St. Thomas Aquinas

The Summa Theologica

(Benziger Bros. edition, 1947)
Translated by
Fathers of the English Dominican Province

Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 79 [ << | >> ]

OF THE EFFECTS OF THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)

Deinde considerandum est de effectibus huius sacramenti. Et circa hoc quaeruntur octo. We must now consider the effects of this sacrament, and under this head there are eight points of inquiry:
Primo, utrum hoc sacramentum conferat gratiam. (1) Whether this sacrament bestows grace?
Secundo, utrum effectus huius sacramenti sit adeptio gloriae. (2) Whether the attaining of glory is an effect of this sacrament?
Tertio, utrum effectus huius sacramenti sit remissio peccati mortalis. (3) Whether the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament?
Quarto, utrum per hoc sacramentum remittatur peccatum veniale. (4) Whether venial sin is forgiven by this sacrament?
Quinto, utrum per hoc sacramentum tota poena peccati remittatur. (5) Whether the entire punishment due for sin is forgiven by this sacrament?
Sexto, utrum hoc sacramentum hominem praeservet a peccatis futuris. (6) Whether this sacrament preserves man from future sins?
Septimo, utrum hoc sacramentum prosit aliis quam sumentibus. (7) Whether this sacrament benefits others besides the recipients?
Octavo, de impedimentis effectus huius sacramenti. (8) Of the obstacles to the effect of this sacrament.

Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 79 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1  [ << | >> ]

Whether grace is bestowed through this sacrament?

