|
Objection 2: Further, this sacrament is specially called "the
sacrament of charity," as stated above (Question 78, Article
3, ad 6). But as unbelievers lack faith, so all sinners lack
charity. Now unbelievers do not seem to be capable of eating this
sacrament, since in the sacramental form it is called the "Mystery of
Faith." Therefore, for like reason, the sinner cannot eat
Christ's body sacramentally.
Objection 3: Further, the sinner is more abominable before God
than the irrational creature: for it is said of the sinner (Ps.
48:21): "Man when he was in honor did not understand; he hath
been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them." But an
irrational animal, such as a mouse or a dog, cannot receive this
sacrament, just as it cannot receive the sacrament of Baptism.
Therefore it seems that for the like reason neither may sinners eat
this sacrament.
On the contrary, Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), commenting
on the words, "that if any man eat of it he may not die," says:
"Many receive from the altar, and by receiving die: whence the
Apostle saith, 'eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.'" But
only sinners die by receiving. Therefore sinners eat the body of
Christ sacramentally, and not the just only.
I answer that, In the past, some have erred upon this point, saying
that Christ's body is not received sacramentally by sinners; but that
directly the body is touched by the lips of sinners, it ceases to be
under the sacramental species.
But this is erroneous; because it detracts from the truth of this
sacrament, to which truth it belongs that so long as the species last,
Christ's body does not cease to be under them, as stated above
(Question 76, Article 6, ad 3; Question 77, Article
8). But the species last so long as the substance of the bread would
remain, if it were there, as was stated above (Question 77,
Article 4). Now it is clear that the substance of bread taken by a
sinner does not at once cease to be, but it continues until digested by
natural heat: hence Christ's body remains just as long under the
sacramental species when taken by sinners. Hence it must be said that
the sinner, and not merely the just, can eat Christ's body.
Reply to Objection 1: Such words and similar expressions are to be
understood of spiritual eating, which does not belong to sinners.
Consequently, it is from such expressions being misunderstood that the
above error seems to have arisen, through ignorance of the distinction
between corporeal and spiritual eating.
Reply to Objection 2: Should even an unbeliever receive the
sacramental species, he would receive Christ's body under the
sacrament: hence he would eat Christ sacramentally, if the word
"sacramentally" qualify the verb on the part of the thing eaten. But
if it qualify the verb on the part of the one eating, then, properly
speaking, he does not eat sacramentally, because he uses what he
takes, not as a sacrament, but as simple food. Unless perchance the
unbeliever were to intend to receive what the Church bestows; without
having proper faith regarding the other articles, or regarding this
sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: Even though a mouse or a dog were to eat the
consecrated host, the substance of Christ's body would not cease to
be under the species, so long as those species remain, and that is,
so long as the substance of bread would have remained; just as if it
were to be cast into the mire. Nor does this turn to any indignity
regarding Christ's body, since He willed to be crucified by sinners
without detracting from His dignity; especially since the mouse or dog
does not touch Christ's body in its proper species, but only as to
its sacramental species. Some, however, have said that Christ's
body would cease to be there, directly it were touched by a mouse or a
dog; but this again detracts from the truth of the sacrament, as
stated above. None the less it must not be said that the irrational
animal eats the body of Christ sacramentally; since it is incapable of
using it as a sacrament. Hence it eats Christ's body
"accidentally," and not sacramentally, just as if anyone not knowing
a host to be consecrated were to consume it. And since no genus is
divided by an accidental difference, therefore this manner of eating
Christ's body is not set down as a third way besides sacramental and
spiritual eating.
|
|