> ‎Chapter 12‎ > ‎Chapter 13‎ > ‎Chapter 14‎ > ‎Chapter 15‎ > ‎Chapter 16‎ >    

 

 

1 Cor 11:1-3

1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

582. – Having eliminated from the believers a practice contrary to the sacrament of the Eucharist, namely, partaking of food offered to idols, the Apostle now instructs them about the sacrament of the Eucharist itself. First, he gives a general admonition; secondly, he develops his proposition (v. 3). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he presents the admonition; secondly, he signifies how the Corinthians regarded that admonition (v. 2).

583. – In regard to the first it should be noted that the natural order of things is so arranged, that lower beings imitate higher beings, as far as it is possible. Hence even a natural agent, being superior, makes the thing it acts on similar to itself. Now the primordial principle of the production of things is the Son of God, as it says in John (1:3): “All things were made through him.” He is, therefore, the primordial exemplar, which all creatures imitate as the true and perfect image of God. Hence it says in Col (1:15); “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature, for in him all things were created.” But in a special way He is the exemplar of spiritual graces, with which spiritual creatures are endowed, as is said to the Son in Ps 110 (v. 3): “In the splendors of the saints before the morning star I begot you,” namely, because He was begotten before every creature through resplendent grace, having in Himself as exemplar the splendors of all the saints. But this exemplar of God has been very remote from us at first, as it says in Ec (2:12); “What is man that he could follow the king, his Maker?” And therefore He willed to become man, that He might offer humans a human exemplar. Hence Augustine says in the Christian Combat: “This perversity he does not lack who loves to inspect and imitate that man’s words and actions, in which the Son of God offered Himself to us as an example of living.” Just as angels were first to imitate the exemplar of His divinity, but secondarily the other creatures, as Denis says in the Angelic Hierarchy, so the exemplar of humanity is chiefly proposed to be imitated by the prelates of the church, as being higher. Hence the Lord says in John (13:15): “I have given you an example that as I have done, so do you.” Secondly, however, the prelates informed by the example of Christ are proposed to their subjects as exemplars of living: “Being examples to the flock” (1 Pt 5:3); “To give you in our conduct an example to imitate” (2 Th 3:9). Therefore, the Apostle expressly says: I have said that you should be without offense to anyone. And this, of course, you can do, if you take note of what I say: Be imitators of me as I am of Christ, i.e., an imitator. For he imitated Him, first, in devotion of mind: “I live, now not I, but Christ lives in me” (Gal 2:20). Secondly, in anxiety for his subjects: “Even if I am to be poured as a libation upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all” (Phil 2:17); Jesus Christ also offered himself for us, as it says in Eph (5:2). Thirdly, as to tolerating suffering: “Always carrying in the body the death of Jesus” (2 Cor 4:10); “I bear on my body the marks of Jesus” (Gal 6:17). But it must be noted that he does not merely say, Be imitators of me, but he adds, as I am of Christ, namely, because subjects ought not imitate their prelates in everything but in those things in which they imitate Christ, Who is the unfailing exemplar of holiness.

584. – Then when he says, I commend you, brethren, he shows how the Corinthians were acting in regard to the above admonition. In regard to this it should be observed that subjects follow their prelates in two ways: namely, as to their deeds and words. In regard to deeds, when they imitate the example of their prelates; hence it says in Jas (5:10): “As an example take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.” In regard to deeds, when they obey their precepts: “Keep my commandments and live” (Pr 4:4). But the Corinthians failed in these things and especially the greater majority; consequently, the Apostle addressed them thus: I commend you, brethren. As if to say: You should offer yourselves to be praised on this point, but you do not, because you remember me in everything, so as it imitate my example. For we cannot imitate examples of ones we do not remember. Hence it says in Heb (13:7): “Remember your leaders; consider the outcome of their life and imitate their faith.” As to words he adds: You maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. As if to say: You observe them in the same tenor as I delivered them to you: for he says this, because he had not departed from observing the commandments: “If they keep my word, they will also keep yours” (Jn. 15:20).

585. – But this seems to be a manner of speaking not suited to the truth of the Sacred Scripture, which contains no falsity, as it says in Pr (8:8): “All the words of my mouth are righteous; and there is nothing twisted or crooked in them.” The answer is that irony is one of the figures of speech, in which one does not pay attention to the sense which the words make in order to get the truth, but what the speaker intends to express by a similar or contrary or other way. Therefore, in irony the truth is really the contrary of what the words indicate, as in a metaphor the truth consists in a similarity.

586. – Then when he says, But I want you to understand, brethren, he proceeds to his intention of instructing believers in the sacrament of the Eucharist. In regard to this he does three things: first, he reproves their errors regarding the rite of this sacrament; secondly, he shows the dignity of this sacrament (v. 23); thirdly, he teaches the correct rite (v. 27). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he refutes their error, by which they erred in clothing, namely, because the women gathered for the sacred mysteries with heads uncovered; secondly, he corrects them in their gathering, because, when they came together for the sacred mysteries, they indulged in quarrels (v. 17); thirdly, as to food, because they approach to take the sacred mysteries, after they had just eaten (v. 20). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he lays down a teaching from which is drawn the reason for the next admonition; secondly, he gives an admonition (v. 4).

587. – In regard to the first he mentions three comparisons, the first of which is of God to man, saying: I have said you hold my precepts, by irony, but in order that you may see how unreasonably you act, I want you to know as something necessary and in keeping with Is (5:13): “My people went into exile for want of knowledge,” that the head of every man is Christ. This is said according to a likeness of a natural head, in which four things are considered. First, perfection, because while the other members have but one sense, namely, touch, all the senses flourish in the head; and similarly in other men are found single graces, as it says in 1 Cor (12:8): “To one is given the spirit of utterance of wisdom, to another the spirit of knowledge,” but in Christ alone is found the fullness of all graces. For it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit, as is said in John (3:34). Secondly, in the head is found sublimity, because as in a man it is superior to all the members, so Christ is super-eminent not only over all men but also all angels, as it says in Eph (1:20): “He made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places far above all power and dominion” and below (5:22): “Christ is the head of the Church.” Thirdly, in the head is found outflowing power, namely, because in some way it imparts sensation and movement to the other members; so from Christ is derived movement and sense to the other members of the Church according to Col (2:19): “not holding fast to the head from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together, grows with a growth that is from God.” Fourthly, in the head is found a conformity of nature to the other members; likewise in Christ relative to other men, as it says in Phil (2:7): “Taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of man.”

