Dist. 12, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 12
Articulus II. De frequentatione huius Sacramenti.
Consequenter quaeritur de huius Sacramenti frequentatione. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur, utrum necesse sit accedere ad hoc Sacramentum, sive utrum teneamur accedere. Secundo quaeritur, quid sit melius habenti libertatem accedendi, scilicet frequentare, an tarde accedere. Tertio, utrum homo debeat se retrahere ab hoc Sacramento propter immunditiam corporalem1.
Quaestio I. Utrum teneamur accedere ad Sacramentum eucharistiae.
Circa primum ostenditur, quod sit necesse ad hoc Sacramentum accedere, hoc modo:
1. Ioannis sexto2: Nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis et biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis etc.
2. Item, Ecclesia excommunicat non accedentes ad hoc Sacramentum determinatis temporibus3; sed non excommunicat pro veniali culpa vel levi: ergo gravis culpa est non accedere; et si hoc, necesse est accedere.
3. Item, Innocentius4: « Necessario manducandus est Agnus, ut a vastante Angelo protegamur; nec exire possumus de Aegypto, nisi celebrando phase paschalem Agnum comedamus ». Et ante hoc dicit, quod necesse est, quod homo se praeparet, ne cessando sumere incurrat periculum.
4. Item, de sacerdote specialiter ostenditur, ut dicit Ambrosius5 in quadam oratione: « Grave est, quod ad mensam tuam mundo corde et innocentibus manibus non venimus; sed gravius est, si, quia peccata metuimus, sacrificium non reddamus »; sed primum mortale: ergo et secundum.
5. Item, ratione videtur: quia sacerdoti impositum est officium; sed officium sine usu est otiosum; et amplius, qui habet talentum, tenetur illo uti, ne damnetur cum servo nequam6: ergo tenetur sacrificium offerre. Et est exemplum: si aliquis habet officium praedicandi sibi impositum et videret, expedire exsecutionem, et negligeret; graviter peccaret.
Contra: 1. Augustinus7: « Quid paras dentem et ventrem? Crede, et manducasti »: si ergo sufficit ad manducationem credere, non ergo tenemur sumere Sacramentum.
2. Item, effectus huius Sacramenti est deletio venialium et augmentum virtutum8; sed neutrum est de necessitate salutis: ergo etc.
3. Item, si necesse esset accedere: ergo parvuli, qui non accedunt nec manducant, omnes damnarentur.
Conclusio. Eucharistiae sumtio non est de necessitate, quantum est de sua institutione; est tamen necessaria ex officio assumto, vel ex praecepto superaddito.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Sacramentum hoc non est de necessitate, quantum est de sua institutione; sed si est, hoc est ex assumto officio, vel mandato superaddito: ex assumto officio, quod scilicet necessarium est exsequi, ut cum sacerdos vivit de altari, ut parochianus9 debet servire altari; si autem non vivat de altari, sed in libertate sua remaneat, non tenetur magis quam alius homo ex debito, sed magis de bono et aequo. Ex mandato superaddito, quod instituit Ecclesia, ut fideles communicarent semel in anno et in morte. Unde si quis negligit, non est sine contemptu; ideo peccat mortaliter.
Ratio autem, quare Ecclesia instituit, est, quia hoc Sacramentum est salubre, et multi erant negligentes de sua salute. Institutio autem Ecclesiae fuit sub praecepto, ut patet in Decretali de Poenitentiis, libro ultimo10: « Omnis utriusque sexus fidelis, cum ad annos discretionis pervenerit, recipiat reverenter ad minus in Pascha eucharistiae Sacramentum, nisi forte de proprii sacerdotis consilio ob aliquam rationabilem causam ab eius perceptione ad tempus duxerit abstinendum; alioquin et vivens ab ingressu ecclesiae arceatur et moriens christiana careat sepultura ». Constat autem, quod haec est poena excommunicatorum. — Ex his patent obiecta.
1. Nam verbum Ioannis, sive Domini in Ioanne intelligitur de manducatione spirituali, quae est per fidem et caritatem, sine qua nemo adultus salvatur; et haec etiam est in parvulo aliquo modo quantum ad incorporationem11.
2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Ecclesia, patet responsio: quia Ecclesia instituit, et ut institutio esset firma, addidit poenam. — Similiter illud Innocentii intelligitur aut de manducatione spirituali, aut de sacramentali ratione institutionis Ecclesiae.
