Dist. 8, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 8
Articulus II. De institutione Sacramenti eucharistiae.
Quantum ad secundum articulum consequenter quaeritur de institutione Sacramenti eucharistiae. Et circa hoc tria quaeruntur.
Primo quaeritur, utrum a principio debuerit institui.
Secundo, supposito quod in lege Evangelii, quaeritur, quando: utrum ante passionem, an post.
Tertio quaeritur de modo et ordine instituendi.
Quaestio I. Utrum Sacramentum eucharistiae debuerit institui a principio.
Et quod a principio debuerit institui, videtur:
1. Quia hoc Sacramentum est viaticum, quia praebet alimentum itineranti1: ergo tunc institui debuit, quando homines itinerare coeperunt ad patriam; sed hoc statim fuit post lapsum: ergo etc.
2. Item, hoc Sacramentum est Sacramentum unionis corporis Christi mystici2: ergo tunc debuit institui, quando fuit corpus mysticum; sed hoc fuit a principio: ergo etc.
3. Item, Sacramentum matrimonii non cessavit propter lapsum, immo quod erat in officium factum est in remedium; sed esus ligni vitae datus erat homini, ut dicit Augustinus3, in Sacramentum: ergo non debuit cessare, quin sacramentaliter ederet. Sed non debuit lignum comedere quod daret vitam corporalem, quia morti corporali obligatus erat: ergo lignum vitae, quod daret vitam spiritualem; sed hoc est eucharistia: ergo etc.
4. Item, sicut poenitentia est contra mortale, ita eucharistia contra venialia4; sed ab initio currit veniale peccatum, ut mortale: ergo pari ratione eucharistia cum poenitentia.
Contra: 1. Hoc Sacramentum est maxime gratiae contentivum, unde et ab hoc nomen accepit5: ergo tantum tempore legis gratiae debuit institui.
2. Item, hoc Sacramentum est contentivum secundum veritatem corporis Christi, quod traxit de Virgine6: ergo non potuit esse, antequam esset hoc corpus: ergo tantum in novo testamento.
Conclusio. Eucharistiae Sacramentum tantum statui gratiae congruit.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod hoc Sacramentum congruebat legi tantum gratiae, tum propter rem contentam, quae est corpus Christi verum, tum propter efficaciam, quae est caritatis vinculum, quae in nova lege apparere et abundare debuit, in anterioribus autem imperfecte possideri; ut ita gradus sit in mundo, sicut in uno homine7.
Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de viatico, dicendum, quod non valet: quia aliquod debuerunt habere sustentaculum, non perfectum cibum; et ita aliquam figuram, non rem ipsam.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est signum corporis mystici; dicendum, quod non tantum est signum eius, immo corporis Christi veri, et illius est signum immediatius; et ideo, quamvis corpus Christi mysticum coeperit ab Abel8, non tamen corpus Christi proprium, ideo nec hoc Sacramentum.
Ad 3. Ad tertium dicendum, quod matrimonium quantum ad officium omni statui conveniebat, quantum autem ad remedium non. Esus autem corporalis illius ligni conveniebat statui immortalitatis, esus istius ligni spiritualis omni statui, sed sacramentalis post istius ligni nativitatem et fructum.
Ad 4. Est enim eius manducatio secundum etiam assumtam humanitatem, quam exposuit pro nobis in pretium et nunc exponit in cibum, Ioannis sexto9: Panis, quem ego dabo, caro mea est pro mundi vita. Ad illud quod obiicitur de eucharistia, quod est remedium contra venialia; dicendum, quod tripliciter deficit ista ratio: primo, quia morbus venialis non est ita periculosus, ut mortalis; secundo vero, quia per poenitentiam veniale poterat habere remedium, ut mortale; tertio, quia illud Sacramentum non est principaliter contra venialia ordinatum, ut infra videbitur.
I. De convenientia institutionis ipsius Sacramenti eucharistiae pro more sapientissime auctor noster loquitur in Breviloq. p. VI. c. 9; cfr. hic dub. 2, infra d. 12. p. II. passim. — De congruentia temporis institutionis agitur hic q. I. et 2, approbantibus aliis Scholasticis.
De 1. et 2. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 2. a. 1. § 1. 2. 3. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. I. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2. 3; S. III. q. 73. a. 5. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 4. quaestiunc. 2. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.
II. Quoad 3. quaestionem sententia, quam S. Bonav. cum S. Thoma et Scoto probabiliorem esse censet, post Concilium Trid. (cfr. Sess. 13. c. 1.) communiter tanquam certa tenetur, licet idem Concilium ab eadem definienda abstinuerit.