588. – The second comparison he presents is of man to man, when he says: The head of a woman is her husband. This is verified according to the four comparisons mentioned above. For, first of all, man is more perfect than woman not only in regard to the body, because, as the Philosopher says in the book On Generation of Animals, “the female is an occasioned male,” but also in regard to the soul’s vigor, as it says in Ec (7:29): “One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found.” Secondly, because man is naturally superior to the female, as it says in Eph (5:22): “Wives, be subject to your husband as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife.” Thirdly, because the man exerts an influence by governing the wife, as it says in Gen (3:16): “Your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Fourthly, the man and the woman are alike in nature, as it says in Gen (2:18): “I will make him a helper like to him.”

589. – The third comparison he makes is of God to the Lord, when he says: The head of Christ is God. Here it should be noted that this name, “Christ,” signifies the person mentioned by reason of His human nature: and so this name, “God,” does not refer only to the person of the Father but the whole Trinity, from which as from the more perfect all goods in the humanity of Christ are derived and to which the humanity of Christ is subjected. It can be understood in another way, so that this name, “Christ,” stands for that person by reason of his divine nature; then this name, “God,” stands only for the person of the Father, Who is called the head of the Son not by reason of a greater perfection or by reason of any supposition, but only according to origin and conformity of nature; as it says in Ps 2 (v. 7): “The Lord said to me: you are my Son; today I have begotten you.”

590. – But these can be taken mystically, inasmuch as there is in the soul a certain spiritual union. For sensibility is compared to the female, but reason to the man, by whom sensibility ought to be ruled. Hence he is called her head. Or: the lower reason, which is interested in disposing of and arranging temporal things, is compared to the women. To the man is compared the higher reason, which occupies itself with contemplating eternal things and is called the head of the lower reason, because temporal things should be disposed according to eternal reasons, as it says in Ex (25:9): “Make it according to the pattern I showed you on the mountain.” But Christ is called the head of the man, because reason alone according to its superior part belongs to God.

 

11-2

            1 Cor 11:4-7

4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

591. – Having set forth the doctrine, he adds the admonition, the reason for which is taken from the doctrine mentioned. In regard to this he does two things: first, he gives the admonition on the man’s part; secondly, on the woman’s (v. 5).

592. – First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that the head of the woman is the man, but any man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonors his head. In regard to this it should be noted that any man assisting a judge should display a condition or dignity, and especially assisting God, Who is judge of all. Therefore, those who assist God should conduct themselves in the best behaved and suitable way, as it says in Ec (5:1): “Guard your steps, when you go to the house of God.” Now man assists God in two ways: in one way by relating human things to God, and that is done by praying: “He will make supplication before the Most High; he will open his mouth in prayer, and make supplication for his sins” (Sir 39:5); in another way by bringing things down from God to men, and that is done by prophesying, according to Jl (2:28): “I will pour out my spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.” Hence the Apostle is careful to say, man praying or prophesying. For in these two ways man assists God as Judge, or he assists the Lord. He is said to prophesy in two ways: in one way, inasmuch as man announces to others what has been divinely revealed to him, as it says in Lk (1:67): “And his father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying: “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel…” A man prophesies in another way, inasmuch as he utters things which have been revealed to others; hence, those who read the prophecies or other sacred scriptures are said to be prophesying. It is taken in this sense below (14:4): “He who prophesies edifies the Church”; it is also taken in that sense here. But it pertains to man’s dignity (as will be clear below) not to wear a covering on his head; consequently, he says that every man praying or prophesying with his head covered disgraces his head, i.e., does something unbecoming a man. For as in a body, beauty depends on due proportion of the members, on proper light and color, so in human acts beauty depends on due proportion of words or deeds, in which the light of reason shines forth. Hence in an opposite way ugliness is present when something is done against reason and due proportion is not observed in words and deeds. Hence it was said above (7:36): “If someone regards himself as base in regard to his virgin, because she is over age.”

593. – The following objection is raised: For many with heads covered pray in church without any disgrace, as they wish to pray more secretly. The answer is that prayer is twofold: one is private and is offered to God in one’s own person; the other is public and is offered to God in the person of the entire Church, as is clear from the prayers said in the church by priests. It is these latter prayers that the Apostle has in mind here.

594. – There is also an objection against a Gloss which states that prophesying is called unlocking the Scriptures. According to this, anyone who preaches prophesies. But bishops preach with their head covered with a miter. The answer is that one who preaches or teaches in the schools speaks from his own person. Hence even the Apostle (Rom 2:16) calls the gospel his own, namely, on account of the energy he used in preaching it. But one who recites Sacred Scripture in the church, for example, by reading a lesson or an epistle or a gospel, speaks from the person of the whole church. This is the kind of prophesying that the Apostle understands here.

595. – Then there is an objection about those who chant psalms in choir with their head covered. The answer is that psalms are not chanted as by one singly presenting himself to God, but as by the whole multitude.

596. – Then when he says, but every woman, he gives an admonition as it applies to women, saying: But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled (which is unbecoming, considering her condition) disgraces her head, i.e., does something unsuitable in regard to covering her hair. But against this is the Apostle’s statement in 1 Tim (2:12): “I permit no woman to teach in church.” How, then, does it befit a woman to pray or prophesy in public prayer or in doctrine. The answer is that this must understood of prayers and readings which women say in their own groups.

597. – Then when he says, it is the same as if, he proves the above admonition. First, he induces a proof; secondly, he submits judgment of the proof to his hearers (v. 13). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he induces a proof; secondly, he excludes an objection (v. 11). In regard to the first he presents three proofs: the first is taken by a comparison to human nature; the second by a comparison to God (v. 7); the third by a comparison to angels (v. 10b).

598. – In regard to the first it should be noted that nature, which provides the other animals with aids sufficient for life, offers them to man imperfectly, so that through reason, art and use, man with his hands provides those things for himself, as it gave bulls horns for defense; whereas men prepare for themselves arms for defense by reason’s direction of the hands. Hence it is that art imitates nature and produces things which nature cannot make. Thus, for the covering of the head, nature gave man hair. But because this covering is not sufficient, man through art prepares for himself another covering. The same explanation is true in regard to the natural covering and the artificial. But it is natural for a woman to have long hair. For she has a natural disposition to this, and further a definite inclination is present in women to take care of their hair. For this is true in the majority of cases that women take more pains with their hair than men. Therefore, it seems to be a condition suitable to women that they use an artificial covering for the head more than men.

