← Back to Distinction 8

Dist. 8, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 3

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 8

Textus Latinus
p. 186

Quaestio III. Utrum Dominus eucharistiae Sacramentum prius confecerit, quam verbum protulerit.

Tertio quaeritur de modo instituendi Sacramentum eucharistiae. Et cum institutio huius Sacramenti fuerit in institutione verbi, quaeritur, utrum prius confecerit, quam verbum protulerit. Et quod sic, ostenditur:

1. Ex textu Evangelii. Matthaei vigesimo sexto1 scribitur: Coenantibus illis, accepit Iesus panem et benedixit ac fregit ac dedit discipulis suis dicens: Accipite etc.; et post: Hoc est corpus meum. Ex hoc verbo duplex elicitur ratio: prima, quia prius benedixit, quam verbum proferret; sed benedictio fuit consecratio2: ergo prius benedixit et consecravit, quam verbum proferret.

2. Item, arguitur ex alio verbo: quia prius fregit, quam verbum proferret; sed fractio consequitur confectionem in hoc Sacramento, sicut patet3: ergo prius confecit, quam proferret verba: ergo non instituit verba conficiendo.

Sed contra: 1. Si verba non protulit conficiendo, aut confecit aliis verbis, aut sine verbo. Si confecit aliis verbis: ergo illa maxime debent habere virtutem; si sine verbo: ergo videtur, quod Ecclesia non imitetur summum magistrum in conficiendo; quod videtur inconveniens, cum in isto Sacramento praecipue summus sacerdos formam et exemplar dederit consecrandi.

2. Item, si non confecit his verbis, ergo verba in ore Christi fuerunt tantum significativa, ergo non habuerunt virtutem neque efficaciam: si tunc non habuerunt, videtur ergo, quod nunquam habeant, quia non habent nunc, nisi propter illud quod factum est tunc.

p. 187

Conclusio. Dominus conficiendo verba formae instituit et proferendo verba confecit.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod circa hoc sunt tres opiniones satis probabiles.

Prima est, quod Dominus prius confecit, quam verbum instituerit, sicut prius baptizatus est, quam formam baptismi institueret. Et ratio eorum est, quia ipse, qui est Verbum Patris, confecit se ipso sine verbo: nobis autem, qui indigemus virtute Verbi, dedit formam post consecrationem.

Alia opinio est, quod Dominus confecit simul et verba protulit, sed bis protulit: primo in occulto ad conficiendum, secundo in aperto ad formam institutam manifestandam. Primum quidem intelligitur fecisse, cum dicitur: Benedixit et fregit; et exponunt: Benedixit, scilicet occulte dicendo: Hoc est corpus meum; et post fregit et distribuendo dixit aperte illud verbum: Hoc est corpus meum.

Tertia opinio est, quod Dominus simul confecit et verbum instituit; et sicut semel tantum confecit, ita semel tantum verba protulit; et illud videtur convenientius. Ad quid enim toties verba proferret, cum bene posset facere semel proferendo? Ulterius, quamvis posset4 conficere sine verbo, debuit tamen conficere verbum dicendo, ut Apostolis formam traderet; quia Dominus non tantum ibi suam potentiam ostendebat, sed etiam discipulos informabat. — Et haec positio est communior et probabilior. Hanc sustinendo, dicendum est, quod Dominus conficiendo verba instituit, quia verba proferendo post confecit5.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod prius benedixit; dicendum quod benedictio illa non fuit consecratio, sed fuit quaedam praeparatio vel magis quaedam orationis sive gratiarum actionis praemissio, in qua ostendit, nobis nullum cibum attrectandum, nisi praevia benedictione. Unde mos est ecclesiasticorum virorum ad omnem cibum praemittere benedictionem6.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de fractione, dicendum, quod duplici de causa potest esse fractio: vel ad figurandum, vel ad distribuendum; ad figurandum, sicut sacerdos frangit in altari, et haec sequitur confectionem. Alia vero est ad distribuendum, et sic, si aliquis conficeret pro multis, ita quod haberet unum panem, non hostias distinctas, congrue posset prius frangere. Et sic fecit Dominus; unde fregit, ut inter discipulos distribueret7.

---

English Translation
p. 186

Question III. Whether the Lord confected the Sacrament of the eucharist before he uttered the word.

Third, it is asked concerning the manner of instituting the Sacrament of the eucharist. And since the institution of this Sacrament was in the institution of the word, it is asked whether he confected before he uttered the word. And that he did so is shown:

1. From the text of the Gospel. In Matthew twenty-six1 it is written: While they were supping, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples, saying: Take etc.; and afterward: This is my body. From this text a twofold reason is drawn: first, that he first blessed before he uttered the word; but the blessing was the consecration2: therefore he first blessed and consecrated before he uttered the word.

2. Likewise, it is argued from another text: that he first broke before he uttered the word; but the breaking follows the confection in this Sacrament, as is evident3: therefore he confected before he uttered the words: therefore he did not institute the words by confecting.

On the contrary: 1. If he did not utter the words in confecting, then either he confected with other words, or without a word. If he confected with other words: then those words ought above all to have power; if without a word: then it seems that the Church does not imitate the highest master in confecting; which seems unfitting, since in this Sacrament especially the highest priest gave the form and the exemplar of consecrating.