4. Ad illud quod quaeritur de sacerdote, dicendum, quod si sacerdos est, qui habet curam12, tenetur, nisi alius eius defectum suppleat. — Ad illud quod obiicitur de Ambrosio, dicendum, quod loquitur de talibus, qui tenentur; vel si de omnibus, tunc loquitur de immunditia veniali, non mortali.
5. Ad aliud dicendum, quod officium sacerdotale non imponitur, ut homo necessario exsequatur, sed pro loco et tempore, ut sibi videbitur expedire; et ideo, si conscientia dictat, quod sit abstinendum ob sui indignitatem et reverentiam Sacramenti, non peccat; nec etiam praedicator, nisi quando videt imminere periculum, vel officium per obedientiam est ei iniunctum13, ut illud exsequatur.
I. Hic agitur de sumtione sacramentali eucharistiae; de sumtione sive manducatione spirituali cfr. supra d. 9. q. 1. 3. — Ad solvendam hanc 1. quaestionem supponenda est distinctio inter necessitatem medii et necessitatem praecepti. Haec iterum duplex est, secundum quod praeceptum vel est divinum, vel ecclesiasticum. Quod autem sumtio eucharistiae sacramentalis non requiratur necessitate medii ad obtinendam, vel augendam gratiam, patet (cfr. supra scholion ad a. 1. q. 1.); nec requiritur, absolute loquendo, ad perseverandum in gratia. Quoad parvulos generatim dicit Concil. Tridentum (Sess. XXI. can. 4.): « Si quis dixerit, parvulis, antequam ad annos discretionis pervenerint, necessariam esse eucharistiae communionem, a. s. ». — De praecepto ecclesiastico quoad adultos non est dubium; sed utrum praeceptum divinum eosdem obliget ad realem eucharistiae sumtionem, fuit quaestio controversa. S. Bonav. (ad 1.) hoc vult negare; quod etiam cum pluribus antiquis docuerunt Alex. Hal. et ipse S. Thomas in Comment. (hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. et d. 9. q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2.), atque Dionys. Carth. Sed S. Thom. (S. III. q. 80. a. 11.) hanc sententiam retractavit, recte arguens: « Frustra esset votum, nisi impleretur, quando opportunitas adesset. Et ideo manifestum est, quod homo tenetur hoc Sacramentum sumere, non solum ex statuto ecclesiae, sed ex mandato Domini... Ex statuto autem Ecclesiae sunt determinata tempora exsequendi Christi praeceptum ». Conveniunt Richard. a Med. (hic a. 6. q. 1.), Scot. (IV. Sent. d. 13. q. 2. n. 20.), Durand. (IV. Sent. d. 13, q. 2.). Sententia nunc communis docet, lege divina praecipi adultis, ut eucharistiam sumant interdum, saltem instante morte. — De hac 1. quaestione praeter locos citt.: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 11. m. 2. a. 1. § 1. in fine. — S. Thom., S. III. q. 73. a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., IV. Sent. d. 9. q. 1. a. 3. — Dionys. Carth., IV. Sent. d. 9. q. 1.
II. Ad seq. (2.) quaestionem Scholastici antiqui communiter respondent, quod perfecte disposito magis expediret communicare, etiam singulis diebus, quam a communione abstinere; simul laudant humilitatem, qua quis ob reverentiam interdum eam omittit. Quoad praxim notum est, frequentem communionem illa aetate non fuisse ita in usu, sicut in primitiva Ecclesia et nostris temporibus respectu eorum qui pietatem profitentur. Hinc B. Albert. (IV. Sent. d. 13. a. 28. ad ult.), postquam dixit, devotas mulieres, etiam in matrimonio viventes, quae se praeparant, non esse prohibendas a frequenti communione, addit: « praecipue de mense ad mensem secundum solemnitates maiores, quia iniuste arcentur qui digni sunt ». — De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 1. in principio. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1; S. III. q. 80. a. 10. — B. Albert. a. cit. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 6. q. 1. — Durand., hic q. 5. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.
III. De seq. (3.) quaestione alii commentatores Magistri solent tractare supra in d. 9, qui in doctrina satis conveniunt. — De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 2. § 3. — Scot. rem tangit infra d. 32. n. 7. — S. Thom., d. 9. q. 1. a. 4; S. loc. cit. a. 7. — B. Albert., d. 9. a. 10. 11. — Petr. a Tar., d. 9. q. 2. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., d. 9. a. 2. q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., d. 9. q. 5.
---
Article II. On the frequenting of this Sacrament.