599. – In regard to this he does three things: first, he mentions the suitability of a natural and artificial covering, saying: It has been stated that a woman not covering her head dishonors her head, for it is the same, namely, the same thing to be deprived of an artificial covering, as if she were bald, i.e., as if she were deprived of the natural covering of hair, which is predicted as punishment for certain people: “The Lord will smite with a scab the heads of the daughters of Zion and the Lord will lay bare their secret parts” (Is 3:17).

600. – Secondly, he leads to something unacceptable, saying: For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair. As if to say: If she throws aside the artificial covering, let her for the same reason cast aside the natural covering; which is unacceptable. But against this seems to be the fact that nuns are shaved. To this there are two answers: first, because from the very fact that they take a vow of virginity or widowhood with Christ as their spouse, they are promoted to the dignity of men, being freed from subjection to men and joined to Christ Himself. Secondly, because they assume a garb of penance, when they enter religion. Now it is custom of men that in time of sorrow they take care of their hair. Hence it says in Jer (7:21): “Cut off your hair and cast it away, raise a lamentation on the bare heights.”

601. – Thirdly, he concludes his proposition, saying: But if it is disgraceful, i.e., unbecoming, for a woman to be shorn or shaven, i.e., be deprived of her natural covering by art or by nature, let her wear a veil.

602. – Then when he says, For a man, he presents the second proof, which is taken from a comparison to God. First, he induces to the proof; secondly, he proves what he had supposed (v. 8). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he lays down the reason for that which is on man’s part; secondly, on the woman’s part (v. 7).

603. – First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn, just as it is for her not to be veiled; for a man, however, it is not disgraceful, the reason being that a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God.

604. – In saying that he is the image of God, the error is excluded of those who say that man is only made to the image of God, but is not the image; the opposite of which the Apostle says here. For they said that the Son alone is image, because it says in Col (1:15): “He is the image of the invisible God.” Therefore, one must say that man is said to be the image of God and to His image. For he is an imperfect image, but the Son is said to be the image but not to the image, because He is the perfect image. To clarify this it should be noted that two things are generally involved in the notion of an image. First, a likeness, not in just any way, but in the very species of a thing, as a human son is similar to this father. Or in something which is a sign of the species, as the shape, in bodily things. Hence one who draws the shape of a horse is said to depict his image. And this is what Hilary says in the book, On Synods, that an image is an indifferent species. Secondly, origin is required. For one of two men who are similar in species is not the image of the other, unless he sprang from him, as a son from the father. Thirdly, the notion of a perfect image requires equality. Therefore, because man is similar to God in memory, intelligence and will, which pertain to the species of an intellectual nature and he has this from God, he is said to be God’s image; but because equality is lacking, he is an imperfect image of God. For this reason he is said to be God’s image, as in Gen (1:26): “Let us make man to our image and likeness.”

605. – It should also be noted that the glory of God is spoken of in two ways: in one way the glory by which God is glorious in Himself; this is not how man is God’s glory, but rather God is man’s glory, according to Ps 3 (v. 3): “But thou, O Lord, art a shield about me, my glory.” In another way the glory of God is His splendor derived from Him: “The glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (Ex 40:34). This is the way it says here that man is the glory of God, inasmuch as God’s splendor shines on man, as it says in Ps 4 (v. 6): “The light of your countenance has been signed upon us, O Lord.”

606. – Then when he says, but woman, he presents that which is on the part of the woman, saying: But woman is the glory of man, because, as it says in Gen (2:23): “She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.”

607. – Some object that because the image of God in man is regarded with respect to the spirit, in which there is no difference between male and female, as it says in Gal (3:28). Therefore, there is no more reason why man is called the image of God than a woman is. The answer is that man is here called the image of God in a special way, namely, because man is the principle of his entire race, as God is the principle of the entire universe and because from the side of Christ dying on the cross flowed the sacraments of blood and water, from which the Church has been organized. Furthermore, in regard to what is within, man is more especially called the image of God, inasmuch as reason is more vigorous in him. But it is better to say that the Apostle speaks clearly here. For he said of man that he is the image and glory of God; but he did not say of the woman that she is the image and glory of man, but only that she is the glory of the man. This gives us to understand that it is common to man and woman to be the image of God; but it is immediately characteristic of man to be the glory of God.

608. – We must consider why man should not veil his head, but the woman. This can be taken in two ways: first, because a veil put on the head designates the power of another over the head of a person existing in the order of nature. Therefore, the man existing under God should not have a covering over his head to show that he is immediately subject to God; but the woman should wear a covering to show that besides God she is naturally subject to another. Hence a stop is put to the objection about servant and subject, because this subjection is not natural. Secondly, to show that the glory of God should not be concealed but revealed; but man’s glory is to be concealed. Hence it says in Ps 115 (v. 1): “Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to thy name give the glory.”

 

11-3

            1 Cor 11:8-16

8 (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) 10 That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels. 11 (Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.) 13 Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.

609. – Having stated that the woman is the glory of man, the Apostle now prepares to prove it. In regard to this he does three things: first, he presents the proof; secondly, he assigns a reason for what he had said (v. 9); thirdly, he draws the conclusion intended (v. 10).

610. – In regard to the first it should be noted that, as was stated above, the woman is called the glory of man through something derived. Consequently, to prove this he says: For man in the original condition of things was not made from woman, but woman from man. For it says in Gen (2:22): “And the rib from with the Lord God had taken from the man He made into a woman.” About man it is said that “The Lord formed man of dust from the ground” (Gen 2:7).

611. – Then when he says, Neither, he assigns the reason for what he had said. To understand this it should be noted that the order of the perfect and of the imperfect is such that in one and the same subject the imperfect precedes the perfect in the order of time. For one is a boy, before he is a man. Absolutely speaking, however, the perfect precedes the imperfect in the order of time and of nature. For a boy is produced from the man. This, therefore, is the reason why the woman was produced from the man, because he is more perfect than the woman, which the Apostle proves from the fact that the end is more perfect than that which is for the end; but man is the woman’s end. And this is what he says: For man was not created for woman, but woman for the sake of man, as a helper, namely, in reproduction, as the patient is for the sake of the agent and matter for the sake of form: “It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a helper like unto him” (Gen 2:18).

