed. But not all
are such like. Therefore exorcism should not precede Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, so long as man is a subject of sin, the devil has power
over him, according to Jn. 8:34: "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant
of sin." But sin is taken away by Baptism. Therefore men should not be
exorcized before Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Holy water was introduced in order to ward off the power
of the demons. Therefore exorcism was not needed as a further remedy.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Pope Celestine says (Epist. ad Episcop. Galliae):
"Whether children or young people approach the sacrament of regeneration,
they should not come to the fount of life before the unclean spirit has
been expelled from them by the exorcisms and breathings of the clerics."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Whoever purposes to do a work wisely, first removes the
obstacles to his work; hence it is written (Jer. 4:3): "Break up anew
your fallow ground and sow not upon thorns." Now the devil is the enemy
of man's salvation, which man acquires by Baptism; and he has a certain
power over man from the very fact that the latter is subject to original,
or even actual, sin. Consequently it is fitting that before Baptism the
demons should be cast out by exorcisms, lest they impede man's salvation.
Which expulsion is signified by the (priest) breathing (upon the person
to be baptized); while the blessing, with the imposition of hands, bars
the way against the return of him who was cast out. Then the salt which
is put in the mouth, and the anointing of the nose and ears with spittle,
signify the receiving of doctrine, as to the ears; consent thereto as to
the nose; and confession thereof, as to the mouth. And the anointing with
oil signifies man's ability to fight against the demons.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The energumens are so-called from "laboring inwardly" under
the outward operation of the devil. And though not all that approach
Baptism are troubled by him in their bodies, yet all who are not baptized
are subject to the power of the demons, at least on account of the guilt
of original sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The power of the devil in so far as he hinders man from
obtaining glory, is expelled from man by the baptismal ablution; but in
so far as he hinders man from receiving the sacrament, his power is cast
out by the exorcisms.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: Holy water is used against the assaults of demons from
without. But exorcisms are directed against those assaults of the demons
which are from within. hence those who are exorcized are called
energumens, as it were "laboring inwardly."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
Or we may say that just as Penance is given as a further remedy against
sin, because Baptism is not repeated; so Holy Water is given as a further
remedy against the assaults of demons, because the baptismal exorcisms
are not given a second time.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether what is done in the exorcism effects anything, or is a mere sign?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that what is done in the exorcism does not effect
anything, but is a mere sign. For if a child die after the exorcisms,
before being baptized, it is not saved. But the effects of what is done
in the sacraments are ordained to the salvation of man; hence it is
written (Mk. 16:16): "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."
Therefore what is done in the exorcism effects nothing, but is a mere
sign.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, nothing is required for a sacrament of the New Law, but
that it should be a sign and a cause, as stated above (Q[62], A[1]). If,
therefore, the things done in the exorcism effect anything, it seems that
each of them is a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, just as the exorcism is ordained to Baptism, so if
anything be effected in the exorcism, it is ordained to the effect of
Baptism. But disposition must needs precede the perfect form: because
form is not received save into matter already disposed. It would follow,
therefore, that none could obtain the effect of Baptism unless he were
previously exorcized; which is clearly false. Therefore what is done in
the exorcisms has no effect.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, just as some things are done in the exorcism before
Baptism, so are some things done after Baptism; for instance, the priest
anoints the baptized on the top of the head. But what is done after
Baptism seems to have no effect; for, if it had, the effect of Baptism
would be imperfect. Therefore neither have those things an effect, which
are done in exorcism before Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Symbolo I): "Little children are
breathed upon and exorcized, in order to expel from them the devil's
hostile power, which deceived man." But the Church does nothing in vain.
Therefore the effect of these breathings is that the power of the devils
is expelled.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Some say that the things done in the exorcism have no
effect, but are mere signs. But this is clearly false; since in
exorcizing, the Church uses words of command to cast out the devil's
power, for instance, when she says: "Therefore, accursed devil, go out
from him," etc.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] Body Para. 2/3
Therefore we must say that they have some effect, but, other than that
of Baptism. For Baptism gives man grace unto the full remission of sins.
But those things that are done in the exorcism remove the twofold
impediment against the reception of saving grace. Of these, one is the
outward impediment, so far as the demons strive to hinder man's
salvation. And this impediment is removed by the breathings, whereby the
demon's power is cast out, as appears from the passage quoted from
Augustine, i.e. as to the devil not placing obstacles against the
reception of the sacrament. Nevertheless, the demon's power over man
remains as to the stain of sin, and the debt of punishment, until sin be
washed away by Baptism. And in this sense Cyprian says (Epist. lxxvi):
"Know that the devil's evil power remains until the pouring of the saving
water: but in Baptism he loses it all."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] Body Para. 3/3
The other impediment is within, forasmuch as, from having contracted
original sin, man's sense is closed to the perception of the mysteries of
salvation. Hence Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i) that "by means of
the typifying spittle and the touch of the priest, the Divine wisdom and
power brings salvation to the catechumen, that his nostrils being opened
he may perceive the odor of the knowledge of God, that his ears be opened
to hear the commandments of God, that his senses be opened in his inmost
heart to respond."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: What is done in the exorcism does not take away the sin for
which man is punished after death; but only the impediments against his
receiving the remission of sin through the sacrament. Wherefore exorcism
avails a man nothing after death if he has not been baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
Praepositivus, however, says that children who die after being exorcized
but before being baptized are subjected to lesser darkness. But this does
not seem to be true: because that darkness consists in privation of the
vision of God, which cannot be greater or lesser.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: It is essential to a sacrament to produce its principal
effect, which is grace that remits sin, or supplies some defect in man.
But those things that are done in the exorcism do not effect this; they
merely remove these impediments. Consequently, they are not sacraments
but sacramentals.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: The disposition that suffices for receiving the baptismal
grace is the faith and intention, either of the one baptized, if it be an
adult, or of the Church, if it be a child. But these things that are done
in the exorcism, are directed to the removal of the impediments. And
therefore one may receive the effect of Baptism without them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
Yet they are not to be omitted save in a case of necessity. And then, if
the danger pass, they should be supplied, that uniformity in Baptism may
be observed. Nor are they supplied to no purpose after Baptism: because,
just as the effect of Baptism may be hindered before it is received, so
can it be hindered after it has been received.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Of those things that are done after Baptism in respect of
the person baptized, something is done which is not a mere sign, but
produces an effect, for instance, the anointing on the top of the head,
the effect of which is the preservation of baptismal grace. And there is
something which has no effect, but is a mere sign, for instance, the
baptized are given a white garment to signify the newness of life.
�Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it belongs to a priest to catechize and exorcize the person to be
baptized?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that it does not belong to a priest to catechize and
exorcize the person to be baptized. For it belongs to the office of
ministers to operate on the unclean, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v).
But catechumens who are instructed by catechism, and "energumens" who are
cleansed by exorcism, are counted among the unclean, as Dionysius says in
the same place. Therefore to catechize and to exorcize do not belong to
the office of the priests, but rather to that of the ministers.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, catechumens are instructed in the Faith by the Holy
Scripture which is read in the church by ministers: for just as the Old
Testament is recited by the Readers, so the New Testament is read by the
Deacons and Subdeacons. And thus it belongs to the ministers to
catechize. In like manner it belongs, seemingly, to the ministers to
exorcize. For Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred.): "The exorcist should
know the exorcisms by heart, and impose his hands on the energumens and
catechumens during the exorcism." Therefore it belongs not to the
priestly office to catechize and exorcize.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, "to catechize" is the same as "to teach," and this is
the same as "to perfect." Now this belongs to the office of a bishop, as
Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v). Therefore it does not belong to the
priestly office.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Pope Nicolas I says: "The catechizing of those who are
to be baptized can be undertaken by the priests attached to each church."
And Gregory says (Hom. xxix super Ezech.): "When priests place their
hands on believers for the grace of exorcism, what else do they but cast
out the devils?"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The minister compared to the priest, is as a secondary
and instrumental agent to the principal agent: as is implied in the very
word "minister." Now the secondary agent does nothing without the
principal agent in operating. And the more mighty the operation, so much
the mightier instruments does the principal agent require. But the
operation of the priest in conferring the sacrament itself is mightier
than in those things that are preparatory to the sacrament. And so the
highest ministers who are called deacons co-operate with the priest in
bestowing the sacraments themselves: for Isidore says (Epist. ad
Ludifred.) that "it belongs to the deacons to assist the priests in all
things that are done in Christ's sacraments, in Baptism, to wit, in the
Chrism, in the Paten and Chalice"; while the inferior ministers assist
the priest in those things which are preparatory to the sacraments: the
readers, for instance, in catechizing; the exorcists in exorcizing.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The minister's operation in regard to the unclean is
ministerial and, as it were, instrumental, but the priest's is principal.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: To readers and exorcists belongs the duty of catechizing
and exorcizing, not, indeed, principally, but as ministers of the priest
in these things.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[71] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Instruction is manifold. one leads to the embracing of the
Faith; and is ascribed by Dionysius to bishops (Eccl. Hier. ii) and can
be undertaken by any preacher, or even by any believer. Another is that
by which a man is taught the rudiments of faith, and how to comport
himself in receiving the sacraments: this belongs secondarily to the
ministers, primarily to the priests. A third is instruction in the mode
of Christian life: and this belongs to the sponsors. A fourth is the
instruction in the profound mysteries of faith, and on the perfection of
Christian life: this belongs to bishops "ex officio," in virtue of their
office.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] Out. Para. 1/1
CONFIRMATION (Q[72])
OF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION (TWELVE ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the Sacrament of Confirmation. Concerning this
there are twelve points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Confirmation is a sacrament?
(2) Its matter;
(3) Whether it is essential to the sacrament that the chrism should have
been previously consecrated by a bishop?
(4) Its form;
(5) Whether it imprints a character?
(6) Whether the character of Confirmation presupposes the character of
Baptism?
(7) Whether it bestows grace?
(8) Who is competent to receive this sacrament?
(9) In what part of the body?
(10) Whether someone is required to stand for the person to be confirmed?
(11) Whether this sacrament is given by bishops only?
(12) Of its rite.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether confirmation is a sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that Confirmation is not a sacrament. For sacraments
derive their efficacy from the Divine institution, as stated above (Q[64]
, A[2]). But we read nowhere of Confirmation being instituted by Christ.
Therefore it is not a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the sacraments of the New Law were foreshadowed in the
Old Law; thus the Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:2-4), that "all in Moses were
baptized, in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual
food, and all drank the same spiritual drink." But Confirmation was not
foreshadowed in the old Testament. Therefore it is not a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the sacraments are ordained unto man's salvation. But
man can be saved without Confirmation: since children that are baptized,
who die before being confirmed, are saved. Therefore Confirmation is not
a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, by all the sacraments of the Church, man is conformed to
Christ, Who is the Author of the sacraments. But man cannot be conformed
to Christ by Confirmation, since we read nowhere of Christ being
confirmed.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Pope Melchiades wrote to the bishops of Spain:
"Concerning the point on which you sought to be informed, i.e. whether
the imposition of the bishop's hand were a greater sacrament than
Baptism, know that each is a great sacrament."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The sacraments of the New Law are ordained unto special
effects of grace: and therefore where there is a special effect of grace,
there we find a special sacrament ordained for the purpose. But since
sensible and material things bear a likeness to things spiritual and
intelligible, from what occurs in the life of the body, we can perceive
that which is special to the spiritual life. Now it is evident that in
the life of the body a certain special perfection consists in man's
attaining to the perfect age, and being able to perform the perfect
actions of a man: hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:11): "When I became a
man, I put away the things of a child." And thence it is that besides the
movement of generation whereby man receives life of the body, there is
the movement of growth, whereby man is brought to the perfect age. So
therefore does man receive spiritual life in Baptism, which is a
spiritual regeneration: while in Confirmation man arrives at the perfect
age, as it were, of the spiritual life. Hence Pope Melchiades says: "The
Holy Ghost, Who comes down on the waters of Baptism bearing salvation in
His flight, bestows at the font, the fulness of innocence; but in
Confirmation He confers an increase of grace. In Baptism we are born
again unto life; after Baptism we are strengthened." And therefore it is
evident that Confirmation is a special sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: Concerning the institution of this sacrament there are
three opinions. Some (Alexander of Hales, Summa Theol. P. IV, Q. IX; St.
Bonaventure, Sent. iv, D, 7) have maintained that this sacrament was
instituted neither by Christ, nor by the apostles; but later in the
course of time by one of the councils. Others (Pierre de Tarentaise,
Sent. iv, D, 7) held that it was instituted by the apostles. But this
cannot be admitted; since the institution of a new sacrament belongs to
the power of excellence, which belongs to Christ alone.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
And therefore we must say that Christ instituted this sacrament not by
bestowing, but by promising it, according to Jn. 16:7: "If I go not, the
Paraclete will not come to you, but if I go, I will send Him to you." And
this was because in this sacrament the fulness of the Holy Ghost is
bestowed, which was not to be given before Christ's Resurrection and
Ascension; according to Jn. 7:39: "As yet the Spirit was not given,
because Jesus was not yet glorified."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Confirmation is the sacrament of the fulness of grace:
wherefore there could be nothing corresponding to it in the Old Law,
since "the Law brought nothing to perfection" (Heb. 7:19).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[65], A[4]), all the sacraments are in
some way necessary for salvation: but some, so that there is no salvation
without them; some as conducing to the perfection of salvation; and thus
it is that Confirmation is necessary for salvation: although salvation is
possible without it, provided it be not omitted out of contempt.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Those who receive Confirmation, which is the sacrament of
the fulness of grace, are conformed to Christ, inasmuch as from the very
first instant of His conception He was "full of grace and truth" (Jn.
1:14). This fulness was made known at His Baptism, when "the Holy Ghost
descended in a bodily shape . . . upon Him" (Lk. 3:22). Hence (Lk. 4:1)
it is written that "Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost, returned from the
Jordan." Nor was it fitting to Christ's dignity, that He, Who is the
Author of the sacraments, should receive the fulness of grace from a
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether chrism is a fitting matter for this sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that chrism is not a fitting matter for this sacrament.
For this sacrament, as stated above (A[1], ad 1), was instituted by
Christ when He promised His disciples the Holy Ghost. But He sent them
the Holy Ghost without their being anointed with chrism. Moreover, the
apostles themselves bestowed this sacrament without chrism, by the mere
imposition of hands: for it is written (Acts 8:17) that the apostles
"laid their hands upon" those who were baptized, "and they received the
Holy Ghost." Therefore chrism is not the matter of this sacrament: since
the matter is essential to the sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Confirmation perfects, in a way, the sacrament of
Baptism, as stated above (Q[65], AA[3],4): and so it ought to be
conformed to it as perfection to the thing perfected. But the matter, in
Baptism, is a simple element, viz. water. Therefore chrism, which is made
of oil and balm, is not a fitting matter for this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, oil is used as the matter of this sacrament for the
purpose of anointing. But any oil will do for anointing: for instance,
oil made from nuts, and from anything else. Therefore not only olive oil
should be used for this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, it has been stated above (Q[66], A[3]) that water is
used as the matter of Baptism, because it is easily procured everywhere.
But olive oil is not to be procured everywhere; and much less is balm.
Therefore chrism, which is made of these, is not a fitting matter for
this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory says (Registr. iv): "Let no priest dare to sign
the baptized infants on the brow with the sacred chrism." Therefore
chrism is the matter of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Chrism is the fitting matter of this sacrament. For, as
stated above (A[1]), in this sacrament the fulness of the Holy Ghost is
given for the spiritual strength which belongs to the perfect age. Now
when man comes to perfect age he begins at once to have intercourse with
others; whereas until then he lives an individual life, as it were,
confined to himself. Now the grace of the Holy Ghost is signified by oil;
hence Christ is said to be "anointed with the oil of gladness" (Ps.
44:8), by reason of His being gifted with the fulness of the Holy Ghost.
Consequently oil is a suitable matter of this sacrament. And balm is
mixed with the oil, by reason of its fragrant odor, which spreads about:
hence the Apostle says (2 Cor. 2:15): "We are the good odor of Christ,"
etc. And though many other things be fragrant, yet preference is given to
balm, because it has a special odor of its own, and because it confers
incorruptibility: hence it is written (Ecclus. 24:21): "My odor is as the
purest balm."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 1: Christ, by the power which He exercises in the sacraments,
bestowed on the apostles the reality of this sacrament, i.e. the fulness
of the Holy Ghost, without the sacrament itself, because they had
received "the first fruits of the Spirit" (Rm. 8:23). Nevertheless,
something of keeping with the matter of this sacrament was displayed to
the apostles in a sensible manner when they received the Holy Ghost. For
that the Holy Ghost came down upon them in a sensible manner under the
form of fire, refers to the same signification as oil: except in so far
as fire has an active power, while oil has a passive power, as being the
matter and incentive of fire. And this was quite fitting: for it was
through the apostles that the grace of the Holy Ghost was to flow forth
to others. Again, the Holy Ghost came down on the apostles in the shape
of a tongue. Which refers to the same signification as balm: except in so
far as the tongue communicates with others by speech, but balm, by its
odor. because, to wit, the apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost, as
teachers of the Faith; but the rest of the believers, as doing that which
gives edification to the faithful.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 2/3
In like manner, too, when the apostles imposed their hands, and when
they preached, the fulness of the Holy Ghost came down under visible
signs on the faithful, just as, at the beginning, He came down on the
apostles: hence Peter said (Acts 11:15): "When I had begun to speak, the
Holy Ghost fell upon them, as upon us also in the beginning."
Consequently there was no need for sacramental sensible matter, where God
sent sensible signs miraculously.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 3/3
However, the apostles commonly made use of chrism in bestowing the
sacrament, when such like visible signs were lacking. For Dionysius says
(Eccl. Hier. iv): "There is a certain perfecting operation which our
guides," i.e. the apostles, "call the sacrifice of Chrism."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Baptism is bestowed that spiritual life may be received
simply; wherefore simple matter is fitting to it. But this sacrament is
given that we may receive the fulness of the Holy Ghost, Whose operations
are manifold, according to Wis. 7:22, "In her is the" Holy "Spirit . . .
one, manifold"; and 1 Cor. 12:4, "There are diversities of graces, but
the same Spirit." Consequently a compound matter is appropriate to this
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: These properties of oil, by reason of which it symbolizes
the Holy Ghost, are to be found in olive oil rather than in any other
oil. In fact, the olive-tree itself, through being an evergreen,
signifies the refreshing and merciful operation of the Holy Ghost.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
Moreover, this oil is called oil properly, and is very much in use,
wherever it is to be had. And whatever other liquid is so called, derives
its name from its likeness to this oil: nor are the latter commonly used,
unless it be to supply the want of olive oil. Therefore it is that this
oil alone is used for this and certain other sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Baptism is the sacrament of absolute necessity; and so its
matter should be at hand everywhere. But it is enough that the matter of
this sacrament, which is not of such great necessity, be easily sent to
all parts of the world.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is essential to this sacrament that the chrism which is its
matter be previously consecrated by a bishop?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that it is not essential to this sacrament, that the
chrism, which is its matter, be previously consecrated by a bishop. For
Baptism which bestows full remission of sins is not less efficacious than
this sacrament. But, though the baptismal water receives a kind of
blessing before being used for Baptism; yet this is not essential to the
sacrament: since in a case of necessity it can be dispensed with.
Therefore neither is it essential to this sacrament that the chrism
should be previously consecrated by a bishop.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the same should not be consecrated twice. But the
sacramental matter is sanctified, in the very conferring of the
sacrament, by the form of words wherein the sacrament is bestowed; hence
Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.): "The word is added to the element,
and this becomes a sacrament." Therefore the chrism should not be
consecrated before this sacrament is given.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, every consecration employed in the sacraments is
ordained to the bestowal of grace. But the sensible matter composed of
oil and balm is not receptive of grace. Therefore it should not be
consecrated.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Pope Innocent I says (Ep. ad Decent.): "Priests, when
baptizing, may anoint the baptized with chrism, previously consecrated by
a bishop: but they must not sign the brow with the same oil; this belongs
to the bishop alone, when he gives the Paraclete." Now this is done in
this sacrament. Therefore it is necessary for this sacrament that its
matter be previously consecrated by a bishop.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The entire sanctification of the sacraments is derived
from Christ, as stated above (Q[64], A[3]). But it must be observed that
Christ did use certain sacraments having a corporeal matter, viz.
Baptism, and also the Eucharist. And consequently, from Christ's very act
in using them, the matter of these sacraments received a certain aptitude
to the perfection of the sacrament. Hence Chrysostom (Chromatius, In
Matth. 3:15) says that "the waters of Baptism could never wash away the
sins of believers, had they not been sanctified by contact with our
Lord's body." And again, our Lord Himself "taking bread . . . blessed . .
and in like manner the chalice" (Mt. 26:26,27; Lk. 22:19, 20). For this
reason there is no need for the matter of these sacraments to be blessed
previously, since Christ's blessing is enough. And if any blessing be
used, it belongs to the solemnity of the sacrament, not to its essence.
But Christ did not make use of visible anointings, so as not to slight
the invisible unction whereby He was "anointed above" His "fellows" (Ps.
44:8). And hence both chrism, and the holy oil, and the oil of the sick
are blessed before being put to sacramental use. This suffices for the
reply to the First Objection.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Each consecration of the chrism has not the same object.
For just as an instrument derives instrumental power in two ways, viz.
when it receives the form of an instrument, and when it is moved by the
principal agent; so too the sacramental matter needs a twofold
sanctification, by one of which it becomes fit matter for the sacrament,
while by the other it is applied to the production of the effect.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Corporeal matter is receptive of grace, not so as to be the
subject of grace, but only as the instrument of grace, as explained above
(Q[62], A[3]). And this sacramental matter is consecrated, either by
Christ, or by a bishop, who, in the Church, impersonates Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the proper form of this sacrament is: "I sign thee with the sign
of the cross," etc.?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the proper form of this sacrament is not: "I sign
thee with the sign of the cross, I confirm thee with the chrism of
salvation, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Ghost. Amen." For the use of the sacraments is derived from Christ and
the apostles. But neither did Christ institute this form, nor do we read
of the apostles making use of it. Therefore it is not the proper form of
this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, just as the sacrament is the same everywhere, so should
the form be the same: because everything has unity, just as it has being,
from its form. But this form is not used by all: for some say: "I confirm
thee with the chrism of sanctification." Therefore the above is not the
proper form of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, this sacrament should be conformed to Baptism, as the
perfect to the thing perfected, as stated above (A[2], OBJ[2]). But in
the form of Baptism no mention is made of signing the character; nor
again of the cross of Christ, though in Baptism man dies with Christ, as
the Apostle says (Rm. 6:3-8); nor of the effect which is salvation,
though Baptism is necessary for salvation. Again, in the baptismal form,
only one action is included; and the person of the baptizer is expressed
in the words: "I baptize thee, whereas the contrary is to be observed in
the above form." Therefore this is not the proper form of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Is the authority of the Church, who always uses this
form.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The above form is appropriate to this sacrament. For just
as the form of a natural thing gives it its species, so a sacramental
form should contain whatever belongs to the species of the sacrament. Now
as is evident from what has been already said (AA[1],2), in this
sacrament the Holy Ghost is given for strength in the spiritual combat.
Wherefore in this sacrament three things are necessary; and they are
contained in the above form. The first of these is the cause conferring
fulness of spiritual strength which cause is the Blessed Trinity: and
this is expressed in the words, "In the name of the Father," etc. The
second is the spiritual strength itself bestowed on man unto salvation by
the sacrament of visible matter; and this is referred to in the words, "I
confirm thee with the chrism of salvation." The third is the sign which
is given to the combatant, as in a bodily combat: thus are soldiers
marked with the sign of their leaders. And to this refer the words, "I
sign thee with the sign of the cross," in which sign, to wit, our King
triumphed (cf. Col. 2:15).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As stated above (A[2], ad 1), sometimes the effect of this
sacrament, i.e. the fulness of the Holy Ghost, was given through the
ministry of the apostles, under certain visible signs, wrought
miraculously by God, Who can bestow the sacramental effect, independently
of the sacrament. In these cases there was no need for either the matter
or the form of this sacrament. On the other hand, sometimes they bestowed
this sacrament as ministers of the sacraments. And then, they used both
matter and form according to Christ's command. For the apostles, in
conferring the sacraments, observed many things which are not handed down
in those Scriptures that are in general use. Hence Dionysius says at the
end of his treatise on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (chap. vii): "It is
not allowed to explain in writing the prayers which are used in the
sacraments, and to publish their mystical meaning, or the power which,
coming from God, gives them their efficacy; we learn these things by holy
tradition without any display,"* i.e. secretly. [*The passage quoted in
the text of the Summa differs slightly from the above, which is
translated directly from the works of Dionysius.] Hence the Apostle,
speaking of the celebration of the Eucharist, writes (1 Cor. 11:34): "The
rest I will set in order, when I come."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Holiness is the cause of salvation. Therefore it comes to
the same whether we say "chrism of salvation" or "of sanctification."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 3: Baptism is the regeneration unto the spiritual life,
whereby man lives in himself. And therefore in the baptismal form that
action alone is expressed which refers to the man to be sanctified. But
this sacrament is ordained not only to the sanctification of man in
himself, but also to strengthen him in his outward combat. Consequently
not only is mention made of interior sanctification, in the words, "I
confirm thee with the chrism of salvation": but furthermore man is signed
outwardly, as it were with the standard of the cross, unto the outward
spiritual combat; and this is signified by the words, "I sign thee with
the sign of the cross."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 2/3
But in the very word "baptize," which signifies "to cleanse," we can
understand both the matter, which is the cleansing water, and the effect,
which is salvation. Whereas these are not understood by the word
"confirm"; and consequently they had to be expressed.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 3/3
Again, it has been said above (Q[66], A[5], ad 1) that the pronoun "I"
is not necessary to the Baptismal form, because it is included in the
first person of the verb. It is, however, included in order to express
the intention. But this does not seem so necessary in Confirmation, which
is conferred only by a minister of excellence, as we shall state later on
(A[11]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the sacrament of Confirmation imprints a character?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the sacrament of Confirmation does not imprint a
character. For a character means a distinctive sign. But a man is not
distinguished from unbelievers by the sacrament of Confirmation, for this
is the effect of Baptism; nor from the rest of the faithful, because this
sacrament is ordained to the spiritual combat, which is enjoined to all
the faithful. Therefore a character is not imprinted in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it was stated above (Q[63], A[2]) that a character is a
spiritual power. Now a power must be either active or passive. But the
active power in the sacraments is conferred by the sacrament of order:
while the passive or receptive power is conferred by the sacrament of
Baptism. Therefore no character is imprinted by the sacrament of
Confirmation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, in circumcision, which is a character of the body, no
spiritual character is imprinted. But in this sacrament a character is
imprinted on the body, when the sign of the cross is signed with chrism
on man's brow. Therefore a spiritual character is not imprinted by this
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, A character is imprinted in every sacrament that is not
repeated. But this sacrament is not repeated: for Gregory II says (Ep. iv
ad Bonifac.): "As to the man who was confirmed a second time by a bishop,
such a repetition must be forbidden." Therefore a character is imprinted
in Confirmation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[63], A[2]), a character is a spiritual
power ordained to certain sacred actions. Now it has been said above
(A[1]; Q[65], A[1]) that, just as Baptism is a spiritual regeneration
unto Christian life, so also is Confirmation a certain spiritual growth
bringing man to perfect spiritual age. But it is evident, from a
comparison with the life of the body, that the action which is proper to
man immediately after birth, is different from the action which is proper
to him when he has come to perfect age. And therefore by the sacrament of
Confirmation man is given a spiritual power in respect of sacred actions
other than those in respect of which he receives power in Baptism. For in
Baptism he receives power to do those things which pertain to his own
salvation, forasmuch as he lives to himself: whereas in Confirmation he
receives power to do those things which pertain to the spiritual combat
with the enemies of the Faith. This is evident from the example of the
apostles, who, before they received the fulness of the Holy Ghost, were
in the "upper room . . . persevering . . . in prayer" (Acts 1:13,14);
whereas afterwards they went out and feared not to confess their faith in
public, even in the face of the enemies of the Christian Faith. And
therefore it is evident that a character is imprinted in the sacrament of
Confirmation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: All have to wage the spiritual combat with our invisible
enemies. But to fight against visible foes, viz. against the persecutors
of the Faith, by confessing Christ's name, belongs to the confirmed, who
have already come spiritually to the age of virility, according to 1 Jn.
2:14: "I write unto you, young men, because you are strong, and the word
of God abideth in you, and you have overcome the wicked one." And
therefore the character of Confirmation is a distinctive sign, not
between unbelievers and believers, but between those who are grown up
spiritually and those of whom it is written: "As new-born babes" (1 Pt.
2:2).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: All the sacraments are protestations of faith. Therefore
just as he who is baptized receives the power of testifying to his faith
by receiving the other sacraments; so he who is confirmed receives the
power of publicly confessing his faith by words, as it were "ex officio."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The sacraments of the Old Law are called "justice of the
flesh" (Heb. 9:10) because, to wit, they wrought nothing inwardly.
Consequently in circumcision a character was imprinted in the body only,
but not in the soul. But in Confirmation, since it is a sacrament of the
New Law, a spiritual character is imprinted at the same time, together
with the bodily character.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the character of Confirmation presupposes of necessity, the
baptismal character?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the character of Confirmation does not presuppose,
of necessity, the baptismal character. For the sacrament of Confirmation
is ordained to the public confession of the Faith of Christ. But many,
even before Baptism, have publicly confessed the Faith of Christ by
shedding their blood for the Faith. Therefore the character of
Confirmation does not presuppose the baptismal character.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is not related of the apostles that they were
baptized; especially, since it is written (Jn. 4:2) that Christ "Himself
did not baptize, but His disciples." Yet afterwards they were confirmed
by the coming of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, in like manner, others can be
confirmed before being baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it is written (Acts 10:44-48) that "while Peter was yet
speaking . . . the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word . . .
and [Vulg.: 'for'] they heard them speaking with tongues": and afterwards
"he commanded them to be baptized." Therefore others with equal reason
can be confirmed before being baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i): "Lastly the
Paraclete is given to the baptized by the imposition of the high priest's
hands, in order that the baptized may be strengthened by the Holy Ghost
so as to publish his faith."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[6] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The character of Confirmation, of necessity supposes the
baptismal character: so that, in effect, if one who is not baptized were
to be confirmed, he would receive nothing, but would have to be confirmed
again after receiving Baptism. The reason of this is that, Confirmation
is to Baptism as growth to birth, as is evident from what has been said
above (A[1]; Q[65], A[1]). Now it is clear that no one can be brought to
perfect age unless he be first born: and in like manner, unless a man be
first baptized, he cannot receive the sacrament of Confirmation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The Divine power is not confined to the sacraments. Hence
man can receive spiritual strength to confess the Faith of Christ
publicly, without receiving the sacrament of Confirmation: just as he can
also receive remission of sins without Baptism. Yet, just as none receive
the effect of Baptism without the desire of Baptism; so none receive the
effect of Confirmation, without the desire of Confirmation. And man can
have this even before receiving Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As Augustine says (Ep. cclxv), from our Lord's words, "'He
that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet' (Jn. 13:10), we gather
that Peter and Christ's other disciples had been baptized, either with
John's Baptism, as some think; or with Christ's, which is more credible.
For He did not refuse to administer Baptism, so as to have servants by
whom to baptize others."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Those who heard the preaching of Peter received the effect
of Confirmation miraculously: but not the sacrament of Confirmation. Now
it has been stated (ad 1) that the effect of Confirmation can be bestowed
on man before Baptism, whereas the sacrament cannot. For just as the
effect of Confirmation, which is spiritual strength, presupposes the
effect of Baptism, which is justification, so the sacrament of
Confirmation presupposes the sacrament of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether sanctifying grace is bestowed in this sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that sanctifying grace is not bestowed in this
sacrament. For sanctifying grace is ordained against sin. But this
sacrament, as stated above (A[6]) is given only to the baptized, who are
cleansed from sin. Therefore sanctifying grace is not bestowed in this
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, sinners especially need sanctifying grace, by which
alone can they be justified. If, therefore, sanctifying grace is bestowed
in this sacrament, it seems that it should be given to those who are in
sin. And yet this is not true.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, there can only be one species of sanctifying grace,
since it is ordained to one effect. But two forms of the same species
cannot be in the same subject. Since, therefore, man receives sanctifying
grace in Baptism, it seems that sanctifying grace is not bestowed in
Confirmation, which is given to none but the baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Episc. Hispan.): "The Holy
Ghost bestows at the font the fulness of innocence; but in Confirmation
He confers an increase of grace."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[7] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, In this sacrament, as stated above (AA[1],4), the Holy
Ghost is given to the baptized for strength: just as He was given to the
apostles on the day of Pentecost, as we read in Acts 2; and just as He
was given to the baptized by the imposition of the apostles' hands, as
related in Acts 8:17. Now it has been proved in the FP, Q[43], A[3] that
the Holy Ghost is not sent or given except with sanctifying grace.
Consequently it is evident that sanctifying grace is bestowed in this
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Sanctifying grace does indeed take away sin; but it has
other effects also, because it suffices to carry man through every step
as far as eternal life. Hence to Paul was it said (2 Cor. 12:9): "My
grace is sufficient for thee": and he says of himself (1 Cor. 15:10): "By
the grace of God I am what I am." Therefore sanctifying grace is given
not only for the remission of sin, but also for growth and stability in
righteousness. And thus is it bestowed in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Further, as appears from its very name, this sacrament is
given in order "to confirm" what it finds already there. And consequently
it should not be given to those who are not in a state of grace. For this
reason, just as it is not given to the unbaptized, so neither should it
be given to the adult sinners, except they be restored by Penance.
Wherefore was it decreed in the Council of Orleans (Can. iii) that "men
should come to Confirmation fasting; and should be admonished to confess
their sins first, so that being cleansed they may be able to receive the
gift of the Holy Ghost." And then this sacrament perfects the effects of
Penance, as of Baptism: because by the grace which he has received in
this sacrament, the penitent will obtain fuller remission of his sin. And
if any adult approach, being in a state of sin of which he is not
conscious or for which he is not perfectly contrite, he will receive the
remission of his sins through the grace bestowed in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[62], A[2]), the sacramental grace adds
to the sanctifying grace taken in its wide sense, something that produces
a special effect, and to which the sacrament is ordained. If, then, we
consider, in its wide sense, the grace bestowed in this sacrament, it
does not differ from that bestowed in Baptism, but increases what was
already there. On the other hand, if we consider it as to that which is
added over and above, then one differs in species from the other.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether this sacrament should be given to all?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that this sacrament should not be given to all. For this
sacrament is given in order to confer a certain excellence, as stated
above (A[11], ad 2). But all are not suited for that which belongs to
excellence. Therefore this sacrament should not be given to all.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, by this sacrament man advances spiritually to perfect
age. But perfect age is inconsistent with childhood. Therefore at least
it should not be given to children.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, as Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Episc. Hispan.) "after
Baptism we are strengthened for the combat." But women are incompetent to
combat, by reason of the frailty of their sex. Therefore neither should
women receive this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[8] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Episc. Hispan.): "Although
the benefit of Regeneration suffices for those who are on the point of
death, yet the graces of Confirmation are necessary for those who are to
conquer. Confirmation arms and strengthens those to whom the struggles
and combats of this world are reserved. And he who comes to die, having
kept unsullied the innocence he acquired in Baptism, is confirmed by
death; for after death he can sin no more." Therefore this sacrament
should not be given to those who are on the point of death: and so it
should not be given to all.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Acts 2:2) that the Holy Ghost in coming,
"filled the whole house," whereby the Church is signified; and afterwards
it is added that "they were all filled with the Holy Ghost." But this
sacrament is given that we may receive that fulness. Therefore it should
be given to all who belong to the Church.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[8] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), man is spiritually advanced by
this sacrament to perfect age. Now the intention of nature is that
everyone born corporally, should come to perfect age: yet this is
sometimes hindered by reason of the corruptibility of the body, which is
forestalled by death. But much more is it God's intention to bring all
things to perfection, since nature shares in this intention inasmuch as
it reflects Him: hence it is written (Dt. 32:4): "The works of God are
perfect." Now the soul, to which spiritual birth and perfect spiritual
age belong, is immortal; and just as it can in old age attain to
spiritual birth, so can it attain to perfect (spiritual) age in youth or
childhood; because the various ages of the body do not affect the soul.
Therefore this sacrament should be given to all.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This sacrament is given in order to confer a certain
excellence, not indeed, like the sacrament of order, of one man over
another, but of man in regard to himself: thus the same man, when arrived
at maturity, excels himself as he was when a boy.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As stated above, the age of the body does not affect the
soul. Consequently even in childhood man can attain to the perfection of
spiritual age, of which it is written (Wis. 4:8): "Venerable old age is
not that of long time, nor counted by the number of years." And hence it
is that many children, by reason of the strength of the Holy Ghost which
they had received, fought bravely for Christ even to the shedding of
their blood.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. i De Machab.), "in earthly
contests fitness of age, physique and rank are required; and consequently
slaves, women, old men, and boys are debarred from taking part therein.
But in the heavenly combats, the Stadium is open equally to all, to every
age, and to either sex." Again, he says (Hom. de Militia Spirit.): "In
God's eyes even women fight, for many a woman has waged the spiritual
warfare with the courage of a man. For some have rivaled men in the
courage with which they have suffered martyrdom; and some indeed have
shown themselves stronger than men." Therefore this sacrament should be
given to women.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[8] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: As we have already observed, the soul, to which spiritual
age belongs, is immortal. Wherefore this sacrament should be given to
those on the point of death, that they may be seen to be perfect at the
resurrection, according to Eph. 4:13: "Until we all meet into the unity
of faith . . . unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ." And
hence Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii), "It would be altogether
hazardous, if anyone happened to go forth from this life without being
confirmed": not that such a one would be lost, except perhaps through
contempt; but that this would be detrimental to his perfection. And
therefore even children dying after Confirmation obtain greater glory,
just as here below they receive more grace. The passage quoted is to be
taken in the sense that, with regard to the dangers of the present
combat, those who are on the point of death do not need this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[9] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether this sacrament should be given to man on the forehead?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[9] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that this sacrament should not be given to man on the
forehead. For this sacrament perfects Baptism, as stated above (Q[65],
AA[3],4). But the sacrament of Baptism is given to man over his whole
body. Therefore this sacrament should not be given on the forehead only.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[9] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, this sacrament is given for spiritual strength, as
stated above (AA[1],2,4). But spiritual strength is situated principally
in the heart. Therefore this sacrament should be given over the heart
rather than on the forehead.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[9] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, this sacrament is given to man that he may freely
confess the faith of Christ. But "with the mouth, confession is made unto
salvation," according to Rm. 10:10. Therefore this sacrament should be
given about the mouth rather than on the forehead.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[9] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i): "The baptized is
signed by the priest with chrism on the top of the head, but by the
bishop on the forehead."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[9] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (AA[1],4), in this sacrament man receives
the Holy Ghost for strength in the spiritual combat, that he may bravely
confess the Faith of Christ even in face of the enemies of that Faith.
Wherefore he is fittingly signed with the sign of the cross on the
forehead, with chrism, for two reasons. First, because he is signed with
the sign of the cross, as a soldier with the sign of his leader, which
should be evident and manifest. Now, the forehead, which is hardly ever
covered, is the most conspicuous part of the human body. Wherefore the
confirmed is anointed with chrism on the forehead, that he may show
publicly that he is a Christian: thus too the apostles after receiving
the Holy Ghost showed themselves in public, whereas before they remained
hidden in the upper room.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[9] Body Para. 2/2
Secondly, because man is hindered from freely confessing Christ's name,
by two things---by fear and by shame. Now both these things betray
themselves principally on the forehead on account of the proximity of the
imagination, and because the (vital) spirits mount directly from the
heart to the forehead: hence "those who are ashamed, blush, and those who
are afraid, pale" (Ethic. iv). And therefore man is signed with chrism,
that neither fear nor shame may hinder him from confessing the name of
Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: By baptism we are regenerated unto spiritual life, which
belongs to the whole man. But in Confirmation we are strengthened for the
combat; the sign of which should be borne on the forehead, as in a
conspicuous place.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[9] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The principle of fortitude is in the heart, but its sign
appears on the forehead: wherefore it is written (Ezech. 3:8): "Behold I
have made . . . thy forehead harder than their foreheads." Hence the
sacrament of the Eucharist, whereby man is confirmed in himself, belongs
to the heart, according to Ps. 103:15: "That bread may strengthen man's
heart." But the sacrament of Confirmation is required as a sign of
fortitude against others; and for this reason it is given on the forehead.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[9] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: This sacrament is given that we may confess freely: but not
that we may confess simply, for this is also the effect of Baptism. And
therefore it should not be given on the mouth, but on the forehead, where
appear the signs of those passions which hinder free confession.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[10] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether he who is confirmed needs one to stand* for him? [*Literally, "to
hold him"]
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[10] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that he who is confirmed needs no one to stand for him.
For this sacrament is given not only to children but also to adults. But
adults can stand for themselves. Therefore it is absurd that someone else
should stand for them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[10] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, he that belongs already to the Church, has free access
to the prince of the Church, i.e. the bishop. But this sacrament, as
stated above (A[6]), is given only to one that is baptized, who is
already a member of the Church. Therefore it seems that he should not be
brought by another to the bishop in order to receive this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[10] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, this sacrament is given for spiritual strength, which
has more vigor in men than in women, according to Prov. 31:10: "Who shall
find a valiant woman?" Therefore at least a woman should not stand for a
man in confirmation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[10] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Are the following words of Pope Innocent, which are to
be found in the Decretals (XXX, Q[4]): "If anyone raise the children of
another's marriage from the sacred font, or stand for them in
Confirmation," etc. Therefore, just as someone is required as sponsor of
one who is baptized, so is someone required to stand for him who is to be
confirmed .
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[10] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (AA[1],4,9), this sacrament is given to
man for strength in the spiritual combat. Now, just as one newly born
requires someone to teach him things pertaining to ordinary conduct,
according to Heb. 12:9: "We have had fathers of our flesh, for
instructors, and we obeyed [Vulg.: 'reverenced']" them; so they who are
chosen for the fight need instructors by whom they are informed of things
concerning the conduct of the battle, and hence in earthly wars, generals
and captains are appointed to the command of the others. For this reason
he also who receives this sacrament, has someone to stand for him, who,
as it were, has to instruct him concerning the fight.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[10] Body Para. 2/2
Likewise, since this sacrament bestows on man the perfection of
spiritual age, as stated above (AA[2],5), therefore he who approaches
this sacrament is upheld by another, as being spiritually a weakling and
a child.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Although he who is confirmed, be adult in body,
nevertheless he is not yet spiritually adult.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[10] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Though he who is baptized is made a member of the Church,
nevertheless he is not yet enrolled as a Christian soldier. And therefore
he is brought to the bishop, as to the commander of the army, by one who
is already enrolled as a Christian soldier. For one who is not yet
confirmed should not stand for another in Confirmation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[10] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: According to Col. 3 *(Gal. 3:28), "in Christ Jesus there is
neither male nor female." Consequently it matters not whether a man or a
woman stand for one who is to be confirmed.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[11] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether only a bishop can confer this sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[11] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that not only a bishop can confer this sacrament. For
Gregory (Regist. iv), writing to Bishop Januarius, says: "We hear that
some were scandalized because we forbade priests to anoint with chrism
those who have been baptized. Yet in doing this we followed the ancient
custom of our Church: but if this trouble some so very much we permit
priests, where no bishop is to be had, to anoint the baptized on the
forehead with chrism." But that which is essential to the sacraments
should not be changed for the purpose of avoiding scandal. Therefore it
seems that it is not essential to this sacrament that it be conferred by
a bishop.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[11] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the sacrament of Baptism seems to be more efficacious
than the sacrament of Confirmation: since it bestows full remission of
sins, both as to guilt and as to punishment, whereas this sacrament does
not. But a simple priest, in virtue of his office, can give the sacrament
of Baptism: and in a case of necessity anyone, even without orders, can
baptize. Therefore it is not essential to this sacrament that it be
conferred by a bishop.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[11] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the top of the head, where according to medical men the
reason is situated (i.e. the "particular reason," which is called the
"cogitative faculty"), is more noble than the forehead, which is the site
of the imagination. But a simple priest can anoint the baptized with
chrism on the top of the head. Therefore much more can he anoint them
with chrism on the forehead, which belongs to this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[11] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Pope Eusebius (Ep. iii ad Ep. Tusc.) says: "The
sacrament of the imposition of the hand should be held in great
veneration, and can be given by none but the high priests. Nor is it
related or known to have been conf erred in apostolic times by others
than the apostles themselves; nor can it ever be either licitly or
validly performed by others than those who stand in their place. And if
anyone presume to do otherwise, it must be considered null and void; nor
will such a thing ever be counted among the sacraments of the Church."
Therefore it is essential to this sacrament, which is called "the
sacrament of the imposition of the hand," that it be given by a bishop.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[11] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, In every work the final completion is reserved to the
supreme act or power; thus the preparation of the matter belongs to the
lower craftsmen, the higher gives the form, but the highest of all is he
to whom pertains the use, which is the end of things made by art; thus
also the letter which is written by the clerk, is signed by his employer.
Now the faithful of Christ are a Divine work, according to 1 Cor. 3:9:
"You are God's building"; and they are also "an epistle," as it were,
"written with the Spirit of God," according to 2 Cor. 3:2,3. And this
sacrament of Confirmation is, as it were, the final completion of the
sacrament of Baptism; in the sense that by Baptism man is built up into a
spiritual dwelling, and is written like a spiritual letter; whereas by
the sacrament of Confirmation, like a house already built, he is
consecrated as a temple of the Holy Ghost, and as a letter already
written, is signed with the sign of the cross. Therefore the conferring
of this sacrament is reserved to bishops, who possess supreme power in
the Church: just as in the primitive Church, the fulness of the Holy
Ghost was given by the apostles, in whose place the bishops stand (Acts
8). Hence Pope Urban I says: "All the faithful should. after Baptism,
receive the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the bishop's hand, that they
may become perfect Christians."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[11] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The Pope has the plenitude of power in the Church, in
virtue of which he can commit to certain lower orders things that belong
to the higher orders: thus he allows priests to confer minor orders,
which belong to the episcopal power. And in virtue of this fulness of
power the Pope, Blessed Gregory, allowed simple priests to confer this
sacrament, so long as the scandal was ended.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[11] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The sacrament of Baptism is more efficacious than this
sacrament as to the removal of evil, since it is a spiritual birth, that
consists in change from non-being to being. But this sacrament is more
efficacious for progress in good; since it is a spiritual growth from
imperfect being to perfect being. And hence this sacrament is committed
to a more worthy minister.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[11] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i), "the baptized is
signed by the priest with chrism on the top of the head, but by the
bishop on the forehead; that the former unction may symbolize the descent
of the Holy Ghost on hint, in order to consecrate a dwelling to God: and
that the second also may teach us that the sevenfold grace of the same
Holy Ghost descends on man with all fulness of sanctity, knowledge and
virtue." Hence this unction is reserved to bishops, not on account of its
being applied to a more worthy part of the body, but by reason of its
having a more powerful effect.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[12] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the rite of this sacrament is appropriate?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[12] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the rite of this sacrament is not appropriate. For
the sacrament of Baptism is of greater necessity than this, as stated
above (A[2], ad 4; Q[65], AA[3],4). But certain seasons are fixed for
Baptism, viz. Easter and Pentecost. Therefore some fixed time of the year
should be chosen for this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[12] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, just as this sacrament requires devotion both in the
giver and in the receiver, so also does the sacrament of Baptism. But in
the sacrament of Baptism it is not necessary that it should be received
or given fasting. Therefore it seems unfitting for the Council of Orleans
to declare that "those who come to Confirmation should be fasting"; and
the Council of Meaux, "that bishops should not give the Holy Ghost with
imposition of the hand except they be fasting."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[12] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, chrism is a sign of the fulness of the Holy Ghost, as
stated above (A[2]). But the fulness of the Holy Ghost was given to
Christ's faithful on the day of Pentecost, as related in Acts 2:1.
Therefore the chrism should be mixed and blessed on the day of Pentecost
rather than on Maundy Thursday.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[12] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Is the use of the Church, who is governed by the Holy
Ghost.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[12] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Our Lord promised His faithful (Mt. 18:20) saying: "Where
there are two or three gathered together in My name, there am I in the
midst of them." And therefore we must hold firmly that the Church's
ordinations are directed by the wisdom of Christ. And for this reason we
must look upon it as certain that the rite observed by the Church, in
this and the other sacraments, is appropriate.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[12] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Epis. Hispan.), "these two
sacraments," viz. Baptism and Confirmation, "are so closely connected
that they can nowise be separated save by death intervening, nor can one
be duly celebrated without the other." Consequently the same seasons are
fixed for the solemn celebration of Baptism and of this sacrament. But
since this sacrament is given only by bishops, who are not always present
where priests are baptizing, it was necessary, as regards the common use,
to defer the sacrament of Confirmation to other seasons also.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[12] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The sick and those in danger of death are exempt from this
prohibition, as we read in the decree of the Council of Meaux. And
therefore, on account of the multitude of the faithful, and on account of
imminent dangers, it is allowed for this sacrament, which can be given by
none but a bishop, to be given or received even by those who are not
fasting: since one bishop, especially in a large diocese, would not
suffice to confirm all, if he were confined to certain times. But where
it can be done conveniently, it is more becoming that both giver and
receiver should be fasting.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[72] A[12] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: According to the acts of the Council of Pope Martin, "it
was lawful at all times to prepare the chrism." But since solemn Baptism,
for which chrism has to be used, is celebrated on Easter Eve, it was
rightly decreed, that chrism should be consecrated by the bishop two days
beforehand, that it may be sent to the various parts of the diocese.
Moreover, this day is sufficiently appropriate to the blessing of
sacramental matter, since thereon was the Eucharist instituted, to which,
in a certain way, all the other sacraments are ordained, as stated above
(Q[65], A[3]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] Out. Para. 1/2
EUCHARIST (QQ[73]-83)
OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST (SIX ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the sacrament of the Eucharist; and first of all
we treat of the sacrament itself; secondly, of its matter; thirdly, of
its form; fourthly, of its effects; fifthly, of the recipients of this
sacrament; sixthly, of the minister; seventhly, of the rite.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] Out. Para. 2/2
Under the first heading there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the Eucharist is a sacrament?
(2) Whether it is one or several sacraments?
(3) Whether it is necessary for salvation?
(4) Its names;
(5) Its institution;
(6) Its figures.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the Eucharist is a sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the Eucharist is not a sacrament. For two
sacraments ought not to be ordained for the same end, because every
sacrament is efficacious in producing its effect. Therefore, since both
Confirmation and the Eucharist are ordained for perfection, as Dionysius
says (Eccl. Hier. iv), it seems that the Eucharist is not a sacrament,
since Confirmation is one, as stated above (Q[65], A[1]; Q[72], A[1]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, in every sacrament of the New Law, that which comes
visibly under our senses causes the invisible effect of the sacrament,
just as cleansing with water causes the baptismal character and spiritual
cleansing, as stated above (Q[63], A[6]; Q[66], AA[1],3,7). But the
species of bread and wine, which are the objects of our senses in this
sacrament, neither produce Christ's true body, which is both reality and
sacrament, nor His mystical body, which is the reality only in the
Eucharist. Therefore, it seems that the Eucharist is not a sacrament of
the New Law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, sacraments of the New Law, as having matter, are
perfected by the use of the matter, as Baptism is by ablution, and
Confirmation by signing with chrism. If, then, the Eucharist be a
sacrament, it would be perfected by the use of the matter, and not by its
consecration. But this is manifestly false, because the words spoken in
the consecration of the matter are the form of this sacrament, as will be
shown later on (Q[78], A[1]). Therefore the Eucharist is not a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is said in the Collect [*Postcommunion "pro vivis et
defunctis"]: "May this Thy Sacrament not make us deserving of punishment."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The Church's sacraments are ordained for helping man in
the spiritual life. But the spiritual life is analogous to the corporeal,
since corporeal things bear a resemblance to spiritual. Now it is clear
that just as generation is required for corporeal life, since thereby man
receives life; and growth, whereby man is brought to maturity: so
likewise food is required for the preservation of life. Consequently,
just as for the spiritual life there had to be Baptism, which is
spiritual generation; and Confirmation, which is spiritual growth: so
there needed to be the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is spiritual
food.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Perfection is twofold. The first lies within man himself;
and he attains it by growth: such perfection belongs to Confirmation. The
other is the perfection which comes to man from the addition of food, or
clothing, or something of the kind; and such is the perfection befitting
the Eucharist, which is the spiritual refreshment.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The water of Baptism does not cause any spiritual effect by
reason of the water, but by reason of the power of the Holy Ghost, which
power is in the water. Hence on Jn. 5:4, "An angel of the Lord at certain
times," etc., Chrysostom observes: "The water does not act simply as such
upon the baptized, but when it receives the grace of the Holy Ghost, then
it looses all sins." But the true body of Christ. bears the same relation
to the species of the bread and wine, as the power of the Holy Ghost does
to the water of Baptism: hence the species of the bread and wine produce
no effect except from the virtue of Christ's true body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: A sacrament is so termed because it contains something
sacred. Now a thing can be styled sacred from two causes; either
absolutely, or in relation to something else. The difference between the
Eucharist and other sacraments having sensible matter is that whereas the
Eucharist contains something which is sacred absolutely, namely, Christ's
own body; the baptismal water contains something which is sacred in
relation to something else, namely, the sanctifying power: and the same
holds good of chrism and such like. Consequently, the sacrament of the
Eucharist is completed in the very consecration of the matter, whereas
the other sacraments are completed in the application of the matter for
the sanctifying of the individual. And from this follows another
difference. For, in the sacrament of the Eucharist, what is both reality
and sacrament is in the matter itself. but what is reality only, namely,
the grace bestowed, is in the recipient; whereas in Baptism both are in
the recipient, namely, the character, which is both reality and
sacrament, and the grace of pardon of sins, which is reality only. And
the same holds good of the other sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the Eucharist is one sacrament or several?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the Eucharist is not one sacrament but several,
because it is said in the Collect [*Postcommunion "pro vivis et
defunctis"]: "May the sacraments which we have received purify us, O
Lord": and this is said on account of our receiving the Eucharist.
Consequently the Eucharist is not one sacrament but several.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is impossible for genera to be multiplied without the
species being multiplied: thus it is impossible for one man to be many
animals. But, as stated above (Q[60], A[1]), sign is the genus of
sacrament. Since, then, there are more signs than one, to wit, bread and
wine, it seems to follow that here must be more sacraments than one.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, this sacrament is perfected in the consecration of the
matter, as stated above (A[1], ad 3). But in this sacrament there is a
double consecration of the matter. Therefore, it is a twofold sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:17): "For we, being many,
are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread": from which it is
clear that the Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church's unity. But a
sacrament bears the likeness of the reality whereof it is the sacrament.
Therefore the Eucharist is one sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated in Metaph. v, a thing is said to be one, not
only from being indivisible, or continuous, but also when it is complete;
thus we speak of one house, and one man. A thing is one in perfection,
when it is complete through the presence of all that is needed for its
end; as a man is complete by having all the members required for the
operation of his soul, and a house by having all the parts needful for
dwelling therein. And so this sacrament is said to be one. Because it is
ordained for spiritual refreshment, which is conformed to corporeal
refreshment. Now there are two things required for corporeal refreshment,
namely, food, which is dry sustenance, and drink, which is wet
sustenance. Consequently, two things concur for the integrity of this
sacrament, to wit, spiritual food and spiritual drink, according to John:
"My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." Therefore, this
sacrament is materially many, but formally and perfectively one.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The same Collect at first employs the plural: "May the
sacraments which we have received purify us"; and afterwards the singular
number: "May this sacrament of Thine not make us worthy of punishment":
so as to show that this sacrament is in a measure several, yet simply one.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The bread and wine are materially several signs, yet
formally and perfectively one, inasmuch as one refreshment is prepared
therefrom.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: From the double consecration of the matter no more can be
gathered than that the sacrament is several materially, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the Eucharist is necessary for salvation?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that this sacrament is necessary for salvation. For our
Lord said (Jn. 6:54): "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and
drink His blood, you shall not have life in you." But Christ's flesh is
eaten and His blood drunk in this sacrament. Therefore, without this
sacrament man cannot have the health of spiritual life.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, this sacrament is a kind of spiritual food. But bodily
food is requisite for bodily health. Therefore, also is this sacrament,
for spiritual health.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, as Baptism is the sacrament of our Lord's Passion,
without which there is no salvation, so also is the Eucharist. For the
Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:26): "For as often as you shall eat this bread,
and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He
come." Consequently, as Baptism is necessary for salvation, so also is
this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine writes (Ad Bonifac. contra Pelag. I): "Nor
are you to suppose that children cannot possess life, who are deprived of
the body and blood of Christ."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
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 Pt. 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Augustine says, explaining Jn. 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
predestinated, 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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
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).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether this sacrament is suitably called by various names?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a host [*From Latin "hostia," a victim] 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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, is the use of these expressions by the faithful.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] Body Para. 1/4
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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] Body Para. 2/4
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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] Body Para. 3/4
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" (Rm. 6:23); or because it really contains Christ,
Who is "full of grace."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] Body Para. 4/4
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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: There is nothing to hinder the same thing from being called
by several names, according to its various properties or effects.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: What is common to all the sacraments is attributed
antonomastically to this one on account of its excellence.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
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 (Douay: 'sacrifice') . . . of
sweetness" (Eph. 5:2).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the institution of this sacrament was appropriate?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, this sacrament is called the memorial of our Lord's
Passion, according to Mt. 26 (Lk. 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
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 Mt. 28:19.
Therefore, this sacrament was not suitably instituted before Christ's
Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, This sacrament was instituted by Christ, of Whom it is
said (Mk. 7:37) that "He did all things well."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] Body Para. 1/3
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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] Body Para. 2/3
Secondly, because without faith in the Passion there could never be any
salvation, according to Rm. 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).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] Body Para. 3/3
Thirdly, 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 Saviour willed this last act to
be fixed in the hearts and memories of the disciples whom He was about to
quit for the Passion."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
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" [*Cf. Canon
of the Mass], speaking of the future.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
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 Jn. 3:22.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the Paschal Lamb was the chief figure of this sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:7,8): "Christ our Pasch is
sacrificed; therefore let us feast . . . with the unleavened bread of
sincerity and truth."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[6] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, We can consider three things in this sacrament: namely,
that which is sacrament only, and this is the bread and wine; that which
is both reality and sacrament, to wit, Christ's true body; and lastly
that which is reality only, namely, the effect of this sacrament.
Consequently, in relation to what is sacrament only, the chief figure of
this sacrament was the oblation of Melchisedech, who offered up bread
and wine. In relation to Christ crucified, Who is contained in this
sacrament, its figures were all the sacrifices of the Old Testament,
especially the sacrifice of expiation, which was the most solemn of all.
While with regard to its effect, the chief figure was the Manna, "having
in it the sweetness of every taste" (Wis. 16:20), just as the grace of
this sacrament refreshes the soul in all respects.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[6] Body Para. 2/3
The Paschal Lamb foreshadowed this sacrament in these three ways. First
of all, because it was eaten with unleavened loaves, according to Ex.
12:8: "They shall eat flesh . . . and unleavened bread." As to the second
because it was immolated by the entire multitude of the children of
Israel on the fourteenth day of the moon; and this was a figure of the
Passion of Christ, Who is called the Lamb on account of His innocence. As
to the effect, because by the blood of the Paschal Lamb the children of
Israel were preserved from the destroying Angel, and brought from the
Egyptian captivity; and in this respect the Paschal Lamb is the chief
figure of this sacrament, because it represents it in every respect.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[73] A[6] Body Para. 3/3
From this the answer to the Objections is manifest.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] Out. Para. 1/2
OF THE MATTER OF THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the matter of this sacrament: and first of all
as to its species; secondly, the change of the bread and wine into the
body of Christ; thirdly, the manner in which Christ's body exists in this
sacrament; fourthly, the accidents of bread and wine which continue in
this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] Out. Para. 2/2
Under the first heading there are eight points for inquiry:
(1) Whether bread and wine are the matter of this sacrament?
(2) Whether a determinate quantity of the same is required for the
matter of this sacrament?
(3) Whether the matter of this sacrament is wheaten bread?
(4) Whether it is unleavened or fermented bread?
(5) Whether the matter of this sacrament is wine from the grape?
(6) Whether water should be mixed with it?
(7) Whether water is of necessity for this sacrament?
(8) Of the quantity of the water added.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the matter of this sacrament is bread and wine?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the matter of this sacrament is not bread and wine.
Because this sacrament ought to represent Christ's Passion more fully
than did the sacraments of the Old Law. But the flesh of animals, which
was the matter of the sacraments under the Old Law, shows forth Christ's
Passion more fully than bread and wine. Therefore the matter of this
sacrament ought rather to be the flesh of animals than bread and wine.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, this sacrament is to be celebrated in every place. But
in many lands bread is not to be found, and in many places wine is not to
be found. Therefore bread and wine are not a suitable matter for this
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, this sacrament is for both hale and weak. But to some
weak persons wine is hurtful. Therefore it seems that wine ought not to
be the matter of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Pope Alexander I says (Ep. ad omnes orth. i): "In
oblations of the sacraments only bread and wine mixed with water are to
be offered."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] Body Para. 1/5
I answer that, Some have fallen into various errors about the matter of
this sacrament. Some, known as the Artotyrytae, as Augustine says (De
Haeres. xxviii), "offer bread and cheese in this sacrament, contending
that oblations were celebrated by men in the first ages, from fruits of
the earth and sheep." Others, called Cataphrygae and Pepuziani, "are
reputed to have made their Eucharistic bread with infants' blood drawn
from tiny punctures over the entire body, and mixed with flour." Others,
styled Aquarii, under guise of sobriety, offer nothing but water in this
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] Body Para. 2/5
Now all these and similar errors are excluded by the fact that Christ
instituted this sacrament under the species of bread and wine, as is
evident from Mt. 26. Consequently, bread and wine are the proper matter
of this sacrament. And the reasonableness of this is seen first, in the
use of this sacrament, which is eating: for, as water is used in the
sacrament of Baptism for the purpose of spiritual cleansing, since bodily
cleansing is commonly done with water; so bread and wine, wherewith men
are commonly fed, are employed in this sacrament for the use of spiritual
eating.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] Body Para. 3/5
Secondly, in relation to Christ's Passion, in which the blood was
separated from the body. And therefore in this sacrament, which is the
memorial of our Lord's Passion, the bread is received apart as the
sacrament of the body, and the wine as the sacrament of the blood.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] Body Para. 4/5
Thirdly, as to the effect, considered in each of the partakers. For, as
Ambrose (Mag. Sent. iv, D, xi) says on 1 Cor. 11:20, this sacrament
"avails for the defense of soul and body"; and therefore "Christ's body
is offered" under the species of bread "for the health of the body, and
the blood" under the species of wine "for the health of the soul,"
according to Lev. 17:14: "The life of the animal [Vulg.: 'of all flesh']
is in the blood."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] Body Para. 5/5
Fourthly, as to the effect with regard to the whole Church, which is
made up of many believers, just "as bread is composed of many grains, and
wine flows from many grapes," as the gloss observes on 1 Cor. 10:17: "We
being many are . . . one body," etc.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Although the flesh of slaughtered animals represents the
Passion more forcibly, nevertheless it is less suitable for the common
use of this sacrament, and for denoting the unity of the Church.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Although wheat and wine are not produced in every country,
yet they can easily be conveyed to every land, that is, as much as is
needful for the use of this sacrament: at the same time one is not to be
consecrated when the other is lacking, because it would not be a complete
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Wine taken in small quantity cannot do the sick much harm:
yet if there be fear of harm, it is not necessary for all who take
Christ's body to partake also of His blood, as will be stated later
(Q[80], A[12]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a determinate quantity of bread and wine is required for the
matter of this sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that a determinate quantity of bread and wine is
required for the matter of this sacrament. Because the effects of grace
are no less set in order than those of nature. But, "there is a limit set
by nature upon all existing things, and a reckoning of size and
development" (De Anima ii). Consequently, in this sacrament, which is
called "Eucharist," that is, "a good grace," a determinate quantity of
the bread and wine is required.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Christ gave no power to the ministers of the Church
regarding matters which involve derision of the faith and of His
sacraments, according to 2 Cor. 10:8: "Of our power which the Lord hath
given us unto edification, and not for your destruction." But it would
lead to mockery of this sacrament if the priest were to wish to
consecrate all the bread which is sold in the market and all the wine in
the cellar. Therefore he cannot do this.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, if anyone be baptized in the sea, the entire sea-water
is not sanctified by the form of baptism, but only the water wherewith
the body of the baptized is cleansed. Therefore, neither in this
sacrament can a superfluous quantity of bread be consecrated.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Much is opposed to little, and great to small. But
there is no quantity, however small, of the bread and wine which cannot
be consecrated. Therefore, neither is there any quantity, however great,
which cannot be consecrated.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Some have maintained that the priest could not consecrate
an immense quantity of bread and wine, for instance, all the bread in the
market or all the wine in a cask. But this does not appear to be true,
because in all things containing matter, the reason for the determination
of the matter is drawn from its disposition to an end, just as the matter
of a saw is iron, so as to adapt it for cutting. But the end of this
sacrament is the use of the faithful. Consequently, the quantity of the
matter of this sacrament must be determined by comparison with the use of
the faithful. But this cannot be determined by comparison with the use
of the faithful who are actually present; otherwise the parish priest
having few parishioners could not consecrate many hosts. It remains,
then, for the matter of this sacrament to be determined in reference to
the number of the faithful absolutely. But the number of the faithful is
not a determinate one. Hence it cannot be said that the quantity of the
matter of this sacrament is restricted.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The matter of every natural object has its determinate
quantity by comparison with its determinate form. But the number of the
faithful, for whose use this sacrament is ordained, is not a determinate
one. Consequently there is no comparison.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The power of the Church's ministers is ordained for two
purposes: first for the proper effect, and secondly for the end of the
effect. But the second does not take away the first. Hence, if the priest
intends to consecrate the body of Christ for an evil purpose, for
instance, to make mockery of it, or to administer poison through it, he
commits sin by his evil intention, nevertheless, on account of the power
committed to him, he accomplishes the sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The sacrament of Baptism is perfected in the use of the
matter: and therefore no more of the water is hallowed than what is used.
