Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 146 (2/2)
_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 nouris.h.i.+ng 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 Second Part (II-II, 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.”
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.
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.
Reply Obj. 1: The pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.s through this life without committing venial sins.
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.
_______________________
FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 79, Art. 5]
Whether the Entire Punishment Due to Sin Is Forgiven Through This Sacrament?
Objection 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 Pa.s.sion 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 Pa.s.sion, 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.
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.
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 ma.s.ses 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.
_On the contrary,_ In that case no other punishment would have to be enjoined; just as none is imposed upon the newly baptized.
_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.
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 inst.i.tuted. Now it was inst.i.tuted not for satisfaction, but for nouris.h.i.+ng 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.
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 quant.i.ty of the offering. Hence our Lord says (Mk. 12:43: cf.
Luke 21:4) of the widow who offered ”two mites” that she ”cast in more than all.” Therefore, although this offering suffices of its own quant.i.ty 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.
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 nouris.h.i.+ng and perfecting him through Christ.
Consequently there is no parallel.
Reply Obj. 2: Those other sacrifices and oblations did not effect the forgiveness of the whole punishment, neither as to the quant.i.ty of the thing offered, as this sacrament does, nor as to personal devotion; from which it comes to pa.s.s that even here the whole punishment is not taken away.
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.
_______________________
SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 79, Art. 6]
Whether Man Is Preserved by This Sacrament from Future Sins?
Objection 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.
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 Second Part (II-II, Q. 24, A. 11). Therefore it seems that this sacrament does not preserve man from sin.
Obj. 3: Further, the origin of sin within us is ”the law of sin, which is in our members,” as declared by the Apostle (Rom. 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.
<script>