Dist. 12, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 12
Articulus I. De efficacia huius Sacramenti.
Quaestio I. Utrum hoc Sacramentum habeat efficaciam in quolibet viro iusto.
Ad intelligentiam huius partis secundum duo, quae determinat hic Magister, duo principaliter quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur de huius Sacramenti efficacia. Secundo quaeritur de frequentatione. Circa primum quaeruntur tria. — Primo quaeritur, utrum hoc Sacramentum habeat efficaciam in quolibet viro iusto. Secundo, utrum habeat efficaciam in aliquo peccatore, existenti scilicet in mortali peccato. Tertio quaeritur de ipsa efficacia in se.
Circa primum ostenditur, quod habeat efficaciam in quolibet viro iusto:
1. Quia Sacramentum habet efficaciam, nisi habeat obicem; sed in nullo viro iusto habet obicem: ergo in quolibet habet efficaciam.
2. Item, sacramentalis manducatio, quando coniuncta est spirituali, semper habet efficaciam; sed semper coniuncta est spirituali in viro iusto, quia « spiritualiter manducare est in ipso manere », ut dicit Augustinus1; sed omnis iustus manet in ipso: ergo etc.
3. Item, Damascenus2 dicit, quod « caro Christi est sicut carbo ignitus »; sed habens sensum corporalem semper calefit per contactum carbonis materialis: ergo similiter habens sensum spiritualem per contactum carbonis spiritualis. Sed omnis iustus sensum habet spiritualem: ergo etc.
Item, si aliquid requiritur ultra caritatem in suscipiente, quaeritur, quid sit illud, et quae et quot.
Contra: 1. Baptismus non habet efficaciam in adulto, nisi se praeparet: ergo a simili nec hoc Sacramentum habet efficaciam in iusto, nisi se praeparet; et ad hoc facit verbum beati Pauli primae ad Corinthios undecimo3: Probet autem se ipsum homo.
2. Item, possibile est, quod iustus habeat conscientiam, se graviter peccasse vel esse in gravi peccato, quia frequenter peccatum veniale perpetratum reputatur mortale a perfectis, propter hoc tamen non cadit a iustitia; sed si talis accedit, accedit indigne, et talis non recipit efficaciam: ergo etc.
3. Item, efficacia huius Sacramenti consistit in deletione venialium et augmento virtutum4; sed venialia non dimittuntur, nisi homo se praeparet per contritionem, cum ex actu nostro sint commissa; similiter nec virtutes augentur: ergo non in omni iusto habet efficaciam.
Conclusio. Eucharistia non habet efficaciam nisi in digne accedente et debito modo praeparato.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Sacramentum hoc non habet efficaciam in aliquo nisi in digne accedente; digne autem accedere in hoc consistit, quod homo se praeparet, sicut debet. — Tantum enim Sacramentum recipere, sicut recipitur alius cibus, non est congruum nec fructuosum; et quia in hoc Sacramento praesens est divina Maiestas, et summa
exprimitur caritas: ideo debet recipi cum honore et devotione. Et quia cum honore et devotione non suscipitur tam nobilis hospes in immundo hospitio; necesse est, quod homo hospitium Deo paret per sui diiudicationem. Et quia non parat hospitium hospiti, nisi ipsum cognoscat; necesse est, quod cibum istum ab aliis discernat. — Ad hoc ergo, quod Sacramentum hoc habeat in aliquo efficaciam, primo oportet cibum istum ab aliis discernere per fidem; secundo, hospitium parare per sui ipsius probationem; tertio, in hospitium paratum recipere cum honore et devotione. — Et primum et secundum habemus ab Apostolo primae ad Corinthios undecimo5 secundum ibi: Probet se ipsum homo; primum ibi: Non diiudicans corpus Domini; de tertio habemus exemplum in Zachaeo. Et quia multi recipiunt hoc Sacramentum, qui se non debite parant; ideo multi imbecilles et infirmi, et dormiunt multi.
Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum vir iustus recipiat efficaciam; dicendum, quod si se debite praeparet, recipit; alioquin, si ex quodam torpore, vel ex distractione non se debite praeparet, aut nullam, aut modicam reportat efficaciam, quamvis non incurrat mortalem offensionem.