But this sacrament is wrought in the consecration of the matter.
Consequently there is no parallel.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether wheaten bread is required for the matter of this sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that wheaten bread is not requisite for the matter of
this sacrament, because this sacrament is a reminder of our Lord's
Passion. But barley bread seems to be more in keeping with the Passion
than wheaten bread, as being more bitter, and because Christ used it to
feed the multitudes upon the mountain, as narrated in Jn. 6. Therefore
wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, in natural things the shape is a sign of species. But
some cereals resemble wheat, such as spelt and maize, from which in some
localities bread is made for the use of this sacrament. Therefore wheaten
bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, mixing dissolves species. But wheaten flour is hardly to
be found unmixed with some other species of grain, except in the instance
of specially selected grain. Therefore it does not seem that wheaten
bread is the proper matter for this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, what is corrupted appears to be of another species. But
some make the sacrament from bread which is corrupted, and which no
longer seems to be wheaten bread. Therefore, it seems that such bread is
not the proper matter of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Christ is contained in this sacrament, and He compares
Himself to a grain of wheat, saying (Jn. 12:24): "Unless the grain of
wheat falling into the ground die, itself remaineth alone." Therefore
bread from corn, i.e. wheaten bread, is the matter of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), for the use of the sacraments
such matter is adopted as is commonly made use of among men. Now among
other breads wheaten bread is more commonly used by men; since other
breads seem to be employed when this fails. And consequently Christ is
believed to have instituted this sacrament under this species of bread.
Moreover this bread strengthens man, and so it denotes more suitably the
effect of this sacrament. Consequently, the proper matter for this
sacrament is wheaten bread.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Barley bread serves to denote the hardness of the Old Law;
both on account of the hardness of the bread, and because, as Augustine
says (Q[83]): "The flour within the barley, wrapped up as it is within a
most tenacious fibre, denotes either the Law itself, which was given in
such manner as to be vested in bodily sacraments; or else it denotes the
people themselves, who were not yet despoiled of carnal desires, which
clung to their hearts like fibre." But this sacrament belongs to Christ's
"sweet yoke," and to the truth already manifested, and to a spiritual
people. Consequently barley bread would not be a suitable matter for this
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: A begetter begets a thing like to itself in species. yet
there is some unlikeness as to the accidents, owing either to the matter,
or to weakness within the generative power. And therefore, if there be
any cereals which can be grown from the seed of the wheat (as wild wheat
from wheat seed grown in bad ground), the bread made from such grain can
be the matter of this sacrament: and this does not obtain either in
barley, or in spelt, or even in maize, which is of all grains the one
most resembling the wheat grain. But the resemblance as to shape in such
seems to denote closeness of species rather than identity; just as the
resemblance in shape between the dog and the wolf goes to show that they
are allied but not of the same species. Hence from such grains, which
cannot in any way be generated from wheat grain, bread cannot be made
such as to be the proper matter of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: A moderate mixing does not alter the species, because that
little is as it were absorbed by the greater. Consequently, then, if a
small quantity of another grain be mixed with a much greater quantity of
wheat, bread may be made therefrom so as to be the proper matter of this
sacrament; but if the mixing be notable, for instance, half and half; or
nearly so, then such mixing alters the species; consequently, bread made
therefrom will not be the proper matter of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Sometimes there is such corruption of the bread that the
species of bread is lost, as when the continuity of its parts is
destroyed, and the taste, color, and other accidents are changed; hence
the body of Christ may not be made from such matter. But sometimes there
is not such corruption as to alter the species, but merely disposition
towards corruption, which a slight change in the savor betrays, and from
such bread the body of Christ may be made: but he who does so, sins from
irreverence towards the sacrament. And because starch comes of corrupted
wheat, it does not seem as if the body of Christ could be made of the
bread made therefrom, although some hold the contrary.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether this sacrament ought to be made of unleavened bread?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that this sacrament ought not to be made of unleavened
bread. because in this sacrament we ought to imitate Christ's
institution. But Christ appears to have instituted this sacrament in
fermented bread, because, as we have read in Ex. 12, the Jews, according
to the Law, began to use unleavened bread on the day of the Passover
which is celebrated on the fourteenth day of the moon; and Christ
instituted this sacrament at the supper which He celebrated "before the
festival day of the Pasch" (Jn. 13:1,4). Therefore we ought likewise to
celebrate this sacrament with fermented bread.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, legal observances ought not to be continued in the time
of grace. But the use of unleavened bread was a ceremony of the Law, as
is clear from Ex. 12. Therefore we ought not to use unfermented bread in
this sacrament of grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, as stated above (Q[65], A[1]; Q[73], A[3]), the
Eucharist is the sacrament of charity just as Baptism is the sacrament of
faith. But the fervor of charity is signified by fermented bread, as is
declared by the gloss on Mt. 13:33: "The kingdom of heaven is like unto
leaven," etc. Therefore this sacrament ought to be made of leavened bread.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, leavened or unleavened are mere accidents of bread,
which do not vary the species. But in the matter for the sacrament of
Baptism no difference is observed regarding the variation of the
accidents, as to whether it be salt or fresh, warm or cold water.
Therefore neither ought any distinction to be observed, as to whether the
bread be unleavened or leavened.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, According to the Decretals (Extra, De Celebr. Miss.), a
priest is punished "for presuming to celebrate, using fermented bread and
a wooden cup."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Two things may be considered touching the matter of this
sacrament namely, what is necessary, and what is suitable. It is
necessary that the bread be wheaten, without which the sacrament is not
valid, as stated above (A[3]). It is not, however, necessary for the
sacrament that the bread be unleavened or leavened, since it can be
celebrated in either.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] Body Para. 2/3
But it is suitable that every priest observe the rite of his Church in
the celebration of the sacrament. Now in this matter there are various
customs of the Churches: for, Gregory says: "The Roman Church offers
unleavened bread, because our Lord took flesh without union of sexes: but
the Greek Churches offer leavened bread, because the Word of the Father
was clothed with flesh; as leaven is mixed with the flour." Hence, as a
priest sins by celebrating with fermented bread in the Latin Church, so a
Greek priest celebrating with unfermented bread in a church of the Greeks
would also sin, as perverting the rite of his Church. Nevertheless the
custom of celebrating with unleavened bread is more reasonable. First, on
account of Christ's institution: for He instituted this sacrament "on the
first day of the Azymes" (Mt. 26:17; Mk. 14:12; Lk. 22:7), on which day
there ought to be nothing fermented in the houses of the Jews, as is
stated in Ex. 12:15,19. Secondly, because bread is properly the sacrament
of Christ's body, which was conceived without corruption, rather than of
His Godhead, as will be seen later (Q[76], A[1], ad 1). Thirdly, because
this is more in keeping with the sincerity of the faithful, which is
required in the use of this sacrament, according to 1 Cor. 5:7: "Christ
our Pasch is sacrificed: therefore let us feast . . . with the unleavened
bread of sincerity and truth."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] Body Para. 3/3
However, this custom of the Greeks is not unreasonable both on account
of its signification, to which Gregory refers, and in detestation of the
heresy of the Nazarenes, who mixed up legal observances with the Gospel.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As we read in Ex. 12, the paschal solemnity began on the
evening of the fourteenth day of the moon. So, then, after immolating the
Paschal Lamb, Christ instituted this sacrament: hence this day is said by
John to precede the day of the Pasch, while the other three Evangelists
call it "the first day of the Azymes," when fermented bread was not found
in the houses of the Jews, as stated above. Fuller mention was made of
this in the treatise on our Lord's Passion (Q[46], A[9], ad 1).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Those who celebrate the sacrament with unleavened bread do
not intend to follow the ceremonial of the Law, but to conform to
Christ's institution; so they are not Judaizing; otherwise those
celebrating in fermented bread would be Judaizing, because the Jews
offered up fermented bread for the first-fruits.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Leaven denotes charity on account of one single effect,
because it makes the bread more savory and larger; but it also signifies
corruption from its very nature.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Since whatever is fermented partakes of corruption, this
sacrament may not be made from corrupt bread, as stated above (A[3], ad
4); consequently, there is a wider difference between unleavened and
leavened bread than between warm and cold baptismal water: because there
might be such corruption of fermented bread that it could not be validly
used for the sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether wine of the grape is the proper matter of this sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that wine of the grape is not the proper matter of this
sacrament. Because, as water is the matter of Baptism, so is wine the
matter of this sacrament. But Baptism can be conferred with any kind of
water. Therefore this sacrament can be celebrated in any kind of wine,
such as of pomegranates, or of mulberries; since vines do not grow in
some countries.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, vinegar is a kind of wine drawn from the grape, as
Isidore says (Etym. xx). But this sacrament cannot be celebrated with
vinegar. Therefore, it seems that wine from the grape is not the proper
matter of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, just as the clarified wine is drawn from grapes, so also
are the juice of unripe grapes and must. But it does not appear that this
sacrament may be made from such, according to what we read in the Sixth
Council (Trull., Can. 28): "We have learned that in some churches the
priests add grapes to the sacrifice of the oblation; and so they dispense
both together to the people. Consequently we give order that no priest
shall do this in future." And Pope Julius I rebukes some priests "who
offer wine pressed from the grape in the sacrament of the Lord's
chalice." Consequently, it seems that wine from the grape is not the
proper matter of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, As our Lord compared Himself to the grain of wheat, so
also He compared Himself to the vine, saying (Jn. 15:1): "I am the true
vine." But only bread from wheat is the matter of this sacrament, as
stated above (A[3]). Therefore, only wine from the grape is the proper
matter of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, This sacrament can only be performed with wine from the
grape. First of all on account of Christ's institution, since He
instituted this sacrament in wine from the grape, as is evident from His
own words, in instituting this sacrament (Mt. 26:29): "I will not drink
from henceforth of this fruit of the vine." Secondly, because, as stated
above (A[3]), that is adopted as the matter of the sacraments which is
properly and universally considered as such. Now that is properly called
wine, which is drawn from the grape, whereas other liquors are called
wine from resemblance to the wine of the grape. Thirdly, because the wine
from the grape is more in keeping with the effect of this sacrament,
which is spiritual; because it is written (Ps. 103:15): "That wine may
cheer the heart of man."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Such liquors are called wine, not properly but only from
their resemblance thereto. But genuine wine can be conveyed to such
countries wherein the grape-vine does not flourish, in a quantity
sufficient for this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Wine becomes vinegar by corruption; hence there is no
returning from vinegar to wine, as is said in Metaph. viii. And
consequently, just as this sacrament may not be made from bread which is
utterly corrupt, so neither can it be made from vinegar. It can, however,
be made from wine which is turning sour, just as from bread turning
corrupt, although he who does so sins, as stated above (A[3]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The juice of unripe grapes is at the stage of incomplete
generation, and therefore it has not yet the species of wine: on which
account it may not be used for this sacrament. Must, however, has already
the species of wine, for its sweetness [*"Aut dulcis musti Vulcano
decoquit humorem"; Virgil, Georg. i, 295] indicates fermentation which is
"the result of its natural heat" (Meteor. iv); consequently this
sacrament can be made from must. Nevertheless entire grapes ought not to
be mixed with this sacrament, because then there would be something else
besides wine. It is furthermore forbidden to offer must in the chalice,
as soon as it has been squeezed from the grape, since this is unbecoming
owing to the impurity of the must. But in case of necessity it may be
done: for it is said by the same Pope Julius, in the passage quoted in
the argument: "If necessary, let the grape be pressed into the chalice."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether water should be mixed with the wine?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that water ought not to be mixed with the wine, since
Christ's sacrifice was foreshadowed by that of Melchisedech, who (Gn.
14:18) is related to have offered up bread and wine only. Consequently it
seems that water should not be added in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the various sacraments have their respective matters.
But water is the matter of Baptism. Therefore it should not be employed
as the matter of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, bread and wine are the matter of this sacrament. But
nothing is added to the bread. Therefore neither should anything be added
to the wine.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Pope Alexander I writes (Ep. 1 ad omnes orth.): "In the
sacramental oblations which in mass are offered to the Lord, only bread
and wine mixed with water are to be offered in sacrifice."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[6] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Water ought to be mingled with the wine which is offered
in this sacrament. First of all on account of its institution: for it is
believed with probability that our Lord instituted this sacrament in wine
tempered with water according to the custom of that country: hence it is
written (Prov. 9:5): "Drink the wine which I have mixed for you."
Secondly, because it harmonizes with the representation of our Lord's
Passion: hence Pope Alexander I says (Ep. 1 ad omnes orth.): "In the
Lord's chalice neither wine only nor water only ought to be offered, but
both mixed because we read that both flowed from His side in the
Passion." Thirdly, because this is adapted for signifying the effect of
this sacrament, since as Pope Julius says (Concil. Bracarens iii, Can.
1): "We see that the people are signified by the water, but Christ's
blood by the wine. Therefore when water is mixed with the wine in the
chalice, the people is made one with Christ." Fourthly, because this is
appropriate to the fourth effect of this sacrament, which is the entering
into everlasting life: hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. v): "The water
flows into the chalice, and springs forth unto everlasting life."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Ambrose says (De Sacram. v), just as Christ's sacrifice
is denoted by the offering of Melchisedech, so likewise it is signified
by the water which flowed from the rock in the desert, according to 1
Cor. 10:4: "But they drank of the spiritual rock which came after them."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: In Baptism water is used for the purpose of ablution: but
in this sacrament it is used by way of refreshment, according to Ps.
22:3: "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Bread is made of water and flour; and therefore, since
water is mixed with the wine, neither is without water.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the mixing with water is essential to this sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the mixing with water is essential to this
sacrament. Because Cyprian says to Cecilius (Ep. lxiii): "Thus the Lord's
chalice is not water only and wine only, but both must be mixed together:
in the same way as neither the Lord's body be of flour only, except
both," i.e. the flour and the water "be united as one." But the admixture
of water with the flour is necessary for this sacrament. Consequently,
for the like reason, so is the mixing of water with the wine.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, at our Lord's Passion, of which this is the memorial,
water as well as blood flowed from His side. But wine, which is the
sacrament of the blood, is necessary for this sacrament. For the same
reason, therefore, so is water.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, if water were not essential to this sacrament, it would
not matter in the least what kind of water was used; and so water
distilled from roses, or any other kind might be employed; which is
contrary to the usage of the Church. Consequently water is essential to
this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Cyprian says (Ep. lxiii): "If any of our predecessors,
out of ignorance or simplicity, has not kept this usage," i.e. of mixing
water with the wine, "one may pardon his simplicity"; which would not be
the case if water were essential to the sacrament, as the wine or the
bread. Therefore the mingling of water with the wine is not essential to
the sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[7] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Judgment concerning a sign is to be drawn from the thing
signified. Now the adding of water to the wine is for the purpose of
signifying the sharing of this sacrament by the faithful, in this respect
that by the mixing of the water with the wine is signified the union of
the people with Christ, as stated (A[6]). Moreover, the flowing of water
from the side of Christ hanging on the cross refers to the same, because
by the water is denoted the cleansing from sins, which was the effect of
Christ's Passion. Now it was observed above (Q[73], A[1], ad 3), that
this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the matter: while the
usage of the faithful is not essential to the sacrament, but only a
consequence thereof. Consequently, then, the adding of water is not
essential to the sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Cyprian's expression is to be taken in the same sense in
which we say that a thing cannot be, which cannot be suitably. And so the
comparison refers to what ought to be done, not to what is essential to
be done; since water is of the essence of bread, but not of the essence
of wine.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The shedding of the blood belonged directly to Christ's
Passion: for it is natural for blood to flow from a wounded human body.
But the flowing of the water was not necessary for the Passion; but
merely to show its effect, which is to wash away sins, and to refresh us
from the heat of concupiscence. And therefore the water is not offered
apart from the wine in this sacrament, as the wine is offered apart from
the bread; but the water is offered mixed with the wine to show that the
wine belongs of itself to this sacrament, as of its very essence; but the
water as something added to the wine.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Since the mixing of water with the wine is not necessary
for the sacrament, it does not matter, as to the essence of the
sacrament, what kind of water is added to the wine, whether natural
water, or artificial, as rose-water, although, as to the propriety of the
sacrament, he would sin who mixes any other than natural and true water,
because true water flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross,
and not phlegm, as some have said, in order to show that Christ's body
was truly composed of the four elements; as by the flowing blood, it was
shown to be composed of the four humors, as Pope Innocent III says in a
certain Decree. But because the mixing of water with flour is essential
to this sacrament, as making the composition of bread, if rose-water, or
any other liquor besides true water, be mixed with the flour, the
sacrament would not be valid, because it would not be true bread.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether water should be added in great quantity?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that water ought to be added in great quantity, because
as blood flowed sensibly from Christ's side, so did water: hence it is
written (Jn. 19:35): "He that saw it, hath given testimony." But water
could not be sensibly present in this sacrament except it were used in
great quantity. Consequently it seems that water ought to be added in
great quantity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, a little water mixed with much wine is corrupted. But
what is corrupted no longer exists. Therefore, it is the same thing to
add a little water in this sacrament as to add none. But it is not lawful
to add none. Therefore, neither is it lawful to add a little.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, if it sufficed to add a little, then as a consequence it
would suffice to throw one drop of water into an entire cask. But this
seems ridiculous. Therefore it does not suffice for a small quantity to
be added.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is said in the Decretals (Extra, De Celeb. Miss.):
"The pernicious abuse has prevailed in your country of adding water in
greater quantity than the wine, in the sacrifice, where according to the
reasonable custom of the entire Church more wine than water ought to be
employed."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[8] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, There is a threefold opinion regarding the water added to
the wine, as Pope Innocent III says in a certain Decretal. For some say
that the water remains by itself when the wine is changed into blood: but
such an opinion cannot stand, because in the sacrament of the altar after
the consecration there is nothing else save the body and the blood of
Christ. Because, as Ambrose says in De Officiis (De Mysteriis ix):
"Before the blessing it is another species that is named, after the
blessing the Body is signified; otherwise it would not be adored with
adoration of latria." And therefore others have said that as the wine is
changed into blood, so the water is changed into the water which flowed
from Christ's side. But this cannot be maintained reasonably, because
according to this the water would be consecrated apart from the wine, as
the wine is from the bread.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[8] Body Para. 2/2
And therefore as he (Innocent III, Decretals, Extra, De Celeb. Miss.)
says, the more probable opinion is that which holds that the water is
changed into wine, and the wine into blood. Now, this could not be done
unless so little water was used that it would be changed into wine.
Consequently, it is always safer to add little water, especially if the
wine be weak, because the sacrament could not be celebrated if there were
such addition of water as to destroy the species of the wine. Hence Pope
Julius I reprehends some who "keep throughout the year a linen cloth
steeped in must, and at the time of sacrifice wash a part of it with
water, and so make the offering."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: For the signification of this sacrament it suffices for the
water to be appreciable by sense when it is mixed with the wine: but it
is not necessary for it to be sensible after the mingling.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: If no water were added, the signification would be utterly
excluded: but when the water is changed into wine, it is signified that
the people is incorporated with Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[74] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: If water were added to a cask, it would not suffice for the
signification of this sacrament, but the water must be added to the wine
at the actual celebration of the sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE INTO THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST (EIGHT
ARTICLES)
We have to consider the change of the bread and wine into the body and
blood of Christ; under which head there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the substance of bread and wine remain in this sacrament
after the consecration?*
(2) Whether it is annihilated?
(3) Whether it is changed into the body and blood of Christ?
(4) Whether the accidents remain after the change?
(5) Whether the substantial form remains there?
(6) Whether this change is instantaneous?
(7) Whether it is more miraculous than any other change?
(8) By what words it may be suitably expressed?
[*The titles of the Articles here given were taken by St. Thomas from his
Commentary on the Sentences (Sent. iv, D, 90). However, in writing the
Articles he introduced a new point of inquiry, that of the First Article;
and substituted another division of the matter under discussion, as may
be seen by referring to the titles of the various Articles. Most editions
have ignored St. Thomas's original division, and give the one to which he
subsequently adhered.]
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the body of Christ be in this sacrament in very truth, or merely
as in a figure or sign?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the body of Christ is not in this sacrament in very
truth, but only as in a figure, or sign. For it is written (Jn. 6:54)
that when our Lord had uttered these words: "Except you eat the flesh of
the Son of Man, and drink His blood," etc., "Many of His disciples on
hearing it said: 'this is a hard saying'": to whom He rejoined: "It is
the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing": as if He were
to say, according to Augustine's exposition on Ps. 4 [*On Ps. 98:9]:
"Give a spiritual meaning to what I have said. You are not to eat this
body which you see, nor to drink the blood which they who crucify Me are
to spill. It is a mystery that I put before you: in its spiritual sense
it will quicken you; but the flesh profiteth nothing."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, our Lord said (Mt. 28:20): "Behold I am with you all
days even to the consummation of the world." Now in explaining this,
Augustine makes this observation (Tract. xxx in Joan.): "The Lord is on
high until the world be ended; nevertheless the truth of the Lord is here
with us; for the body, in which He rose again, must be in one place; but
His truth is spread abroad everywhere." Therefore, the body of Christ is
not in this sacrament in very truth, but only as in a sign.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, no body can be in several places at the one time. For
this does not even belong to an angel; since for the same reason it could
be everywhere. But Christ's is a true body, and it is in heaven.
Consequently, it seems that it is not in very truth in the sacrament of
the altar, but only as in a sign.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the Church's sacraments are ordained for the profit of
the faithful. But according to Gregory in a certain Homily (xxviii in
Evang.), the ruler is rebuked "for demanding Christ's bodily presence."
Moreover the apostles were prevented from receiving the Holy Ghost
because they were attached to His bodily presence, as Augustine says on
Jn. 16:7: "Except I go, the Paraclete will not come to you" (Tract. xciv
in Joan.). Therefore Christ is not in the sacrament of the altar
according to His bodily presence.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Hilary says (De Trin. viii): "There is no room for
doubt regarding the truth of Christ's body and blood; for now by our
Lord's own declaring and by our faith His flesh is truly food, and His
blood is truly drink." And Ambrose says (De Sacram. vi): "As the Lord
Jesus Christ is God's true Son so is it Christ's true flesh which we
take, and His true blood which we drink."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] Body Para. 1/5
I answer that, The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this
sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith
alone, which rests upon Divine authority. Hence, on Lk. 22:19: "This is
My body which shall be delivered up for you," Cyril says: "Doubt not
whether this be true; but take rather the Saviour's words with faith; for
since He is the Truth, He lieth not."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] Body Para. 2/5
Now this is suitable, first for the perfection of the New Law. For, the
sacrifices of the Old Law contained only in figure that true sacrifice of
Christ's Passion, according to Heb. 10:1: "For the law having a shadow of
the good things to come, not the very image of the things." And therefore
it was necessary that the sacrifice of the New Law instituted by Christ
should have something more, namely, that it should contain Christ Himself
crucified, not merely in signification or figure, but also in very truth.
And therefore this sacrament which contains Christ Himself, as Dionysius
says (Eccl. Hier. iii), is perfective of all the other sacraments, in
which Christ's virtue is participated.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] Body Para. 3/5
Secondly, this belongs to Christ's love, out of which for our salvation
He assumed a true body of our nature. And because it is the special
feature of friendship to live together with friends, as the Philosopher
says (Ethic. ix), He promises us His bodily presence as a reward, saying
(Mt. 24:28): "Where the body is, there shall the eagles be gathered
together." Yet meanwhile in our pilgrimage He does not deprive us of His
bodily presence; but unites us with Himself in this sacrament through the
truth of His body and blood. Hence (Jn. 6:57) he says: "He that eateth
My flesh, and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him." Hence this
sacrament is the sign of supreme charity, and the uplifter of our hope,
from such familiar union of Christ with us.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] Body Para. 4/5
Thirdly, it belongs to the perfection of faith, which concerns His
humanity just as it does His Godhead, according to Jn. 14:1: "You believe
in God, believe also in Me." And since faith is of things unseen, as
Christ shows us His Godhead invisibly, so also in this sacrament He shows
us His flesh in an invisible manner.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] Body Para. 5/5
Some men accordingly, not paying heed to these things, have contended
that Christ's body and blood are not in this sacrament except as in a
sign, a thing to be rejected as heretical, since it is contrary to
Christ's words. Hence Berengarius, who had been the first deviser of this
heresy, was afterwards forced to withdraw his error, and to acknowledge
the truth of the faith.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: From this authority the aforesaid heretics have taken
occasion to err from evilly understanding Augustine's words. For when
Augustine says: "You are not to eat this body which you see," he means
not to exclude the truth of Christ's body, but that it was not to be
eaten in this species in which it was seen by them. And by the words: "It
is a mystery that I put before you; in its spiritual sense it will
quicken you," he intends not that the body of Christ is in this sacrament
merely according to mystical signification, but "spiritually," that is,
invisibly, and by the power of the spirit. Hence (Tract. xxvii),
expounding Jn. 6:64: "the flesh profiteth nothing," he says: "Yea, but as
they understood it, for they understood that the flesh was to be eaten as
it is divided piecemeal in a dead body, or as sold in the shambles, not
as it is quickened by the spirit . . . Let the spirit draw nigh to the
flesh . . . then the flesh profiteth very much: for if the flesh
profiteth nothing, the Word had not been made flesh, that It might dwell
among us."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: That saying of Augustine and all others like it are to be
understood of Christ's body as it is beheld in its proper species;
according as our Lord Himself says (Mt. 26:11): "But Me you have not
always." Nevertheless He is invisibly under the species of this
sacrament, wherever this sacrament is performed.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Christ's body is not in this sacrament in the same way as a
body is in a place, which by its dimensions is commensurate with the
place; but in a special manner which is proper to this sacrament. Hence
we say that Christ's body is upon many altars, not as in different
places, but "sacramentally": and thereby we do not understand that Christ
is there only as in a sign, although a sacrament is a kind of sign; but
that Christ's body is here after a fashion proper to this sacrament, as
stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: This argument holds good of Christ's bodily presence, as He
is present after the manner of a body, that is, as it is in its visible
appearance, but not as it is spiritually, that is, invisibly, after the
manner and by the virtue of the spirit. Hence Augustine (Tract. xxvii in
Joan.) says: "If thou hast understood" Christ's words spiritually
concerning His flesh, "they are spirit and life to thee; if thou hast
understood them carnally, they are also spirit and life, but not to thee."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether in this sacrament the substance of the bread and wine remains
after the consecration?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the substance of the bread and wine does remain in
this sacrament after the consecration: because Damascene says (De Fide
Orth. iv): "Since it is customary for men to eat bread and drink wine,
God has wedded his Godhead to them, and made them His body and blood":
and further on: "The bread of communication is not simple bread, but is
united to the Godhead." But wedding together belongs to things actually
existing. Therefore the bread and wine are at the same time, in this
sacrament, with the body and the blood of Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, there ought to be conformity between the sacraments. But
in the other sacraments the substance of the matter remains, like the
substance of water in Baptism, and the substance of chrism in
Confirmation. Therefore the substance of the bread and wine remains also
in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, bread and wine are made use of in this sacrament,
inasmuch as they denote ecclesiastical unity, as "one bread is made from
many grains and wine from many grapes," as Augustine says in his book on
the Creed (Tract. xxvi in Joan.). But this belongs to the substance of
bread and wine. Therefore, the substance of the bread and wine remains in
this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "Although the figure of
the bread and wine be seen, still, after the Consecration, they are to be
believed to be nothing else than the body end blood of Christ."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, Some have held that the substance of the bread and wine
remains in this sacrament after the consecration. But this opinion cannot
stand: first of all, because by such an opinion the truth of this
sacrament is destroyed, to which it belongs that Christ's true body
exists in this sacrament; which indeed was not there before the
consecration. Now a thing cannot be in any place, where it was not
previously, except by change of place, or by the conversion of another
thing into itself; just as fire begins anew to be in some house, either
because it is carried thither, or because it is generated there. Now it
is evident that Christ's body does not begin to be present in this
sacrament by local motion. First of all, because it would follow that it
would cease to be in heaven: for what is moved locally does not come anew
to some place unless it quit the former one. Secondly, because every body
moved locally passes through all intermediary spaces, which cannot be
said here. Thirdly, because it is not possible for one movement of the
same body moved locally to be terminated in different places at the one
time, whereas the body of Christ under this sacrament begins at the one
time to be in several places. And consequently it remains that Christ's
body cannot begin to be anew in this sacrament except by change of the
substance of bread into itself. But what is changed into another thing,
no longer remains after such change. Hence the conclusion is that, saving
the truth of this sacrament, the substance of the bread cannot remain
after the consecration.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] Body Para. 2/4
Secondly, because this position is contrary to the form of this
sacrament, in which it is said: "This is My body," which would not be
true if the substance of the bread were to remain there; for the
substance of bread never is the body of Christ. Rather should one say in
that case: "Here is My body."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] Body Para. 3/4
Thirdly, because it would be opposed to the veneration of this
sacrament, if any substance were there, which could not be adored with
adoration of latria.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] Body Para. 4/4
Fourthly, because it is contrary to the rite of the Church, according to
which it is not lawful to take the body of Christ after bodily food,
while it is nevertheless lawful to take one consecrated host after
another. Hence this opinion is to be avoided as heretical.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: God "wedded His Godhead," i.e. His Divine power, to the
bread and wine, not that these may remain in this sacrament, but in order
that He may make from them His body and blood.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Christ is not really present in the other sacraments, as in
this; and therefore the substance of the matter remains in the other
sacraments, but not in this.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The species which remain in this sacrament, as shall be
said later (A[5]), suffice for its signification; because the nature of
the substance is known by its accidents.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the substance of the bread or wine is annihilated after the
consecration of this sacrament, or dissolved into their original matter?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the substance of the bread is annihilated after the
consecration of this sacrament, or dissolved into its original matter.
For whatever is corporeal must be somewhere. But the substance of bread,
which is something corporeal, does not remain, in this sacrament, as
stated above (A[2]); nor can we assign any place where it may be.
Consequently it is nothing after the consecration. Therefore, it is
either annihilated, or dissolved into its original matter.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, what is the term "wherefrom" in every change exists no
longer, except in the potentiality of matter; e.g. when air is changed
into fire, the form of the air remains only in the potentiality of
matter; and in like fashion when what is white becomes black. But in this
sacrament the substance of the bread or of the wine is the term
"wherefrom," while the body or the blood of Christ is the term
"whereunto": for Ambrose says in De Officiis (De Myster. ix): "Before the
blessing it is called another species, after the blessing the body of
Christ is signified." Therefore, when the consecration takes place, the
substance of the bread or wine no longer remains, unless perchance
dissolved into its (original) matter.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, one of two contradictories must be true. But this
proposition is false: "After the consecration the substance of the bread
or wine is something." Consequently, this is true: "The substance of the
bread or wine is nothing."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Q[83]): "God is not the cause of
tending to nothing." But this sacrament is wrought by Divine power.
Therefore, in this sacrament the substance of the bread or wine is not
annihilated.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[3] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Because the substance of the bread and wine does not
remain in this sacrament, some, deeming that it is impossible for the
substance of the bread and wine to be changed into Christ's flesh and
blood, have maintained that by the consecration, the substance of the
bread and wine is either dissolved into the original matter, or that it
is annihilated.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[3] Body Para. 2/2
Now the original matter into which mixed bodies can be dissolved is the
four elements. For dissolution cannot be made into primary matter, so
that a subject can exist without a form, since matter cannot exist
without a form. But since after the consecration nothing remains under
the sacramental species except the body and the blood of Christ, it will
be necessary to say that the elements into which the substance of the
bread and wine is dissolved, depart from thence by local motion, which
would be perceived by the senses. In like manner also the substance of
the bread or wine remains until the last instant of the consecration; but
in the last instant of the consecration there is already present there
the substance of the body or blood of Christ, just as the form is already
present in the last instant of generation. Hence no instant can be
assigned in which the original matter can be there. For it cannot be said
that the substance of the bread or wine is dissolved gradually into the
original matter, or that it successively quits the species, for if this
began to be done in the last instant of its consecration, then at the one
time under part of the host there would be the body of Christ together
with the substance of bread, which is contrary to what has been said
above (A[2]). But if this begin to come to pass before the consecration,
there will then be a time in which under one part of the host there will
be neither the substance of bread nor the body of Christ, which is not
fitting. They seem indeed to have taken this into careful consideration,
wherefore they formulated their proposition with an alternative viz.
that (the substance) may be annihilated. But even this cannot stand,
because no way can be assigned whereby Christ's true body can begin to be
in this sacrament, except by the change of the substance of bread into
it, which change is excluded the moment we admit either annihilation of
the substance of the bread, or dissolution into the original matter.
Likewise no cause can be assigned for such dissolution or annihilation,
since the effect of the sacrament is signified by the form: "This is My
body." Hence it is clear that the aforesaid opinion is false.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The substance of the bread or wine, after the consecration,
remains neither under the sacramental species, nor elsewhere; yet it does
not follow that it is annihilated; for it is changed into the body of
Christ; just as if the air, from which fire is generated, be not there or
elsewhere, it does not follow that it is annihilated.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The form, which is the term "wherefrom," is not changed
into another form; but one form succeeds another in the subject; and
therefore the first form remains only in the potentiality of matter. But
here the substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, as
stated above. Hence the conclusion does not follow.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Although after the consecration this proposition is false:
"The substance of the breed is something," still that into which the
substance of the bread is changed, is something, and consequently the
substance of the bread is not annihilated.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether bread can be converted into the body of Christ?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that bread cannot be converted into the body of Christ.
For conversion is a kind of change. But in every change there must be
some subject, which from being previously in potentiality is now in act.
because as is said in Phys. iii: "motion is the act of a thing existing
in potentiality." But no subject can be assigned for the substance of the
bread and of the body of Christ, because it is of the very nature of
substance for it "not to be in a subject," as it is said in Praedic. iii.
Therefore it is not possible for the whole substance of the bread to be
converted into the body of Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the form of the thing into which another is converted,
begins anew to inhere in the matter of the thing converted into it: as
when air is changed into fire not already existing, the form of fire
begins anew to be in the matter of the air; and in like manner when food
is converted into non-pre-existing man, the form of the man begins to be
anew in the matter of the food. Therefore, if bread be changed into the
body of Christ, the form of Christ's body must necessarily begin to be in
the matter of the bread, which is false. Consequently, the bread is not
changed into the substance of Christ's body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, when two things are diverse, one never becomes the
other, as whiteness never becomes blackness, as is stated in Phys. i. But
since two contrary forms are of themselves diverse, as being the
principles of formal difference, so two signate matters are of themselves
diverse, as being the principles of material distinction. Consequently,
it is not possible for this matter of bread to become this matter whereby
Christ's body is individuated, and so it is not possible for this
substance of bread to be changed into the substance of Christ's body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Eusebius Emesenus says: "To thee it ought neither to be
a novelty nor an impossibility that earthly and mortal things be changed
into the substance of Christ."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[4] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, As stated above (A[2]), since Christ's true body is in
this sacrament, and since it does not begin to be there by local motion,
nor is it contained therein as in a place, as is evident from what was
stated above (A[1], ad 2), it must be said then that it begins to be
there by conversion of the substance of bread into itself.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[4] Body Para. 2/3
Yet this change is not like natural changes, but is entirely
supernatural, and effected by God's power alone. Hence Ambrose says [(De
Sacram. iv): "See how Christ's word changes nature's laws, as He wills: a
man is not wont to be born save of man and woman: see therefore that
against the established law and order a man is born of a Virgin": and]
[*The passage in the brackets is not in the Leonine edition] (De Myster.
iv): "It is clear that a Virgin begot beyond the order of nature: and
what we make is the body from the Virgin. Why, then, do you look for
nature's order in Christ's body, since the Lord Jesus was Himself brought
forth of a Virgin beyond nature?" Chrysostom likewise (Hom. xlvii),
commenting on Jn. 6:64: "The words which I have spoken to you," namely,
of this sacrament, "are spirit and life," says: i.e. "spiritual, having
nothing carnal, nor natural consequence; but they are rent from all such
necessity which exists upon earth, and from the laws here established."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[4] Body Para. 3/3
For it is evident that every agent acts according as it is in act. But
every created agent is limited in its act, as being of a determinate
genus and species: and consequently the action of every created agent
bears upon some determinate act. Now the determination of every thing in
actual existence comes from its form. Consequently, no natural or created
agent can act except by changing the form in something; and on this
account every change made according to nature's laws is a formal change.
But God is infinite act, as stated in the FP, Q[7], A[1]; Q[26], A[2];
hence His action extends to the whole nature of being. Therefore He can
work not only formal conversion, so that diverse forms succeed each other
in the same subject; but also the change of all being, so that, to wit,
the whole substance of one thing be changed into the whole substance of
another. And this is done by Divine power in this sacrament; for the
whole substance of the bread is changed into the whole substance of
Christ's body, and the whole substance of the wine into the whole
substance of Christ's blood. Hence this is not a formal, but a
substantial conversion; nor is it a kind of natural movement: but, with a
name of its own, it can be called "transubstantiation."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This objection holds good in respect of formal change,
because it belongs to a form to be in matter or in a subject; but it does
not hold good in respect of the change of the entire substance. Hence,
since this substantial change implies a certain order of substances, one
of which is changed into the other, it is in both substances as in a
subject, just as order and number.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This argument also is true of formal conversion or change,
because, as stated above (ad 1), a form must be in some matter or
subject. But this is not so in a change of the entire substance; for in
this case no subject is possible.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Form cannot be changed into form, nor matter into matter by
the power of any finite agent. Such a change, however, can be made by the
power of an infinite agent, which has control over all being, because the
nature of being is common to both forms and to both matters; and whatever
there is of being in the one, the author of being can change into
whatever there is of being in the other, withdrawing that whereby it was
distinguished from the other.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the accidents of the bread and wine remain in this sacrament
after the change?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the accidents of the bread and wine do not remain
in this sacrament. For when that which comes first is removed, that which
follows is also taken away. But substance is naturally before accident,
as is proved in Metaph. vii. Since, then, after consecration, the
substance of the bread does not remain in this sacrament, it seems that
its accidents cannot remain.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, there ought not to be any deception in a sacrament of
truth. But we judge of substance by accidents. It seems, then, that human
judgment is deceived, if, while the accidents remain, the substance of
the bread does not. Consequently this is unbecoming to this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, although our faith is not subject to reason, still it is
not contrary to reason, but above it, as was said in the beginning of
this work (FP, Q[1], A[6], ad 2; A[8]). But our reason has its origin in
the senses. Therefore our faith ought not to be contrary to the senses,
as it is when sense judges that to be bread which faith believes to be
the substance of Christ's body. Therefore it is not befitting this
sacrament for the accidents of bread to remain subject to the senses, and
for the substance of bread not to remain.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[5] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, what remains after the change has taken place seems to
be the subject of change. If therefore the accidents of the bread remain
after the change has been effected, it seems that the accidents are the
subject of the change. But this is impossible; for "an accident cannot
have an accident" (Metaph. iii). Therefore the accidents of the bread and
wine ought not to remain in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says in his book on the Sentences of Prosper
(Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xiii): "Under the species which we
behold, of bread and wine, we honor invisible things, i.e. flesh and
blood."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the
bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done
by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but
horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore
Christ's flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the
species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely,
bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might be derided by
unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own species. Thirdly,
that while we receive our Lord's body and blood invisibly, this may
redound to the merit of faith.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As is said in the book De Causis, an effect depends more on
the first cause than on the second. And therefore by God's power, which
is the first cause of all things, it is possible for that which follows
to remain, while that which is first is taken away.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: There is no deception in this sacrament; for the accidents
which are discerned by the senses are truly present. But the intellect,
whose proper object is substance as is said in De Anima iii, is preserved
by faith from deception.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
And this serves as answer to the third argument; because faith is not
contrary to the senses, but concerns things to which sense does not reach.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: This change has not properly a subject, as was stated above
(A[4], ad 1); nevertheless the accidents which remain have some
resemblance of a subject.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the substantial form of the bread remains in this sacrament after
the consecration?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the substantial form of the bread remains in this
sacrament after the consecration. For it has been said (A[5]) that the
accidents remain after the consecration. But since bread is an artificial
thing, its form is an accident. Therefore it remains after the
consecration.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the form of Christ's body is His soul: for it is said in
De Anima ii, that the soul "is the act of a physical body which has life
in potentiality". But it cannot be said that the substantial form of the
bread is changed into the soul. Therefore it appears that it remains
after the consecration.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the proper operation of a things follows its substantial
form. But what remains in this sacrament, nourishes, and performs every
operation which bread would do were it present. Therefore the substantial
form of the bread remains in this sacrament after the consecration.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The substantial form of bread is of the substance of
bread. But the substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ,
as stated above (AA[2],3,4). Therefore the substantial form of the bread
does not remain.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, Some have contended that after the consecration not only
do the accidents of the bread remain, but also its substantial form. But
this cannot be. First of all, because if the substantial form of the
bread were to remain, nothing of the bread would be changed into the body
of Christ, excepting the matter; and so it would follow that it would be
changed, not into the whole body of Christ, but into its matter, which is
repugnant to the form of the sacrament, wherein it is said: "This is My
body."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] Body Para. 2/4
Secondly, because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain,
it would remain either in matter, or separated from matter. The first
cannot be, for if it were to remain in the matter of the bread, then the
whole substance of the bread would remain, which is against what was said
above (A[2]). Nor could it remain in any other matter, because the proper
form exists only in its proper matter. But if it were to remain separate
from matter, it would then be an actually intelligible form, and also an
intelligence; for all forms separated from matter are such.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] Body Para. 3/4
Thirdly, it would be unbefitting this sacrament: because the accidents
of the bread remain in this sacrament, in order that the body of Christ
may be seen under them, and not under its proper species, as stated above
(A[5]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] Body Para. 4/4
And therefore it must be said that the substantial form of the bread
does not remain.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: There is nothing to prevent art from making a thing whose
form is not an accident, but a substantial form; as frogs and serpents
can be produced by art: for art produces such forms not by its own power,
but by the power of natural energies. And in this way it produces the
substantial forms of bread, by the power of fire baking the matter made
up of flour and water.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The soul is the form of the body, giving it the whole order
of perfect being, i.e. being, corporeal being, and animated being, and
so on. Therefore the form of the bread is changed into the form of
Christ's body, according as the latter gives corporeal being, but not
according as it bestows animated being.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Some of the operations of bread follow it by reason of the
accidents, such as to affect the senses, and such operations are found in
the species of the bread after the consecration on account of the
accidents which remain. But some other operations follow the bread either
by reason of the matter, such as that it is changed into something else,
or else by reason of the substantial form, such as an operation
consequent upon its species, for instance, that it "strengthens man's
heart" (Ps. 103:15); and such operations are found in this sacrament, not
on account of the form or matter remaining, but because they are bestowed
miraculously upon the accidents themselves, as will be said later (Q[77],
A[3], ad 2,3; AA[5],6).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether this change is wrought instantaneously?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that this change is not wrought instantaneously, but
successively. For in this change there is first the substance of bread,
and afterwards the substance of Christ's body. Neither, then, is in the
same instant, but in two instants. But there is a mid-time between every
two instants. Therefore this change must take place according to the
succession of time, which is between the last instant in which the bread
is there, and the first instant in which the body of Christ is present.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, in every change something is "in becoming" and something
is "in being." But these two things do not exist at the one time for,
what is "in becoming," is not yet, whereas what is "in being," already
is. Consequently, there is a before and an after in such change: and so
necessarily the change cannot be instantaneous, but successive.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv) that this sacrament "is
made by the words of Christ." But Christ's words are pronounced
successively. Therefore the change takes place successively.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, This change is effected by a power which is infinite,
to which it belongs to operate in an instant.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, A change may be instantaneous from a threefold reason.
First on the part of the form, which is the terminus of the change. For,
if it be a form that receives more and less, it is acquired by its
subject successively, such as health; and therefore because a substantial
form does not receive more and less, it follows that its introduction
into matter is instantaneous.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] Body Para. 2/3
Secondly on the part of the subject, which sometimes is prepared
successively for receiving the form; thus water is heated successively.
When, however, the subject itself is in the ultimate disposition for
receiving the form, it receives it suddenly, as a transparent body is
illuminated suddenly. Thirdly on the part of the agent, which possesses
infinite power: wherefore it can instantly dispose the matter for the
form. Thus it is written (Mk. 7:34) that when Christ had said,
"'Ephpheta,' which is 'Be thou opened,' immediately his ears were opened,
and the string of his tongue was loosed."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] Body Para. 3/3
For these three reasons this conversion is instantaneous. First, because
the substance of Christ's body which is the term of this conversion, does
not receive more or less. Secondly, because in this conversion there is
no subject to be disposed successively. Thirdly, because it is effected
by God's infinite power.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/5
Reply OBJ 1: Some [*Cf. Albert the Great, Sent. iv, D, 11; St.
Bonaventure, Sent., iv, D, 11] do not grant simply that there is a
mid-time between every two instants. For they say that this is true of
two instants referring to the same movement, but not if they refer to
different things. Hence between the instant that marks the close of rest,
and another which marks the beginning of movement, there is no mid-time.
But in this they are mistaken, because the unity of time and of instant,
or even their plurality, is not taken according to movements of any sort,
but according to the first movement of the heavens, which is the measure
of all movement and rest.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 2/5
Accordingly others grant this of the time which measures movement
depending on the movement of the heavens. But there are some movements
which are not dependent on the movement of the heavens, nor measured by
it, as was said in the FP, Q[53], A[3] concerning the movements of the
angels. Hence between two instants responding to those movements there is
no mid-time. But this is not to the point, because although the change in
question has no relation of itself to the movement of the heavens, still
it follows the pronouncing of the words, which (pronouncing) must
necessarily be measured by the movement of the heavens. And therefore
there must of necessity be a mid-time between every two signate instants
in connection with that change.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 3/5
Some say therefore that the instant in which the bread was last, and the
instant in which the body of Christ is first, are indeed two in
comparison with the things measured, but are one comparatively to the
time measuring; as when two lines touch, there are two points on the part
of the two lines, but one point on the part of the place containing them.
But here there is no likeness, because instant and time is not the
intrinsic measure of particular movements, as a line and point are of a
body, but only the extrinsic measure, as place is to bodies.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 4/5
Hence others say that it is the same instant in fact, but another
according to reason. But according to this it would follow that things
really opposite would exist together; for diversity of reason does not
change a thing objectively.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 5/5
And therefore it must be said that this change, as stated above, is
wrought by Christ's words which are spoken by the priest, so that the
last instant of pronouncing the words is the first instant in which
Christ's body is in the sacrament; and that the substance of the bread is
there during the whole preceding time. Of this time no instant is to be
taken as proximately preceding the last one, because time is not made up
of successive instants, as is proved in Phys. vi. And therefore a first
instant can be assigned in which Christ's body is present; but a last
instant cannot be assigned in which the substance of bread is there, but
a last time can be assigned. And the same holds good in natural changes,
as is evident from the Philosopher (Phys. viii).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: In instantaneous changes a thing is "in becoming," and is
"in being" simultaneously; just as becoming illuminated and to be
actually illuminated are simultaneous: for in such, a thing is said to be
"in being" according as it now is; but to be "in becoming," according as
it was not before.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (ad 1), this change comes about in the last
instant of the pronouncing of the words. for then the meaning of the
words is finished, which meaning is efficacious in the forms of the
sacraments. And therefore it does not follow that this change is
successive.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether this proposition is false: "The body of Christ is made out of
bread"?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that this proposition is false: "The body of Christ is
made out of bread." For everything out of which another is made, is that
which is made the other; but not conversely: for we say that a black
thing is made out of a white thing, and that a white thing is made black:
and although we may say that a man becomes black still we do not say that
a black thing is made out of a man, as is shown in Phys. i. If it be
true, then, that Christ's body is made out of bread, it will be true to
say that bread is made the body of Christ. But this seems to be false,
because the bread is not the subject of the making, but rather its term.
Therefore, it is not said truly that Christ's body is made out of bread.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the term of "becoming" is something that is, or
something that is "made." But this proposition is never true: "The bread
is the body of Christ"; or "The bread is made the body of Christ"; or
again, "The bread will be the body of Christ." Therefore it seems that
not even this is true: "The body of Christ is made out of bread."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, everything out of which another is made is converted
into that which is made from it. But this proposition seems to be false:
"The bread is converted into the body of Christ," because such
conversion seems to be more miraculous than the creation of the world, in
which it is not said that non-being is converted into being. Therefore it
seems that this proposition likewise is false: "The body of Christ is
made out of bread."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, that out of which something is made, can be that thing.
But this proposition is false: "Bread can be the body of Christ."
Therefore this is likewise false: "The body of Christ is made out of
bread."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "When the consecration
takes place, the body of Christ is made out of the bread."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] Body Para. 1/6
I answer that, This conversion of bread into the body of Christ has
something in common with creation, and with natural transmutation, and in
some respect differs from both. For the order of the terms is common to
these three; that is, that after one thing there is another (for, in
creation there is being after non-being; in this sacrament, Christ's body
after the substance of bread; in natural transmutation white after black,
or fire after air); and that the aforesaid terms are not coexistent.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] Body Para. 2/6
Now the conversion, of which we are speaking, has this in common with
creation, that in neither of them is there any common subject belonging
to either of the extremes; the contrary of which appears in every natural
transmutation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] Body Para. 3/6
Again, this conversion has something in common with natural
transmutation in two respects, although not in the same fashion. First of
all because in both, one of the extremes passes into the other, as bread
into Christ's body, and air into fire; whereas non-being is not converted
into being. But this comes to pass differently on the one side and on the
other; for in this sacrament the whole substance of the bread passes into
the whole body of Christ; whereas in natural transmutation the matter of
the one receives the form of the other, the previous form being laid
aside. Secondly, they have this in common, that on both sides something
remains the same; whereas this does not happen in creation: yet
differently; for the same matter or subject remains in natural
transmutation; whereas in this sacrament the same accidents remain.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] Body Para. 4/6
From these observations we can gather the various ways of speaking in
such matters. For, because in no one of the aforesaid three things are
the extremes coexistent, therefore in none of them can one extreme be
predicated of the other by the substantive verb of the present tense: for
we do not say, "Non-being is being" or, "Bread is the body of Christ,"
or, "Air is fire," or, "White is black." Yet because of the relationship
of the extremes in all of them we can use the preposition "ex" [out of],
which denotes order; for we can truly and properly say that "being is
made out of non-being," and "out of bread, the body of Christ," and "out
of air, fire," and "out of white, black." But because in creation one of
the extremes does not pass into the other, we cannot use the word
"conversion" in creation, so as to say that "non-being is converted into
being": we can, however, use the word in this sacrament, just as in
natural transmutation. But since in this sacrament the whole substance is
converted into the whole substance, on that account this conversion is
properly termed transubstantiation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] Body Para. 5/6
Again, since there is no subject of this conversion, the things which
are true in natural conversion by reason of the subject, are not to be
granted in this conversion. And in the first place indeed it is evident
that potentiality to the opposite follows a subject, by reason whereof we
say that "a white thing can be black," or that "air can be fire";
although the latter is not so proper as the former: for the subject of
whiteness, in which there is potentiality to blackness, is the whole
substance of the white thing; since whiteness is not a part thereof;
whereas the subject of the form of air is part thereof: hence when it is
said, "Air can be fire," it is verified by synecdoche by reason of the
part. But in this conversion, and similarly in creation, because there is
no subject, it is not said that one extreme can be the other, as that
"non-being can be being," or that "bread can be the body of Christ": and
for the same reason it cannot be properly said that "being is made of
[de] non-being," or that "the body of Christ is made of bread," because
this preposition "of" [de] denotes a consubstantial cause, which
consubstantiality of the extremes in natural transmutations is considered
according to something common in the subject. And for the same reason it
is not granted that "bread will be the body of Christ," or that it "may
become the body of Christ," just as it is not granted in creation that
"non-being will be being," or that "non-being may become being," because
this manner of speaking is verified in natural transmutations by reason
of the subject: for instance, when we say that "a white thing becomes
black," or "a white thing will be black."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] Body Para. 6/6
Nevertheless, since in this sacrament, after the change, something
remains the same, namely, the accidents of the bread, as stated above
(A[5]), some of these expressions may be admitted by way of similitude,
namely, that "bread is the body of Christ," or, "bread will be the body
of Christ," or "the body of Christ is made of bread"; provided that by
the word "bread" is not understood the substance of bread, but in general
"that which is contained under the species of bread," under which species
there is first contained the substance of bread, and afterwards the body
of Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: That out of which something else is made, sometimes implies
together with the subject, one of the extremes of the transmutation, as
when it is said "a black thing is made out of a white one"; but sometimes
it implies only the opposite or the extreme, as when it is said---"out of
morning comes the day." And so it is not granted that the latter becomes
the former, that is, "that morning becomes the day." So likewise in the
matter in hand, although it may be said properly that "the body of Christ
is made out of bread," yet it is not said properly that "bread becomes
the body of Christ," except by similitude, as was said above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: That out of which another is made, will sometimes be that
other because of the subject which is implied. And therefore, since there
is no subject of this change, the comparison does not hold.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: In this change there are many more difficulties than in
creation, in which there is but this one difficulty, that something is
made out of nothing; yet this belongs to the proper mode of production of
the first cause, which presupposes nothing else. But in this conversion
not only is it difficult for this whole to be changed into that whole, so
that nothing of the former may remain (which does not belong to the
common mode of production of a cause), but furthermore it has this
difficulty that the accidents remain while the substance is destroyed,
and many other difficulties of which we shall treat hereafter (Q[77]).
Nevertheless the word "conversion" is admitted in this sacrament, but not
in creation, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[75] A[8] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: As was observed above, potentiality belongs to the subject,
whereas there is no subject in this conversion. And therefore it is not
granted that bread can be the body of Christ: for this conversion does
not come about by the passive potentiality of the creature, but solely by
the active power of the Creator.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE WAY IN WHICH CHRIST IS IN THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the manner in which Christ exists in this
sacrament; and under this head there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the whole Christ is under this sacrament?
(2) Whether the entire Christ is under each species of the sacrament?
(3) Whether the entire Christ is under every part of the species?
(4) Whether all the dimensions of Christ's body are in this sacrament?
(5) Whether the body of Christ is in this sacrament locally?
(6) Whether after the consecration, the body of Christ is moved when the
host or chalice is moved?
(7) Whether Christ's body, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by
the eye?
(8) Whether the true body of Christ remains in this sacrament when He is
seen under the appearance of a child or of flesh?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the whole Christ is contained under this sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the whole Christ is not contained under this
sacrament, because Christ begins to be in this sacrament by conversion of
the bread and wine. But it is evident that the bread and wine cannot be
changed either into the Godhead or into the soul of Christ. Since
therefore Christ exists in three substances, namely, the Godhead, soul
and body, as shown above (Q[2], A[5]; Q[5], AA[1],3), it seems that the
entire Christ is not under this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Christ is in this sacrament, forasmuch as it is ordained
to the refection of the faithful, which consists in food and drink, as
stated above (Q[74], A[1]). But our Lord said (Jn. 6:56): "My flesh is
meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." Therefore, only the flesh and
blood of Christ are contained in this sacrament. But there are many other
parts of Christ's body, for instance, the nerves, bones, and such like.
Therefore the entire Christ is not contained under this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a body of greater quantity cannot be contained under the
measure of a lesser. But the measure of the bread and wine is much
smaller than the measure of Christ's body. Therefore it is impossible
that the entire Christ be contained under this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Officiis): "Christ is in this
sacrament."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, It is absolutely necessary to confess according to
Catholic faith that the entire Christ is in this sacrament. Yet we must
know that there is something of Christ in this sacrament in a twofold
manner: first, as it were, by the power of the sacrament; secondly, from
natural concomitance. By the power of the sacrament, there is under the
species of this sacrament that into which the pre-existing substance of
the bread and wine is changed, as expressed by the words of the form,
which are effective in this as in the other sacraments; for instance, by
the words: "This is My body," or, "This is My blood." But from natural
concomitance there is also in this sacrament that which is really united
with that thing wherein the aforesaid conversion is terminated. For if
any two things be really united, then wherever the one is really, there
must the other also be: since things really united together are only
distinguished by an operation of the mind.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: Because the change of the bread and wine is not terminated
at the Godhead or the soul of Christ, it follows as a consequence that
the Godhead or the soul of Christ is in this sacrament not by the power
of the sacrament, but from real concomitance. For since the Godhead never
set aside the assumed body, wherever the body of Christ is, there, of
necessity, must the Godhead be; and therefore it is necessary for the
Godhead to be in this sacrament concomitantly with His body. Hence we
read in the profession of faith at Ephesus (P. I., chap. xxvi): "We are
made partakers of the body and blood of Christ, not as taking common
flesh, nor as of a holy man united to the Word in dignity, but the truly
life-giving flesh of the Word Himself."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
On the other hand, His soul was truly separated from His body, as stated
above (Q[50], A[5]). And therefore had this sacrament been celebrated
during those three days when He was dead, the soul of Christ would not
have been there, neither by the power of the sacrament, nor from real
concomitance. But since "Christ rising from the dead dieth now no more"
(Rm. 6:9), His soul is always really united with His body. And therefore
in this sacrament the body indeed of Christ is present by the power of
the sacrament, but His soul from real concomitance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: By the power of the sacrament there is contained under it,
as to the species of the bread, not only the flesh, but the entire body
of Christ, that is, the bones the nerves, and the like. And this is
apparent from the form of this sacrament, wherein it is not said: "This
is My flesh," but "This is My body." Accordingly, when our Lord said (Jn.
6:56): "My flesh is meat indeed," there the word flesh is put for the
entire body, because according to human custom it seems to be more
adapted for eating, as men commonly are fed on the flesh of animals, but
not on the bones or the like.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As has been already stated (Q[75], A[5]), after the
consecration of the bread into the body of Christ, or of the wine into
His blood, the accidents of both remain. From which it is evident that
the dimensions of the bread or wine are not changed into the dimensions
of the body of Christ, but substance into substance. And so the substance
of Christ's body or blood is under this sacrament by the power of the
sacrament, but not the dimensions of Christ's body or blood. Hence it is
clear that the body of Christ is in this sacrament "by way of substance,"
and not by way of quantity. But the proper totality of substance is
contained indifferently in a small or large quantity; as the whole nature
of air in a great or small amount of air, and the whole nature of a man
in a big or small individual. Wherefore, after the consecration, the
whole substance of Christ's body and blood is contained in this
sacrament, just as the whole substance of the bread and wine was
contained there before the consecration.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the whole Christ is contained under each species of this
sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the whole Christ is not contained under both
species of this sacrament. For this sacrament is ordained for the
salvation of the faithful, not by virtue of the species, but by virtue of
what is contained under the species, because the species were there even
before the consecration, from which comes the power of this sacrament. If
nothing, then, be contained under one species, but what is contained
under the other, and if the whole Christ be contained under both, it
seems that one of them is superfluous in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it was stated above (A[1], ad 1) that all the other
parts of the body, such as the bones, nerves, and the like, are comprised
under the name of flesh. But the blood is one of the parts of the human
body, as Aristotle proves (De Anima Histor. i). If, then, Christ's blood
be contained under the species of bread, just as the other parts of the
body are contained there, the blood ought not to be consecrated apart,
just as no other part of the body is consecrated separately.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, what is once "in being" cannot be again "in becoming."
But Christ's body has already begun to be in this sacrament by the
consecration of the bread. Therefore, it cannot begin again to be there
by the consecration of the wine; and so Christ's body will not be
contained under the species of the wine, and accordingly neither the
entire Christ. Therefore the whole Christ is not contained under each
species.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The gloss on 1 Cor. 11:25, commenting on the word
"Chalice," says that "under each species," namely, of the bread and wine,
"the same is received"; and thus it seems that Christ is entire under
each species.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, After what we have said above (A[1]), it must be held
most certainly that the whole Christ is under each sacramental species
yet not alike in each. For the body of Christ is indeed present under the
species of bread by the power of the sacrament, while the blood is there
from real concomitance, as stated above (A[1], ad 1) in regard to the
soul and Godhead of Christ; and under the species of wine the blood is
present by the power of the sacrament, and His body by real concomitance,
as is also His soul and Godhead: because now Christ's blood is not
separated from His body, as it was at the time of His Passion and death.
Hence if this sacrament had been celebrated then, the body of Christ
would have been under the species of the bread, but without the blood;
and, under the species of the wine, the blood would have been present
without the body, as it was then, in fact.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Although the whole Christ is under each species, yet it is
so not without purpose. For in the first place this serves to represent
Christ's Passion, in which the blood was separated from the body; hence
in the form for the consecration of the blood mention is made of its
shedding. Secondly, it is in keeping with the use of this sacrament, that
Christ's body be shown apart to the faithful as food, and the blood as
drink. Thirdly, it is in keeping with its effect, in which sense it was
stated above (Q[74], A[1]) that "the body is offered for the salvation of
the body, and the blood for the salvation of the soul."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: In Christ's Passion, of which this is the memorial, the
other parts of the body were not separated from one another, as the blood
was, but the body remained entire, according to Ex. 12:46: "You shall not
break a bone thereof." And therefore in this sacrament the blood is
consecrated apart from the body, but no other part is consecrated
separately from the rest.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above, the body of Christ is not under the
species of wine by the power of the sacrament, but by real concomitance:
and therefore by the consecration of the wine the body of Christ is not
there of itself, but concomitantly.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ is entire under every part of the species of the bread and
wine?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ is not entire under every part of the
species of bread and wine. Because those species can be divided
infinitely. If therefore Christ be entirely under every part of the said
species, it would follow that He is in this sacrament an infinite number
of times: which is unreasonable; because the infinite is repugnant not
only to nature, but likewise to grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, since Christ's is an organic body, it has parts
determinately distant. for a determinate distance of the individual parts
from each other is of the very nature of an organic body, as that of eye
from eye, and eye from ear. But this could not be so, if Christ were
entire under every part of the species; for every part would have to be
under every other part, and so where one part would be, there another
part would be. It cannot be then that the entire Christ is under every
part of the host or of the wine contained in the chalice.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Christ's body always retains the true nature of a body,
nor is it ever changed into a spirit. Now it is the nature of a body for
it to be "quantity having position" (Predic. iv). But it belongs to the
nature of this quantity that the various parts exist in various parts of
place. Therefore, apparently it is impossible for the entire Christ to be
under every part of the species.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon (Gregory, Sacramentarium):
"Each receives Christ the Lord, Who is entire under every morsel, nor is
He less in each portion, but bestows Himself entire under each."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[3] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As was observed above (A[1], ad 3), because the substance
of Christ's body is in this sacrament by the power of the sacrament,
while dimensive quantity is there by reason of real concomitance,
consequently Christ's body is in this sacrament substantively, that is,
in the way in which substance is under dimensions, but not after the
manner of dimensions, which means, not in the way in which the dimensive
quantity of a body is under the dimensive quantity of place.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[3] Body Para. 2/2
Now it is evident that the whole nature of a substance is under every
part of the dimensions under which it is contained; just as the entire
nature of air is under every part of air, and the entire nature of bread
under every part of bread; and this indifferently, whether the dimensions
be actually divided (as when the air is divided or the bread cut), or
whether they be actually undivided, but potentially divisible. And
therefore it is manifest that the entire Christ is under every part of
the species of the bread, even while the host remains entire, and not
merely when it is broken, as some say, giving the example of an image
which appears in a mirror, which appears as one in the unbroken mirror,
whereas when the mirror is broken, there is an image in each part of the
broken mirror: for the comparison is not perfect, because the multiplying
of such images results in the broken mirror on account of the various
reflections in the various parts of the mirror; but here there is only
one consecration, whereby Christ's body is in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Number follows division, and therefore so long as quantity
remains actually undivided, neither is the substance of any thing several
times under its proper dimensions, nor is Christ's body several times
under the dimensions of the bread; and consequently not an infinite
number of times, but just as many times as it is divided into parts.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The determinate distance of parts in an organic body is
based upon its dimensive quantity; but the nature of substance precedes
even dimensive quantity. And since the conversion of the substance of the
bread is terminated at the substance of the body of Christ, and since
according to the manner of substance the body of Christ is properly and
directly in this sacrament; such distance of parts is indeed in Christ's
true body, which, however, is not compared to this sacrament according to
such distance, but according to the manner of its substance, as stated
above (A[1], ad 3).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: This argument is based on the nature of a body, arising
from dimensive quantity. But it was said above (ad 2) that Christ's body
is compared with this sacrament not by reason of dimensive quantity, but
by reason of its substance, as already stated.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this
sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body is
not in this sacrament. For it was said (A[3]) that Christ's entire body
is contained under every part of the consecrated host. But no dimensive
quantity is contained entirely in any whole, and in its every part.