Consequently it is asked about the frequenting of this Sacrament. And concerning this, three things are asked. First, it is asked whether it is necessary to approach this Sacrament, or whether we are bound to approach [it]. Second, it is asked what is better for one who has the freedom of approaching, namely to frequent [it], or to approach [it] rarely. Third, whether a man ought to withdraw himself from this Sacrament on account of bodily uncleanness1.
Question I. Whether we are bound to approach the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
Concerning the first, it is shown that it is necessary to approach this Sacrament, in this way:
1. John six2: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have etc.
2. Likewise, the Church excommunicates those who do not approach this Sacrament at determined times3; but it does not excommunicate for a venial or light fault: therefore it is a grave fault not to approach; and if this is so, it is necessary to approach.
3. Likewise, Innocent4: "The Lamb must necessarily be eaten, that we may be protected from the destroying Angel; nor can we go out of Egypt unless, by celebrating the phase, we eat the paschal Lamb." And before this he says that it is necessary that a man prepare himself, lest by ceasing to receive he incur danger.
4. Likewise, concerning the priest in particular it is shown, as Ambrose5 says in a certain prayer: "It is grievous that we do not come to your table with a clean heart and innocent hands; but it is more grievous if, because we fear sins, we do not render the sacrifice"; but the first is mortal: therefore also the second.
5. Likewise, by reason it seems so: because an office has been imposed on the priest; but an office without use is idle; and further, he who has a talent is bound to use it, lest he be condemned with the wicked servant6: therefore he is bound to offer the sacrifice. And there is an example: if someone has the office of preaching imposed on him and were to see that it would be expedient to carry it out, and were to neglect [it]; he would sin grievously.
On the contrary: 1. Augustine7: "Why do you prepare your tooth and your belly? Believe, and you have eaten": if therefore it suffices for eating to believe, then we are not bound to receive the Sacrament.
2. Likewise, the effect of this Sacrament is the blotting out of venial [sins] and the increase of virtues8; but neither is of the necessity of salvation: therefore, etc.
3. Likewise, if it were necessary to approach: then little children, who do not approach nor eat, would all be damned.
Conclusion. The reception of the Eucharist is not of necessity, as regards its institution; yet it is necessary by reason of an office undertaken, or by a superadded precept.
Respondeo: It must be said that this Sacrament is not of necessity, as regards its institution; but if it is [necessary], this is by reason of an office undertaken, or by a superadded mandate: by reason of an office undertaken, namely which is necessary to carry out, as when a priest lives from the altar, just as a parishioner9 ought to serve the altar; but if he does not live from the altar, but remains in his freedom, he is not bound more than any other man out of debt, but rather out of what is good and equitable. By a superadded mandate, which the Church instituted, that the faithful should communicate once in the year and at death. Whence if anyone neglects [this], it is not without contempt; therefore he sins mortally.
But the reason why the Church instituted [this] is that this Sacrament is salutary, and many were negligent of their salvation. And the institution of the Church was under precept, as is clear in the Decretal On Penances, in the last book10: "Let every faithful person of either sex, when he has come to the years of discretion, reverently receive at least at Easter the Sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perhaps by the counsel of his own priest, for some reasonable cause, he should think it right to abstain from receiving it for a time; otherwise let him while living be barred from entrance to the church, and at death let him lack Christian burial." But it is established that this is the penalty of the excommunicated. — From these things the objections are clear.
1. For the word of John, or of the Lord in John, is understood of spiritual eating, which is through faith and charity, without which no adult is saved; and this also is in a little child in some manner as regards incorporation11.
2. 3. To that which is objected concerning the Church, the response is clear: because the Church instituted [it], and that the institution might be firm, it added a penalty. — Likewise that [saying] of Innocent is understood either of spiritual eating, or of the sacramental character of the Church's institution.
4. To that which is asked concerning the priest, it must be said that if he is a priest who has a cure [of souls]12, he is bound, unless another supplies his default. — To that which is objected concerning Ambrose, it must be said that he speaks of such persons as are bound; or if of all, then he speaks of venial uncleanness, not mortal.
5. To the other it must be said that the priestly office is not imposed so that a man should necessarily carry it out, but according to place and time, as it shall seem expedient to him; and therefore, if conscience dictates that he ought to abstain on account of his own unworthiness and reverence for the Sacrament, he does not sin; nor does even a preacher, except when he sees danger threatening, or the office through obedience has been enjoined on him13, that he carry it out.