612. – Then when he says, That is why, he draws the intended conclusion, saying: That is why, namely, because man is the image and glory of God, but woman the glory of man, a woman ought to have a veil on her head, when she places herself before God by praying or prophesying. In this way it is shown that she is not immediately under God, but is also subjected to man under God. For the veil put on the head signifies this. Hence another translation has it that the woman ought to have power over her head, but the sense is the same. For a veil is a sign of power, according to Ps 66 (v. 4): “Thou didst let men ride over our heads.”

613. – Then when he says, because of the angels, he gives a third reason, which is taken on the part of the angels, saying: A woman ought to have a veil on her head because of the angels. This can be understood in two ways: in one way about the heavenly angels who are believed to visit congregations of the faithful, especially when the sacred mysteries are celebrated. And therefore at that time women as well as men ought to present themselves honorably and ordinately as reverence to them according to Ps 138 (v. 1): “Before the angels I sing thy praise.” In another way it can be understood in the sense that priests are called angels, inasmuch as proclaim divine things to the people according to Mal (2:7): “For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the angel of the Lord of hosts.” Therefore, the woman should always have a covering over her head because of the angels, i.e., the priests, for two reasons: first, as reverence toward them, to which it pertains that women should behave honorably before them. Hence it says in Sir (7:30): “With all your might love your maker and do not forsake his priests.” Secondly, for their safety, lest the sight of a woman not veiled excite their concupiscence. Hence it says in Sir (9:5): “Do not look intently at a virgin, lest you stumble and incur penalties for her.”

614. – Augustine explains the above in another way. For he shows that both man and woman are made to the image of God, according to what is said in Eph (4:23): “Be renewed in the spirit of your minds and put on the new man created after the likeness of God according to the image of him who created him,” where considered according to the spirit, in which there is no difference between male and female; consequently, the woman is the image of God, just as the male. For it is expressly stated in Gen (1:27) that “God created man to his own image, male and female he created them.” Therefore, Augustine says that this must be understood in a spiritual union, which is in our soul, in which the sensibility or even the lower reason has itself after the manner of the woman, but the superior reason after the manner of the man, in whom the image of God is considered to be. And according to this the woman is from the man and for the sake of the man, because the administration of temporal or sensible things, in which the lower reason or even the sensibility is adept, ought to be deduced from the contemplation of eternal things, which pertain to the higher reason and is ordained to it. Therefore, the woman is said to have a veil or power over her own head, in order to signify that in regard to dispensing temporal things man should apply a certain restraint, lest he transgress the limits in loving them. This restraint should not be applied to the love of God, since it is commanded in Dt (6:5): “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart.” For no limit is placed in regard to loving the end, although one is placed in regard to the means to the end. For a doctor produces as much health as he can, but he does not give as much medicine as he can, but in a definite amount. Thus a man should not have a covering on his head. And this on account of the angels, because, as is said in a Gloss: “Sacred and pious signification is pleasing to the holy angels.” Hence Augustine also says in The City of God, that the demons are attracted by certain sensible things, not as animals to food but as spirits to signs.

615. – Then when he says, Nevertheless, he excludes a doubt which could arise from these statements. For because he had said that man is God’s glory and the woman man’s glory, someone might believe either that the woman was not from God or that she should not have power in grace. Hence he excludes the first, saying: although the woman is the glory of man, who is the glory of God, nevertheless, neither the man is in the Lord, i.e., produced by the Lord, without the woman nor the woman without the man; Or in another way: neither the man is without the woman in the Lord, namely, in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor the woman without the man, because both are saved by God’s grace, according to Gal (3:27): “For as many of you as were baptized have put on Christ,” and then he adds: “There is neither male nor female,” namely, differing in the grace of Christ.

616. – Secondly, he assigns the reason, saying: For as in the first condition of things, woman was formed from the man, so in subsequent generations man was produced through woman, as Job says: “Man born of a woman” (Jb 14:1). For the first production of man took place without man or woman, when “God formed man from the dust of the earth” (Gen 2:7). The second was from man without the woman, when He formed Eve from Adam’s rib, as it says in the same place. But the third is from man and woman, as Abel was born from Adam and Eve, as it says in Gen (4:2). But the fourth was from the woman without the man, as Christ from the virgin, as it says in Gal (4:4): “God sent forth his Son born of woman.”

617. – Thirdly, he shows that the reason is apt, saying: And all things are from God, namely, because even the fact that the woman was first from the man, and afterwards man is from the woman, is the result of God’s action. Hence both man and woman pertain to God. Hence it says in Rom (11:36): “For from him and through him and in him are all things.”

618. – Then when he says, Judge for yourselves, he submits to his bearers’ judgment the things he had said. In regard to this he does two things: first, he submits the judgment to his rational hearers; secondly, he subdues the impudent ones.

619. – In regard to the first he does four things: first, he submits to his hearers to judge what he had said, after the manner of one who is confident that he has sufficiently proved his point, saying: Judge for yourselves. For it pertains to a good hearer to judge what is heard. Hence it says in Jb (6:29): “Judge, speaking what is just” and in (12:11): “Does not the ear judge words?” Secondly, he proposes in the form of a question that about which they should judge, saying: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? This is forbidden in 1 Pt (3:3): “Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair.” Thirdly, he shows whence they should derive their judgment, namely, from nature itself; and this is what he says: Does not nature itself teach you? By “nature” he means the “natural inclination” in women to take care of their hair, which is a natural covering, but not in men. This inclination is shown to be natural, because it is found in the majority. But it is taught by nature, because it is a work of God; just as in a picture one is instructed about the skill of the artist. Therefore, Isaiah (24:5) says against certain people: “They have transgressed the law, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant,” i.e., the natural law. Fourthly, he takes a reason from nature: first, he presents that which is on the part of the man, saying: That for a man to wear long hair like a woman is degrading to him. The majority of men regard this as degrading, because it makes the man seem feminine. Therefore, it says in Ez (44:20): “They shall not let their locks grow long.” It is no argument that some in the Old Law grew long hair, because this was a sign presented in the reading of the Old Testament, as it says in 2 Cor (3:14). Secondly, he presents that which is on the part of the woman, saying: But if a woman has long hair, it is her glory, because it seems to pertain to her adornment. Hence it says in S. of S. (7:5): “Your flowing locks are like purple.” Then he assigns the reason when he says: For her hair is given her for a covering. Consequently, the same reason applies to growing long hair and to wearing an artificial covering: “Your hair is like a flock of goats” (S. of S. 4:1).