Therefore it is impossible for the entire dimensive quantity of Christ's
body to be there.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is impossible for two dimensive quantities to be
together, even though one be separate from its subject, and the other in
a natural body, as is clear from the Philosopher (Metaph. iii). But the
dimensive quantity of the bread remains in this sacrament, as is evident
to our senses. Consequently, the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is
not there.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, if two unequal dimensive quantities be set side by side,
the greater will overlap the lesser. But the dimensive quantity of
Christ's body is considerably larger than the dimensive quantity of the
consecrated host according to every dimension. Therefore, if the
dimensive quantity of Christ's body be in this sacrament together with
the dimensive quantity of the host, the dimensive quantity of Christ's
body is extended beyond the quantity of the host, which nevertheless is
not without the substance of Christ's body. Therefore, the substance of
Christ's body will be in this sacrament even outside the species of the
bread, which is unreasonable, since the substance of Christ's body is in
this sacrament, only by the consecration of the bread, as stated above
(A[2]). Consequently, it is impossible for the whole dimensive quantity
of Christ's body to be in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The existence of the dimensive quantity of any body
cannot be separated from the existence of its substance. But in this
sacrament the entire substance of Christ's body is present, as stated
above (AA[1],3). Therefore the entire dimensive quantity of Christ's body
is in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[4] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), any part of Christ is in this
sacrament in two ways: in one way, by the power of the sacrament; in
another, from real concomitance. By the power of the sacrament the
dimensive quantity of Christ's body is not in this sacrament; for, by the
power of the sacrament that is present in this sacrament, whereat the
conversion is terminated. But the conversion which takes place in this
sacrament is terminated directly at the substance of Christ's body, and
not at its dimensions; which is evident from the fact that the dimensive
quantity of the bread remains after the consecration, while only the
substance of the bread passes away.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[4] Body Para. 2/2
Nevertheless, since the substance of Christ's body is not really
deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents, hence it
comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of
Christ's body and all its other accidents are in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The manner of being of every thing is determined by what
belongs to it of itself, and not according to what is coupled
accidentally with it: thus an object is present to the sight, according
as it is white, and not according as it is sweet, although the same
object may be both white and sweet; hence sweetness is in the sight after
the manner of whiteness, and not after that of sweetness. Since, then,
the substance of Christ's body is present on the altar by the power of
this sacrament, while its dimensive quantity is there concomitantly and
as it were accidentally, therefore the dimensive quantity of Christ's
body is in this sacrament, not according to its proper manner (namely,
that the whole is in the whole, and the individual parts in individual
parts), but after the manner of substance, whose nature is for the whole
to be in the whole, and the whole in every part.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Two dimensive quantities cannot naturally be in the same
subject at the same time, so that each be there according to the proper
manner of dimensive quantity. But in this sacrament the dimensive
quantity of the bread is there after its proper manner, that is,
according to commensuration: not so the dimensive quantity of Christ's
body, for that is there after the manner of substance, as stated above
(ad 1).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this
sacrament not by way of commensuration, which is proper to quantity, and
to which it belongs for the greater to be extended beyond the lesser; but
in the way mentioned above (ad 1,2).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place.
Because, to be in a place definitively or circumscriptively belongs to
being in a place. But Christ's body seems to be definitively in this
sacrament, because it is so present where the species of the bread and
wine are, that it is nowhere else upon the altar: likewise it seems to be
there circumscriptively, because it is so contained under the species of
the consecrated host, that it neither exceeds it nor is exceeded by it.
Therefore Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the place of the bread and wine is not empty, because
nature abhors a vacuum; nor is the substance of the bread there, as
stated above (Q[75], A[2]); but only the body of Christ is there.
Consequently the body of Christ fills that place. But whatever fills a
place is there locally. Therefore the body of Christ is in this sacrament
locally.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, as stated above (A[4]), the body of Christ is in this
sacrament with its dimensive quantity, and with all its accidents. But to
be in a place is an accident of a body; hence "where" is numbered among
the nine kinds of accidents. Therefore Christ's body is in this sacrament
locally.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The place and the object placed must be equal, as is
clear from the Philosopher (Phys. iv). But the place, where this
sacrament is, is much less than the body of Christ. Therefore Christ's
body is not in this sacrament as in a place.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[5] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (A[1], ad 3; A[3]), Christ's body is in
this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity, but
rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a place is
in the place according to the manner of dimensive quantity, namely,
inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its dimensive
quantity. Hence it remains that Christ's body is not in this sacrament as
in a place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that
way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance
of Christ's body succeeds the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence
as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after
the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ's body.
Nevertheless the substance of Christ's body is not the subject of those
dimensions, as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the
substance of the bread was there locally by reason of its dimensions,
because it was compared with that place through the medium of its own
dimensions; but the substance of Christ's body is compared with that
place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary,
the proper dimensions of Christ's body are compared with that place
through the medium of substance; which is contrary to the notion of a
located body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[5] Body Para. 2/2
Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ's body is not in this sacrament definitively,
because then it would be only on the particular altar where this
sacrament is performed: whereas it is in heaven under its own species,
and on many other altars under the sacramental species. Likewise it is
evident that it is not in this sacrament circumscriptively, because it is
not there according to the commensuration of its own quantity, as stated
above. But that it is not outside the superficies of the sacrament, nor
on any other part of the altar, is due not to its being there
definitively or circumscriptively, but to its being there by consecration
and conversion of the bread and wine, as stated above (A[1]; Q[15], A[2],
sqq.).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The place in which Christ's body is, is not empty; nor yet
is it properly filled with the substance of Christ's body, which is not
there locally, as stated above; but it is filled with the sacramental
species, which have to fill the place either because of the nature of
dimensions, or at least miraculously, as they also subsist miraculously
after the fashion of substance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (A[4]), the accidents of Christ's body are
in this sacrament by real concomitance. And therefore those accidents of
Christ's body which are intrinsic to it are in this sacrament. But to be
in a place is an accident when compared with the extrinsic container. And
therefore it is not necessary for Christ to be in this sacrament as in a
place.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's body is in this sacrament movably?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ's body is movably in this sacrament, because
the Philosopher says (Topic. ii) that "when we are moved, the things
within us are moved": and this is true even of the soul's spiritual
substance. "But Christ is in this sacrament," as shown above (Q[74], A[1]
). Therefore He is moved when it is moved.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the truth ought to correspond with the figure. But,
according to the commandment (Ex. 12:10), concerning the Paschal Lamb, a
figure of this sacrament, "there remained nothing until the morning."
Neither, therefore, if this sacrament be reserved until morning, will
Christ's body be there; and so it is not immovably in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, if Christ's body were to remain under this sacrament
even until the morrow, for the same reason it will remain there during
all coming time; for it cannot be said that it ceases to be there when
the species pass, because the existence of Christ's body is not dependent
on those species. Yet Christ does not remain in this sacrament for all
coming time. It seems, then, that straightway on the morrow, or after a
short time, He ceases to be under this sacrament. And so it seems that
Christ is in this sacrament movably.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, it is impossible for the same thing to be in motion and
at rest, else contradictories would be verified of the same subject. But
Christ's body is at rest in heaven. Therefore it is not movably in this
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[6] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, When any thing is one, as to subject, and manifold in
being, there is nothing to hinder it from being moved in one respect, and
yet to remain at rest in another just as it is one thing for a body to be
white, and another thing, to be large; hence it can be moved as to its
whiteness, and yet continue unmoved as to its magnitude. But in Christ,
being in Himself and being under the sacrament are not the same thing,
because when we say that He is under this sacrament, we express a kind of
relationship to this sacrament. According to this being, then, Christ is
not moved locally of Himself, but only accidentally, because Christ is
not in this sacrament as in a place, as stated above (A[5]). But what is
not in a place, is not moved of itself locally, but only according to the
motion of the subject in which it is.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[6] Body Para. 2/3
In the same way neither is it moved of itself according to the being
which it has in this sacrament, by any other change whatever, as for
instance, that it ceases to be under this sacrament: because whatever
possesses unfailing existence of itself, cannot be the principle of
failing; but when something else fails, then it ceases to be in it; just
as God, Whose existence is unfailing and immortal, ceases to be in some
corruptible creature because such corruptible creature ceases to exist.
And in this way, since Christ has unfailing and incorruptible being, He
ceases to be under this sacrament, not because He ceases to be, nor yet
by local movement of His own, as is clear from what has been said, but
only by the fact that the sacramental species cease to exist.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[6] Body Para. 3/3
Hence it is clear that Christ, strictly speaking is immovably in this
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This argument deals with accidental movement, whereby
things within us are moved together with us. But with things which can of
themselves be in a place, like bodies, it is otherwise than with things
which cannot of themselves be in a place, such as forms and spiritual
substances. And to this mode can be reduced what we say of Christ, being
moved accidentally, according to the existence which He has in this
sacrament, in which He is not present as in a place.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: It was this argument which seems to have convinced those
who held that Christ's body does not remain under this sacrament if it be
reserved until the morrow. It is against these that Cyril says (Ep.
lxxxiii): "Some are so foolish as to say that the mystical blessing
departs from the sacrament, if any of its fragments remain until the next
day: for Christ's consecrated body is not changed, and the power of the
blessing, and the life-giving grace is perpetually in it." Thus are all
other consecrations irremovable so long as the consecrated things endure;
on which account they are not repeated. And although the truth
corresponds with the figure, still the figure cannot equal it.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The body of Christ remains in this sacrament not only until
the morrow, but also in the future, so long as the sacramental species
remain: and when they cease, Christ's body ceases to be under them, not
because it depends on them, but because the relationship of Christ's body
to those species is taken away, in the same way as God ceases to be the
Lord of a creature which ceases to exist.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the body of Christ, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by
any eye, at least by a glorified one?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the body of Christ, as it is in this sacrament, can
be seen by the eye, at least by a glorified one. For our eyes are
hindered from beholding Christ's body in this sacrament, on account of
the sacramental species veiling it. But the glorified eye cannot be
hindered by anything from seeing bodies as they are. Therefore, the
glorified eye can see Christ's body as it is in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the glorified bodies of the saints will be "made like to
the body" of Christ's "glory," according to Phil. 3:21. But Christ's eye
beholds Himself as He is in this sacrament. Therefore, for the same
reason, every other glorified eye can see Him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, in the resurrection the saints will be equal to the
angels, according to Lk. 20:36. But the angels see the body of Christ as
it is in this sacrament, for even the devils are found to pay reverence
thereto, and to fear it. Therefore, for like reason, the glorified eye
can see Christ as He is in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, As long as a thing remains the same, it cannot at the
same time be seen by the same eye under diverse species. But the
glorified eye sees Christ always, as He is in His own species, according
to Is. 33:17: "(His eyes) shall see the king in his beauty." It seems,
then, that it does not see Christ, as He is under the species of this
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[7] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The eye is of two kinds, namely, the bodily eye properly
so-called, and the intellectual eye, so-called by similitude. But
Christ's body as it is in this sacrament cannot be seen by any bodily
eye. First of all, because a body which is visible brings about an
alteration in the medium, through its accidents. Now the accidents of
Christ's body are in this sacrament by means of the substance; so that
the accidents of Christ's body have no immediate relationship either to
this sacrament or to adjacent bodies; consequently they do not act on the
medium so as to be seen by any corporeal eye. Secondly, because, as
stated above (A[1], ad 3; A[3]), Christ's body is substantially present
in this sacrament. But substance, as such, is not visible to the bodily
eye, nor does it come under any one of the senses, nor under the
imagination, but solely under the intellect, whose object is "what a
thing is" (De Anima iii). And therefore, properly speaking, Christ's
body, according to the mode of being which it has in this sacrament, is
perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but only by the
intellect, which is called the spiritual eye.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[7] Body Para. 2/2
Moreover it is perceived differently by different intellects. For since
the way in which Christ is in this sacrament is entirely supernatural, it
is visible in itself to a supernatural, i.e. the Divine, intellect, and
consequently to a beatified intellect, of angel or of man, which, through
the participated glory of the Divine intellect, sees all supernatural
things in the vision of the Divine Essence. But it can be seen by a
wayfarer through faith alone, like other supernatural things. And not
even the angelic intellect of its own natural power is capable of
beholding it; consequently the devils cannot by their intellect perceive
Christ in this sacrament, except through faith, to which they do not pay
willing assent; yet they are convinced of it from the evidence of signs,
according to James 2:19: "The devils believe, and tremble."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Our bodily eye, on account of the sacramental species, is
hindered from beholding the body of Christ underlying them, not merely as
by way of veil (just as we are hindered from seeing what is covered with
any corporeal veil), but also because Christ's body bears a relation to
the medium surrounding this sacrament, not through its own accidents, but
through the sacramental species.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Christ's own bodily eye sees Himself existing under the
sacrament, yet it cannot see the way in which it exists under the
sacrament, because that belongs to the intellect. But it is not the same
with any other glorified eye, because Christ's eye is under this
sacrament, in which no other glorified eye is conformed to it.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: No angel, good or bad, can see anything with a bodily eye,
but only with the mental eye. Hence there is no parallel reason, as is
evident from what was said above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ's body is truly there when flesh or a child appears
miraculously in this sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ's body is not truly there when flesh or a
child appears miraculously in this sacrament. Because His body ceases to
be under this sacrament when the sacramental species cease to be present,
as stated above (A[6]). But when flesh or a child appears, the
sacramental species cease to be present. Therefore Christ's body is not
truly there.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, wherever Christ's body is, it is there either under its
own species, or under those of the sacrament. But when such apparitions
occur, it is evident that Christ is not present under His own species,
because the entire Christ is contained in this sacrament, and He remains
entire under the form in which He ascended to heaven: yet what appears
miraculously in this sacrament is sometimes seen as a small particle of
flesh, or at times as a small child. Now it is evident that He is not
there under the sacramental species, which is that of bread or wine.
Consequently, it seems that Christ's body is not there in any way.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Christ's body begins to be in this sacrament by
consecration and conversion, as was said above (Q[75], AA[2],3,4). But
the flesh and blood which appear by miracle are not consecrated, nor are
they converted into Christ's true body and blood. Therefore the body or
the blood of Christ is not under those species.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, When such apparition takes place, the same reverence is
shown to it as was shown at first, which would not be done if Christ were
not truly there, to Whom we show reverence of "latria." Therefore, when
such apparition occurs, Christ is under the sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, Such apparition comes about in two ways, when
occasionally in this sacrament flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen.
Sometimes it happens on the part of the beholders, whose eyes are so
affected as if they outwardly saw flesh, or blood, or a child, while no
change takes place in the sacrament. And this seems to happen when to one
person it is seen under the species of flesh or of a child, while to
others it is seen as before under the species of bread; or when to the
same individual it appears for an hour under the appearance of flesh or a
child, and afterwards under the appearance of bread. Nor is there any
deception there, as occurs in the feats of magicians, because such
species is divinely formed in the eye in order to represent some truth,
namely, for the purpose of showing that Christ's body is truly under this
sacrament; just as Christ without deception appeared to the disciples who
were going to Emmaus. For Augustine says (De Qq. Evang. ii) that "when
our pretense is referred to some significance, it is not a lie, but a
figure of the truth." And since in this way no change is made in the
sacrament, it is manifest that, when such apparition occurs, Christ does
not cease to be under this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] Body Para. 2/4
But it sometimes happens that such apparition comes about not merely by
a change wrought in the beholders, but by an appearance which really
exists outwardly. And this indeed is seen to happen when it is beheld by
everyone under such an appearance, and it remains so not for an hour, but
for a considerable time; and, in this case some think that it is the
proper species of Christ's body. Nor does it matter that sometimes
Christ's entire body is not seen there, but part of His flesh, or else
that it is not seen in youthful guise. but in the semblance of a child,
because it lies within the power of a glorified body for it to be seen by
a non-glorified eye either entirely or in part, and under its own
semblance or in strange guise, as will be said later (XP, Q[85], AA[2],3).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] Body Para. 3/4
But this seems unlikely. First of all, because Christ's body under its
proper species can be seen only in one place, wherein it is definitively
contained. Hence since it is seen in its proper species, and is adored in
heaven, it is not seen under its proper species in this sacrament.
Secondly, because a glorified body, which appears at will, disappears
when it wills after the apparition; thus it is related (Lk. 24:31) that
our Lord "vanished out of sight" of the disciples. But that which appears
under the likeness of flesh in this sacrament, continues for a long time;
indeed, one reads of its being sometimes enclosed, and, by order of many
bishops, preserved in a pyx, which it would be wicked to think of Christ
under His proper semblance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] Body Para. 4/4
Consequently, it remains to be said, that, while the dimensions remain
the same as before, there is a miraculous change wrought in the other
accidents, such as shape, color, and the rest, so that flesh, or blood,
or a child, is seen. And, as was said already, this is not deception,
because it is done "to represent the truth," namely, to show by this
miraculous apparition that Christ's body and blood are truly in this
sacrament. And thus it is clear that as the dimensions remain, which are
the foundation of the other accidents, as we shall see later on (Q[77],
A[2]), the body of Christ truly remains in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: When such apparition takes place, the sacramental species
sometimes continue entire in themselves; and sometimes only as to that
which is principal, as was said above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As stated above, during such apparitions Christ's proper
semblance is not seen, but a species miraculously formed either in the
eyes of the beholders, or in the sacramental dimensions themselves, as
was said above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[76] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The dimensions of the consecrated bread and wine continue,
while a miraculous change is wrought in the other accidents, as stated
above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE ACCIDENTS WHICH REMAIN IN THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We must now consider the accidents which remain in this sacrament; under
which head there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the accidents which remain are without a subject?
(2) Whether dimensive quantity is the subject of the other accidents?
(3) Whether such accidents can affect an extrinsic body?
(4) Whether they can be corrupted?
(5) Whether anything can be generated from them?
(6) Whether they can nourish?
(7) Of the breaking of the consecrated bread?
(8) Whether anything can be mixed with the consecrated wine?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the accidents remain in this sacrament without a subject?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the accidents do not remain in this sacrament
without a subject, because there ought not to be anything disorderly or
deceitful in this sacrament of truth. But for accidents to be without a
subject is contrary to the order which God established in nature; and
furthermore it seems to savor of deceit, since accidents are naturally
the signs of the nature of the subject. Therefore the accidents are not
without a subject in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, not even by miracle can the definition of a thing be
severed from it, or the definition of another thing be applied to it; for
instance, that, while man remains a man, he can be an irrational animal.
For it would follow that contradictories can exist at the one time: for
the "definition of a thing is what its name expresses," as is said in
Metaph. iv. But it belongs to the definition of an accident for it to be
in a subject, while the definition of substance is that it must subsist
of itself, and not in another. Therefore it cannot come to pass, even by
miracle, that the accidents exist without a subject in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, an accident is individuated by its subject. If therefore
the accidents remain in this sacrament without a subject, they will not
be individual, but general, which is clearly false, because thus they
would not be sensible, but merely intelligible.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the accidents after the consecration of this sacrament
do not obtain any composition. But before the consecration they were not
composed either of matter and form, nor of existence [quo est] and
essence [quod est]. Therefore, even after consecration they are not
composite in either of these ways. But this is unreasonable, for thus
they would be simpler than angels, whereas at the same time these
accidents are perceptible to the senses. Therefore, in this sacrament the
accidents do not remain without a subject.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory says in an Easter Homily (Lanfranc, De Corp. et
Sang. Dom. xx) that "the sacramental species are the names of those
things which were there before, namely, of the bread and wine." Therefore
since the substance of the bread and the wine does not remain, it seems
that these species remain without a subject.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, The species of the bread and wine, which are perceived
by our senses to remain in this sacrament after consecration, are not
subjected in the substance of the bread and wine, for that does not
remain, as stated above (Q[75], A[2]); nor in the substantial form, for
that does not remain (Q[75], A[6]), and if it did remain, "it could not
be a subject," as Boethius declares (De Trin. i). Furthermore it is
manifest that these accidents are not subjected in the substance of
Christ's body and blood, because the substance of the human body cannot
in any way be affected by such accidents; nor is it possible for Christ's
glorious and impassible body to be altered so as to receive these
qualities.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] Body Para. 2/3
Now there are some who say that they are in the surrounding atmosphere
as in a subject. But even this cannot be: in the first place, because
atmosphere is not susceptive of such accidents. Secondly, because these
accidents are not where the atmosphere is, nay more, the atmosphere is
displaced by the motion of these species. Thirdly, because accidents do
not pass from subject to subject, so that the same identical accident
which was first in one subject be afterwards in another; because an
accident is individuated by the subject; hence it cannot come to pass for
an accident remaining identically the same to be at one time in one
subject, and at another time in another. Fourthly, since the atmosphere
is not deprived of its own accidents, it would have at the one time its
own accidents and others foreign to it. Nor can it be maintained that
this is done miraculously in virtue of the consecration, because the
words of consecration do not signify this, and they effect only what they
signify.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] Body Para. 3/3
Therefore it follows that the accidents continue in this sacrament
without a subject. This can be done by Divine power: for since an effect
depends more upon the first cause than on the second, God Who is the
first cause both of substance and accident, can by His unlimited power
preserve an accident in existence when the substance is withdrawn whereby
it was preserved in existence as by its proper cause, just as without
natural causes He can produce other effects of natural causes, even as He
formed a human body in the Virgin's womb, "without the seed of man" (Hymn
for Christmas, First Vespers).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: There is nothing to hinder the common law of nature from
ordaining a thing, the contrary of which is nevertheless ordained by a
special privilege of grace, as is evident in the raising of the dead, and
in the restoring of sight to the blind: even thus in human affairs, to
some individuals some things are granted by special privilege which are
outside the common law. And so, even though it be according to the common
law of nature for an accident to be in a subject, still for a special
reason, according to the order of grace, the accidents exist in this
sacrament without a subject, on account of the reasons given above (Q[75]
, A[5]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Since being is not a genus, then being cannot be of itself
the essence of either substance or accident. Consequently, the definition
of substance is not---"a being of itself without a subject," nor is the
definition of accident---"a being in a subject"; but it belongs to the
quiddity or essence of substance "to have existence not in a subject";
while it belongs to the quiddity or essence of accident "to have
existence in a subject." But in this sacrament it is not in virtue of
their essence that accidents are not in a subject, but through the Divine
power sustaining them; and consequently they do not cease to be
accidents, because neither is the definition of accident withdrawn from
them, nor does the definition of substance apply to them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: These accidents acquired individual being in the substance
of the bread and wine; and when this substance is changed into the body
and blood of Christ, they remain in that individuated being which they
possessed before, hence they are individual and sensible.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: These accidents had no being of their own nor other
accidents, so long as the substance of the bread and wine remained; but
their subjects had "such" being through them, just as snow is "white"
through whiteness. But after the consecration the accidents which remain
have being; hence they are compounded of existence and essence, as was
said of the angels, in the FP, Q[50], A[2], ad 3; and besides they have
composition of quantitative parts.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of the bread or wine is
the subject of the other accidents?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of the
bread or wine is not the subject of the other accidents. For accident is
not the subject of accident; because no form can be a subject, since to
be a subject is a property of matter. But dimensive quantity is an
accident. Therefore dimensive quantity cannot be the subject of the other
accidents.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, just as quantity is individuated by substance, so also
are the other accidents. If, then, the dimensive quantity of the bread or
wine remains individuated according to the being it had before, in which
it is preserved, for like reason the other accidents remain individuated
according to the existence which they had before in the substance.
Therefore they are not in dimensive quantity as in a subject, since every
accident is individuated by its own subject.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, among the other accidents that remain, of the bread and
wine, the senses perceive also rarity and density, which cannot be in
dimensive quantity existing outside matter; because a thing is rare which
has little matter under great dimensions. while a thing is dense which
has much matter under small dimensions, as is said in Phys. iv. It does
not seem, then, that dimensive quantity can be the subject of the
accidents which remain in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, quantity abstract from matter seems to be mathematical
quantity, which is not the subject of sensible qualities. Since, then,
the remaining accidents in this sacrament are sensible, it seems that in
this sacrament they cannot be subjected in the dimensive quantity of the
bread and wine that remains after consecration.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Qualities are divisible only accidentally, that is, by
reason of the subject. But the qualities remaining in this sacrament are
divided by the division of dimensive quantity, as is evident through our
senses. Therefore, dimensive quantity is the subject of the accidents
which remain in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, It is necessary to say that the other accidents which
remain in this sacrament are subjected in the dimensive quantity of the
bread and wine that remains: first of all, because something having
quantity and color and affected by other accidents is perceived by the
senses; nor is sense deceived in such. Secondly, because the first
disposition of matter is dimensive quantity, hence Plato also assigned
"great" and "small" as the first differences of matter (Aristotle,
Metaph. iv). And because the first subject is matter, the consequence is
that all other accidents are related to their subject through the medium
of dimensive quantity; just as the first subject of color is said to be
the surface, on which account some have maintained that dimensions are
the substances of bodies, as is said in Metaph. iii. And since, when the
subject is withdrawn, the accidents remain according to the being which
they had before, it follows that all accidents remain founded upon
dimensive quantity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
Thirdly, because, since the subject is the principle of individuation of
the accidents, it is necessary for what is admitted as the subject of
some accidents to be somehow the principle of individuation: for it is of
the very notion of an individual that it cannot be in several; and this
happens in two ways. First, because it is not natural to it to be in any
one; and in this way immaterial separated forms, subsisting of
themselves, are also individuals of themselves. Secondly, because a form,
be it substantial or accidental, is naturally in someone indeed, not in
several, as this whiteness, which is in this body. As to the first,
matter is the principle of individuation of all inherent forms, because,
since these forms, considered in themselves, are naturally in something
as in a subject, from the very fact that one of them is received in
matter, which is not in another, it follows that neither can the form
itself thus existing be in another. As to the second, it must be
maintained that the principle of individuation is dimensive quantity. For
that something is naturally in another one solely, is due to the fact
that that other is undivided in itself, and distinct from all others. But
it is on account of quantity that substance can be divided, as is said in
Phys. i. And therefore dimensive quantity itself is a particular
principle of individuation in forms of this kind, namely, inasmuch as
forms numerically distinct are in different parts of the matter. Hence
also dimensive quantity has of itself a kind of individuation, so that we
can imagine several lines of the same species, differing in position,
which is included in the notion of this quantity; for it belongs to
dimension for it to be "quantity having position" (Aristotle, Categor.
iv), and therefore dimensive quantity can be the subject of the other
accidents, rather than the other way about.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: One accident cannot of itself be the subject of another,
because it does not exist of itself. But inasmuch as an accident is
received in another thing, one is said to be the subject of the other,
inasmuch as one is received in a subject through another, as the surface
is said to be the subject of color. Hence when God makes an accident to
exist of itself, it can also be of itself the subject of another.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The other accidents, even as they were in the substance of
the bread, were individuated by means of dimensive quantity, as stated
above. And therefore dimensive quantity is the subject of the other
accidents remaining in this sacrament, rather than conversely.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Rarity and density are particular qualities accompanying
bodies, by reason of their having much or little matter under dimensions;
just as all other accidents likewise follow from the principles of
substance. And consequently, as the accidents are preserved by Divine
power when the substance is withdrawn, so, when matter is withdrawn, the
qualities which go with matter, such as rarity and density, are preserved
by Divine power.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Mathematical quantity abstracts not from intelligible
matter, but from sensible matter, as is said in Metaph. vii. But matter
is termed sensible because it underlies sensible qualities. And therefore
it is manifest that the dimensive quantity, which remains in this
sacrament without a subject, is not mathematical quantity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the species remaining in this sacrament can change external
objects?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the species which remain in this sacrament cannot
affect external objects. For it is proved in Phys. vii, that forms which
are in matter are produced by forms that are in matter, but not from
forms which are without matter, because like makes like. But the
sacramental species are species without matter, since they remain without
a subject, as is evident from what was said above (A[1]). Therefore they
cannot affect other matter by producing any form in it.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, when the action of the principal agent ceases, then the
action of the instrument must cease, as when the carpenter rests, the
hammer is moved no longer. But all accidental forms act instrumentally in
virtue of the substantial form as the principal agent. Therefore, since
the substantial form of the bread and wine does not remain in this
sacrament, as was shown above (Q[75], A[6]), it seems that the accidental
forms which remain cannot act so as to change external matter.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, nothing acts outside its species, because an effect
cannot surpass its cause. But all the sacramental species are accidents.
Therefore they cannot change external matter, at least as to a
substantial form.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, If they could not change external bodies, they could
not be felt; for a thing is felt from the senses being changed by a
sensible thing, as is said in De Anima ii.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Because everything acts in so far as it is an actual
being, the consequence is that everything stands in the same relation to
action as it does to being. Therefore, because, according to what was
said above (A[1]), it is an effect of the Divine power that the
sacramental species continue in the being which they had when the
substance of the bread and wine was present, it follows that they
continue in their action. Consequently they retain every action which
they had while the substance of the bread and wine remained, now that the
substance of the bread and wine has passed into the body and blood of
Christ. Hence there is no doubt but that they can change external bodies.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The sacramental species, although they are forms existing
without matter, still retain the same being which they had before in
matter, and therefore as to their being they are like forms which are in
matter.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The action of an accidental form depends upon the action of
a substantial form in the same way as the being of accident depends upon
the being of substance; and therefore, as it is an effect of Divine power
that the sacramental species exist without substance, so is it an effect
of Divine power that they can act without a substantial form, because
every action of a substantial or accidental form depends upon God as the
first agent.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The change which terminates in a substantial form is not
effected by a substantial form directly, but by means of the active and
passive qualities, which act in virtue of the substantial form. But by
Divine power this instrumental energy is retained in the sacramental
species, just as it was before: and consequently their action can be
directed to a substantial form instrumentally, just in the same way as
anything can act outside its species, not as by its own power, but by the
power of the chief agent.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the sacramental species can be corrupted?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the sacramental species cannot be corrupted,
because corruption comes of the separation of the form from the matter.
But the matter of the bread does not remain in this sacrament, as is
clear from what was said above (Q[75], A[2]). Therefore these species
cannot be corrupted.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, no form is corrupted except accidentally, that is, when
its subject is corrupted; hence self-subsisting forms are incorruptible,
as is seen in spiritual substances. But the sacramental species are forms
without a subject. Therefore they cannot be corrupted.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, if they be corrupted, it will either be naturally or
miraculously. But they cannot be corrupted naturally, because no subject
of corruption can be assigned as remaining after the corruption has taken
place. Neither can they be corrupted miraculously, because the miracles
which occur in this sacrament take place in virtue of the consecration,
whereby the sacramental species are preserved: and the same thing is not
the cause of preservation and of corruption. Therefore, in no way can the
sacramental species be corrupted.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, We perceive by our senses that the consecrated hosts
become putrefied and corrupted.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, Corruption is "movement from being into non-being"
(Aristotle, Phys. v). Now it has been stated (A[3]) that the sacramental
species retain the same being as they had before when the substance of
the bread was present. Consequently, as the being of those accidents
could be corrupted while the substance of the bread and wine was present,
so likewise they can be corrupted now that the substance has passed away.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] Body Para. 2/4
But such accidents could have been previously corrupted in two ways: in
one way, of themselves; in another way, accidentally. They could be
corrupted of themselves, as by alteration of the qualities, and increase
or decrease of the quantity, not in the way in which increase or decrease
is found only in animated bodies, such as the substances of the bread and
wine are not, but by addition or division; for, as is said in Metaph.
iii, one dimension is dissolved by division, and two dimensions result;
while on the contrary, by addition, two dimensions become one. And in
this way such accidents can be corrupted manifestly after consecration,
because the dimensive quantity which remains can receive division and
addition; and since it is the subject of sensible qualities, as stated
above (A[1]), it can likewise be the subject of their alteration, for
instance, if the color or the savor of the bread or wine be altered.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] Body Para. 3/4
An accident can be corrupted in another way, through the corruption of
its subject, and in this way also they can be corrupted after
consecration; for although the subject does not remain, still the being
which they had in the subject does remain, which being is proper, and
suited to the subject. And therefore such being can be corrupted by a
contrary agent, as the substance of the bread or wine was subject to
corruption, and, moreover, was not corrupted except by a preceding
alteration regarding the accidents.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] Body Para. 4/4
Nevertheless, a distinction must be made between each of the aforesaid
corruptions; because, when the body and the blood of Christ succeed in
this sacrament to the substance of the bread and wine, if there be such
change on the part of the accidents as would not have sufficed for the
corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood of Christ do
not cease to be under this sacrament on account of such change, whether
the change be on the part of the quality, as for instance, when the color
or the savor of the bread or wine is slightly modified; or on the part of
the quantity, as when the bread or the wine is divided into such parts as
to keep in them the nature of bread or of wine. But if the change be so
great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted,
then Christ's body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this
either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other
qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with
the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as,
for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine
divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer
remain.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Since it belongs essentially to corruption to take away the
being of a thing, in so far as the being of some form is in matter, it
results that by corruption the form is separated from the matter. But if
such being were not in matter, yet like such being as is in matter, it
could be taken away by corruption, even where there is no matter; as
takes place in this sacrament, as is evident from what was said above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Although the sacramental species are forms not in matter,
yet they have the being which they had in matter.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: This corruption of species is not miraculous, but natural;
nevertheless, it presupposes the miracle which is wrought in the
consecration, namely, that those sacramental species retain without a
subject, the same being as they had in a subject; just as a blind man, to
whom sight is given miraculously, sees naturally.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether anything can be generated from the sacramental species?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that nothing can be generated from the sacramental
species: because, whatever is generated, is generated out of some matter:
for nothing is generated out of nothing, although by creation something
is made out of nothing. But there is no matter underlying the sacramental
species except that of Christ's body, and that body is incorruptible.
Therefore it seems that nothing can be generated from the sacramental
species.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, things which are not of the same genus cannot spring
from one another: thus a line is not made of whiteness. But accident and
substance differ generically. Therefore, since the sacramental species
are accidents, it seems that no substance can be generated from them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, if any corporeal substance be generated from them, such
substance will not be without accident. Therefore, if any corporeal
substance be generated from the sacramental species, then substance and
accident would be generated from accident, namely, two things from one,
which is impossible. Consequently, it is impossible for any corporeal
substance to be generated out of the sacramental species.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The senses are witness that something is generated out
of the sacramental species, either ashes, if they be burned, worms if
they putrefy, or dust if they be crushed.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] Body Para. 1/5
I answer that, Since "the corruption of one thing is the generation of
another" (De Gener. i), something must be generated necessarily from the
sacramental species if they be corrupted, as stated above (A[4]); for
they are not corrupted in such a way that they disappear altogether, as
if reduced to nothing; on the contrary, something sensible manifestly
succeeds to them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] Body Para. 2/5
Nevertheless, it is difficult to see how anything can be generated from
them. For it is quite evident that nothing is generated out of the body
and blood of Christ which are truly there, because these are
incorruptible. But if the substance, or even the matter, of the bread and
wine were to remain in this sacrament, then, as some have maintained, it
would be easy to account for this sensible object which succeeds to them.
But that supposition is false, as was stated above (Q[75], AA[2],4,8).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] Body Para. 3/5
Hence it is that others have said that the things generated have not
sprung from the sacramental species, but from the surrounding atmosphere.
But this can be shown in many ways to be impossible. In the first place,
because when a thing is generated from another, the latter at first
appears changed and corrupted; whereas no alteration or corruption
appeared previously in the adjacent atmosphere; hence the worms or ashes
are not generated therefrom. Secondly, because the nature of the
atmosphere is not such as to permit of such things being generated by
such alterations. Thirdly, because it is possible for many consecrated
hosts to be burned or putrefied; nor would it be possible for an earthen
body, large enough to be generated from the atmosphere, unless a great
and, in fact, exceedingly sensible condensation of the atmosphere took
place. Fourthly, because the same thing can happen to the solid bodies
surrounding them, such as iron or stone, which remain entire after the
generation of the aforesaid things. Hence this opinion cannot stand,
because it is opposed to what is manifest to our senses.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] Body Para. 4/5
And therefore others have said that the substance of the bread and wine
returns during the corruption of the species, and so from the returning
substance of the bread and wine, ashes or worms or something of the kind
are generated. But this explanation seems an impossible one. First of
all, because if the substance of the bread and wine be converted into
the body and blood of Christ, as was shown above (Q[75], AA[2],4), the
substance of the bread and wine cannot return, except the body and blood
of Christ be again changed back into the substance of bread and wine,
which is impossible: thus if air be turned into fire, the air cannot
return without the fire being again changed into air. But if the
substance of bread or wine be annihilated, it cannot return again,
because what lapses into nothing does not return numerically the same.
Unless perchance it be said that the said substance returns, because God
creates anew another new substance to replace the first. Secondly, this
seems to be impossible, because no time can be assigned when the
substance of the bread returns. For, from what was said above (A[4];
Q[76], A[6], ad 3), it is evident that while the species of the bread and
wine remain, there remain also the body and blood of Christ, which are
not present together with the substance of the bread and wine in this
sacrament, according to what was stated above (Q[75], A[2]). Hence the
substance of the bread and wine cannot return while the sacramental
species remain; nor, again, when these species pass away; because then
the substance of the bread and wine would be without their proper
accidents, which is impossible. Unless perchance it be said that in the
last instant of the corruption of the species there returns (not, indeed,
the substance of bread and wine, because it is in that very instant that
they have the being of the substance generated from the species, but) the
matter of the bread and wine; which, matter, properly speaking, would be
more correctly described as created anew, than as returning. And in this
sense the aforesaid position might be held.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] Body Para. 5/5
However, since it does not seem reasonable to say that anything takes
place miraculously in this sacrament, except in virtue of the
consecration itself, which does not imply either creation or return of
matter, it seems better to say that in the actual consecration it is
miraculously bestowed on the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine to
be the subject of subsequent forms. Now this is proper to matter; and
therefore as a consequence everything which goes with matter is bestowed
on dimensive quantity; and therefore everything which could be generated
from the matter of bread or wine, if it were present, can be generated
from the aforesaid dimensive quantity of the bread or wine, not, indeed,
by a new miracle, but by virtue of the miracle which has already taken
place.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Although no matter is there out of which a thing may be
generated, nevertheless dimensive quantity supplies the place of matter,
as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Those sacramental species are indeed accidents, yet they
have the act and power of substance, as stated above (A[3]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The dimensive quantity of the bread and wine retains its
own nature, and receives miraculously the power and property of
substance; and therefore it can pass to both, that is, into substance and
dimension.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the sacramental species can nourish?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the sacramental species cannot nourish, because, as
Ambrose says (De Sacram. v), "it is not this bread that enters into our
body, but the bread of everlasting life, which supports the substance of
our soul." But whatever nourishes enters into the body. Therefore this
bread does not nourish: and the same reason holds good of the wine.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, as is said in De Gener. ii, "We are nourished by the
very things of which we are made." But the sacramental species are
accidents, whereas man is not made of accidents, because accident is not
a part of substance. Therefore it seems that the sacramental species
cannot nourish.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the Philosopher says (De Anima ii) that "food nourishes
according as it is a substance, but it gives increase by reason of its
quantity." But the sacramental species are not a substance. Consequently
they cannot nourish.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle speaking of this sacrament says (1 Cor.
11:21): "One, indeed, is hungry, and another is drunk": upon which the
gloss observes that "he alludes to those who after the celebration of the
sacred mystery, and after the consecration of the bread and wine, claimed
their oblations, and not sharing them with others, took the whole, so as
even to become intoxicated thereby." But this could not happen if the
sacramental species did not nourish. Therefore the sacramental species do
nourish.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[6] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, This question presents no difficulty, now that we have
solved the preceding question. Because, as stated in De Anima ii, food
nourishes by being converted into the substance of the individual
nourished. Now it has been stated (A[5]) that the sacramental species can
be converted into a substance generated from them. And they can be
converted into the human body for the same reason as they can into ashes
or worms. Consequently, it is evident that they nourish.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[6] Body Para. 2/3
But the senses witness to the untruth of what some maintain; viz. that
the species do not nourish as though they were changed into the human
body, but merely refresh and hearten by acting upon the senses (as a man
is heartened by the odor of meat, and intoxicated by the fumes of wine).
Because such refreshment does not suffice long for a man, whose body
needs repair owing to constant waste: and yet a man could be supported
for long if he were to take hosts and consecrated wine in great quantity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[6] Body Para. 3/3
In like manner the statement advanced by others cannot stand, who hold
that the sacramental species nourish owing to the remaining substantial
form of the bread and wine: both because the form does not remain, as
stated above (Q[75], A[6]): and because to nourish is the act not of a
form but rather of matter, which takes the form of the one nourished,
while the form of the nourishment passes away: hence it is said in De
Anima ii that nourishment is at first unlike, but at the end is like.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: After the consecration bread can be said to be in this
sacrament in two ways. First, as to the species, which retain the name of
the previous substance, as Gregory says in an Easter Homily (Lanfranc, De
Corp. et Sang. Dom. xx). Secondly, Christ's very body can be called
bread, since it is the mystical bread "coming down from heaven."
Consequently, Ambrose uses the word "bread" in this second meaning, when
he says that "this bread does not pass into the body," because, to wit,
Christ's body is not changed into man's body, but nourishes his soul. But
he is not speaking of bread taken in the first acceptation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Although the sacramental species are not those things out
of which the human body is made, yet they are changed into those things
stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Although the sacramental species are not a substance, still
they have the virtue of a substance, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the sacramental species are broken in this sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the sacramental species are not broken in this
sacrament, because the Philosopher says in Meteor. iv that bodies are
breakable owing to a certain disposition of the pores; a thing which
cannot be attributed to the sacramental species. Therefore the
sacramental species cannot be broken.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, breaking is followed by sound. But the sacramental
species emit no sound: because the Philosopher says (De Anima ii), that
what emits sound is a hard body, having a smooth surface. Therefore the
sacramental species are not broken.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, breaking and mastication are seemingly of the same
object. But it is Christ's true body that is eaten, according to Jn.
6:57: "He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood." Therefore it is
Christ's body that is broken and masticated: and hence it is said in the
confession of Berengarius: "I agree with the Holy Catholic Church, and
with heart and lips I profess, that the bread and wine which are placed
on the altar, are the true body and blood of Christ after consecration,
and are truly handled and broken by the priest's hands, broken and
crushed by the teeth of believers." Consequently, the breaking ought not
to be ascribed to the sacramental species.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Breaking arises from the division of that which has
quantity. But nothing having quantity except the sacramental species is
broken here, because neither Christ's body is broken, as being
incorruptible, nor is the substance of the bread, because it no longer
remains. Therefore the sacramental species are broken.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, Many opinions prevailed of old on this matter. Some held
that in this sacrament there was no breaking at all in reality, but
merely in the eyes of the beholders. But this contention cannot stand,
because in this sacrament of truth the sense is not deceived with regard
to its proper object of judgment, and one of these objects is breaking,
whereby from one thing arise many: and these are common sensibles, as is
stated in De Anima ii.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] Body Para. 2/4
Others accordingly have said that there was indeed a genuine breaking,
but without any subject. But this again contradicts our senses; because a
quantitative body is seen in this sacrament, which formerly was one, and
is now divided into many, and this must be the subject of the breaking.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] Body Para. 3/4
But it cannot be said that Christ's true body is broken. First of all,
because it is incorruptible and impassible: secondly, because it is
entire under every part, as was shown above (Q[76], A[3]), which is
contrary to the nature of a thing broken.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] Body Para. 4/4
It remains, then, that the breaking is in the dimensive quantity of the
bread, as in a subject, just as the other accidents. And as the
sacramental species are the sacrament of Christ's true body, so is the
breaking of these species the sacrament of our Lord's Passion, which was
in Christ's true body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As rarity and density remain under the sacramental species,
as stated above (A[2], ad 3), so likewise porousness remains, and in
consequence breakableness.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Hardness results from density; therefore, as density
remains under the sacramental species, hardness remains there too, and
the capability of sound as a consequence.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: What is eaten under its own species, is also broken and
masticated under its own species; but Christ's body is eaten not under
its proper, but under the sacramental species. Hence in explaining Jn.
6:64, "The flesh profiteth nothing," Augustine (Tract. xxvii in Joan.)
says that this is to be taken as referring to those who understood
carnally: "for they understood the flesh, thus, as it is divided
piecemeal, in a dead body, or as sold in the shambles." Consequently,
Christ's very body is not broken, except according to its sacramental
species. And the confession made by Berengarius is to be understood in
this sense, that the breaking and the crushing with the teeth is to be
referred to the sacramental species, under which the body of Christ truly
is.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether any liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that no liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine,
because everything mingled with another partakes of its quality. But no
liquid can share in the quality of the sacramental species, because
those accidents are without a subject, as stated above (A[1]). Therefore
it seems that no liquid can be mingled with the sacramental species of
the wine.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, if any kind of liquid be mixed with those species, then
some one thing must be the result. But no one thing can result from the
liquid, which is a substance, and the sacramental species, which are
accidents; nor from the liquid and Christ's blood, which owing to its
incorruptibility suffers neither increase nor decrease. Therefore no
liquid can be mixed with the consecrated wine.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, if any liquid be mixed with the consecrated wine, then
that also would appear to be consecrated; just as water added to
holy-water becomes holy. But the consecrated wine is truly Christ's
blood. Therefore the liquid added would likewise be Christ's blood
otherwise than by consecration, which is unbecoming. Therefore no liquid
can be mingled with the consecrated wine.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, if one of two things be entirely corrupted, there is no
mixture (De Gener. i). But if we mix any liquid, it seems that the entire
species of the sacramental wine is corrupted, so that the blood of Christ
ceases to be beneath it; both because great and little are difference of
quantity, and alter it, as white and black cause a difference of color;
and because the liquid mixed, as having no obstacle, seems to permeate
the whole, and so Christ's blood ceases to be there, since it is not
there with any other substance. Consequently, no liquid can be mixed with
the consecrated wine.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is evident to our senses that another liquid can be
mixed with the wine after it is consecrated, just as before.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] Body Para. 1/4
I answer that, The truth of this question is evident from what has been
said already. For it was said above (A[3]; A[5], ad 2) that the species
remaining in this sacrament, as they acquire the manner of being of
substance in virtue of the consecration, so likewise do they obtain the
mode of acting and of being acted upon, so that they can do or receive
whatever their substance could do or receive, were it there present. But
it is evident that if the substance of wine were there present, then some
other liquid could be mingled with it.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] Body Para. 2/4
Nevertheless there would be a different effect of such mixing both
according to the form and according to the quantity of the liquid. For if
sufficient liquid were mixed so as to spread itself all through the wine,
then the whole would be a mixed substance. Now what is made up of things
mixed is neither of them, but each passes into a third resulting from
both: hence it would result that the former wine would remain no longer.
But if the liquid added were of another species, for instance, if water
were mixed, the species of the wine would be dissolved, and there would
be a liquid of another species. But if liquid of the same species were
added, of instance, wine with wine, the same species would remain, but
the wine would not be the same numerically, as the diversity of the
accidents shows: for instance, if one wine were white and the other red.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] Body Para. 3/4
But if the liquid added were of such minute quantity that it could not
permeate the whole, the entire wine would not be mixed, but only part of
it, which would not remain the same numerically owing to the blending of
extraneous matter: still it would remain the same specifically, not only
if a little liquid of the same species were mixed with it, but even if it
were of another species, since a drop of water blended with much wine
passes into the species of wine (De Gener. i).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] Body Para. 4/4
Now it is evident that the body and blood of Christ abide in this
sacrament so long as the species remain numerically the same, as stated
above (A[4]; Q[76], A[6], ad 3); because it is this bread and this wine
which is consecrated. Hence, if the liquid of any kind whatsoever added
be so much in quantity as to permeate the whole of the consecrated wine,
and be mixed with it throughout, the result would be something
numerically distinct, and the blood of Christ will remain there no
longer. But if the quantity of the liquid added be so slight as not to
permeate throughout, but to reach only a part of the species, Christ's
blood will cease to be under that part of the consecrated wine, yet will
remain under the rest.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Pope Innocent III in a Decretal writes thus: "The very
accidents appear to affect the wine that is added, because, if water is
added, it takes the savor of the wine. The result is, then, that the
accidents change the subject, just as subject changes accidents; for
nature yields to miracle, and power works beyond custom." But this must
not be understood as if the same identical accident, which was in the
wine previous to consecration, is afterwards in the wine that is added;
but such change is the result of action; because the remaining accidents
of the wine retain the action of substance, as stated above, and so they
act upon the liquid added, by changing it.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The liquid added to the consecrated wine is in no way mixed
with the substance of Christ's blood. Nevertheless it is mixed with the
sacramental species, yet so that after such mixing the aforesaid species
are corrupted entirely or in part, after the way mentioned above (A[5]),
whereby something can be generated from those species. And if they be
entirely corrupted, there remains no further question, because the whole
will be uniform. But if they be corrupted in part, there will be one
dimension according to the continuity of quantity, but not one according
to the mode of being, because one part thereof will be without a subject
while the other is in a subject; as in a body that is made up of two
metals, there will be one body quantitatively, but not one as to the
species of the matter.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Pope Innocent says in the aforesaid Decretal, "if after
the consecration other wine be put in the chalice, it is not changed
into the blood, nor is it mingled with the blood, but, mixed with the
accidents of the previous wine, it is diffused throughout the body which
underlies them, yet without wetting what surrounds it." Now this is to be
understood when there is not sufficient mixing of extraneous liquid to
cause the blood of Christ to cease to be under the whole; because a thing
is said to be "diffused throughout," not because it touches the body of
Christ according to its proper dimensions, but according to the
sacramental dimensions, under which it is contained. Now it is not the
same with holy water, because the blessing works no change in the
substance of the water, as the consecration of the wine does.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[77] A[8] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Some have held that however slight be the mixing of
extraneous liquid, the substance of Christ's blood ceases to be under the
whole, and for the reason given above (OBJ[4]); which, however, is not a
cogent one; because "more" or "less" diversify dimensive quantity, not as
to its essence, but as to the determination of its measure. In like
manner the liquid added can be so small as on that account to be hindered
from permeating the whole, and not simply by the dimensions; which,
although they are present without a subject, still they are opposed to
another liquid, just as substance would be if it were present, according
to what was said at the beginning of the article.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider the form of this sacrament; concerning which there
are six points of inquiry:
(1) What is the form of this sacrament?
(2) Whether the form for the consecration of the bread is appropriate?
(3) Whether the form for the consecration of the blood is appropriate?
(4) Of the power of each form?
(5) Of the truth of the expression?
(6) Of the comparison of the one form with the other?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether this is the form of this sacrament: "This is My body," and "This
is the chalice of My blood"?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that this is not the form of this sacrament: "This is My
body," and, "This is the chalice of My blood." Because those words seem
to belong to the form of this sacrament, wherewith Christ consecrated His
body and blood. But Christ first blessed the bread which He took, and
said afterwards: "Take ye and eat; this is My body" (Mt. 26:26).
Therefore the whole of this seems to belong to the form of this
sacrament: and the same reason holds good of the words which go with the
consecration of the blood.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Eusebius Emissenus (Pseudo-Hieron: Ep. xxix;
Pseudo-Isid.: Hom. iv) says: "The invisible Priest changes visible
creatures into His own body, saying: 'Take ye and eat; this is My body.'"
Therefore, the whole of this seems to belong to the form of this
sacrament: and the same hold good of the works appertaining to the blood.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, in the form of Baptism both the minister and his act are
expressed, when it is said, "I baptize thee." But in the words set forth
above there is no mention made either of the minister or of his act.
Therefore the form of the sacrament is not a suitable one.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the form of the sacrament suffices for its perfection;
hence the sacrament of Baptism can be performed sometimes by pronouncing
the words of the form only, omitting all the others. Therefore, if the
aforesaid words be the form of this sacrament, it would seem as if this
sacrament could be performed sometimes by uttering those words alone,
while leaving out all the others which are said in the mass; yet this
seems to be false, because, were the other words to be passed over, the
said words would be taken as spoken in the person of the priest saying
them, whereas the bread and wine are not changed into his body and blood.
Consequently, the aforesaid words are not the form of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "The consecration is
accomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus. Because, by
all the other words spoken, praise is rendered to God, prayer is put up
for the people, for kings, and others; but when the time comes for
perfecting the sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words, but
the words of Christ. Therefore, it is Christ's words that perfect this
sacrament."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, This sacrament differs from the other sacraments in two
respects. First of all, in this, that this sacrament is accomplished by
the consecration of the matter, while the rest are perfected in the use
of the consecrated matter. Secondly, because in the other sacraments the
consecration of the matter consists only in a blessing, from which the
matter consecrated derives instrumentally a spiritual power, which
through the priest who is an animated instrument, can pass on to
inanimate instruments. But in this sacrament the consecration of the
matter consists in the miraculous change of the substance, which can only
be done by God; hence the minister in performing this sacrament has no
other act save the pronouncing of the words. And because the form should
suit the thing, therefore the form of this sacrament differs from the
forms of the other sacraments in two respects. First, because the form of
the other sacraments implies the use of the matter, as for instance,
baptizing, or signing; but the form of this sacrament implies merely the
consecration of the matter, which consists in transubstantiation, as when
it is said, "This is My body," or, "This is the chalice of My blood."
Secondly, because the forms of the other sacraments are pronounced in the
person of the minister, whether by way of exercising an act, as when it
is said, "I baptize thee," or "I confirm thee," etc.; or by way of
command, as when it is said in the sacrament of order, "Take the power,"
etc.; or by way of entreaty, as when in the sacrament of Extreme Unction
it is said, "By this anointing and our intercession," etc. But the form
of this sacrament is pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person, so
that it is given to be understood that the minister does nothing in
perfecting this sacrament, except to pronounce the words of Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/4
Reply OBJ 1: There are many opinions on this matter. Some have said that
Christ, Who had power of excellence in the sacraments, performed this
sacrament without using any form of words, and that afterwards He
pronounced the words under which others were to consecrate thereafter.
And the words of Pope Innocent III seem to convey the same sense (De
Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), where he says: "In good sooth it can be said that
Christ accomplished this sacrament by His Divine power, and subsequently
expressed the form under which those who came after were to consecrate."
But in opposition to this view are the words of the Gospel in which it is
said that Christ "blessed," and this blessing was effected by certain
words. Accordingly those words of Innocent are to be considered as
expressing an opinion, rather than determining the point.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 2/4
Others, again, have said that the blessing was effected by other words
not known to us. But this statement cannot stand, because the blessing of
the consecration is now performed by reciting the things which were then
accomplished; hence, if the consecration was not performed then by these
words, neither would it be now.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 3/4
Accordingly, others have maintained that this blessing was effected by
the same words as are used now; but that Christ spoke them twice, at
first secretly, in order to consecrate, and afterwards openly, to
instruct others. But even this will not hold good, because the priest in
consecrating uses these words, not as spoken in secret, but as openly
pronounced. Accordingly, since these words have no power except from
Christ pronouncing them, it seems that Christ also consecrated by
pronouncing them openly.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 4/4
And therefore others said that the Evangelists did not always follow the
precise order in their narrative as that in which things actually
happened, as is seen from Augustine (De Consens. Evang. ii). Hence it is
to be understood that the order of what took place can be expressed thus:
"Taking the bread He blessed it, saying: This is My body, and then He
broke it, and gave it to His disciples." But the same sense can be had
even without changing the words of the Gospel; because the participle
"saying" implies sequence of the words uttered with what goes before. And
it is not necessary for the sequence to be understood only with respect
to the last word spoken, as if Christ had just then pronounced those
words, when He gave it to His disciples; but the sequence can be
understood with regard to all that had gone before; so that the sense is:
"While He was blessing, and breaking, and giving it to His disciples, He
spoke the words, 'Take ye,'" etc.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: In these words, "Take ye and eat," the use of the
consecrated, matter is indicated, which is not of the necessity of this
sacrament, as stated above (Q[74], A[7]). And therefore not even these
words belong to the substance of the form. Nevertheless, because the use
of the consecrated matter belongs to a certain perfection of the
sacrament, in the same way as operation is not the first but the second
perfection of a thing, consequently, the whole perfection of this
sacrament is expressed by all those words: and it was in this way that
Eusebius understood that the sacrament was accomplished by those words,
as to its first and second perfection.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: In the sacrament of Baptism the minister exercises an act
regarding the use of the matter, which is of the essence of the
sacrament: such is not the case in this sacrament; hence there is no
parallel.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 4: Some have contended that this sacrament cannot be
accomplished by uttering the aforesaid words, while leaving out the rest,
especially the words in the Canon of the Mass. But that this is false can
be seen both from Ambrose's words quoted above, as well as from the fact
that the Canon of the Mass is not the same in all places or times, but
various portions have been introduced by various people.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 2/2
Accordingly it must be held that if the priest were to pronounce only
the aforesaid words with the intention of consecrating this sacrament,
this sacrament would be valid because the intention would cause these
words to be understood as spoken in the person of Christ, even though the
words were pronounced without those that precede. The priest, however,
would sin gravely in consecrating the sacrament thus, as he would not be
observing the rite of the Church. Nor does the comparison with Baptism
prove anything; for it is a sacrament of necessity: whereas the lack of
this sacrament can be supplied by the spiritual partaking thereof, as
Augustine says (cf. Q[73], A[3], ad 1).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether this is the proper form for the consecration of the bread: "This
is My body"?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that this is not the proper form of this sacrament:
"This is My body." For the effect of a sacrament ought to be expressed in
its form. But the effect of the consecration of the bread is the change
of the substance of the bread into the body of Christ, and this is better
expressed by the word "becomes" than by "is." Therefore, in the form of
the consecration we ought to say: "This becomes My body."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv), "Christ's words consecrate
this sacrament. What word of Christ? This word, whereby all things are
made. The Lord commanded, and the heavens and earth were made. "
Therefore, it would be a more proper form of this sacrament if the
imperative mood were employed, so as to say: "Be this My body."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, that which is changed is implied in the subject of this
phrase, just as the term of the change is implied in the predicate. But
just as that into which the change is made is something determinate, for
the change is into nothing else but the body of Christ, so also that
which is converted is determinate, since only bread is converted into the
body of Christ. Therefore, as a noun is inserted on the part of the
predicate, so also should a noun be inserted in the subject, so that it
be said: "This bread is My body."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, just as the term of the change is determinate in nature,
because it is a body, so also is it determinate in person. Consequently,
in order to determine the person, it ought to be said: "This is the body
of Christ."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, nothing ought to be inserted in the form except what is
substantial to it. Consequently, the conjunction "for" is improperly
added in some books, since it does not belong to the substance of the
form.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, our Lord used this form in consecrating, as is evident
from Mt. 26:26.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, This is the proper form for the consecration of the
bread. For it was said (A[1]) that this consecration consists in changing
the substance of bread into the body of Christ. Now the form of a
sacrament ought to denote what is done in the sacrament. Consequently the
form for the consecration of the bread ought to signify the actual
conversion of the bread into the body of Christ. And herein are three
things to be considered: namely, the actual conversion, the term
"whence," and the term "whereunto."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] Body Para. 2/3
Now the conversion can be considered in two ways: first, in "becoming,"
secondly, in "being." But the conversion ought not to be signified in
this form as in "becoming," but as in "being." First, because such
conversion is not successive, as was said above (Q[75], A[7]), but
instantaneous; and in such changes the "becoming" is nothing else than
the "being." Secondly, because the sacramental forms bear the same
relation to the signification of the sacramental effect as artificial
forms to the representation of the effect of art. Now an artificial form
is the likeness of the ultimate effect, on which the artist's intention
is fixed ;. just as the art-form in the builder's mind is principally the
form of the house constructed, and secondarily of the constructing.
Accordingly, in this form also the conversion ought to be expressed as in
"being," to which the intention is referred.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] Body Para. 3/3
And since the conversion is expressed in this form as in "being," it is
necessary for the extremes of the conversion to be signified as they
exist in the fact of conversion. But then the term "whereunto" has the
proper nature of its own substance; whereas the term "whence" does not
remain in its own substance, but only as to the accidents whereby it
comes under the senses, and can be determined in relation to the senses.
Hence the term "whence" of the conversion is conveniently expressed by
the demonstrative pronoun, relative to the sensible accidents which
continue; but the term "whereunto" is expressed by the noun signifying
the nature of the thing which terminates the conversion, and this is
Christ's entire body, and not merely His flesh; as was said above (Q[76],
A[1], ad 2). Hence this form is most appropriate: "This is My body."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The ultimate effect of this conversion is not a "becoming"
but a "being," as stated above, and consequently prominence should be
given to this in the form.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: God's word operated in the creation of things, and it is
the same which operates in this consecration, yet each in different
fashion: because here it operates effectively and sacramentally, that is,
in virtue of its signification. And consequently the last effect of the
consecration must needs be signified in this sentence by a substantive
verb of the indicative mood and present time. But in the creation of
things it worked merely effectively, and such efficiency is due to the
command of His wisdom; and therefore in the creation of things the Lord's
word is expressed by a verb in the imperative mood, as in Gn. 1:3: "Let
there be light, and light was made."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The term "whence" does not retain the nature of its
substance in the "being" of the conversion, as the term "whereunto" does.
Therefore there is no parallel.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The pronoun "My," which implicitly points to the chief
person, i.e. the person of the speaker, sufficiently indicates Christ's
person, in Whose person these words are uttered, as stated above (A[1]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[2] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: The conjunction "for" is set in this form according to the
custom of the Roman Church, who derived it from Peter the Apostle; and
this on account of the sequence with the words preceding: and therefore
it is not part of the form, just as the words preceding the form are not.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether this is the proper form for the consecration of the wine: "This
is the chalice of My blood," etc.?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that this is not the proper form for the consecration of
the wine. "This is the chalice of My blood, of the New and Eternal
Testament, the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed for you and for many
unto the forgiveness of sins." For as the bread is changed by the power
of consecration into Christ's body, so is the wine changed into Christ's
blood, as is clear from what was said above (Q[76], AA[1],2,3). But in
the form of the consecration of the bread, the body of Christ is
expressly mentioned, without any addition. Therefore in this form the
blood of Christ is improperly expressed in the oblique case, and the
chalice in the nominative, when it is said: "This is the chalice of My
blood."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the words spoken in the consecration of the bread are
not more efficacious than those spoken in the consecration of the wine,
since both are Christ's words. But directly the words are spoken---"This
is My body," there is perfect consecration of the bread. Therefore,
directly these other words are uttered---"This is the chalice of My
blood," there is perfect consecration of the blood; and so the words
which follow do not appeal to be of the substance of the form, especially
since they refer to the properties of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the New Testament seems to be an internal inspiration,
as is evident from the Apostle quoting the words of Jeremias (31:31): "I
will perfect unto the house of Israel a New Testament . . . I will give
My laws into their mind" (Heb. 8:8). But a sacrament is an outward
visible act. Therefore, in the form of the sacrament the words "of the
New Testament" are improperly added.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, a thing is said to be new which is near the beginning of
its existence. But what is eternal has no beginning of its existence.
Therefore it is incorrect to say "of the New and Eternal," because it
seems to savor of a contradiction.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, occasions of error ought to be withheld from men,
according to Is. 57:14: "Take away the stumbling blocks out of the way of
My people." But some have fallen into error in thinking that Christ's
body and blood are only mystically present in this sacrament. Therefore
it is out of place to add "the mystery of faith."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 6 Para. 1/1
OBJ 6: Further, it was said above (Q[73], A[3], ad 3), that as Baptism
is the sacrament of faith, so is the Eucharist the sacrament of charity.
Consequently, in this form the word "charity" ought rather to be used
than "faith."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 7 Para. 1/1
OBJ 7: Further, the whole of this sacrament, both as to body and blood,
is a memorial of our Lord's Passion, according to 1 Cor. 11:26: "As often
as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the
death of the Lord." Consequently, mention ought to be made of Christ's
Passion and its fruit rather in the form of the consecration of the
blood, than in the form of the consecration of the body, especially since
our Lord said: "This is My body, which shall be delivered up for you"
(Lk. 22:19).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 8 Para. 1/1
OBJ 8: Further, as was already observed (Q[48], A[2]; Q[49], A[3]),
Christ's Passion sufficed for all; while as to its efficacy it was
profitable for many. Therefore it ought to be said: "Which shall be shed
for all," or else "for many," without adding, "for you."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Obj. 9 Para. 1/1
OBJ 9: Further, the words whereby this sacrament is consecrated draw
their efficacy from Christ's institution. But no Evangelist narrates that
Christ spoke all these words. Therefore this is not an appropriate form
for the consecration of the wine.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Church, instructed by the apostles, uses this form.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have
maintained that the words "This is the chalice of My blood" alone belong
to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this
seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations
of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood. consequently they belong to
the integrity of the expression.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Body Para. 2/3
And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which
follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, "As often as
ye shall do this," which belong to the use of this sacrament, and
consequently do not belong to the substance of the form. Hence it is that
the priest pronounces all these words, under the same rite and manner,
namely, holding the chalice in his hands. Moreover, in Lk. 22:20, the
words that follow are interposed with the preceding words: "This is the
chalice, the new testament in My blood."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] Body Para. 3/3
Consequently it must be said that all the aforesaid words belong to the
substance of the form; but that by the first words, "This is the chalice
of My blood," the change of the wine into blood is denoted, as explained
above (A[2]) in the form for the consecration of the bread; but by the
words which come after is shown the power of the blood shed in the
Passion, which power works in this sacrament, and is ordained for three
purposes. First and principally for securing our eternal heritage,
according to Heb. 10:19: "Having confidence in the entering into the
holies by the blood of Christ"; and in order to denote this, we say, "of
the New and Eternal Testament." Secondly, for justifying by grace, which
is by faith according to Rm. 3:25,26: "Whom God hath proposed to be a
propitiation, through faith in His blood . . . that He Himself may be
just, and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ": and
on this account we add, "The Mystery of Faith." Thirdly, for removing
sins which are the impediments to both of these things, according to Heb.