De eadem: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 4. a. 2. § 2. — Scot., hic q. 2. n. 11. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1; S. III. q. 78. a. 1. ad 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 6. quaestiunc. 6. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. ad 5. — Durand., hic q. 2. circa finem. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.
---
Article II. On the institution of the Sacrament of the eucharist.
As to the second article, the question that follows concerns the institution of the Sacrament of the eucharist. And about this three things are asked.
First it is asked whether it ought to have been instituted from the beginning.
Second, granting that it was [instituted] in the law of the Gospel, it is asked when: whether before the passion, or after.
Third it is asked about the manner and order of instituting it.
Question I. Whether the Sacrament of the eucharist ought to have been instituted from the beginning.
That it ought to have been instituted from the beginning, it seems:
1. Because this Sacrament is a viaticum, since it furnishes nourishment to one journeying1: therefore it ought to have been instituted then, when men began to journey toward the homeland; but this happened immediately after the fall: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, this Sacrament is the Sacrament of the union of Christ's mystical body2: therefore it ought to have been instituted then, when the mystical body existed; but this was from the beginning: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, the Sacrament of matrimony did not cease on account of the fall, but rather what had been [established] as a duty became a remedy; but the eating of the tree of life was given to man, as Augustine says3, as a Sacrament: therefore it ought not to have ceased, but that he should eat sacramentally. But he ought not to eat a tree that would give bodily life, since he was bound to bodily death: therefore [he ought to eat] the tree of life that would give spiritual life; but this is the eucharist: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, just as penance is against mortal [sin], so the eucharist is against venial [sins]4; but from the beginning venial sin has run its course, as has mortal: therefore by parity of reasoning the eucharist [should be] together with penance.
On the contrary: 1. This Sacrament is in the highest degree the container of grace, whence also it takes its name5: therefore it ought to have been instituted only in the time of the law of grace.
2. Likewise, this Sacrament is the container, according to truth, of the body of Christ, which he drew from the Virgin6: therefore it could not have existed before this body existed: therefore [it belongs] only to the new testament.
Conclusion. The Sacrament of the eucharist befits only the state of grace.
I respond: It must be said that this Sacrament befitted only the law of grace, both on account of the thing contained, which is the true body of Christ, and on account of its efficacy, which is the bond of charity, which in the new law had to appear and abound, but in earlier [times] to be possessed imperfectly; so that there might be a gradation in the world, just as in a single man7.
To the first. To that, then, which is objected concerning the viaticum, it must be said that it does not hold: because [men] needed to have some sustenance, not perfect food; and so some figure, not the thing itself.
To the second. To that which is objected, that it is the sign of the mystical body; it must be said that it is not only the sign of it, but rather of the true body of Christ, and it is the sign of that more immediately; and therefore, although the mystical body of Christ began from Abel8, yet the proper body of Christ did not, and therefore neither did this Sacrament.
To the third. To the third it must be said that matrimony, as to its duty, was fitting for every state, but as to its remedy not. But the bodily eating of that tree was fitting for the state of immortality, the spiritual eating of this tree for every state, but the sacramental [eating] after the nativity and fruit of this tree.
To the fourth. For the eating of it is also according to the assumed humanity, which he laid down for us as a price and now lays down as food, in John the sixth9: The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. To that which is objected concerning the eucharist, that it is a remedy against venial [sins]; it must be said that this reasoning fails in three ways: first, because venial sickness is not as dangerous as mortal; second indeed, because through penance venial [sin] could have a remedy, as could mortal; third, because that Sacrament is not principally ordained against venial [sins], as will be seen below.
I. On the fittingness of the institution of the Sacrament of the eucharist itself, our author speaks, after his manner, most wisely in the Breviloquium, p. VI, c. 9; cf. here dub. 2, [and] below d. 12, p. II, passim. — On the fittingness of the time of the institution it is treated here in q. I and 2, with the other Scholastics in agreement.
On the 1st and 2nd question: Alex. of Hales, Summa p. IV, q. 10, m. 2, a. 1, § 1, 2, 3. — Scotus, in both Writings here q. I. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3, quaestiunc. 2, 3; Summa III, q. 73, a. 5. — Bl. Albert, here a. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 4, quaestiunc. 2, 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3.
II. As to the 3rd question, the opinion which St. Bonaventure, with St. Thomas and Scotus, judges more probable, after the Council of Trent (cf. Sess. 13, c. 1) is commonly held as certain, although the same Council abstained from defining it.