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod per hoc sacramentum non conferatur gratia. Hoc enim sacramentum est nutrimentum spirituale. Nutrimentum autem non datur nisi viventi. Cum ergo vita spiritualis sit per gratiam, non competit hoc sacramentum nisi iam habenti gratiam. Non ergo per hoc sacramentum confertur gratia ut primo habeatur. Similiter etiam nec ad hoc quod augeatur, quia augmentum spirituale pertinet ad sacramentum confirmationis, ut dictum est. Non ergo per hoc sacramentum gratia confertur. Objection 1: It seems that grace is not bestowed through this sacrament. For this sacrament is spiritual nourishment. But nourishment is only given to the living. Therefore since the spiritual life is the effect of grace, this sacrament belongs only to one in the state of grace. Therefore grace is not bestowed through this sacrament for it to be had in the first instance. In like manner neither is it given so as grace may be increased, because spiritual growth belongs to the sacrament of Confirmation, as stated above (Question [72], Article [1]). Consequently, grace is not bestowed through this sacrament.
Praeterea, hoc sacramentum assumitur ut quaedam spiritualis refectio. Sed refectio spiritualis magis videtur pertinere ad usum gratiae quam ad gratiae consecutionem. Ergo videtur quod per hoc sacramentum gratia non conferatur. Objection 2: Further, this sacrament is given as a spiritual refreshment. But spiritual refreshment seems to belong to the use of grace rather than to its bestowal. Therefore it seems that grace is not given through this sacrament.
Praeterea, sicut supra dictum est, in hoc sacramento corpus Christi offertur pro salute corporis, sanguis autem pro salute animae. Sed corpus non est subiectum gratiae, sed anima, ut in secunda parte habitum est. Ergo ad minus quantum ad corpus per hoc sacramentum gratia non confertur. Objection 3: Further, as was said above (Question [74], Article [1]), "Christ's body is offered up in this sacrament for the salvation of the body, and His blood for that of the soul." Now it is not the body which is the subject of grace, but the soul, as was shown in the FS, Question [110], Article [4]. Therefore grace is not bestowed through this sacrament, at least so far as the body is concerned.
Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Ioan. VI, panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est pro mundi vita. Sed vita spiritualis est per gratiam. Ergo per hoc sacramentum gratia confertur. On the contrary, Our Lord says (Jn. 6:52): "The bread which I will give, is My flesh for the life of the world." But the spiritual life is the effect of grace. Therefore grace is bestowed through this sacrament.
Respondeo dicendum quod effectus huius sacramenti debet considerari, primo quidem et principaliter, ex eo quod in hoc sacramento continetur, quod est Christus. Qui sicut, in mundum visibiliter veniens, contulit mundo vitam gratiae, secundum illud Ioan. I, gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est; ita, in hominem sacramentaliter veniens, vitam gratiae operatur, secundum illud Ioan. VI, qui manducat me, vivit propter me. Unde et Cyrillus dicit, vivificativum Dei verbum, uniens seipsum propriae carni, fecit ipsam vivificativam. Decebat ergo eum nostris quodammodo uniri corporibus per sacram eius carnem et pretiosum sanguinem, quae accipimus in benedictione vivificativa in pane et vino. I answer that, The effect of this sacrament ought to be considered, first of all and principally, from what is contained in this sacrament, which is Christ; Who, just as by coming into the world, He visibly bestowed the life of grace upon the world, according to Jn. 1:17: "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ," so also, by coming sacramentally into man causes the life of grace, according to Jn. 6:58: "He that eateth Me, the same also shall live by Me." Hence Cyril says on Lk. 22:19: "God's life-giving Word by uniting Himself with His own flesh, made it to be productive of life. For it was becoming that He should be united somehow with bodies through His sacred flesh and precious blood, which we receive in a life-giving blessing in the bread and wine."
Secundo consideratur ex eo quod per hoc sacramentum repraesentatur, quod est passio Christi, sicut supra dictum est. Et ideo effectum quem passio Christi fecit in mundo, hoc sacramentum facit in homine. Unde super illud Ioan. XIX, continuo exivit sanguis et aqua, dicit Chrysostomus, quia hinc suscipiunt principium sacra mysteria, cum accesseris ad tremendum calicem, vel ab ipsa bibiturus Christi costa, ita accedas. Unde et ipse dominus dicit, Matth. XXVI, hic est sanguis meus, qui pro vobis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Secondly, it is considered on the part of what is represented by this sacrament, which is Christ's Passion, as stated above (Question [74], Article [1]; Question [76], Article [2], ad 1). And therefore this sacrament works in man the effect which Christ's Passion wrought in the world. Hence, Chrysostom says on the words, "Immediately there came out blood and water" (Jn. 19:34): "Since the sacred mysteries derive their origin from thence, when you draw nigh to the awe-inspiring chalice, so approach as if you were going to drink from Christ's own side." Hence our Lord Himself says (Mt. 26:28): "This is My blood... which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins."
Tertio consideratur effectus huius sacramenti ex modo quo traditur hoc sacramentum, quod traditur per modum cibi et potus. Et ideo omnem effectum quem cibus et potus materialis facit quantum ad vitam corporalem, quod scilicet sustentat, auget, reparat et delectat, hoc totum facit hoc sacramentum quantum ad vitam spiritualem. Unde Ambrosius dicit, in libro de sacramentis, iste panis est vitae aeternae, qui animae nostrae substantiam fulcit. Et Chrysostomus dicit, supra Ioan., praestat se nobis desiderantibus et palpare et comedere et amplecti. Unde et ipse dominus dicit, Ioan. VI, caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus. Thirdly, the effect of this sacrament is considered from the way in which this sacrament is given; for it is given by way of food and drink. And therefore this sacrament does for the spiritual life all that material food does for the bodily life, namely, by sustaining, giving increase, restoring, and giving delight. Accordingly, Ambrose says (De Sacram. v): "This is the bread of everlasting life, which supports the substance of our soul." And Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi in Joan.): "When we desire it, He lets us feel Him, and eat Him, and embrace Him." And hence our Lord says (Jn. 6:56): "My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed."
Quarto consideratur effectus huius sacramenti ex speciebus in quibus hoc traditur sacramentum. Unde et Augustinus, ibidem, dicit, dominus noster corpus et sanguinem suum in eis rebus commendavit quae ad unum aliquod rediguntur ex multis, namque aliud, scilicet panis, ex multis granis in unum constat, aliud, scilicet vinum, ex multis racemis confluit. Et ideo ipse alibi dicit, super Ioan., o sacramentum pietatis, o signum unitatis, o vinculum caritatis. Fourthly, the effect of this sacrament is considered from the species under which it is given. Hence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.): "Our Lord betokened His body and blood in things which out of many units are made into some one whole: for out of many grains is one thing made," viz. bread; "and many grapes flow into one thing," viz. wine. And therefore he observes elsewhere (Tract. xxvi in Joan.): "O sacrament of piety, O sign of unity, O bond of charity!"
Et quia Christus et eius passio est causa gratiae, et spiritualis refectio et caritas sine gratia esse non potest, ex omnibus praemissis manifestum est quod hoc sacramentum gratiam confert. And since Christ and His Passion are the cause of grace. and since spiritual refreshment, and charity cannot be without grace, it is clear from all that has been set forth that this sacrament bestows grace.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hoc sacramentum ex seipso virtutem habet gratiam conferendi, nec aliquis habet gratiam ante susceptionem huius sacramenti nisi ex aliquali voto ipsius, vel per seipsum, sicut adulti, vel voto Ecclesiae, sicut parvuli, sicut supra dictum est. Unde ex efficacia virtutis ipsius est quod etiam ex voto ipsius aliquis gratiam consequatur, per quam spiritualiter vivificetur. Restat igitur ut, cum ipsum sacramentum realiter sumitur, gratia augeatur, et vita spiritualis perficiatur. Aliter tamen quam per sacramentum confirmationis, in quo augetur et perficitur gratia ad persistendum contra exteriores impugnationes inimicorum Christi. Per hoc autem sacramentum augetur gratia, et perficitur spiritualis vita, ad hoc quod homo in seipso perfectus existat per coniunctionem ad Deum. Reply to Objection 1: This sacrament has of itself the power of bestowing grace; nor does anyone possess grace before receiving this sacrament except from some desire thereof; from his own desire, as in the case of the adult. or from the Church's desire in the case of children, as stated above (Question [73], Article [3]). Hence it is due to the efficacy of its power, that even from desire thereof a man procures grace whereby he is enabled to lead the spiritual life. It remains, then, that when the sacrament itself is really received, grace is increased, and the spiritual life perfected: yet in different fashion from the sacrament of Confirmation, in which grace is increased and perfected for resisting the outward assaults of Christ's enemies. But by this sacrament grace receives increase, and the spiritual life is perfected, so that man may stand perfect in himself by union with God.
Ad secundum dicendum quod hoc sacramentum confert gratiam spiritualiter, cum virtute caritatis. Unde Damascenus comparat hoc sacramentum carboni quem Isaias vidit, Isaiae VI, carbo enim lignum simplex non est, sed unitum igni, ita et panis communionis non simplex panis est, sed unitus divinitati. Sicut autem Gregorius dicit, in homilia Pentecostes, amor Dei non est otiosus, magna enim operatur, si est. Et ideo per hoc sacramentum, quantum est ex sui virtute, non solum habitus gratiae et virtutis confertur, sed etiam excitatur in actum, secundum illud II Cor. V, caritas Christi urget nos. Et inde est quod ex virtute huius sacramenti anima spiritualiter reficitur, per hoc quod anima delectatur, et quodammodo inebriatur dulcedine bonitatis divinae, secundum illud Cant. V, comedite, amici, et bibite; et inebriamini, carissimi. Reply to Objection 2: This sacrament confers grace spiritually together with the virtue of charity. Hence Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) compares this sacrament to the burning coal which Isaias saw (Is. 6:6): "For a live ember is not simply wood, but wood united to fire; so also the bread of communion is not simple bread but bread united with the Godhead." But as Gregory observes in a Homily for Pentecost, "God's love is never idle; for, wherever it is it does great works." And consequently through this sacrament, as far as its power is concerned, not only is the habit of grace and of virtue bestowed, but it is furthermore aroused to act, according to 2 Cor. 5:14: "The charity of Christ presseth us." Hence it is that the soul is spiritually nourished through the power of this sacrament, by being spiritually gladdened, and as it were inebriated with the sweetness of the Divine goodness, according to Cant 5:1: "Eat, O friends, and drink, and be inebriated, my dearly beloved."
Ad tertium dicendum quod, quia sacramenta operantur secundum similitudinem per quam significant, ideo per quandam assimilationem dicitur quod in hoc sacramento corpus offertur pro salute corporis, et sanguis pro salute animae, quamvis utrumque ad salutem utriusque operetur, cum sub utroque totus sit Christus, ut supra dictum est. Et licet corpus non sit immediatum subiectum gratiae, ex anima tamen redundat effectus gratiae ad corpus, dum in praesenti membra nostra exhibemus arma iustitiae Deo, ut habetur Rom. VI; et in futuro corpus nostrum sortietur incorruptionem et gloriam animae. Reply to Objection 3: Because the sacraments operate according to the similitude by which they signify, therefore by way of assimilation it is said that in this sacrament "the body is offered for the salvation of the body, and the blood for the salvation of the soul," although each works for the salvation of both, since the entire Christ is under each, as stated above (Question [76], Article [2]). And although the body is not the immediate subject of grace, still the effect of grace flows into the body while in the present life we present "our [Vulg.: 'your'] members" as "instruments of justice unto God" (Rm. 6:13), and in the life to come our body will share in the incorruption and the glory of the soul.

Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 79 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2  [ << | >> ]

Whether the attaining of glory is an effect of this sacrament?