9:14: "The blood of Christ . . . shall cleanse our conscience from dead
works," that is, from sins; and on this account, we say, "which shall be
shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: The expression "This is the chalice of My blood" is a
figure of speech, which can be understood in two ways. First, as a figure
of metonymy; because the container is put for the contained, so that the
meaning is: "This is My blood contained in the chalice"; of which mention
is now made, because Christ's blood is consecrated in this sacrament,
inasmuch as it is the drink of the faithful, which is not implied under
the notion of blood; consequently this had to be denoted by the vessel
adapted for such usage.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
Secondly, it can be taken by way of metaphor, so that Christ's Passion
is understood by the chalice by way of comparison, because, like a cup,
it inebriates, according to Lam. 3:15: "He hath filled me with
bitterness, he hath inebriated me with wormwood": hence our Lord Himself
spoke of His Passion as a chalice, when He said (Mt. 26:39): "Let this
chalice pass away from Me": so that the meaning is: "This is the chalice
of My Passion." This is denoted by the blood being consecrated apart from
the body; because it was by the Passion that the blood was separated from
the body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As was said above (ad 1; Q[76], A[2], ad 1), the blood
consecrated apart expressly represents Christ's Passion, and therefore
mention is made of the fruits of the Passion in the consecration of the
blood rather than in that of the body, since the body is the subject of
the Passion. This is also pointed out in our Lord's saying, "which shall
be delivered up for you," as if to say, "which shall undergo the Passion
for you."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: A testament is the disposal of a heritage. But God disposed
of a heavenly heritage to men, to be bestowed through the virtue of the
blood of Jesus Christ; because, according to Heb. 9:16: "Where there is a
testament the death of the testator must of necessity come in." Now
Christ's blood was exhibited to men in two ways. First of all in figure,
and this belongs to the Old Testament; consequently the Apostle concludes
(Heb. 9:16): "Whereupon neither was the first indeed dedicated without
blood," which is evident from this, that as related in Ex. 24:7,8, "when
every" commandment of the law "had been read" by Moses, "he sprinkled all
the people" saying: "This is the blood of the testament which the Lord
hath enjoined unto you."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
Secondly, it was shown in very truth; and this belongs to the New
Testament. This is what the Apostle premises when he says (Rm. 9:15):
"Therefore He is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of His
death . . . they that are called may receive the promise of eternal
inheritance." Consequently, we say here, "The blood of the New
Testament," because it is shown now not in figure but in truth; and
therefore we add, "which shall be shed for you." But the internal
inspiration has its origin in the power of this blood, according as we
are justified by Christ's Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: This Testament is a "new one" by reason of its showing
forth: yet it is called "eternal" both on account of God's eternal
pre-ordination, as well as on account of the eternal heritage which is
prepared by this testament. Moreover, Christ's Person is eternal, in
Whose blood this testament is appointed.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: The word "mystery" is inserted, not in order to exclude
reality, but to show that the reality is hidden, because Christ's blood
is in this sacrament in a hidden manner, and His Passion was dimly
foreshadowed in the Old Testament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 6 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 6: It is called the "Sacrament of Faith," as being an object
of faith: because by faith alone do we hold the presence of Christ's
blood in this sacrament. Moreover Christ's Passion justifies by faith.
Baptism is called the "Sacrament of Faith" because it is a profession of
faith. This is called the "Sacrament of Charity," as being figurative and
effective thereof.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 7 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 7: As stated above (ad 2), the blood consecrated apart
represents Christ's blood more expressively; and therefore mention is
made of Christ's Passion and its fruits, in the consecration of the blood
rather than in that of the body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 8 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 8: The blood of Christ's Passion has its efficacy not merely
in the elect among the Jews, to whom the blood of the Old Testament was
exhibited, but also in the Gentiles; nor only in priests who consecrate
this sacrament, and in those others who partake of it; but likewise in
those for whom it is offered. And therefore He says expressly, "for you,"
the Jews, "and for many," namely the Gentiles; or, "for you" who eat of
it, and "for many," for whom it is offered.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[3] R.O. 9 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 9: The Evangelists did not intend to hand down the forms of
the sacraments, which in the primitive Church had to be kept concealed,
as Dionysius observes at the close of his book on the ecclesiastical
hierarchy; their object was to write the story of Christ. Nevertheless
nearly all these words can be culled from various passages of the
Scriptures. Because the words, "This is the chalice," are found in Lk.
22:20, and 1 Cor. 11:25, while Matthew says in chapter 26:28: "This is My
blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto the
remission of sins." The words added, namely, "eternal" and "mystery of
faith," were handed down to the Church by the apostles, who received them
from our Lord, according to 1 Cor. 11:23: "I have received of the Lord
that which also I delivered unto you."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether in the aforesaid words of the forms there be any created power
which causes the consecration?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that in the aforesaid words of the forms there is no
created power which causes the consecration. Because Damascene says (De
Fide Orth. iv): "The change of the bread into Christ's body is caused
solely by the power of the Holy Ghost." But the power of the Holy Ghost
is uncreated. Therefore this sacrament is not caused by any created power
of those words.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, miraculous works are wrought not by any created power,
but solely by Divine power, as was stated in the FP, Q[110], A[4]. But
the change of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood is a work
not less miraculous than the creation of things, or than the formation of
Christ's body in the womb of a virgin: which things could not be done by
any created power. Therefore, neither is this sacrament consecrated by
any created power of the aforesaid words.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the aforesaid words are not simple, but composed of
many; nor are they uttered simultaneously, but successively. But, as
stated above (Q[75], A[7]), this change is wrought instantaneously.
hence it must be done by a simple power. Therefore it is not effected by
the power of those words.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "If there be such might
in the word of the Lord Jesus that things non-existent came into being,
how much more efficacious is it to make things existing to continue, and
to be changed into something else? And so, what was bread before
consecration is now the body of Christ after consecration, because
Christ's word changes a creature into something different."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Some have maintained that neither in the above words is
there any created power for causing the transubstantiation, nor in the
other forms of the sacraments, or even in the sacraments themselves, for
producing the sacramental effects. This, as was shown above (Q[62], A[1]
), is both contrary to the teachings of the saints, and detracts from the
dignity of the sacraments of the New Law. Hence, since this sacrament is
of greater worth than the others, as stated above (Q[65], A[3]), the
result is that there is in the words of the form of this sacrament a
created power which causes the change to be wrought in it: instrumental,
however, as in the other sacraments, as stated above (Q[62], AA[3],4).
For since these words are uttered in the person of Christ, it is from His
command that they receive their instrumental power from Him, just as His
other deeds and sayings derive their salutary power instrumentally, as
was observed above (Q[48], A[6]; Q[56], A[1], ad 3).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: When the bread is said to be changed into Christ's body
solely by the power of the Holy Ghost, the instrumental power which lies
in the form of this sacrament is not excluded: just as when we say that
the smith alone makes a knife we do not deny the power of the hammer.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: No creature can work miracles as the chief agent. yet it
can do so instrumentally, just as the touch of Christ's hand healed the
leper. And in this fashion Christ's words change the bread into His body.
But in Christ's conception, whereby His body was fashioned, it was
impossible for anything derived from His body to have the instrumental
power of forming that very body. Likewise in creation there was no term
wherein the instrumental action of a creature could be received.
Consequently there is no comparison.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The aforesaid words, which work the consecration, operate
sacramentally. Consequently, the converting power latent under the forms
of these sacraments follows the meaning, which is terminated in the
uttering of the last word. And therefore the aforesaid words have this
power in the last instant of their being uttered, taken in conjunction
with those uttered before. And this power is simple by reason of the
thing signified, although there be composition in the words uttered
outwardly.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the aforesaid expressions are true?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the aforesaid expressions are not true. Because
when we say: "This is My body," the word "this" designates a substance.
But according to what was said above (AA[1],4, ad 3; Q[75], AA[2],7),
when the pronoun "this" is spoken, the substance of the bread is still
there, because the transubstantiation takes place in the last instant of
pronouncing the words. But it is false to say: "Bread is Christ's body."
Consequently this expression, "This is My body," is false.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the pronoun "this" appeals to the senses. But the
sensible species in this sacrament are neither Christ's body nor even its
accidents. Therefore this expression, "This is My body," cannot be true.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, as was observed above (A[4], ad 3), these words, by
their signification, effect the change of the bread into the body of
Christ. But an effective cause is understood as preceding its effect.
Therefore the meaning of these words is understood as preceding the
change of the bread into the body of Christ. But previous to the change
this expression, "This is My body," is false. Therefore the expression is
to be judged as false simply; and the same reason holds good of the other
phrase: "This is the chalice of My blood," etc.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, These words are pronounced in the person of Christ, Who
says of Himself (Jn. 14:6): "I am the truth."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] Body Para. 1/5
I answer that, There have been many opinions on this point. Some have
said that in this expression, "This is My body," the word "this" implies
demonstration as conceived, and not as exercised, because the whole
phrase is taken materially, since it is uttered by a way of narration:
for the priest relates that Christ said: "This is My body."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] Body Para. 2/5
But such a view cannot hold good, because then these words would not be
applied to the corporeal matter present, and consequently the sacrament
would not be valid: for Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.): "The word
is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament." Moreover this
solution ignores entirely the difficulty which this question presents:
for there is still the objection in regard to the first uttering of these
words by Christ; since it is evident that then they were employed, not
materially, but significatively. And therefore it must be said that even
when spoken by the priest they are taken significatively, and not merely
materially. Nor does it matter that the priest pronounces them by way of
recital, as though they were spoken by Christ, because owing to Christ's
infinite power, just as through contact with His flesh the regenerative
power entered not only into the waters which came into contact with
Christ, but into all waters throughout the whole world and during all
future ages, so likewise from Christ's uttering these words they derived
their consecrating power, by whatever priest they be uttered, as if
Christ present were saying them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] Body Para. 3/5
And therefore others have said that in this phrase the word "this"
appeals, not to the senses, but to the intellect; so that the meaning is,
"This is My body"---i.e. "The thing signified by 'this' is My body." But
neither can this stand, because, since in the sacraments the effect is
that which is signified, from such a form it would not result that
Christ's body was in very truth in this sacrament, but merely as in a
sign, which is heretical, as stated above (Q[85], A[1]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] Body Para. 4/5
Consequently, others have said that the word "this" appeals to the
senses; not at the precise instant of its being uttered, but merely at
the last instant thereof; as when a man says, "Now I am silent," this
adverb "now" points to the instant immediately following the speech:
because the sense is: "Directly these words are spoken I am silent." But
neither can this hold good, because in that case the meaning of the
sentence would be: "My body is My body," which the above phrase does not
effect, because this was so even before the utterance of the words: hence
neither does the aforesaid sentence mean this.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] Body Para. 5/5
Consequently, then, it remains to be said, as stated above (A[4]), that
this sentence possesses the power of effecting the conversion of the
bread into the body of Christ. And therefore it is compared to other
sentences, which have power only of signifying and not of producing, as
the concept of the practical intellect, which is productive of the thing,
is compared to the concept of our speculative intellect which is drawn
from things. because "words are signs of concepts," as the Philosopher
says (Peri Herm. i). And therefore as the concept of the practical
intellect does not presuppose the thing understood, but makes it, so the
truth of this expression does not presuppose the thing signified, but
makes it; for such is the relation of God's word to the things made by
the Word. Now this change takes place not successively, but in an
instant, as stated above (Q[77], A[7]). Consequently one must understand
the aforesaid expression with reference to the last instant of the words
being spoken, yet not so that the subject may be understood to have stood
for that which is the term of the conversion; viz. that the body of
Christ is the body of Christ; nor again that the subject be understood to
stand for that which it was before the conversion, namely, the bread. but
for that which is commonly related to both, i.e. that which is contained
in general under those species. For these words do not make the body of
Christ to be the body of Christ, nor do they make the bread to be the
body of Christ; but what was contained under those species, and was
formerly bread, they make to be the body of Christ. And therefore
expressly our Lord did not say: "This bread is My body," which would be
the meaning of the second opinion; nor "This My body is My body," which
would be the meaning of the third opinion: but in general: "This is My
body," assigning no noun on the part of the subject, but only a pronoun,
which signifies substance in common, without quality, that is, without a
determinate form.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The term "this" points to a substance, yet without
determining its proper nature, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The pronoun "this" does not indicate the accidents, but the
substance underlying the accidents, which at first was bread, and is
afterwards the body of Christ, which body, although not informed by those
accidents, is yet contained under them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The meaning of this expression is, in the order of nature,
understood before the thing signified, just as a cause is naturally prior
to the effect; but not in order of time, because this cause has its
effect with it at the same time, and this suffices for the truth of the
expression.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the form of the consecration of the bread accomplishes its effect
before the form of the consecration of the wine be completed?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the form of the consecration of the bread does not
accomplish its effect until the form for the consecration of the wine be
completed. For, as Christ's body begins to be in this sacrament by the
consecration of the bread, so does His blood come to be there by the
consecration of the wine. If, then, the words for consecrating the bread
were to produce their effect before the consecration of the wine, it
would follow that Christ's body would be present in this sacrament
without the blood, which is improper.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, one sacrament has one completion: hence although there
be three immersions in Baptism, yet the first immersion does not produce
its effect until the third be completed. But all this sacrament is one,
as stated above (Q[73], A[2]). Therefore the words whereby the bread is
consecrated do not bring about their effect without the sacramental words
whereby the wine is consecrated.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, there are several words in the form for consecrating the
bread, the first of which do not secure their effect until the last be
uttered, as stated above (A[4], ad 3). Therefore, for the same reason,
neither do the words for the consecration of Christ's body produce their
effect, until the words for consecrating Christ's blood are spoken.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Directly the words are uttered for consecrating the
bread, the consecrated host is shown to the people to be adored, which
would not be done if Christ's body were not there, for that would be an
act of idolatry. Therefore the consecrating words of the bread produce
their effect before. the words are spoken for consecrating the wine.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[6] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Some of the earlier doctors said that these two forms,
namely, for consecrating the bread and the wine, await each other's
action, so that the first does not produce its effect until the second
be uttered.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[6] Body Para. 2/3
But this cannot stand, because, as stated above (A[5], ad 3), for the
truth of this phrase, "This is My body," wherein the verb is in the
present tense, it is required for the thing signified to be present
simultaneously in time with the signification of the expression used;
otherwise, if the thing signified had to be awaited for afterwards, a
verb of the future tense would be employed, and not one of the present
tense, so that we should not say, "This is My body," but "This will be My
body." But the signification of this speech is complete directly those
words are spoken. And therefore the thing signified must be present
instantaneously, and such is the effect of this sacrament; otherwise it
would not be a true speech. Moreover, this opinion is against the rite of
the Church, which forthwith adores the body of Christ after the words are
uttered.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[6] Body Para. 3/3
Hence it must be said that the first form does not await the second in
its action, but has its effect on the instant.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: It is on this account that they who maintained the above
opinion seem to have erred. Hence it must be understood that directly the
consecration of the bread is complete, the body of Christ is indeed
present by the power of the sacrament, and the blood by real
concomitance; but afterwards by the consecration of the wine, conversely,
the blood of Christ is there by the power of the sacrament, and the body
by real concomitance, so that the entire Christ is under either species,
as stated above (Q[76], A[2]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This sacrament is one in perfection, as stated above (Q[73]
, A[2]), namely, inasmuch as it is made up of two things, that is, of
food and drink, each of which of itself has its own perfection; but the
three immersions of Baptism are ordained to one simple effect, and
therefore there is no resemblance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[78] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The various words in the form for consecrating the bread
constitute the truth of one speech, but the words of the different forms
do not, and consequently there is no parallel.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE EFFECTS OF THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We must now consider the effects of this sacrament, and under this head
there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether this sacrament bestows grace?
(2) Whether the attaining of glory is an effect of this sacrament?
(3) Whether the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament?
(4) Whether venial sin is forgiven by this sacrament?
(5) Whether the entire punishment due for sin is forgiven by this
sacrament?
(6) Whether this sacrament preserves man from future sins?
(7) Whether this sacrament benefits others besides the recipients?
(8) Of the obstacles to the effect of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether grace is bestowed through this sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that grace is not bestowed through this sacrament. For
this sacrament is spiritual nourishment. But nourishment is only given to
the living. Therefore since the spiritual life is the effect of grace,
this sacrament belongs only to one in the state of grace. Therefore grace
is not bestowed through this sacrament for it to be had in the first
instance. In like manner neither is it given so as grace may be
increased, because spiritual growth belongs to the sacrament of
Confirmation, as stated above (Q[72], A[1]). Consequently, grace is not
bestowed through this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, this sacrament is given as a spiritual refreshment. But
spiritual refreshment seems to belong to the use of grace rather than to
its bestowal. Therefore it seems that grace is not given through this
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, as was said above (Q[74], A[1]), "Christ's body is
offered up in this sacrament for the salvation of the body, and His blood
for that of the soul." Now it is not the body which is the subject of
grace, but the soul, as was shown in the FS, Q[110], A[4]. Therefore
grace is not bestowed through this sacrament, at least so far as the body
is concerned.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Our Lord says (Jn. 6:52): "The bread which I will give,
is My flesh for the life of the world." But the spiritual life is the
effect of grace. Therefore grace is bestowed through this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] Body Para. 1/5
I answer that, The effect of this sacrament ought to be considered,
first of all and principally, from what is contained in this sacrament,
which is Christ; Who, just as by coming into the world, He visibly
bestowed the life of grace upon the world, according to Jn. 1:17: "Grace
and truth came by Jesus Christ," so also, by coming sacramentally into
man causes the life of grace, according to Jn. 6:58: "He that eateth Me,
the same also shall live by Me." Hence Cyril says on Lk. 22:19: "God's
life-giving Word by uniting Himself with His own flesh, made it to be
productive of life. For it was becoming that He should be united somehow
with bodies through His sacred flesh and precious blood, which we receive
in a life-giving blessing in the bread and wine."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] Body Para. 2/5
Secondly, it is considered on the part of what is represented by this
sacrament, which is Christ's Passion, as stated above (Q[74], A[1]; Q[76]
, A[2], ad 1). And therefore this sacrament works in man the effect which
Christ's Passion wrought in the world. Hence, Chrysostom says on the
words, "Immediately there came out blood and water" (Jn. 19:34): "Since
the sacred mysteries derive their origin from thence, when you draw nigh
to the awe-inspiring chalice, so approach as if you were going to drink
from Christ's own side." Hence our Lord Himself says (Mt. 26:28): "This
is My blood . . . which shall be shed for many unto the remission of
sins."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] Body Para. 3/5
Thirdly, the effect of this sacrament is considered from the way in
which this sacrament is given; for it is given by way of food and drink.
And therefore this sacrament does for the spiritual life all that
material food does for the bodily life, namely, by sustaining, giving
increase, restoring, and giving delight. Accordingly, Ambrose says (De
Sacram. v): "This is the bread of everlasting life, which supports the
substance of our soul." And Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi in Joan.): "When
we desire it, He lets us feel Him, and eat Him, and embrace Him." And
hence our Lord says (Jn. 6:56): "My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is
drink indeed."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] Body Para. 4/5
Fourthly, the effect of this sacrament is considered from the species
under which it is given. Hence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.):
"Our Lord betokened His body and blood in things which out of many units
are made into some one whole: for out of many grains is one thing made,"
viz. bread; "and many grapes flow into one thing," viz. wine. And
therefore he observes elsewhere (Tract. xxvi in Joan.): "O sacrament of
piety, O sign of unity, O bond of charity!"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] Body Para. 5/5
And since Christ and His Passion are the cause of grace. and since
spiritual refreshment, and charity cannot be without grace, it is clear
from all that has been set forth that this sacrament bestows grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This sacrament has of itself the power of bestowing grace;
nor does anyone possess grace before receiving this sacrament except from
some desire thereof; from his own desire, as in the case of the adult. or
from the Church's desire in the case of children, as stated above (Q[73],
A[3]). Hence it is due to the efficacy of its power, that even from
desire thereof a man procures grace whereby he is enabled to lead the
spiritual life. It remains, then, that when the sacrament itself is
really received, grace is increased, and the spiritual life perfected:
yet in different fashion from the sacrament of Confirmation, in which
grace is increased and perfected for resisting the outward assaults of
Christ's enemies. But by this sacrament grace receives increase, and the
spiritual life is perfected, so that man may stand perfect in himself by
union with God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This sacrament confers grace spiritually together with the
virtue of charity. Hence Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) compares this
sacrament to the burning coal which Isaias saw (Is. 6:6): "For a live
ember is not simply wood, but wood united to fire; so also the bread of
communion is not simple bread but bread united with the Godhead." But as
Gregory observes in a Homily for Pentecost, "God's love is never idle;
for, wherever it is it does great works." And consequently through this
sacrament, as far as its power is concerned, not only is the habit of
grace and of virtue bestowed, but it is furthermore aroused to act,
according to 2 Cor. 5:14: "The charity of Christ presseth us." Hence it
is that the soul is spiritually nourished through the power of this
sacrament, by being spiritually gladdened, and as it were inebriated with
the sweetness of the Divine goodness, according to Cant 5:1: "Eat, O
friends, and drink, and be inebriated, my dearly beloved."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Because the sacraments operate according to the similitude
by which they signify, therefore by way of assimilation it is said that
in this sacrament "the body is offered for the salvation of the body, and
the blood for the salvation of the soul," although each works for the
salvation of both, since the entire Christ is under each, as stated above
(Q[76], A[2]). And although the body is not the immediate subject of
grace, still the effect of grace flows into the body while in the present
life we present "our [Vulg.: 'your'] members" as "instruments of justice
unto God" (Rm. 6:13), and in the life to come our body will share in the
incorruption and the glory of the soul.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the attaining of glory is an effect of this sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the attaining of glory is not an effect of this
sacrament. For an effect is proportioned to its cause. But this sacrament
belongs to "wayfarers" [viatoribus], and hence it is termed "Viaticum."
Since, then, wayfarers are not yet capable of glory, it seems that this
sacrament does not cause the attaining of glory.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, given sufficient cause, the effect follows. But many
take this sacrament who will never come to glory, as Augustine declares
(De Civ. Dei xxi). Consequently, this sacrament is not the cause of
attaining unto glory.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the greater is not brought about by the lesser, for
nothing acts outside its species. But it is the lesser thing to receive
Christ under a strange species, which happens in this sacrament, than to
enjoy Him in His own species, which belongs to glory. Therefore this
sacrament does not cause the attaining of glory.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 6:52): "If any man eat of this
bread, he shall live for ever." But eternal life is the life of glory.
Therefore the attaining of glory is an effect of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[2] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, In this sacrament we may consider both that from which it
derives its effect, namely, Christ contained in it, as also His Passion
represented by it; and that through which it works its effect, namely,
the use of the sacrament, and its species.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[2] Body Para. 2/3
Now as to both of these it belongs to this sacrament to cause the
attaining of eternal life. Because it was by His Passion that Christ
opened to us the approach to eternal life, according to Heb. 9:15: "He is
the Mediator of the New Testament; that by means of His death . . . they
that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance."
Accordingly in the form of this sacrament it is said: "This is the
chalice of My blood, of the New and Eternal Testament."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[2] Body Para. 3/3
In like manner the refreshment of spiritual food and the unity denoted
by the species of the bread and wine are to be had in the present life,
although imperfectly. but perfectly in the state of glory. Hence
Augustine says on the words, "My flesh is meat indeed" (Jn. 6:56):
"Seeing that in meat and drink, men aim at this, that they hunger not nor
thirst, this verily nought doth afford save only this meat and drink
which maketh them who partake thereof to be immortal and incorruptible,
in the fellowship of the saints, where shall be peace, and unity, full
and perfect."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
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" (Rm.
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 Kgs. 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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
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).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
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 Rm. 3:24: "Being justified freely by His grace." Therefore mortal sins
are forgiven by this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[3] Body Para. 1/3
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[3] Body Para. 2/3
Secondly, 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[3] Body Para. 3/3
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. Secondly, 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether venial sins are forgiven through this sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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 FS, Q[88], AA[1],2; SS, Q[24], A[10]. Therefore, since contrary is
taken away by its contrary, it seems that venial sins are not forgiven by
this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
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 Jn. 1:8: "If we say
that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." Therefore no venial sin is
forgiven by this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
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 [Vulg.: 'may'] not die for
ever" (Jn. 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Innocent III says (De S. Alt. Myst. iv) that this
sacrament "blots out venial sins, and wards off mortal sins."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[4] Body Para. 1/2
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 SS, 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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[4] Body Para. 2/2
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the entire punishment due to sin is forgiven through this
sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, In that case no other punishment would have to be
enjoined; just as none is imposed upon the newly baptized.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[5] Body Para. 1/3
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[5] Body Para. 2/3
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; secondly
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[5] Body Para. 3/3
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 (Mk. 12:43: cf. Lk. 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Those other sacrifices and oblations did not effect the
forgiveness of the whole punishment, neither as to the quantity of the
thing offered, as this sacrament does, nor as to personal devotion; from
which it comes to pass that even here the whole punishment is not taken
away.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: If part of the punishment and not the whole be taken away
by this sacrament, it is due to a defect not on the part of Christ's
power, but on the part of man's devotion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether man is preserved by this sacrament from future sins?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that man is not preserved by this sacrament from future
sins. For there are many that receive this sacrament worthily, who
afterwards fall into sin. Now this would not happen if this sacrament
were to preserve them from future sins. Consequently, it is not an effect
of this sacrament to preserve from future sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the Eucharist is the sacrament of charity, as stated
above (A[4]). But charity does not seem to preserve from future sins,
because it can be lost through sin after one has possessed it, as was
stated in the SS, Q[24], A[11]. Therefore it seems that this sacrament
does not preserve man from sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the origin of sin within us is "the law of sin, which is
in our members," as declared by the Apostle (Rm. 7:23). But the lessening
of the fomes, which is the law of sin, is set down as an effect not of
this sacrament, but rather of Baptism. Therefore preservation from sin is
not an effect of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, our Lord said (Jn. 6:50): "This is the bread which
cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die":
which manifestly is not to be understood of the death of the body.
Therefore it is to be understood that this sacrament preserves from
spiritual death, which is through sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[6] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Sin is the spiritual death of the soul. Hence man is
preserved from future sin in the same way as the body is preserved from
future death of the body: and this happens in two ways. First of all, in
so far as man's nature is strengthened inwardly against inner decay, and
so by means of food and medicine he is preserved from death. Secondly, by
being guarded against outward assaults; and thus he is protected by means
of arms by which he defends his body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[6] Body Para. 2/2
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 [Vulg.: 'may strengthen'] man's
heart." Augustine likewise says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.): "Approach without
fear; it is bread, not poison." Secondly, 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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Even charity of itself keeps man from sin, according to Rm.
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether this sacrament benefit others besides the recipients?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[7] Body Para. 1/2
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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[7] Body Para. 2/2
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 (Mt. 26:28, with Lk. 22:20):
"Which for you," i.e. who receive it, "and for many," i.e. others, "shall
be shed unto remission of sins."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This sacrament has this in addition to the others, that it
is a sacrifice: and therefore the comparison fails.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the effect of this sacrament is hindered by venial sin?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the effect of this sacrament is not hindered by
venial sin. For Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), commenting on Jn. 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
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 FS, Q[81], A[4]; SS, Q[24], A[10]. Therefore venial sins
hinder the effect of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[8] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Venial sins can be taken in two ways: first of all as
past, secondly 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[79] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: This argument deals with past venial sins, which are taken
away by this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] Out. Para. 1/2
OF THE USE OR RECEIVING OF THIS SACRAMENT IN GENERAL (TWELVE ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the use or receiving of this sacrament, first of
all in general; secondly, how Christ used this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] Out. Para. 2/2
Under the first heading there are twelve points of inquiry:
(1) Whether there are two ways of eating this sacrament, namely,
sacramentally and spiritually?
(2) Whether it belongs to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually?
(3) Whether it belongs to the just man only to eat it sacramentally?
(4) Whether the sinner sins in eating it sacramentally?
(5) Of the degree of this sin;
(6) Whether this sacrament should be refused to the sinner that
approaches it?
(7) Whether nocturnal pollution prevents man from receiving this
sacrament?
(8) Whether it is to be received only when one is fasting?
(9) Whether it is to be given to them who lack the use of reason?
(10) Whether it is to be received daily?
(11) Whether it is lawful to refrain from it altogether?
(12) Whether it is lawful to receive the body without the blood?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether there are two ways to be distinguished of eating Christ's body?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that two ways ought not to be distinguished of eating
Christ's body, namely, sacramentally and spiritually. For, as Baptism is
spiritual regeneration, according to Jn. 3:5: "Unless a man be born again
of water and the Holy Ghost," etc., so also this sacrament is spiritual
food: hence our Lord, speaking of this sacrament, says (Jn. 6:64): "The
words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." But there are no
two distinct ways of receiving Baptism, namely, sacramentally and
spiritually. Therefore neither ought this distinction to be made
regarding this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, when two things are so related that one is on account of
the other, they should not be put in contra-distinction to one another,
because the one derives its species from the other. But sacramental
eating is ordained for spiritual eating as its end. Therefore sacramental
eating ought not to be divided in contrast with spiritual eating.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, things which cannot exist without one another ought not
to be divided in contrast with each other. But it seems that no one can
eat spiritually without eating sacramentally; otherwise the fathers of
old would have eaten this sacrament spiritually. Moreover, sacramental
eating would be to no purpose, if the spiritual eating could be had
without it. Therefore it is not right to distinguish a twofold eating,
namely, sacramental and spiritual.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The gloss says on 1 Cor. 11:29: "He that eateth and
drinketh unworthily," etc.: "We hold that there are two ways of eating,
the one sacramental, and the other spiritual."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, There are two things to be considered in the receiving of
this sacrament, namely, the sacrament itself, and its fruits, and we have
already spoken of both (QQ[73],79). The perfect way, then, of receiving
this sacrament is when one takes it so as to partake of its effect. Now,
as was stated above (Q[79], AA[3],8), it sometimes happens that a man is
hindered from receiving the effect of this sacrament; and such receiving
of this sacrament is an imperfect one. Therefore, as the perfect is
divided against the imperfect, so sacramental eating, whereby the
sacrament only is received without its effect, is divided against
spiritual eating, by which one receives the effect of this sacrament,
whereby a man is spiritually united with Christ through faith and charity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The same distinction is made regarding Baptism and the
other sacraments: for, some receive the sacrament only, while others
receive the sacrament and the reality of the sacrament. However, there is
a difference, because, since the other sacraments are accomplished in the
use of the matter, the receiving of the sacrament is the actual
perfection of the sacrament; whereas this sacrament is accomplished in
the consecration of the matter: and consequently both uses follow the
sacrament. On the other hand, in Baptism and in the other sacraments that
imprint a character, they who receive the sacrament receive some
spiritual effect, that is, the character. which is not the case in this
sacrament. And therefore, in this sacrament, rather than in Baptism, the
sacramental use is distinguished from the spiritual use.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: That sacramental eating which is also a spiritual eating is
not divided in contrast with spiritual eating, but is included under it;
but that sacramental eating which does not secure the effect, is divided
in contrast with spiritual eating; just as the imperfect, which does not
attain the perfection of its species, is divided in contrast with the
perfect.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[73], A[3]), the effect of the sacrament
can be secured by every man if he receive it in desire, though not in
reality. Consequently, just as some are baptized with the Baptism of
desire, through their desire of baptism, before being baptized in the
Baptism of water; so likewise some eat this sacrament spiritually ere
they receive it sacramentally. Now this happens in two ways. First of
all, from desire of receiving the sacrament itself, and thus are said to
be baptized, and to eat spiritually, and not sacramentally, they who
desire to receive these sacraments since they have been instituted.
Secondly, by a figure: thus the Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:2), that the
fathers of old were "baptized in the cloud and in the sea," and that
"they did eat . . . spiritual food, and . . . drank . . . spiritual
drink." Nevertheless sacramental eating is not without avail, because the
actual receiving of the sacrament produces more fully the effect of the
sacrament than does the desire thereof, as stated above of Baptism (Q[69]
, A[4], ad 2).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it belongs to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that it does not belong to man alone to eat this
sacrament spiritually, but likewise to angels. Because on Ps. 77:25: "Man
ate the bread of angels," the gloss says: "that is, the body of Christ,
Who i's truly the food of angels." But it would not be so unless the
angels were to eat Christ spiritually. Therefore the angels eat Christ
spiritually.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.) says: By "this meat and
drink, He would have us to understand the fellowship of His body and
members, which is the Church in His predestinated ones." But not only
men, but also the holy angels belong to that fellowship. Therefore the
holy angels eat of it spiritually.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Augustine in his book De Verbis Domini (Serm. cxlii)
says: "Christ is to be eaten spiritually, as He Himself declares: 'He
that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in
him.'" But this belongs not only to men, but also to the holy angels, in
whom Christ dwells by charity, and they in Him. Consequently, it seems
that to eat Christ spiritually is not for men only, but also for the
angels.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.) says: "Eat the bread"
of the altar "spiritually; take innocence to the altar." But angels do
not approach the altar as for the purpose of taking something therefrom.
Therefore the angels do not eat spiritually.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Christ Himself is contained in this sacrament, not under
His proper species, but under the sacramental species. Consequently there
are two ways of eating spiritually. First, as Christ Himself exists under
His proper species, and in this way the angels eat Christ spiritually
inasmuch as they are united with Him in the enjoyment of perfect charity,
and in clear vision (and this is the bread we hope for in heaven), and
not by faith, as we are united with Him here.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
In another way one may eat Christ spiritually, as He is under the
sacramental species, inasmuch as a man believes in Christ, while desiring
to receive this sacrament; and this is not merely to eat Christ
spiritually, but likewise to eat this sacrament; which does not fall to
the lot of the angels. And therefore although the angels feed on Christ
spiritually, yet it does not belong to them to eat this sacrament
spiritually.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The receiving of Christ under this sacrament is ordained to
the enjoyment of heaven, as to its end, in the same way as the angels
enjoy it; and since the means are gauged by the end, hence it is that
such eating of Christ whereby we receive Him under this sacrament, is, as
it were, derived from that eating whereby the angels enjoy Christ in
heaven. Consequently, man is said to eat the "bread of angels," because
it belongs to the angels to do so firstly and principally, since they
enjoy Him in his proper species; and secondly it belongs to men, who
receive Christ under this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Both men and angels belong to the fellowship of His
mystical body; men by faith, and angels by manifest vision. But the
sacraments are proportioned to faith, through which the truth is seen
"through a glass" and "in a dark manner." And therefore, properly
speaking, it does not belong to angels, but to men, to eat this sacrament
spiritually.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Christ dwells in men through faith, according to their
present state, but He is in the blessed angels by manifest vision.
Consequently the comparison does not hold, as stated above (ad 2).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the just man alone may eat Christ sacramentally?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that none but the just man may eat Christ sacramentally.
For Augustine says in his book De Remedio Penitentiae (cf. Tract. in
Joan. xxv, n. 12; xxvi, n. 1): "Why make ready tooth and belly? Believe,
and thou hast eaten . . . For to believe in Him, this it is, to eat the
living bread." But the sinner does not believe in Him; because he has not
living faith, to which it belongs to believe "in God," as stated above in
the SS, Q[2], A[2]; SS, Q[4], A[5]. Therefore the sinner cannot eat this
sacrament, which is the living bread.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, this sacrament is specially called "the sacrament of
charity," as stated above (Q[78], A[3], ad 6). But as unbelievers lack
faith, so all sinners lack charity. Now unbelievers do not seem to be
capable of eating this sacrament, since in the sacramental form it is
called the "Mystery of Faith." Therefore, for like reason, the sinner
cannot eat Christ's body sacramentally.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the sinner is more abominable before God than the
irrational creature: for it is said of the sinner (Ps. 48:21): "Man when
he was in honor did not understand; he hath been compared to senseless
beasts, and made like to them." But an irrational animal, such as a mouse
or a dog, cannot receive this sacrament, just as it cannot receive the
sacrament of Baptism. Therefore it seems that for the like reason neither
may sinners eat this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), commenting on the
words, "that if any man eat of it he may not die," says: "Many receive
from the altar, and by receiving die: whence the Apostle saith, 'eateth
and drinketh judgment to himself.'" But only sinners die by receiving.
Therefore sinners eat the body of Christ sacramentally, and not the just
only.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[3] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, In the past, some have erred upon this point, saying that
Christ's body is not received sacramentally by sinners; but that directly
the body is touched by the lips of sinners, it ceases to be under the
sacramental species.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[3] Body Para. 2/2
But this is erroneous; because it detracts from the truth of this
sacrament, to which truth it belongs that so long as the species last,
Christ's body does not cease to be under them, as stated above (Q[76],
A[6], ad 3; Q[77], A[8]). But the species last so long as the substance
of the bread would remain, if it were there, as was stated above (Q[77],
A[4]). Now it is clear that the substance of bread taken by a sinner does
not at once cease to be, but it continues until digested by natural heat:
hence Christ's body remains just as long under the sacramental species
when taken by sinners. Hence it must be said that the sinner, and not
merely the just, can eat Christ's body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Such words and similar expressions are to be understood of
spiritual eating, which does not belong to sinners. Consequently, it is
from such expressions being misunderstood that the above error seems to
have arisen, through ignorance of the distinction between corporeal and
spiritual eating.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Should even an unbeliever receive the sacramental species,
he would receive Christ's body under the sacrament: hence he would eat
Christ sacramentally, if the word "sacramentally" qualify the verb on the
part of the thing eaten. But if it qualify the verb on the part of the
one eating, then, properly speaking, he does not eat sacramentally,
because he uses what he takes, not as a sacrament, but as simple food.
Unless perchance the unbeliever were to intend to receive what the Church
bestows; without having proper faith regarding the other articles, or
regarding this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Even though a mouse or a dog were to eat the consecrated
host, the substance of Christ's body would not cease to be under the
species, so long as those species remain, and that is, so long as the
substance of bread would have remained; just as if it were to be cast
into the mire. Nor does this turn to any indignity regarding Christ's
body, since He willed to be crucified by sinners without detracting from
His dignity; especially since the mouse or dog does not touch Christ's
body in its proper species, but only as to its sacramental species. Some,
however, have said that Christ's body would cease to be there, directly
it were touched by a mouse or a dog; but this again detracts from the
truth of the sacrament, as stated above. None the less it must not be
said that the irrational animal eats the body of Christ sacramentally;
since it is incapable of using it as a sacrament. Hence it eats Christ's
body "accidentally," and not sacramentally, just as if anyone not knowing
a host to be consecrated were to consume it. And since no genus is
divided by an accidental difference, therefore this manner of eating
Christ's body is not set down as a third way besides sacramental and
spiritual eating.
�Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the sinner sins in receiving Christ's body sacramentally?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the sinner does not sin in receiving Christ's body
sacramentally, because Christ has no greater dignity under the
sacramental species than under His own. But sinners did not sin when they
touched Christ's body under its proper species; nay, rather they obtained
forgiveness of their sins, as we read in Lk. 7 of the woman who was a
sinner; while it is written (Mt. 14:36) that "as many as touched the hem
of His garment were healed." Therefore, they do not sin, but rather
obtain salvation, by receiving the body of Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, this sacrament, like the others, is a spiritual
medicine. But medicine is given to the sick for their recovery, according
to Mt. 9:12: "They that are in health need not a physician." Now they
that are spiritually sick or infirm are sinners. Therefore this sacrament
can be received by them without sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, this sacrament is one of our greatest gifts, since it
contains Christ. But according to Augustine (De Lib. Arb. ii), the
greatest gifts are those "which no one can abuse." Now no one sins except
by abusing something. Therefore no sinner sins by receiving this
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[4] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, as this sacrament is perceived by taste and touch, so
also is it by sight. Consequently, if the sinner sins by receiving the
sacrament, it seems that he would sin by beholding it, which is
manifestly untrue, since the Church exposes this sacrament to be seen and
adored by all. Therefore the sinner does not sin by eating this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[4] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, it happens sometimes that the sinner is unconscious of
his sin. Yet such a one does not seem to sin by receiving the body of
Christ, for according to this all who receive it would sin, as exposing
themselves to danger, since the Apostle says (1 Cor. 4:4): "I am not
conscious to myself of anything, yet I am not hereby justified."
Therefore, the sinner, if he receive this sacrament, does not appear to
be guilty of sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:29): "He that eateth and
drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself." Now the
gloss says on this passage: "He eats and drinks unworthily who is in sin,
or who handles it irreverently." Therefore, if anyone, while in mortal
sin, receives this sacrament, he purchases damnation, by sinning mortally.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, In this sacrament, as in the others, that which is a
sacrament is a sign of the reality of the sacrament. Now there is a
twofold reality of this sacrament, as stated above (Q[73], A[6]): one
which is signified and contained, namely, Christ Himself; while the other
is signified but not contained, namely, Christ's mystical body, which is
the fellowship of the saints. Therefore, whoever receives this
sacrament, expresses thereby that he is made one with Christ, and
incorporated in His members; and this is done by living faith, which no
one has who is in mortal sin. And therefore it is manifest that whoever
receives this sacrament while in mortal sin, is guilty of lying to this
sacrament, and consequently of sacrilege, because he profanes the
sacrament: and therefore he sins mortally.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: When Christ appeared under His proper species, He did not
give Himself to be touched by men as a sign of spiritual union with
Himself, as He gives Himself to be received in this sacrament. And
therefore sinners in touching Him under His proper species did not incur
the sin of lying to Godlike things, as sinners do in receiving this
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
Furthermore, Christ still bore the likeness of the body of sin;
consequently He fittingly allowed Himself to be touched by sinners. But
as soon as the body of sin was taken away by the glory of the
Resurrection, he forbade the woman to touch Him, for her faith in Him was
defective, according to Jn. 20:17: "Do not touch Me, for I am not yet
ascended to My Father," i.e. "in your heart," as Augustine explains
(Tract. cxxi in Joan.). And therefore sinners, who lack living faith
regarding Christ are not allowed to touch this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Every medicine does not suit every stage of sickness;
because the tonic given to those who are recovering from fever would be
hurtful to them if given while yet in their feverish condition. So
likewise Baptism and Penance are as purgative medicines, given to take
away the fever of sin; whereas this sacrament is a medicine given to
strengthen, and it ought not to be given except to them who are quit of
sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: By the greatest gifts Augustine understands the soul's
virtues, "which no one uses to evil purpose," as though they were
principles of evil. Nevertheless sometimes a man makes a bad use of them,
as objects of an evil use, as is seen in those who are proud of their
virtues. So likewise this sacrament, so far as the sacrament is
concerned, is not the principle of an evil use, but the object thereof.
Hence Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan.): "Many receive Christ's body
unworthily; whence we are taught what need there is to beware of
receiving a good thing evilly . . . For behold, of a good thing, received
evilly, evil is wrought": just as on the other hand, in the Apostle's
case, "good was wrought through evil well received," namely, by bearing
patiently the sting of Satan.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Christ's body is not received by being seen, but only its
sacrament, because sight does not penetrate to the substance of Christ's
body, but only to the sacramental species, as stated above (Q[76], A[7]).
But he who eats, receives not only the sacramental species, but likewise
Christ Himself Who is under them. Consequently, no one is forbidden to
behold Christ's body, when once he has received Christ's sacrament,
namely, Baptism: whereas the non-baptized are not to be allowed even to
see this sacrament, as is clear from Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. vii). But
only those are to be allowed to share in the eating who are united with
Christ not merely sacramentally, but likewise really.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[4] R.O. 5 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 5: The fact of a man being unconscious of his sin can come
about in two ways. First of all through his own fault, either because
through ignorance of the law (which ignorance does not excuse him), he
thinks something not to be sinful which is a sin, as for example if one
guilty of fornication were to deem simple fornication not to be a mortal
sin; or because he neglects to examine his conscience, which is opposed
to what the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:28): "Let a man prove himself, and so
let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice." And in this way
nevertheless the sinner who receives Christ's body commits sin, although
unconscious thereof, because the very ignorance is a sin on his part.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[4] R.O. 5 Para. 2/2
Secondly, it may happen without fault on his part, as, for instance,
when he has sorrowed over his sin, but is not sufficiently contrite: and
in such a case he does not sin in receiving the body of Christ, because a
man cannot know for certain whether he is truly contrite. It suffices,
however, if he find in himself the marks of contrition, for instance, if
he "grieve over past sins," and "propose to avoid them in the future"
[*Cf. Rule of Augustine]. But if he be ignorant that what he did was a
sinful act, through ignorance of the fact, which excuses, for instance,
if a man approach a woman whom he believed to be his wife whereas she was
not, he is not to be called a sinner on that account; in the same way if
he has utterly forgotten his sin, general contrition suffices for
blotting it out, as will be said hereafter (XP, Q[2], A[3], ad 2); hence
he is no longer to be called a sinner.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether to approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin is the
gravest of all sins?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that to approach this sacrament with consciousness of
sin is the gravest of all sins; because the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:27):
"Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord
unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord":
upon which the gloss observes: "He shall be punished as though he slew
Christ." But the sin of them who slew Christ seems to have been most
grave. Therefore this sin, whereby a man approaches Christ's table with
consciousness of sin, appears to be the gravest.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Jerome says in an Epistle (xlix): "What hast thou to do
with women, thou that speakest familiarly with God at the altar?" [*The
remaining part of the quotation is not from St. Jerome]. Say, priest,
say, cleric, how dost thou kiss the Son of God with the same lips
wherewith thou hast kissed the daughter of a harlot? "Judas, thou
betrayest the Son of Man with a kiss!" And thus it appears that the
fornicator approaching Christ's table sins as Judas did, whose sin was
most grave. But there are many other sins which are graver than
fornication, especially the sin of unbelief. Therefore the sin of every
sinner approaching Christ's table is the gravest of all.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, spiritual uncleanness is more abominable to God than
corporeal. But if anyone was to cast Christ's body into mud or a
cess-pool, his sin would be reputed a most grave one. Therefore, he sins
more deeply by receiving it with sin, which is spiritual uncleanness,
upon his soul.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says on the words, "If I had not come, and
had not spoken to them, they would be without sin" (Tract. lxxxix in
Joan.), that this is to be understood of the sin of unbelief, "in which
all sins are comprised," and so the greatest of all sins appears to be,
not this, but rather the sin of unbelief.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[5] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, As stated in the FS, Q[73], AA[3],6; SS, Q[73], A[3], one
sin can be said to be graver than another in two ways: first of all
essentially, secondly accidentally. Essentially, in regard to its
species, which is taken from its object: and so a sin is greater
according as that against which it is committed is greater. And since
Christ's Godhead is greater than His humanity, and His humanity greater
than the sacraments of His humanity, hence it is that those are the
gravest sins which are committed against the Godhead, such as unbelief
and blasphemy. The second degree of gravity is held by those sins which
are committed against His humanity: hence it is written (Mt. 12:32):
"Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be
forgiven him; but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall
not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come." In
the third place come sins committed against the sacraments, which belong
to Christ's humanity; and after these are the other sins committed
against mere creatures.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[5] Body Para. 2/3
Accidentally, one sin can be graver than another on the sinner's part.
for example, the sin which is the result of ignorance or of weakness is
lighter than one arising from contempt, or from sure knowledge; and the
same reason holds good of other circumstances. And according to this, the
above sin can be graver in some, as happens in them who from actual
contempt and with consciousness of sin approach this sacrament: but in
others it is less grave; for instance, in those who from fear of their
sin being discovered, approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[5] Body Para. 3/3
So, then, it is evident that this sin is specifically graver than many
others, yet it is not the greatest of all.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The sin of the unworthy recipient is compared to the sin of
them who slew Christ, by way of similitude, because each is committed
against Christ's body; but not according to the degree of the crime.
Because the sin of Christ's slayers was much graver, first of all,
because their sin was against Christ's body in its own species, while
this sin is against it under sacramental species; secondly, because their
sin came of the intent of injuring Christ, while this does not.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: The sin of the fornicator receiving Christ's body is
likened to Judas kissing Christ, as to the resemblance of the sin,
because each outrages Christ with the sign of friendship. but not as to
the extent of the sin, as was observed above (ad 1). And this resemblance
in crime applies no less to other sinners than to fornicators: because by
other mortal sins, sinners act against the charity of Christ, of which
this sacrament is the sign, and all the more according as their sins are
graver. But in a measure the sin of fornication makes one more unfit for
receiving this sacrament, because thereby especially the spirit becomes
enslaved by the flesh, which is a hindrance to the fervor of love
required for this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
However, the hindrance to charity itself weighs more than the hindrance
to its fervor. Hence the sin of unbelief, which fundamentally severs a
man from the unity of the Church, simply speaking, makes him to be
utterly unfit for receiving this sacrament; because it is the sacrament
of the Church's unity, as stated above (Q[61], A[2]). Hence the
unbeliever who receives this sacrament sins more grievously than the
believer who is in sin; and shows greater contempt towards Christ Who is
in the sacrament, especially if he does not believe Christ to be truly in
this sacrament; because, so far as lies in him, he lessens the holiness
of the sacrament, and the power of Christ acting in it, and this is to
despise the sacrament in itself. But the believer who receives the
sacrament with consciousness of sin, by receiving it unworthily despises
the sacrament, not in itself, but in its use. Hence the Apostle (1 Cor.
11:29) in assigning the cause of this sin, says, "not discerning the body
of the Lord," that is, not distinguishing it from other food: and this is
what he does who disbelieves Christ's presence in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The man who would throw this sacrament into the mire would
be guilty of more heinous sin than another approaching the sacrament
fully conscious of mortal sin. First of all, because he would intend to
outrage the sacrament, whereas the sinner receiving Christ's body
unworthily has no such intent; secondly, because the sinner is capable of
grace; hence he is more capable of receiving this sacrament than any
irrational creature. Hence he would make a most revolting use of this
sacrament who would throw it to dogs to eat, or fling it in the mire to
be trodden upon.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the priest ought to deny the body of Christ to the sinner seeking
it?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the priest should deny the body of Christ to the
sinner seeking it. For Christ's precept is not to be set aside for the
sake of avoiding scandal or on account of infamy to anyone. But (Mt. 7:6)
our Lord gave this command: "Give not that which is holy to dogs." Now
it is especially casting holy things to dogs to give this sacrament to
sinners. Therefore, neither on account of avoiding scandal or infamy
should this sacrament be administered to the sinner who asks for it.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, one must choose the lesser of two evils. But it seems to
be the lesser evil if the sinner incur infamy; or if an unconsecrated
host be given to him; than for him to sin mortally by receiving the body
of Christ. Consequently, it seems that the course to be adopted is either
that the sinner seeking the body of Christ be exposed to infamy, or that
an unconsecrated host be given to him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the body of Christ is sometimes given to those suspected
of crime in order to put them to proof. Because we read in the Decretals:
"It often happens that thefts are perpetrated in monasteries of monks;
wherefore we command that when the brethren have to exonerate themselves
of such acts, that the abbot shall celebrate Mass, or someone else
deputed by him, in the presence of the community; and so, when the Mass
is over, all shall communicate under these words: 'May the body of Christ
prove thee today.'" And further on: "If any evil deed be imputed to a
bishop or priest, for each charge he must say Mass and communicate, and
show that he is innocent of each act imputed." But secret sinners must
not be disclosed, for, once the blush of shame is set aside, they will
indulge the more in sin, as Augustine says (De Verbis. Dom.; cf. Serm.
lxxxii). Consequently, Christ's body is not to be given to occult
sinners, even if they ask for it.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, on Ps. 21:30: "All the fat ones of the earth have eaten
and have adored," Augustine says: "Let not the dispenser hinder the fat
ones of the earth," i.e. sinners, "from eating at the table of the Lord."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[6] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, A distinction must be made among sinners: some are
secret; others are notorious, either from evidence of the fact, as public
usurers, or public robbers, or from being denounced as evil men by some
ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. Therefore Holy Communion ought not to
be given to open sinners when they ask for it. Hence Cyprian writes to
someone (Ep. lxi): "You were so kind as to consider that I ought to be
consulted regarding actors, end that magician who continues to practice
his disgraceful arts among you; as to whether I thought that Holy
Communion ought to be given to such with the other Christians. I think
that it is beseeming neither the Divine majesty, nor Christian
discipline, for the Church's modesty and honor to be defiled by such
shameful and infamous contagion."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[6] Body Para. 2/2
But if they be not open sinners, but occult, the Holy Communion should
not be denied them if they ask for it. For since every Christian, from
the fact that he is baptized, is admitted to the Lord's table, he may not
be robbed of his right, except from some open cause. Hence on 1 Cor.
5:11, "If he who is called a brother among you," etc., Augustine's gloss
remarks: "We cannot inhibit any person from Communion, except he has
openly confessed, or has been named and convicted by some ecclesiastical
or lay tribunal." Nevertheless a priest who has knowledge of the crime
can privately warn the secret sinner, or warn all openly in public, from
approaching the Lord's table, until they have repented of their sins and
have been reconciled to the Church; because after repentance and
reconciliation, Communion must not be refused even to public sinners,
especially in the hour of death. Hence in the (3rd) Council of Carthage
(Can. xxxv) we read: "Reconciliation is not to be denied to stage-players
or actors, or others of the sort, or to apostates, after their conversion
to God."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Holy things are forbidden to be given to dogs, that is, to
notorious sinners: whereas hidden deeds may not be published, but are to
be left to the Divine judgment.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: Although it is worse for the secret sinner to sin mortally
in taking the body of Christ, rather than be defamed, nevertheless for
the priest administering the body of Christ it is worse to commit mortal
sin by unjustly defaming the hidden sinner than that the sinner should
sin mortally; because no one ought to commit mortal sin in order to keep
another out of mortal sin. Hence Augustine says (Quaest. super Gen. 42):
"It is a most dangerous exchange, for us to do evil lest another
perpetrate a greater evil." But the secret sinner ought rather to prefer
infamy than approach the Lord's table unworthily.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
Yet by no means should an unconsecrated host be given in place of a
consecrated one; because the priest by so doing, so far as he is
concerned, makes others, either the bystanders or the communicant, commit
idolatry by believing that it is a consecrated host; because, as
Augustine says on Ps. 98:5: "Let no one eat Christ's flesh, except he
first adore it." Hence in the Decretals (Extra, De Celeb. Miss., Ch. De
Homine) it is said: "Although he who reputes himself unworthy of the
Sacrament, through consciousness of his sin, sins gravely, if he receive;
still he seems to offend more deeply who deceitfully has presumed to
simulate it."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Those decrees were abolished by contrary enactments of
Roman Pontiffs: because Pope Stephen V writes as follows: "The Sacred
Canons do not allow of a confession being extorted from any person by
trial made by burning iron or boiling water; it belongs to our government
to judge of public crimes committed, and that by means of confession made
spontaneously, or by proof of witnesses: but private and unknown crimes
are to be left to Him Who alone knows the hearts of the sons of men." And
the same is found in the Decretals (Extra, De Purgationibus, Ch. Ex
tuarum). Because in all such practices there seems to be a tempting of
God; hence such things cannot be done without sin. And it would seem
graver still if anyone were to incur judgment of death through this
sacrament, which was instituted as a means of salvation. Consequently,
the body of Christ should never be given to anyone suspected of crime, as
by way of examination.
�Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the seminal loss that occurs during sleep hinders anyone from
receiving this sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that seminal loss does not hinder anyone from receiving
the body of Christ: because no one is prevented from receiving the body
of Christ except on account of sin. But seminal loss happens without sin:
for Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii) that "the same image that comes
into the mind of a speaker may present itself to the mind of the sleeper,
so that the latter be unable to distinguish the image from the reality,
and is moved carnally and with the result that usually follows such
motions; and there is as little sin in this as there is in speaking and
therefore thinking about such things." Consequently these motions do not
prevent one from receiving this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/2
OBJ 2: Further, Gregory says in a Letter to Augustine, Bishop of the
English (Regist. xi): "Those who pay the debt of marriage not from lust,
but from desire to have children, should be left to their own judgment,
as to whether they should enter the church and receive the mystery of our
Lord's body, after such intercourse: because they ought not to be
forbidden from receiving it, since they have passed through the fire
unscorched."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 2/2
From this it is evident that seminal loss even of one awake, if it be
without sin, is no hindrance to receiving the body of Christ.
Consequently, much less is it in the case of one asleep.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, these movements of the flesh seem to bring with them
only bodily uncleanness. But there are other bodily defilements which
according to the Law forbade entrance into the holy places, yet which
under the New Law do not prevent receiving this sacrament: as, for
instance, in the case of a woman after child-birth, or in her periods, or
suffering from issue of blood, as Gregory writes to Augustine, Bishop of
the English (Regist. xi). Therefore it seems that neither do these
movements of the flesh hinder a man from receiving this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[7] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, venial sin is no hindrance to receiving the sacrament,
nor is mortal sin after repentance. But even supposing that seminal loss
arises from some foregoing sin, whether of intemperance, or of bad
thoughts, for the most part such sin is venial; and if occasionally it be
mortal, a man may repent of it by morning and confess it. Consequently,
it seems that he ought not to be prevented from receiving this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[7] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, a sin against the Fifth Commandment is greater than a
sin against the Sixth. But if a man dream that he has broken the Fifth or
Seventh or any other Commandment, he is not on that account debarred from
receiving this sacrament. Therefore it seems that much less should he be
debarred through defilement resulting from a dream against the Sixth
Commandment.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Lev. 15:16): "The man from whom the
seed of copulation goeth out . . . shall be unclean until evening." But
for the unclean there is no approaching to the sacraments. Therefore, it
seems that owing to such defilement of the flesh a man is debarred from
taking this which is the greatest of the sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[7] Body Para. 1/6
I answer that, There are two things to be weighed regarding the
aforesaid movements: one on account of which they necessarily prevent a
man from receiving this sacrament; the other, on account of which they do
so, not of necessity, but from a sense of propriety.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[7] Body Para. 2/6
Mortal sin alone necessarily prevents anyone from partaking of this
sacrament: and although these movements during sleep, considered in
themselves, cannot be a mortal sin, nevertheless, owing to their cause,
they have mortal sin connected with them; which cause, therefore, must be
investigated. Sometimes they are due to an external spiritual cause, viz.
the deception of the demons, who can stir up phantasms, as was stated in
the FP, Q[111], A[3], through the apparition of which, these movements
occasionally follow. Sometimes they are due to an internal spiritual
cause, such as previous thoughts. At other times they arise from some
internal corporeal cause, as from abundance or weakness of nature, or
even from surfeit of meat or drink. Now every one of these three causes
can be without sin at all, or else with venial sin, or with mortal sin.
If it be without sin, or with venial sin, it does not necessarily prevent
the receiving of this sacrament, so as to make a man guilty of the body
and blood of the Lord: but should it be with mortal sin, it prevents it
of necessity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[7] Body Para. 3/6
For such illusions on the part of demons sometimes come from one's not
striving to receive fervently; and this can be either a mortal or a
venial sin. At other times it is due to malice alone on the part of the
demons who wish to keep men from receiving this sacrament. So we read in
the Conferences of the Fathers (Cassian, Collat. xxii) that when a
certain one always suffered thus on those feast-days on which he had to
receive Communion, his superiors, discovering that there was no fault on
his part, ruled that he was not to refrain from communicating on that
account, and the demoniacal illusion ceased.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[7] Body Para. 4/6
In like fashion previous evil thoughts can sometimes be without any sin
whatever, as when one has to think of such things on account of lecturing
or debating; and if it be done without concupiscence and delectation, the
thoughts will not be unclean but honest; and yet defilement can come of
such thoughts, as is clear from the authority of Augustine (OBJ[1]). At
other times such thoughts come of concupiscence and delectation, and
should there be consent, it will be a mortal sin: otherwise it will be a
venial sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[7] Body Para. 5/6
In the same way too the corporeal cause can be without sin, as when it
arises from bodily debility, and hence some individuals suffer seminal
loss without sin even in their wakeful hours; or it can come from the
abundance of nature: for, just as blood can flow without sin, so also can
the semen which is superfluity of the blood, according to the Philosopher
(De Gener. Animal. i). But occasionally it is with sin, as when it is due
to excess of food or drink. And this also can be either venial or mortal
sin; although more frequently the sin is mortal in the case of evil
thoughts on account of the proneness to consent, rather than in the case
of consumption of food and drink. Hence Gregory, writing to Augustine,
Bishop of the English (Regist. xi), says that one ought to refrain from
Communion when this arises from evil thoughts, but not when it arises
from excess of food or drink, especially if necessity call for Communion.
So, then, one must judge from its cause whether such bodily defilement of
necessity hinders the receiving of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[7] Body Para. 6/6
At the same time a sense of decency forbids Communion on two accounts.
The first of these is always verified, viz. the bodily defilement, with
which, out of reverence for the sacrament, it is unbecoming to approach
the altar (and hence those who wish to touch any sacred object, wash
their hands): except perchance such uncleanness be perpetual or of long
standing, such as leprosy or issue of blood, or anything else of the
kind. The other reason is the mental distraction which follows after the
aforesaid movements, especially when they take place with unclean
imaginings. Now this obstacle, which arises from a sense of decency, can
be set aside owing to any necessity, as Gregory says (Regist. xi): "As
when perchance either a festival day calls for it, or necessity compels
one to exercise the ministry because there is no other priest at hand."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: A person is hindered necessarily, only by mortal sin, from
receiving this sacrament: but from a sense of decency one may be hindered
through other causes, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Conjugal intercourse, if it be without sin, (for instance,
if it be done for the sake of begetting offspring, or of paying the
marriage debt), does not prevent the receiving of this sacrament for any
other reason than do those movements in question which happen without
sin, as stated above; namely, on account of the defilement to the body
and distraction to the mind. On this account Jerome expresses himself in
the following terms in his commentary on Matthew (Epist. xxviii, among
St. Jerome's works): "If the loaves of Proposition might not be eaten by
them who had known their wives carnally, how much less may this bread
which has come down from heaven be defiled and touched by them who
shortly before have been in conjugal embraces? It is not that we condemn
marriages, but that at the time when we are going to eat the flesh of the
Lamb, we ought not to indulge in carnal acts." But since this is to be
understood in the sense of decency, and not of necessity, Gregory says
that such a person "is to be left to his own judgment." "But if," as
Gregory says (Regist. xi), "it be not desire of begetting offspring, but
lust that prevails," then such a one should be forbidden to approach this
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Gregory says in his Letter quoted above to Augustine,
Bishop of the English, in the Old Testament some persons were termed
polluted figuratively, which the people of the New Law understand
spiritually. Hence such bodily uncleannesses, if perpetual or of long
standing, do not hinder the receiving of this saving sacrament, as they
prevented approaching those figurative sacraments; but if they pass
speedily, like the uncleanness of the aforesaid movements, then from a
sense of fittingness they hinder the receiving of this sacrament during
the day on which it happens. Hence it is written (Dt. 23:10): "If there
be among you any man, that is defiled in a dream by night, he shall go
forth out of the camp; and he shall not return before he be washed with
water in the evening."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[7] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Although the stain of guilt be taken away by contrition and
confession nevertheless the bodily defilement is not taken away, nor the
mental distraction which follows therefrom.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[7] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: To dream of homicide brings no bodily uncleanness, nor such
distraction of mind as fornication, on account of its intense
delectation; still if the dream of homicide comes of a cause sinful in
itself, especially if it be mortal sin, then owing to its cause it
hinders the receiving of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether food or drink taken beforehand hinders the receiving of this
sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that food or drink taken beforehand does not hinder the
receiving of this sacrament. For this sacrament was instituted by our
Lord at the supper. But when the supper was ended our Lord gave the
sacrament to His disciples, as is evident from Lk. 22:20, and from 1 Cor.
11:25. Therefore it seems that we ought to take this sacrament after
receiving other food.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is written (1 Cor. 11:33): "When you come together to
eat," namely, the Lord's body, "wait for one another; if any man be
hungry, let him eat at home": and thus it seems that after eating at home
a man may eat Christ's body in the Church.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, we read in the (3rd) Council of Carthage (Can. xxix):
"Let the sacraments of the altar be celebrated only by men who are
fasting, with the exception of the anniversary day on which the Lord's
Supper is celebrated." Therefore, at least on that day, one may receive
the body of Christ after partaking of other food.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[8] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the taking of water or medicine, or of any other food or
drink in very slight quantity, or of the remains of food continuing in
the mouth, neither breaks the Church's fast, nor takes away the sobriety
required for reverently receiving this sacrament. Consequently, one is
not prevented by the above things from receiving this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[8] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, some eat and drink late at night, and possibly after
passing a sleepless night receive the sacred mysteries in the morning
when the food it not digested. But it would savor more of moderation if a
man were to eat a little in the morning and afterwards receive this
sacrament about the ninth hour, since also there is occasionally a longer
interval of time. Consequently, it seems that such taking of food
beforehand does not keep one from this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[8] Obj. 6 Para. 1/1
OBJ 6: Further, there is no less reverence due to this sacrament after
receiving it, than before. But one may take food and drink after
receiving the sacrament. Therefore one may do so before receiving it.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Resp. ad Januar., Ep. liv): "It has
pleased the Holy Ghost that, out of honor for this great sacrament, the
Lord's body should enter the mouth of a Christian before other foods."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[8] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, A thing may prevent the receiving of this sacrament in
two ways: first of all in itself, like mortal sin, which is repugnant to
what is signified by this sacrament, as stated above (A[4]): secondly, on
account of the Church's prohibition; and thus a man is prevented from
taking this sacrament after receiving food or drink, for three reasons.