On the same: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit., m. 4, a. 2, § 2. — Scotus, here q. 2, n. 11. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1, quaestiunc. 1; Summa III, q. 78, a. 1, ad 1. — Bl. Albert, here a. 6, quaestiunc. 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 3, q. 1, ad 5. — Durandus, here q. 2, near the end. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 5.
---
- 1Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2, et infra dub. 3.See here the text of the Master, c. 2, and below dub. 3.
- 2Ut exponitur infra p. II. huius dist. a. 2. q. 1. — Edd. corporis Christi veri et mystici.As is explained below in p. II of this distinction, a. 2, q. 1. — The editions [read] of the true and mystical body of Christ.
- 3Libr. VIII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 4. n. 8: Erat ei ergo in lignis ceteris alimentum, in illo autem Sacramentum. Cfr. ibid. XI. c. 32. n. 42. et c. 40. n. 54; XIII. de Civ. Dei c. 20, et VI. Oper. imperf. contra Iulian. c. 30. Explicationem huius sententiae vide II. Sent. d. 19. dub. 4. — De maiori, in qua post erat cod. O addit prius, cfr. infra d. 26. a. 1. q. 1. — Pro sed esus edd. et etiam esus.Bk. VIII, On Genesis literally, c. 4, n. 8: "There was therefore for him nourishment in the other trees, but in that one a Sacrament." Cf. ibid. XI, c. 32, n. 42, and c. 40, n. 54; XIII, On the City of God, c. 20, and VI, Unfinished Work against Julian, c. 30. For the explanation of this sentence see II Sent., d. 19, dub. 4. — On the major [premise], in which after erat codex O adds prius, cf. below d. 26, a. 1, q. 1. — For sed esus the editions [read] et etiam esus.
- 4Cfr. infra d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. — Cod. P et ed. I veniale.Cf. below d. 12, p. II, a. 1, q. 3. — Codex P and ed. I [read] veniale.
- 5Vide infra dub. 2. — Post unde ex codd. F G I L supplevimus et.See below dub. 2. — After unde we have supplied et from codices F G I L.
- 6Cfr. infra d. 10. p. I. q. 1. seqq.Cf. below d. 10, p. I, q. 1 and following.
- 7Vide supra pag. 31, nota 4.See above p. 31, note 4.
- 8Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 2. m. 4. a. 1, ubi asserit, quod Ecclesia non ab Adam coepit, sed ab Abel, utpote quia de eius fide tanquam de sacro signo ex parte hominis primo in Scriptura (Gen. 4, 4.) legatur, quin semper sanctus exstiterit, nec non tres status Ecclesiae, scil. martyrum, virginum et pastorum seu fidei doctorum in se gesserit. Vide I. de Mirabilibus sacrae Script. (inter opera August.) c. 3, ubi verba Christi Matth. 23, 35: A sanguine Abel iusti etc., ita exponuntur: Tota enim iustitia haec est: virginitas, sacerdotium et martyrium. Quae triplex iustitia in Abel primo fuit, qui et munera Deo placita obtulit, prosapiam generis in saeculo non reliquit et martyrii coronam sanguinis effusione promeruit. Cfr. etiam August., Enarrat. in Ps. 61. n. 6. seqq., et XV. de Civ. Dei, c. 1. n. 2. — Superius post immo codd. H L addunt etiam.Cf. Alex. of Hales, Summa p. IV, q. 2, m. 4, a. 1, where he asserts that the Church began not from Adam but from Abel, inasmuch as from his faith, as from a sacred sign on man's part, it is first read in Scripture (Gen. 4, 4) that he was ever holy, and that he bore in himself the three states of the Church, namely of martyrs, virgins, and pastors or teachers of the faith. See I, On the Marvels of Sacred Scripture (among the works of Augustine) c. 3, where the words of Christ in Matt. 23, 35: "From the blood of righteous Abel" etc. are thus explained: "For this is the whole of righteousness: virginity, priesthood, and martyrdom. Which threefold righteousness was in Abel first," who both offered gifts pleasing to God, left no lineage of offspring in the world, and earned the crown of martyrdom by the shedding of his blood. Cf. also Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms, Ps. 61, n. 6 and following, and XV, On the City of God, c. 1, n. 2. — Above, after immo, codices H L add etiam.
- 9Vers. 52. — Superius multi codd. omittunt corporalis, et pro et fructum cod. bb vel fructum, aliquot codd. vel ut fructum vel ut finitum, Vat. ut finitum vel fructus.[John 6] v. 52. — Above, many codices omit corporalis, and for et fructum codex bb [reads] vel fructum, several codices vel ut fructum or ut finitum, the Vatican [edition] ut finitum vel fructus. ---