|
Objection 1: It seems that Christ did not receive His own body and
blood, because nothing ought to be asserted of either Christ's doings
or sayings, which is not handed down by the authority of Sacred
Scripture. But it is not narrated in the gospels that He ate His
own body or drank His own blood. Therefore we must not assert this as
a fact.
Objection 2: Further, nothing can be within itself except perchance
by reason of its parts, for instance. as one part is in another, as
is stated in Phys. iv. But what is eaten and drunk is in the eater
and drinker. Therefore, since the entire Christ is under each
species of the sacrament, it seems impossible for Him to have received
this sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, the receiving of this sacrament is twofold,
namely, spiritual and sacramental. But the spiritual was unsuitable
for Christ, as He derived no benefit from the sacrament. and in
consequence so was the sacramental, since it is imperfect without the
spiritual, as was observed above (Question 80, Article 1).
Consequently, in no way did Christ partake of this sacrament.
On the contrary, Jerome says (Ad Hedib., Ep. xxx), "The
Lord Jesus Christ, Himself the guest and banquet, is both the
partaker and what is eaten."
I answer that, Some have said that Christ during the supper gave
His body and blood to His disciples, but did not partake of it
Himself. But this seems improbable. Because Christ Himself was
the first to fulfill what He required others to observe: hence He
willed first to be baptized when imposing Baptism upon others: as we
read in Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach." Hence He
first of all took His own body and blood, and afterwards gave it to be
taken by the disciples. And hence the gloss upon Ruth 3:7,
"When he had eaten and drunk, says: Christ ate and drank at the
supper, when He gave to the disciples the sacrament of His body and
blood. Hence, 'because the children partook of His flesh and
blood, He also hath been partaker in the same.'"
Reply to Objection 1: We read in the Gospels how Christ "took
the bread . . . and the chalice"; but it is not to be understood
that He took them merely into His hands, as some say. but that He
took them in the same way as He gave them to others to take. Hence
when He said to the disciples, "Take ye and eat," and again,
"Take ye and drink," it is to be understood that He Himself, in
taking it, both ate and drank. Hence some have composed this rhyme:
"The King at supper sits,
The twelve as guests He greets,
Clasping Himself in His hands,
The food Himself now eats."
Reply to Objection 2: As was said above (Question 76, Article
5), Christ as contained under this sacrament stands in relation to
place, not according to His own dimensions, but according to the
dimensions of the sacramental species; so that Christ is Himself in
every place where those species are. And because the species were able
to be both in the hands and the mouth of Christ, the entire Christ
could be in both His hands and mouth. Now this could not come to pass
were His relation to place to be according to His proper dimensions.
Reply to Objection 3: As was stated above (Question 79,
Article 1, ad 2), the effect of this sacrament is not merely an
increase of habitual grace, but furthermore a certain actual
delectation of spiritual sweetness. But although grace was not
increased in Christ through His receiving this sacrament, yet He had
a certain spiritual delectation from the new institution of this
sacrament. Hence He Himself said (Lk. 22:15): "With
desire I have desired to eat this Pasch with you," which words
Eusebius explains of the new mystery of the New Testament, which He
gave to the disciples. And therefore He ate it both spiritually and
sacramentally, inasmuch as He received His own body under the
sacrament which sacrament of His own body He both understood and
prepared; yet differently from others who partake of it both
sacramentally and spiritually, for these receive an increase of grace,
and they have need of the sacramental signs for perceiving its truth.
|
|