First, as Augustine says (Resp. ad Januar., Ep. liv), "out of respect for
this sacrament," so that it may enter into a mouth not yet contaminated
by any food or drink. Secondly, because of its signification. i.e. to
give us to understand that Christ, Who is the reality of this sacrament,
and His charity, ought to be first of all established in our hearts,
according to Mt. 6:33: "Seek first the kingdom of God." Thirdly, on
account of the danger of vomiting and intemperance, which sometimes arise
from over-indulging in food, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:21): "One,
indeed, is hungry, and another is drunk."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[8] Body Para. 2/2
Nevertheless the sick are exempted from this general rule, for they
should be given Communion at once, even after food, should there be any
doubt as to their danger, lest they die without Communion, because
necessity has no law. Hence it is said in the Canon de Consecratione:
"Let the priest at once take Communion to the sick person, lest he die
without Communion."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Augustine says in the same book, "the fact that our Lord
gave this sacrament after taking food is no reason why the brethren
should assemble after dinner or supper in order to partake of it, or
receive it at meal-time, as did those whom the Apostle reproves and
corrects. For our Saviour, in order the more strongly to commend the
depth of this mystery, wished to fix it closely in the hearts and
memories of the disciples. and on that account He gave no command for it
to be received in that order, leaving this to the apostles, to whom He
was about to entrust the government of the churches."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The text quoted is thus paraphrased by the gloss: "If any
man be hungry and loath to await the rest, let him partake of his food at
home, that is, let him fill himself with earthly bread, without partaking
of the Eucharist afterwards."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The wording of this decree is in accordance with the former
custom observed by some of receiving the body of Christ on that day after
breaking their fast, so as to represent the Lord's supper. But this is
now abrogated, because as Augustine says (Resp. ad Januar., Ep. liv), it
is customary throughout the whole world for Christ's body to be received
before breaking the fast.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[8] R.O. 4 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 4: As stated in the SS, Q[147], A[6], ad 2, there are two
kinds of fast. First, there is the natural fast, which implies privation
of everything taken before-hand by way of food or drink: and such fast is
required for this sacrament for the reasons given above. And therefore it
is never lawful to take this sacrament after taking water, or other food
or drink, or even medicine, no matter how small the quantity be. Nor does
it matter whether it nourishes or not, whether it be taken by itself or
with other things, provided it be taken by way of food or drink. But the
remains of food left in the mouth, if swallowed accidentally, do not
hinder receiving this sacrament, because they are swallowed not by way of
food but by way of saliva. The same holds good of the unavoidable remains
of the water or wine wherewith the mouth is rinsed, provided they be not
swallowed in great quantity, but mixed with saliva.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[8] R.O. 4 Para. 2/2
Secondly, there is the fast of the Church, instituted for afflicting the
body: and this fast is not hindered by the things mentioned (in the
objection), because they do not give much nourishment, but are taken
rather as an alterative.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[8] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: That this sacrament ought to enter into the mouth of a
Christian before any other food must not be understood absolutely of all
time, otherwise he who had once eaten or drunk could never afterwards
take this sacrament: but it must be understood of the same day; and
although the beginning of the day varies according to different systems
of reckoning (for some begin their day at noon, some at sunset, others at
midnight, and others at sunrise), the Roman Church begins it at midnight.
Consequently, if any person takes anything by way of food or drink after
midnight, he may not receive this sacrament on that day; but he can do so
if the food was taken before midnight. Nor does it matter, so far as the
precept is concerned, whether he has slept after taking food or drink, or
whether he has digested it; but it does matter as to the mental
disturbance which one suffers from want of sleep or from indigestion,
for, if the mind be much disturbed, one becomes unfit for receiving this
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[8] R.O. 6 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 6: The greatest devotion is called for at the moment of
receiving this sacrament, because it is then that the effect of the
sacrament is bestowed, and such devotion is hindered more by what goes
before it than by what comes after it. And therefore it was ordained that
men should fast before receiving the sacrament rather than after.
Nevertheless there ought to be some interval between receiving this
sacrament and taking other food. Consequently, both the Postcommunion
prayer of thanksgiving is said in the Mass, and the communicants say
their own private prayers.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[8] R.O. 6 Para. 2/2
However, according to the ancient Canons, the following ordination was
made by Pope Clement I, (Ep. ii), "If the Lord's portion be eaten in the
morning, the ministers who have taken it shall fast until the sixth hour,
and if they take it at the third or fourth hour, they shall fast until
evening." For in olden times, the priest celebrated Mass less frequently,
and with greater preparation: but now, because the sacred mysteries have
to be celebrated oftener, the same could not be easily observed, and so
it has been abrogated by contrary custom.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[9] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether those who have not the use of reason ought to receive this
sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[9] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that those who have not the use of reason ought not to
receive this sacrament. For it is required that man should approach this
sacrament with devotion and previous self-examination, according to 1
Cor. 11:28: "Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread,
and drink of the chalice." But this is not possible for those who are
devoid of reason. Therefore this sacrament should not be given to them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[9] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, among those who have not the use of reason are the
possessed, who are called energumens. But such persons are kept from even
beholding this sacrament, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii).
Therefore this sacrament ought not to be given to those who have not the
use of reason.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[9] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, among those that lack the use of reason are children,
the most innocent of all. But this sacrament is not given to children.
Therefore much less should it be given to others deprived of the use of
reason.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[9] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, We read in the First Council of Orange, (Canon 13); and
the same is to be found in the Decretals (xxvi, 6): "All things that
pertain to piety are to be given to the insane": and consequently, since
this is the "sacrament of piety," it must be given to them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[9] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Men are said to be devoid of reason in two ways. First,
when they are feeble-minded, as a man who sees dimly is said not to see:
and since such persons can conceive some devotion towards this sacrament,
it is not to be denied them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[9] Body Para. 2/2
In another way men are said not to possess fully the use of reason.
Either, then, they never had the use of reason, and have remained so from
birth; and in that case this sacrament is not to be given to them,
because in no way has there been any preceding devotion towards the
sacrament: or else, they were not always devoid of reason, and then, if
when they formerly had their wits they showed devotion towards this
sacrament, it ought to be given to them in the hour of death; unless
danger be feared of vomiting or spitting it out. Hence we read in the
acts of the Fourth Council of Carthage (Canon 76). and the same is to be
found in the Decretals (xxvi, 6): "If a sick man ask to receive the
sacrament of Penance; and if, when the priest who has been sent for comes
to him, he be so weak as to be unable to speak, or becomes delirious, let
them, who heard him ask, bear witness, and let him receive the sacrament
of Penance. then if it be thought that he is going to die shortly, let
him be reconciled by imposition of hands, and let the Eucharist be placed
in his mouth."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Those lacking the use of reason can have devotion towards
the sacrament; actual devotion in some cases, and past in others.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[9] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Dionysius is speaking there of energumens who are not yet
baptized, in whom the devil's power is not yet extinct, since it thrives
in them through the presence of original sin. But as to baptized persons
who are vexed in body by unclean spirits, the same reason holds good of
them as of others who are demented. Hence Cassian says (Collat. vii): "We
do not remember the most Holy Communion to have ever been denied by our
elders to them who are vexed by unclean spirits."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[9] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The same reason holds good of newly born children as of the
insane who never have had the use of reason: consequently, the sacred
mysteries are not to be given to them. Although certain Greeks do the
contrary, because Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii) that Holy Communion is
to be given to them who are baptized; not understanding that Dionysius is
speaking there of the Baptism of adults. Nor do they suffer any loss of
life from the fact of our Lord saying (Jn. 6:54), "Except you eat the
flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in
you"; because, as Augustine writes to Boniface (Pseudo-Beda, Comment. in
1 Cor. 10:17), "then every one of the faithful becomes a partaker," i.e.
spiritually, "of the body and blood of the Lord, when he is made a member
of Christ's body in Baptism." But when children once begin to have some
use of reason so as to be able to conceive some devotion for the
sacrament, then it can be given to them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[10] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is lawful to receive this sacrament daily?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[10] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It does not appear to be lawful to receive this sacrament daily,
because, as Baptism shows forth our Lord's Passion, so also does this
sacrament. Now one may not be baptized several times, but only once,
because "Christ died once" only "for our sins," according to 1 Pt. 3:18.
Therefore, it seems unlawful to receive this sacrament daily.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[10] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the reality ought to answer to the figure. But the
Paschal Lamb, which was the chief figure of this sacrament, as was said
above (Q[73], A[9]) was eaten only once in the year; while the Church
once a year commemorates Christ's Passion, of which this sacrament is the
memorial. It seems, then, that it is lawful to receive this sacrament not
daily, but only once in the year.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[10] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the greatest reverence is due to this sacrament as
containing Christ. But it is a token of reverence to refrain from
receiving this sacrament; hence the Centurion is praised for saying (Mt.
8:8), "Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof";
also Peter, for saying (Lk. 5:8), "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man,
O Lord." Therefore, it is not praiseworthy for a man to receive this
sacrament daily.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[10] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, if it were a praiseworthy custom to receive this
sacrament frequently, then the oftener it were taken the more
praise-worthy it would be. But there would be greater frequency if one
were to receive it several. times daily; and yet this is not the custom
of the Church. Consequently, it does not seem praiseworthy to receive it
daily.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[10] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, the Church by her statutes intends to promote the
welfare of the faithful. But the Church's statute only requires Communion
once a year; hence it is enacted (Extra, De Poenit. et Remiss. xii): "Let
every person of either sex devoutly receive the sacrament of the
Eucharist at least at Easter; unless by the advice of his parish priest,
and for some reasonable cause, he considers he ought to refrain from
receiving for a time." Consequently, it is not praiseworthy to receive
this sacrament daily.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[10] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Verb. Dom., Serm. xxviii): "This is
our daily bread; take it daily, that it may profit thee daily."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[10] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, There are two things to be considered regarding the use
of this sacrament. The first is on the part of the sacrament itself, the
virtue of which gives health to men; and consequently it is profitable to
receive it daily so as to receive its fruits daily. Hence Ambrose says
(De Sacram. iv): "If, whenever Christ's blood is shed, it is shed for the
forgiveness of sins, I who sin often, should receive it often: I need a
frequent remedy." The second thing to be considered is on the part of the
recipient, who is required to approach this sacrament with great
reverence and devotion. Consequently, if anyone finds that he has these
dispositions every day, he will do well to receive it daily. Hence,
Augustine after saying, "Receive daily, that it may profit thee daily,"
adds: "So live, as to deserve to receive it daily." But because many
persons are lacking in this devotion, on account of the many drawbacks
both spiritual and corporal from which they suffer, it is not expedient
for all to approach this sacrament every day; but they should do so as
often as they find themselves properly disposed. Hence it is said in De
Eccles. Dogmat. liii: "I neither praise nor blame daily reception of the
Eucharist."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 1: In the sacrament of Baptism a man is conformed to Christ's
death, by receiving His character within him. And therefore, as Christ
died but once, so a man ought to be baptized but once. But a man does not
receive Christ's character in this sacrament; He receives Christ Himself,
Whose virtue endures for ever. Hence it is written (Heb. 10:14): "By one
oblation He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."
Consequently, since man has daily need of Christ's health-giving virtue,
he may commendably receive this sacrament every day.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 2/2
And since Baptism is above all a spiritual regeneration, therefore, as a
man is born naturally but once, so ought he by Baptism to be reborn
spiritually but once, as Augustine says (Tract. xi in Joan.), commenting
on Jn. 3:4, "How can a man be born again, when he is grown old?" But this
sacrament is spiritual food; hence, just as bodily food is taken every
day, so is it a good thing to receive this sacrament every day. Hence it
is that our Lord (Lk. 11:3), teaches us to pray, "Give us this day our
daily bread": in explaining which words Augustine observes (De Verb.
Dom., Serm. xxviii): "If you receive it," i.e. this sacrament, every day,
"every day is today for thee, and Christ rises again every day in thee,
for when Christ riseth it is today."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[10] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The Paschal Lamb was the figure of this sacrament chiefly
as to Christ's Passion represented therein; and therefore it was partaken
of once a year only, since Christ died but once. And on this account the
Church celebrates once a year the remembrance of Christ's Passion. But in
this sacrament the memorial of His Passion is given by way of food which
is partaken of daily; and therefore in this respect it is represented by
the manna which was given daily to the people in the desert.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[10] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Reverence for this sacrament consists in fear associated
with love; consequently reverential fear of God is called filial fear, as
was said in the FS, Q[67], A[4], ad 2; SS, Q[19], AA[9],11,12; because
the desire of receiving arises from love, while the humility of reverence
springs from fear. Consequently, each of these belongs to the reverence
due to this sacrament; both as to receiving it daily, and as to
refraining from it sometimes. Hence Augustine says (Ep. liv): "If one
says that the Eucharist should not be received daily, while another
maintains the contrary, let each one do as according to his devotion he
thinketh right; for Zaccheus and the Centurion did not contradict one
another while the one received the Lord with joy, whereas the other said:
'Lord I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof'; since both
honored our Saviour, though not in the same way." But love and hope,
whereunto the Scriptures constantly urge us, are preferable to fear.
Hence, too, when Peter had said, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man,
O Lord," Jesus answered: "Fear not."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[10] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Because our Lord said (Lk. 11:3), "Give us this day our
daily bread," we are not on that account to communicate several times
daily, for, by one daily communion the unity of Christ's Passion is set
forth.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[10] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: Various statutes have emanated according to the various
ages of the Church. In the primitive Church, when the devotion of the
Christian faith was more flourishing, it was enacted that the faithful
should communicate daily: hence Pope Anaclete says (Ep. i): "When the
consecration is finished, let all communicate who do not wish to cut
themselves off from the Church; for so the apostles have ordained, and
the holy Roman Church holds." Later on, when the fervor of faith relaxed,
Pope Fabian (Third Council of Tours, Canon 1) gave permission "that all
should communicate, if not more frequently, at least three times in the
year, namely, at Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas." Pope Soter likewise
(Second Council of Chalon, Canon xlvii) declares that Communion should be
received "on Holy Thursday," as is set forth in the Decretals (De
Consecratione, dist. 2). Later on, when "iniquity abounded and charity
grew cold" (Mt. 24:12), Pope Innocent III commanded that the faithful
should communicate "at least once a year," namely, "at Easter." However,
in De Eccles. Dogmat. xxiii, the faithful are counseled "to communicate
on all Sundays."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[11] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is lawful to abstain altogether from communion?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[11] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems to be lawful to abstain altogether from Communion.
Because the Centurion is praised for saying (Mt. 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[11] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[11] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[11] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Our Lord said (Jn. 6:54): "Except ye eat the flesh of
the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[11] Body Para. 1/2
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[11] Body Para. 2/2
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 (Lk. 22:19): "Do this in memory of
Me." But by the precept of the Church there are fixed times for
fulfilling Christ's command.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[11] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[11] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[11] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[12] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is lawful to receive the body of Christ without the blood?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[12] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[12] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[12] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[12] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is the custom of many churches for the body of
Christ to be given to the communicant without His blood.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[12] Body Para. 1/2
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[12] Body Para. 2/2
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[12] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
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?"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[12] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[80] A[12] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
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]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE USE WHICH CHRIST MADE OF THIS SACRAMENT AT ITS INSTITUTION (FOUR
ARTICLES)
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:
(1) Whether Christ received His own body and blood?
(2) Whether He gave it to Judas?
(3) What kind of body did He receive or give, namely, was it passible or
impassible?
(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?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ received His own body and blood?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
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.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
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."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
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 [*Vulg.: 'are partakers'
(Heb. 2:14)] of His flesh and blood, He also hath been partaker in the
same.'"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: We read in the Gospels how Christ "took the bread . . . and
the chalice"; but it is not to be understood that He took them merely
into His hands, as some say. but that He took them in the same way as He
gave them to others to take. Hence when He said to the disciples, "Take
ye and eat," and again, "Take ye and drink," it is to be understood that
He Himself, in taking it, both ate and drank. Hence some have composed
this rhyme:
"The King at supper sits,
The twelve as guests He greets,
Clasping Himself in His hands,
The food Himself now eats."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As was said above (Q[76], A[5]), Christ as contained under
this sacrament stands in relation to place, not according to His own
dimensions, but according to the dimensions of the sacramental species;
so that Christ is Himself in every place where those species are. And
because the species were able to be both in the hands and the mouth of
Christ, the entire Christ could be in both His hands and mouth. Now this
could not come to pass were His relation to place to be according to His
proper dimensions.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As was stated above (Q[79], A[1], ad 2), the effect of this
sacrament is not merely an increase of habitual grace, but furthermore a
certain actual delectation of spiritual sweetness. But although grace was
not increased in Christ through His receiving this sacrament, yet He had
a certain spiritual delectation from the new institution of this
sacrament. Hence He Himself said (Lk. 22:15): "With desire I have desired
to eat this Pasch with you," which words Eusebius explains of the new
mystery of the New Testament, which He gave to the disciples. And
therefore He ate it both spiritually and sacramentally, inasmuch as He
received His own body under the sacrament which sacrament of His own body
He both understood and prepared; yet differently from others who partake
of it both sacramentally and spiritually, for these receive an increase
of grace, and they have need of the sacramental signs for perceiving its
truth.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ gave His body to Judas?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ did not give His body to Judas. Because, as
we read (Mt. 26:29), our Lord, after giving His body and blood to the
disciples, said to them: "I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit
of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the
kingdom of My Father." From this it appears that those to whom He had
given His body and blood were to drink of it again with Him. But Judas
did not drink of it afterwards with Him. Therefore he did not receive
Christ's body and blood with the other disciples.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, what the Lord commanded, He Himself fulfilled, as is
said in Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach." But He gave the
command (Mt. 7:6): "Give not that which is holy to dogs." Therefore,
knowing Judas to be a sinner, seemingly He did not give him His body and
blood.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it is distinctly related (Jn. 13:26) that Christ gave
dipped bread to Judas. Consequently, if He gave His body to him, it
appears that He gave it him in the morsel, especially since we read (Jn.
13:26) that "after the morsel, Satan entered into him." And on this
passage Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan.): "From this we learn how we
should beware of receiving a good thing in an evil way . . . For if he be
'chastised' who does 'not discern,' i.e. distinguish, the body of the
Lord from other meats, how must he be 'condemned' who, feigning himself a
friend, comes to His table a foe?" But (Judas) did not receive our Lord's
body with the dipped morsel; thus Augustine commenting on Jn. 13:26,
"When He had dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas, the son of Simon the
Iscariot [Vulg.: 'to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon]," says (Tract.
lxii in Joan.): "Judas did not receive Christ's body then, as some think
who read carelessly." Therefore it seems that Judas did not receive the
body of Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxii in Matth.): "Judas was not
converted while partaking of the sacred mysteries: hence on both sides
his crime becomes the more heinous, both because imbued with such a
purpose he approached the mysteries, and because he became none the
better for approaching, neither from fear, nor from the benefit received,
nor from the honor conferred on him."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Hilary, in commenting on Mt. 26:17, held that Christ did
not give His body and blood to Judas. And this would have been quite
proper, if the malice of Judas be considered. But since Christ was to
serve us as a pattern of justice, it was not in keeping with His teaching
authority to sever Judas, a hidden sinner, from Communion with the others
without an accuser and evident proof. lest the Church's prelates might
have an example for doing the like, and lest Judas himself being
exasperated might take occasion of sinning. Therefore, it remains to be
said that Judas received our Lord's body and blood with the other
disciples, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), and Augustine (Tract.
lxii in Joan.).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This is Hilary's argument, to show that Judas did not
receive Christ's body. But it is not cogent; because Christ is speaking
to the disciples, from whose company Judas separated himself: and it was
not Christ that excluded him. Therefore Christ for His part drinks the
wine even with Judas in the kingdom of God; but Judas himself repudiated
this banquet.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The wickedness of Judas was known to Christ as God; but it
was unknown to Him, after the manner in which men know it. Consequently,
Christ did not repel Judas from Communion; so as to furnish an example
that such secret sinners are not to be repelled by other priests.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: Without any doubt Judas did not receive Christ's body in
the dipped bread; he received mere bread. Yet as Augustine observes
(Tract. lxii in Joan.), "perchance the feigning of Judas is denoted by
the dipping of the bread; just as some things are dipped to be dyed. If,
however, the dipping signifies here anything good" (for instance, the
sweetness of the Divine goodness, since bread is rendered more savory by
being dipped), "then, not undeservedly, did condemnation follow his
ingratitude for that same good." And owing to that ingratitude, "what is
good became evil to him, as happens to them who receive Christ's body
unworthily."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
And as Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan.), "it must be understood
that our Lord had already distributed the sacrament of His body and blood
to all His disciples, among whom was Judas also, as Luke narrates: and
after that, we came to this, where, according to the relation of John,
our Lord, by dipping and handing the morsel, does most openly declare His
betrayer."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ received and gave to the disciples His impassible body?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ both received and gave to the disciples His
impassible body. Because on Mt. 17:2, "He was transfigured before them,"
the gloss says: "He gave to the disciples at the supper that body which
He had through nature, but neither mortal nor passible." And again, on
Lev. 2:5, "if thy oblation be from the frying-pan," the gloss says: "The
Cross mightier than all things made Christ's flesh fit for being eaten,
which before the Passion did not seem so suited." But Christ gave His
body as suited for eating. Therefore He gave it just as it was after the
Passion, that is, impassible and immortal.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, every passible body suffers by contact and by being
eaten. Consequently, if Christ's body was passible, it would have
suffered both from contact and from being eaten by the disciples.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the sacramental words now spoken by the priest in the
person of Christ are not more powerful than when uttered by Christ
Himself. But now by virtue of the sacramental words it is Christ's
impassible and immortal body which is consecrated upon the altar.
Therefore, much more so was it then.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, As Innocent III says (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), "He
bestowed on the disciples His body such as it was." But then He had a
passible and a mortal body. Therefore, He gave a passible and mortal body
to the disciples.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[3] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Hugh of Saint Victor (Innocent III, De Sacr. Alt. Myst.
iv), maintained, that before the Passion, Christ assumed at various times
the four properties of a glorified body ---namely, subtlety in His birth,
when He came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin; agility, when He
walked dryshod upon the sea; clarity, in the Transfiguration; and
impassibility at the Last Supper, when He gave His body to the disciples
to be eaten. And according to this He gave His body in an impassible and
immortal condition to His disciples.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[3] Body Para. 2/3
But whatever may be the case touching the other qualities, concerning
which we have already stated what should be held (Q[28], A[2], ad 3;
Q[45], A[2]), nevertheless the above opinion regarding impassibility is
inadmissible. For it is manifest that the same body of Christ which was
then seen by the disciples in its own species, was received by them under
the sacramental species. But as seen in its own species it was not
impassible; nay more, it was ready for the Passion. Therefore, neither
was Christ's body impassible when given under the sacramental species.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[3] Body Para. 3/3
Yet there was present in the sacrament, in an impassible manner, that
which was passible of itself; just as that was there invisibly which of
itself was visible. For as sight requires that the body seen be in
contact with the adjacent medium of sight, so does passion require
contact of the suffering body with the active agents. But Christ's body,
according as it is under the sacrament, as stated above (A[1], ad 2;
Q[76], A[5]), is not compared with its surroundings through the
intermediary of its own dimensions, whereby bodies touch each other, but
through the dimensions of the bread and wine; consequently, it is those
species which are acted upon and are seen, but not Christ's own body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ is said not to have given His mortal and passible
body at the supper, because He did not give it in mortal and passible
fashion. But the Cross made His flesh adapted for eating, inasmuch as
this sacrament represents Christ's Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This argument would hold, if Christ's body, as it was
passible, were also present in a passible manner in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[76], A[4]), the accidents of Christ's
body are in this sacrament by real concomitance, but not by the power of
the sacrament, whereby the substance of Christ's body comes to be there.
And therefore the power of the sacramental words extends to this, that
the body, i.e. Christ's, is under this sacrament, whatever accidents
really exist in it.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether, if this sacrament had been reserved in a pyx, or consecrated at
the moment of Christ's death by one of the apostles, Christ Himself would
have died there?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that if this sacrament had been reserved in a pyx at the
moment of Christ's death, or had then been consecrated by one of the
apostles, that Christ would not have died there. For Christ's death
happened through His Passion. But even then He was in this sacrament in
an impassible manner. Therefore, He could not die in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, on the death of Christ, His blood was separated from the
body. But His flesh and blood are together in this sacrament. Therefore
He could not die in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, death ensues from the separation of the soul from the
body. But both the body and the soul of Christ are contained in this
sacrament. Therefore Christ could not die in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The same Christ Who was upon the cross would have been
in this sacrament. But He died upon the cross. Therefore, if this
sacrament had been reserved, He would have died therein.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[4] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Christ's body is substantially the same in this
sacrament, as in its proper species, but not after the same fashion;
because in its proper species it comes in contact with surrounding bodies
by its own dimensions: but it does not do so as it is in this sacrament,
as stated above (A[3]). And therefore, all that belongs to Christ, as He
is in Himself, can be attributed to Him both in His proper species, and
as He exists in the sacrament; such as to live, to die, to grieve, to be
animate or inanimate, and the like; while all that belongs to Him in
relation to outward bodies, can be attributed to Him as He exists in His
proper species, but not as He is in this sacrament; such as to be mocked,
to be spat upon, to be crucified, to be scourged, and the rest. Hence
some have composed this verse:
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[4] Body Para. 2/2
"Our Lord can grieve beneath the sacramental veils But cannot feel the
piercing of the thorns and nails."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As was stated above, suffering belongs to a body that
suffers in respect of some extrinsic body. And therefore Christ, as in
this sacrament, cannot suffer; yet He can die.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As was said above (Q[76], A[2]), in virtue of the
consecration, the body of Christ is under the species of bread, while His
blood is under the species of wine. But now that His blood is not really
separated from His body; by real concomitance, both His blood is present
with the body under the species of the bread, and His body together with
the blood under the species of the wine. But at the time when Christ
suffered, when His blood was really separated from His body, if this
sacrament had been consecrated, then the body only would have been
present under the species of the bread, and the blood only under the
species of the wine.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[81] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As was observed above (Q[76], A[1], ad 1), Christ's soul is
in this sacrament by real concomitance; because it is not without the
body: but it is not there in virtue of the consecration. And therefore,
if this sacrament had been consecrated then, or reserved, when His soul
was really separated from His body, Christ's soul would not have been
under this sacrament, not from any defect in the form of the words, but
owing to the different dispositions of the thing contained.
�Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT (TEN ARTICLES)
We now proceed to consider the minister of this sacrament: under which
head there are ten points for our inquiry:
(1) Whether it belongs to a priest alone to consecrate this sacrament?
(2) Whether several priests can at the same time consecrate the same
host?
(3) Whether it belongs to the priest alone to dispense this sacrament?
(4) Whether it is lawful for the priest consecrating to refrain from
communicating?
(5) Whether a priest in sin can perform this sacrament?
(6) Whether the Mass of a wicked priest is of less value than that of a
good one?
(7) Whether those who are heretics, schismatics, or excommunicated, can
perform this sacrament?
(8) Whether degraded priests can do so?
(9) Whether communicants receiving at their hands are guilty of sinning?
(10) Whether a priest may lawfully refrain altogether from celebrating?
[*This is the order observed by St. Thomas in writing the Articles; but
in writing this prologue, he placed Article 10 immediately after Article
4 (Cf. Leonine edition).]
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the consecration of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the consecration of this sacrament does not belong
exclusively to a priest. Because it was said above (Q[78], A[4]) that
this sacrament is consecrated in virtue of the words, which are the form
of this sacrament. But those words are not changed, whether spoken by a
priest or by anyone else. Therefore, it seems that not only a priest, but
anyone else, can consecrate this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the priest performs this sacrament in the person of
Christ. But a devout layman is united with Christ through charity.
Therefore, it seems that even a layman can perform this sacrament. Hence
Chrysostom (Opus imperfectum in Matth., Hom. xliii) says that "every holy
man is a priest."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, as Baptism is ordained for the salvation of mankind, so
also is this sacrament, as is clear from what was said above (Q[74], A[1]
; Q[79], A[2]). But a layman can also baptize, as was stated above (Q[67]
, A[3]). Consequently, the consecration of this sacrament is not proper
to a priest.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the
matter. But the consecration of other matters such as the chrism, the
holy oil, and blessed oil, belongs exclusively to a bishop; yet their
consecration does not equal the dignity of the consecration of the
Eucharist, in which the entire Christ is contained. Therefore it belongs,
not to a priest, but only to a bishop, to perform this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Isidore says in an Epistle to Ludifred (Decretals,
dist. 25): "It belongs to a priest to consecrate this sacrament of the
Lord's body and blood upon God's altar."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[78], AA[1],4), such is the dignity of
this sacrament that it is performed only as in the person of Christ. Now
whoever performs any act in another's stead, must do so by the power
bestowed by such a one. But as the power of receiving this sacrament is
conceded by Christ to the baptized person, so likewise the power of
consecrating this sacrament on Christ's behalf is bestowed upon the
priest at his ordination: for thereby he is put upon a level with them to
whom the Lord said (Lk. 22:19): "Do this for a commemoration of Me."
Therefore, it must be said that it belongs to priests to accomplish this
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The sacramental power is in several things, and not merely
in one: thus the power of Baptism lies both in the words and in the
water. Accordingly the consecrating power is not merely in the words, but
likewise in the power delivered to the priest in his consecration and
ordination, when the bishop says to him: "Receive the power of offering
up the Sacrifice in the Church for the living as well as for the dead."
For instrumental power lies in several instruments through which the
chief agent acts.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: A devout layman is united with Christ by spiritual union
through faith and charity, but not by sacramental power: consequently he
has a spiritual priesthood for offering spiritual sacrifices, of which it
is said (Ps. 1:19): "A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit"; and (Rm.
12:1): "Present your bodies a living sacrifice." Hence, too, it is
written (1 Pt. 2:5): "A holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual
sacrifices."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The receiving of this sacrament is not of such necessity as
the receiving of Baptism, as is evident from what was said above (Q[65],
AA[3],4; Q[80], A[11], ad 2). And therefore, although a layman can
baptize in case of necessity, he cannot perform this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The bishop receives power to act on Christ's behalf upon
His mystical body, that is, upon the Church; but the priest receives no
such power in his consecration, although he may have it by commission
from the bishop. Consequently all such things as do not belong to the
mystical body are not reserved to the bishop, such as the consecration of
this sacrament. But it belongs to the bishop to deliver, not only to the
people, but likewise to priests, such things as serve them in the
fulfillment of their respective duties. And because the blessing of the
chrism, and of the holy oil, and of the oil of the sick, and other
consecrated things, such as altars, churches, vestments, and sacred
vessels, makes such things fit for use in performing the sacraments which
belong to the priestly duty, therefore such consecrations are reserved
to the bishop as the head of the whole ecclesiastical order.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether several priests can consecrate one and the same host?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that several priests cannot consecrate one and the same
host. For it was said above (Q[67], A[6]), that several cannot at the
same time baptize one individual. But the power of a priest consecrating
is not less than that of a man baptizing. Therefore, several priests
cannot consecrate one host at the same time.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, what can be done by one, is superfluously done by
several. But there ought to be nothing superfluous in the sacraments.
Since, then, one is sufficient for consecrating, it seems that several
cannot consecrate one host.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, as Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), this is "the
sacrament of unity." But multitude seems to be opposed to unity.
Therefore it seems inconsistent with the sacrament for several priests to
consecrate the same host.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is the custom of some Churches for priests newly
ordained to co-celebrate with the bishop ordaining them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), when a priest is ordained he is
placed on a level with those who received consecrating power from our
Lord at the Supper. And therefore, according to the custom of some
Churches, as the apostles supped when Christ supped, so the newly
ordained co-celebrate with the ordaining bishop. Nor is the consecration,
on that account, repeated over the same host, because as Innocent III
says (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), the intention of all should be directed to
the same instant of the consecration.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: We do not read of Christ baptizing with the apostles when
He committed to them the duty of baptizing; consequently there is no
parallel.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: If each individual priest were acting in his own power,
then other celebrants would be superfluous, since one would be
sufficient. But whereas the priest does not consecrate except as in
Christ's stead; and since many are "one in Christ" (Gal. 3:28);
consequently it does not matter whether this sacrament be consecrated by
one or by many, except that the rite of the Church must be observed.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The Eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity,
which is brought about by many being "one in Christ."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether dispensing of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the dispensing of this sacrament does not belong
to a priest alone. For Christ's blood belongs to this sacrament no less
than His body. But Christ's blood is dispensed by deacons: hence the
blessed Lawrence said to the blessed Sixtus (Office of St. Lawrence,
Resp. at Matins): "Try whether you have chosen a fit minister, to whom
you have entrusted the dispensing of the Lord's blood." Therefore, with
equal reason the dispensing of Christ's body does not belong to priests
only.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, priests are the appointed ministers of the sacraments.
But this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the matter, and
not in the use, to which the dispensing belongs. Therefore it seems that
it does not belong to a priest to dispense the Lord's body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii, iv) that this
sacrament, like chrism, has the power of perfecting. But it belongs, not
to priests, but to bishops, to sign with the chrism. Therefore likewise,
to dispense this sacrament belongs to the bishop and not to the priest.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (De Consecr., dist. 12): "It has come to
our knowledge that some priests deliver the Lord's body to a layman or to
a woman to carry it to the sick: The synod therefore forbids such
presumption to continue; and let the priest himself communicate the sick."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The dispensing of Christ's body belongs to the priest for
three reasons. First, because, as was said above (A[1]), he consecrates
as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His body at the
supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them.
Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ's body belongs to the priest,
so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the
priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people; hence as
it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to
him to deliver consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of
reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is
consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and
likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not
lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance,
if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The deacon, as being nigh to the priestly order, has a
certain share in the latter's duties, so that he may dispense the blood;
but not the body, except in case of necessity, at the bidding of a bishop
or of a priest. First of all, because Christ's blood is contained in a
vessel, hence there is no need for it to be touched by the dispenser, as
Christ's body is touched. Secondly, because the blood denotes the
redemption derived by the people from Christ; hence it is that water is
mixed with the blood, which water denotes the people. And because deacons
are between priest and people, the dispensing of the blood is in the
competency of deacons, rather than the dispensing of the body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: For the reason given above, it belongs to the same person
to dispense and to consecrate this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As the deacon, in a measure, shares in the priest's "power
of enlightening" (Eccl. Hier. v), inasmuch as he dispenses the blood. so
the priest shares in the "perfective dispensing" (Eccl. Hier. v) of the
bishop, inasmuch as he dispenses this sacrament whereby man is perfected
in himself by union with Christ. But other perfections whereby a man is
perfected in relation to others, are reserved to the bishop.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the priest who consecrates is bound to receive this sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the priest who consecrates is not bound to receive
this sacrament. Because, in the other consecrations, he who consecrates
the matter does not use it, just as the bishop consecrating the chrism is
not anointed therewith. But this sacrament consists in the consecration
of the matter. Therefore, the priest performing this sacrament need not
use the same, but may lawfully refrain from receiving it.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, in the other sacraments the minister does not give the
sacrament to himself: for no one can baptize himself, as stated above
(Q[66], A[5], ad 4). But as Baptism is dispensed in due order, so also is
this sacrament. Therefore the priest who consecrates this sacrament ought
not to receive it at his own hands.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it sometimes happens that Christ's body appears upon the
altar under the guise of flesh, and the blood under the guise of blood;
which are unsuited for food and drink: hence, as was said above (Q[75],
A[5]), it is on that account that they are given under another species,
lest they beget revulsion in the communicants. Therefore the priest who
consecrates is not always bound to receive this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, We read in the acts of the (Twelfth) Council of Toledo
(Can. v), and again (De Consecr., dist. 2): "It must be strictly observed
that as often as the priest sacrifices the body and blood of our Lord
Jesus Christ upon the altar, he must himself be a partaker of Christ's
body and blood."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[79], AA[5],7), the Eucharist is not
only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice. Now whoever offers sacrifice must
be a sharer in the sacrifice, because the outward sacrifice he offers is
a sign of the inner sacrifice whereby he offers himself to God, as
Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x). Hence by partaking of the sacrifice he
shows that the inner one is likewise his. In the same way also, by
dispensing the sacrifice to the people he shows that he is the dispenser
of Divine gifts, of which he ought himself to be the first to partake, as
Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii). Consequently, he ought to receive
before dispensing it to the people. Accordingly we read in the chapter
mentioned above (Twelfth Council of Toledo, Can. v): "What kind of
sacrifice is that wherein not even the sacrificer is known to have a
share?" But it is by partaking of the sacrifice that he has a share in
it, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:18): "Are not they that eat of the
sacrifices, partakers of the altar?" Therefore it is necessary for the
priest, as often as he consecrates, to receive this sacrament in its
integrity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The consecration of chrism or of anything else is not a
sacrifice, as the consecration of the Eucharist is: consequently there is
no parallel.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The sacrament of Baptism is accomplished in the use of the
matter, and consequently no one can baptize himself, because the same
person cannot be active and passive in a sacrament. Hence neither in this
sacrament does the priest consecrate himself, but he consecrates the
bread and wine, in which consecration the sacrament is completed. But the
use thereof follows the sacrament, and therefore there is no parallel.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: If Christ's body appears miraculously upon the altar under
the guise of flesh, or the blood under the guise of blood, it is not to
be received. For Jerome says upon Leviticus (cf. De Consecr., dist. 2):
"It is lawful to eat of this sacrifice which is wonderfully performed in
memory of Christ: but it is not lawful for anyone to eat of that one
which Christ offered on the altar of the cross." Nor does the priest
transgress on that account, because miraculous events are not subject to
human laws. Nevertheless the priest would be well advised to consecrate
again and receive the Lord's body and blood.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a wicked priest can consecrate the Eucharist?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that a wicked priest cannot consecrate the Eucharist.
For Jerome, commenting on Sophon. iii, 4, says: "The priests who perform
the Eucharist, and who distribute our Lord's blood to the people, act
wickedly against Christ's law, in deeming that the Eucharist is
consecrated by a prayer rather than by a good life; and that only the
solemn prayer is requisite, and not the priest's merits: of whom it is
said: 'Let not the priest, in whatever defilement he may be, approach to
offer oblations to the Lord'" (Lev. 21:21, Septuagint). But the sinful
priest, being defiled, has neither the life nor the merits befitting this
sacrament. Therefore a sinful priest cannot consecrate the Eucharist.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that "the bread and
wine are changed supernaturally into the body and blood of our Lord, by
the coming of the Holy Ghost." But Pope Gelasius I says (Ep. ad Elphid.,
cf. Decret. i, q. 1): "How shall the Holy Spirit, when invoked, come for
the consecration of the Divine Mystery, if the priest invoking him be
proved full of guilty deeds?" Consequently, the Eucharist cannot be
consecrated by a wicked priest.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, this sacrament is consecrated by the priest's blessing.
But a sinful priest's blessing is not efficacious for consecrating this
sacrament, since it is written (Malachi 2:2): "I will curse your
blessings." Again, Dionysius says in his Epistle (viii) to the monk
Demophilus: "He who is not enlightened has completely fallen away from
the priestly order; and I wonder that such a man dare to employ his hands
in priestly actions, and in the person of Christ to utter, over the
Divine symbols, his unclean infamies, for I will not call them prayers."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine (Paschasius) says (De Corp. Dom. xii):
"Within the Catholic Church, in the mystery of the Lord's body and blood,
nothing greater is done by a good priest, nothing less by an evil priest,
because it is not by the merits of the consecrator that the sacrament is
accomplished, but by the Creator's word, and by the power of the Holy
Spirit."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As was said above (AA[1],3), the priest consecrates this
sacrament not by his own power, but as the minister of Christ, in Whose
person he consecrates this sacrament. But from the fact of being wicked
he does not cease to be Christ's minister; because our Lord has good and
wicked ministers or servants. Hence (Mt. 24:45) our Lord says: "Who,
thinkest thou, is a faithful and wise servant?" and afterwards He adds:
"But if that evil servant shall say in his heart," etc. And the Apostle
(1 Cor. 4:1) says: "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of
Christ"; and afterwards he adds: "I am not conscious to myself of
anything; yet am I not hereby justified." He was therefore certain that
he was Christ's minister; yet he was not certain that he was a just man.
Consequently, a man can be Christ's minister even though he be not one of
the just. And this belongs to Christ's excellence, Whom, as the true God,
things both good and evil serve, since they are ordained by His
providence for His glory. Hence it is evident that priests, even though
they be not godly, but sinners, can consecrate the Eucharist.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: In those words Jerome is condemning the error of priests
who believed they could consecrate the Eucharist worthily, from the mere
fact of being priests, even though they were sinners; and Jerome condemns
this from the fact that persons defiled are forbidden to approach the
altar; but this does not prevent the sacrifice, which they offer, from
being a true sacrifice, if they do approach.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Previous to the words quoted, Pope Gelasius expresses
himself as follows: "That most holy rite, which contains the Catholic
discipline, claims for itself such reverence that no one may dare to
approach it except with clean conscience." From this it is evident that
his meaning is that the priest who is a sinner ought not to approach this
sacrament. Hence when he resumes, "How shall the Holy Spirit come when
summoned," it must be understood that He comes, not through the priest's
merits, but through the power of Christ, Whose words the priest utters.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As the same action can be evil, inasmuch as it is done with
a bad intention of the servant; and good from the good intention of the
master; so the blessing of a sinful priest, inasmuch as he acts
unworthily is deserving of a curse, and is reputed an infamy and a
blasphemy, and not a prayer; whereas, inasmuch as it is pronounced in the
person of Christ, it is holy and efficacious. Hence it is said with
significance: "I will curse your blessings."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the mass of a sinful priest is of less worth than the mass of a
good priest?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the mass of a sinful priest is not of less worth
than that of a good priest. For Pope Gregory says in the Register: "Alas,
into what a great snare they fall who believe that the Divine and hidden
mysteries can be sanctified more by some than by others; since it is the
one and the same Holy Ghost Who hallows those mysteries in a hidden and
invisible manner." But these hidden mysteries are celebrated in the mass.
Therefore the mass of a sinful priest is not of less value than the mass
of a good priest.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, as Baptism is conferred by a minister through the power
of Christ Who baptizes, so likewise this sacrament is consecrated in the
person of Christ. But Baptism is no better when conferred by a better
priest, as was said above (Q[64], A[1], ad 2). Therefore neither is a
mass the better, which is celebrated by a better priest.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, as the merits of priests differ in the point of being
good and better, so they likewise differ in the point of being good and
bad. Consequently, if the mass of a better priest be itself better, it
follows that the mass of a bad priest must be bad. Now this is
unreasonable, because the malice of the ministers cannot affect Christ's
mysteries, as Augustine says in his work on Baptism (Contra Donat. xii).
Therefore neither is the mass of a better priest the better.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is stated in Decretal i, q. 1: "The worthier the
priest, the sooner is he heard in the needs for which he prays."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[6] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, There are two things to be considered in the mass.
namely, the sacrament itself, which is the chief thing; and the prayers
which are offered up in the mass for the quick and the dead. So far as
the mass itself is concerned, the mass of a wicked priest is not of less
value than that of a good priest, because the same sacrifice is offered
by both.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[6] Body Para. 2/2
Again, the prayer put up in the mass can be considered in two respects:
first of all, in so far as it has its efficacy from the devotion of the
priest interceding, and in this respect there is no doubt but that the
mass of the better priest is the more fruitful. In another respect,
inasmuch as the prayer is said by the priest in the mass in the place of
the entire Church, of which the priest is the minister; and this ministry
remains even in sinful men, as was said above (A[5]) in regard to
Christ's ministry. Hence, in this respect the prayer even of the sinful
priest is fruitful, not only that which he utters in the mass, but
likewise all those he recites in the ecclesiastical offices, wherein he
takes the place of the Church. on the other hand, his private prayers are
not fruitful, according to Prov. 28:9: "He that turneth away his ears
from hearing the law, his prayer shall be an abomination."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Gregory is speaking there of the holiness of the Divine
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: In the sacrament of Baptism solemn prayers are not made for
all the faithful, as in the mass; therefore there is no parallel in this
respect. There is, however, a resemblance as to the effect of the
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: By reason of the power of the Holy Ghost, Who communicates
to each one the blessings of Christ's members on account of their being
united in charity, the private blessing in the mass of a good priest is
fruitful to others. But the private evil of one man cannot hurt another,
except the latter, in some way, consent, as Augustine says (Contra
Parmen. ii).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons can consecrate?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons
are not able to consecrate the Eucharist. For Augustine says (Liber
sentent. Prosperi xv) that "there is no such thing as a true sacrifice
outside the Catholic Church": and Pope Leo I says (Ep. lxxx; cf. Decretal
i, q. 1): Elsewhere "(i.e. than in the Church which is Christ's body)
there is neither valid priesthood nor true sacrifice." But heretics,
schismatics, and excommunicated persons are severed from the Church.
Therefore they are unable to offer a true sacrifice.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further (Decretal, caus. i, q. 1), Innocent I is quoted as
saying: "Because we receive the laity of the Arians and other
pestilential persons, if they seem to repent, it does not follow that
their clergy have the dignity of the priesthood or of any other
ministerial office, for we allow them to confer nothing save Baptism."
But none can consecrate the Eucharist, unless he have the dignity of the
priesthood. Therefore heretics and the like cannot consecrate the
Eucharist.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it does not seem feasible for one outside the Church to
act on behalf of the Church. But when the priest consecrates the
Eucharist, he does so in the person of the entire Church, as is evident
from the fact of his putting up all prayers in the person of the Church.
Therefore, it seems that those who are outside the Church, such as those
who are heretics, schismatics, and excommunicate, are not able to
consecrate the Eucharist.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): "Just as Baptism
remains in them," i.e. in heretics, schismatics, and those who are
excommunicate, "so do their orders remain intact." Now, by the power of
his ordination, a priest can consecrate the Eucharist. Therefore, it
seems that heretics, schismatics, and those who are excommunicate, can
consecrate the Eucharist, since their orders remain entire.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[7] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Some have contended that heretics, schismatics, and the
excommunicate, who are outside the pale of the Church, cannot perform
this sacrament. But herein they are deceived, because, as Augustine says
(Contra Parmen. ii), "it is one thing to lack something utterly, and
another to have it improperly"; and in like fashion, "it is one thing not
to bestow, and quite another to bestow, but not rightly." Accordingly,
such as, being within the Church, received the power of consecrating the
Eucharist through being ordained to the priesthood, have such power
rightly indeed; but they use it improperly if afterwards they be
separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication. But such
as are ordained while separated from the Church, have neither the power
rightly, nor do they use it rightly. But that in both cases they have the
power, is clear from what Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), that when
they return to the unity of the Church, they are not re-ordained, but are
received in their orders. And since the consecration of the Eucharist is
an act which follows the power of order, such persons as are separated
from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication, can indeed
consecrate the Eucharist, which on being consecrated by them contains
Christ's true body and blood; but they act wrongly, and sin by doing so;
and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which
is a spiritual sacrifice.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Such and similar authorities are to be understood in this
sense, that the sacrifice is offered wrongly outside the Church. Hence
outside the Church there can be no spiritual sacrifice that is a true
sacrifice with the truth of its fruit, although it be a true sacrifice
with the truth of the sacrament; thus it was stated above (Q[80], A[3]),
that the sinner receives Christ's body sacramentally, but not spiritually.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Baptism alone is allowed to be conferred by heretics, and
schismatics, because they can lawfully baptize in case of necessity; but
in no case can they lawfully consecrate the Eucharist, or confer the
other sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The priest, in reciting the prayers of the mass, speaks
instead of the Church, in whose unity he remains; but in consecrating the
sacrament he speaks as in the person of Christ, Whose place he holds by
the power of his orders. Consequently, if a priest severed from the unity
of the Church celebrates mass, not having lost the power of order, he
consecrates Christ's true body and blood; but because he is severed from
the unity of the Church, his prayers have no efficacy.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether a degraded priest can consecrate this sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that a degraded priest cannot consecrate this sacrament.
For no one can perform this sacrament except he have the power of
consecrating. But the priest "who has been degraded has no power of
consecrating, although he has the power of baptizing" (App. Gratiani).
Therefore it seems that a degraded priest cannot consecrate the Eucharist.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, he who gives can take away. But the bishop in ordaining
gives to the priest the power of consecrating. Therefore he can take it
away by degrading him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the priest, by degradation, loses either the power of
consecrating, or the use of such power. But he does not lose merely the
use, for thus the degraded one would lose no more than one
excommunicated, who also lacks the use. Therefore it seems that he loses
the power to consecrate, and in consequence that he cannot perform this
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine (Contra Parmen. ii) proves that "apostates"
from the faith "are not deprived of their Baptism," from the fact that
"it is not restored to them when they return repentant; and therefore it
is deemed that it cannot be lost." But in like fashion, if the degraded
man be restored, he has not to be ordained over again. Consequently, he
has not lost the power of consecrating, and so the degraded priest can
perform this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[8] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The power of consecrating the Eucharist belongs to the
character of the priestly order. But every character is indelible,
because it is given with a kind of consecration, as was said above (Q[63]
, A[5]), just as the consecrations of all other things are perpetual, and
cannot be lost or repeated. Hence it is clear that the power of
consecrating is not lost by degradation. For, again, Augustine says
(Contra Parmen. ii): "Both are sacraments," namely Baptism and order,
"and both are given to a man with a kind of consecration; the former,
when he is baptized; the latter when he is ordained; and therefore it is
not lawful for Catholics to repeat either of them." And thus it is
evident that the degraded priest can perform this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: That Canon is speaking, not as by way of assertion, but by
way of inquiry, as can be gleaned from the context.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The bishop gives the priestly power of order, not as
though coming from himself, but instrumentally, as God's minister, and
its effect cannot be taken away by man, according to Mt. 19:6: "What God
hath joined together, let no man put asunder." And therefore the bishop
cannot take this power away, just as neither can he who baptizes take
away the baptismal character.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Excommunication is medicinal. And therefore the ministry of
the priestly power is not taken away from the excommunicate, as it were,
perpetually, but only for a time, that they may mend; but the exercise is
withdrawn from the degraded, as though condemned perpetually.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[9] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is permissible to receive communion from heretical,
excommunicate, or sinful priests, and to hear mass said by them?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[9] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that one may lawfully receive Communion from heretical,
excommunicate, or even sinful priests, and to hear mass said by them.
Because, as Augustine says (Contra Petilian. iii), "we should not avoid
God's sacraments, whether they be given by a good man or by a wicked
one." But priests, even if they be sinful, or heretics, or excommunicate,
perform a valid sacrament. Therefore it seems that one ought not to
refrain from receiving Communion at their hands, or from hearing their
mass.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[9] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Christ's true body is figurative of His mystical body,
as was said above (Q[67], A[2]). But Christ's true body is consecrated by
the priests mentioned above. Therefore it seems that whoever belongs to
His mystical body can communicate in their sacrifices.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[9] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, there are many sins graver than fornication. But it is
not forbidden to hear the masses of priests who sin otherwise. Therefore,
it ought not to be forbidden to hear the masses of priests guilty of this
sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[9] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Canon says (Dist. 32): "Let no one hear the mass of
a priest whom he knows without doubt to have a concubine." Moreover,
Gregory says (Dial. iii) that "the faithless father sent an Arian bishop
to his son, for him to receive sacrilegiously the consecrated Communion
at his hands. But, when the Arian bishop arrived, God's devoted servant
rebuked him, as was right for him to do."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[9] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As was said above (AA[5],7), heretical, schismatical,
excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to
consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the
contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who
is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin. Hence we read in John's Second
Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that saith unto him, God speed you,
communicateth with his wicked works." Consequently, it is not lawful to
receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[9] Body Para. 2/2
Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics,
schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church's
sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears
their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all
who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence from using this
power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are
not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence:
consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to
receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass. Hence on 1 Cor.
5:11, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs
thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his
fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary
judgment, but rather by God's law, according to the Church's ordering,
whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and
convicted."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: By refusing to hear the masses of such priests, or to
receive Communion from them, we are not shunning God's sacraments; on the
contrary, by so doing we are giving them honor (hence a host consecrated
by such priests is to be adored, and if it be reserved, it can be
consumed by a lawful priest): but what we shun is the sin of the unworthy
ministers.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[9] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The unity of the mystical body is the fruit of the true
body received. But those who receive or minister unworthily, are deprived
of the fruit, as was said above (A[7]; Q[80], A[4]). And therefore, those
who belong to the unity of the Faith are not to receive the sacrament
from their dispensing.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[9] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Although fornication is not graver than other sins, yet men
are more prone to it, owing to fleshly concupiscence. Consequently, this
sin is specially inhibited to priests by the Church, lest anyone hear the
mass of one living in concubinage. However, this is to be understood of
one who is notorious, either from being convicted and sentenced, or from
having acknowledged his guilt in legal form, or from it being impossible
to conceal his guilt by any subterfuge.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[10] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether it is lawful for a priest to refrain entirely from consecrating
the Eucharist?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[10] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems to be lawful for a priest to refrain entirely from
consecrating the Eucharist. Because, as it is the priest's office to
consecrate the Eucharist, so it is likewise to baptize and administer the
other sacraments. But the priest is not bound to act as a minister of the
other sacraments, unless he has undertaken the care of souls. Therefore,
it seems that likewise he is not bound to consecrate the Eucharist except
he be charged with the care of souls.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[10] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, no one is bound to do what is unlawful for him to do;
otherwise he would be in two minds. But it is not lawful for the priest
who is in a state of sin, or excommunicate, to consecrate the Eucharist,
as was said above (A[7]). Therefore it seems that such men are not bound
to celebrate, and so neither are the others; otherwise they would be
gainers by their fault.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[10] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the priestly dignity is not lost by subsequent weakness:
because Pope Gelasius I says (cf. Decretal, Dist. 55): "As the canonical
precepts do not permit them who are feeble in body to approach the
priesthood, so if anyone be disabled when once in that state, he cannot
lose that he received at the time he was well." But it sometimes happens
that those who are already ordained as priests incur defects whereby they
are hindered from celebrating, such as leprosy or epilepsy, or the like.
Consequently, it does not appear that priests are bound to celebrate.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[10] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Ambrose says in one of his Orations (xxxiii): "It is a
grave matter if we do not approach Thy altar with clean heart and pure
hands; but it is graver still if while shunning sins we also fail to
offer our sacrifice."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[10] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Some have said that a priest may lawfully refrain
altogether from consecrating, except he be bound to do so, and to give
the sacraments to the people, by reason of his being entrusted with the
care of souls.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[10] Body Para. 2/2
But this is said quite unreasonably, because everyone is bound to use
the grace entrusted to him, when opportunity serves, according to 2 Cor.
6:1: "We exhort you that you receive not the grace of God in vain." But
the opportunity of offering sacrifice is considered not merely in
relation to the faithful of Christ to whom the sacraments must be
administered, but chiefly with regard to God to Whom the sacrifice of
this sacrament is offered by consecrating. Hence, it is not lawful for
the priest, even though he has not the care of souls, to refrain
altogether from celebrating; and he seems to be bound to celebrate at
least on the chief festivals, and especially on those days on which the
faithful usually communicate. And hence it is that (2 Macc. 4:14) it is
said against some priests that they "were not now occupied about the
offices of the altar . . . despising the temple and neglecting the
sacrifices."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The other sacraments are accomplished in being used by the
faithful, and therefore he alone is bound to administer them who has
undertaken the care of souls. But this sacrament is performed in the
consecration of the Eucharist, whereby a sacrifice is offered to God, to
which the priest is bound from the order he has received.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[10] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The sinful priest, if deprived by the Church's sentence
from exercising his order, simply or for a time, is rendered incapable of
offering sacrifice; consequently, the obligation lapses. But if not
deprived of the power of celebrating, the obligation is not removed; nor
is he in two minds, because he can repent of his sin and then celebrate.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[82] A[10] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Weakness or sickness contracted by a priest after his
ordination does not deprive him of his orders; but hinders him from
exercising them, as to the consecration of the Eucharist: sometimes by
making it impossible to exercise them, as, for example, if he lose his
sight, or his fingers, or the use of speech; and sometimes on account of
danger, as in the case of one suffering from epilepsy, or indeed any
disease of the mind; and sometimes, on account of loathsomeness, as is
evident in the case of a leper, who ought not to celebrate in public: he
can, however, say mass privately, unless the leprosy has gone so far that
it has rendered him incapable owing to the wasting away of his limbs.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT (SIX ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the Rite of this sacrament, under which head
there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ is sacrificed in the celebration of this mystery?
(2) Of the time of celebrating;
(3) Of the place and other matters relating to the equipment for this
celebration;
(4) Of the words uttered in celebrating this mystery;
(5) Of the actions performed in celebrating this mystery.
(6) Of the defects which occur in the celebration of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Christ is sacrificed in this sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ is not sacrificed in the celebration of this
sacrament. For it is written (Heb. 10:14) that "Christ by one oblation
hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." But that oblation was
His oblation. Therefore Christ is not sacrificed in the celebration of
this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Christ's sacrifice was made upon the cross, whereon "He
delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor
of sweetness," as is said in Eph. 5:2. But Christ is not crucified in the
celebration of this mystery. Therefore, neither is He sacrificed.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, as Augustine says (De Trin. iv), in Christ's sacrifice
the priest and the victim are one and the same. But in the celebration of
this sacrament the priest and the victim are not the same. Therefore, the
celebration of this sacrament is not a sacrifice of Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says in the Liber Sentent. Prosp. (cf. Ep.
xcviii): "Christ was sacrificed once in Himself, and yet He is sacrificed
daily in the Sacrament."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, The celebration of this sacrament is called a sacrifice
for two reasons. First, because, as Augustine says (Ad Simplician. ii),
"the images of things are called by the names of the things whereof they
are the images; as when we look upon a picture or a fresco, we say, 'This
is Cicero and that is Sallust.'" But, as was said above (Q[79], A[1]),
the celebration of this sacrament is an image representing Christ's
Passion, which is His true sacrifice. Accordingly the celebration of this
sacrament is called Christ's sacrifice. Hence it is that Ambrose, in
commenting on Heb. 10:1, says: "In Christ was offered up a sacrifice
capable of giving eternal salvation; what then do we do? Do we not offer
it up every day in memory of His death?" Secondly it is called a
sacrifice, in respect of the effect of His Passion: because, to wit, by
this sacrament, we are made partakers of the fruit of our Lord's Passion.
Hence in one of the Sunday Secrets (Ninth Sunday after Pentecost) we say:
"Whenever the commemoration of this sacrifice is celebrated, the work of
our redemption is enacted." Consequently, according to the first reason,
it is true to say that Christ was sacrificed, even in the figures of the
Old Testament: hence it is stated in the Apocalypse (13:8): "Whose names
are not written in the Book of Life of the Lamb, which was slain from the
beginning of the world." But according to the second reason, it is proper
to this sacrament for Christ to be sacrificed in its celebration.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As Ambrose says (commenting on Heb. 10:1), "there is but
one victim," namely that which Christ offered, and which we offer, "and
not many victims, because Christ was offered but once: and this latter
sacrifice is the pattern of the former. For, just as what is offered
everywhere is one body, and not many bodies, so also is it but one
sacrifice."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As the celebration of this sacrament is an image
representing Christ's Passion, so the altar is representative of the
cross itself, upon which Christ was sacrificed in His proper species.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: For the same reason (cf. Reply OBJ[2]) the priest also
bears Christ's image, in Whose person and by Whose power he pronounces
the words of consecration, as is evident from what was said above (Q[82],
AA[1],3). And so, in a measure, the priest and victim are one and the
same.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the time for celebrating this mystery has been properly
determined?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the time for celebrating this mystery has not been
properly determined. For as was observed above (A[1]), this sacrament is
representative of our Lord's Passion. But the commemoration of our Lord's
Passion takes place in the Church once in the year: because Augustine
says (Enarr. ii in Ps. 21): "Is not Christ slain as often as the Pasch is
celebrated? Nevertheless, the anniversary remembrance represents what
took place in by-gone days; and so it does not cause us to be stirred as
if we saw our Lord hanging upon the cross." Therefore this sacrament
ought to be celebrated but once a year.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Christ's Passion is commemorated in the Church on the
Friday before Easter, and not on Christmas Day. Consequently, since this
sacrament is commemorative of our Lord's Passion, it seems unsuitable for
this sacrament to be celebrated thrice on Christmas Day, and to be
entirely omitted on Good Friday.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, in the celebration of this sacrament the Church ought to
imitate Christ's institution. But it was in the evening that Christ
consecrated this sacrament. Therefore it seems that this sacrament ought
to be celebrated at that time of day.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, as is set down in the Decretals (De Consecr., dist. i),
Pope Leo I wrote to Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, that "it is
permissible to celebrate mass in the first part of the day." But the day
begins at midnight, as was said above (Q[80], A[8], ad 5). Therefore it
seems that after midnight it is lawful to celebrate.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[2] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, in one of the Sunday Secrets (Ninth Sunday after
Pentecost) we say: "Grant us, Lord, we beseech Thee, to frequent these
mysteries." But there will be greater frequency if the priest celebrates
several times a day. Therefore it seems that the priest ought not to be
hindered from celebrating several times daily.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary is the custom which the Church observes according to the
statutes of the Canons.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), in the celebration of this
mystery, we must take into consideration the representation of our Lord's
Passion, and the participation of its fruits; and the time suitable for
the celebration of this mystery ought to be determined by each of these
considerations. Now since, owing to our daily defects, we stand in daily
need of the fruits of our Lord's Passion, this sacrament is offered
regularly every day in the Church. Hence our Lord teaches us to pray (Lk.
11:3): "Give us this day our daily bread": in explanation of which words
Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. xxviii): "If it be a daily bread, why do
you take it once a year, as the Greeks have the custom in the east?
Receive it daily that it may benefit you every day."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
But since our Lord's Passion was celebrated from the third to the ninth
hour, therefore this sacrament is solemnly celebrated by the Church in
that part of the day.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ's Passion is recalled in this sacrament, inasmuch as
its effect flows out to the faithful; but at Passion-tide Christ's
Passion is recalled inasmuch as it was wrought in Him Who is our Head.
This took place but once; whereas the faithful receive daily the fruits
of His Passion: consequently, the former is commemorated but once in the
year, whereas the latter takes place every day, both that we may partake
of its fruit and in order that we may have a perpetual memorial.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: The figure ceases on the advent of the reality. But this
sacrament is a figure and a representation of our Lord's Passion, as
stated above. And therefore on the day on which our Lord's Passion is
recalled as it was really accomplished, this sacrament is not
consecrated. Nevertheless, lest the Church be deprived on that day of the
fruit of the Passion offered to us by this sacrament, the body of Christ
consecrated the day before is reserved to be consumed on that day; but
the blood is not reserved, on account of danger, and because the blood is
more specially the image of our Lord's Passion, as stated above (Q[78],
A[3], ad 2). Nor is it true, as some affirm, that the wine is changed
into blood when the particle of Christ's body is dropped into it. Because
this cannot be done otherwise than by consecration under the due form of
words.
On Christmas Day, however, several masses are said on account of
Christ's threefold nativity. Of these the first is His eternal birth,
which is hidden in our regard. and therefore one mass is sung in the
night, in the "Introit" of which we say: "The Lord said unto Me: Thou art
My Son, this day have I begotten Thee." The second is His nativity in
time, and the spiritual birth, whereby Christ rises "as the day-star in
our [Vulg.: 'your'] hearts" (2 Pt. 1:19), and on this account the mass is
sung at dawn, and in the "Introit" we say: "The light will shine on us
today." The third is Christ's temporal and bodily birth, according as He
went forth from the virginal womb, becoming visible to us through being
clothed with flesh: and on that account the third mass is sung in broad
daylight, in the "Introit" of which we say: "A child is born to us."
Nevertheless, on the other hand, it can be said that His eternal
generation, of itself, is in the full light, and on this account in the
gospel of the third mass mention is made of His eternal birth. But
regarding His birth in the body, He was literally born during the night,
as a sign that He came to the darknesses of our infirmity; hence also in
the midnight mass we say the gospel of Christ's nativity in the flesh.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
Likewise on other days upon which many of God's benefits have to be
recalled or besought, several masses are celebrated on one day, as for
instance, one for the feast, and another for a fast or for the dead.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 3: As already observed (Q[73], A[5]), Christ wished to give
this sacrament last of all, in order that it might make a deeper
impression on the hearts of the disciples; and therefore it was after
supper, at the close of day, that He consecrated this sacrament and gave
it to His disciples. But we celebrate at the hour when our Lord suffered,
i.e. either, as on feast-days, at the hour of Terce, when He was
crucified by the tongues of the Jews (Mk. 15:25), and when the Holy Ghost
descended upon the disciples (Acts 2:15); or, as when no feast is kept,
at the hour of Sext, when He was crucified at the hands of the soldiers
(Jn. 19:14), or, as on fasting days, at None, when crying out with a loud
voice He gave up the ghost (Mt. 27:46,50).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 2/3
Nevertheless the mass can be postponed, especially when Holy orders
have to be conferred, and still more on Holy Saturday; both on account of
the length of the office, and also because orders belong to the Sunday,
as is set forth in the Decretals (dist. 75).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 3/3
Masses, however, can be celebrated "in the first part of the day," owing
to any necessity; as is stated De Consecr., dist. 1.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 4: As a rule mass ought to be said in the day and not in the
night, because Christ is present in this sacrament, Who says (Jn. 9:4,5):
"I must work the works of Him that sent Me, whilst it is day: because the
night cometh when no man can work; as long as I am in the world, I am the
light of the world." Yet this should be done in such a manner that the
beginning of the day is not to be taken from midnight; nor from sunrise,
that is, when the substance of the sun appears above the earth; but when
the dawn begins to show: because then the sun is said to be risen when
the brightness of his beams appears. Accordingly it is written (Mk. 16:1)
that "the women came to the tomb, the sun being now risen"; though, as
John relates (Jn. 20:1), "while it was yet dark they came to the tomb."
It is in this way that Augustine explains this difference (De Consens.
Evang. iii).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 2/2
Exception is made on the night of Christmas eve, when mass is
celebrated, because our Lord was born in the night (De Consecr., dist.