620. – Then when he says, If anyone, he silences the impudent hearers, saying: If anyone is disposed to be contentious and not acquiesce in the above reason but would attack the truth with confident clamoring, which pertains to contentiousness, as Ambrose says, contrary to Jb (6:29): “Respond, I pray, without contentiousness”; (Pr 20:3): “It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife.” Let this suffice, then, to silence them that we Jews believing in Christ do not have such a practice, namely, of women praying with their heads uncovering, nor do the churches of God dispersed among the Gentiles. Hence if there were no reason, this alone should suffice, that no one should act against the common custom of the Church: “He makes those of one outlook to dwell in their house” (Ps 68:7). Hence Augustine says: “In all cases in which Sacred Scripture has defined nothing definite, the customs of the people of God and the edicts of superiors must be regarded as the law.”

 

11-4

            1 Cor 11:17-22

17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

621. – After reproaching the Corinthians for their error in covering, namely, because the women came to the sacred mysteries with their head uncovered, the Apostle then argues against their error about factions in the assembly, because while they gathered for the sacred mysteries, they spent their time in contentions. First, he touches on their shortcoming in general; secondly, in particular (v. 18).

622. – First, therefore, he says: But this, which was stated above, namely, that women should be veiled in church, I command, in order that he might thus induce them to this observance in three ways. First, indeed, by reason; secondly, by custom; thirdly, by command, which should persuade them without the other two: “Keep my commandments and you shall live” (Pr 4:4); “A three-ply cord is not quickly broken” (Ec

:12) – I do not praise but censure you, because you come together into the church not for the better, as it should be, but for the worse through your fault. For all gregarious animals, for example, doves, cranes, cows, each form one group by natural instinct, in order that things be better for them in a bodily way. Hence man, too, being a gregarious or social animal, as the Philosopher proves in Politics I, should act according to reason, so that many form one group for their betterment, just as in secular affairs many come together to form the unity of a city; so that it is better for them in a worldly way, namely, because of the security and sufficiency of life. Therefore, believers should come together into a unity for some better spiritual things according to Ps 102 (v. 22): “When people gather together and kings, to worship the Lord”; “In the counsel and congregation of the just the works of the Lord are great” (Ps 111:1). But they came together for the worse on account of the sins they committed, when they assembled: “I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly” (Is 1:13); “An assembly of the wicked is like two gathered together” (Sir 21:9).

623. – Then when he says, For in the first place, he mentions in detail how they assemble for the worse. First, he presents a judgment of guilt, saying: For in the first place, among others, namely, that you come together for the worse, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, namely, through contentions, which they practiced. This by no means is suited to the church, which is established in unity, as it says in Eph (4:4): “There is one body and one spirit, just as you were called to one hope that belongs to your call.” But his was predicted: “You saw that the breaches of the city of David were many” (Is 22:9).

624. – But a Gloss says: “By saying, first of all, he shows that the first evil is dissension, from which all the rest arise. For where there is dissension, nothing is right.” But this seems to be opposed by the following statements: “The beginning of every sin is pride” (Sir 9:15) and “The love of money is the root of all evils” (1 Tim 6:10). But it must be said that these authorities speak in regard to personal sins of individual men, the first of which is pride on the part of aversion and greed for money on the part of conversion. But the Gloss here speaks about the sins of the multitude, among which the first is dissension, by which the reign of discipline is weakened. Hence it says in Jas (3:16): “Where jealousy and contention exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.”

625. – Secondly, he presents the credulity of his hearers when he says: And I partly believe it, i.e., as to some of you who were prone to contention, according to what was said above (1:11): “There is quarreling among you. What I mean is that each of you says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I belong to Apollos’ or ‘I belong to Cephas.’” But others were not contentious, who said: “I belong to Christ.” Hence it says in S. of S. (2:2): “As a lily among brambles, so is my love among maidens,” i.e., good among the evil.

626. – Thirdly, he assigns the reason for their credulity, saying: For there must be not only factions among you but also heresies. Two things must be considered here: first, what heresy is; secondly, how it is necessary that there be heresies.

627. – In regard to the first it should be known that, as Jerome comments on the epistle to the Galatians, the Greek word, “heresy,” means “election” or “choice,” namely, because each one selects for himself that discipline which he considers to be better. From this two things can be taken: first, that it is of the very nature of heresy that a person follow his own private discipline, as though by his own choice, but not the public discipline handed down by God. Secondly, that he obstinately cling to this discipline. For choice implies firm adherence; and therefore the heretic is one who scorns the discipline of the faith handed down by God and obstinately follows his own error. Now something pertains to the discipline of the faith in two ways: in one way directly, as the articles of faith, which are proposed to be believed of themselves. Hence an error in regard to them makes one a heretic, if obstinacy is present. But a person cannot be excused from such an error on account of some simplicity especially in regard to those about which the Church made a solemn proclamation and which are generally spoken about by the faithful, such as the mystery of the Trinity, the birth of Christ, and so on. But other things pertain to the discipline of the faith indirectly, namely, inasmuch as they are not proposed as something to be believed of themselves, but from their denial something contrary to the faith follows; for example, if it is denied that Isaac was the son of Abraham, something contrary to the faith follows, namely, that Sacred Scripture contains something false. From such things one is not judged heretical, unless he continues in his opinion so obstinately, that he would not depart from his error, even though he sees what follows from his position. Therefore, the obstinacy with which someone spurns the judgment of the Church in matters pertaining to the faith directly or indirectly makes a man a heretic. Such obstinacy proceeds from pride, whereby a person prefers his own feelings to the entire Church. Hence the Apostle says in 1 Tim (6:3): “If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words.”