2. Likewise, if he did not confect with these words, then the words in Christ's mouth were merely significative, therefore they did not have power nor efficacy: if they did not have it then, it seems therefore that they never have it, since they do not have it now except on account of that which was done then.

p. 187

Conclusion. The Lord, by confecting, instituted the words of the form, and by uttering the words he confected.

I respond: It must be said that concerning this there are three opinions sufficiently probable.

The first is that the Lord confected before he instituted the word, just as he was baptized before he instituted the form of baptism. And their reason is that he himself, who is the Word of the Father, confected by himself without a word: but to us, who lack the power of the Word, he gave the form after the consecration.

Another opinion is that the Lord confected and at the same time uttered the words, but he uttered them twice: first in secret for confecting, second openly for manifesting the form that was instituted. The first he is understood to have done when it is said: He blessed and broke; and they expound: He blessed, namely by saying secretly: This is my body; and afterward he broke and, distributing, he said openly that word: This is my body.

The third opinion is that the Lord at the same time confected and instituted the word; and just as he confected only once, so he uttered the words only once; and this seems more fitting. For to what purpose would he utter the words so many times, when he could well do it by uttering once? Furthermore, although he could4 confect without a word, he nevertheless had to confect by saying the word, in order to hand on the form to the Apostles; for the Lord there was not only displaying his power, but also instructing his disciples. — And this position is the more common and more probable. Holding to this, it must be said that the Lord, by confecting, instituted the words, because by uttering the words he afterward confected5.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that he first blessed; it must be said that that blessing was not the consecration, but was a certain preparation or rather a certain prefacing of prayer or of thanksgiving, in which he showed that no food is to be handled by us except with a blessing going before. Hence it is the custom of churchmen to put a blessing before every meal6.

2. To that which is objected concerning the breaking, it must be said that for a twofold cause there can be a breaking: either for signifying, or for distributing; for signifying, as the priest breaks at the altar, and this follows the confection. But the other is for distributing, and thus, if someone were to confect for many, so that he had one bread, not separate hosts, he could fittingly break first. And thus the Lord did; hence he broke, that he might distribute among the disciples7.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Vers. 26: Coenantibus autem eis, accepit... deditque discipulis suis et ait: Accipite et comedite: hoc est corpus meum.
    Verse 26: While they were supping, he took... and gave to his disciples and said: Take and eat: this is my body.
  2. 2
    Communiter allegatur 1. Cor. 10, 16: Calix benedictionis, cui benedicimus etc. Cfr. Chrysost., S. Remigius (cuius Commentarii in ed. Migne Haymoni attribuuntur), S. Bruno in hunc loc., nec non Ambros. de Mysteriis, c. 9. n. 50. Vide etiam C. Ante benedictionem (40.) et C. Non omnis panis (61.), de Consecrat. d. 2.
    It is commonly cited from 1 Cor. 10, 16: The cup of blessing, which we bless etc. Cf. Chrysostom, St. Remigius (whose Commentaries in the Migne edition are attributed to Haymo), St. Bruno on this passage, and also Ambrose, On the Mysteries, c. 9, n. 50. See also the Canon Ante benedictionem (40.) and the Canon Non omnis panis (61.), de Consecratione, d. 2.
  3. 3
    Cfr. infra d. 10. p. I. q. 5, et Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro altaris Mysterio, c. 6.
    Cf. below, d. 10, p. I, q. 5, and Innocent III, On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar, Book IV, c. 6.
  4. 4
    Codd. F G I U quamvis bene posset. Inferius pro communior cod. U certior.
    Codices F G I U read although he could well. Below, for communior (more common), codex U reads certior (more certain).
  5. 5
    Cfr. Damasc., IV. de Fide orthod. c. 13; C. Quia corpus (35.) § 1., de Consecrat. d. 2. et C. Panis est (55.), ibid. — Vat. omittit post, pro quo codd. L P primo.
    Cf. John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, c. 13; the Canon Quia corpus (35.) § 1., de Consecratione, d. 2, and the Canon Panis est (55.), ibid. — The Vatican edition omits post (afterward), for which codices L P read primo (first).
  6. 6
    Chrysost., in Matth. 14, 19. homil. 49. (alias 50.) n. 2: Cur respexit in caelum et benedixit?... simul haec quae dixi probans, simulque erudiens nos, ne ante mensam attingamus, quam gratias egerimus ei qui nobis escam praebet.
    Chrysostom, on Matt. 14, 19, homily 49 (otherwise 50), n. 2: Why did he look up to heaven and bless?... at once proving these things which I have said, and at the same time teaching us not to touch the table before we have given thanks to him who supplies us with food.
  7. 7
    Tertull., IV. adversus Marcion. c. 40: Acceptum panem, et distributum discipulis, corpus illum suum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.
    Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, c. 40: Taking bread and distributing it to the disciples, he made it his own body, by saying, This is my body. — See the scholion at quaestion 1 of this article. ---
Cited by

1 place in the Opera Omnia citesthis question. Derived from Quaracchi’s own apparatus, never tagged by hand.

Whether Christ is in the Sacrament of the altar according to truth
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 10
supra d. 8. p. I. a. 2. q. 3.

4 further references address the article or printed page this question belongs to, rather than the question itself.

← Dist. 8, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 2Dist. 8, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1→