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod effectus huius sacramenti non sit adeptio gloriae. Effectus enim proportionatur suae causae. Sed hoc sacramentum competit viatoribus, unde et viaticum dicitur. Cum igitur viatores nondum sint capaces gloriae, videtur quod hoc sacramentum non causet adeptionem gloriae. Objection 1: It seems that the attaining of glory is not an effect of this sacrament. For an effect is proportioned to its cause. But this sacrament belongs to "wayfarers" [viatoribus], and hence it is termed "Viaticum." Since, then, wayfarers are not yet capable of glory, it seems that this sacrament does not cause the attaining of glory.
Praeterea, posita causa sufficienti, ponitur effectus. Sed multi accipiunt hoc sacramentum qui nunquam pervenient ad gloriam, ut patet per Augustinum, XXI de Civ. Dei. Non ergo hoc sacramentum est causa adeptionis gloriae. Objection 2: Further, given sufficient cause, the effect follows. But many take this sacrament who will never come to glory, as Augustine declares (De Civ. Dei xxi). Consequently, this sacrament is not the cause of attaining unto glory.
Praeterea, maius non efficitur a minori, quia nihil agit ultra suam speciem. Sed minus est percipere Christum sub specie aliena, quod fit in hoc sacramento, quam frui eo in specie propria, quod pertinet ad gloriam. Ergo hoc sacramentum non causat adeptionem gloriae. Objection 3: Further, the greater is not brought about by the lesser, for nothing acts outside its species. But it is the lesser thing to receive Christ under a strange species, which happens in this sacrament, than to enjoy Him in His own species, which belongs to glory. Therefore this sacrament does not cause the attaining of glory.
Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. VI, si quis manducaverit ex hoc pane, vivet in aeternum. Sed vita aeterna est vita gloriae. Ergo effectus huius sacramenti est adeptio gloriae. On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 6:52): "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever." But eternal life is the life of glory. Therefore the attaining of glory is an effect of this sacrament.
Respondeo dicendum quod in hoc sacramento potest considerari et id ex quo habet effectum, scilicet ipse Christus contentus, et passio eius repraesentata; et id per quod habet effectum, scilicet usus sacramenti et species eius. I answer that, In this sacrament we may consider both that from which it derives its effect, namely, Christ contained in it, as also His Passion represented by it; and that through which it works its effect, namely, the use of the sacrament, and its species.
Et quantum ad utrumque competit huic sacramento quod causet adeptionem vitae aeternae. Nam ipse Christus per suam passionem aperuit nobis aditum vitae aeternae, secundum illud Heb. IX, novi testamenti mediator est, ut, morte intercedente, qui vocati sunt accipiant repromissionem aeternae hereditatis. Unde et in forma huius sacramenti dicitur, hic est calix sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti. Now as to both of these it belongs to this sacrament to cause the attaining of eternal life. Because it was by His Passion that Christ opened to us the approach to eternal life, according to Heb. 9:15: "He is the Mediator of the New Testament; that by means of His death... they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance." Accordingly in the form of this sacrament it is said: "This is the chalice of My blood, of the New and Eternal Testament."
Similiter etiam refectio spiritualis cibi, et unitas significata per species panis et vini, habentur quidem in praesenti sed imperfecte, perfecte autem in statu gloriae. Unde Augustinus dicit, super illud Ioan. VI, caro mea vere est cibus, cum cibo et potu id appetant homines ut non esuriant neque sitiant, hoc veraciter non praestat nisi iste cibus et potus, qui eos a quibus sumitur immortales et incorruptibiles facit in societate sanctorum, ubi pax erit et unitas plena atque perfecta. In like manner the refreshment of spiritual food and the unity denoted by the species of the bread and wine are to be had in the present life, although imperfectly. but perfectly in the state of glory. Hence Augustine says on the words, "My flesh is meat indeed" (Jn. 6:56): "Seeing that in meat and drink, men aim at this, that they hunger not nor thirst, this verily nought doth afford save only this meat and drink which maketh them who partake thereof to be immortal and incorruptible, in the fellowship of the saints, where shall be peace, and unity, full and perfect."
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut passio Christi, ex cuius virtute hoc sacramentum operatur, est quidem causa sufficiens gloriae, non tamen ita quod statim per ipsam introducamur in gloriam, sed oportet ut prius simul compatiamur, ut postea simul glorificemur, sicut dicitur Rom. VIII, ita hoc sacramentum non statim nos in gloriam introducit, sed dat nobis virtutem perveniendi ad gloriam. Et ideo viaticum dicitur. In cuius figuram, legitur III Reg. XIX, quod Elias comedit et bibit, et ambulavit in fortitudine cibi illius quadraginta diebus et quadraginta noctibus, usque ad montem Dei Horeb. Reply to Objection 1: As Christ's Passion, in virtue whereof this sacrament is accomplished, is indeed the sufficient cause of glory, yet not so that we are thereby forthwith admitted to glory, but we must first "suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified" afterwards "with Him" (Rm. 8:17), so this sacrament does not at once admit us to glory, but bestows on us the power of coming unto glory. And therefore it is called "Viaticum," a figure whereof we read in 3 Kgs. 19:8: "Elias ate and drank, and walked in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights unto the mount of God, Horeb."
Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut passio Christi non habet suum effectum in his qui se ad eam non habent ut debent, ita et per hoc sacramentum non adipiscuntur gloriam qui indecenter ipsum suscipiunt. Unde Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., exponens illa verba, aliud est sacramentum, aliud virtus sacramenti. Multi de altari accipiunt, et accipiendo moriuntur. Panem ergo caelestem spiritualiter manducate, innocentiam ad altare apportate. Unde non est mirum si illi qui innocentiam non servant, effectum huius sacramenti non consequuntur. Reply to Objection 2: Just as Christ's Passion has not its effect in them who are not disposed towards it as they should be, so also they do not come to glory through this sacrament who receive it unworthily. Hence Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), expounding the same passage, observes: "The sacrament is one thing, the power of the sacrament another. Many receive it from the altar... and by receiving"... die... Eat, then, spiritually the heavenly "bread, bring innocence to the altar." It is no wonder, then, if those who do not keep innocence, do not secure the effect of this sacrament.
Ad tertium dicendum quod hoc quod Christus sub aliena specie sumitur, pertinet ad rationem sacramenti, quod instrumentaliter agit. Nihil autem prohibet causam instrumentalem producere potiorem effectum, ut ex supra dictis patet. Reply to Objection 3: That Christ is received under another species belongs to the nature of a sacrament, which acts instrumentally. But there is nothing to prevent an instrumental cause from producing a more mighty effect, as is evident from what was said above (Question [77], Article [3], ad 3).

Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 79 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3  [ << | >> ]

Whether the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament?

