|
Objection 1: It seems that the actions performed in celebrating this
mystery are not becoming. For, as is evident from its form, this
sacrament belongs to the New Testament. But under the New
Testament the ceremonies of the old are not to be observed, such as
that the priests and ministers were purified with water when they drew
nigh to offer up the sacrifice: for we read (Ex.
30:19,20): "Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and
feet . . . when they are going into the tabernacle of the testimony
. . . and when they are to come to the altar." Therefore it is not
fitting that the priest should wash his hands when celebrating mass.
Objection 2: Further, (Ex. 30:7), the Lord commanded
Aaron to "burn sweet-smelling incense" upon the altar which was
"before the propitiatory": and the same action was part of the
ceremonies of the Old Law. Therefore it is not fitting for the
priest to use incense during mass.
Objection 3: Further, the ceremonies performed in the sacraments of
the Church ought not to be repeated. Consequently it is not proper
for the priest to repeat the sign of the cross many times over this
sacrament.
Objection 4: Further, the Apostle says (Heb. 7:7): "And
without all contradiction, that which is less, is blessed by the
better." But Christ, Who is in this sacrament after the
consecration, is much greater than the priest. Therefore quite
unseemingly the priest, after the consecration, blesses this
sacrament, by signing it with the cross.
Objection 5: Further, nothing which appears ridiculous ought to be
done in one of the Church's sacraments. But it seems ridiculous to
perform gestures, e.g. for the priest to stretch out his arms at
times, to join his hands, to join together his fingers, and to bow
down. Consequently, such things ought not to be done in this
sacrament.
Objection 6: Further, it seems ridiculous for the priest to turn
round frequently towards the people, and often to greet the people.
Consequently, such things ought not to be done in the celebration of
this sacrament.
Objection 7: Further, the Apostle (1 Cor. 13) deems it
improper for Christ to be divided. But Christ is in this sacrament
after the consecration. Therefore it is not proper for the priest to
divide the host.
Objection 8: Further, the ceremonies performed in this sacrament
represent Christ's Passion. But during the Passion Christ's body
was divided in the places of the five wounds. Therefore Christ's
body ought to be broken into five parts rather than into three.
Objection 9: Further, Christ's entire body is consecrated in this
sacrament apart from the blood. Consequently, it is not proper for a
particle of the body to be mixed with the blood.
Objection 1:: Further, just as, in this sacrament, Christ's
body is set before us as food, so is His blood, as drink. But in
receiving Christ's body no other bodily food is added in the
celebration of the mass. Therefore, it is out of place for the
priest, after taking Christ's blood, to receive other wine which is
not consecrated.
Objection 1:: Further, the truth ought to be conformable with the
figure. But regarding the Paschal Lamb, which was a figure of this
sacrament, it was commanded that nothing of it should "remain until
the morning." It is improper therefore for consecrated hosts to be
reserved, and not consumed at once.
Objection 1:: Further, the priest addresses in the plural number
those who are hearing mass, when he says, "The Lord be with you":
and, "Let us return thanks." But it is out of keeping to address
one individual in the plural number, especially an inferior.
Consequently it seems unfitting for a priest to say mass with only a
single server present. Therefore in the celebration of this sacrament
it seems that some of the things done are out of place.
On the contrary, The custom of the Church stands for these things:
and the Church cannot err, since she is taught by the Holy Ghost.
I answer that, As was said above (Question 60, Article 6),
there is a twofold manner of signification in the sacraments, by
words, and by actions, in order that the signification may thus be
more perfect. Now, in the celebration of this sacrament words are
used to signify things pertaining to Christ's Passion, which is
represented in this sacrament; or again, pertaining to Christ's
mystical body, which is signified therein; and again, things
pertaining to the use of this sacrament, which use ought to be devout
and reverent. Consequently, in the celebration of this mystery some
things are done in order to represent Christ's Passion, or the
disposing of His mystical body, and some others are done which pertain
to the devotion and reverence due to this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 1: The washing of the hands is done in the
celebration of mass out of reverence for this sacrament; and this for
two reasons: first, because we are not wont to handle precious objects
except the hands be washed; hence it seems indecent for anyone to
approach so great a sacrament with hands that are, even literally,
unclean. Secondly, on account of its signification, because, as
Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), the washing of the extremities
of the limbs denotes cleansing from even the smallest sins, according
to Jn. 13:10: "He that is washed needeth not but to wash his
feet." And such cleansing is required of him who approaches this
sacrament; and this is denoted by the confession which is made before
the "Introit" of the mass. Moreover, this was signified by the
washing of the priests under the Old Law, as Dionysius says
(Eccl. Hier. iii). However, the Church observes this
ceremony, not because it was prescribed under the Old Law, but
because it is becoming in itself, and therefore instituted by the
Church. Hence it is not observed in the same way as it was then:
because the washing of the feet is omitted, and the washing of the
hands is observed; for this can be done more readily, and suffices far
denoting perfect cleansing. For, since the hand is the "organ of
organs" (De Anima iii), all works are attributed to the hands:
hence it is said in Ps. 25:6: "I will wash my hands among the
innocent."