628. – Secondly, it must be considered how it is suitable that heresies exist. For if it is suitable for heretics to be, it seems that hey are commendable and should not be stamped out. But it should be noted that there are two ways in which something is described as suitable to be. In one way from the intention of the one who does this; for example, if we should say that judgments ought to be, because judges make judgments intending to establish justice and peace in human affairs. In another way from the intention of God Who ordains evil things to good, Who directs the persecutions of tyrants to the glory of the martyrs. Hence Augustine says in Enchiridion that God is so good that He would not permit evil in any way, unless He were powerful enough that from each evil He can draw some good. And according to this it says in Matt (18:7): “Woe to the world for temptations to sin. For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to that man from whom temptations come.” And according to this the Apostle says the heresies must be, inasmuch as God has ordained the malice of heretics to the good of the faithful. He says this, first, for the clearer declaration of truth. Hence Augustine says in The City of God: “A question raised by an adversary is an occasion for learning; indeed, many things pertaining to the Catholic faith, when they are devised by the clever energy of heretics, in order that they may be defended against them, are considered more carefully and understood more clearly and preached with more emphasis.” Hence it says in Pr (27:17): “Iron sharpens iron; and one man sharpens another.” Secondly, to reveal the weakness of faith in those who believe rightly. And this is what the Apostle says: in order that those who are genuine, i.e., approved by God, may be recognized among you: “Like gold in the furnace he tried them” (Wis 3:6).

629. – Then when he says, when you meet together, he accuses them of a third fault, namely, that they sinned in the way and order in which they took the body of Christ. All that follows can be explained in two ways. According to the first explanation they are accused of taking the body of Christ just after eating. In regard to this he does four things: first, he mentions the harm they incur; secondly, he mentions the fault (v. 21); thirdly, he looks for the cause of the fault (v. 22); fourthly, he concludes his rebuke (v. 22b).

630. – He says, therefore, first, When you come together, there are factions among you, therefore meeting together in body not in mind, you have come to this which is not, i.e., not lawful or is not becoming for you to eat the Lord’s supper, i.e., receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord gave His disciples at supper. “For this sacrament,” says Augustine On John, “is the sacrament of unity and love.” Therefore, it is not suited to dissenters; “Eat, O friends and drink; drink deeply, O lovers” (S. of S. 5:2).

631. – Or better: it can be referred to what follows, so that the sense is: not only are there disputes among you when you come together, but it has now become your custom to do what is lawful for you, namely, to eat the Lord’s supper, which you approach right after eating. For because the Lord gave this sacrament to His disciples after supper (Matt 26:26), the Corinthians also wanted to take the body of Christ after a common meal. But the Lord did this for three reasons: first, because the figure precedes the truth in proper order. But the paschal lamb was a figure or shadow of this sacrament. Accordingly, after the supper of the paschal lamb, Christ gave this sacrament. For it says in Col (2:17) about all practices of the Law: “These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.” Secondly, in order that from this sacrament He might pass immediately to His passion, of which this sacrament is the memorial. Therefore, he said to the disciples: “Arise, let us go from here,” (Jn. 14:31); namely, to His passion. Thirdly, in order that this sacrament be impressed more sharply on the hearts of the disciples, to whom He gave it in His last quiet retreat. But out of reverence for this great sacrament the Church later established that it can be taken only by those fasting; from which the sick were excepted, who in necessity, which knows no law, could take the body of Christ without fasting.

632. – But because water does not break the fast, some supposed that after a drink of water they could take this sacrament, especially because, as they say, water is not nourishment any more than any other element. But although water by itself is not nourishment and, therefore, does not break the Eucharistic fast in the sense that some are said to fast, nevertheless when it is mixed with other things, it does nourish. And in this sense some are said to be fasting who on the same day take neither food nor drink. And because the pieces of food remaining in the mouth are consumed after the manner of saliva, this does not prevent one from being fasting. Likewise, the fast is not broken, if a person does not sleep at all during the night, or even if the food is not fully digested, provided that on one and the same day he took absolutely no food or drink. Hence because the beginning of a day is reckoned from midnight according to the custom of the Church, then whoever partakes of food or drink, no matter how little, after midnight, cannot receive this sacrament on that day.

633. – Then when he says, For each one, he mentions the fault: first, insofar as they sinned against God; secondly, insofar as they sinned against their neighbor (v. 21b).

634. – He says, therefore, first: The reason I say that it is not lawful for you to eat the Lord’s supper is that each one of you goes ahead with his own meal, namely, of common food. For each one carried to the church a tray of food already prepared, and each one ate by himself, before he took the sacred mysteries: “They banquet separately; now they shall perish” (Hos 9:9); and in the person of the frugal, Ec (11:19) says: “I have found rest, and I ate of my own goods alone.”

635. – Then when he says, and one, he accuses them of the sin against the neighbor. For the wealthy ate lavishly in church and imbibed until they were drunk; they gave nothing to the poor, who remained hungry. And this is what he says: and one is hungry, namely, the poor man, who did not have the means to prepare anything, and another is drunk, namely, the rich, who over-ate and over-

rank – which is contrary to Neh (8:10): “Go your way, eat the fat and drink sweet wine and send portions to him for whom nothing is prepared”; and Jb (31:17): “I have eaten my morsel alone, and the fatherless has not eaten of it.”

636. – Then when he says, Do you not have houses, he looks into the cause of this sin. First, he excludes a reason, by which they could be excused. For it is not lawful to apply to profane uses the house of God, which is set aside for sacred uses. Hence the Lord, when driving the buyers and sellers from the temple, said; “My house is a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves” (Matt 21:13). And Augustine says in his Rule: “In the oratory let no one do anything except for what it was built and from which it gets its name.” Yet in case of necessity, namely, when one can find no other house, he may lawfully use the church for eating, or for other such lawful uses. But the Apostle rejects this excuse, saying: Do you not have houses, namely, your own, to eat and drink in? Then you would have an excuse, if you celebrated banquets in the church, which you ought to do in your own homes. Hence Lk (5:29) says that Levi made Christ a great feast in his house.

637. – Secondly, when he says, or do you despise, he asserts the cause which makes them inexcusable, the first of which is contempt for the church of God. And he states this, saying: Do you despise the church of God? Is that why you presume to eat your supper in the church? Here “church” can be taken for either the congregation of believers of the sacred house, which is not to be despised, as it says in Ps 93 (v. 5): “Holiness befits your house,” and in Jer (7:11): “Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?” But they despise both, when in the presence of the congregation of believers, they hold feasts in a holy place. Secondly, he mentions their contempt of neighbor when he says: and humiliate those who have nothing? For the poor were humiliated, inasmuch as they were hungry in the presence of the entire group, while others were eating and drinking lavishly. But it says in Pr (17:7): “He who mocks the poor insults his Maker” and Sir (4:2): “Do not grieve the one who is hungry.”