1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de obice, dicendum, quod ad illud Sacramentum requiritur liberi arbitrii cooperatio; et ideo omissio obex est, non tantum peccatum, verum etiam sollicitudo vel distractio.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod manducat spiritualiter; dicendum, quod vir iustus non semper manducat spiritualiter, ut puta quando dormit, vel quando distrahitur per cogitationes extrinsecas; sed tunc spiritualiter manducat, quando movetur motu fidei et caritatis, quia tunc masticat et incorporatur6; et ideo, si negligit, non reportat effectum.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de carbone ignito, dicendum, quod operatur in sensum ratione organi; sed si operaretur in sensum ratione sui, tunc sensus occupatus circa aliud non sentiret nec calefieret7. Huius autem exemplum est in visu, quando quis dormit, vel occupatur alibi. Si ergo sensus mentis nostrae vult ab hoc carbone inflammari, necesse habet ad ipsum converti et dirigi; converti autem ad ipsum debet sicut ad memoriale passionis vivum. — Triplex enim habemus memoriale passionis, scilicet in scripto, in verbo et Sacramento. In scripto, ut quando passio describitur vel narratur per scripturam, vel quando imaginibus exprimitur; et hoc memoriale quasi mortuum est et habet fieri ad visum, qui apprehendit magis de longinquo. — In verbo, utpote cum aliquis verbotenus narrat passionem Christi; et illud partim est vivum, partim mortuum. Vivum est in corde bonorum praedicatorum, sed mortuum in corde tepidorum et malorum; vel vivum in corde et cogitatione, non vivum in voce; et hoc est ad auditum8, auditus autem non ita apprehendit de longinquo. — In Sacramento vero est memoriale, cum ipsum corpus Christi significatur et continetur in specie panis, et sanguis in specie vini; et hoc est memoriale vivum, quia ipse Christus se ipsum ibi praebet, offerens nobis corpus, quod pro nobis fuit occisum, et sanguinem, qui pro nobis fuit effusus; et hoc est ad gustum, qui de proximo apprehendit, ut iam non quasi speculatione, sed quadam experientia passionis eius memores simus.
Si ergo accendit affectum nostrum passio descripta, et amplius ferventer praedicata; multo magis inflammare et afficere debet in hoc Sacramento expressa. Et hoc absque dubio facit, si quis sensum habet et illum convertit ad hoc Sacramentum. Ille ergo est, qui ex hoc Sacramento efficaciam reportat, qui se convertit9; ille vere audit Missam, non qui tantum verba dicit vel audit sine devotione, sed qui ad hoc memoriale totam mentis intentionem convertit.
I. Doctrina huius articuli illustratur a Concilio Trident. (Sess. 13. can. 5.): « Si quis dixerit, vel praecipuum fructum ss. eucharistiae esse remissionem peccatorum, vel ex ea non alios effectus provenire, a. s. ». Recte igitur docetur communiter, augmentum gratiae, non primam gratiam, esse per se et principaliter effectum huius ss. Sacramenti; per accidens tamen interdum primam gratiam peccatori bonae fidei et attrito conferri, tenent principales Scholastici contra paucos. Hoc non omnino negat S. Bonav., qui verbis amplioribus utitur quam Alexander Hal., infra ad 2. quaestionem citatus, ut patet ex conclusione sequentis quaestionis, licet contrarium asserat Suarez (in S. p. III. disp. 63. sect. 1.). Nec rem dirimunt alia verba supra d. 9. a. 2. q. 3. in fine corp. prolata et a praedicto auctore obiecta: « Quamvis non recipiat gratiam, non tamen incurrit offensam », quia non inepte respicere possunt casum, quo peccator bonae fidei non est sufficienter dispositus. De hac dispositione cfr. infra d. 17. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. — Plura ad rem spectantia vide supra d. 9. a. 1. q. 2. et d. 12. p. I. a. 3. q. 1. ad 3, infra d. 13. a. 2. q. 2, nec non III. Sent. d. 9. dub. 4.
II. Quoad 1. quaestionem communiter antiqui Scholastici docent, requiri, saltem in adultis, aliquam positivam dispositionem actualis devotionis, ut augmentum gratiae percipiatur (cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 8. a. 3. § 2; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2.); quod plures recentiores non concedunt. — In solut. ad 3. tangitur doctrina gravissima de ss. Sacrificio Missae; de quo cfr. etiam infra dub. 1-3, d. 13. dub. 1-3. De hac 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. et a. 1. § 2. et a. 2. — Scot., IV. Sent. d. 8. q. 1; cfr. etiam q. 3. — S. Thom., hic loc. cit.; S. III. q. 79. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 2. — De hac et 2 seqq. qq. Durand., hic q. 4; Dionys. Carth., hic q. 4.