Reply to Objection 2: We use incense, not as commanded by a
ceremonial precept of the Law, but as prescribed by the Church;
accordingly we do not use it in the same fashion as it was ordered under
the Old Law. It has reference to two things: first, to the
reverence due to this sacrament, i.e. in order by its good odor, to
remove any disagreeable smell that may be about the place; secondly,
it serves to show the effect of grace, wherewith Christ was filled as
with a good odor, according to Gn. 27:27: "Behold, the odor
of my son is like the odor of a ripe field"; and from Christ it
spreads to the faithful by the work of His ministers, according to 2
Cor. 2:14: "He manifesteth the odor of his knowledge by us in
every place"; and therefore when the altar which represents Christ,
has been incensed on every side, then all are incensed in their proper
order.
Reply to Objection 3: The priest, in celebrating the mass, makes
use of the sign of the cross to signify Christ's Passion which was
ended upon the cross. Now, Christ's Passion was accomplished in
certain stages. First of all there was Christ's betrayal, which was
the work of God, of Judas, and of the Jews; and this is signified
by the triple sign of the cross at the words, "These gifts, these
presents, these holy unspotted sacrifices."
Secondly, there was the selling of Christ. Now he was sold to the
Priests, to the Scribes, and to the Pharisees: and to signify this
the threefold sign of the cross is repeated, at the words, "blessed,
enrolled, ratified." Or again, to signify the price for which He
was sold, viz. thirty pence. And a double cross is added at the
words---"that it may become to us the Body and the Blood,"
etc., to signify the person of Judas the seller, and of Christ Who
was sold.
Thirdly, there was the foreshadowing of the Passion at the last
supper. To denote this, in the third place, two crosses are made,
one in consecrating the body, the other in consecrating the blood;
each time while saying, "He blessed."
Fourthly, there was Christ's Passion itself. And so in order to
represent His five wounds, in the fourth place, there is a fivefold
signing of the cross at the words, "a pure Victim, a holy Victim,
a spotless Victim, the holy bread of eternal life, and the cup of
everlasting salvation."
Fifthly, the outstretching of Christ's body, and the shedding of
the blood, and the fruits of the Passion, are signified by the triple
signing of the cross at the words, "as many as shall receive the body
and blood, may be filled with every blessing," etc.
Sixthly, Christ's threefold prayer upon the cross is represented;
one for His persecutors when He said, "Father, forgive them";
the second for deliverance from death, when He cried, "My God,
My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" the third referring to His
entrance into glory, when He said, "Father, into Thy hands I
commend My spirit"; and in order to denote these there is a triple
signing with the cross made at the words, "Thou dost sanctify,
quicken, bless."
Seventhly, the three hours during which He hung upon the cross, that
is, from the sixth to the ninth hour, are represented; in
signification of which we make once more a triple sign of the cross at
the words, "Through Him, and with Him, and in Him."
Eighthly, the separation of His soul from the body is signified by
the two subsequent crosses made over the chalice.
Ninthly, the resurrection on the third day is represented by the three
crosses made at the words---"May the peace of the Lord be ever
with you."
In short, we may say that the consecration of this sacrament, and the
acceptance of this sacrifice, and its fruits, proceed from the virtue
of the cross of Christ, and therefore wherever mention is made of
these, the priest makes use of the sign of the cross.
Reply to Objection 4: After the consecration, the priest makes the
sign of the cross, not for the purpose of blessing and consecrating,
but only for calling to mind the virtue of the cross, and the manner of
Christ's suffering, as is evident from what has been said (ad 3).
Reply to Objection 5: The actions performed by the priest in mass
are not ridiculous gestures, since they are done so as to represent
something else. The priest in extending his arms signifies the
outstretching of Christ's arms upon the cross. He also lifts up his
hands as he prays, to point out that his prayer is directed to God for
the people, according to Lam. 3:41: "Let us lift up our hearts
with our hands to the Lord in the heavens": and Ex. 17:11:
"And when Moses lifted up his hands Israel overcame." That at
times he joins his hands, and bows down, praying earnestly and
humbly, denotes the humility and obedience of Christ, out of which
He suffered. He closes his fingers, i.e. the thumb and first
finger, after the consecration, because, with them, he had touched
the consecrated body of Christ; so that if any particle cling to the
fingers, it may not be scattered: and this belongs to the reverence
for this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 6: Five times does the priest turn round towards
the people, to denote that our Lord manifested Himself five times on
the day of His Resurrection, as stated above in the treatise on
Christ's Resurrection (Question 55, Article 3, Objection
3). But the priest greets the people seven times, namely, five
times, by turning round to the people, and twice without turning
round, namely, when he says, "The Lord be with you" before the
"Preface," and again when he says, "May the peace of the Lord be
ever with you": and this is to denote the sevenfold grace of the Holy
Ghost. But a bishop, when he celebrates on festival days, in his
first greeting says, "Peace be to you," which was our Lord's
greeting after Resurrection, Whose person the bishop chiefly
represents.