1). And in like manner it is celebrated on Holy Saturday towards the
beginning of the night, since our Lord rose in the night, that is, "when
it was yet dark, before the sun's rising was manifest."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[2] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: As is set down in the decree (De Consecr., dist. 1), in
virtue of a decree of Pope Alexander II, "it is enough for a priest to
celebrate one mass each day, because Christ suffered once and redeemed
the whole world; and very happy is he who can worthily celebrate one
mass. But there are some who say one mass for the dead, and another of
the day, if need be. But I do not deem that those escape condemnation who
presume to celebrate several masses daily, either for the sake of money,
or to gain flattery from the laity." And Pope Innocent III says (Extra,
De Celebr. Miss., chap. Consuluisti) that "except on the day of our
Lord's birth, unless necessity urges, it suffices for a priest to
celebrate only one mass each day."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether this sacrament ought to be celebrated in a house and with sacred
vessels?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated in a
house and with sacred vessels. For this sacrament is a representation of
our Lord's Passion. But Christ did not suffer in a house, but outside the
city gate, according to Heb. 1:12: "Jesus, that He might sanctify the
people by His own blood, suffered without the gate." Therefore, it seems
that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated in a house, but rather in
the open air.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, in the celebration of this sacrament the Church ought to
imitate the custom of Christ and the apostles. But the house wherein
Christ first wrought this sacrament was not consecrated, but merely an
ordinary supper-room prepared by the master of the house, as related in
Lk. 22:11,12. Moreover, we read (Acts 2:46) that "the apostles were
continuing daily with one accord in the temple; and, breaking bread from
house to house, they took their meat with gladness." Consequently, there
is no need for houses, in which this sacrament is celebrated, to be
consecrated.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, nothing that is to no purpose ought to be done in the
Church, which is governed by the Holy Ghost. But it seems useless to
consecrate a church, or an altar, or such like inanimate things, since
they are not capable of receiving grace or spiritual virtue. Therefore it
is unbecoming for such consecrations to be performed in the Church.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, only Divine works ought to be recalled with solemnity,
according to Ps. 91:5: "I shall rejoice in the works of Thy hands." Now
the consecration of a church or altar, is the work of a man; as is also
the consecration of the chalice, and of the ministers, and of other such
things. But these latter consecrations are not commemorated in the
Church. Therefore neither ought the consecration of a church or of an
altar to be commemorated with solemnity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, the truth ought to correspond with the figure. But in
the Old Testament, which was a figure of the New, the altar was not made
of hewn stones: for, it is written (Ex. 20:24): "You shall make an altar
of earth unto Me . . . and if thou make an altar of stone unto Me, thou
shalt not build it of hewn stones." Again, the altar is commanded to be
made of "setim-wood," covered "with brass" (Ex. 27:1,2), or "with gold"
(Ex. 25). Consequently, it seems unfitting for the Church to make
exclusive use of altars made of stone.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] Obj. 6 Para. 1/1
OBJ 6: Further, the chalice with the paten represents Christ's tomb,
which was "hewn in a rock," as is narrated in the Gospels. Consequently,
the chalice ought to be of stone, and not of gold or of silver or tin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] Obj. 7 Para. 1/1
OBJ 7: Further, just as gold is the most precious among the materials of
the altar vessels, so are cloths of silk the most precious among other
cloths. Consequently, since the chalice is of gold, the altar cloths
ought to be made of silk and not of linen.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] Obj. 8 Para. 1/1
OBJ 8: Further, the dispensing and ordering of the sacraments belong to
the Church's ministers, just as the ordering of temporal affairs is
subject to the ruling of secular princes; hence the Apostle says (1 Cor.
4:1): "Let a man so esteem us as the ministers of Christ end the
dispensers of the mysteries of God." But if anything be done against the
ordinances of princes it is deemed void. Therefore, if the various items
mentioned above are suitably commanded by the Church's prelates, it seems
that the body of Christ could not be consecrated unless they be
observed; and so it appears to follow that Christ's words are not
sufficient of themselves for consecrating this sacrament: which is
contrary to the fact. Consequently, it does not seem fitting for such
ordinances to be made touching the celebration of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Church's ordinances are Christ's own ordinances;
since He said (Mt. 18:20): "Wherever two or three are gathered together
in My name, there am I in the midst of them."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, There are two things to be considered regarding the
equipment of this sacrament: one of these belongs to the representation
of the events connected with our Lord's Passion; while the other is
connected with the reverence due to the sacrament, in which Christ is
contained verily, and not in figure only.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] Body Para. 2/2
Hence we consecrate those things which we make use of in this sacrament;
both that we may show our reverence for the sacrament, and in order to
represent the holiness which is the effect of the Passion of Christ,
according to Heb. 13:12: "Jesus, that He might sanctify the people by His
own blood," etc.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This sacrament ought as a rule to be celebrated in a house,
whereby the Church is signified, according to 1 Tim. 3:15: "That thou
mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God,
which is the Church of the living God." Because "outside the Church there
is no place for the true sacrifice," as Augustine says (Liber Sentent.
Prosp. xv). And because the Church was not to be confined within the
territories of the Jewish people, but was to be established throughout
the whole world, therefore Christ's Passion was not celebrated within the
city of the Jews, but in the open country, that so the whole world might
serve as a house for Christ's Passion. Nevertheless, as is said in De
Consecr., dist. 1, "if a church be not to hand, we permit travelers to
celebrate mass in the open air, or in a tent, if there be a consecrated
altar-table to hand, and the other requisites belonging to the sacred
function."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: The house in which this sacrament is celebrated denotes the
Church, and is termed a church; and so it is fittingly consecrated, both
to represent the holiness which the Church acquired from the Passion, as
well as to denote the holiness required of them who have to receive this
sacrament. By the altar Christ Himself is signified, of Whom the Apostle
says (Heb. 13:15): "Through Him we offer a sacrifice of praise to God."
Hence the consecration of the altar signifies Christ's holiness, of which
it was said (Lk. 1:35): "The Holy one born of thee shall be called the
Son of God." Hence we read in De Consecr., dist. 1: "It has seemed
pleasing for the altars to be consecrated not merely with the anointing
of chrism, but likewise with the priestly blessing."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
And therefore, as a rule, it is not lawful to celebrate this sacrament
except in a consecrated house. Hence it is enacted (De Consecr., dist.
1): "Let no priest presume to say mass except in places consecrated by
the bishop." And furthermore because pagans and other unbelievers are not
members of the Church, therefore we read (De Consecr., dist. 1): "It is
not lawful to bless a church in which the bodies of unbelievers are
buried, but if it seem suitable for consecration, then, after removing
the corpses and tearing down the walls or beams, let it be rebuilt. If,
however, it has been already consecrated, and the faithful lie in it, it
is lawful to celebrate mass therein." Nevertheless in a case of necessity
this sacrament can be performed in houses which have not been
consecrated, or which have been profaned; but with the bishop's consent.
Hence we read in the same distinction: "We deem that masses are not to be
celebrated everywhere, but in places consecrated by the bishop, or where
he gives permission." But not without a portable altar consecrated by the
bishop: hence in the same distinction we read: "We permit that, if the
churches be devastated or burned, masses may be celebrated in chapels,
with a consecrated altar." For because Christ's holiness is the fount of
all the Church's holiness, therefore in necessity a consecrated altar
suffices for performing this sacrament. And on this account a church is
never consecrated without consecrating the altar. Yet sometimes an altar
is consecrated apart from the church, with the relics of the saints,
"whose lives are hidden with Christ in God" (Col. 3:3). Accordingly under
the same distinction we read: "It is our pleasure that altars, in which
no relics of saints are found enclosed, be thrown down, if possible, by
the bishops presiding over such places."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 3: The church, altar, and other like inanimate things are
consecrated, not because they are capable of receiving grace, but because
they acquire special spiritual virtue from the consecration, whereby they
are rendered fit for the Divine worship, so that man derives devotion
therefrom, making him more fitted for Divine functions, unless this be
hindered by want of reverence. Hence it is written (2 Macc. 3:38): "There
is undoubtedly in that place a certain power of God; for He that hath His
dwelling in the heavens is the visitor, and the protector of that place."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 2/3
Hence it is that such places are cleansed and exorcised before being
consecrated, that the enemy's power may be driven forth. And for the same
reason churches defiled by shedding of blood or seed are reconciled:
because some machination of the enemy is apparent on account of the sin
committed there. And for this reason we read in the same distinction:
"Wherever you find churches of the Arians, consecrate them as Catholic
churches without delay by means of devout prayers and rites." Hence, too,
it is that some say with probability, that by entering a consecrated
church one obtains forgiveness of venial sins, just as one does by the
sprinkling of holy water; alleging the words of Ps. 84:2,3: "Lord, Thou
hast blessed Thy land . . . Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of Thy
people." And therefore, in consequence of the virtue acquired by a
church's consecration, the consecration is never repeated. Accordingly we
find in the same distinction the following words quoted from the Council
of Nicaea: "Churches which have once been consecrated, must not be
consecrated again, except they be devastated by fire, or defiled by
shedding of blood or of anyone's seed; because, just as a child once
baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost, ought not to be baptized again, so neither ought a place, once
dedicated to God, to be consecrated again, except owing to the causes
mentioned above; provided that the consecrators held faith in the Holy
Trinity": in fact, those outside the Church cannot consecrate. But, as we
read in the same distinction: "Churches or altars of doubtful
consecration are to be consecrated anew."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 3/3
And since they acquire special spiritual virtue from their consecration,
we find it laid down in the same distinction that "the beams of a
dedicated church ought not to be used for any other purpose, except it be
for some other church, or else they are to be burned, or put to the use
of brethren in some monastery: but on no account are they to be discarded
for works of the laity." We read there, too, that "the altar covering,
chair, candlesticks, and veil, are to be burned when warn out; and their
ashes are to be placed in the baptistery, or in the walls, or else cast
into the trenches beneath the flag-stones, so as not to be defiled by the
feet of those that enter."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Since the consecration of the altar signifies Christ's
holiness, and the consecration of a house the holiness of the entire
Church, therefore the consecration of a church or of an altar is more
fittingly commemorated. And on this account the solemnity of a church
dedication is observed for eight days, in order to signify the happy
resurrection of Christ and of the Church's members. Nor is the
consecration of a church or altar man's doing only, since it has a
spiritual virtue. Hence in the same distinction (De Consecr.) it is said:
"The solemnities of the dedication of churches are to be solemnly
celebrated each year: and that dedications are to be kept up for eight
days, you will find in the third book of Kings" (8:66).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: As we read in De Consecr., dist. 1, "altars, if not of
stone, are not to be consecrated with the anointing of chrism." And this
is in keeping with the signification of this sacrament; both because the
altar signifies Christ, for in 1 Cor. 10:3, it is written, "But the rock
was Christ": and because Christ's body was laid in a stone sepulchre.
This is also in keeping with the use of the sacrament. Because stone is
solid, and may be found everywhere. which was not necessary in the old
Law, when the altar was made in one place. As to the commandment to make
the altar of earth, or of unhewn stones, this was given in order to
remove idolatry.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] R.O. 6 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 6: As is laid down in the same distinction, "formerly the
priests did not use golden but wooden chalices; but Pope Zephyrinus
ordered the mass to be said with glass patens; and subsequently Pope
Urban had everything made of silver." Afterwards it was decided that "the
Lord's chalice with the paten should be made entirely of gold, or of
silver or at least of tin. But it is not to be made of brass, or copper,
because the action of the wine thereon produces verdigris, and provokes
vomiting. But no one is to presume to sing mass with a chalice of wood or
of glass," because as the wood is porous, the consecrated blood would
remain in it; while glass is brittle and there might arise danger of
breakage; and the same applies to stone. Consequently, out of reverence
for the sacrament, it was enacted that the chalice should be made of the
aforesaid materials.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] R.O. 7 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 7: Where it could be done without danger, the Church gave
order for that thing to be used which more expressively represents
Christ's Passion. But there was not so much danger regarding the body
which is placed on the corporal, as there is with the blood contained in
the chalice. And consequently, although the chalice is not made of stone,
yet the corporal is made of linen, since Christ's body was wrapped
therein. Hence we read in an Epistle of Pope Silvester, quoted in the
same distinction: "By a unanimous decree we command that no one shall
presume to celebrate the sacrifice of the altar upon a cloth of silk, or
dyed material, but upon linen consecrated by the bishop; as Christ's body
was buried in a clean linen winding-sheet." Moreover, linen material is
becoming, owing to its cleanness, to denote purity of conscience, and,
owing to the manifold labor with which it is prepared, to denote Christ's
Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[3] R.O. 8 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 8: The dispensing of the sacraments belongs to the Church's
ministers; but their consecration is from God Himself. Consequently, the
Church's ministers can make no ordinances regarding the form of the
consecration, and the manner of celebrating. And therefore, if the priest
pronounces the words of consecration over the proper matter with the
intention of consecrating, then, without every one of the things
mentioned above---namely, without house, and altar, consecrated chalice
and corporal, and the other things instituted by the Church---he
consecrates Christ's body in very truth; yet he is guilty of grave sin,
in not following the rite of the Church.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the words spoken in this sacrament are properly framed?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the words spoken in this sacrament are not properly
framed. For, as Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv), this sacrament is
consecrated with Christ's own words. Therefore no other words besides
Christ's should be spoken in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Christ's words and deeds are made known to us through
the Gospel. But in consecrating this sacrament words are used which are
not set down in the Gospels: for we do not read in the Gospel, of Christ
lifting up His eyes to heaven while consecrating this sacrament: and
similarly it is said in the Gospel: "Take ye and eat" [comedite] without
the addition of the word "all," whereas in celebrating this sacrament we
say: "Lifting up His eyes to heaven," and again, "Take ye and eat
[manducate] of this." Therefore such words as these are out of place when
spoken in the celebration of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, all the other sacraments are ordained for the salvation
of all the faithful. But in the celebration of the other sacraments there
is no common prayer put up for the salvation of all the faithful and of
the departed. Consequently it is unbecoming in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, Baptism especially is called the sacrament of faith.
Consequently, the truths which belong to instruction in the faith ought
rather to be given regarding Baptism than regarding this sacrament, such
as the doctrine of the apostles and of the Gospels.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, devotion on the part of the faithful is required in
every sacrament. Consequently, the devotion of the faithful ought not to
be stirred up in this sacrament more than in the others by Divine praises
and by admonitions, such as, "Lift up your hearts."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] Obj. 6 Para. 1/1
OBJ 6: Further, the minister of this sacrament is the priest, as stated
above (Q[82], A[1]). Consequently, all the words spoken in this sacrament
ought to be uttered by the priest, and not some by the ministers, and
some by the choir.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] Obj. 7 Para. 1/1
OBJ 7: Further, the Divine power works this sacrament unfailingly.
Therefore it is to no purpose that the priest asks for the perfecting of
this sacrament, saying: "Which oblation do thou, O God, in all," etc.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] Obj. 8 Para. 1/1
OBJ 8: Further, the sacrifice of the New Law is much more excellent than
the sacrifice of the fathers of old. Therefore, it is unfitting for the
priest to pray that this sacrifice may be as acceptable as the sacrifice
of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedech.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] Obj. 9 Para. 1/1
OBJ 9: Further, just as Christ's body does not begin to be in this
sacrament by change of place, as stated above (Q[75], A[2]), so likewise
neither does it cease to be there. Consequently, it is improper for the
priest to ask: "Bid these things be borne by the hands of thy holy angel
unto Thine altar on high."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, We find it stated in De Consecr., dist. 1, that "James,
the brother of the Lord according to the flesh, and Basil, bishop of
Caesarea, edited the rite of celebrating the mass": and from their
authority it is manifest that whatever words are employed in this matter,
are chosen becomingly.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] Body Para. 1/12
I answer that, Since the whole mystery of our salvation is comprised in
this sacrament, therefore is it performed with greater solemnity than the
other sacraments. And since it is written (Eccles. 4:17): "Keep thy foot
when thou goest into the house of God"; and (Ecclus. 18:23): "Before
prayer prepare thy soul," therefore the celebration of this mystery is
preceded by a certain preparation in order that we may perform worthily
that which follows after. The first part of this preparation is Divine
praise, and consists in the "Introit": according to Ps. 49:23: "The
sacrifice of praise shall glorify me; and there is the way by which I
will show him the salvation of God": and this is taken for the most part
from the Psalms, or, at least, is sung with a Psalm, because, as
Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii): "The Psalms comprise by way of praise
whatever is contained in Sacred Scripture."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] Body Para. 2/12
The second part contains a reference to our present misery, by reason of
which we pray for mercy, saying: "Lord, have mercy on us," thrice for the
Person of the Father, and "Christ, have mercy on us," thrice for the
Person of the Son, and "Lord, have mercy on us," thrice for the Person of
the Holy Ghost; against the threefold misery of ignorance, sin, and
punishment; or else to express the "circuminsession" of all the Divine
Persons.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] Body Para. 3/12
The third part commemorates the heavenly glory, to the possession of
which, after this life of misery, we are tending, in the words, "Glory be
to God on high," which are sung on festival days, on which the heavenly
glory is commemorated, but are omitted in those sorrowful offices which
commemorate our unhappy state.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] Body Para. 4/12
The fourth part contains the prayer which the priest makes for the
people, that they may be made worthy of such great mysteries.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] Body Para. 5/12
There precedes, in the second place, the instruction of the faithful,
because this sacrament is "a mystery of faith," as stated above (Q[78],
A[3], ad 5). Now this instruction is given "dispositively," when the
Lectors and Sub-deacons read aloud in the church the teachings of the
prophets and apostles: after this "lesson," the choir sing the "Gradual,"
which signifies progress in life; then the "Alleluia" is intoned, and
this denotes spiritual joy; or in mournful offices the "Tract",
expressive of spiritual sighing; for all these things ought to result
from the aforesaid teaching. But the people are instructed "perfectly" by
Christ's teaching contained in the Gospel, which is read by the higher
ministers, that is, by the Deacons. And because we believe Christ as the
Divine truth, according to Jn. 8:46, "If I tell you the truth, why do you
not believe Me?" after the Gospel has been read, the "Creed" is sung in
which the people show that they assent by faith to Christ's doctrine. And
it is sung on those festivals of which mention is made therein, as on the
festivals of Christ, of the Blessed Virgin, and of the apostles, who laid
the foundations of this faith, and on other such days.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] Body Para. 6/12
So then, after the people have been prepared and instructed, the next
step is to proceed to the celebration of the mystery, which is both
offered as a sacrifice, and consecrated and received as a sacrament:
since first we have the oblation; then the consecration of the matter
offered; and thirdly, its reception.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] Body Para. 7/12
In regard to the oblation, two things are done, namely, the people's
praise in singing the "offertory," expressing the joy of the offerers,
and the priest's prayer asking for the people's oblation to be made
acceptable to God. Hence David said (1 Para 29:17): "In the simplicity of
my heart, I have . . . offered all these things: and I have seen with
great joy Thy people which are here present, offer Thee their offerings":
and then he makes the following prayer: "O Lord God . . . keep . . . this
will."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] Body Para. 8/12
Then, regarding the consecration, performed by supernatural power, the
people are first of all excited to devotion in the "Preface," hence they
are admonished "to lift up their hearts to the Lord," and therefore when
the "Preface" is ended the people devoutly praise Christ's Godhead,
saying with the angels: "Holy, Holy, Holy"; and His humanity, saying with
the children: "Blessed is he that cometh." In the next place the priest
makes a "commemoration," first of those for whom this sacrifice is
offered, namely, for the whole Church, and "for those set in high places"
(1 Tim. 2:2), and, in a special manner, of them "who offer, or for whom
the mass is offered." Secondly, he commemorates the saints, invoking
their patronage for those mentioned above, when he says: "Communicating
with, and honoring the memory," etc. Thirdly, he concludes the petition
when he says: "Wherefore that this oblation," etc., in order that the
oblation may be salutary to them for whom it is offered.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] Body Para. 9/12
Then he comes to the consecration itself. Here he asks first of all for
the effect of the consecration, when he says: "Which oblation do Thou, O
God," etc. Secondly, he performs the consecration using our Saviour's
words, when he says: "Who the day before," etc. Thirdly, he makes excuse
for his presumption in obeying Christ's command, saying: "Wherefore,
calling to mind," etc. Fourthly, he asks that the sacrifice accomplished
may find favor with God, when he says: "Look down upon them with a
propitious," etc. Fifthly, he begs for the effect of this sacrifice and
sacrament, first for the partakers, saying: "We humbly beseech Thee";
then for the dead, who can no longer receive it, saying: "Be mindful
also, O Lord," etc.; thirdly, for the priests themselves who offer,
saying: "And to us sinners," etc.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] Body Para. 10/12
Then follows the act of receiving the sacrament. First of all, the
people are prepared for Communion; first, by the common prayer of the
congregation, which is the Lord's Prayer, in which we ask for our daily
bread to be given us; and also by private prayer, which the priest puts
up specially for the people, when he says: "Deliver us, we beseech Thee,
O Lord," etc. Secondly, the people are prepared by the "Pax" which is
given with the words, "Lamb of God," etc., because this is the sacrament
of unity and peace, as stated above (Q[73], A[4]; Q[79], A[1]). But in
masses for the dead, in which the sacrifice is offered not for present
peace, but for the repose of the dead, the "Pax" is omitted.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] Body Para. 11/12
Then follows the reception of the sacrament, the priest receiving first,
and afterwards giving it to others, because, as Dionysius says (Eccl.
Hier. iii), he who gives Divine things to others, ought first to partake
thereof himself.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] Body Para. 12/12
Finally, the whole celebration of mass ends with the thanksgiving, the
people rejoicing for having received the mystery (and this is the meaning
of the singing after the Communion); and the priest returning thanks by
prayer, as Christ, at the close of the supper with His disciples, "said a
hymn" (Mt. 26:30).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The consecration is accomplished by Christ's words only;
but the other words must be added to dispose the people for receiving it,
as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/3
Reply OBJ 2: As is stated in the last chapter of John (verse 25), our
Lord said and did many things which are not written down by the
Evangelists; and among them is the uplifting of His eyes to heaven at the
supper; nevertheless the Roman Church had it by tradition from the
apostles. For it seems reasonable that He Who lifted up His eyes to the
Father in raising Lazarus to life, as related in Jn. 11:41, and in the
prayer which He made for the disciples (Jn. 17:1), had more reason to do
so in instituting this sacrament, as being of greater import.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 2/3
The use of the word "manducate" instead of "comedite" makes no
difference in the meaning, nor does the expression signify, especially
since those words are no part of the form, as stated above (Q[78], A[1],
ad 2,4).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 3/3
The additional word "all" is understood in the Gospels, although not
expressed, because He had said (Jn. 6:54): "Except you eat the flesh of
the Son of Man . . . you shall not have life in you."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The Eucharist is the sacrament of the unity of the whole
Church: and therefore in this sacrament, more than in the others, mention
ought to be made of all that belongs to the salvation of the entire
Church.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: There is a twofold instruction in the Faith: the first is
for those receiving it for the first time, that is to say, for
catechumens, and such instruction is given in connection with Baptism.
The other is the instruction of the faithful who take part in this
sacrament; and such instruction is given in connection with this
sacrament. Nevertheless catechumens and unbelievers are not excluded
therefrom. Hence in De Consecr., dist. 1, it is laid down: "Let the
bishop hinder no one from entering the church, and hearing the word of
God, be they Gentiles, heretics, or Jews, until the mass of the
Catechumens begins," in which the instruction regarding the Faith is
contained.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: Greater devotion is required in this sacrament than in the
others, for the reason that the entire Christ is contained therein.
Moreover, this sacrament requires a more general devotion, i.e. on the
part of the whole people, since for them it is offered; and not merely on
the part of the recipients, as in the other sacraments. Hence Cyprian
observes (De Orat. Domin. 31), "The priest, in saying the Preface,
disposes the souls of the brethren by saying, 'Lift up your hearts,' and
when the people answer---'We have lifted them up to the Lord,' let them
remember that they are to think of nothing else but God."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] R.O. 6 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 6: As was said above (ad 3), those things are mentioned in
this sacrament which belong to the entire Church; and consequently some
things which refer to the people are sung by the choir, and same of these
words are all sung by the choir, as though inspiring the entire people
with them; and there are other words which the priest begins and the
people take up, the priest then acting as in the person of God; to show
that the things they denote have come to the people through Divine
revelation, such as faith and heavenly glory; and therefore the priest
intones the "Creed" and the "Gloria in excelsis Deo." Other words are
uttered by the ministers, such as the doctrine of the Old and New
Testament, as a sign that this doctrine was announced to the peoples
through ministers sent by God. And there are other words which the priest
alone recites, namely, such as belong to his personal office, "that he
may offer up gifts and prayers for the people" (Heb. 5:1). Some of these,
however, he says aloud, namely, such as are common to priest and people
alike, such as the "common prayers"; other words, however, belong to the
priest alone, such as the oblation and the consecration; consequently,
the prayers that are said in connection with these have to be said by the
priest in secret. Nevertheless, in both he calls the people to attention
by saying: "The Lord be with you," and he waits for them to assent by
saying "Amen." And therefore before the secret prayers he says aloud,
"The Lord be with you," and he concludes, "For ever and ever." Or the
priest secretly pronounces some of the words as a token that regarding
Christ's Passion the disciples acknowledged Him only in secret.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] R.O. 7 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 7: The efficacy of the sacramental words can be hindered by
the priest's intention. Nor is there anything unbecoming in our asking of
God for what we know He will do, just as Christ (Jn. 17:1,5) asked for
His glorification.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] R.O. 7 Para. 2/2
But the priest does not seem to pray there for the consecration to be
fulfilled, but that it may be fruitful in our regard, hence he says
expressively: "That it may become 'to us' the body and the blood." Again,
the words preceding these have that meaning, when he says: "Vouchsafe to
make this oblation blessed," i.e. according to Augustine (Paschasius, De
Corp. et Sang. Dom. xii), "that we may receive a blessing," namely,
through grace; "'enrolled,' i.e. that we may be enrolled in heaven;
'ratified,' i.e. that we may be incorporated in Christ; 'reasonable,'
i.e. that we may be stripped of our animal sense; 'acceptable,' i.e. that
we who in ourselves are displeasing, may, by its means, be made
acceptable to His only Son."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] R.O. 8 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 8: Although this sacrament is of itself preferable to all
ancient sacrifices, yet the sacrifices of the men of old were most
acceptable to God on account of their devotion. Consequently the priest
asks that this sacrifice may be accepted by God through the devotion of
the offerers, just as the former sacrifices were accepted by Him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] R.O. 9 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 9: The priest does not pray that the sacramental species may
be borne up to heaven; nor that Christ's true body may be borne thither,
for it does not cease to be there; but he offers this prayer for Christ's
mystical body, which is signified in this sacrament, that the angel
standing by at the Divine mysteries may present to God the prayers of
both priest and people, according to Apoc. 8:4: "And the smoke of the
incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God, from the
hand of the angel." But God's "altar on high" means either the Church
triumphant, unto which we pray to be translated, or else God Himself, in
Whom we ask to share; because it is said of this altar (Ex. 20:26): "Thou
shalt not go up by steps unto My altar, i.e. thou shalt make no steps
towards the Trinity." Or else by the angel we are to understand Christ
Himself, Who is the "Angel of great counsel" (Is. 9:6: Septuagint), Who
unites His mystical body with God the Father and the Church triumphant.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[4] R.O. 9 Para. 2/2
And from this the mass derives its name [missa]; because the priest
sends [mittit] his prayers up to God through the angel, as the people do
through the priest. or else because Christ is the victim sent [missa] to
us: accordingly the deacon on festival days "dismisses" the people at the
end of the mass, by saying: "Ite, missa est," that is, the victim has
been sent [missa est] to God through the angel, so that it may be
accepted by God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the actions performed in celebrating this sacrament are becoming?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the actions performed in celebrating this mystery
are not becoming. For, as is evident from its form, this sacrament
belongs to the New Testament. But under the New Testament the ceremonies
of the old are not to be observed, such as that the priests and ministers
were purified with water when they drew nigh to offer up the sacrifice:
for we read (Ex. 30:19,20): "Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands
and feet . . . when they are going into the tabernacle of the testimony .
. and when they are to come to the altar." Therefore it is not fitting
that the priest should wash his hands when celebrating mass.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, (Ex. 30:7), the Lord commanded Aaron to "burn
sweet-smelling incense" upon the altar which was "before the
propitiatory": and the same action was part of the ceremonies of the Old
Law. Therefore it is not fitting for the priest to use incense during
mass.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the ceremonies performed in the sacraments of the Church
ought not to be repeated. Consequently it is not proper for the priest to
repeat the sign of the cross many times over this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the Apostle says (Heb. 7:7): "And without all
contradiction, that which is less, is blessed by the better." But Christ,
Who is in this sacrament after the consecration, is much greater than the
priest. Therefore quite unseemingly the priest, after the consecration,
blesses this sacrament, by signing it with the cross.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, nothing which appears ridiculous ought to be done in one
of the Church's sacraments. But it seems ridiculous to perform gestures,
e.g. for the priest to stretch out his arms at times, to join his hands,
to join together his fingers, and to bow down. Consequently, such things
ought not to be done in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] Obj. 6 Para. 1/1
OBJ 6: Further, it seems ridiculous for the priest to turn round
frequently towards the people, and often to greet the people.
Consequently, such things ought not to be done in the celebration of this
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] Obj. 7 Para. 1/1
OBJ 7: Further, the Apostle (1 Cor. 13) deems it improper for Christ to
be divided. But Christ is in this sacrament after the consecration.
Therefore it is not proper for the priest to divide the host.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] Obj. 8 Para. 1/1
OBJ 8: Further, the ceremonies performed in this sacrament represent
Christ's Passion. But during the Passion Christ's body was divided in the
places of the five wounds. Therefore Christ's body ought to be broken
into five parts rather than into three.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] Obj. 9 Para. 1/1
OBJ 9: Further, Christ's entire body is consecrated in this sacrament
apart from the blood. Consequently, it is not proper for a particle of
the body to be mixed with the blood.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] Obj. 10 Para. 1/1
OBJ 10: Further, just as, in this sacrament, Christ's body is set before
us as food, so is His blood, as drink. But in receiving Christ's body no
other bodily food is added in the celebration of the mass. Therefore, it
is out of place for the priest, after taking Christ's blood, to receive
other wine which is not consecrated.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] Obj. 11 Para. 1/1
OBJ 11: Further, the truth ought to be conformable with the figure. But
regarding the Paschal Lamb, which was a figure of this sacrament, it was
commanded that nothing of it should "remain until the morning." It is
improper therefore for consecrated hosts to be reserved, and not consumed
at once.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] Obj. 12 Para. 1/1
OBJ 12: Further, the priest addresses in the plural number those who are
hearing mass, when he says, "The Lord be with you": and, "Let us return
thanks." But it is out of keeping to address one individual in the plural
number, especially an inferior. Consequently it seems unfitting for a
priest to say mass with only a single server present. Therefore in the
celebration of this sacrament it seems that some of the things done are
out of place.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The custom of the Church stands for these things: and
the Church cannot err, since she is taught by the Holy Ghost.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As was said above (Q[60], A[6]), there is a twofold
manner of signification in the sacraments, by words, and by actions, in
order that the signification may thus be more perfect. Now, in the
celebration of this sacrament words are used to signify things pertaining
to Christ's Passion, which is represented in this sacrament; or again,
pertaining to Christ's mystical body, which is signified therein; and
again, things pertaining to the use of this sacrament, which use ought to
be devout and reverent. Consequently, in the celebration of this mystery
some things are done in order to represent Christ's Passion, or the
disposing of His mystical body, and some others are done which pertain to
the devotion and reverence due to this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The washing of the hands is done in the celebration of mass
out of reverence for this sacrament; and this for two reasons: first,
because we are not wont to handle precious objects except the hands be
washed; hence it seems indecent for anyone to approach so great a
sacrament with hands that are, even literally, unclean. Secondly, on
account of its signification, because, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier.
iii), the washing of the extremities of the limbs denotes cleansing from
even the smallest sins, according to Jn. 13:10: "He that is washed
needeth not but to wash his feet." And such cleansing is required of him
who approaches this sacrament; and this is denoted by the confession
which is made before the "Introit" of the mass. Moreover, this was
signified by the washing of the priests under the Old Law, as Dionysius
says (Eccl. Hier. iii). However, the Church observes this ceremony, not
because it was prescribed under the Old Law, but because it is becoming
in itself, and therefore instituted by the Church. Hence it is not
observed in the same way as it was then: because the washing of the feet
is omitted, and the washing of the hands is observed; for this can be
done more readily, and suffices far denoting perfect cleansing. For,
since the hand is the "organ of organs" (De Anima iii), all works are
attributed to the hands: hence it is said in Ps. 25:6: "I will wash my
hands among the innocent."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: We use incense, not as commanded by a ceremonial precept of
the Law, but as prescribed by the Church; accordingly we do not use it in
the same fashion as it was ordered under the Old Law. It has reference to
two things: first, to the reverence due to this sacrament, i.e. in order
by its good odor, to remove any disagreeable smell that may be about the
place; secondly, it serves to show the effect of grace, wherewith Christ
was filled as with a good odor, according to Gn. 27:27: "Behold, the odor
of my son is like the odor of a ripe field"; and from Christ it spreads
to the faithful by the work of His ministers, according to 2 Cor. 2:14:
"He manifesteth the odor of his knowledge by us in every place"; and
therefore when the altar which represents Christ, has been incensed on
every side, then all are incensed in their proper order.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/10
Reply OBJ 3: The priest, in celebrating the mass, makes use of the sign
of the cross to signify Christ's Passion which was ended upon the cross.
Now, Christ's Passion was accomplished in certain stages. First of all
there was Christ's betrayal, which was the work of God, of Judas, and of
the Jews; and this is signified by the triple sign of the cross at the
words, "These gifts, these presents, these holy unspotted sacrifices."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 2/10
Secondly, there was the selling of Christ. Now he was sold to the
Priests, to the Scribes, and to the Pharisees: and to signify this the
threefold sign of the cross is repeated, at the words, "blessed,
enrolled, ratified." Or again, to signify the price for which He was
sold, viz. thirty pence. And a double cross is added at the words---"that
it may become to us the Body and the Blood," etc., to signify the person
of Judas the seller, and of Christ Who was sold.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 3/10
Thirdly, there was the foreshadowing of the Passion at the last supper.
To denote this, in the third place, two crosses are made, one in
consecrating the body, the other in consecrating the blood; each time
while saying, "He blessed."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 4/10
Fourthly, there was Christ's Passion itself. And so in order to
represent His five wounds, in the fourth place, there is a fivefold
signing of the cross at the words, "a pure Victim, a holy Victim, a
spotless Victim, the holy bread of eternal life, and the cup of
everlasting salvation."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 5/10
Fifthly, the outstretching of Christ's body, and the shedding of the
blood, and the fruits of the Passion, are signified by the triple signing
of the cross at the words, "as many as shall receive the body and blood,
may be filled with every blessing," etc.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 6/10
Sixthly, Christ's threefold prayer upon the cross is represented; one
for His persecutors when He said, "Father, forgive them"; the second for
deliverance from death, when He cried, "My God, My God, why hast Thou
forsaken Me?" the third referring to His entrance into glory, when He
said, "Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit"; and in order to
denote these there is a triple signing with the cross made at the words,
"Thou dost sanctify, quicken, bless."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 7/10
Seventhly, the three hours during which He hung upon the cross, that is,
from the sixth to the ninth hour, are represented; in signification of
which we make once more a triple sign of the cross at the words, "Through
Him, and with Him, and in Him."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 8/10
Eighthly, the separation of His soul from the body is signified by the
two subsequent crosses made over the chalice.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 9/10
Ninthly, the resurrection on the third day is represented by the three
crosses made at the words---"May the peace of the Lord be ever with you."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 10/10
In short, we may say that the consecration of this sacrament, and the
acceptance of this sacrifice, and its fruits, proceed from the virtue of
the cross of Christ, and therefore wherever mention is made of these, the
priest makes use of the sign of the cross.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: After the consecration, the priest makes the sign of the
cross, not for the purpose of blessing and consecrating, but only for
calling to mind the virtue of the cross, and the manner of Christ's
suffering, as is evident from what has been said (ad 3).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: The actions performed by the priest in mass are not
ridiculous gestures, since they are done so as to represent something
else. The priest in extending his arms signifies the outstretching of
Christ's arms upon the cross. He also lifts up his hands as he prays, to
point out that his prayer is directed to God for the people, according to
Lam. 3:41: "Let us lift up our hearts with our hands to the Lord in the
heavens": and Ex. 17:11: "And when Moses lifted up his hands Israel
overcame." That at times he joins his hands, and bows down, praying
earnestly and humbly, denotes the humility and obedience of Christ, out
of which He suffered. He closes his fingers, i.e. the thumb and first
finger, after the consecration, because, with them, he had touched the
consecrated body of Christ; so that if any particle cling to the fingers,
it may not be scattered: and this belongs to the reverence for this
sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] R.O. 6 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 6: Five times does the priest turn round towards the people,
to denote that our Lord manifested Himself five times on the day of His
Resurrection, as stated above in the treatise on Christ's Resurrection
(Q[55], A[3], OBJ[3]). But the priest greets the people seven times,
namely, five times, by turning round to the people, and twice without
turning round, namely, when he says, "The Lord be with you" before the
"Preface," and again when he says, "May the peace of the Lord be ever
with you": and this is to denote the sevenfold grace of the Holy Ghost.
But a bishop, when he celebrates on festival days, in his first greeting
says, "Peace be to you," which was our Lord's greeting after
Resurrection, Whose person the bishop chiefly represents.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] R.O. 7 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 7: The breaking of the host denotes three things: first, the
rending of Christ's body, which took place in the Passion; secondly, the
distinction of His mystical body according to its various states; and
thirdly, the distribution of the graces which flow from Christ's Passion,
as Dionysius observes (Eccl. Hier. iii). Hence this breaking does not
imply severance in Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] R.O. 8 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 8: As Pope Sergius says, and it is to be found in the
Decretals (De Consecr., dist. ii), "the Lord's body is threefold; the
part offered and put into the chalice signifies Christ's risen body,"
namely, Christ Himself, and the Blessed Virgin, and the other saints, if
there be any, who are already in glory with their bodies. "The part
consumed denotes those still walking upon earth," because while living
upon earth they are united together by this sacrament; and are bruised
by the passions, just as the bread eaten is bruised by the teeth. "The
part reserved on the altar till the close of the mass, is His body hidden
in the sepulchre, because the bodies of the saints will be in their
graves until the end of the world": though their souls are either in
purgatory, or in heaven. However, this rite of reserving one part on the
altar till the close of the mass is no longer observed, on account of the
danger; nevertheless, the same meaning of the parts continues, which some
persons have expressed in verse, thus:
"The host being rent---
What is dipped, means the blest;
What is dry, means the living;
What is kept, those at rest."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] R.O. 8 Para. 2/2
Others, however, say that the part put into the chalice denotes those
still living in this world. while the part kept outside the chalice
denotes those fully blessed both in soul and body; while the part
consumed means the others.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] R.O. 9 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 9: Two things can be signified by the chalice: first, the
Passion itself, which is represented in this sacrament, and according to
this, by the part put into the chalice are denoted those who are still
sharers of Christ's sufferings; secondly, the enjoyment of the Blessed
can be signified, which is likewise foreshadowed in this sacrament; and
therefore those whose bodies are already in full beatitude, are denoted
by the part put into the chalice. And it is to be observed that the part
put into the chalice ought not to be given to the people to supplement
the communion, because Christ gave dipped bread only to Judas the
betrayer.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] R.O. 10 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 10: Wine, by reason of its humidity, is capable of washing,
consequently it is received in order to rinse the mouth after receiving
this sacrament, lest any particles remain: and this belongs to reverence
for the sacrament. Hence (Extra, De Celebratione missae, chap. Ex parte),
it is said: "The priest should always cleanse his mouth with wine after
receiving the entire sacrament of Eucharist: except when he has to
celebrate another mass on the same day, lest from taking the
ablution-wine he be prevented from celebrating again"; and it is for the
same reason that wine is poured over the fingers with which he had
touched the body of Christ.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] R.O. 11 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 11: The truth ought to be conformable with the figure, in some
respect: namely, because a part of the host consecrated, of which the
priest and ministers or even the people communicate, ought not to be
reserved until the day following. Hence, as is laid down (De Consecr.,
dist. ii), Pope Clement I ordered that "as many hosts are to be offered
on the altar as shall suffice for the people; should any be left over,
they are not to be reserved until the morrow, but let the clergy
carefully consume them with fear and trembling." Nevertheless, since this
sacrament is to be received daily, whereas the Paschal Lamb was not, it
is therefore necessary for other hosts to be reserved for the sick. Hence
we read in the same distinction: "Let the priest always have the
Eucharist ready, so that, when anyone fall sick, he may take Communion to
him at once, lest he die without it."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[5] R.O. 12 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 12: Several persons ought to be present at the solemn
celebration of the mass. Hence Pope Soter says (De Consecr., dist. 1):
"It has also been ordained, that no priest is to presume to celebrate
solemn mass, unless two others be present answering him, while he himself
makes the third; because when he says in the plural, 'The Lord be with
you,' and again in the Secrets, 'Pray ye for me,' it is most becoming
that they should answer his greeting." Hence it is for the sake of
greater solemnity that we find it decreed (De Consecr. dist. 1) that a
bishop is to solemnize mass with several assistants. Nevertheless, in
private masses it suffices to have one server, who takes the place of the
whole Catholic people, on whose behalf he makes answer in the plural to
the priest.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the defects occurring during the celebration of this sacrament
can be sufficiently met by observing the Church's statutes?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It seems that the defects occurring during the celebration of
this sacrament cannot be sufficiently met by observing the statutes of
the Church. For it sometimes happens that before or after the
consecration the priest dies or goes mad, or is hindered by some other
infirmity from receiving the sacrament and completing the mass.
Consequently it seems impossible to observe the Church's statute, whereby
the priest consecrating must communicate of his own sacrifice.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it sometimes happens that, before the consecration, the
priest remembers that he has eaten or drunk something, or that he is in
mortal sin, or under excommunication, which he did not remember
previously. Therefore, in such a dilemma a man must necessarily commit
mortal sin by acting against the Church's statute, whether he receives or
not.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it sometimes happens that a fly or a spider, or some
other poisonous creature falls into the chalice after the consecration.
Or even that the priest comes to know that poison has been put in by some
evilly disposed person in order to kill him. Now in this instance, if he
takes it, he appears to sin by killing himself, or by tempting God: also
in like manner if he does not take it, he sins by acting against the
Church's statute. Consequently, he seems to be perplexed, and under
necessity of sinning, which is not becoming.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[6] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, it sometimes happens from the server's want of heed that
water is not added to the chalice, or even the wine overlooked, and that
the priest discovers this. Therefore he seems to be perplexed likewise
in this case, whether he receives the body without the blood, thus making
the sacrifice to be incomplete, or whether he receives neither the body
nor the blood.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[6] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, it sometimes happens that the priest cannot remember
having said the words of consecration, or other words which are uttered
in the celebration of this sacrament. In this case he seems to sin,
whether he repeats the words over the same matter, which words possibly
he has said before, or whether he uses bread and wine which are not
consecrated, as if they were consecrated.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[6] Obj. 6 Para. 1/1
OBJ 6: Further, it sometimes comes to pass owing to the cold that the
host will slip from the priest's hands into the chalice, either before or
after the breaking. In this case then the priest will not be able to
comply with the Church's rite, either as to the breaking, or else as to
this, that only a third part is put into the chalice.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[6] Obj. 7 Para. 1/1
OBJ 7: Further, sometimes, too, it happens, owing to the priest's want
of care, that Christ's blood is spilled, or that he vomits the sacrament
received, or that the consecrated hosts are kept so long that they become
corrupt, or that they are nibbled by mice, or lost in any manner
whatsoever; in which cases it does not seem possible for due reverence to
be shown towards this sacrament, as the Church's ordinances require. It
does not seem then that such defects or dangers can be met by keeping to
the Church's statutes.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Just as God does not command an impossibility, so
neither does the Church.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[6] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Dangers or defects happening to this sacrament can be met
in two ways: first, by preventing any such mishaps from occurring:
secondly, by dealing with them in such a way, that what may have happened
amiss is put right, either by employing a remedy, or at least by
repentance on his part who has acted negligently regarding this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: If the priest be stricken by death or grave sickness before
the consecration of our Lord's body and blood, there is no need for it to
be completed by another. But if this happens after the consecration is
begun, for instance, when the body has been consecrated and before the
consecration of the blood, or even after both have been consecrated, then
the celebration of the mass ought to be finished by someone else. Hence,
as is laid down (Decretal vii, q. 1), we read the following decree of the
(Seventh) Council of Toledo: "We consider it to be fitting that when the
sacred mysteries are consecrated by priests during the time of mass, if
any sickness supervenes, in consequence of which they cannot finish the
mystery begun, let it be free for the bishop or another priest to finish
the consecration of the office thus begun. For nothing else is suitable
for completing the mysteries commenced, unless the consecration be
completed either by the priest who began it, or by the one who follows
him: because they cannot be completed except they be performed in
perfect order. For since we are all one in Christ, the change of persons
makes no difference, since unity of faith insures the happy issue of the
mystery. Yet let not the course we propose for cases of natural debility,
be presumptuously abused: and let no minister or priest presume ever to
leave the Divine offices unfinished, unless he be absolutely prevented
from continuing. If anyone shall have rashly presumed to do so, he will
incur sentence of excommunication."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: Where difficulty arises, the less dangerous course should
always be followed. But the greatest danger regarding this sacrament lies
in whatever may prevent its completion, because this is a heinous
sacrilege; while that danger is of less account which regards the
condition of the receiver. Consequently, if after the consecration has
been begun the priest remembers that he has eaten or drunk anything, he
ought nevertheless to complete the sacrifice and receive the sacrament.
Likewise, if he recalls a sin committed, he ought to make an act of
contrition, with the firm purpose of confessing and making satisfaction
for it: and thus he will not receive the sacrament unworthily, but with
profit. The same applies if he calls to mind that he is under some
excommunication; for he ought to make the resolution of humbly seeking
absolution; and so he will receive absolution from the invisible High
Priest Jesus Christ for his act of completing the Divine mysteries.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
But if he calls to mind any of the above facts previous to the
consecration, I should deem it safer for him to interrupt the mass begun,
especially if he has broken his fast, or is under excommunication, unless
grave scandal were to be feared.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: If a fly or a spider falls into the chalice before
consecration, or if it be discovered that the wine is poisoned, it ought
to be poured out, and after purifying the chalice, fresh wine should be
served for consecration. But if anything of the sort happen after the
consecration, the insect should be caught carefully and washed
thoroughly, then burned, and the "ablution," together with the ashes,
thrown into the sacrarium. If it be discovered that the wine has been
poisoned, the priest should neither receive it nor administer it to
others on any account, lest the life-giving chalice become one of death,
but it ought to be kept in a suitable vessel with the relics: and in
order that the sacrament may not remain incomplete, he ought to put other
wine into the chalice, resume the mass from the consecration of the
blood, and complete the sacrifice.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[6] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: If before the consecration of the blood, and after the
consecration of the body the priest detect that either the wine or the
water is absent, then he ought at once to add them and consecrate. But if
after the words of consecration he discover that the water is absent, he
ought notwithstanding to proceed straight on, because the addition of the
water is not necessary for the sacrament, as stated above (Q[74], A[7]):
nevertheless the person responsible for the neglect ought to be punished.
And on no account should water be mixed with the consecrated wine,
because corruption of the sacrament would ensue in part, as was said
above (Q[77], A[8]). But if after the words of consecration the priest
perceive that no wine has been put in the chalice, and if he detect it
before receiving the body, then rejecting the water, he ought to pour in
wine with water, and begin over again the consecrating words of the
blood. But if he notice it after receiving the body, he ought to procure
another host which must be consecrated together with the blood; and I say
so for this reason, because if he were to say only the words of
consecration of the blood, the proper order of consecrating would not be
observed; and, as is laid down by the Council of Toledo, quoted above (ad
1), sacrifices cannot be perfect, except they be performed in perfect
order. But if he were to begin from the consecration of the blood, and
were to repeat all the words which follow, it would not suffice, unless
there was a consecrated host present, since in those words there are
things to be said and done not only regarding the blood, but also
regarding the body; and at the close he ought once more to receive the
consecrated host and blood, even if he had already taken the water which
was in the chalice, because the precept of the completing this sacrament
is of greater weight than the precept of receiving the sacrament while
fasting, as stated above (Q[80], A[8]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[6] R.O. 5 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 5: Although the priest may not recollect having said some of
the words he ought to say, he ought not to be disturbed mentally on that
account; for a man who utters many words cannot recall to mind all that
he has said; unless perchance in uttering them he adverts to something
connected with the consecration; for so it is impressed on the memory.
Hence, if a man pays attention to what he is saying, but without
adverting to the fact that he is saying these particular words, he
remembers soon after that he has said them; for, a thing is presented to
the memory under the formality of the past (De Mem. et Remin. i).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[6] R.O. 5 Para. 2/2
But if it seem to the priest that he has probably omitted some of the
words that are not necessary for the sacrament, I think that he ought not
to repeat them on that account, changing the order of the sacrifice, but
that he ought to proceed: but if he is certain that he has left out any
of those that are necessary for the sacrament, namely, the form of the
consecration, since the form of the consecration is necessary for the
sacrament, just as the matter is, it seems that the same thing ought to
be done as was stated above (ad 4) with regard to defect in the matter,
namely, that he should begin again with the form of the consecration, and
repeat the other things in order, lest the order of the sacrifice be
altered.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[6] R.O. 6 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 6: The breaking of the consecrated host, and the putting of
only one part into the chalice, regards the mystical body, just as the
mixing with water signifies the people, and therefore the omission of
either of them causes no such imperfection in the sacrifice, as calls for
repetition regarding the celebration of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[83] A[6] R.O. 7 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 7: According to the decree, De Consecr., dist. ii, quoting a
decree of Pope Pius I, "If from neglect any of the blood falls upon a
board which is fixed to the ground, let it be taken up with the tongue,
and let the board be scraped. But if it be not a board, let the ground be
scraped, and the scrapings burned, and the ashes buried inside the altar
and let the priest do penance for forty days. But if a drop fall from the
chalice on to the altar, let the minister suck up the drop, and do
penance during three days; if it falls upon the altar cloth and
penetrates to the second altar cloth, let him do four days' penance; if
it penetrates to the third, let him do nine days' penance; if to the
fourth, let him do twenty days' penance; and let the altar linens which
the drop touched be washed three times by the priest, holding the chalice
below, then let the water be taken and put away nigh to the altar." It
might even be drunk by the minister, unless it might be rejected from
nausea. Some persons go further, and cut out that part of the linen,
which they burn, putting the ashes in the altar or down the sacrarium.
And the Decretal continues with a quotation from the Penitential of Bede
the Priest: "If, owing to drunkenness or gluttony, anyone vomits up the
Eucharist, let him do forty days' penance, if he be a layman; but let
clerics or monks, deacons and priests, do seventy days' penance; and let
a bishop do ninety days'. But if they vomit from sickness, let them do
penance for seven days." And in the same distinction, we read a decree of
the (Fourth) Council of Arles: "They who do not keep proper custody over
the sacrament, if a mouse or other animal consume it, must do forty days'
penance: he who loses it in a church, or if a part fall and be not found,
shall do thirty days' penance." And the priest seems to deserve the same
penance, who from neglect allows the hosts to putrefy. And on those days
the one doing penance ought to fast, and abstain from Communion. However,
after weighing the circumstances of the fact and of the person, the said
penances may be lessened or increased. But it must be observed that
wherever the species are found to be entire, they must be preserved
reverently, or consumed; because Christ's body is there so long as the
species last, as stated above (Q[77], AA[4],5). But if it can be done
conveniently, the things in which they are found are to be burned, and
the ashes put in the sacrarium, as was said of the scrapings of the
altar-table, here above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] Out. Para. 1/3
PENANCE (QQ[84]-90)
OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE (TEN ARTICLES)
We must now consider the Sacrament of Penance. We shall consider (1)
Penance itself; (2) Its effect; (3) Its Parts; (4) The recipients of this
sacrament; (5) The power of the ministers, which pertains to the keys;
(6) The solemnization of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] Out. Para. 2/3
The first of these considerations will be two fold: (1) Penance as a
sacrament; (2) Penance as a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] Out. Para. 3/3
Under the first head there are ten points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Penance is a sacrament?
(2) Of its proper matter;
(3) Of its form;
(4) Whether imposition of hands is necessary for this sacrament?
(5) Whether this sacrament is necessary for salvation?
(6) Of its relation to the other sacraments;
(7) Of its institution;
(8) Of its duration;
(9) Of its continuance;
(10) Whether it can be repeated?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Penance is a sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Penance is not a sacrament. For Gregory [*Cf.
Isidore, Etym. vi, ch. 19] says: "The sacraments are Baptism, Chrism, and
the Body and Blood of Christ; which are called sacraments because under
the veil of corporeal things the Divine power works out salvation in a
hidden manner." But this does not happen in Penance, because therein
corporeal things are not employed that, under them, the power of God may
work our salvation. Therefore Penance is not a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, the sacraments of the Church are shown forth by the
ministers of Christ, according to 1 Cor. 4:1: "Let a man so account of us
as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of
God." But Penance is not conferred by the ministers of Christ, but is
inspired inwardly into man by God, according to Jer. 31:19: "After Thou
didst convert me, I did penance." Therefore it seems that Penance is not
a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, in the sacraments of which we have already spoken above,
there is something that is sacrament only, something that is both reality
and sacrament, and something that is reality only, as is clear from what
has been stated (Q[66], A[1]). But this does not apply to Penance.
Therefore Penance is not a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, As Baptism is conferred that we may be cleansed from
sin, so also is Penance: wherefore Peter said to Simon Magus (Acts 8:22):
"Do penance . . . from this thy wickedness." But Baptism is a sacrament
as stated above (Q[66], A[1]). Therefore for the same reason Penance is
also a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As Gregory says [*Isidore, Etym. vi, ch. 19], "a
sacrament consists in a solemn act, whereby something is so done that we
understand it to signify the holiness which it confers." Now it is
evident that in Penance something is done so that something holy is
signified both on the part of the penitent sinner, and on the part of the
priest absolving, because the penitent sinner, by deed and word, shows
his heart to have renounced sin, and in like manner the priest, by his
deed and word with regard to the penitent, signifies the work of God Who
forgives his sins. Therefore it is evident that Penance, as practiced in
the Church, is a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: By corporeal things taken in a wide sense we may understand
also external sensible actions, which are to this sacrament what water is
to Baptism, or chrism to Confirmation. But it is to be observed that in
those sacraments, whereby an exceptional grace surpassing altogether the
proportion of a human act, is conferred, some corporeal matter is
employed externally, e.g. in Baptism, which confers full remission of all
sins, both as to guilt and as to punishment, and in Confirmation, wherein
the fulness of the Holy Ghost is bestowed, and in Extreme Unction, which
confers perfect spiritual health derived from the virtue of Christ as
from an extrinsic principle. Wherefore, such human acts as are in these
sacraments, are not the essential matter of the sacrament, but are
dispositions thereto. On the other hand, in those sacraments whose effect
corresponds to that of some human act, the sensible human act itself
takes the place of matter, as in the case of Penance and Matrimony, even
as in bodily medicines, some are applied externally, such as plasters and
drugs, while others are acts of the person who seeks to be cured, such as
certain exercises.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: In those sacraments which have a corporeal matter, this
matter needs to be applied by a minister of the Church, who stands in the
place of Christ, which denotes that the excellence of the power which
operates in the sacraments is from Christ. But in the sacrament of
Penance, as stated above (ad 1), human actions take the place of matter,
and these actions proceed from internal inspiration, wherefore the matter
is not applied by the minister, but by God working inwardly; while the
minister furnishes the complement of the sacrament, when he absolves the
penitent.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: In Penance also, there is something which is sacrament
only, viz. the acts performed outwardly both by the repentant sinner, and
by the priest in giving absolution; that which is reality and sacrament
is the sinner's inward repentance; while that which is reality, and not
sacrament, is the forgiveness of sin. The first of these taken altogether
is the cause of the second; and the first and second together are the
cause of the third.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether sins are the proper matter of this sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that sins are not the proper matter of this
sacrament. Because, in the other sacraments, the matter is hallowed by
the utterance of certain words, and being thus hallowed produces the
sacramental effect. Now sins cannot be hallowed, for they are opposed to
the effect of the sacrament, viz. grace which blots out sin. Therefore
sins are not the proper matter of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Augustine says in his book De Poenitentia [Cf. Serm.
cccli]: "No one can begin a new life, unless he repent of the old." Now
not only sins but also the penalties of the present life belong to the
old life. Therefore sins are not the proper matter of Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, sin is either original, mortal or venial. Now the
sacrament of Penance is not ordained against original sin, for this is
taken away by Baptism, [nor against mortal sin, for this is taken away by
the sinner's confession]*, nor against venial sin, which is taken away by
the beating of the breast and the sprinkling of holy water and the like.
Therefore sins are not the proper matter of Penance. [*The words in
brackets are omitted in the Leonine edition].
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (2 Cor. 12:21): "(Who) have not done
penance for the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness, that they
have committed."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Matter is twofold, viz. proximate and remote: thus the
proximate matter of a statue is a metal, while the remote matter is
water. Now it has been stated (A[1], ad 1, ad 2), that the proximate
matter of this sacrament consists in the acts of the penitent, the matter
of which acts are the sins over which he grieves, which he confesses, and
for which he satisfies. Hence it follows that sins are the remote matter
of Penance, as a matter, not for approval, but for detestation, and
destruction.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers the proximate matter of a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The old life that was subject to death is the object of
Penance, not as regards the punishment, but as regards the guilt
connected with it.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Penance regards every kind of sin in a way, but not each in
the same way. Because Penance regards actual mortal sin properly and
chiefly; properly, since, properly speaking, we are said to repent of
what we have done of our own will; chiefly, since this sacrament was
instituted chiefly for the blotting out of mortal sin. Penance regards
venial sins, properly speaking indeed, in so far as they are committed of
our own will, but this was not the chief purpose of its institution. But
as to original sin, Penance regards it neither chiefly, since Baptism,
and not Penance, is ordained against original sin, nor properly, because
original sin is not done of our own will, except in so far as Adam's will
is looked upon as ours, in which sense the Apostle says (Rm. 5:12): "In
whom all have sinned." Nevertheless, Penance may be said to regard
original sin, if we take it in a wide sense for any detestation of
something past: in which sense Augustine uses the term in his book De
Poenitentia (Serm. cccli).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the form of this sacrament is: "I absolve thee"?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the form of this sacrament is not: "I absolve
thee." Because the forms of the sacraments are received from Christ's
institution and the Church's custom. But we do not read that Christ
instituted this form. Nor is it in common use; in fact in certain
absolutions which are given publicly in church (e.g. at Prime and
Compline and on Maundy Thursday), absolution is given not in the
indicative form by saying: "I absolve thee," but In the deprecatory form,
by saying: "May Almighty God have mercy on you," or: "May Almighty God
grant you absolution and forgiveness." Therefore the form of this
sacrament is not: "I absolve thee."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Pope Leo says (Ep. cviii) that God's forgiveness cannot
be obtained without the priestly supplications: and he is speaking there
of God's forgiveness granted to the penitent. Therefore the form of this
sacrament should be deprecatory.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, to absolve from sin is the same as to remit sin. But God
alone remits sin, for He alone cleanses man inwardly from sin, as
Augustine says (Contra Donatist. v, 21). Therefore it seems that God
alone absolves from sin. Therefore the priest should say not: "I absolve
thee," as neither does he say: "I remit thy sins."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, just as our Lord gave His disciples the power to absolve
from sins, so also did He give them the power "to heal infirmities," "to
cast out devils," and "to cure diseases" (Mt. 10:1; Lk. 9:1). Now the
apostles, in healing the sick, did not use the words: "I heal thee," but:
"The Lord Jesus Christ heal [Vulg.: 'heals'] thee," as Peter said to the
palsied man (Acts 9:34). Therefore since priests have the power which
Christ gave His apostles, it seems that they should not use the form: "I
absolve thee," but: "May Christ absolve thee."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[3] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, some explain this form by stating that when they say: "I
absolve thee," they mean "I declare you to be absolved." But neither can
this be done by a priest unless it be revealed to him by God, wherefore,
as we read in Mt. 16:19 before it was said to Peter: "Whatsoever thou
shalt bind upon earth," etc., it was said to him (Mt. 16:17): "Blessed
art thou Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood have not revealed it to
thee, but My Father Who is in heaven." Therefore it seems presumptuous
for a priest, who has received no revelation on the matter, to say: "I
absolve thee," even if this be explained to mean: "I declare thee
absolved."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, As our Lord said to His disciples (Mt. 28:19): "Going .
. teach ye all nations, baptizing them," etc., so did He say to Peter
(Mt. 16:19): "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth," etc. Now the priest,
relying on the authority of those words of Christ, says: "I baptize
thee." Therefore on the same authority he should say in this sacrament:
"I absolve thee."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[3] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, The perfection of a thing is ascribed to its form. Now it
has been stated above (A[1], ad 2) that this sacrament is perfected by
that which is done by the priest. Wherefore the part taken by the
penitent, whether it consist of words or deeds, must needs be the matter
of this sacrament, while the part taken by the priest, takes the place of
the form.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[3] Body Para. 2/3
Now since the sacraments of the New Law accomplish what they signify, as
stated above (Q[62], A[1], ad 1), it behooves the sacramental form to
signify the sacramental effect in a manner that is in keeping with the
matter. Hence the form of Baptism is: "I baptize thee," and the form of
Confirmation is: "I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and I confirm
thee with the chrism of salvation," because these sacraments are
perfected in the use of their matter: while in the sacrament of the
Eucharist, which consists in the very consecration of the matter, the
reality of the consecration is expressed in the words: "This is My Body."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[3] Body Para. 3/3
Now this sacrament, namely the sacrament of Penance, consists not in the
consecration of a matter, nor in the use of a hallowed matter, but rather
in the removal of a certain matter, viz. sin, in so far as sins are said
to be the matter of Penance, as explained above (A[2]). This removal is
expressed by the priest saying: "I absolve thee": because sins are
fetters, according to Prov. 5:22. "His own iniquities catch the wicked,
and he is fast bound with the ropes of his own sins." Wherefore it is
evident that this is the most fitting form of this sacrament: "I absolve
thee."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This form is taken from Christ's very words which He
addressed to Peter (Mt. 16:19): "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth,"
etc., and such is the form employed by the Church in sacramental
absolution. But such absolutions as are given in public are not
sacramental, but are prayers for the remission of venial sins. Wherefore
in giving sacramental absolution it would not suffice to say: "May
Almighty God have mercy on thee," or: "May God grant thee absolution and
forgiveness," because by such words the priest does not signify the
giving of absolution, but prays that it may be given. Nevertheless the
above prayer is said before the sacramental absolution is given, lest the
sacramental effect be hindered on the part of the penitent, whose acts
are as matter in this sacrament, but not in Baptism or Confirmation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The words of Leo are to be understood of the prayer that
precedes the absolution, and do not exclude the fact that the priest
pronounces absolution.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: God alone absolves from sin and forgives sins
authoritatively; yet priests do both ministerially, because the words of
the priest in this sacrament work as instruments of the Divine power, as
in the other sacraments: because it is the Divine power that works
inwardly in all the sacramental signs, be they things or words, as shown
above (Q[62], A[4]; Q[64], AA[1],2). Wherefore our Lord expressed both:
for He said to Peter (Mt. 16:19): "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth,"
etc., and to His disciples (Jn. 20:23): "Whose sins you shall forgive,
they are forgiven them." Yet the priest says: "I absolve thee," rather
than: "I forgive thee thy sins," because it is more in keeping with the
words of our Lord, by expressing the power of the keys whereby priests
absolve. Nevertheless, since the priest absolves ministerially, something
is suitably added in reference to the supreme authority of God, by the
priest saying: "I absolve thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost," or by the power of Christ's Passion, or by the
authority of God. However, as this is not defined by the words of Christ,
as it is for Baptism, this addition is left to the discretion of the
priest.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Power was given to the apostles, not that they themselves
might heal the sick, but that the sick might be healed at the prayer of
the apostles: whereas power was given to them to work instrumentally or
ministerially in the sacraments; wherefore they could express their own
agency in the sacramental forms rather than in the healing of
infirmities. Nevertheless in the latter case they did not always use the
deprecatory form, but sometimes employed the indicative or imperative:
thus we read (Acts 3:6) that Peter said to the lame man: "What I have, I
give thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise and walk."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[3] R.O. 5 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 5: It is true in a sense that the words, "I absolve thee" mean
"I declare thee absolved," but this explanation is incomplete. Because
the sacraments of the New Law not only signify, but effect what they
signify. Wherefore, just as the priest in baptizing anyone, declares by
deed and word that the person is washed inwardly, and this not only
significatively but also effectively, so also when he says: "I absolve
thee," he declares the man to be absolved not only significatively but
also effectively. And yet he does not speak as of something uncertain,
because just as the other sacraments of the New Law have, of themselves,
a sure effect through the power of Christ's Passion, which effect,
nevertheless, may be impeded on the part of the recipient, so is it with
this sacrament. Hence Augustine says (De Adult. Conjug. ii): "There is
nothing disgraceful or onerous in the reconciliation of husband and wife,
when adultery committed has been washed away, since there is no doubt
that remission of sins is granted through the keys of the kingdom of
heaven." Consequently there is no need for a special revelation to be
made to the priest, but the general revelation of faith suffices, through
which sins are forgiven. Hence the revelation of faith is said to have
been made to Peter.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[3] R.O. 5 Para. 2/2
It would be a more complete explanation to say that the words, "I
absolve thee" mean: "I grant thee the sacrament of absolution."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the imposition of the priest's hands is necessary for this
sacrament?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the imposition of the priest's hands is
necessary for this sacrament. For it is written (Mk. 16:18): "They shall
lay hands upon the sick, and they shall recover." Now sinners are sick
spiritually, and obtain recovery through this sacrament. Therefore an
imposition of hands should be made in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, in this sacrament man regains the Holy Ghost Whom he had
lost, wherefore it is said in the person of the penitent (Ps. 1:14):
"Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation, and strengthen me with a
perfect spirit." Now the Holy Ghost is given by the imposition of hands;
for we read (Acts 8:17) that the apostles "laid their hands upon them,
and they received the Holy Ghost"; and (Mt. 19:13) that "little children
were presented" to our Lord, "that He should impose hands upon them."