III. De seq. (2.) quaestione Alex. Hal. (loc. cit. a. 3. § 1. in fine) post plura dicit, quod hoc Sacramentum « non habet efficaciam nisi in iustis. Quia tamen largitas divina non est limitata, neque virtus est alligata ipsis Sacramentis, pie potest supponi, quod gratiam aliquam vel donum assequatur a Domino », scilicet peccator bonae fidei non habens voluntatem peccandi. Attamen (etiam in hoc recedit ab aliis) asserit, hoc non esse de virtute ipsius Sacramenti; cfr. etiam ibid. a. 1. § 2. Loquitur autem Bonav. de propria ordinatione eucharistiae. De eadem 2. quaestione: Scot., in utroque Scripto IV. Sent. d. 9. q. unica. — S. Thom. hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2. et d. 9. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2; S. loc. cit. a. 3. — B. Albert. hic a. 16. 18. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. et a. 1. § 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 1.
IV. Circa 3. quaestionem notamus, quod conclusio confirmatur doctrina Concilii Trident. loc. cit. c. 2, et Catechismi Rom. (de eucharistia n. 52.). Nonnulli recentiores theologi docent, remissionem venialium fieri tantum mediate, scilicet auxiliis ad eliciendos actus venialibus contrarios; alii putant, hoc fieri etiam immediate (cfr. infra d. 21. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.).
---
Article I. On the efficacy of this Sacrament.
Question I. Whether this Sacrament has efficacy in every just man.
For the understanding of this part, according to the two things which the Master here determines, two matters are principally asked. First, it is asked concerning the efficacy of this Sacrament. Second, it is asked concerning [its] frequentation. Concerning the first, three matters are asked. — First, it is asked whether this Sacrament has efficacy in every just man. Second, whether it has efficacy in any sinner, namely one existing in mortal sin. Third, it is asked concerning the efficacy itself in itself.
Concerning the first it is shown that it has efficacy in every just man:
1. Because a Sacrament has efficacy unless it has an obstacle; but in no just man does it have an obstacle: therefore in every [just man] it has efficacy.
2. Likewise, sacramental eating, when it is joined to spiritual [eating], always has efficacy; but it is always joined to spiritual [eating] in a just man, because "to eat spiritually is to abide in him," as Augustine says1; but every just man abides in him: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, Damascene2 says that "the flesh of Christ is like a burning coal"; but one having bodily sense is always warmed by contact with a material coal: therefore likewise one having spiritual sense [is warmed] by contact with a spiritual coal. But every just man has spiritual sense: therefore etc.
Likewise, if anything is required beyond charity in the recipient, it is asked what that is, and what [things] and how many.
On the contrary: 1. Baptism has no efficacy in an adult unless he prepares himself: therefore by a like reasoning neither does this Sacrament have efficacy in a just man unless he prepares himself; and to this makes the word of blessed Paul, First to the Corinthians, the eleventh [chapter]3: But let a man prove himself.
2. Likewise, it is possible that a just man have a conscience [accusing him] that he has gravely sinned or is in grave sin, because frequently a venial sin committed is reckoned mortal by the perfect, yet on account of this he does not fall from justice; but if such a one approaches, he approaches unworthily, and such a one does not receive efficacy: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, the efficacy of this Sacrament consists in the blotting out of venial [sins] and the increase of the virtues4; but venial [sins] are not remitted unless a man prepares himself by contrition, since they were committed by our own act; likewise neither are the virtues increased: therefore it does not have efficacy in every just man.
Conclusion. The Eucharist has no efficacy except in one approaching worthily and prepared in the due manner.
I respond: It must be said that this Sacrament has no efficacy in anyone except in one approaching worthily; and to approach worthily consists in this, that a man prepare himself as he ought. — For to receive so great a Sacrament as another food is received is neither fitting nor fruitful; and because in this Sacrament the divine Majesty is present, and the highest
charity is expressed: therefore it ought to be received with honor and devotion. And because so noble a guest is not received with honor and devotion in an unclean lodging; it is necessary that a man prepare a lodging for God by his self-examination. And because he does not prepare a lodging for a guest unless he knows him; it is necessary that he discern this food from others. — Therefore, in order that this Sacrament may have efficacy in someone, first it behooves [him] to discern this food from others by faith; second, to prepare the lodging by examination of himself; third, to receive [him] into the prepared lodging with honor and devotion. — And the first and second we have from the Apostle, First to the Corinthians, the eleventh [chapter]5, the second there: Let a man prove himself; the first there: Not discerning the body of the Lord; of the third we have an example in Zachaeus. And because many receive this Sacrament who do not duly prepare themselves; therefore many are weak and sick, and many sleep.