Reply to Objection 7: The breaking of the host denotes three
things: first, the rending of Christ's body, which took place in
the Passion; secondly, the distinction of His mystical body
according to its various states; and thirdly, the distribution of the
graces which flow from Christ's Passion, as Dionysius observes
(Eccl. Hier. iii). Hence this breaking does not imply severance
in Christ.
Reply to Objection 8: As Pope Sergius says, and it is to be
found in the Decretals (De Consecr., dist. ii), "the Lord's
body is threefold; the part offered and put into the chalice signifies
Christ's risen body," namely, Christ Himself, and the Blessed
Virgin, and the other saints, if there be any, who are already in
glory with their bodies. "The part consumed denotes those still
walking upon earth," because while living upon earth they are united
together by this sacrament; and are bruised by the passions, just as
the bread eaten is bruised by the teeth. "The part reserved on the
altar till the close of the mass, is His body hidden in the
sepulchre, because the bodies of the saints will be in their graves
until the end of the world": though their souls are either in
purgatory, or in heaven. However, this rite of reserving one part on
the altar till the close of the mass is no longer observed, on account
of the danger; nevertheless, the same meaning of the parts continues,
which some persons have expressed in verse, thus:
"The host being rent---
What is dipped, means the blest;
What is dry, means the living;
What is kept, those at rest."
Others, however, say that the part put into the chalice denotes those
still living in this world. while the part kept outside the chalice
denotes those fully blessed both in soul and body; while the part
consumed means the others.
Reply to Objection 9: Two things can be signified by the chalice:
first, the Passion itself, which is represented in this sacrament,
and according to this, by the part put into the chalice are denoted
those who are still sharers of Christ's sufferings; secondly, the
enjoyment of the Blessed can be signified, which is likewise
foreshadowed in this sacrament; and therefore those whose bodies are
already in full beatitude, are denoted by the part put into the
chalice. And it is to be observed that the part put into the chalice
ought not to be given to the people to supplement the communion,
because Christ gave dipped bread only to Judas the betrayer.
Reply to Objection 1:: Wine, by reason of its humidity, is
capable of washing, consequently it is received in order to rinse the
mouth after receiving this sacrament, lest any particles remain: and
this belongs to reverence for the sacrament. Hence (Extra, De
Celebratione missae, chap. Ex parte), it is said: "The priest
should always cleanse his mouth with wine after receiving the entire
sacrament of Eucharist: except when he has to celebrate another mass
on the same day, lest from taking the ablution-wine he be prevented
from celebrating again"; and it is for the same reason that wine is
poured over the fingers with which he had touched the body of Christ.
Reply to Objection 1:: The truth ought to be conformable with the
figure, in some respect: namely, because a part of the host
consecrated, of which the priest and ministers or even the people
communicate, ought not to be reserved until the day following.
Hence, as is laid down (De Consecr., dist. ii), Pope Clement
I ordered that "as many hosts are to be offered on the altar as shall
suffice for the people; should any be left over, they are not to be
reserved until the morrow, but let the clergy carefully consume them
with fear and trembling." Nevertheless, since this sacrament is to
be received daily, whereas the Paschal Lamb was not, it is therefore
necessary for other hosts to be reserved for the sick. Hence we read
in the same distinction: "Let the priest always have the Eucharist
ready, so that, when anyone fall sick, he may take Communion to him
at once, lest he die without it."
Reply to Objection 1:: Several persons ought to be present at the
solemn celebration of the mass. Hence Pope Soter says (De
Consecr., dist. 1): "It has also been ordained, that no priest
is to presume to celebrate solemn mass, unless two others be present
answering him, while he himself makes the third; because when he says
in the plural, 'The Lord be with you,' and again in the Secrets,
'Pray ye for me,' it is most becoming that they should answer his
greeting." Hence it is for the sake of greater solemnity that we find
it decreed (De Consecr. dist. 1) that a bishop is to solemnize
mass with several assistants. Nevertheless, in private masses it
suffices to have one server, who takes the place of the whole Catholic
people, on whose behalf he makes answer in the plural to the priest.
|
|