Therefore an imposition of hands should be made in this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the priest's words are not more efficacious in this than
in the other sacraments. But in the other sacraments the words of the
minister do not suffice, unless he perform some action: thus, in Baptism,
the priest while saying: "I baptize thee," has to perform a bodily
washing. Therefore, also while saying: "I absolve thee," the priest
should perform some action in regard to the penitent, by laying hands on
him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, When our Lord said to Peter (Mt. 16:19): "Whatsoever
thou shalt loose on earth," etc., He made no mention of an imposition of
hands; nor did He when He said to all the apostles (Jn. 20:13): "Whose
sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them." Therefore no imposition
of hands is required for this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[4] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, In the sacraments of the Church the imposition of hands
is made, to signify some abundant effect of grace, through those on whom
the hands are laid being, as it were, united to the ministers in whom
grace should be plentiful. Wherefore an imposition of hands is made in
the sacrament of Confirmation, wherein the fulness of the Holy Ghost is
conferred; and in the sacrament of order, wherein is bestowed a certain
excellence of power over the Divine mysteries; hence it is written (2
Tim. 1:6): "Stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition
of my hands."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[4] Body Para. 2/2
Now the sacrament of Penance is ordained, not that man may receive some
abundance of grace, but that his sins may be taken away; and therefore no
imposition of hands is required for this sacrament, as neither is there
for Baptism, wherein nevertheless a fuller remission of sins is bestowed.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: That imposition of hands is not sacramental, but is
intended for the working of miracles, namely, that by the contact of a
sanctified man's hand, even bodily infirmity might be removed; even as we
read of our Lord (Mk. 6:5) that He cured the sick, "laying His hands upon
them," and (Mt. 8:3) that He cleansed a leper by touching him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: It is not every reception of the Holy Ghost that requires
an imposition of hands, since even in Baptism man receives the Holy
Ghost, without any imposition of hands: it is at the reception of the
fulness of the Holy Ghost which belongs to Confirmation that an
imposition of hands is required.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: In those sacraments which are perfected in the use of the
matter, the minister has to perform some bodily action on the recipient
of the sacrament, e.g. in Baptism, Confirmation, and Extreme Unction;
whereas this sacrament does not consist in the use of matter employed
outwardly, the matter being supplied by the part taken by the penitent:
wherefore, just as in the Eucharist the priest perfects the sacrament by
merely pronouncing the words over the matter, so the mere words which the
priest while absolving pronounces over the penitent perfect the sacrament
of absolution. If, indeed, any bodily act were necessary on the part of
the priest, the sign of the cross, which is employed in the Eucharist,
would not be less becoming than the imposition of hands, in token that
sins are forgiven through the blood of Christ crucified; and yet this is
not essential to this sacrament as neither is it to the Eucharist.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether this sacrament is necessary for salvation?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that this sacrament is not necessary for salvation.
Because on Ps. 125:5, "They that sow in tears," etc., the gloss says: "Be
not sorrowful, if thou hast a good will, of which peace is the meed." But
sorrow is essential to Penance, according to 2 Cor. 7:10: "The sorrow
that is according to God worketh penance steadfast unto salvation."
Therefore a good will without Penance suffices for salvation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 10:12): "Charity covereth all
sins," and further on (Prov. 15:27): "By mercy and faith sins are purged
away." But this sacrament is for nothing else but the purging of sins.
Therefore if one has charity, faith, and mercy, one can obtain salvation,
without the sacrament of Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the sacraments of the Church take their origin from the
institution of Christ. But according to Jn. 8 Christ absolved the
adulterous woman without Penance. Therefore it seems that Penance is not
necessary for salvation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, our Lord said (Lk. 13:3): "Unless you shall do penance,
you shall all likewise perish."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, A thing is necessary for salvation in two ways: first,
absolutely; secondly, on a supposition. A thing is absolutely necessary
for salvation, if no one can obtain salvation without it, as, for
example, the grace of Christ, and the sacrament of Baptism, whereby a man
is born again in Christ. The sacrament of Penance is necessary on a
supposition, for it is necessary, not for all, but for those who are in
sin. For it is written (2 Paral 37 [*The prayer of Manasses, among the
Apocrypha]), "Thou, Lord, God of the righteous, hast not appointed
repentance to the righteous, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, nor to those
who sinned not against Thee." But "sin, when it is completed, begetteth
death" (James 1:15). Consequently it is necessary for the sinner's
salvation that sin be taken away from him; which cannot be done without
the sacrament of Penance, wherein the power of Christ's Passion operates
through the priest's absolution and the acts of the penitent, who
co-operates with grace unto the destruction of his sin. For as Augustine
says (Tract. lxxii in Joan. [*Implicitly in the passage referred to, but
explicitly Serm. xv de verb Apost.]), "He Who created thee without thee,
will not justify thee without thee." Therefore it is evident that after
sin the sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation, even as bodily
medicine after man has contracted a dangerous disease.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This gloss should apparently be understood as referring to
the man who has a good will unimpaired by sin, for such a man has no
cause for sorrow: but as soon as the good will is forfeited through sin,
it cannot be restored without that sorrow whereby a man sorrows for his
past sin, and which belongs to Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As soon as a man falls into sin, charity, faith, and mercy
do not deliver him from sin, without Penance. Because charity demands
that a man should grieve for the offense committed against his friend,
and that he should be anxious to make satisfaction to his friend; faith
requires that he should seek to be justified from his sins through the
power of Christ's Passion which operates in the sacraments of the Church;
and well-ordered pity necessitates that man should succor himself by
repenting of the pitiful condition into which sin has brought him,
according to Prov. 14:34: "Sin maketh nations miserable"; wherefore it is
written (Ecclus. 30:24): "Have pity on thy own soul, pleasing God."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: It was due to His power of "excellence," which He alone
had, as stated above (Q[64], A[3]), that Christ bestowed on the
adulterous woman the effect of the sacrament of Penance, viz. the
forgiveness of sins, without the sacrament of Penance, although not
without internal repentance, which He operated in her by grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Penance is a second plank after shipwreck?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Penance is not a second plank after shipwreck.
Because on Is. 3:9, "They have proclaimed abroad their sin as Sodom," a
gloss says: "The second plank after shipwreck is to hide one's sins." Now
Penance does not hide sins, but reveals them. Therefore Penance is not a
second plank.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, in a building the foundation takes the first, not the
second place. Now in the spiritual edifice, Penance is the foundation,
according to Heb. 6:1: "Not laying again the foundation of Penance from
dead works"; wherefore it precedes even Baptism, according to Acts 2:38:
"Do penance, and be baptized every one of you." Therefore Penance should
not be called a second plank.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, all the sacraments are planks, i.e. helps against sin.
Now Penance holds, not the second but the fourth, place among the
sacraments, as is clear from what has been said above (Q[65], AA[1],2).
Therefore Penance should not be called a second plank after shipwreck.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Jerome says (Ep. cxxx) that "Penance is a second plank
after shipwreck."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[6] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, That which is of itself precedes naturally that which is
accidental, as substance precedes accident. Now some sacraments are, of
themselves, ordained to man's salvation, e.g. Baptism, which is the
spiritual birth, Confirmation which is the spiritual growth, the
Eucharist which is the spiritual food; whereas Penance is ordained to
man's salvation accidentally as it were, and on something being supposed,
viz. sin: for unless man were to sin actually, he would not stand in need
of Penance and yet he would need Baptism, Confirmation, and the
Eucharist; even as in the life of the body, man would need no medical
treatment, unless he were ill, and yet life, birth, growth, and food are,
of themselves, necessary to man.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[6] Body Para. 2/2
Consequently Penance holds the second place with regard to the state of
integrity which is bestowed and safeguarded by the aforesaid sacraments,
so that it is called metaphorically "a second plank after shipwreck." For
just as the first help for those who cross the sea is to be safeguarded
in a whole ship, while the second help when the ship is wrecked, is to
cling to a plank; so too the first help in this life's ocean is that man
safeguard his integrity, while the second help is, if he lose his
integrity through sin, that he regain it by means of Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: To hide one's sins may happen in two ways: first, in the
very act of sinning. Now it is worse to sin in public than in private,
both because a public sinner seems to sin more from contempt, and because
by sinning he gives scandal to others. Consequently in sin it is a kind
of remedy to sin secretly, and it is in this sense that the gloss says
that "to hide one's sins is a second plank after shipwreck"; not that it
takes away sin, as Penance does, but because it makes the sin less
grievous. Secondly, one hides one's sin previously committed, by
neglecting to confess it: this is opposed to Penance, and to hide one's
sins thus is not a second plank, but is the reverse, since it is written
(Prov. 28:13): "He that hideth his sins shall not prosper."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Penance cannot be called the foundation of the spiritual
edifice simply, i.e. in the first building thereof; but it is the
foundation in the second building which is accomplished by destroying
sin, because man, on his return to God, needs Penance first. However, the
Apostle is speaking there of the foundation of spiritual doctrine.
Moreover, the penance which precedes Baptism is not the sacrament of
Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The three sacraments which precede Penance refer to the
ship in its integrity, i.e. to man's state of integrity, with regard to
which Penance is called a second plank.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[7] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether this sacrament was suitably instituted in the New Law?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[7] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that this sacrament was unsuitably instituted in
the New Law. Because those things which belong to the natural law need
not to be instituted. Now it belongs to the natural law that one should
repent of the evil one has done: for it is impossible to love good
without grieving for its contrary. Therefore Penance was unsuitably
instituted in the New Law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[7] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, that which existed in the Old Law had not to be
instituted in the New. Now there was Penance in the old Law wherefore the
Lord complains (Jer. 8:6) saying: "There is none that doth penance for
his sin, saying: What have I done?" Therefore Penance should not have
been instituted in the New Law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[7] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Penance comes after Baptism, since it is a second plank,
as stated above (A[6]). Now it seems that our Lord instituted Penance
before Baptism, because we read that at the beginning of His preaching He
said (Mt. 4:17): "Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
Therefore this sacrament was not suitably instituted in the New Law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[7] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, the sacraments of the New Law were instituted by Christ,
by Whose power they work, as stated above (Q[62], A[5]; Q[64], A[1]). But
Christ does not seem to have instituted this sacrament, since He made no
use of it, as of the other sacraments which He instituted. Therefore this
sacrament was unsuitably instituted in the New Law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[7] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, our Lord said (Lk. 24:46,47): "It behooved Christ to
suffer, and to rise again from the dead the third day: and that penance
and remission of sins should be preached in His name unto all nations."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[7] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, As stated above (A[1], ad 1, ad 2), in this sacrament the
acts of the penitent are as matter, while the part taken by the priest,
who works as Christ's minister, is the formal and completive element of
the sacrament. Now in the other sacraments the matter pre-exists, being
provided by nature, as water, or by art, as bread: but that such and such
a matter be employed for a sacrament requires to be decided by the
institution; while the sacrament derives its form and power entirely from
the institution of Christ, from Whose Passion the power of the sacraments
proceeds.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[7] Body Para. 2/3
Accordingly the matter of this sacrament pre-exists, being provided by
nature; since it is by a natural principle of reason that man is moved to
repent of the evil he has done: yet it is due to Divine institution that
man does penance in this or that way. Wherefore at the outset of His
preaching, our Lord admonished men, not only to repent, but also to "do
penance," thus pointing to the particular manner of actions required for
this sacrament. As to the part to be taken by the ministers, this was
fixed by our Lord when He said to Peter (Mt. 16:19): "To thee will I give
the keys of the kingdom of heaven," etc.; but it was after His
resurrection that He made known the efficacy of this sacrament and the
source of its power, when He said (Lk. 24:47) that "penance and remission
of sins should be preached in His name unto all nations," after speaking
of His Passion and resurrection. Because it is from the power of the name
of Jesus Christ suffering and rising again that this sacrament is
efficacious unto the remission of sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[7] Body Para. 3/3
It is therefore evident that this sacrament was suitably instituted in
the New Law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[7] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: It is a natural law that one should repent of the evil one
has done, by grieving for having done it, and by seeking a remedy for
one's grief in some way or other, and also that one should show some
signs of grief, even as the Ninevites did, as we read in Jn. 3. And yet
even in their case there was also something of faith which they had
received through Jonas' preaching, inasmuch as they did these things in
the hope that they would receive pardon from God, according as we read
(Jn. 3:9): "Who can tell if God will turn and forgive, and will turn away
from His fierce anger, and we shall not perish?" But just as other
matters which are of the natural law were fixed in detail by the
institution of the Divine law, as we have stated in the FS, Q[91], A[4];
FS, Q[95], A[2]; FS, Q[99], so was it with Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[7] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Things which are of the natural law were determined in
various ways in the old and in the New Law, in keeping with the
imperfection of the old, and the perfection of the New. Wherefore Penance
was fixed in a certain way in the Old Law---with regard to sorrow, that
it should be in the heart rather than in external signs, according to
Joel 2:13: "Rend your hearts and not your garments"; and with regard to
seeking a remedy for sorrow, that they should in some way confess their
sins, at least in general, to God's ministers. Wherefore the Lord said
(Lev. 5:17,18): "If anyone sin through ignorance . . . he shall offer of
the flocks a ram without blemish to the priest, according to the measure
and estimation of the sin, and the priest shall pray for him, because he
did it ignorantly, and it shall be forgiven him"; since by the very fact
of making an offering for his sin, a man, in a fashion, confessed his sin
to the priest. And accordingly it is written (Prov. 28:13): "He that
hideth his sins, shall not prosper: but he that shall confess, and
forsake them, shall obtain mercy." Not yet, however, was the power of the
keys instituted, which is derived from Christ's Passion, and consequently
it was not yet ordained that a man should grieve for his sin, with the
purpose of submitting himself by confession and satisfaction to the keys
of the Church, in the hope of receiving forgiveness through the power of
Christ's Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: If we note carefully what our Lord said about the necessity
of Baptism (Jn. 3:3, seqq.), we shall see that this was said before His
words about the necessity of Penance (Mt. 4:17); because He spoke to
Nicodemus about Baptism before the imprisonment of John, of whom it is
related afterwards (Jn. 3:23, 24) that he baptized, whereas His words
about Penance were said after John was cast into prison.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[7] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
If, however, He had admonished men to do penance before admonishing them
to be baptized, this would be because also before Baptism some kind of
penance is required, according to the words of Peter (Acts 2:38): "Do
penance, and be baptized, every one of you."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[7] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Christ did not use the Baptism which He instituted, but was
baptized with the baptism of John, as stated above (Q[39], AA[1],2). Nor
did He use it actively by administering it Himself, because He "did not
baptize" as a rule, "but His disciples" did, as related in Jn. 4:2,
although it is to be believed that He baptized His disciples, as
Augustine asserts (Ep. cclxv, ad Seleuc.). But with regard to His
institution of this sacrament it was nowise fitting that He should use
it, neither by repenting Himself, in Whom there was no sin, nor by
administering the sacrament to others, since, in order to show His mercy
and power, He was wont to confer the effect of this sacrament without the
sacrament itself, as stated above (A[5], ad 3). On the other hand, He
both received and gave to others the sacrament of the Eucharist, both in
order to commend the excellence of that sacrament, and because that
sacrament is a memorial of His Passion, in which Christ is both priest
and victim.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[8] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Penance should last till the end of life?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[8] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that Penance should not last till the end of life.
Because Penance is ordained for the blotting out of sin. Now the penitent
receives forgiveness of his sins at once, according to Ezech. 18:21: "If
the wicked do penance for all his sins which he hath committed . . . he
shall live and shall not die." Therefore there is no need for Penance to
be further prolonged.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[8] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Penance belongs to the state of beginners. But man ought
to advance from that state to the state of the proficient, and, from
this, on to the state of the perfect. Therefore man need not do Penance
till the end of his life.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[8] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, man is bound to observe the laws of the Church in this
as in the other sacraments. But the duration of repentance is fixed by
the canons, so that, to wit, for such and such a sin one is bound to do
penance for so many years. Therefore it seems that Penance should not be
prolonged till the end of life.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[8] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says in his book, De Poenitentia [*De vera et
falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "What remains
for us to do, save to sorrow ever in this life? For when sorrow ceases,
repentance fails; and if repentance fails, what becomes of pardon?"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[8] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Penance is twofold, internal and external. Internal
penance is that whereby one grieves for a sin one has committed, and this
penance should last until the end of life. Because man should always be
displeased at having sinned, for if he were to be pleased thereat, he
would for this very reason fall into sin and lose the fruit of pardon.
Now displeasure causes sorrow in one who is susceptible to sorrow, as man
is in this life; but after this life the saints are not susceptible to
sorrow, wherefore they will be displeased at, without sorrowing for,
their past sins, according to Is. 65:16. "The former distresses are
forgotten."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[8] Body Para. 2/2
External penance is that whereby a man shows external signs of sorrow,
confesses his sins verbally to the priest who absolves him, and makes
satisfaction for his sins according to the judgment of the priest. Such
penance need not last until the end of life, but only for a fixed time
according to the measure of the sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[8] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: True penance not only removes past sins, but also preserves
man from future sins. Consequently, although a man receives forgiveness
of past sins in the first instant of his true penance, nevertheless he
must persevere in his penance, lest he fall again into sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[8] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: To do penance both internal and external belongs to the
state of beginners, of those, to wit, who are making a fresh start from
the state of sin. But there is room for internal penance even in the
proficient and the perfect, according to Ps. 83:7: "In his heart he hath
disposed to ascend by steps, in the vale of tears." Wherefore Paul says
(1 Cor. 15:9): "I . . . am not worthy to be called an apostle because I
persecuted the Church of God."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[8] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: These durations of time are fixed for penitents as regards
the exercise of external penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[9] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Penance can be continuous?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[9] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that penance cannot be continuous. For it is
written (Jer. 31:16): "Let thy voice cease from weeping, and thy eyes
from tears." But this would be impossible if penance were continuous, for
it consists in weeping and tears. Therefore penance cannot be continuous.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[9] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, man ought to rejoice at every good work, according to
Ps. 99:1: "Serve ye the Lord with gladness." Now to do penance is a good
work. Therefore man should rejoice at it. But man cannot rejoice and
grieve at the same time, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. ix, 4).
Therefore a penitent cannot grieve continually for his past sins, which
is essential to penance. Therefore penance cannot be continuous.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[9] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the Apostle says (2 Cor. 2:7): "Comfort him," viz. the
penitent, "lest perhaps such an one be swallowed up with overmuch
sorrow." But comfort dispels grief, which is essential to penance.
Therefore penance need not be continuous.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[9] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says in his book on Penance [*De vera et
falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "In doing penance
grief should be continual."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[9] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, One is said to repent in two ways, actually and
habitually. It is impossible for a man continually to repent actually.
for the acts, whether internal or external, of a penitent must needs be
interrupted by sleep and other things which the body needs. Secondly, a
man is said to repent habitually. and thus he should repent continually,
both by never doing anything contrary to penance, so as to destroy the
habitual disposition of the penitent, and by being resolved that his past
sins should always be displeasing to him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[9] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Weeping and tears belong to the act of external penance,
and this act needs neither to be continuous, nor to last until the end of
life, as stated above (A[8]): wherefore it is significantly added: "For
there is a reward for thy work." Now the reward of the penitent's work is
the full remission of sin both as to guilt and as to punishment; and
after receiving this reward there is no need for man to proceed to acts
of external penance. This, however, does not prevent penance being
continual, as explained above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[9] R.O. 2 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 2: Of sorrow and joy we may speak in two ways: first, as being
passions of the sensitive appetite; and thus they can no. wise be
together, since they are altogether contrary to one another, either on
the part of the object (as when they have the same object), or at least
on the part of the movement, for joy is with expansion [*Cf. FS, Q[33],
A[1]] of the heart, whereas sorrow is with contraction; and it is in this
sense that the Philosopher speaks in Ethic. ix. Secondly, we may speak of
joy and sorrow as being simple acts of the will, to which something is
pleasing or displeasing. Accordingly, they cannot be contrary to one
another, except on the part of the object, as when they concern the same
object in the same respect, in which way joy and sorrow cannot be
simultaneous, because the same thing in the same respect cannot be
pleasing and displeasing. If, on the other hand, joy and sorrow,
understood thus, be not of the same object in the same respect, but
either of different objects, or of the same object in different respects,
in that case joy and sorrow are not contrary to one another, so that
nothing hinders a man from being joyful and sorrowful at the same
time---for instance, if we see a good man suffer, we both rejoice at his
goodness and at the same time grieve for his suffering. In this way a man
may be displeased at having sinned, and be pleased at his displeasure
together with his hope for pardon, so that his very sorrow is a matter of
joy. Hence Augustine says [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship
of which is unknown]: "The penitent should ever grieve and rejoice at
his grief."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[9] R.O. 2 Para. 2/2
If, however, sorrow were altogether incompatible with joy, this would
prevent the continuance, not of habitual penance, but only of actual
penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[9] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 3,6,7,9) it
belongs to virtue to establish the mean in the passions. Now the sorrow
which, in the sensitive appetite of the penitent, arises from the
displeasure of his will, is a passion; wherefore it should be moderated
according to virtue, and if it be excessive it is sinful, because it
leads to despair, as the Apostle teaches (2 Cor. 2:7), saying: "Lest such
an one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow." Accordingly comfort, of
which the Apostle speaks, moderates sorrow but does not destroy it
altogether.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[10] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the sacrament of Penance may be repeated?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[10] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the sacrament of Penance should not be
repeated. For the Apostle says (Heb. 6:4, seqq.): "It is impossible for
those, who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and
were made partakers of the Holy Ghost . . . and are fallen away, to be
renewed again to penance." Now whosoever have done penance, have been
illuminated, and have received the gift of the Holy Ghost. Therefore
whosoever sin after doing penance, cannot do penance again.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[10] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Poenit. ii): "Some are to be found who
think they ought often to do penance, who take liberties with Christ: for
if they were truly penitent, they would not think of doing penance over
again, since there is but one Penance even as there is but one Baptism."
Now Baptism is not repeated. Neither, therefore, is Penance to be
repeated.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[10] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the miracles whereby our Lord healed bodily diseases,
signify the healing of spiritual diseases, whereby men are delivered from
sins. Now we do not read that our Lord restored the sight to any blind
man twice, or that He cleansed any leper twice, or twice raised any dead
man to life. Therefore it seems that He does not twice grant pardon to
any sinner.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[10] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, Gregory says (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.): "Penance consists
in deploring past sins, and in not committing again those we have
deplored": and Isidore says (De Summo Bono ii): "He is a mocker and no
penitent who still does what he has repented of." If, therefore, a man is
truly penitent, he will not sin again. Therefore Penance cannot be
repeated.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[10] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, just as Baptism derives its efficacy from the Passion of
Christ, so does Penance. Now Baptism is not repeated, on account of the
unity of Christ's Passion and death. Therefore in like manner Penance is
not repeated.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[10] Obj. 6 Para. 1/1
OBJ 6: Further, Ambrose says on Ps. 118:58, "I entreated Thy face,"
etc., that "facility of obtaining pardon is an incentive to sin." If,
therefore, God frequently grants pardon through Penance, it seems that He
affords man an incentive to sin, and thus He seems to take pleasure in
sin, which is contrary to His goodness. Therefore Penance cannot be
repeated.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[10] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Man is induced to be merciful by the example of Divine
mercy, according to Lk. 6:36: "Be ye . . . merciful, as your Father also
is merciful." Now our Lord commanded His disciples to be merciful by
frequently pardoning their brethren who had sinned against them;
wherefore, as related in Mt. 18:21, when Peter asked: "How often shall my
brother off end against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?" Jesus
answered: "I say not to thee, till seven times, but till seventy times
seven times." Therefore also God over and over again, through Penance,
grants pardon to sinners, especially as He teaches us to pray (Mt. 6:12):
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[10] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As regards Penance, some have erred, saying that a man
cannot obtain pardon of his sins through Penance a second time. Some of
these, viz. the Novatians, went so far as to say that he who sins after
the first Penance which is done in Baptism, cannot be restored again
through Penance. There were also other heretics who, as Augustine relates
in De Poenitentia [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which
is unknown], said that, after Baptism, Penance is useful, not many times,
but only once.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[10] Body Para. 2/2
These errors seem to have arisen from a twofold source: first from not
knowing the nature of true Penance. For since true Penance requires
charity, without which sins are not taken away, they thought that charity
once possessed could not be lost, and that, consequently, Penance, if
true, could never be removed by sin, so that it should be necessary to
repeat it. But this was refuted in the SS, Q[24], A[11], where it was
shown that on account of free-will charity, once possessed, can be lost,
and that, consequently, after true Penance, a man can sin mortally.
Secondly, they erred in their estimation of the gravity of sin. For they
deemed a sin committed by a man after he had received pardon, to be so
grave that it could not be forgiven. In this they erred not only with
regard to sin which, even after a sin has been forgiven, can be either
more or less grievous than the first, which was forgiven, but much more
did they err against the infinity of Divine mercy, which surpasses any
number and magnitude of sins, according to Ps. 50:1,2: "Have mercy on me,
O God, according to Thy great mercy: and according to the multitude of
Thy tender mercies, blot out my iniquity." Wherefore the words of Cain
were reprehensible, when he said (Gn. 4:13): "My iniquity is greater than
that I may deserve pardon." And so God's mercy, through Penance, grants
pardon to sinners without any end, wherefore it is written (2 Paral 37
[*Prayer of Manasses, among the Apocrypha. St. Thomas is evidently
quoting from memory, and omits the words in brackets.]): "Thy merciful
promise is unmeasurable and unsearchable . . . (and Thou repentest) for
the evil brought upon man." It is therefore evident that Penance can be
repeated many times.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[10] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Some of the Jews thought that a man could be washed several
times in the laver of Baptism, because among them the Law prescribed
certain washing-places where they were wont to cleanse themselves
repeatedly from their uncleannesses. In order to disprove this the
Apostle wrote to the Hebrews that "it is impossible for those who were
once illuminated," viz. through Baptism, "to be renewed again to
penance," viz. through Baptism, which is "the laver of regeneration, and
renovation of the Holy Ghost," as stated in Titus 3:5: and he declares
the reason to be that by Baptism man dies with Christ, wherefore he adds
(Heb. 6:6): "Crucifying again to themselves the Son of God."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[10] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Ambrose is speaking of solemn Penance, which is not
repeated in the Church, as we shall state further on (XP, Q[28], A[2]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[10] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As Augustine says [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia the
authorship of which is unknown], "Our Lord gave sight to many blind men
at various times, and strength to many infirm, thereby showing, in these
different men, that the same sins are repeatedly forgiven, at one time
healing a man from leprosy and afterwards from blindness. For this reason
He healed so many stricken with fever, so many feeble in body, so many
lame, blind, and withered, that the sinner might not despair; for this
reason He is not described as healing anyone but once, that every one
might fear to link himself with sin; for this reason He declares Himself
to be the physician welcomed not of the hale, but of the unhealthy. What
sort of a physician is he who knows not how to heal a recurring disease?
For if a man ail a hundred times it is for the physician to heal him a
hundred times: and if he failed where others succeed, he would be a poor
physician in comparison with them."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[10] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Penance is to deplore past sins, and, "while deploring
them," not to commit again, either by act or by intention, those which we
have to deplore. Because a man is a mocker and not a penitent, who,
"while doing penance," does what he repents having done, or intends to do
again what he did before, or even commits actually the same or another
kind of sin. But if a man sin afterwards either by act or intention, this
does not destroy the fact that his former penance was real, because the
reality of a former act is never destroyed by a subsequent contrary act:
for even as he truly ran who afterwards sits, so he truly repented who
subsequently sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[10] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: Baptism derives its power from Christ's Passion, as a
spiritual regeneration, with a spiritual death, of a previous life. Now
"it is appointed unto man once to die" (Heb. 9:27), and to be born once,
wherefore man should be baptized but once. On the other hand, Penance
derives its power from Christ's Passion, as a spiritual medicine, which
can be repeated frequently.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[84] A[10] R.O. 6 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 6: According to Augustine (De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the
authorship of which is unknown), "it is evident that sins displease God
exceedingly, for He is always ready to destroy them, lest what He created
should perish, and what He loved be lost," viz. by despair.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] Out. Para. 1/1
OF PENANCE AS A VIRTUE (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider penance as a virtue, under which head there are six
points of inquiry:
(1) Whether penance is a virtue?
(2) Whether it is a special virtue?
(3) To what species of virtue does it belong?
(4) Of its subject;
(5) Of its cause;
(6) Of its relation to the other virtues.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Penance is a virtue?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that penance is not a virtue. For penance is a
sacrament numbered among the other sacraments, as was shown above (Q[84],
A[1]; Q[65], A[1]). Now no other sacrament is a virtue. Therefore neither
is penance a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 9), "shame is
not a virtue," both because it is a passion accompanied by a bodily
alteration, and because it is not the disposition of a perfect thing,
since it is about an evil act, so that it has no place in a virtuous man.
Now, in like manner, penance is a passion accompanied by a bodily
alteration, viz. tears, according to Gregory, who says (Hom. xxxiv in
Evang.) that "penance consists in deploring past sins": moreover it is
about evil deeds, viz. sins, which have no place in a virtuous man.
Therefore penance is not a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 3), "no
virtuous man is foolish." But it seems foolish to deplore what has been
done in the past, since it cannot be otherwise, and yet this is what we
understand by penance. Therefore penance is not a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The precepts of the Law are about acts of virtue,
because "a lawgiver intends to make the citizens virtuous" (Ethic. ii,
1). But there is a precept about penance in the Divine law, according to
Mt. 4:17: "Do penance," etc. Therefore penance is a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (OBJ[2]; Q[84], A[10], ad 4), to repent
is to deplore something one has done. Now it has been stated above (Q[84]
, A[9]) that sorrow or sadness is twofold. First, it denotes a passion of
the sensitive appetite, and in this sense penance is not a virtue, but a
passion. Secondly, it denotes an act of the will, and in this way it
implies choice, and if this be right, it must, of necessity, be an act of
virtue. For it is stated in Ethic. ii, 6 that virtue is a habit of
choosing according to right reason. Now it belongs to right reason than
one should grieve for a proper object of grief as one ought to grieve,
and for an end for which one ought to grieve. And this is observed in the
penance of which we are speaking now; since the penitent assumes a
moderated grief for his past sins, with the intention of removing them.
Hence it is evident that the penance of which we are speaking now, is
either a virtue or the act of a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As stated above (Q[84], A[1], ad 1; AA[2],3), in the
sacrament of Penance, human acts take the place of matter, which is not
the case in Baptism and Confirmation. Wherefore, since virtue is a
principle of an act, penance is either a virtue or accompanies a virtue,
rather than Baptism or Confirmation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Penance, considered as a passion, is not a virtue, as
stated above, and it is thus that it is accompanied by a bodily
alteration. On the other hand, it is a virtue, according as it includes a
right choice on the part of the will; which, however, applies to penance
rather than to shame. Because shame regards the evil deed as present,
whereas penance regards the evil deed as past. Now it is contrary to the
perfection of virtue that one should have an evil deed actually present,
of which one ought to be ashamed; whereas it is not contrary to the
perfection of virtue that we should have previously committed evil deeds,
of which it behooves us to repent, since a man from being wicked becomes
virtuous.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: It would indeed be foolish to grieve for what has already
been done, with the intention of trying to make it not done. But the
penitent does not intend this: for his sorrow is displeasure or
disapproval with regard to the past deed, with the intention of removing
its result, viz. the anger of God and the debt of punishment: and this is
not foolish.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Penance is a special virtue?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that penance is not a special virtue. For it seems
that to rejoice at the good one has done, and to grieve for the evil one
has done are acts of the same nature. But joy for the good one has done
is not a special virtue, but is a praiseworthy emotion proceeding from
charity, as Augustine states (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7,8,9): wherefore the
Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:6) that charity "rejoiceth not at iniquity, but
rejoiceth with the truth." Therefore, in like manner, neither is penance,
which is sorrow for past sins, a special virtue, but an emotion resulting
from charity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, every special virtue has its special matter, because
habits are distinguished by their acts, and acts by their objects. But
penance has no special matter, because its matter is past sins in any
matter whatever. Therefore penance is not a special virtue.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, nothing is removed except by its contrary. But penance
removes all sins. Therefore it is contrary to all sins, and consequently
is not a special virtue.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Law has a special precept about penance, as stated
above (Q[84], AA[5],7).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated in the FS, Q[54], A[1], ad 1, A[2], habits are
specifically distinguished according to the species of their acts, so
that whenever an act has a special reason for being praiseworthy, there
must needs be a special habit. Now it is evident that there is a special
reason for praising the act of penance, because it aims at the
destruction of past sin, considered as an offense against God, which does
not apply to any other virtue. We must therefore conclude that penance is
a special virtue.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: An act springs from charity in two ways: first as being
elicited by charity, and a like virtuous act requires no other virtue
than charity, e.g. to love the good, to rejoice therein, and to grieve
for what is opposed to it. Secondly, an act springs from charity, being,
so to speak, commanded by charity; and thus, since charity commands all
the virtues, inasmuch as it directs them to its own end, an act springing
from charity may belong even to another special virtue. Accordingly, if
in the act of the penitent we consider the mere displeasure in the past
sin, it belongs to charity immediately, in the same way as joy for past
good acts; but the intention to aim at the destruction of past sin
requires a special virtue subordinate to charity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: In point of fact, penance has indeed a general matter,
inasmuch as it regards all sins; but it does so under a special aspect,
inasmuch as they can be remedied by an act of man in co-operating with
God for his justification.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Every special virtue removes formally the habit of the
opposite vice, just as whiteness removes blackness from the same subject:
but penance removes every sin effectively, inasmuch as it works for the
destruction of sins, according as they are pardonable through the grace
of God if man co-operate therewith. Wherefore it does not follow that it
is a general virtue.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the virtue of penance is a species of justice?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the virtue of penance is not a species of
justice. For justice is not a theological but a moral virtue, as was
shown in the SS, Q[62], A[3]. But penance seems to be a theological
virtue, since God is its object, for it makes satisfaction to God, to
Whom, moreover, it reconciles the sinner. Therefore it seems that penance
is not a species of justice.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, since justice is a moral virtue it observes the mean.
Now penance does not observe the mean, but rather goes to the extreme,
according to Jer. 6:26: "Make thee mourning as for an only son, a bitter
lamentation." Therefore penance is not a species of justice.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, there are two species of justice, as stated in Ethic. v,
4, viz. "distributive" and "commutative." But penance does not seem to be
contained under either of them. Therefore it seems that penance is not a
species of justice.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, a gloss on Lk. 6:21, "Blessed are ye that weep now,"
says: "It is prudence that teaches us the unhappiness of earthly things
and the happiness of heavenly things." But weeping is an act of penance.
Therefore penance is a species of prudence rather than of justice.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says in De Poenitentia [*De vera et falsa
Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "Penance is the
vengeance of the sorrowful, ever punishing in them what they are sorry
for having done." But to take vengeance is an act of justice, wherefore
Tully says (De Inv. Rhet. ii) that one kind of justice is called
vindictive. Therefore it seems that penance is a species of justice.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[3] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (A[1], ad 2) penance is a special virtue
not merely because it sorrows for evil done (since charity would suffice
for that), but also because the penitent grieves for the sin he has
committed, inasmuch as it is an offense against God, and purposes to
amend. Now amendment for an offense committed against anyone is not made
by merely ceasing to offend, but it is necessary to make some kind of
compensation, which obtains in offenses committed against another, just
as retribution does, only that compensation is on the part of the
offender, as when he makes satisfaction, whereas retribution is on the
part of the person offended against. Each of these belongs to the matter
of justice, because each is a kind of commutation. Wherefore it is
evident that penance, as a virtue, is a part of justice.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[3] Body Para. 2/2
It must be observed, however, that according to the Philosopher (Ethic.
v, 6) a thing is said to be just in two ways, simply and relatively. A
thing is just simply when it is between equals, since justice is a kind
of equality, and he calls this the politic or civil just, because all
citizens are equal, in the point of being immediately under the ruler,
retaining their freedom. But a thing is just relatively when it is
between parties of whom one is subject to the other, as a servant under
his master, a son under his father, a wife under her husband. It is this
kind of just that we consider in penance. Wherefore the penitent has
recourse to God with a purpose of amendment, as a servant to his master,
according to Ps. 122:2: "Behold, as the eyes of servants are on the hands
of their masters . . . so are our eyes unto the Lord our God, until He
have mercy on us"; and as a son to his father, according to Lk. 15:21:
"Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee"; and as a wife to
her husband, according to Jer. 3:1: "Thou hast prostituted thyself to
many lovers; nevertheless return to Me, saith the Lord."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: As stated in Ethic. v, 1, justice is a virtue towards
another person, and the matter of justice is not so much the person to
whom justice is due as the thing which is the subject of distribution or
commutation. Hence the matter of penance is not God, but human acts,
whereby God is offended or appeased; whereas God is as one to whom
justice is due. Wherefore it is evident that penance is not a theological
virtue, because God is not its matter or object.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The mean of justice is the equality that is established
between those between whom justice is, as stated in Ethic. v. But in
certain cases perfect equality cannot be established, on account of the
excellence of one, as between father and son, God and man, as the
Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 14), wherefore in such cases, he that
falls short of the other must do whatever he can. Yet this will not be
sufficient simply, but only according to the acceptance of the higher
one; and this is what is meant by ascribing excess to penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As there is a kind of commutation in favors, when, to wit,
a man gives thanks for a favor received, so also is there commutation in
the matter of offenses, when, on account of an offense committed against
another, a man is either punished against his will, which pertains to
vindictive justice, or makes amends of his own accord, which belongs to
penance, which regards the person of the sinner, just as vindictive
justice regards the person of the judge. Therefore it is evident that
both are comprised under commutative justice.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Although penance is directly a species of justice, yet, in
a fashion, it comprises things pertaining to all the virtues; for
inasmuch as there is a justice of man towards God, it must have a share
in matter pertaining to the theological virtues, the object of which is
God. Consequently penance comprises faith in Christ's Passion, whereby we
are cleansed of our sins, hope for pardon, and hatred of vice, which
pertains to charity. Inasmuch as it is a moral virtue, it has a share of
prudence, which directs all the moral virtues: but from the very nature
of justice, it has not only something belonging to justice, but also
something belonging to temperance and fortitude, inasmuch as those things
which cause pleasure, and which pertain to temperance, and those which
cause terror, which fortitude moderates, are objects of commutative
justice. Accordingly it belongs to justice both to abstain from pleasure,
which belongs to temperance, and to bear with hardships, which belongs to
fortitude.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the will is properly the subject of penance?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the subject of penance is not properly the
will. For penance is a species of sorrow. But sorrow is in the
concupiscible part, even as joy is. Therefore penance is in the
concupiscible faculty.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, penance is a kind of vengeance, as Augustine states in
De Poenitentia [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is
unknown]. But vengeance seems to regard the irascible faculty, since
anger is the desire for vengeance. Therefore it seems that penance is in
the irascible part.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the past is the proper object of the memory, according
to the Philosopher (De Memoria i). Now penance regards the past, as
stated above (A[1], ad 2, ad 3). Therefore penance is subjected in the
memory.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[4] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, nothing acts where it is not. Now penance removes sin
from all the powers of the soul. Therefore penance is in every power of
the soul, and not only in the will.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Penance is a kind of sacrifice, according to Ps. 50:19:
"A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit." But to offer a sacrifice is
an act of the will, according to Ps. 53:8: "I will freely sacrifice to
Thee." Therefore penance is in the will.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, We can speak of penance in two ways: first, in so far as
it is a passion, and thus, since it is a kind of sorrow, it is in the
concupiscible part as its subject; secondly, in so far as it is a virtue,
and thus, as stated above (A[3]), it is a species of justice. Now
justice, as stated in the FS, Q[56], A[6], is subjected in the rational
appetite which is the will. Therefore it is evident that penance, in so
far as it is a virtue, is subjected in the will, and its proper act is
the purpose of amending what was committed against God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This argument considers penance as a passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: To desire vengeance on another, through passion, belongs to
the irascible appetite, but to desire or take vengeance on oneself or on
another, through reason, belongs to the will.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The memory is a power that apprehends the past. But penance
belongs not to the apprehensive but to the appetitive power, which
presupposes an act of the apprehension. Wherefore penance is not in the
memory, but presupposes it.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[4] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: The will, as stated above (FP, Q[82], A[4]; FS, Q[9], A[1]
), moves all the other powers of the soul; so that it is not unreasonable
for penance to be subjected in the will, and to produce an effect in each
power of the soul.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether penance originates from fear?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that penance does not originate from fear. For
penance originates in displeasure at sin. But this belongs to charity, as
stated above (A[3]). Therefore penance originates from love rather than
fear.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, men are induced to do penance, through the expectation
of the heavenly kingdom, according to Mt. 3:2 and Mt. 4:17: "Do penance,
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Now the kingdom of heaven is the
object of hope. Therefore penance results from hope rather than from fear.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, fear is an internal act of man. But penance does not
seem to arise in us through any work of man, but through the operation of
God, according to Jer. 31:19: "After Thou didst convert me I did
penance." Therefore penance does not result from fear.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Is. 26:17): "As a woman with child, when
she draweth near the time of her delivery, is in pain, and crieth out in
her pangs, so ere we become," by penance, to wit; and according to
another [*The Septuagint] version the text continues: "Through fear of
Thee, O Lord, we have conceived, and been as it were in labor, and have
brought forth the spirit of salvation," i.e. of salutary penance, as is
clear from what precedes. Therefore penance results from fear.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[5] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, We may speak of penance in two ways: first, as to the
habit, and then it is infused by God immediately without our operating as
principal agents, but not without our co-operating dispositively by
certain acts. Secondly, we may speak of penance, with regard to the acts
whereby in penance we co-operate with God operating, the first principle
[*Cf. FS, Q[113]] of which acts is the operation of God in turning the
heart, according to Lam. 5:21: "Convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall
be converted"; the second, an act of faith; the third, a movement of
servile fear, whereby a man is withdrawn from sin through fear of
punishment; the fourth, a movement of hope, whereby a man makes a purpose
of amendment, in the hope of obtaining pardon; the fifth, a movement of
charity, whereby sin is displeasing to man for its own sake and no longer
for the sake of the punishment; the sixth, a movement of filial fear
whereby a man, of his own accord, offers to make amends to God through
fear of Him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[5] Body Para. 2/2
Accordingly it is evident that the act of penance results from servile
fear as from the first movement of the appetite in this direction and
from filial fear as from its immediate and proper principle.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Sin begins to displease a man, especially a sinner, on
account of the punishments which servile fear regards, before it
displeases him on account of its being an offense against God, or on
account of its wickedness, which pertains to charity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: When the kingdom of heaven is said to be at hand, we are
to understand that the king is on his way, not only to reward but also to
punish. Wherefore John the Baptist said (Mt. 3:7): "Ye brood of vipers,
who hath showed you to flee from the wrath to come?"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Even the movement of fear proceeds from God's act in
turning the heart; wherefore it is written (Dt. 5:29): "Who shall give
them to have such a mind, to fear Me?" And so the fact that penance
results from fear does not hinder its resulting from the act of God in
turning the heart.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether penance is the first of the virtues?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that penance is the first of the virtues. Because,
on Mt. 3:2, "Do penance," etc., a gloss says: "The first virtue is to
destroy the old man, and hate sin by means of penance."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, withdrawal from one extreme seems to precede approach to
the other. Now all the other virtues seem to regard approach to a term,
because they all direct man to do good; whereas penance seems to direct
him to withdraw from evil. Therefore it seems that penance precedes all
the other virtues.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, before penance, there is sin in the soul. Now no virtue
is compatible with sin in the soul. Therefore no virtue precedes penance,
which is itself the first of all and opens the door to the others by
expelling sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Penance results from faith, hope, and charity, as
already stated (AA[2],5). Therefore penance is not the first of the
virtues.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[6] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, In speaking of the virtues, we do not consider the order
of time with regard to the habits, because, since the virtues are
connected with one another, as stated in the FS, Q[65], A[1], they all
begin at the same time to be in the soul; but one is said to precede the
other in the order of nature, which order depends on the order of their
acts, in so far as the act of one virtue presupposes the act of another.
Accordingly, then, one must say that, even in the order of time, certain
praiseworthy acts can precede the act and the habit of penance, e.g. acts
of dead faith and hope, and an act of servile fear; while the act and
habit of charity are, in point of time, simultaneous with the act and
habit of penance, and with the habits of the other virtues. For, as was
stated in the FS, Q[113], AA[7],8, in the justification of the ungodly,
the movement of the free-will towards God, which is an act of faith
quickened by charity, and the movement of the free-will towards sin,
which is the act of penance, are simultaneous. Yet of these two acts, the
former naturally precedes the latter, because the act of the virtue of
penance is directed against sin, through love of God; where the
first-mentioned act is the reason and cause of the second.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[6] Body Para. 2/2
Consequently penance is not simply the first of the virtues, either in
the order of time, or in the order of nature, because, in the order of
nature, the theological virtues precede it simply. Nevertheless, in a
certain respect, it is the first of the other virtues in the order of
time, as regards its act, because this act is the first in the
justification of the ungodly; whereas in the order of nature, the other
virtues seem to precede, as that which is natural precedes that which is
accidental; because the other virtues seem to be necessary for man's
good, by reason of their very nature, whereas penance is only necessary
if something, viz. sin, be presupposed, as stated above (Q[55], A[2]),
when we spoke of the relation of the sacrament of penance to the other
sacraments aforesaid.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This gloss is to be taken as meaning that the act of
penance is the first in point of time, in comparison with the acts of the
other virtues.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: In successive movements withdrawal from one extreme
precedes approach to the other, in point of time; and also in the order
of nature, if we consider the subject, i.e. the order of the material
cause; but if we consider the order of the efficient and final causes,
approach to the end is first, for it is this that the efficient cause
intends first of all: and it is this order which we consider chiefly in
the acts of the soul, as stated in Phys. ii.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[85] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Penance opens the door to the other virtues, because it
expels sin by the virtues of faith, hope and charity, which precede it in
the order of nature; yet it so opens the door to them that they enter at
the same time as it: because, in the justification of the ungodly, at the
same time as the free-will is moved towards God and against sin, the sin
is pardoned and grace infused, and with grace all the virtues, as stated
in the FS, Q[65], AA[3],5.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] Out. Para. 1/2
OF THE EFFECT OF PENANCE, AS REGARDS THE PARDON OF MORTAL SIN (SIX
ARTICLES)
We must now consider the effect of Penance; and (1) as regards the
pardon of mortal sins; (2) as regards the pardon of venial sins; (3) as
regards the return of sins which have been pardoned; (4) as regards the
recovery of the virtues.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] Out. Para. 2/2
Under the first head there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether all mortal sins are taken away by Penance?
(2) Whether they can be taken away without Penance?
(3) Whether one can be taken away without the other?
(4) Whether Penance takes away the guilt while the debt remains?
(5) Whether any remnants of sin remain?
(6) Whether the removal of sin is the effect of Penance as a virtue, or
as a sacrament?
�Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether all sins are taken away by Penance?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that not all sins are taken away by Penance. For
the Apostle says (Heb. 12:17) that Esau "found no place of repentance,
although with tears he had sought it," which a gloss explains as meaning
that "he found no place of pardon and blessing through Penance": and it
is related (2 Macc. 9:13) of Antiochus, that "this wicked man prayed to
the Lord, of Whom he was not to obtain mercy." Therefore it does not seem
that all sins are taken away by Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i) that "so great
is the stain of that sin (namely, when a man, after coming to the
knowledge of God through the grace of Christ, resists fraternal charity,
and by the brands of envy combats grace itself) that he is unable to
humble himself in prayer, although he is forced by his wicked conscience
to acknowledge and confess his sin." Therefore not every sin can be taken
away by Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, our Lord said (Mt. 12:32): "He that shall speak against
the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor
in the world to come." Therefore not every sin can be pardoned through
Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Ezech. 18:22): "I will not remember" any
more "all his iniquities that he hath done."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[1] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, The fact that a sin cannot be taken away by Penance may
happen in two ways: first, because of the impossibility of repenting of
sin; secondly, because of Penance being unable to blot out a sin. In the
first way the sins of the demons and of men who are lost, cannot be
blotted out by Penance, because their will is confirmed in evil, so that
sin cannot displease them as to its guilt, but only as to the punishment
which they suffer, by reason of which they have a kind of repentance,
which yet is fruitless, according to Wis. 5:3: "Repenting, and groaning
for anguish of spirit." Consequently such Penance brings no hope of
pardon, but only despair. Nevertheless no sin of a wayfarer can be such
as that, because his will is flexible to good and evil. Wherefore to say
that in this life there is any sin of which one cannot repent, is
erroneous, first, because this would destroy free-will, secondly, because
this would be derogatory to the power of grace, whereby the heart of any
sinner whatsoever can be moved to repent, according to Prov. 21:1: "The
heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord: whithersoever He will He
shall turn it."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[1] Body Para. 2/3
It is also erroneous to say that any sin cannot be pardoned through true
Penance. First, because this is contrary to Divine mercy, of which it is
written (Joel 2:13) that God is "gracious and merciful, patient, and rich
in mercy, and ready to repent of the evil"; for, in a manner, God would
be overcome by man, if man wished a sin to be blotted out, which God were
unwilling to blot out. Secondly, because this would be derogatory to the
power of Christ's Passion, through which Penance produces its effect, as
do the other sacraments, since it is written (1 Jn. 2:2): "He is the
propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of
the whole world."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[1] Body Para. 3/3
Therefore we must say simply that, in this life, every sin can be
blotted out by true Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Esau did not truly repent. This is evident from his saying
(Gn. 27:41): "The days will come of the mourning of my father, and I will
kill my brother Jacob." Likewise neither did Antiochus repent truly;
since he grieved for his past sin, not because he had offended God
thereby, but on account of the sickness which he suffered in his body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: These words of Augustine should be understood thus: "So
great is the stain of that sin, that man is unable to humble himself in
prayer," i.e. it is not easy for him to do so; in which sense we say that
a man cannot be healed, when it is difficult to heal him. Yet this is
possible by the power of God's grace, which sometimes turns men even
"into the depths of the sea" (Ps. 67:23).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The word or blasphemy spoken against the Holy Ghost is
final impenitence, as Augustine states (De Verb. Dom. xi), which is
altogether unpardonable, because after this life is ended, there is no
pardon of sins. or, if by the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, we
understand sin committed through certain malice, this means either that
the blasphemy itself against the Holy Ghost is unpardonable, i.e. not
easily pardonable, or that such a sin does not contain in itself any
motive for pardon, or that for such a sin a man is punished both in this
and in the next world, as we explained in the SS, Q[14], A[3].
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether sin can be pardoned without Penance?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that sin can be pardoned without Penance. For the
power of God is no less with regard to adults than with regard to
children. But He pardons the sins of children without Penance. Therefore
He also pardons adults without penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, God did not bind His power to the sacraments. But
Penance is a sacrament. Therefore by God's power sin can be pardoned
without Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, God's mercy is greater than man's. Now man sometimes
forgives another for offending him, without his repenting: wherefore our
Lord commanded us (Mt. 5:44): "Love your enemies, do good to them that
hate you." Much more, therefore, does God pardon men for offending him,
without their repenting.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Lord said (Jer. 18:8): "If that nation . . . shall
repent of their evil" which they have done, "I also will repent of the
evil that I have thought to do them," so that, on the other hand, if man
"do not penance," it seems that God will not pardon him his sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, It is impossible for a mortal actual sin to be pardoned
without penance, if we speak of penance as a virtue. For, as sin is an
offense against God, He pardons sin in the same way as he pardons an
offense committed against Him. Now an offense is directly opposed to
grace, since one man is said to be offended with another, because he
excludes him from his grace. Now, as stated in the FS, Q[110], A[1], the
difference between the grace of God and the grace of man, is that the
latter does not cause, but presupposes true or apparent goodness in him
who is graced, whereas the grace of God causes goodness in the man who is
graced, because the good-will of God, which is denoted by the word
"grace," is the cause of all created good. Hence it is possible for a man
to pardon an offense, for which he is offended with someone, without any
change in the latter's will; but it is impossible that God pardon a man
for an offense, without his will being changed. Now the offense of mortal
sin is due to man's will being turned away from God, through being turned
to some mutable good. Consequently, for the pardon of this offense
against God, it is necessary for man's will to be so changed as to turn
to God and to renounce having turned to something else in the aforesaid
manner, together with a purpose of amendment; all of which belongs to the
nature of penance as a virtue. Therefore it is impossible for a sin to be
pardoned anyone without penance as a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
But the sacrament of Penance, as stated above (Q[88], A[3]), is
perfected by the priestly office of binding and loosing, without which
God can forgive sins, even as Christ pardoned the adulterous woman, as
related in Jn. 8, and the woman that was a sinner, as related in Luke
vii, whose sins, however, He did not forgive without the virtue of
penance: for as Gregory states (Hom. xxxiii in Evang.), "He drew inwardly
by grace," i.e. by penance, "her whom He received outwardly by His mercy."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: In children there is none but original sin, which consists,
not in an actual disorder of the will, but in a habitual disorder of
nature, as explained in the FS, Q[82], A[1], and so in them the
forgiveness of sin is accompanied by a habitual change resulting from the
infusion of grace and virtues, but not by an actual change. On the other
hand, in the case of an adult, in whom there are actual sins, which
consist in an actual disorder of the will, there is no remission of sins,
even in Baptism, without an actual change of the will, which is the
effect of Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: This argument takes Penance as a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: God's mercy is more powerful than man's, in that it moves
man's will to repent, which man's mercy cannot do.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether by Penance one sin can be pardoned without another?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that by Penance one sin can be pardoned without
another. For it is written (Amos 4:7): "I caused it to rain upon one
city, and caused it not to rain upon another city; one piece was rained
upon: and the piece whereupon I rained not, withered." These words are
expounded by Gregory, who says (Hom. x super Ezech.): "When a man who
hates his neighbor, breaks himself of other vices, rain falls on one part
of the city, leaving the other part withered, for there are some men who,
when they prune some vices, become much more rooted in others." Therefore
one sin can be forgiven by Penance, without another.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Ambrose in commenting on Ps. 118, "Blessed are the
undefiled in the way," after expounding verse 136 ("My eyes have sent
forth springs of water"), says that "the first consolation is that God is
mindful to have mercy; and the second, that He punishes, for although
faith be wanting, punishment makes satisfaction and raises us up."
Therefore a man can be raised up from one sin, while the sin of unbelief
remains.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, when several things are not necessarily together, one
can be removed without the other. Now it was stated in the FS, Q[73],
A[1] that sins are not connected together, so that one sin can be without
another. Therefore also one sin can be taken away by Penance without
another being taken away.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[3] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, sins are the debts, for which we pray for pardon when we
say in the Lord's Prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses," etc. Now man
sometimes forgives one debt without forgiving another. Therefore God
also, by Penance, forgives one sin without another.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[3] Obj. 5 Para. 1/1
OBJ 5: Further, man's sins are forgiven him through the love of God,
according to Jer. 31:3: "I have loved thee with an everlasting love,
therefore have I drawn thee, taking pity on thee." Now there is nothing
to hinder God from loving a man in one respect, while being offended with
him in another, even as He loves the sinner as regards his nature, while
hating him for his sin. Therefore it seems possible for God, by Penance,
to pardon one sin without another.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says in De Poenitentia [*De vera et falsa
Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "There are many who
repent having sinned, but not completely; for they except certain things
which give them pleasure, forgetting that our Lord delivered from the
devil the man who was both dumb and deaf, whereby He shows us that we are
never healed unless it be from all sins."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, It is impossible for Penance to take one sin away without
another. First because sin is taken away by grace removing the offense
against God. Wherefore it was stated in the FS, Q[109], A[7]; FS, Q[113],
A[2] that without grace no sin can be forgiven. Now every mortal sin is
opposed to grace and excludes it. Therefore it is impossible for one sin
to be pardoned without another. Secondly, because, as shown above (A[2])
mortal sin cannot be forgiven without true Penance, to which it belongs
to renounce sin, by reason of its being against God, which is common to
all mortal sins: and where the same reason applies, the result will be
the same. Consequently a man cannot be truly penitent, if he repent of
one sin and not of another. For if one particular sin were displeasing to
him, because it is against the love of God above all things (which motive
is necessary for true repentance), it follows that he would repent of
all. Whence it follows that it is impossible for one sin to be pardoned
through Penance, without another. Thirdly, because this would be contrary
to the perfection of God's mercy, since His works are perfect, as stated
in Dt. 32:4; wherefore whomsoever He pardons, He pardons altogether.
Hence Augustine says [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of
which is unknown], that "it is irreverent and heretical to expect half a
pardon from Him Who is just and justice itself."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: These words of Gregory do not refer to the forgiveness of
the guilt, but to the cessation from act, because sometimes a man who has
been wont to commit several kinds of sin, renounces one and not the
other; which is indeed due to God's assistance, but does not reach to the
pardon of the sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: In this saying of Ambrose "faith" cannot denote the faith
whereby we believe in Christ, because, as Augustine says on Jn. 15:22,
"If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin" (viz.
unbelief): "for this is the sin which contains all others": but it stands
for consciousness, because sometimes a man receives pardon for a sin of
which he is not conscious, through the punishment which he bears
patiently.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Although sins are not connected in so far as they turn
towards a mutable good, yet they are connected in so far as they turn
away from the immutable Good, which applies to all mortal sins in common.
and it is thus that they have the character of an offense which needs to
be removed by Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[3] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Debt as regards external things, e.g. money, is not opposed
to friendship through which the debt is pardoned. hence one debt can be
condoned without another. On the other hand, the debt of sin is opposed
to friendship, and so one sin or offense is not pardoned without another;
for it would seem absurd for anyone to ask even a man to forgive him one
offense and not another.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[3] R.O. 5 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 5: The love whereby God loves man's nature, does not ordain
man to the good of glory from which man is excluded by any mortal sin.
but the love of grace, whereby mortal sin is forgiven, ordains man to
eternal life, according to Rm. 6:23: "The grace of God (is) life
everlasting." Hence there is no comparison.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the debt of punishment remains after the guilt has been forgiven
through Penance?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that no debt of punishment remains after the guilt
has been forgiven through Penance. For when the cause is removed, the
effect is removed. But the guilt is the cause of the debt of punishment:
since a man deserves to be punished because he has been guilty of a sin.
Therefore when the sin has been forgiven, no debt of punishment can
remain.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, according to the Apostle (Rm. 5) the gift of Christ is
more effective than the sin of Adam. Now, by sinning, man incurs at the
same time guilt and the debt of punishment. Much more therefore, by the
gift of grace, is the guilt forgiven and at the same time the debt of
punishment remitted.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the forgiveness of sins is effected in Penance through
the power of Christ's Passion, according to Rm. 3:25: "Whom God hath
proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His Blood . . . for the
remission of former sins." Now Christ's Passion made satisfaction
sufficient for all sins, as stated above (QQ[48],49,79, A[5]). Therefore
after the guilt has been pardoned, no debt of punishment remains.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is related (2 Kgs. 12:13) that when David penitent
had said to Nathan: "I have sinned against the Lord," Nathan said to him:
"The Lord also hath taken away thy sin, thou shalt not die. Nevertheless
. . the child that is born to thee shall surely die," which was to
punish him for the sin he had committed, as stated in the same place.
Therefore a debt of some punishment remains after the guilt has been
forgiven.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[4] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated in the FS, Q[87], A[4], in mortal sin there are
two things, namely, a turning from the immutable Good, and an inordinate
turning to mutable good. Accordingly, in so far as mortal sin turns away
from the immutable Good, it induces a debt of eternal punishment, so that
whosoever sins against the eternal Good should be punished eternally.
Again, in so far as mortal sin turns inordinately to a mutable good, it
gives rise to a debt of some punishment, because the disorder of guilt is
not brought back to the order of justice, except by punishment: since it
is just that he who has been too indulgent to his will, should suffer
something against his will, for thus will equality be restored. Hence it
is written (Apoc. 18:7): "As much as she hath glorified herself, and
lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[4] Body Para. 2/2
Since, however, the turning to mutable good is finite, sin does not, in
this respect, induce a debt of eternal punishment. Wherefore, if man
turns inordinately to a mutable good, without turning from God, as
happens in venial sins, he incurs a debt, not of eternal but of temporal
punishment. Consequently when guilt is pardoned through grace, the soul
ceases to be turned away from God, through being united to God by grace:
so that at the same time, the debt of punishment is taken away, albeit a
debt of some temporal punishment may yet remain.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Mortal sin both turns away from God and turns to a created
good. But, as stated in the FS, Q[71], A[6], the turning away from God is
as its form while the turning to created good is as its matter. Now if
the formal element of anything be removed, the species is taken away:
thus, if you take away rational, you take away the human species.
Consequently mortal sin is said to be pardoned from the very fact that,
by means of grace, the aversion of the mind from God is taken away
together with the debt of eternal punishment: and yet the material
element remains, viz. the inordinate turning to a created good, for which
a debt of temporal punishment is due.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: As stated in the FS, Q[109], AA[7],8; FS, Q[111], A[2], it
belongs to grace to operate in man by justifying him from sin, and to
co-operate with man that his work may be rightly done. Consequently the
forgiveness of guilt and of the debt of eternal punishment belongs to
operating grace, while the remission of the debt of temporal punishment
belongs to co-operating grace, in so far as man, by bearing punishment
patiently with the help of Divine grace, is released also from the debt
of temporal punishment. Consequently just as the effect of operating
grace precedes the effect of co-operating grace, so too, the remission of
guilt and of eternal punishment precedes the complete release from
temporal punishment, since both are from grace, but the former, from
grace alone, the latter, from grace and free-will.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Christ's Passion is of itself sufficient to remove all debt
of punishment, not only eternal, but also temporal; and man is released
from the debt of punishment according to the measure of his share in the
power of Christ's Passion. Now in Baptism man shares the Power of
Christ's Passion fully, since by water and the Spirit of Christ, he dies
with Him to sin, and is born again in Him to a new life, so that, in
Baptism, man receives the remission of all debt of punishment. In
Penance, on the other hand, man shares in the power of Christ's Passion
according to the measure of his own acts, which are the matter of
Penance, as water is of Baptism, as stated above (Q[84], AA[1],3).
Wherefore the entire debt of punishment is not remitted at once after the
first act of Penance, by which act the guilt is remitted, but only when
all the acts of Penance have been completed.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the remnants of sin are removed when a mortal sin is forgiven?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that all the remnants of sin are removed when a
mortal sin is forgiven. For Augustine says in De Poenitentia [*De vera et
falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "Our Lord never
healed anyone without delivering him wholly; for He wholly healed the man
on the Sabbath, since He delivered his body from all disease, and his
soul from all taint." Now the remnants of sin belong to the disease of
sin. Therefore it does not seem possible for any remnants of sin to
remain when the guilt has been pardoned.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv), "good is more
efficacious than evil, since evil does not act save in virtue of some
good." Now, by sinning, man incurs the taint of sin all at once. Much
more, therefore, by repenting, is he delivered also from all remnants of
sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, God's work is more efficacious than man's. Now by the
exercise of good human works the remnants of contrary sins are removed.
Much more, therefore, are they taken away by the remission of guilt,
which is a work of God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, We read (Mk. 8) that the blind man whom our Lord
enlightened, was restored first of all to imperfect sight, wherefore he
said (Mk. 8:24): "I see men, as it were trees, walking"; and afterwards
he was restored perfectly, "so that he saw all things clearly." Now the
enlightenment of the blind man signifies the delivery of the sinner.
Therefore after the first remission of sin, whereby the sinner is
restored to spiritual sight, there still remain in him some remnants of
his past sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Mortal sin, in so far as it turns inordinately to a
mutable good, produces in the soul a certain disposition, or even a
habit, if the acts be repeated frequently. Now it has been said above
(A[4]) that the guilt of mortal sin is pardoned through grace removing
the aversion of the mind from God. Nevertheless when that which is on the
part of the aversion has been taken away by grace, that which is on the
part of the inordinate turning to a mutable good can remain, since this
may happen to be without the other, as stated above (A[4]). Consequently,
there is no reason why, after the guilt has been forgiven, the
dispositions caused by preceding acts should not remain, which are called
the remnants of sin. Yet they remain weakened and diminished, so as not
to domineer over man, and they are after the manner of dispositions
rather than of habits, like the "fomes" which remains after Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: God heals the whole man perfectly; but sometimes suddenly,
as Peter's mother-in-law was restored at once to perfect health, so that
"rising she ministered to them" (Lk. 4:39), and sometimes by degrees, as
we said above (Q[44], A[3], ad 2) about the blind man who was restored to
sight (Mt. 8). And so too, He sometimes turns the heart of man with such
power, that it receives at once perfect spiritual health, not only the
guilt being pardoned, but all remnants of sin being removed as was the
case with Magdalen (Lk. 7); whereas at other times He sometimes first
pardons the guilt by operating grace, and afterwards, by co-operating
grace, removes the remnants of sin by degrees.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Sin too, sometimes induces at once a weak disposition, such
as is the result of one act, and sometimes a stronger disposition, the
result of many acts.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: One human act does not remove all the remnants of sin,
because, as stated in the Predicaments (Categor. viii) "a vicious man by
doing good works will make but little progress so as to be any better,
but if he continue in good practice, he will end in being good as to
acquired virtue." But God's grace does this much more effectively,
whether by one or by several acts.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the forgiveness of guilt is an effect of Penance?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the forgiveness of guilt is not an effect of
penance as a virtue. For penance is said to be a virtue, in so far as it
is a principle of a human action. But human action does nothing towards
the remission of guilt, since this is an effect of operating grace.