To that which is asked, whether a just man receives efficacy; it must be said that if he duly prepares himself, he receives [it]; otherwise, if from a certain sluggishness, or from distraction, he does not duly prepare himself, he carries away either no efficacy or little, although he does not incur mortal offense.
1. To that which is objected concerning the obstacle, it must be said that for that Sacrament the cooperation of free choice is required; and therefore omission is an obstacle, not only sin, but also anxiety or distraction.
2. To that which is objected, that he eats spiritually; it must be said that a just man does not always eat spiritually, as for instance when he sleeps, or when he is distracted by extrinsic thoughts; but he then eats spiritually when he is moved by a movement of faith and charity, because then he chews and is incorporated6; and therefore, if he is negligent, he does not carry away the effect.
3. To that which is objected concerning the burning coal, it must be said that it operates upon the sense by reason of the organ; but if it were to operate upon the sense by reason of itself, then the sense occupied about something else would neither feel nor be warmed7. Now an example of this is in sight, when someone sleeps, or is occupied elsewhere. If, then, the sense of our mind wishes to be inflamed by this coal, it is necessary for it to be turned and directed to it; and it ought to be turned to it as to a living memorial of the passion. — For we have a threefold memorial of the passion, namely in writing, in word, and in the Sacrament. In writing, as when the passion is described or narrated through Scripture, or when it is expressed by images; and this memorial is as it were dead, and has to be brought to the sight, which apprehends more from afar. — In word, namely when someone narrates the passion of Christ in words; and that is partly living, partly dead. It is living in the heart of good preachers, but dead in the heart of the lukewarm and the wicked; or living in the heart and thought, not living in the voice; and this is to the hearing8, but hearing does not so apprehend from afar. — But in the Sacrament there is a memorial, since the very body of Christ is signified and contained under the species of bread, and the blood under the species of wine; and this is a living memorial, because Christ himself offers himself there, presenting to us the body which was slain for us, and the blood which was poured out for us; and this is to the taste, which apprehends from close at hand, so that now we may be mindful not as by speculation, but by a certain experience of his passion.
If, then, the passion described, and still more fervently preached, kindles our affection; much more ought it, expressed in this Sacrament, to inflame and affect [us]. And this it does without doubt, if one has sense and turns it to this Sacrament. He, then, is the one who carries away efficacy from this Sacrament, who turns himself [to it]9; he truly hears the Mass, not he who only says or hears the words without devotion, but he who turns the whole intention of his mind to this memorial.
I. The doctrine of this article is illustrated by the Council of Trent (Sess. 13. can. 5.): "If anyone shall say that either the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or that other effects do not proceed from it, let him be anathema." Rightly therefore it is commonly taught that the increase of grace, not first grace, is per se and principally the effect of this most holy Sacrament; yet that per accidens first grace is sometimes conferred upon a sinner of good faith and contrite [by attrition], the principal Scholastics hold against a few. This St. Bonaventure does not altogether deny, who uses ampler words than Alexander of Hales, cited below at the 2nd question, as is clear from the conclusion of the following question, although Suarez asserts the contrary (in Summa p. III. disp. 63. sect. 1.). Nor do those other words decide the matter which are brought forward above d. 9. a. 2. q. 3. at the end of the body and objected by the aforesaid author: "Although he does not receive grace, yet he does not incur offense," because they can not unfittingly regard the case in which a sinner of good faith is not sufficiently disposed. Concerning this disposition cf. below d. 17. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. — Concerning more things pertaining to the matter see above d. 9. a. 1. q. 2. and d. 12. p. I. a. 3. q. 1. ad 3, below d. 13. a. 2. q. 2, and also III Sent. d. 9. dub. 4.
II. As to the 1st question, the ancient Scholastics commonly teach that there is required, at least in adults, some positive disposition of actual devotion, in order that the increase of grace be received (cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV. q. 10. m. 8. a. 3. § 2; St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 1. subquestion 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4. a. 2. subquestion 2.); which many of the more recent do not concede. — In the solution to [objection] 3 there is touched a most weighty doctrine concerning the most holy Sacrifice of the Mass; concerning which cf. also below dub. 1-3, d. 13. dub. 1-3. Concerning this 1st question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. and a. 1. § 2. and a. 2. — Scotus, IV Sent. d. 8. q. 1; cf. also q. 3. — St. Thomas, here loc. cit.; Summa III. q. 79. a. 1. — Bl. Albert, here a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 5. q. 2. — Concerning this and the 2 following questions: Durandus, here q. 4; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 4.