638. – Then when he says, What shall I say to you, he concludes his reprimand, saying: What shall I say to you in the light of the above? Shall I praise you? And he answers: Although I praise you for other things, in this matter I cannot praise you. It should be noted that above when he spoke about women’s apparel, he praised them at least ironically, saying: “I praise you, because you remember me in everything.” But here he does not want to praise them even ironically, because in more serious matters sinners must in no way be handled gently. Hence it says in Ps 10 (v. 3); “For the sinner is praised in the desires of his soul and the wicked man is blessed. And the sinner renounces the Lord”; and in Is (3:12): “My people, those who called you happy, misled you.”

639. – According to another explanation, they are reprimanded for a different fault. For in the early church the faithful offered bread and wine, which were consecrated into the body and blood of Christ. After the consecration the rich, who had offered much, wanted the same amount returned; and so they took an abundant share, while the poor, who had offered nothing, received nothing. Therefore, it is for this fault that the Apostle reprimands them, saying: When you meet together, it is not any longer to eat the Lord’s supper. For the Lord’s supper is common to the whole family; but each of you takes it not as common but as his own, while he tries to justify himself, because he offered it to God. And this is what he adds: Each one presumes, i.e., presumptuously attempts to eat the supper, namely of the Lord, i.e., consecrated bread and wine, as his own, i.e., taking them as though they were his own, namely, the things consecrated to the Lord, for their use. And so it follows that one, namely, the poor person who offered nothing goes hungry, but another, namely, the rich man who offered much is drunk; literally, because he took too much of the consecrated wine, which he demanded as his own.

640. – But it seems to be impossible for one to get drunk from consecrated wine or even be nourished by the bread, because after consecration nothing remains under the appearance of bread and wine except the substance of Christ’s body and blood, which cannot be changed into man’s body, so as to nourish him or make him drunk.

641. – Therefore, some say that this does not come to pass by any conversion, but by the sole change of a man’s senses by the accidents of bread and wine, which remain after consecration. For men were wont to be strengthened by the mere order of food and be stupefied and, as it were, made drunk from the strong odor of wine. But strengthening or stupefaction, which come solely from a change of the senses, lasts a short time, while, nevertheless, after the consecration of the bread and wine, if the wine or bread were taken in large quantities, a man would be sustained for a long time on account of the bread or stupefied on account of the wine. Besides, it is clear that the consecrated bread can be changed into another substance, since it is changed into dust by putrefaction or into ashes by burning. Hence there is no reason to deny that they can nourish, since nourishment requires no more than that the food be changed into the substance of the one fed.

642. – Therefore, others assert that the bread or consecrated wine can be converted into something else and so can nourish, because the substance of bread or wine remain there with the substance of the body and blood of Christ. But this conflicts with the words of Scripture. For what the Lord says in Matt (26:26) would not be true, namely, “This is my body,” because this thing pointed to is bread; He should rather have said: “Here,” i.e., in this place, “is my body.” Besides, the body of Christ does no begin to be in this sacrament by local motion, because He would then cease to be in heaven. Hence, what is left is that He begins to be there by the conversion of something else, i.e., of the bread, into Himself; hence, it cannot be that the substance of bread remains. Therefore, others say that there remains the bread’s substantial form, from which springs a thing’s activity; consequently, it nourishes, just as bread itself nourishes. But this cannot be, because to nourish is to be converted into the substance of the nourished. But his does not belong to any nutriment by reason of the form, whose function is to act, but rather by reason of the matter, whose function is to be acted upon. Hence, if the substantial form were there, it would be unable to nourish.

643. – But others say that the surrounding air is converted either into the substance of the one nourished or into anything else of the sort. But this could not happen without much condensation of air, which would not fail to be detected by a sense. Therefore, others say that by divine power the substance of bread and wine return, in order that the sacrament not be detected in these changes. But this seems to be impossible, because, since the substance of bread was converted into the body of Christ, it does not seem that the substance of bread could return, unless the body of Christ were converted into bread. Besides, if the substance of bread returns, this occurs either with the accidents of bread remaining, and then there will simultaneously be the substance of bread and the substance of Christ’s body, which was disproved above: for the substance of Christ’s body is there as long as the species remain. Or it returns with the species not remaining, which is also impossible, because then the substance of bread would be there without its own accidents; unless, perhaps, it is understood that God at the end of the conversion would cause to be there a certain matter which would be the subject of this conversion. But it is better to say that just as in virtue of the consecration, it is miraculously given to the appearance of bread and wine to subsist without a subject and to subsist after the manner of a substance, so also it is miraculously given as a consequence that they act or be acted upon in the same way as the substance of bread and wine would, if they were present. And for this reason those species of bread and wine can nourish and inebriate, just as if the substance of bread and wine were there. As for the rest there are no changes from the first explanation.

 

11-5

            1 Cor 11:23-24

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

644. – After rebuking the Corinthians for their unbecoming behavior, when they came together to take the Eucharist, the Apostle now deals with the sacrament itself. First, he discusses the dignity of this sacrament; secondly, he urges the faithful to receive it reverently (v. 27). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he commends the authority of the doctrine he is about to deliver; secondly, he presents the doctrine about the dignity of this sacrament (v. 23b).

645. – In regard to the first he does two things: first, he commends the authority of the doctrine on the part of the author, who is Christ, saying: I have said that it is no longer of interest to eat the Lord’s supper, calling the sacrament of the Eucharist the Lord’s supper, for I received from the Lord, namely, Christ, Who is the author of this doctrine and not any mere man: “Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through men but through Jesus Christ” (Gal 1:1); “It was declared at first by the Lord” (Heb 2:3). Secondly, he commends the authority of the doctrine on the part of the minister, who is Paul himself, when he adds: what I also delivered to you: “What I have heard from the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, I announce to you” (Is 21:10); “I learned without guile and I impart without envy” (Wis 7:13).

646. – Then when he says, that the Lord Jesus, he commends the dignity of this sacrament, describing its institution: first, he mentions the institution; secondly, the time of the institution (v. 23c); thirdly, the manner of instituting (v. 23d).