Therefore the forgiveness of guilt is not an effect of penance as a
virtue.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, certain other virtues are more excellent than penance.
But the forgiveness of sin is not said to be the effect of any other
virtue. Neither, therefore, is it the effect of penance as a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, there is no forgiveness of sin except through the power
of Christ's Passion, according to Heb. 9:22: "Without shedding of blood
there is no remission." Now Penance, as a sacrament, produces its effect
through the power of Christ's Passion, even as the other sacraments do,
as was shown above (Q[62], AA[4],5). Therefore the forgiveness of sin is
the effect of Penance, not as a virtue, but as a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Properly speaking, the cause of a thing is that without
which it cannot be, since every defect depends on its cause. Now
forgiveness of sin can come from God without the sacrament of Penance,
but not without the virtue of penance, as stated above (Q[84], A[5], ad
3; Q[85], A[2]); so that, even before the sacraments of the New Law were
instituted, God pardoned the sins of the penitent. Therefore the
forgiveness of sin is chiefly the effect of penance as a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[6] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Penance is a virtue in so far as it is a principle of
certain human acts. Now the human acts, which are performed by the
sinner, are the material element in the sacrament of Penance. Moreover
every sacrament produces its effect, in virtue not only of its form, but
also of its matter. because both these together make the one sacrament,
as stated above (Q[60], A[6], ad 2, A[7]). Hence in Baptism forgiveness
of sin is effected, in virtue not only of the form (but also of the
matter, viz. water, albeit chiefly in virtue of the form) [*The words in
brackets are omitted in the Leonine edition] from which the water
receives its power---and, similarly, the forgiveness of sin is the effect
of Penance, chiefly by the power of the keys, which is vested in the
ministers, who furnish the formal part of the sacrament, as stated above
(Q[84], A[3]), and secondarily by the instrumentality of those acts of
the penitent which pertain to the virtue of penance, but only in so far
as such acts are, in some way, subordinate to the keys of the Church.
Accordingly it is evident that the forgiveness of sin is the effect of
penance as a virtue, but still more of Penance as a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The effect of operating grace is the justification of the
ungodly (as stated in the FS, Q[113]), wherein there is, as was there
stated (AA[1],2,3), not only infusion of grace and forgiveness of sin,
but also a movement of the free-will towards God, which is an act of
faith quickened by charity, and a movement of the free-will against sin,
which is the act of penance. Yet these human acts are there as the
effects of operating grace, and are produced at the same time as the
forgiveness of sin. Consequently the forgiveness of sin does not take
place without an act of the virtue of penance, although it is the effect
of operating grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: In the justification of the ungodly there is not only an
act of penance, but also an act of faith, as stated above (ad 1: FS,
Q[113], A[4]). Wherefore the forgiveness of sin is accounted the effect
not only of the virtue of penance, but also, and that chiefly, of faith
and charity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: The act of the virtue of penance is subordinate to Christ's
Passion both by faith, and by its relation to the keys of the Church; and
so, in both ways, it causes the forgiveness of sin, by the power of
Christ's Passion.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[86] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
To the argument advanced in the contrary sense we reply that the act of
the virtue of penance is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, through
being an inseparable effect of grace, whereby chiefly is sin pardoned,
and which produces its effect in all the sacraments. Consequently it only
follows that grace is a higher cause of the forgiveness of sin than the
sacrament of Penance. Moreover, it must be observed that, under the Old
Law and the law of nature, there was a sacrament of Penance after a
fashion, as stated above (Q[84], A[7], ad 2).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE REMISSION OF VENIAL SIN (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider the forgiveness of venial sins, under which head
there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether venial sin can be forgiven without Penance?
(2) Whether it can be forgiven without the infusion of grace?
(3) Whether venial sins are forgiven by the sprinkling of holy water, a
bishop's blessing, the beating of the breast, the Lord's Prayer, and the
like?
(4) Whether a venial sin can be taken away without a mortal sin?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether venial sin can be forgiven without Penance?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that venial sin can be forgiven without penance.
For, as stated above (Q[84], A[10], ad 4), it is essential to true
penance that man should not only sorrow for his past sins, but also that
he should purpose to avoid them for the future. Now venial sins are
forgiven without any such purpose, for it is certain that man cannot lead
the present life without committing venial sins. Therefore venial sins
can be forgiven without penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, there is no penance without actual displeasure at one's
sins. But venial sins can be taken away without any actual displeasure at
them, as would be the case if a man were to be killed in his sleep, for
Christ's sake, since he would go to heaven at once, which would not
happen if his venial sins remained. Therefore venial sins can be forgiven
without penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, venial sins are contrary to the fervor of charity, as
stated in the SS, Q[24], A[10]. Now one contrary is removed by another.
Therefore forgiveness of venial sins is caused by the fervor of charity,
which may be without actual displeasure at venial sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says in De Poenitentia [*De vera et falsa
Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown], that "there is a
penance which is done for venial sins in the Church every day" which
would be useless if venial sins could be forgiven without Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[1] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Forgiveness of sin, as stated above (Q[86], A[2]), is
effected by man being united to God from Whom sin separates him in some
way. Now this separation is made complete by mortal sin, and incomplete
by venial sin: because, by mortal sin, the mind through acting against
charity is altogether turned away from God; whereas by venial sin man's
affections are clogged, so that they are slow in tending towards God.
Consequently both kinds of sin are taken away by penance, because by both
of them man's will is disordered through turning inordinately to a
created good; for just as mortal sin cannot be forgiven so long as the
will is attached to sin, so neither can venial sin, because while the
cause remains, the effect remains.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[1] Body Para. 2/2
Yet a more perfect penance is requisite for the forgiveness of mortal
sin, namely that man should detest actually the mortal sin which he
committed, so far as lies in his power, that is to say, he should
endeavor to remember each single mortal sin, in order to detest each one.
But this is, not required for the forgiveness of venial sins; although it
does not suffice to have habitual displeasure, which is included in the
habit of charity or of penance as a virtue, since then venial sin would
be incompatible with charity, which is evidently untrue. Consequently it
is necessary to have a certain virtual displeasure, so that, for
instance, a man's affections so tend to God and Divine things, that
whatever might happen to him to hamper that tendency would be displeasing
to him, and would grieve him, were he to commit it, even though he were
not to think of it actually: and this is not sufficient for the remission
of mortal sin, except as regards those sins which he fails to remember
after a careful examination.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: When man is in a state of grace, he can avoid all mortal
sins, and each single one; and he can avoid each single venial sin, but
not all, as was explained in the FS, Q[74], A[8], ad 2; FS, Q[109], A[8].
Consequently penance for mortal sins requires man to purpose abstaining
from mortal sins, all and each; whereas penance for venial sins requires
man to purpose abstaining from each, but not from all, because the
weakness of this life does not allow of this. Nevertheless he needs to
have the purpose of taking steps to commit fewer venial sins, else he
would be in danger of falling back, if he gave up the desire of going
forward, or of removing the obstacles to spiritual progress, such as
venial sins are.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Death for Christ's sake, as stated above (Q[66], A[11]),
obtains the power of Baptism, wherefore it washes away all sin, both
venial and mortal, unless it find the will attached to sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The fervor of charity implies virtual displeasure at venial
sins, as stated above (Q[79], A[4]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether infusion of grace is necessary for the remission of venial sins?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that infusion of grace is necessary for the
remission of venial sins. Because an effect is not produced without its
proper cause. Now the proper cause of the remission of sins is grace; for
man's sins are not forgiven through his own merits; wherefore it is
written (Eph. 2:4,5): "God, Who is rich in mercy, for His exceeding
charity, wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath
quickened us together in Christ, by Whose grace you are saved." Therefore
venial sins are not forgiven without infusion of grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, venial sins are not forgiven without Penance. Now grace
is infused, in Penance as in the other sacraments of the New Law.
Therefore venial sins are not forgiven without infusion of grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, venial sin produces a stain on the soul. Now a stain is
not removed save by grace which is the spiritual beauty of the soul.
Therefore it seems that venial sins are not forgiven without infusion of
grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The advent of venial sin neither destroys nor
diminishes grace, as stated in the SS, Q[24], A[10]. Therefore, in like
manner, an infusion of grace is not necessary in order to remove venial
sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, Each thing is removed by its contrary. But venial sin is
not contrary to habitual grace or charity, but hampers its act, through
man being too much attached to a created good, albeit not in opposition
to God, as stated in the FS, Q[88], A[1]; SS, Q[24], A[10]. Therefore,
in order that venial sin be removed, it is not necessary that habitual
grace be infused, but a movement of grace or charity suffices for its
forgiveness.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
Nevertheless, since in those who have the use of free-will (in whom
alone can there be venial sins), there can be no infusion of grace
without an actual movement of the free-will towards God and against sin,
consequently whenever grace is infused anew, venial sins are forgiven.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Even the forgiveness of venial sins is an effect of grace,
in virtue of the act which grace produces anew, but not through any habit
infused anew into the soul.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Venial sin is never forgiven without some act, explicit or
implicit, of the virtue of penance, as stated above (A[1]): it can,
however, be forgiven without the sacrament of Penance, which is formally
perfected by the priestly absolution, as stated above (Q[87], A[2]).
Hence it does not follow that infusion of grace is required for the
forgiveness of venial sin, for although this infusion takes place in
every sacrament, it does not occur in every act of virtue.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Just as there are two kinds of bodily stain, one consisting
in the privation of something required for beauty, e.g. the right color
or the due proportion of members, and another by the introduction of some
hindrance to beauty, e.g. mud or dust; so too, a stain is put on the
soul, in one way, by the privation of the beauty of grace through mortal
sin, in another, by the inordinate inclination of the affections to some
temporal thing, and this is the result of venial sin. Consequently, an
infusion of grace is necessary for the removal of mortal sin, but in
order to remove venial sin, it is necessary to have a movement proceeding
from grace, removing the inordinate attachment to the temporal thing.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether venial sins are removed by the sprinkling of holy water and the
like?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that venial sins are not removed by the sprinkling
of holy water, a bishop's blessing, and the like. For venial sins are not
forgiven without Penance, as stated above (A[1]). But Penance suffices by
itself for the remission of venial sins. Therefore the above have nothing
to do with the remission of venial sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, each of the above bears the same relation to one venial
sin as to all. If therefore, by means of one of them, some venial sin is
remitted, it follows that in like manner all are remitted, so that by
beating his breast once, or by being sprinkled once with holy water, a
man would be delivered from all his venial sins, which seems unreasonable.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, venial sins occasion a debt of some punishment, albeit
temporal; for it is written (1 Cor. 3:12,15) of him that builds up "wood,
hay, stubble" that "he shall be saved, yet so as by fire." Now the above
things whereby venial sins are said to be taken away, contain either no
punishment at all, or very little. Therefore they do not suffice for the
full remission of venial sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says in De Poenitentia [*Hom. 30 inter 1; Ep.
cclxv] that "for our slight sins we strike our breasts, and say: Forgive
us our trespasses," and so it seems that striking one's breast, and the
Lord's Prayer cause the remission of venial sins: and the same seems to
apply to the other things.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (A[2]), no infusion of fresh grace is
required for the forgiveness of a venial sin, but it is enough to have an
act proceeding from grace, in detestation of that venial sin, either
explicit or at least implicit, as when one is moved fervently to God.
Hence, for three reasons, certain things cause the remission of venial
sins: first, because they imply the infusion of grace, since the infusion
of grace removes venial sins, as stated above (A[2]); and so, by the
Eucharist, Extreme Unction, and by all the sacraments of the New Law
without exception, wherein grace is conferred, venial sins are remitted.
Secondly, because they imply a movement of detestation for sin, and in
this way the general confession [*i.e. the recital of the Confiteor or of
an act of contrition], the beating of one's breast, and the Lord's Prayer
conduce to the remission of venial sins, for we ask in the Lord's Prayer:
"Forgive us our trespasses." Thirdly, because they include a movement of
reverence for God and Divine things; and in this way a bishop's blessing,
the sprinkling of holy water, any sacramental anointing, a prayer said in
a dedicated church, and anything else of the kind, conduce to the
remission of venial sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: All these things cause the remission of venial sins, in so
far as they incline the soul to the movement of penance, viz., the
implicit or explicit detestation of one's sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: All these things, so far as they are concerned, conduce to
the remission of all venial sins: but the remission may be hindered as
regards certain venial sins, to which the mind is still actually
attached, even as insincerity sometimes impedes the effect of Baptism.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: By the above things, venial sins are indeed taken away as
regards the guilt, both because those things are a kind of satisfaction,
and through the virtue of charity whose movement is aroused by such
things.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
Yet it does not always happen that, by means of each one, the whole
guilt of punishment is taken away, because, in that case, whoever was
entirely free from mortal sin, would go straight to heaven if sprinkled
with holy water: but the debt of punishment is remitted by means of the
above, according to the movement of fervor towards God, which fervor is
aroused by such things, sometimes more, sometimes less.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether venial sin can be taken away without mortal sin?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that venial sin can be taken away without mortal
sin. For, on Jn. 8:7: "He that is without sin among you, let him first
cast a stone at her," a gloss says that "all those men were in a state of
mortal sin: for venial offenses were forgiven them through the legal
ceremonies." Therefore venial sin can be taken away without mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, no infusion of grace is required for the remission of
venial sin. but it is required for the forgiveness of mortal sin.
Therefore venial sin can be taken away without mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a venial sin differs from a mortal sin more than from
another venial sin. But one venial sin can be pardoned without another,
as stated above (A[3], ad 2; Q[87], A[3]). Therefore a venial sin can be
taken away without a mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 5:26): "Amen I say to thee, thou
shalt not go out from thence," viz., from the prison, into which a man is
cast for mortal sin, "till thou repay the last farthing," by which venial
sin is denoted. Therefore a venial sin is not forgiven without mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[4] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[87], A[3]), there is no remission of
any sin whatever except by the power of grace, because, as the Apostle
declares (Rm. 4:8), it is owing to God's grace that He does not impute
sin to a man, which a gloss on that passage expounds as referring to
venial sin. Now he that is in a state of mortal sin is without the grace
of God. Therefore no venial sin is forgiven him.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Venial offenses, in the passage quoted, denote the
irregularities or uncleannesses which men contracted in accordance with
the Law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Although no new infusion of habitual grace is requisite for
the remission of venial sin, yet it is necessary to exercise some act of
grace, which cannot be in one who is a subject of mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[87] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Venial sin does not preclude every act of grace whereby all
venial sins can be removed; whereas mortal sin excludes altogether the
habit of grace, without which no sin, either mortal or venial, is
remitted. Hence the comparison fails.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE RETURN OF SINS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY BY PENANCE (FOUR
ARTICLES)
We must now consider the return of sins which have been taken away by
Penance: under which head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether sins which have been taken away by Penance return simply
through a subsequent sin?
(2) Whether more specially as regards certain sins they return, in a
way, on account of ingratitude?
(3) Whether the debt of punishment remains the same for sins thus
returned?
(4) Whether this ingratitude, on account of which sins return, is a
special sin?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether sins once forgiven return through a subsequent sin?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that sins once forgiven return through a subsequent
sin. For Augustine says (De Bapt. contra Donat. i, 12): "Our Lord teaches
most explicitly in the Gospel that sins which have been forgiven return,
when fraternal charity ceases, in the example of the servant from whom
his master exacted the payment of the debt already forgiven, because he
had refused to forgive the debt of his fellow-servant." Now fraternal
charity is destroyed through each mortal sin. Therefore sins already
taken away through Penance, return through each subsequent mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, on Lk. 11:24, "I will return into my house, whence I
came out," Bede says: "This verse should make us tremble, we should not
endeavor to explain it away lest through carelessness we give place to
the sin which we thought to have been taken away, and become its slave
once more." Now this would not be so unless it returned. Therefore a sin
returns after once being taken away by Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the Lord said (Ezech. 18:24): "If the just man turn
himself away from his justice, and do iniquity . . . all his justices
which he hath done, shall not be remembered." Now among the other
"justices" which he had done, is also his previous penance, since it was
said above (Q[85], A[3]) that penance is a part of justice. Therefore
when one who has done penance, sins, his previous penance, whereby he
received forgiveness of his sins, is not imputed to him. Therefore his
sins return.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[1] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, past sins are covered by grace, as the Apostle declares
(Rm. 4:7) where he quotes Ps. 31:1: "Blessed are they whose iniquities
are forgiven, and whose sins are covered." But a subsequent mortal sin
takes away grace. Therefore the sins committed previously, become
uncovered: and so, seemingly, they return.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[1] OTC Para. 1/2
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rm. 11:29): "The gifts and the
calling of God are without repentance." Now the penitent's sins are taken
away by a gift of God. Therefore the sins which have been taken away do
not return through a subsequent sin, as though God repented His gift of
forgiveness.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[1] OTC Para. 2/2
Moreover, Augustine says (Lib. Resp. Prosperi i [*Cf. Prosper,
Responsiones ad Capitula Gallorum ii]): "When he that turns away from
Christ, comes to the end of this life a stranger to grace, whither does
he go, except to perdition? Yet he does not fall back into that which had
been forgiven, nor will he be condemned for original sin."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[1] Body Para. 1/5
I answer that, As stated above (Q[86], A[4]), mortal sin contains two
things, aversion from God and adherence to a created good. Now, in mortal
sin, whatever attaches to the aversion, is, considered in itself, common
to all mortal sins, since man turns away from God by every mortal sin, so
that, in consequence, the stain resulting from the privation of grace,
and the debt of everlasting punishment are common to all mortal sins.
This is what is meant by what is written (James 2:10): "Whosoever . . .
shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all." On the other hand,
as regards their adherence they are different from, and sometimes
contrary to one another. Hence it is evident, that on the part of the
adherence, a subsequent mortal sin does not cause the return of mortal
sins previously dispelled, else it would follow that by a sin of
wastefulness a man would be brought back to the habit or disposition of
avarice previously dispelled, so that one contrary would be the cause of
another, which is impossible. But if in mortal sins we consider that
which attaches to the aversion absolutely, then a subsequent mortal sin
[causes the return of that which was comprised in the mortal sins before
they were pardoned, in so far as the subsequent mortal sin] [*The words
in brackets are omitted in the Leonine edition.] deprives man of grace,
and makes him deserving of everlasting punishment, just as he was before.
Nevertheless, since the aversion of mortal sin is [in a way, caused by
the adherence, those things which attach to the aversion are*]
diversified somewhat in relation to various adherences, as it were to
various causes, so that there will be a different aversion, a different
stain, a different debt of punishment, according to the different acts of
mortal sin from which they arise; hence the question is moved whether the
stain and the debt of eternal punishment, as caused by acts of sins
previously pardoned, return through a subsequent mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[1] Body Para. 2/5
Accordingly some have maintained that they return simply even in this
way. But this is impossible, because what God has done cannot be undone
by the work of man. Now the pardon of the previous sins was a work of
Divine mercy, so that it cannot be undone by man's subsequent sin,
according to Rm. 3:3: "Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without
effect?"
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[1] Body Para. 3/5
Wherefore others who maintained the possibility of sins returning, said
that God pardons the sins of a penitent who will afterwards sin again,
not according to His foreknowledge, but only according to His present
justice: since He foresees that He will punish such a man eternally for
his sins, and yet, by His grace, He makes him righteous for the present.
But this cannot stand: because if a cause be placed absolutely, its
effect is placed absolutely; so that if the remission of sins were
effected by grace and the sacraments of grace, not absolutely but under
some condition dependent on some future event, it would follow that
grace and the sacraments of grace are not the sufficient causes of the
remission of sins, which is erroneous, as being derogatory to God's grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[1] Body Para. 4/5
Consequently it is in no way possible for the stain of past sins and the
debt of punishment incurred thereby, to return, as caused by those acts.
Yet it may happen that a subsequent sinful act virtually contains the
debt of punishment due to the previous sin, in so far as when a man sins
a second time, for this very reason he seems to sin more grievously than
before, as stated in Rm. 2:5: "According to thy hardness and impenitent
heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath against the day of wrath,"
from the mere fact, namely, that God's goodness, which waits for us to
repent, is despised. And so much the more is God's goodness despised, if
the first sin is committed a second time after having been forgiven, as
it is a greater favor for the sin to be forgiven than for the sinner to
be endured.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[1] Body Para. 5/5
Accordingly the sin which follows repentance brings back, in a sense,
the debt of punishment due to the sins previously forgiven, not as caused
by those sins already forgiven but as caused by this last sin being
committed, on account of its being aggravated in view of those previous
sins. This means that those sins return, not simply, but in a restricted
sense, viz., in so far as they are virtually contained in the subsequent
sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This saying of Augustine seems to refer to the return of
sins as to the debt of eternal punishment considered in itself, namely,
that he who sins after doing penance incurs a debt of eternal punishment,
just as before, but not altogether for the same "reason." Wherefore
Augustine, after saying (Lib. Resp. Prosperi i [*Cf. Prosper,
Responsiones ad Capitula Gallorum ii]) that "he does not fall back into
that which was forgiven, nor will he be condemned for original sin,"
adds: "Nevertheless, for these last sins he will be condemned to the same
death, which he deserved to suffer for the former," because he incurs the
punishment of eternal death which he deserved for his previous sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: By these words Bede means that the guilt already forgiven
enslaves man, not by the return of his former debt of punishment, but by
the repetition of his act.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: The effect of a subsequent sin is that the former
"justices" are not remembered, in so far as they were deserving of
eternal life, but not in so far as they were a hindrance to sin.
Consequently if a man sins mortally after making restitution, he does not
become guilty as though he had not paid back what he owed; and much less
is penance previously done forgotten as to the pardon of the guilt, since
this is the work of God rather than of man.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[1] R.O. 4 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 4: Grace removes the stain and the debt of eternal punishment
simply; but it covers the past sinful acts, lest, on their account, God
deprive man of grace, and judge him deserving of eternal punishment; and
what grace has once done, endures for ever.
�Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether sins that have been forgiven, return through ingratitude which is
shown especially in four kinds of sin?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that sins do not return through ingratitude, which
is shown especially in four kinds of sin, viz., hatred of one's neighbor,
apostasy from faith, contempt of confession and regret for past
repentance, and which have been expressed in the following verse:
"Fratres odit, apostata fit, spernitque, fateri,
Poenituisse piget, pristina culpa redit."
For the more grievous the sin committed against God after one has
received the grace of pardon, the greater the ingratitude. But there are
sins more grievous than these, such as blasphemy against God, and the sin
against the Holy Ghost. Therefore it seems that sins already pardoned do
not return through ingratitude as manifested in these sins, any more than
as shown in other sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Rabanus says: "God delivered the wicked servant to the
torturers, until he should pay the whole debt, because a man will be
deemed punishable not only for the sins he commits after Baptism, but
also for original sin which was taken away when he was baptized." Now
venial sins are reckoned among our debts, since we pray in their regard:
"Forgive us our trespasses [debita]." Therefore they too return through
ingratitude; and, in like manner seemingly, sins already pardoned return
through venial sins, and not only through those sins mentioned above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, ingratitude is all the greater, according as one sins
after receiving a greater favor. Now innocence whereby one avoids sin is
a Divine favor, for Augustine says (Confess. ii): "Whatever sins I have
avoided committing, I owe it to Thy grace." Now innocence is a greater
gift, than even the forgiveness of all sins. Therefore the first sin
committed after innocence is no less an ingratitude to God, than a sin
committed after repentance, so that seemingly ingratitude in respect of
the aforesaid sins is not the chief cause of sins returning.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xviii [*Cf. Dial. iv]): "It is
evident from the words of the Gospel that if we do not forgive from our
hearts the offenses committed against us, we become once more accountable
for what we rejoiced in as forgiven through Penance": so that ingratitude
implied in the hatred of one's brother is a special cause of the return
of sins already forgiven: and the same seems to apply to the others.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), sins pardoned through Penance are
said to return, in so far as their debt of punishment, by reason of
ingratitude, is virtually contained in the subsequent sin. Now one may be
guilty of ingratitude in two ways: first by doing something against the
favor received, and, in this way, man is ungrateful to God in every
mortal sin whereby he offends God Who forgave his sins, so that by every
subsequent mortal sin, the sins previously pardoned return, on account of
the ingratitude. Secondly, one is guilty of ingratitude, by doing
something not only against the favor itself, but also against the form of
the favor received. If this form be considered on the part of the
benefactor, it is the remission of something due to him; wherefore he who
does not forgive his brother when he asks pardon, and persists in his
hatred, acts against this form. If, however, this form be taken in regard
to the penitent who receives this favor, we find on his part a twofold
movement of the free-will. The first is the movement of the free-will
towards God, and is an act of faith quickened by charity; and against
this a man acts by apostatizing from the faith. The second is a movement
of the free-will against sin, and is the act of penance. This act
consists first, as we have stated above (Q[85], AA[2],5) in man's
detestation of his past sins; and against this a man acts when he regrets
having done penance. Secondly, the act of penance consists in the
penitent purposing to subject himself to the keys of the Church by
confession, according to Ps. 31:5: "I said: I will confess against myself
my injustice to the Lord: and Thou hast forgiven the wickedness of my
sin": and against this a man acts when he scorns to confess as he had
purposed to do.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
Accordingly it is said that the ingratitude of sinners is a special
cause of the return of sins previously forgiven.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: This is not said of these sins as though they were more
grievous than others, but because they are more directly opposed to the
favor of the forgiveness of sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Even venial sins and original sin return in the way
explained above, just as mortal sins do, in so far as the favor conferred
by God in forgiving those sins is despised. A man does not, however,
incur ingratitude by committing a venial sin, because by sinning venially
man does not act against God, but apart from Him, wherefore venial sins
nowise cause the return of sins already forgiven.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: A favor can be weighed in two ways. First by the quantity
of the favor itself, and in this way innocence is a greater favor from
God than penance, which is called the second plank after shipwreck (cf.
Q[84], A[6]). Secondly, a favor may be weighed with regard to the
recipient, who is less worthy, wherefore a greater favor is bestowed on
him, so that he is the more ungrateful if he scorns it. In this way the
favor of the pardon of sins is greater when bestowed on one who is
altogether unworthy, so that the ingratitude which follows is all the
greater.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the debt of punishment that arises through ingratitude in respect
of a subsequent sin is as great as that of the sins previously pardoned?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the debt of punishment arising through
ingratitude in respect of a subsequent sin is as great as that of the
sins previously pardoned. Because the greatness of the favor of the
pardon of sins is according to the greatness of the sin pardoned, and so
too, in consequence, is the greatness of the ingratitude whereby this
favor is scorned. But the greatness of the consequent debt of punishment
is in accord with the greatness of the ingratitude. Therefore the debt of
punishment arising through ingratitude in respect of a subsequent sin is
as great as the debt of punishment due for all the previous sins.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, it is a greater sin to offend God than to offend man.
But a slave who is freed by his master returns to the same state of
slavery from which he was freed, or even to a worse state. Much more
therefore he that sins against God after being freed from sin, returns to
the debt of as great a punishment as he had incurred before.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, it is written (Mt. 18:34) that "his lord being angry,
delivered him" (whose sins returned to him on account of his ingratitude)
"to the torturers, until he paid all the debt." But this would not be so
unless the debt of punishment incurred through ingratitude were as great
as that incurred through all previous sins. Therefore an equal debt of
punishment returns through ingratitude.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 25:2): "According to the measure of
the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be," whence it is evident
that a great debt of punishment does not arise from a slight sin. But
sometimes a subsequent mortal sin is much less grievous than any one of
those previously pardoned. Therefore the debt of punishment incurred
through subsequent sins is not equal to that of sins previously forgiven.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[3] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, Some have maintained that the debt of punishment incurred
through ingratitude in respect of a subsequent sin is equal to that of
the sins previously pardoned, in addition to the debt proper to this
subsequent sin. But there is no need for this, because, as stated above
(A[1]), the debt of punishment incurred by previous sins does not return
on account of a subsequent sin, as resulting from the acts of the
subsequent sin. Wherefore the amount of the debt that returns must be
according to the gravity of the subsequent sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[3] Body Para. 2/3
It is possible, however, for the gravity of the subsequent sin to equal
the gravity of all previous sins. But it need not always be so, whether
we speak of the gravity which a sin has from its species (since the
subsequent sin may be one of simple fornication, while the previous sins
were adulteries, murders, or sacrileges); or of the gravity which it
incurs through the ingratitude connected with it. For it is not necessary
that the measure of ingratitude should be exactly equal to the measure of
the favor received, which latter is measured according to the greatness
of the sins previously pardoned. Because it may happen that in respect of
the same favor, one man is very ungrateful, either on account of the
intensity of his scorn for the favor received, or on account of the
gravity of the offense committed against the benefactor, while another
man is slightly ungrateful, either because his scorn is less intense, or
because his offense against the benefactor is less grave. But the measure
of ingratitude is proportionately equal to the measure of the favor
received: for supposing an equal contempt of the favor, or an equal
offense against the benefactor, the ingratitude will be so much the
greater, as the favor received is greater.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[3] Body Para. 3/3
Hence it is evident that the debt of punishment incurred by a subsequent
sin need not always be equal to that of previous sins; but it must be in
proportion thereto, so that the more numerous or the greater the sins
previously pardoned, the greater must be the debt of punishment incurred
by any subsequent mortal sin whatever.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The favor of the pardon of sins takes its absolute quantity
from the quantity of the sins previously pardoned: but the sin of
ingratitude does not take its absolute quantity from the measure of the
favor bestowed, but from the measure of the contempt or of the offense,
as stated above: and so the objection does not prove.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: A slave who has been given his freedom is not brought back
to his previous state of slavery for any kind of ingratitude, but only
when this is grave.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: He whose forgiven sins return to him on account of
subsequent ingratitude, incurs the debt for all, in so far as the measure
of his previous sins is contained proportionally in his subsequent
ingratitude, but not absolutely, as stated above.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the ingratitude whereby a subsequent sin causes the return of
previous sins, is a special sin?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the ingratitude, whereby a subsequent sin
causes the return of sins previously forgiven, is a special sin. For the
giving of thanks belongs to counterpassion which is a necessary condition
of justice, as the Philosopher shows (Ethic. v, 5). But justice is a
special virtue. Therefore this ingratitude is a special sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Tully says (De Inv. Rhet. ii) that thanksgiving is a
special virtue. But ingratitude is opposed to thanksgiving. Therefore
ingratitude is a special sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a special effect proceeds from a special cause. Now
ingratitude has a special effect, viz. the return, after a fashion, of
sins already forgiven. Therefore ingratitude is a special sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, That which is a sequel to every sin is not a special
sin. Now by any mortal sin whatever, a man becomes ungrateful to God, as
evidenced from what has been said (A[1]). Therefore ingratitude is not a
special sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[4] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, The ingratitude of the sinner is sometimes a special sin;
and sometimes it is not, but a circumstance arising from all mortal sins
in common committed against God. For a sin takes its species according to
the sinner's intention, wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 2) that
"he who commits adultery in order to steal is a thief rather than an
adulterer."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[4] Body Para. 2/3
If, therefore, a sinner commits a sin in contempt of God and of the
favor received from Him, that sin is drawn to the species of ingratitude,
and in this way a sinner's ingratitude is a special sin. If, however, a
man, while intending to commit a sin, e.g. murder or adultery, is not
withheld from it on account of its implying contempt of God, his
ingratitude will not be a special sin, but will be drawn to the species
of the other sin, as a circumstance thereof. And, as Augustine observes
(De Nat. et Grat. xxix), not every sin implies contempt of God in His
commandments. Therefore it is evident that the sinner's ingratitude is
sometimes a special sin, sometimes not.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[88] A[4] Body Para. 3/3
This suffices for the Replies to the Objections: for the first (three)
objections prove that ingratitude is in itself a special sin; while the
last objection proves that ingratitude, as included in every sin, is not
a special sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] Out. Para. 1/1
OF THE RECOVERY OF VIRTUE BY MEANS OF PENANCE (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider the recovery of virtues by means of Penance, under
which head there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether virtues are restored through Penance?
(2) Whether they are restored in equal measure?
(3) Whether equal dignity is restored to the penitent?
(4) Whether works of virtue are deadened by subsequent sin?
(5) Whether works deadened by sin revive through Penance?
(6) Whether dead works, i.e. works that are done without charity, are
quickened by Penance?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the virtues are restored through Penance?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the virtues are not restored through penance.
Because lost virtue cannot be restored by penance, unless penance be the
cause of virtue. But, since penance is itself a virtue, it cannot be the
cause of all the virtues, and all the more, since some virtues naturally
precede penance, viz., faith, hope, and charity, as stated above (Q[85],
A[6]). Therefore the virtues are not restored through penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Penance consists in certain acts of the penitent. But
the gratuitous virtues are not caused through any act of ours: for
Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii, 18: In Ps. 118) that "God forms the
virtues in us without us." Therefore it seems that the virtues are not
restored through Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, he that has virtue performs works of virtue with ease
and pleasure: wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 8) that "a man is
not just if he does not rejoice in just deeds." Now many penitents find
difficulty in performing deeds of virtue. Therefore the virtues are not
restored through Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, We read (Lk. 15:22) that the father commanded his
penitent son to be clothed in "the first robe," which, according to
Ambrose (Expos. in Luc. vii), is the "mantle of wisdom," from which all
the virtues flow together, according to Wis. 8:7: "She teacheth
temperance, and prudence, and justice, and fortitude, which are such
things as men can have nothing more profitable in life." Therefore all
the virtues are restored through Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[1] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Sins are pardoned through Penance, as stated above (Q[86]
, A[1]). But there can be no remission of sins except through the
infusion of grace. Wherefore it follows that grace is infused into man
through Penance. Now all the gratuitous virtues flow from grace, even as
all the powers result from the essence of the soul; as stated in the FS,
Q[110], A[4], ad 1. Therefore all the virtues are restored through
Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Penance restores the virtues in the same way as it causes
grace, as stated above (Q[86], A[1]). Now it is a cause of grace, in so
far as it is a sacrament, because, in so far as it is a virtue, it is
rather an effect of grace. Consequently it does not follow that penance,
as a virtue, needs to be the cause of all the other virtues, but that the
habit of penance together with the habits of the other virtues is caused
through the sacrament of Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: In the sacrament of Penance human acts stand as matter,
while the formal power of this sacrament is derived from the power of the
keys. Consequently the power of the keys causes grace and virtue
effectively indeed, but instrumentally; and the first act of the
penitent, viz., contrition, stands as ultimate disposition to the
reception of grace, while the subsequent acts of Penance proceed from the
grace and virtues which are already there.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (Q[86], A[5]), sometimes after the first
act of Penance, which is contrition, certain remnants of sin remain, viz.
dispositions caused by previous acts, the result being that the penitent
finds difficulty in doing deeds of virtue. Nevertheless, so far as the
inclination itself of charity and of the other virtues is concerned, the
penitent performs works of virtue with pleasure and ease. even as a
virtuous man may accidentally find it hard to do an act of virtue, on
account of sleepiness or some indisposition of the body.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether, after Penance, man rises again to equal virtue?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that, after Penance, man rises again to equal
virtue. For the Apostle says (Rm. 8:28): "To them that love God all
things work together unto good," whereupon a gloss of Augustine says that
"this is so true that, if any such man goes astray and wanders from the
path, God makes even this conduce to his good." But this would not be
true if he rose again to lesser virtue. Therefore it seems that a
penitent never rises again to lesser virtue.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Ambrose says [*Cf. Hypognosticon iii, an anonymous work
falsely ascribed to St. Augustine] that "Penance is a very good thing,
for it restores every defect to a state of perfection." But this would
not be true unless virtues were recovered in equal measure. Therefore
equal virtue is always recovered through Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, on Gn. 1:5: "There was evening and morning, one day," a
gloss says: "The evening light is that from which we fall the morning
light is that to which we rise again." Now the morning light is greater
than the evening light. Therefore a man rises to greater grace or charity
than that which he had before; which is confirmed by the Apostle's words
(Rm. 5:20): "Where sin abounded, grace did more abound."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Charity whether proficient or perfect is greater than
incipient charity. But sometimes a man falls from proficient charity, and
rises again to incipient charity. Therefore man always rises again to
less virtue.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[2] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, As stated above (Q[86], A[6], ad 3; Q[89], A[1], ad 2),
the movement of the free-will, in the justification of the ungodly, is
the ultimate disposition to grace; so that in the same instant there is
infusion of grace together with the aforesaid movement of the free-will,
as stated in the FS, Q[113], AA[5],7, which movement includes an act of
penance, as stated above (Q[86], A[2]). But it is evident that forms
which admit of being more or less, become intense or remiss, according to
the different dispositions of the subject, as stated in the FS, Q[52],
AA[1],2; FS, Q[66], A[1]. Hence it is that, in Penance, according to the
degree of intensity or remissness in the movement of the free-will, the
penitent receives greater or lesser grace. Now the intensity of the
penitent's movement may be proportionate sometimes to a greater grace
than that from which man fell by sinning, sometimes to an equal grace,
sometimes to a lesser. Wherefore the penitent sometimes arises to a
greater grace than that which he had before, sometimes to an equal,
sometimes to a lesser grace: and the same applies to the virtues, which
flow from grace.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The very fact of falling away from the love of God by sin,
does not work unto the good of all those who love God, which is evident
in the case of those who fall and never rise again, or who rise and fall
yet again; but only to the good of "such as according to His purpose are
called to be saints," viz. the predestined, who, however often they may
fall, yet rise again finally. Consequently good comes of their falling,
not that they always rise again to greater grace, but that they rise to
more abiding grace, not indeed on the part of grace itself, because the
greater the grace, the more abiding it is, but on the part of man, who,
the more careful and humble he is, abides the more steadfastly in grace.
Hence the same gloss adds that "their fall conduces to their good,
because they rise more humble and more enlightened."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Penance, considered in itself, has the power to bring all
defects back to perfection, and even to advance man to a higher state;
but this is sometimes hindered on the part of man, whose movement towards
God and in detestation of sin is too remiss, just as in Baptism adults
receive a greater or a lesser grace, according to the various ways in
which they prepare themselves.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 3: This comparison of the two graces to the evening and
morning light is made on account of a likeness of order, since the
darkness of night follows after the evening light, and the light of day
after the light of morning, but not on account of a likeness of greater
or lesser quantity. Again, this saying of the Apostle refers to the grace
of Christ, which abounds more than any number of man's sins. Nor is it
true of all, that the more their sins abound, the more abundant grace
they receive, if we measure habitual grace by the quantity. Grace is,
however, more abundant, as regards the very notion of grace, because to
him who sins more a more "gratuitous" favor is vouchsafed by his pardon;
although sometimes those whose sins abound, abound also in sorrow, so
that they receive a more abundant habit of grace and virtue, as was the
case with Magdalen.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 2/2
To the argument advanced in the contrary sense it must be replied that
in one and the same man proficient grace is greater than incipient grace,
but this is not necessarily the case in different men, for one begins
with a greater grace than another has in the state of proficiency: thus
Gregory says (Dial. ii, 1): "Let all, both now and hereafter, acknowledge
how perfectly the boy Benedict turned to the life of grace from the very
beginning."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether, by Penance, man is restored to his former dignity?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that man is not restored by Penance to his former
dignity: because a gloss on Amos 5:2, "The virgin of Israel is cast
down," observes: "It is not said that she cannot rise up, but that the
virgin of Israel shall not rise; because the sheep that has once strayed,
although the shepherd bring it back on his shoulder, has not the same
glory as if it had never strayed." Therefore man does not, through
Penance, recover his former dignity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Jerome says: "Whoever fail to preserve the dignity of
the sacred order, must be content with saving their souls; for it is a
difficult thing to return to their former degree." Again, Pope Innocent I
says (Ep. vi ad Agapit.) that "the canons framed at the council of
Nicaea exclude penitents from even the lowest orders of clerics."
Therefore man does not, through Penance, recover his former dignity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, before sinning a man can advance to a higher sacred
order. But this is not permitted to a penitent after his sin, for it is
written (Ezech. 44:10,13): "The Levites that went away . . . from Me . .
shall never [Vulg.: 'not'] come near to Me, to do the office of
priest": and as laid down in the Decretals (Dist. 1, ch. 52), and taken
from the council of Lerida: "If those who serve at the Holy Altar fall
suddenly into some deplorable weakness of the flesh, and by God's mercy
do proper penance, let them return to their duties, yet so as not to
receive further promotion." Therefore Penance does not restore man to his
former dignity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, As we read in the same Distinction, Gregory writing to
Secundinus (Regist. vii) says: "We consider that when a man has made
proper satisfaction, he may return to his honorable position": and
moreover we read in the acts of the council of Agde: "Contumacious
clerics, so far as their position allows, should be corrected by their
bishops. so that when Penance has reformed them, they may recover their
degree and dignity."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[3] Body Para. 1/5
I answer that, By sin, man loses a twofold dignity, one in respect of
God, the other in respect of the Church. In respect of God he again loses
a twofold dignity. one is his principal dignity, whereby he was counted
among the children of God, and this he recovers by Penance, which is
signified (Lk. 15) in the prodigal son, for when he repented, his father
commanded that the first garment should be restored to him, together with
a ring and shoes. The other is his secondary dignity, viz. innocence, of
which, as we read in the same chapter, the elder son boasted saying (Lk.
15:29): "Behold, for so many years do I serve thee, and I have never
transgressed thy commandments": and this dignity the penitent cannot
recover. Nevertheless he recovers something greater sometimes; because as
Gregory says (Hom. de centum Ovibus, 34 in Evang.), "those who
acknowledge themselves to have strayed away from God, make up for their
past losses, by subsequent gains: so that there is more joy in heaven on
their account, even as in battle, the commanding officer thinks more of
the soldier who, after running away, returns and bravely attacks the foe,
than of one who has never turned his back, but has done nothing brave."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[3] Body Para. 2/5
By sin man loses his ecclesiastical dignity, because thereby he becomes
unworthy of those things which appertain to the exercise of the
ecclesiastical dignity. This he is debarred from recovering: first,
because he fails to repent; wherefore Isidore wrote to the bishop Masso,
and as we read in the Distinction quoted above (OBJ[3]): "The canons
order those to be restored to their former degree, who by repentance have
made satisfaction for their sins, or have made worthy confession of them.
On the other hand, those who do not mend their corrupt and wicked ways
are neither allowed to exercise their order, nor received to the grace of
communion."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[3] Body Para. 3/5
Secondly, because he does penance negligently, wherefore it is written
in the same Distinction (OBJ 3): "We can be sure that those who show no
signs of humble compunction, or of earnest prayer, who avoid fasting or
study, would exercise their former duties with great negligence if they
were restored to them."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[3] Body Para. 4/5
Thirdly, if he has committed a sin to which an irregularity is attached;
wherefore it is said in the same Distinction (OBJ[3]), quoting the
council of Pope Martin [*Martin, bishop of Braga]: "If a man marry a
widow or the relict of another, he must not be admitted to the ranks of
the clergy: and if he has succeeded in creeping in, he must be turned
out. In like manner, if anyone after Baptism be guilty of homicide,
whether by deed, or by command, or by counsel, or in self-defense." But
this is in consequence not of sin, but of irregularity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[3] Body Para. 5/5
Fourthly, on account of scandal, wherefore it is said in the same
Distinction (OBJ[3]): "Those who have been publicly convicted or caught
in the act of perjury, robbery, fornication, and of such like crimes,
according to the prescription of the sacred canons must be deprived of
the exercise of their respective orders, because it is a scandal to God's
people that such persons should be placed over them. But those who commit
such sins occultly and confess them secretly to a priest, may be retained
in the exercise of their respective orders, with the assurance of God's
merciful forgiveness, provided they be careful to expiate their sins by
fasts and alms, vigils and holy deeds." The same is expressed (Extra, De
Qual. Ordinand.): "If the aforesaid crimes are not proved by a judicial
process, or in some other way made notorious, those who are guilty of
them must not be hindered, after they have done penance, from exercising
the orders they have received, or from receiving further orders, except
in cases of homicide."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The same is to be said of the recovery of virginity as of
the recovery of innocence which belongs to man's secondary dignity in the
sight of God.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: In these words Jerome does not say that it is impossible,
but that it is difficult, for man to recover his former dignity after
having sinned, because this is allowed to none but those who repent
perfectly, as stated above. To those canonical statutes, which seem to
forbid this, Augustine replies in his letter to Boniface (Ep. clxxxv):
"If the law of the Church forbids anyone, after doing penance for a
crime, to become a cleric, or to return to his clerical duties, or to
retain them the intention was not to deprive him of the hope of pardon,
but to preserve the rigor of discipline; else we should have to deny the
keys given to the Church, of which it was said: 'Whatsoever you shall
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'" And further on he adds: "For
holy David did penance for his deadly crimes, and yet he retained his
dignity; and Blessed Peter by shedding most bitter tears did indeed
repent him of having denied his Lord, and yet he remained an apostle.
Nevertheless we must not deem the care of later teachers excessive, who
without endangering a man's salvation, exacted more from his humility,
having, in my opinion, found by experience, that some assumed a pretended
repentance through hankering after honors and power."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: This statute is to be understood as applying to those who
do public penance, for these cannot be promoted to a higher order. For
Peter, after his denial, was made shepherd of Christ's sheep, as appears
from Jn. 21:21, where Chrysostom comments as follows: "After his denial
and repentance Peter gives proof of greater confidence in Christ: for
whereas, at the supper, he durst not ask Him, but deputed John to ask in
his stead, afterwards he was placed at the head of his brethren, and not
only did not depute another to ask for him, what concerned him, but
henceforth asks the Master instead of John."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether virtuous deeds done in charity can be deadened?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that virtuous deeds done in charity cannot be
deadened. For that which is not cannot be changed. But to be deadened is
to be changed from life to death. Since therefore virtuous deeds, after
being done, are no more, it seems that they cannot afterwards be deadened.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, by virtuous deeds done in charity, man merits eternal
life. But to take away the reward from one who has merited it is an
injustice, which cannot be ascribed to God. Therefore it is not possible
for virtuous deeds done in charity to be deadened by a subsequent sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the strong is not corrupted by the weak. Now works of
charity are stronger than any sins, because, as it is written (Prov.
10:12), "charity covereth all sins." Therefore it seems that deeds done
in charity cannot be deadened by a subsequent mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It is written (Ezech. 18:24): "If the just man turn
himself away from his justice . . . all his justices which he hath done
shall not be remembered."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[4] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, A living thing, by dying, ceases to have vital
operations: for which reason, by a kind of metaphor, a thing is said to
be deadened when it is hindered from producing its proper effect or
operation.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[4] Body Para. 2/2
Now the effect of virtuous works, which are done in charity, is to bring
man to eternal life; and this is hindered by a subsequent mortal sin,
inasmuch as it takes away grace. Wherefore deeds done in charity are said
to be deadened by a subsequent mortal sin.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Just as sinful deeds pass as to the act but remain as to
guilt, so deeds done in charity, after passing, as to the act, remain as
to merit, in so far as they are acceptable to God. It is in this respect
that they are deadened, inasmuch as man is hindered from receiving his
reward.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: There is no injustice in withdrawing the reward from him
who has deserved it, if he has made himself unworthy by his subsequent
fault, since at times a man justly forfeits through his own fault, even
that which he has already received.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: It is not on account of the strength of sinful deeds that
deeds, previously done in charity, are deadened, but on account of the
freedom of the will which can be turned away from good to evil.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[5] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether deeds deadened by sin, are revived by Penance?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[5] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that deeds deadened by sin are not revived by
Penance. Because just as past sins are remitted by subsequent Penance, so
are deeds previously done in charity, deadened by subsequent sin. But
sins remitted by Penance do not return, as stated above (Q[88], AA[1],2).
Therefore it seems that neither are dead deeds revived by charity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[5] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, deeds are said to be deadened by comparison with animals
who die, as stated above (A[4]). But a dead animal cannot be revived.
Therefore neither can dead works be revived by Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[5] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, deeds done in charity are deserving of glory according
to the quantity of grace or charity. But sometimes man arises through
Penance to lesser grace or charity. Therefore he does not receive glory
according to the merit of his previous works; so that it seems that deeds
deadened by sin are not revived.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[5] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, on Joel 2:25, "I will restore to you the years, which
the locust . . . hath eaten," a gloss says: "I will not suffer to perish
the fruit which you lost when your soul was disturbed." But this fruit is
the merit of good works which was lost through sin. Therefore meritorious
deeds done before are revived by Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[5] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Some have said that meritorious works deadened by
subsequent sin are not revived by the ensuing Penance, because they
deemed such works to have passed away, so that they could not be revived.
But that is no reason why they should not be revived: because they are
conducive to eternal life (wherein their life consists) not only as
actually existing, but also after they cease to exist actually, and as
abiding in the Divine acceptance. Now, they abide thus, so far as they
are concerned, even after they have been deadened by sin, because those
works, according as they were done, will ever be acceptable to God and
give joy to the saints, according to Apoc. 3:11: "Hold fast that which
thou hast, that no man take thy crown." That they fail in their efficacy
to bring the man, who did them, to eternal life, is due to the
impediment of the supervening sin whereby he is become unworthy of
eternal life. But this impediment is removed by Penance, inasmuch as sins
are taken away thereby. Hence it follows that deeds previously deadened,
recover, through Penance, their efficacy in bringing him, who did them,
to eternal life, and, in other words, they are revived. It is therefore
evident that deadened works are revived by Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[5] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The very works themselves of sin are removed by Penance, so
that, by God's mercy, no further stain or debt of punishment is incurred
on their account: on the other hand, works done in charity are not
removed by God, since they abide in His acceptance, but they are hindered
on the part of the man who does them; wherefore if this hindrance, on the
part of the man who does those works, be removed, God on His side
fulfills what those works deserved.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[5] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Deeds done in charity are not in themselves deadened, as
explained above, but only with regard to a supervening impediment on the
part of the man who does them. On the other hand, an animal dies in
itself, through being deprived of the principle of life: so that the
comparison fails.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[5] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: He who, through Penance, arises to lesser charity, will
receive the essential reward according to the degree of charity in which
he is found. Yet he will have greater joy for the works he had done in
his former charity, than for those which he did in his subsequent
charity: and this joy belongs to the accidental reward.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[6] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether the effect of subsequent Penance is to quicken even dead works?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[6] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that the effect of subsequent Penance is to quicken
even dead works, those, namely, that were not done in charity. For it
seems more difficult to bring to life that which has been deadened, since
this is never done naturally, than to quicken that which never had life,
since certain living things are engendered naturally from things without
life. Now deadened works are revived by Penance, as stated above (A[5]).
Much more, therefore, are dead works revived.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[6] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, if the cause be removed, the effect is removed. But the
cause of the lack of life in works generically good done without charity,
was the lack of charity and grace. which lack is removed by Penance.
Therefore dead works are quickened by charity.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[6] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, Jerome in commenting on Agg. i, 6: "You have sowed
much," says: "If at any time you find a sinner, among his many evil
deeds, doing that which is right, God is not so unjust as to forget the
few good deeds on account of his many evil deeds." Now this seems to be
the case chiefly when past evil "deeds" are removed by Penance.
Therefore it seems that through Penance, God rewards the former deeds
done in the state of sin, which implies that they are quickened.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[6] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:3): "If I should distribute
all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be
burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." But this would
not be true, if, at least by subsequent Penance, they were quickened.
Therefore Penance does not quicken works which before were dead.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[6] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, A work is said to be dead in two ways: first,
effectively, because, to wit, it is a cause of death, in which sense
sinful works are said to be dead, according to Heb. 9:14: "The blood of
Christ . . . shall cleanse our conscience from dead works." These dead
works are not quickened but removed by Penance, according to Heb. 6:1:
"Not laying again the foundation of Penance from dead works." Secondly,
works are said to be dead privatively, because, to wit, they lack
spiritual life, which is founded on charity, whereby the soul is united
to God, the result being that it is quickened as the body by the soul: in
which sense too, faith, if it lack charity, is said to be dead, according
to James 2:20: "Faith without works is dead." In this way also, all works
that are generically good, are said to be dead, if they be done without
charity, inasmuch as they fail to proceed from the principle of life;
even as we might call the sound of a harp, a dead voice. Accordingly, the
difference of life and death in works is in relation to the principle
from which they proceed. But works cannot proceed a second time from a
principle, because they are transitory, and the same identical deed
cannot be resumed. Therefore it is impossible for dead works to be
quickened by Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[6] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: In the physical order things whether dead or deadened lack
the principle of life. But works are said to be deadened, not in relation
to the principle whence they proceeded, but in relation to an extrinsic
impediment; while they are said to be dead in relation to a principle.
Consequently there is no comparison.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[6] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Works generically good done without charity are said to be
dead on account of the lack of grace and charity, as principles. Now the
subsequent Penance does not supply that want, so as to make them proceed
from such a principle. Hence the argument does not prove.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[89] A[6] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: God remembers the good deeds a man does when in a state of
sin, not by rewarding them in eternal life, which is due only to living
works, i.e. those done from charity, but by a temporal reward: thus
Gregory declares (Hom. de Divite et Lazaro, 41 in Evang.) that "unless
that rich man had done some good deed, and had received his reward in
this world, Abraham would certainly not have said to him: 'Thou didst
receive good things in thy lifetime.'" Or again, this may mean that he
will be judged less severely: wherefore Augustine says (De Patientia
xxvi): "We cannot say that it would be better for the schismatic that by
denying Christ he should suffer none of those things which he suffered by
confessing Him; but we must believe that he will be judged with less
severity, than if by denying Christ, he had suffered none of those
things. Thus the words of the Apostle, 'If I should deliver my body to be
burned and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing,' refer to the
obtaining of the kingdom of heaven, and do not exclude the possibility of
being sentenced with less severity at the last judgment."
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] Out. Para. 1/2
OF THE PARTS OF PENANCE, IN GENERAL (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider the parts of Penance: (1) in general. (2) each one
in particular.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] Out. Para. 2/2
Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Penance has any parts?
(2) Of the number of its parts;
(3) What kind of parts are they?
(4) Of its division into subjective parts.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[1] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Penance should be assigned any parts?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[1] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that parts should not be assigned to Penance. For
it is the Divine power that works our salvation most secretly in the
sacraments. Now the Divine power is one and simple. Therefore Penance,
being a sacrament, should have no parts assigned to it.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[1] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, Penance is both a virtue and a sacrament. Now no parts
are assigned to it as a virtue, since virtue is a habit, which is a
simple quality of the mind. In like manner, it seems that parts should
not be assigned to Penance as a sacrament, because no parts are assigned
to Baptism and the other sacraments. Therefore no parts at all should be
assigned to Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[1] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the matter of Penance is sin, as stated above (Q[84],
A[2]). But no parts are assigned to sin. Neither, therefore, should parts
be assigned to Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[1] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, The parts of a thing are those out of which the whole
is composed. Now the perfection of Penance is composed of several things,
viz. contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Therefore Penance has
parts.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[1] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, The parts of a thing are those into which the whole is
divided materially, for the parts of a thing are to the whole, what
matter is to the form; wherefore the parts are reckoned as a kind of
material cause, and the whole as a kind of formal cause (Phys. ii).
Accordingly wherever, on the part of matter, we find a kind of plurality,
there we shall find a reason for assigning parts.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[1] Body Para. 2/2
Now it has been stated above (Q[84], AA[2],3), that, in the sacrament of
Penance, human actions stand as matter: and so, since several actions are
requisite for the perfection of Penance, viz., contrition, confession,
and satisfaction, as we shall show further on (A[2]), it follows that the
sacrament of Penance has parts.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[1] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Every sacrament is something simple by reason of the Divine
power, which operates therein: but the Divine power is so great that it
can operate both through one and through many, and by reason of these
many, parts may be assigned to a particular sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[1] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Parts are not assigned to penance as a virtue: because the
human acts of which there are several in penance, are related to the
habit of virtue, not as its parts, but as its effects. It follows,
therefore, that parts are assigned to Penance as a sacrament, to which
the human acts are related as matter: whereas in the other sacraments the
matter does not consist of human acts, but of some one external thing,
either simple, as water or oil, or compound, as chrism, and so parts are
not assigned to the other sacraments.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[1] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Sins are the remote matter of Penance, inasmuch, to wit, as
they are the matter or object of the human acts, which are the proper
matter of Penance as a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[2] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether contrition, confession, and satisfaction are fittingly assigned
as parts of Penance?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[2] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that contrition, confession, and satisfaction are
not fittingly assigned as parts of Penance. For contrition is in the
heart, and so belongs to interior penance; while confession consists of
words, and satisfaction in deeds; so that the two latter belong to
interior penance. Now interior penance is not a sacrament, but only
exterior penance which is perceptible by the senses. Therefore these
three parts are not fittingly assigned to the sacrament of Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[2] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, grace is conferred in the sacraments of the New Law, as
stated above (Q[62], AA[1],3). But no grace is conferred in satisfaction.
Therefore satisfaction is not part of a sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[2] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, the fruit of a thing is not the same as its part. But
satisfaction is a fruit of penance, according to Lk. 3:8: "Bring forth .
. fruits worthy of penance." Therefore it is not a part of Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[2] Obj. 4 Para. 1/1
OBJ 4: Further, Penance is ordained against sin. But sin can be
completed merely in the thought by consent, as stated in the FS, Q[72],
A[7]: therefore Penance can also. Therefore confession in word and
satisfaction in deed should not be reckoned as parts of Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[2] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, It seems that yet more parts should be assigned to
Penance. For not only is the body assigned as a part of man, as being the
matter, but also the soul, which is his form. But the aforesaid three,
being the acts of the penitent, stand as matter, while the priestly
absolution stands as form. Therefore the priestly absolution should be
assigned as a fourth part of Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[2] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, A part is twofold, essential and quantitative. The
essential parts are naturally the form and the matter, and logically the
genus and the difference. In this way, each sacrament is divided into
matter and form as its essential parts. Hence it has been said above
(Q[60], AA[5],6) that sacraments consist of things and words. But since
quantity is on the part of matter, quantitative parts are parts of
matter: and, in this way, as stated above (A[1]), parts are assigned
specially to the sacrament of Penance, as regards the acts of the
penitent, which are the matter of this sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[2] Body Para. 2/2
Now it has been said above (Q[85], A[3], ad 3) that an offense is atoned
otherwise in Penance than in vindictive justice. Because, in vindictive
justice the atonement is made according to the judge's decision, and not
according to the discretion of the offender or of the person offended;
whereas, in Penance, the offense is atoned according to the will of the
sinner, and the judgment of God against Whom the sin was committed,
because in the latter case we seek not only the restoration of the
equality of justice, as in vindictive justice, but also and still more
the reconciliation of friendship, which is accomplished by the offender
making atonement according to the will of the person offended.
Accordingly the first requisite on the part of the penitent is the will
to atone, and this is done by contrition; the second is that he submit to
the judgment of the priest standing in God's place, and this is done in
confession; and the third is that he atone according to the decision of
God's minister, and this is done in satisfaction: and so contrition,
confession, and satisfaction are assigned as parts of Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[2] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Contrition, as to its essence, is in the heart, and belongs
to interior penance; yet, virtually, it belongs to exterior penance,
inasmuch as it implies the purpose of confessing and making satisfaction.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[2] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: Satisfaction confers grace, in so far as it is in man's
purpose, and it increases grace, according as it is accomplished, just as
Baptism does in adults, as stated above (Q[68], A[2]; Q[69], A[8]).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Satisfaction is a part of Penance as a sacrament, and a
fruit of penance as a virtue.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 1/2
Reply OBJ 4: More things are required for good, "which proceeds from a
cause that is entire," than for evil, "which results from each single
defect," as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv). And thus, although sin is
completed in the consent of the heart, yet the perfection of Penance
requires contrition of the heart, together with confession in word and
satisfaction in deed.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[2] R.O. 4 Para. 2/2
The Reply to the Fifth Objection is clear from what has been said.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[3] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether these three are integral parts of Penance?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[3] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that these three are not integral parts of Penance.
For, as stated above (Q[84], A[3]), Penance is ordained against sin. But
sins of thought, word, and deed are the subjective and not integral parts
of sin, because sin is predicated of each one of them. Therefore in
Penance also, contrition in thought, confession in word, and satisfaction
in deed are not integral parts.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[3] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, no integral part includes within itself another that is
condivided with it. But contrition includes both confession and
satisfaction in the purpose of amendment. Therefore they are not integral
parts.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[3] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, a whole is composed of its integral parts, taken at the
same time and equally, just as a line is made up of its parts. But such
is not the case here. Therefore these are not integral parts of Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[3] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Integral parts are those by which the perfection of the
whole is integrated. But the perfection of Penance is integrated by these
three. Therefore they are integral parts of Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[3] Body Para. 1/1
I answer that, Some have said that these three are subjective parts of
Penance. But this is impossible, because the entire power of the whole is
present in each subjective part at the same time and equally, just as the
entire power of an animal, as such, is assured to each animal species,
all of which species divide the animal genus at the same time and
equally: which does not apply to the point in question. Wherefore others
have said that these are potential parts: yet neither can this be true,
since the whole is present, as to the entire essence, in each potential
part, just as the entire essence of the soul is present in each of its
powers: which does not apply to the case in point. Therefore it follows
that these three are integral parts of Penance, the nature of which is
that the whole is not present in each of the parts, either as to its
entire power, or as to its entire essence, but that it is present to all
of them together at the same time.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[3] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: Sin forasmuch as it is an evil, can be completed in one
single point, as stated above (A[2], ad 4); and so the sin which is
completed in thought alone, is a special kind of sin. Another species is
the sin that is completed in thought and word: and yet a third species is
the sin that is completed in thought, word, and deed; and the
quasi-integral parts of this last sin, are that which is in thought, that
which is in word, and that which is in deed. Wherefore these three are
the integral parts of Penance, which is completed in them.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[3] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: One integral part can include the whole, though not as to
its essence: because the foundation, in a way, contains virtually the
whole building. In this way contrition includes virtually the whole of
Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[3] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: All integral parts have a certain relation of order to one
another: but some are only related as to position, whether in sequence as
the parts of an army, or by contact, as the parts of a heap, or by being
fitted together, as the parts of a house, or by continuation, as the
parts of a line; while some are related, in addition, as to power, as the
parts of an animal, the first of which is the heart, the others in a
certain order being dependent on one another: and thirdly some are
related in the order of time: as the parts of time and movement.
Accordingly the parts of Penance are related to one another in the order
of power and time, since they are actions, but not in the order of
position, since they do not occupy a place.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[4] Thes. Para. 1/1
Whether Penance is fittingly divided into penance before Baptism, penance
for mortal sins, and penance for venial sins?
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[4] Obj. 1 Para. 1/1
OBJ 1: It would seem that penance is unfittingly divided into penance
before Baptism, penance for mortal, and penance for venial sins. For
Penance is the second plank after shipwreck, as stated above (Q[84], A[6]
), while Baptism is the first. Therefore that which precedes Baptism
should not be called a species of penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[4] Obj. 2 Para. 1/1
OBJ 2: Further, that which can destroy the greater, can destroy the
lesser. Now mortal sin is greater than venial; and penance which regards
mortal sins regards also venial sins. Therefore they should not be
considered as different species of penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[4] Obj. 3 Para. 1/1
OBJ 3: Further, just as after Baptism man commits venial and mortal
sins, so does he before Baptism. If therefore penance for venial sins is
distinct from penance for mortal sins after Baptism, in like manner they
should be distinguished before Baptism. Therefore penance is not
fittingly divided into these species.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[4] OTC Para. 1/1
On the contrary, Augustine says in De Poenitentia [*Cf. Hom. 30 inter 1]
that these three are species of Penance.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[4] Body Para. 1/3
I answer that, This is a division of penance as a virtue. Now it must be
observed that every virtue acts in accordance with the time being, as
also in keeping with other due circumstances, wherefore the virtue of
penance has its act at this time, according to the requirements of the
New Law.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[4] Body Para. 2/3
Now it belongs to penance to detest one's past sins, and to purpose, at
the same time, to change one's life for the better, which is the end, so
to speak, of penance. And since moral matters take their species from the
end, as stated in the FS, Q[1], A[3]; FS, 18, AA[4],6, it is reasonable
to distinguish various species of penance, according to the various
changes intended by the penitent.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[4] Body Para. 3/3
Accordingly there is a threefold change intended by the penitent. The
first is by regeneration unto a new life, and this belongs to that
penance which precedes Baptism. The second is by reforming one's past
life after it has been already destroyed, and this belongs to penance for
mortal sins committed after Baptism. The third is by changing to a more
perfect operation of life, and this belongs to penance for venial sins,
which are remitted through a fervent act of charity, as stated above
(Q[87], AA[2],3).
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[4] R.O. 1 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 1: The penance which precedes Baptism is not a sacrament, but
an act of virtue disposing one to that sacrament.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[4] R.O. 2 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 2: The penance which washes away mortal sins, washes away
venial sins also, but the converse does not hold. Wherefore these two
species of penance are related to one another as perfect and imperfect.
Aquin.: SMT TP Q[90] A[4] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1
Reply OBJ 3: Before Baptism there are no venial sins without mortal
sins. And since a venial sin cannot be remitted without mortal sin, as
stated above (Q[87], A[4]), before Baptism, penance for mortal sins is
not distinct from penance for venial sins.
Aquin.: SMT XP Editor's Note Para. 1/1
EDITOR'S NOTE:
After writing these few questions of the treatise on Penance, St. Thomas
was called to the heavenly reward which he had merited by writing so well
of his Divine Master. The remainder of the Summa Theologica, known as the
Supplement, was compiled probably by Fra Rainaldo da Piperno, companion
and friend of the Angelic Doctor, and was gathered from St. Thomas's
commentary on the Fourth Book of the Sentences of Peter Lombard.