III. Concerning the following (2nd) question Alexander of Hales (loc. cit. a. 3. § 1. at the end), after many things, says that this Sacrament "has no efficacy except in the just. Since, however, the divine liberality is not limited, nor is power bound to the Sacraments themselves, it may piously be supposed that [a sinner] may obtain some grace or gift from the Lord," namely a sinner of good faith not having the will of sinning. Yet (in this too he departs from the others) he asserts that this is not from the power of the Sacrament itself; cf. also ibid. a. 1. § 2. But Bonaventure speaks of the proper ordination of the Eucharist. Concerning this same 2nd question: Scotus, in both Writings, IV Sent. d. 9. q. unica. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 2. subquestion 2. and d. 9. a. 3. subquestion 2; Summa loc. cit. a. 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 16. 18. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 1. subquestion 1. and a. 1. § 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 5. q. 1.
IV. Concerning the 3rd question we note that the conclusion is confirmed by the doctrine of the Council of Trent, loc. cit. c. 2, and of the Roman Catechism (on the Eucharist n. 52.). Some more recent theologians teach that the remission of venial [sins] comes about only mediately, namely by aids for eliciting acts contrary to venial [sins]; others think that this comes about also immediately (cf. below d. 21. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.).
---
- 1In Ioan. Evang. tr. 26. n. 18. Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. IX. c. 1, et pag. 201, nota 4. Cfr. etiam XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 5. n. 2. seqq.On the Gospel of John, treatise 26, n. 18. See above the text of the Master, d. IX. c. 1, and p. 201, note 4. Cf. also City of God XXI. c. 5. n. 2 ff.
- 2Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 13. Verba relata sunt supra pag. 188, nota 1.Book IV On the Orthodox Faith c. 13. The words are reported above p. 188, note 1.
- 3Vers. 28. — De prima propos. arg. cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 3. et a. 2. q. 1. seqq. — Pro secunda propos., quae in multis codd. desideratur, codd. FG substituunt: ergo similiter nec in isto Sacramento.Verse 28. — On the first proposition of the argument cf. above d. 1. p. I. q. 3. and a. 2. q. 1 ff. — For the second proposition, which is lacking in many codices, codices FG substitute: therefore likewise neither in this Sacrament.
- 4Ut insinuatur hic in lit. Magistri, c. 6. Cfr. infra q. 3. — Minor exponitur infra d. 21. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.As is suggested here in the text of the Master, c. 6. Cf. below q. 3. — The minor [premise] is expounded below d. 21. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.
- 5Vers. 28. — Secundus textus ibid. v. 29; tertius ibid. v. 30: Ideo inter vos multi etc. De Zachaeo vide Luc. 19, 6: Et festinans descendit et excepit illum gaudens. — Cfr. supra d. 9. a. 1. q. 3. et a. 2. q. 3. — Edd. pro verbo parare constanter utuntur praeparare. Cum Vat. retinuimus: secundum ibi: Probet se... primum ibi: Non dijudicans etc., licet codd. erronee, ut videtur, legant: primum ibi: Probet se... secundum ibi: Non etc.Verse 28. — The second text [is] ibid. v. 29; the third ibid. v. 30: Therefore among you many etc. Concerning Zachaeus see Luke 19, 6: And hastening he came down and received him rejoicing. — Cf. above d. 9. a. 1. q. 3. and a. 2. q. 3. — The editions for the verb parare constantly use praeparare. With the Vatican [edition] we have retained: the second there: Let him prove himself... the first there: Not discerning etc., although the codices, erroneously as it seems, read: the first there: Let him prove himself... the second there: Not etc.
- 6Vide supra d. 9. a. 1. q. 2. — Edd. incorporat.See above d. 9. a. 1. q. 2. — The editions [read] incorporat.
- 7Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 114. seqq. (c. 11.). Vide etiam tom. II. pag. 741, nota 2.Cf. Aristotle, On the Soul II, text 114 ff. (c. 11.). See also vol. II. p. 741, note 2.
- 8Plurimi codd. est audiendum, codd. F G est ad audiendum.Most codices [read] est audiendum, codices F G est ad audiendum.
- 9Cfr. Sermo de excellentia ss. Sacram. etc. (inter opera Bernardi) n. 6. — Cod. Y qui se sic convertit. Ex eodem cod. cum codd. F G H inferius post sed supplevimus qui.Cf. the Sermon On the Excellence of the most holy Sacrament etc. (among the works of Bernard) n. 6. — Codex Y [reads] qui se sic convertit. From the same codex, together with codices F G H, below after sed we have supplied qui.