I. Here treatment is made of the sacramental reception of the Eucharist; on the spiritual reception or eating cf. above d. 9. q. 1. 3. — For solving this 1st question a distinction is to be presupposed between the necessity of means and the necessity of precept. This again is twofold, according as the precept is either divine or ecclesiastical. That the sacramental reception of the Eucharist is not required by necessity of means for obtaining or increasing grace, is clear (cf. above the scholion on a. 1. q. 1.); nor is it required, absolutely speaking, for persevering in grace. As regards little children, the Council of Trent says generally (Sess. XXI. can. 4): "If anyone shall say that for little children, before they have come to the years of discretion, communion of the Eucharist is necessary, let him be anathema." — Concerning the ecclesiastical precept as regards adults there is no doubt; but whether the divine precept obliges the same to the real reception of the Eucharist was a controverted question. St. Bonaventure (at 1) wishes to deny this; which, with many of the ancients, Alexander of Hales and St. Thomas himself in his Commentary also taught (here q. 3. a. 2. subquestion 1, and d. 9. q. 1. a. 1. subquestion 2), and also Dionysius the Carthusian. But St. Thomas (Summa III. q. 80. a. 11) retracted this opinion, rightly arguing: "A vow would be in vain unless it were fulfilled when opportunity is present. And therefore it is manifest that a man is bound to receive this Sacrament, not only from the statute of the Church, but from the mandate of the Lord... But from the statute of the Church the times of carrying out Christ's precept are determined." Richard of Mediavilla (here a. 6. q. 1.), Scotus (IV Sent. d. 13. q. 2. n. 20.), Durandus (IV Sent. d. 13. q. 2.) agree. The now common opinion teaches that adults are commanded by divine law to receive the Eucharist from time to time, at least at the approach of death. — On this 1st question, besides the places cited: Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV. q. 11. m. 2. a. 1. § 1. at the end. — St. Thomas, Summa III. q. 73. a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, IV Sent. d. 9. q. 1. a. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, IV Sent. d. 9. q. 1.
II. To the following (2nd) question the ancient Scholastics commonly respond that for one perfectly disposed it would be more expedient to communicate, even on single days, than to abstain from communion; at the same time they praise the humility by which one, out of reverence, sometimes omits it. As regards practice, it is known that frequent communion was not so much in use in that age as in the primitive Church and in our times in respect of those who profess piety. Whence Bl. Albert (IV Sent. d. 13. a. 28. at the end), after he had said that devout women, even those living in matrimony, who prepare themselves, are not to be prohibited from frequent communion, adds: "especially from month to month according to the greater solemnities, because those who are worthy are unjustly barred." — Concerning the same question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 1. at the beginning. — St. Thomas, here q. 3. a. 1; Summa III. q. 80. a. 10. — Bl. Albert, the article cited. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4. a. 2. subquestion 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 6. q. 1. — Durandus, here q. 5. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 5.
III. Concerning the following (3rd) question other commentators on the Master are wont to treat above in d. 9, who agree well enough in doctrine. — Concerning the same question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. a. 2. § 3. — Scotus touches on the matter below at d. 32. n. 7. — St. Thomas, d. 9. q. 1. a. 4; Summa loc. cit. a. 7. — Bl. Albert, d. 9. a. 10. 11. — Peter of Tarentaise, d. 9. q. 2. a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, d. 9. a. 2. q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, d. 9. q. 5.
