Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 132 (1/2)

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.

Reply Obj. 3: Baptism is the sacrament of Christ's death and Pa.s.sion, according as a man is born anew in Christ in virtue of His Pa.s.sion; but the Eucharist is the sacrament of Christ's Pa.s.sion 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).

_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 73, Art. 4]

Whether This Sacrament Is Suitably Called by Various Names?

Objection 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.

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 ”Viatic.u.m.” 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.

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.”

_On the contrary,_ is the use of these expressions by the faithful.

_I answer that,_ This sacrament has a threefold significance. One with regard to the past, inasmuch as it is commemorative of our Lord's Pa.s.sion, which was a true sacrifice, as stated above (Q. 48, A. 3), and in this respect it is called a ”Sacrifice.”

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 G.o.dhead, and because we communicate with and are united to one another through it.”

With regard to the future it has a third meaning, inasmuch as this sacrament foreshadows the Divine fruition, which shall come to pa.s.s in heaven; and according to this it is called ”Viatic.u.m,” 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 G.o.d is life everlasting” (Rom. 6:23); or because it really contains Christ, Who is ”full of grace.”

In Greek, moreover, it is called _Metalepsis_, i.e. ”a.s.sumption,”

because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv), ”we thereby a.s.sume the G.o.dhead of the Son.”

Reply Obj. 1: There is nothing to hinder the same thing from being called by several names, according to its various properties or effects.

Reply Obj. 2: What is common to all the sacraments is attributed antonomastically to this one on account of its excellence.

Reply Obj. 3: This sacrament is called a ”Sacrifice” inasmuch as it represents the Pa.s.sion of Christ; but it is termed a ”Host” inasmuch as it contains Christ, Who is ”a host (Douay: 'sacrifice') ... of sweetness” (Eph. 5:2).

_______________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 73, Art. 5]

Whether the Inst.i.tution of This Sacrament Was Appropriate?

Objection 1: It seems that the inst.i.tution 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 inst.i.tute this sacrament as spiritual nourishment.

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 inst.i.tution of this sacrament should not have been postponed till the Lord's supper.

Obj. 3: Further, this sacrament is called the memorial of our Lord's Pa.s.sion, according to Matt. 26 (Luke 22:19): ”Do this for a commemoration of Me.” But a commemoration is of things past.

Therefore, this sacrament should not have been inst.i.tuted before Christ's Pa.s.sion.

Obj. 4: Further, a man is prepared by Baptism for the Eucharist, which ought to be given only to the baptized. But Baptism was inst.i.tuted by Christ after His Pa.s.sion and Resurrection, as is evident from Matt. 28:19. Therefore, this sacrament was not suitably inst.i.tuted before Christ's Pa.s.sion.

_On the contrary,_ This sacrament was inst.i.tuted by Christ, of Whom it is said (Mk. 7:37) that ”He did all things well.”

_I answer that,_ This sacrament was appropriately inst.i.tuted 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 a.s.sumed 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 wors.h.i.+ped in a mystery.”