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod effectus huius sacramenti sit remissio peccati mortalis. Dicitur enim in quadam collecta, sit hoc sacramentum ablutio scelerum. Sed scelera dicuntur peccata mortalia. Ergo per hoc sacramentum peccata mortalia abluuntur. Objection 1: It seems that the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament. For it is said in one of the Collects (Postcommunion, Pro vivis et defunctis): "May this sacrament be a cleansing from crimes." But mortal sins are called crimes. Therefore mortal sins are blotted out by this sacrament.
Praeterea, hoc sacramentum agit in virtute passionis Christi, sicut et Baptismus. Sed per Baptismum dimittuntur peccata mortalia, ut supra dictum est. Ergo et per hoc sacramentum, praesertim cum in forma huius sacramenti dicatur, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Objection 2: Further, this sacrament, like Baptism, works by the power of Christ's Passion. But mortal sins are forgiven by Baptism, as stated above (Question [69], Article [1]). Therefore they are forgiven likewise by this sacrament, especially since in the form of this sacrament it is said: "Which shall be shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins."
Praeterea, per hoc sacramentum gratia confertur, ut dictum est. Sed per gratiam iustificatur homo a peccatis mortalibus, secundum illud Rom. III, iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius. Ergo per hoc sacramentum remittuntur peccata mortalia. Objection 3: Further, grace is bestowed through this sacrament, as stated above (Article [1]). But by grace a man is justified from mortal sins, according to Rm. 3:24: "Being justified freely by His grace." Therefore mortal sins are forgiven by this sacrament.
Sed contra est quod dicitur I Cor. XI, qui manducat et bibit indigne, iudicium sibi manducat et bibit. Dicit autem Glossa ibidem quod ille manducat et bibit indigne qui in crimine est, vel irreverenter tractat, et talis manducat et bibit sibi iudicium, idest damnationem. Ergo ille qui est in peccato mortali, per hoc quod accipit hoc sacramentum, magis accumulat sibi peccatum, quam remissionem sui peccati consequatur. On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor. 11:29): "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself": and a gloss of the same passage makes the following commentary: "He eats and drinks unworthily who is in the state of sin, or who handles (the sacrament) irreverently; and such a one eats and drinks judgment, i.e. damnation, unto himself." Therefore, he that is in mortal sin, by taking the sacrament heaps sin upon sin, rather than obtains forgiveness of his sin.
Respondeo dicendum quod virtus huius sacramenti potest considerari dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum se. Et sic hoc sacramentum habet virtutem ad remittendum quaecumque peccata, ex passione Christi, quae est fons et causa remissionis peccatorum. I answer that, The power of this sacrament can be considered in two ways. First of all, in itself: and thus this sacrament has from Christ's Passion the power of forgiving all sins, since the Passion is the fount and cause of the forgiveness of sins.
Alio modo potest considerari per comparationem ad eum qui recipit hoc sacramentum, prout in eo invenitur vel non invenitur impedimentum percipiendi hoc sacramentum. Quicumque autem habet conscientiam peccati mortalis, habet in se impedimentum percipiendi effectum huius sacramenti, eo quod non est conveniens susceptor huius sacramenti, tum quia non vivit spiritualiter, et ita non debet spirituale nutrimentum suscipere, quod non est nisi viventis; tum quia non potest uniri Christo, quod fit per hoc sacramentum, dum est in affectu peccandi mortaliter. Et ideo, ut dicitur in libro de ecclesiasticis Dogmat., si mens in affectu peccandi est, gravatur magis Eucharistiae perceptione quam purificetur. Unde hoc sacramentum in eo qui ipsum percipit cum conscientia peccati mortalis, non operatur remissionem peccati. Secondly, it can be considered in comparison with the recipient of the sacrament, in so far as there is, or is not, found in him an obstacle to receiving the fruit of this sacrament. Now whoever is conscious of mortal sin, has within him an obstacle to receiving the effect of this sacrament; since he is not a proper recipient of this sacrament, both because he is not alive spiritually, and so he ought not to eat the spiritual nourishment, since nourishment is confined to the living; and because he cannot be united with Christ, which is the effect of this sacrament, as long as he retains an attachment towards mortal sin. Consequently, as is said in the book De Eccles. Dogm.: "If the soul leans towards sin, it is burdened rather than purified from partaking of the Eucharist." Hence, in him who is conscious of mortal sin, this sacrament does not cause the forgiveness of sin.
Potest tamen hoc sacramentum operari remissionem peccati dupliciter. Uno modo, non perceptum actu, sed voto, sicut cum quis primo iustificatur a peccato. Alio modo, etiam perceptum ab eo qui est in peccato mortali, cuius conscientiam et affectum non habet. Forte enim primo non fuit sufficienter contritus, sed, devote et reverenter accedens, consequetur per hoc sacramentum gratiam caritatis, quae contritionem perficiet et remissionem peccati. Nevertheless this sacrament can effect the forgiveness of sin in two ways. First of all, by being received, not actually, but in desire; as when a man is first justified from sin. Secondly, when received by one in mortal sin of which he is not conscious, and for which he has no attachment; since possibly he was not sufficiently contrite at first, but by approaching this sacrament devoutly and reverently he obtains the grace of charity, which will perfect his contrition and bring forgiveness of sin.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod petimus quod illud sacramentum nobis sit ablutio scelerum, vel eorum quorum conscientiam non habemus, secundum illud Psalmi, ab occultis meis munda me, domine; vel ut contritio in nobis perficiatur ad scelerum remissionem; vel etiam ut robur nobis detur contra scelera vitanda. Reply to Objection 1: We ask that this sacrament may be the "cleansing of crimes," or of those sins of which we are unconscious, according to Ps. 18:13: "Lord, cleanse me from my hidden sins"; or that our contrition may be perfected for the forgiveness of our sins; or that strength be bestowed on us to avoid sin.
Ad secundum dicendum quod Baptismus est spiritualis generatio, quae est mutatio de non esse spirituali in esse spirituale; et datur per modum ablutionis. Et ideo, quantum ad utrumque, non inconvenienter accedit ad Baptismum qui habet conscientiam peccati mortalis. Sed per hoc sacramentum homo sumit in se Christum per modum spiritualis nutrimenti, quod non competit mortuo in peccatis. Et ideo non est similis ratio. Reply to Objection 2: Baptism is spiritual generation, which is a transition from spiritual non-being into spiritual being, and is given by way of ablution. Consequently, in both respects he who is conscious of mortal sin does not improperly approach Baptism. But in this sacrament man receives Christ within himself by way of spiritual nourishment, which is unbecoming to one that lies dead in his sins. Therefore the comparison does not hold good.
Ad tertium dicendum quod gratia est sufficiens causa remissionis peccati mortalis, non tamen actu remittit peccatum mortale nisi cum primo datur peccatori. Sic autem non datur in hoc sacramento. Unde ratio non sequitur. Reply to Objection 3: Grace is the sufficient cause of the forgiveness of mortal sin; yet it does not forgive sin except when it is first bestowed on the sinner. But it is not given so in this sacrament. Hence the argument does not prove.

Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 79 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4  [ << | >> ]

Whether venial sins are forgiven through this sacrament?