---
- 1Cfr. infra dub. 4. nec non II. Sent. d. 36. dub. 4, et magis explicite d. 41. a. 2. q. 1. — Finem arg. insinuat August., I. de Baptismo contra Donatistas, c. 1. n. 2: Nulli enim Sacramento iniuria facienda est.Cf. below dub. 4, and also II Sent. d. 36. dub. 4, and more explicitly d. 41. a. 2. q. 1. — Augustine hints at the purpose of the argument, I On Baptism against the Donatists, c. 1. n. 2: For no injury must be done to a Sacrament. [p. 293, n. 1]
- 2Vers. 54.Verse 54. [p. 294, n. 1]
- 3Vide C. Saeculares, qui in (19.), de Consecr. d. II. 2. et C. Omnis utriusque sexus (12.), X. de Poenitentiis et remission. (libr. V. tit. 38.).See the canon Saeculares, qui in (19), On Consecration dist. II. 2, and the canon Omnis utriusque sexus (12), in the Decretals On Penances and Remissions (book V. tit. 38). [p. 294, n. 2]
- 4Libr. IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 42, ubi, praemissis verbis Domini, Ioan. 6, 54: Nisi manducaveritis etc, et Apostoli I. Cor. 11, 29: Qui manducat et bibit indigne etc, ac v. 28: Probet autem se ipsum etc, deinde ait: Ingens itaque nobis videtur vel indicitur bene vivendi necessitas, ne corpus Domini vel indigne sumendo sumamus iudicium, vel sumere cessando nihilominus incurramus periculum. Necessario quippe sumendus est Agnus... paschalem Agnum edamus (Exod. 12, 11.).Book IV On the sacred mystery of the Altar, c. 42, where, having premised the words of the Lord, John 6:54: Unless you eat etc., and of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11:29: He who eats and drinks unworthily etc., and v. 28: But let a man prove himself etc., he then says: There is therefore seen, or declared, to us a great necessity of living well, lest by receiving the body of the Lord even unworthily we should receive judgment, or by ceasing to receive we should nonetheless incur danger. For the Lamb must necessarily be received... let us eat the paschal Lamb (Exod. 12:11). [p. 294, n. 3]
- 5Oratio, ex qua verba subnexa sunt sumta, non est Ambrosii, sed Anselmi; inter cuius orationes invenitur sub n. 33: Si tantum, Domine, reatum nostrae delinquentiae cogitamus, deputatum observationis ministerium non implemus; grave est enim, quod ad mensam... sed gravius est, si, dum peccatum metuimus, etiam sacrificium non reddamus.The prayer from which the words appended below are taken is not Ambrose's, but Anselm's; among whose prayers it is found under n. 33: If, Lord, we consider only the guilt of our delinquency, we do not fulfill the appointed ministry of observance; for it is grievous that [we do not come] to the table... but it is more grievous if, while we fear sin, we also do not render the sacrifice. [p. 294, n. 4]
- 6De quo Luc. 19, 22. seqq. Cfr. Matth. 25, 26. — Glossa ordinaria sumta ex Beda exponit hunc versum de praedicatoribus Evangelii. — Inferius pro habet codd. GH haberet.On which see Luke 19:22 ff. Cf. Matt. 25:26. — The ordinary Gloss, taken from Bede, expounds this verse of the preachers of the Gospel. — Below, for habet ("has") codices GH [read] haberet ("would have"). [p. 294, n. 5]
- 7In Ioan. Evang. tr. 25. n. 12. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. IX. c. 1.On the Gospel of John, tractate 25, n. 12. Cf. above the text of the Master, d. IX. c. 1. [p. 294, n. 6]
- 8Ut ostensum est art. praeced. q. 3.As was shown in the preceding article, q. 3. [p. 294, n. 7]
- 9Edd. ut parochianis prosit.The editions [read] ut parochianis prosit ("that it may profit the parishioners"). [p. 294, n. 8]
- 10Sive lib. V. tit. 38. c. 12, ubi textus originalis post pervenerit subiungit praeceptum confitendi semel in anno peccata sua proprio sacerdoti.That is, book V. tit. 38. c. 12, where the original text, after pervenerit ("has come"), adds the precept of confessing one's sins once a year to one's own priest. [p. 294, n. 9]
- 11Cfr. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 26. n. 15; I. de Peccator. mer. et remiss. etc. c. 20. n. 26. seq., et III. c. 4. n. 7. seq. Vide etiam supra lit. Magistri, d. IX. c. 1, et de eadem re Comment. a. 1. q. 2; d. 4. p. 1. dub. 2. et p. II. a. 2. q. 1. seqq.Cf. Augustine, On the Gospel of John, tractate 26, n. 15; I On the merits and remission of sins etc. c. 20. n. 26 seq., and III. c. 4. n. 7 seq. See also above the text of the Master, d. IX. c. 1, and on the same matter the Commentary, a. 1. q. 2; d. 4. p. 1. dub. 2. and p. II. a. 2. q. 1 ff. [p. 295, n. 1]
- 12Cod. H (F a secunda manu) supplet animarum. Mox post alius cod. F addit esset qui.Codex H (F by a second hand) supplies animarum ("of souls" — i.e. curam animarum, "a cure of souls"). Soon after, following alius ("another"), codex F adds esset qui ("there were one who"). [p. 295, n. 2]
- 13Edd. vel negligit officium per inobedientiam; est enim iniunctum.The editions [read] vel negligit officium per inobedientiam; est enim iniunctum ("or he neglects the office through disobedience; for it has been enjoined"). [p. 295, n. 3]