Obj. 8: Further, as was already observed (Q. 48, A. 2; Q. 49, A. 3), Christ"s Pa.s.sion 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."
Objection 9: Further, the words whereby this sacrament is consecrated draw their efficacy from Christ"s inst.i.tution. But no Evangelist narrates that Christ spoke all these words. Therefore this is not an appropriate form for the consecration of the wine.
_On the contrary,_ The Church, instructed by the apostles, uses this form.
_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.
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 p.r.o.nounces all these words, under the same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands.
Moreover, in Luke 22:20, the words that follow are interposed with the preceding words: "This is the chalice, the new testament in My blood."
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 Pa.s.sion, which power works in this sacrament, and is ordained for three purposes. First and princ.i.p.ally 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 Rom. 3:25, 26: "Whom G.o.d 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."
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.
Secondly, it can be taken by way of metaphor, so that Christ"s Pa.s.sion 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 Pa.s.sion as a chalice, when He said (Matt.
26:39): "Let this chalice pa.s.s away from Me": so that the meaning is: "This is the chalice of My Pa.s.sion." This is denoted by the blood being consecrated apart from the body; because it was by the Pa.s.sion that the blood was separated from the body.
Reply Obj. 2: As was said above (ad 1; Q. 76, A. 2, ad 1), the blood consecrated apart expressly represents Christ"s Pa.s.sion, and therefore mention is made of the fruits of the Pa.s.sion in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body, since the body is the subject of the Pa.s.sion. 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 Pa.s.sion for you."
Reply Obj. 3: A testament is the disposal of a heritage. But G.o.d 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."
Secondly, it was shown in very truth; and this belongs to the New Testament. This is what the Apostle premises when he says (Rom.
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 Pa.s.sion.
Reply Obj. 4: This Testament is a "new one" by reason of its showing forth: yet it is called "eternal" both on account of G.o.d"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.
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 Pa.s.sion was dimly foreshadowed in the Old Testament.
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 Pa.s.sion 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.
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 Pa.s.sion and its fruits, in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body.
Reply Obj. 8: The blood of Christ"s Pa.s.sion 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.
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 pa.s.sages of the Scriptures. Because the words, "This is the chalice," are found in Luke 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."
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 78, Art. 4]
Whether in the Aforesaid Words of the Forms There Be Any Created Power Which Causes the Consecration?
Objection 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.
Obj. 2: Further, miraculous works are wrought not by any created power, but solely by Divine power, as was stated in the First Part (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.
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.
_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."
_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).
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.
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.
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.
_______________________
FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 78, Art. 5]
Whether the Aforesaid Expressions Are True?
Objection 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 p.r.o.noun "this" is spoken, the substance of the bread is still there, because the transubstantiation takes place in the last instant of p.r.o.nouncing the words. But it is false to say: "Bread is Christ"s body." Consequently this expression, "This is My body," is false.
Obj. 2: Further, the p.r.o.noun "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.
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.
_On the contrary,_ These words are p.r.o.nounced in the person of Christ, Who says of Himself (John 14:6): "I am the truth."
_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."
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. lx.x.x 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 p.r.o.nounces 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.
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).
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.
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 G.o.d"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," a.s.signing no noun on the part of the subject, but only a p.r.o.noun, which signifies substance in common, without quality, that is, without a determinate form.
Reply Obj. 1: The term "this" points to a substance, yet without determining its proper nature, as stated above.
Reply Obj. 2: The p.r.o.noun "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.