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod per hoc sacramentum non remittantur peccata venialia. Hoc enim sacramentum, ut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., est sacramentum caritatis. Sed venialia peccata non contrariantur caritati, ut in secunda parte habitum est. Cum ergo contrarium tollatur per suum contrarium, videtur quod peccata venialia per hoc sacramentum non remittantur. Objection 1: It seems that venial sins are not forgiven by this sacrament, because this is the "sacrament of charity," as Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.). But venial sins are not contrary to charity, as was shown in the FS, Question [88], Articles [1],2; SS, Question [24], Article [10]. Therefore, since contrary is taken away by its contrary, it seems that venial sins are not forgiven by this sacrament.
Praeterea, si peccata venialia per hoc sacramentum remittantur, qua ratione unum remittitur, et omnia remittentur. Sed non videtur quod omnia remittantur, quia sic frequenter aliquis esset absque omni peccato veniali, quod est contra id quod dicitur I Ioan. I, si dixerimus quoniam peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus. Non ergo per hoc sacramentum remittitur aliquod peccatum veniale. Objection 2: Further, if venial sins be forgiven by this sacrament, then all of them are forgiven for the same reason as one is. But it does not appear that all are forgiven, because thus one might frequently be without any venial sin, against what is said in 1 Jn. 1:8: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." Therefore no venial sin is forgiven by this sacrament.
Praeterea, contraria mutuo se expellunt. Sed peccata venialia non prohibent a perceptione huius sacramenti, dicit enim Augustinus, super illud Ioan. VI, si quis ex ipso manducaverit, non morietur in aeternum, innocentiam, inquit, ad altare apportate, peccata, etsi sint quotidiana, non sint mortifera. Ergo neque peccata venialia per hoc sacramentum tolluntur. Objection 3: Further, contraries mutually exclude each other. But venial sins do not forbid the receiving of this sacrament: because Augustine says on the words, "If any man eat of it he shall [Vulg.: 'may'] not die for ever" (Jn. 6:50): "Bring innocence to the altar: your sins, though they be daily... let them not be deadly." Therefore neither are venial sins taken away by this sacrament.
Sed contra est quod Innocentius III dicit, quod hoc sacramentum veniale delet et cavet mortalia. On the contrary, Innocent III says (De S. Alt. Myst. iv) that this sacrament "blots out venial sins, and wards off mortal sins."
Respondeo dicendum quod in hoc sacramento duo possunt considerari, scilicet ipsum sacramentum, et res sacramenti. Et ex utroque apparet quod hoc sacramentum habet virtutem ad remissionem venialium peccatorum. Nam hoc sacramentum sumitur sub specie cibi nutrientis. Nutrimentum autem cibi necessarium est corpori ad restaurandum id quod quotidie deperditur ex calore naturali. Spiritualiter autem quotidie in nobis aliquid deperditur ex calore concupiscentiae per peccata venialia, quae diminuunt fervorem caritatis, ut in secunda parte habitum est. Et ideo competit huic sacramento ut remittat peccata venialia. Unde et Ambrosius dicit, in libro de sacramentis, quod iste panis quotidianus sumitur in remedium quotidianae infirmitatis. 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 nourishing 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 SS, Question [24], Article [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."
Res autem huius sacramenti est caritas, non solum quantum ad habitum, sed etiam quantum ad actum, qui excitatur in hoc sacramento, per quod peccata venialia solvuntur. Unde manifestum est quod virtute huius sacramenti remittuntur peccata venialia. 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.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod peccata venialia, etsi non contrarientur caritati quantum ad habitum, contrariantur tamen ei quantum ad fervorem actus, qui excitatur per hoc sacramentum. Ratione cuius peccata venialia tolluntur. Reply to Objection 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.
Ad secundum dicendum quod illud verbum non est intelligendum quin aliqua hora possit homo esse absque omni reatu peccati venialis, sed quia vitam istam sancti non ducunt sine peccatis venialibus. Reply to Objection 2: The passage 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 pass through this life without committing venial sins.
Ad tertium dicendum quod maior est virtus caritatis, cuius est hoc sacramentum, quam venialium peccatorum, nam caritas tollit per suum actum peccata venialia, quae tamen non possunt totaliter impedire actum caritatis. Et eadem ratio est de hoc sacramento. Reply to Objection 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.

Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 79 [ << | >> ]
Article: 5  [ << | >> ]

Whether the entire punishment due to sin is forgiven through this sacrament?

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod per hoc sacramentum tota poena peccati remittatur. Homo enim per hoc sacramentum suscipit in se effectum passionis Christi, ut dictum est, sicut et per Baptismum. Sed per Baptismum percipit homo remissionem omnis poenae virtute passionis Christi, quae sufficienter satisfecit pro omnibus peccatis, ut ex supra dictis patet. Ergo videtur quod per hoc sacramentum homini remittatur totus reatus poenae. 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 Passion within himself as stated above (Articles [1],2), just as he does through Baptism. But through Baptism man receives forgiveness of all punishment, through the virtue of Christ's Passion, which satisfied sufficiently for all sins, as was explained above (Question [69], Article [2]). Therefore it seems the whole debt of punishment is forgiven through this sacrament.
Praeterea, Alexander Papa dicit, nihil in sacrificiis maius esse potest quam corpus et sanguis Christi. Sed per sacrificia veteris legis homo satisfaciebat pro peccatis suis, dicitur enim Levit. IV et V, si peccaverit homo, offeret (hoc vel illud) pro peccato suo, et remittetur ei. Ergo multo magis hoc sacramentum valet ad remissionem omnis poenae. Objection 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.
Praeterea, constat quod per hoc sacramentum aliquid de reatu poenae dimittitur, unde et in satisfactione quibusdam iniungitur quod pro se faciant Missas celebrare. Sed qua ratione una pars poenae dimittitur, eadem ratione et alia, cum virtus Christi, quae in hoc sacramento continetur, sit infinita. Ergo videtur quod per hoc sacramentum tota poena tollatur. Objection 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 masses 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.
Sed contra est quod, secundum hoc, non esset homini alia poena iniungenda, sicut nec baptizato iniungitur. On the contrary, In that case no other punishment would have to be enjoined; just as none is imposed upon the newly baptized.
Respondeo dicendum quod hoc sacramentum simul est et sacrificium et sacramentum, sed rationem sacrificii habet inquantum offertur; rationem autem sacramenti inquantum sumitur. Et ideo effectum sacramenti habet in eo qui sumit, effectum autem sacrificii in eo qui offert, vel in his pro quibus offertur. 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.
Si igitur consideretur ut sacramentum, habet dupliciter effectum, uno modo, directe ex vi sacramenti; alio modo, quasi ex quadam concomitantia; sicut et circa continentiam sacramenti dictum est. Ex vi quidem sacramenti, directe habet illum effectum ad quem est institutum. Non est autem institutum ad satisfaciendum, sed ad spiritualiter nutriendum per unionem ad Christum et ad membra eius, sicut et nutrimentum unitur nutrito. Sed quia haec unitas fit per caritatem, ex cuius fervore aliquis consequitur remissionem non solum culpae, sed etiam poenae; inde est quod ex consequenti, per quandam concomitantiam ad principalem effectum, homo consequitur remissionem poenae; non quidem totius, sed secundum modum suae devotionis et fervoris. 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 (Question [76], Articles [1],2). Through the power of the sacrament it produces directly that effect for which it was instituted. Now it was instituted not for satisfaction, but for nourishing 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.
Inquantum vero est sacrificium, habet vim satisfactivam. Sed in satisfactione magis attenditur affectus offerentis quam quantitas oblationis, unde et dominus dixit, Luc. XXI, de vidua quae obtulit duo aera, quod plus omnibus misit. Quamvis igitur haec oblatio ex sui quantitate sufficiat ad satisfaciendum pro omni poena, tamen fit satisfactoria illis pro quibus offertur, vel etiam offerentibus, secundum quantitatem suae devotionis, et non pro tota poena. 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 quantity of the offering. Hence our Lord says (Mk. 12:43: cf. Lk. 21:4) of the widow who offered "two mites" that she "cast in more than all." Therefore, although this offering suffices of its own quantity 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.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sacramentum Baptismi directe ordinatur ad remissionem culpae et poenae, non autem Eucharistia, quia Baptismus datur homini quasi commorienti Christo; Eucharistia autem quasi nutriendo et perficiendo per Christum. Unde non est similis ratio. Reply to Objection 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 nourishing and perfecting him through Christ. Consequently there is no parallel.
Ad secundum dicendum quod alia sacrificia et oblationes non operabantur remissionem totius poenae, neque quantum ad quantitatem oblati, sicut hoc sacrificium; neque quantum ad devotionem hominis, ex qua contingit quod etiam hic non tollitur tota poena. Reply to Objection 2: Those other sacrifices and oblations did not effect the forgiveness of the whole punishment, neither as to the quantity of the thing offered, as this sacrament does, nor as to personal devotion; from which it comes to pass that even here the whole punishment is not taken away.
Ad tertium dicendum quod hoc quod tollitur pars poenae et non tota per hoc sacramentum, non contingit ex defectu virtutis Christi, sed ex defectu devotionis humanae. Reply to Objection 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.

Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 79 [ << | >> ]
Article: 6  [ << | >> ]

Whether man is preserved by this sacrament from future sins?

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod per hoc sacramentum non praeservetur homo a peccatis futuris. Multi enim digne sumentes hoc sacramentum postea in peccatum cadent. Quod non accideret si hoc sacramentum praeservaret a peccatis futuris. Non ergo effectus huius sacramenti est a peccatis futuris praeservare. 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.
Praeterea, Eucharistia est sacramentum caritatis, ut supra dictum est. Sed caritas non videtur praeservare a peccatis futuris, quia semel habita potest amitti per peccatum, ut in secunda parte habitum est. Ergo videtur quod nec hoc sacramentum praeservet hominem a peccato. Objection 2: Further, the Eucharist is the sacrament of charity, as stated above (Article [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 SS, Question [24], Article [11]. Therefore it seems that this sacrament does not preserve man from sin.
Praeterea, origo peccati in nobis est lex peccati, quae est in membris nostris, ut patet per apostolum, Rom. VII. Sed mitigatio fomitis, qui est lex peccati, non ponitur effectus huius sacramenti, sed magis Baptismi. Ergo praeservare a peccatis futuris non est effectus huius sacramenti. Objection 3: Further, the origin of sin within us is "the law of sin, which is in our members," as declared by the Apostle (Rm. 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.
Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Ioan. VI, hic est panis de caelo descendens, ut, si quis ex eo manducaverit, non moriatur. Quod quidem manifestum est non intelligi de morte corporali. Ergo intelligitur quod hoc sacramentum praeservet a morte spirituali, quae est per peccatum. On the contrary, our Lord said (Jn. 6:50): "This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die": which manifestly is not to be understood of the death of the body. Therefore it is to be understood that this sacrament preserves from spiritual death, which is through sin.
Respondeo dicendum quod peccatum est quaedam mors spiritualis animae. Unde hoc modo praeservatur aliquis a peccato futuro, quo praeservatur corpus a morte futura. Quod quidem fit dupliciter. Uno modo, inquantum natura hominis interius roboratur contra interiora corruptiva, et sic praeservatur a morte per cibum et medicinam. Alio modo, per hoc quod munitur contra exteriores impugnationes, et sic praeservatur per arma, quibus munitur corpus. I answer that, Sin is the spiritual death of the soul. Hence man is preserved from future sin in the same way as the body is preserved from future death of the body: and this happens in two ways. First of all, in so far as man's nature is strengthened inwardly against inner decay, and so by means of food and medicine he is preserved from death. Secondly, by being guarded against outward assaults; and thus he is protected by means of arms by which he defends his body.
Utroque autem modo hoc sacramentum praeservat a peccato. Nam primo quidem, per hoc quod Christo coniungit per gratiam, roborat spiritualem vitam hominis, tanquam spiritualis cibus et spiritualis medicina, secundum illud Psalmi, panis cor hominis confirmat. Et Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., securus accede, panis est, non venenum. Alio modo, inquantum signum est passionis Christi, per quam victi sunt Daemones, repellit enim omnem Daemonum impugnationem. Unde Chrysostomus dicit, super Ioan., ut leones flammam spirantes, sic ab illa mensa discedimus, terribiles effecti Diabolo. Now this sacrament preserves man from sin in both of these ways. For, first of all, by uniting man with Christ through grace, it strengthens his spiritual life, as spiritual food and spiritual medicine, according to Ps. 103:5: "(That) bread strengthens [Vulg.: 'may strengthen'] man's heart." Augustine likewise says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.): "Approach without fear; it is bread, not poison." Secondly, inasmuch as it is a sign of Christ's Passion, whereby the devils are conquered, it repels all the assaults of demons. Hence Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi in Joan.): "Like lions breathing forth fire, thus do we depart from that table, being made terrible to the devil."
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod effectus huius sacramenti recipitur in homine secundum hominis conditionem, sicut contingit de qualibet causa activa quod eius effectus recipitur in materia secundum modum materiae. Homo autem in statu viae est huius conditionis quod liberum arbitrium eius potest flecti in bonum et in malum. Unde, licet hoc sacramentum, quantum est de se habeat virtutem praeservativam a peccato, non tamen aufert homini possibilitatem peccandi. Reply to Objection 1: The effect of this sacrament is received according to man's condition: such is the case with every active cause in that its effect is received in matter according to the condition of the matter. But such is the condition of man on earth that his free-will can be bent to good or evil. Hence, although this sacrament of itself has the power of preserving from sin, yet it does not take away from man the possibility of sinning.
Ad secundum dicendum quod etiam caritas, quantum est de se, praeservat hominem a peccato, secundum illud Rom. XIII, dilectio proximi malum non operatur. Sed ex mutabilitate liberi arbitrii contingit quod aliquis post habitam caritatem peccat, sicut et post susceptionem huius sacramenti. Reply to Objection 2: Even charity of itself keeps man from sin, according to Rm. 13:10: "The love of our neighbor worketh no evil": but it is due to the mutability of free-will that a man sins after possessing charity, just as after receiving this sacrament.
Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet hoc sacramentum non directe ordinetur ad diminutionem fomitis, diminuit tamen fomitem ex quadam consequentia, inquantum auget caritatem, quia, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro octogintatrium quaestionum, augmentum caritatis est diminutio cupiditatis. Directe autem confirmat cor hominis in bono. Per quod etiam praeservatur homo a peccato. Reply to Objection 3: Although this sacrament is not ordained directly to lessen the fomes, yet it does lessen it as a consequence, inasmuch as it increases charity, because, as Augustine says (Question [83]), "the increase of charity is the lessening of concupiscence." But it directly strengthens man's heart in good; whereby he is also preserved from sin.

Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 79 [ << | >> ]
Article: 7  [ << | >> ]

Whether this sacrament benefit others besides the recipients?

Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod hoc sacramentum non prosit nisi sumenti. Hoc enim sacramentum est unius generis cum aliis sacramentis, utpote aliis condivisum. Sed alia sacramenta non prosunt nisi sumentibus, sicut effectum Baptismi non suscipit nisi baptizatus. Ergo nec hoc sacramentum prodest aliis nisi sumenti. Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament benefits only the recipients. For this sacrament is of the same genus as the other sacraments, being one of those into which that genus is divided. But the other sacraments only benefit the recipients; thus the baptized person alone receives effect of Baptism. Therefore, neither does this sacrament benefit others than the recipients.
Praeterea, effectus huius sacramenti est adeptio gratiae et gloriae, et remissio culpae, ad minus venialis. Si ergo hoc sacramentum haberet effectum in aliis quam in sumentibus, posset contingere quod aliquis adipisceretur gloriam et gratiam et remissionem culpae absque actione et passione propria, alio offerente vel sumente hoc sacramentum. Objection 2: Further, the effects of this sacrament are the attainment of grace and glory, and the forgiveness of sin, at least of venial sin. If therefore this sacrament were to produce its effects in others besides the recipients, a man might happen to acquire grace and glory and forgiveness of sin without doing or receiving anything himself, through another receiving or offering this sacrament.
Praeterea, multiplicata causa, multiplicatur effectus. Si ergo hoc sacramentum prodest aliis quam sumentibus, sequeretur quod magis prodesset alicui si sumeret hoc sacramentum in multis hostiis in una Missa consecratis, quod non habet Ecclesiae consuetudo, ut scilicet multi communicent pro alicuius salute. Non ergo videtur quod hoc sacramentum prosit nisi sumenti. Objection 3: Further, when the cause is multiplied, the effect is likewise multiplied. If therefore this sacrament benefit others besides the recipients, it would follow that it benefits a man more if he receive this sacrament through many hosts being consecrated in one mass, whereas this is not the Church's custom: for instance, that many receive communion for the salvation of one individual. Consequently, it does not seem that this sacrament benefits anyone but the recipient.
Sed contra est quod in celebratione huius sacramenti fit pro multis aliis deprecatio. Quod frustra fieret nisi hoc sacramentum aliis prodesset. Ergo hoc sacramentum non solum sumentibus prodest. On the contrary, Prayer is made for many others during the celebration of this sacrament; which would serve no purpose were the sacrament not beneficial to others. Therefore, this sacrament is beneficial not merely to them who receive it.
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut prius dictum est, hoc sacramentum non solum est sacramentum, sed etiam est sacrificium. Inquantum enim in hoc sacramento repraesentatur passio Christi, qua Christus obtulit se hostiam Deo, ut dicitur Ephes. V, habet rationem sacrificii, inquantum vero in hoc sacramento traditur invisibiliter gratia sub visibili specie, habet rationem sacramenti. Sic igitur hoc sacramentum sumentibus quidem prodest per modum sacramenti et per modum sacrificii, quia pro omnibus sumentibus offertur, dicitur enim in canone Missae, quotquot ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum corpus et sanguinem filii tui sumpserimus, omni benedictione caelesti et gratia repleamur. I answer that, As stated above (Article [3]), this sacrament is not only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice. For, it has the nature of a sacrifice inasmuch as in this sacrament Christ's Passion is represented, whereby Christ "offered Himself a Victim to God" (Eph. 5:2), and it has the nature of a sacrament inasmuch as invisible grace is bestowed in this sacrament under a visible species. So, then, this sacrament benefits recipients by way both of sacrament and of sacrifice, because it is offered for all who partake of it. For it is said in the Canon of the Mass: "May as many of us as, by participation at this Altar, shall receive the most sacred body and blood of Thy Son, be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace."
Sed aliis, qui non sumunt, prodest per modum sacrificii, inquantum pro salute eorum offertur, unde et in canone Missae dicitur, memento, domine, famulorum famularumque tuarum, pro quibus tibi offerimus, vel qui tibi offerunt, hoc sacrificium laudis, pro se suisque omnibus, pro redemptione animarum suarum, pro spe salutis et incolumitatis suae. Et utrumque modum dominus exprimit, dicens, Matth. XXVI, qui pro vobis, scilicet sumentibus, et pro multis aliis, effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. But to others who do not receive it, it is beneficial by way of sacrifice, inasmuch as it is offered for their salvation. Hence it is said in the Canon of the Mass: "Be mindful, O Lord, of Thy servants, men and women... for whom we offer, or who offer up to Thee, this sacrifice of praise for themselves and for all their own, for the redemption of their souls, for the hope of their safety and salvation." And our Lord expressed both ways, saying (Mt. 26:28, with Lk. 22:20): "Which for you," i.e. who receive it, "and for many," i.e. others, "shall be shed unto remission of sins."
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hoc sacramentum prae aliis habet quod est sacrificium. Et ideo non est similis ratio. Reply to Objection 1: This sacrament has this in addition to the others, that it is a sacrifice: and therefore the comparison fails.
Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut passio Christi prodest quidem omnibus ad remissionem culpae et adeptionem gratiae et gloriae, sed effectum non habet nisi in illis qui passioni Christi coniunguntur per fidem et caritatem; ita etiam hoc sacrificium, quod est memoriale dominicae passionis, non habet effectum nisi in illis qui coniunguntur huic sacramento per fidem et caritatem. Unde et Augustinus dicit, ad renatum, quis offerat corpus Christi nisi pro his qui sunt membra Christi? Unde et in canone Missae non oratur pro his qui sunt extra Ecclesiam. Illis tamen prodest plus vel minus, secundum modum devotionis eorum. Reply to Objection 2: As Christ's Passion benefits all, for the forgiveness of sin and the attaining of grace and glory, whereas it produces no effect except in those who are united with Christ's Passion through faith and charity, so likewise this sacrifice, which is the memorial of our Lord's Passion, has no effect except in those who are united with this sacrament through faith and charity. Hence Augustine says to Renatus (De Anima et ejus origine i): "Who may offer Christ's body except for them who are Christ's members?" Hence in the Canon of the Mass no prayer is made for them who are outside the pale of the Church. But it benefits them who are members, more or less, according to the measure of their devotion.
Ad tertium dicendum quod sumptio pertinet ad rationem sacramenti, sed oblatio pertinet ad rationem sacrificii. Et ideo ex hoc quod aliquis sumit corpus Christi, vel etiam plures, non accrescit aliis aliquod iuvamentum. Similiter etiam neque ex hoc quod sacerdos plures hostias consecrat in una Missa, non multiplicatur effectus huius sacramenti, quia non est nisi unum sacrificium, nihil enim virtutis plus est in multis hostiis consecratis quam in una, cum sub omnibus et sub una non sit nisi totus Christus. Unde nec si aliquis simul in una Missa multas hostias consecratas sumat, participabit maiorem effectum sacramenti. In pluribus vero Missis multiplicatur sacrificii oblatio. Et ideo multiplicatur effectus sacrificii et sacramenti. Reply to Objection 3: Receiving is of the very nature of the sacrament, but offering belongs to the nature of sacrifice: consequently, when one or even several receive the body of Christ, no help accrues to others. In like fashion even when the priest consecrates several hosts in one mass, the effect of this sacrament is not increased, since there is only one sacrifice; because there is no more power in several hosts than in one, since there is only one Christ present under all the hosts and under one. Hence, neither will any one receive greater effect from the sacrament by taking many consecrated hosts in one mass. But the oblation of the sacrifice is multiplied in several masses, and therefore the effect of the sacrifice and of the sacrament is multiplied.

Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 79 [ << | >> ]
Article: 8  [ << | >> ]

Whether the effect of this sacrament is hindered by venial sin?

Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod per veniale peccatum non impediatur effectus huius sacramenti. Dicit enim Augustinus, super illud Ioan. VI, si quis ex ipso manducaverit etc., panem caelestem spiritualiter manducate; innocentiam ad altare portate; peccata, etsi sint quotidiana, non sint mortifera. Ex quo patet quod quotidiana peccata, quae dicuntur venialia, spiritualem manducationem non impediunt. Sed spiritualiter manducantes effectum huius sacramenti percipiunt. Ergo peccata venialia non impediunt effectum huius sacramenti. Objection 1: It seems that the effect of this sacrament is not hindered by venial sin. For Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), commenting on Jn. 6:52, "If any man eat of this bread," etc., says: "Eat the heavenly bread spiritually; bring innocence to the altar; your sins, though they be daily, let them not be deadly." From this it is evident that venial sins, which are called daily sins, do not prevent spiritual eating. But they who eat spiritually, receive the effect of this sacrament. Therefore, venial sins do not hinder the effect of this sacrament.
Praeterea, hoc sacramentum non est minoris virtutis quam Baptismus. Sed effectum Baptismi, sicut supra dictum est, impedit sola fictio, ad quam non pertinent peccata venialia, quia, sicut Sap. I dicitur, spiritus sanctus disciplinae effugiet fictum, qui tamen per peccata venialia non fugatur. Ergo neque effectum huius sacramenti impediunt peccata venialia. Objection 2: Further, this sacrament is not less powerful than Baptism. But, as stated above (Question [69], Articles [9],10), only pretense checks the effect of Baptism, and venial sins do not belong to pretense; because according to Wis. 1:5: "the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee from the deceitful," yet He is not put to flight by venial sins. Therefore neither do venial sins hinder the effect of this sacrament.
Praeterea, nihil quod removetur per actionem alicuius causae, potest impedire eius effectum. Sed peccata venialia tolluntur per hoc sacramentum. Ergo non impediunt eius effectum. Objection 3: Further, nothing which is removed by the action of any cause, can hinder the effect of such cause. But venial sins are taken away by this sacrament. Therefore, they do not hinder its effect.
Sed contra est quod Damascenus dicit, in IV libro, ignis eius quod in nobis est desiderii, assumens eam quae ex carbone, idest hoc sacramento, ignitionem, comburet nostra peccata, et illuminabit nostra corda, ut participatione divini ignis igniamur et deificemur. Sed ignis nostri desiderii vel amoris impeditur per peccata venialia, quae impediunt fervorem caritatis, ut in secunda parte habitum est. Ergo peccata venialia impediunt effectum huius sacramenti. On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): "The fire of that desire which is within us, being kindled by the burning coal," i.e. this sacrament, "will consume our sins, and enlighten our hearts, so that we shall be inflamed and made godlike." But the fire of our desire or love is hindered by venial sins, which hinder the fervor of charity, as was shown in the FS, Question [81], Article [4]; SS, Question [24], Article [10]. Therefore venial sins hinder the effect of this sacrament.
Respondeo dicendum quod peccata venialia dupliciter accipi possunt, uno modo, prout sunt praeterita; alio modo, prout sunt actu exercita. Primo quidem modo, peccata venialia nullo modo impediunt effectum huius sacramenti. Potest enim contingere quod aliquis post multa peccata commissa venialia, devote accedat ad hoc sacramentum, et plenarie huius sacramenti consequetur effectum. Secundo autem modo, peccata venialia non ex toto impediunt effectum huius sacramenti, sed in parte. Dictum est enim quod effectus huius sacramenti non solum est adeptio habitualis gratiae vel caritatis, sed etiam quaedam actualis refectio spiritualis dulcedinis. Quae quidem impeditur si aliquis accedat ad hoc sacramentum mente distracta per peccata venialia. Non autem tollitur augmentum gratiae habitualis vel caritatis. I answer that, Venial sins can be taken in two ways: first of all as past, secondly as in the act of being committed. Venial sins taken in the first way do not in any way hinder the effect of this sacrament. For it can come to pass that after many venial sins a man may approach devoutly to this sacrament and fully secure its effect. Considered in the second way venial sins do not utterly hinder the effect of this sacrament, but merely in part. For, it has been stated above (Article [1]), that the effect of this sacrament is not only the obtaining of habitual grace or charity, but also a certain actual refreshment of spiritual sweetness: which is indeed hindered if anyone approach to this sacrament with mind distracted through venial sins; but the increase of habitual grace or of charity is not taken away.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ille qui cum actu venialis peccati ad hoc sacramentum accedit, habitualiter quidem manducat spiritualiter, sed non actualiter. Et ideo habitualem effectum huius sacramenti percipit, non autem actualem. Reply to Objection 1: He that approaches this sacrament with actual venial sin, eats spiritually indeed, in habit but not in act: and therefore he shares in the habitual effect of the sacrament, but not in its actual effect.
Ad secundum dicendum quod Baptismus non ita ordinatur ad actualem effectum, idest ad fervorem caritatis, sicut hoc sacramentum. Nam Baptismus est spiritualis regeneratio, per quam acquiritur prima perfectio, quae est habitus vel forma, hoc autem sacramentum est spiritualis manducatio, quae habet actualem delectationem. Reply to Objection 2: Baptism is not ordained, as this sacrament is, for the fervor of charity as its actual effect. Because Baptism is spiritual regeneration, through which the first perfection is acquired, which is a habit or form; but this sacrament is spiritual eating, which has actual delight.
Ad tertium dicendum quod illa ratio procedit de venialibus praeteritis, quae per hoc sacramentum tolluntur. Reply to Objection 3: This argument deals with past venial sins, which are taken away by this sacrament.

This document converted to HTML on Fri Jan 02 19:10:46 1998.