647. – The one who institutes this sacrament is Christ. Hence he says: that the Lord Jesus, for it was stated above, when the sacrament of baptism was discussed, that Christ has in the sacraments the excellence of power, to which pertain four things: first, that His virtue and merit operate in the sacraments; secondly, that the sacraments are sanctified in his name; thirdly, that He can produce the effect of a sacrament without the sacrament; fourthly, the institution of a new sacrament. Yet it was especially suitable that He institute in His own person this sacrament, in which His body and blood are communicated. Hence He Himself says in John (6:52): “The bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world.”

648. – Then when he says, on the night when he was betrayed, he describes the time of the institution of this sacrament. It was fitting to do this: first, as to the quality of the time. For it was night. For the soul is enlightened by virtue of this sacrament. Hence 1 Sam (14:27) says that Jonathon “put forth the tip of his staff and dipped it in the honeycomb and put his head to his mouth, and his eyes became bright”; on which account it says in Ps 139 (v. 12): “The night is as bright as the day.” Secondly, as to the negotiations carried on at that time, namely, it was when he was delivered over to the passion, by which he passed to the Father that He instituted this sacrament, which is a memorial of the passion: “Come here, stranger, and prepare the table, and if you have anything at hand, let me have it to eat” (Sir 29:26).

649. – Then when he says, he took bread, he shows the manner of the institution: first, he relates what Christ said and did in instituting this sacrament; secondly, he explains (v. 26). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he deals with the institution of this sacrament as to the body of Christ; secondly, as to His blood (v. 25).

650. – In regard to the first, before explaining the text one must first consider the need for instituting this sacrament. So it should be noted that the sacraments were instituted on account of a need in the spiritual life. And because bodily things are likenesses of spiritual things, it is fitting that the sacrament be proportionate to things which are necessary to bodily life, in which generation comes first, to which baptism is proportionate and through which one is reborn into the spiritual life. Secondly, for bodily life is required growth, by which one is brought to perfect size and power. To this is proportionate the sacrament of confirmation, in which the Holy Spirit is given for strength. Thirdly, for the spiritual life is required food, by which man’s body is sustained, and likewise the spiritual life is fed by the sacrament of the Eucharist, as it says in Ps 23 (v. 2): “He make me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still waters.”

651. – It should be known that the cause of generation is not joined according to its substance to the one generated, but only according to its power; but food is joined according to its substance to the fed. Hence in the sacrament of baptism, by which Christ regenerates us to salvation, it is not Christ according to His substance but only according to His power. But in the sacrament of this Eucharist, which is spiritual food, Christ is there according to His substance.

652. – He is contained under another appearance for three reasons: first, indeed, it would be horrifying for the faithful to receive this sacrament, if they ate the flesh of a man under its ordinary appearance and drank His blood; secondly, so that it would not be a source of derision to unbelievers; thirdly, in order that the merit of faith grow, which consists in believing something not seen.

653. – This sacrament is presented under two species for three reasons: first, indeed, on account of its perfection, because, since it is spiritual refreshment, ought to be spiritual food and spiritual drink. For even bodily refreshment is not complete without food and drink. Hence he also says above (10:3): “All ate of the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink.” Secondly, on account of its signification. For it is the memorial of the Lord’s passion, through which the blood of Christ was separated from His body; that is why in this sacrament the blood is offered separately from the body. Thirdly, on account of the salutary effect of this sacrament, for it avails for the health of the body, and so the body is offered; and it avails for the health of the soul, and so the blood is offered. “For the soul is in the blood” (Lev 17:11).

654. – This sacrament is offered specifically under the appearance of bread and wine: first of all, because men generally use bread and wine for their refreshment. Therefore, these are used in this sacrament, as water in baptism. Secondly, on account of the power of this sacrament: for bread strengthens the heart of man, but wine gladdens it. Thirdly, because the bread, which is made up of many believers. Furthermore, this Eucharist is especially the sacrament of unity and charity, as Augustine says On John.

655. – Having seen these matters relating to the explanation of the text: first, what Christ did must be explained; secondly, what he said (v. 24).

656. – But he does three things: the first is designated when he says: He took bread. Two things can be signified by this: first, that he voluntarily accepted the passion, of which this sacrament is the memorial, as it says in Is (53:5): “He was offered up because he will it.” Secondly, that he received from the Father the power of completing this sacrament, according to Matt (11:27): “All things have been handed over to me by my Father.” He touches on the second, when he says: and broke: “Share your bread with the hungry” (Is 58:7).

657. – But this seems contrary to the practice of the Church, according to which the body of Christ is first consecrated and then broken. But this cannot be, because the priest, while he is consecrating, does not pronounce those words as from his own person, but as from the person of Christ consecrating. Hence it is clear that Christ consecrated with the same words with which we consecrate. Therefore, it should be noted that what is said here, and he said, is not to be taken successively, as though Christ took bread and giving thanks broke it, and later said the words which follow; rather, they are taken concomitantly, namely, that while he took bread, giving thanks he broke it and said. Therefore with Matt (26:26) it should be stated that “Jesus took bread and blessed and broke.” The Apostle here did not care to mention about the blessing, understanding that the blessing was nothing else than what the Lord said: “This is my body.”

658. – Then when he says: and said, he shows what Christ said when instituting this sacrament: first, he enjoined the use of the sacrament; secondly, he expressed the truth of the sacrament; thirdly, he taught the mystery.

659. – He enjoined the use of the sacrament, saying: Take. As if not from any human power or merit is it proper for you to use this sacrament, but from an eminent gift of God: “Thou didst give thy people the food of angels” (Wis 16:20); “What have you that you did not receive” (1 Cor 4:7)? And he determines the kind of use when he says, and eat: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man” (Jn. 6:54); “If the men of my tent have not said, ‘Who will give of his flesh that we may be filled?’” (Jb 31:31).

660. – It should be noted, however, that these words are not from the form of consecration. For there is this difference between this and other sacraments, that the latter are completed not in the consecration of the matter but in the use of consecrated matter, as in the washing with water or in the anointing with oil or chrism. The reason is that in the matters of the other sacraments mention is made of the use of the sacrament, as when it is stated: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But this sacrament is completed in the very consecration of the matter, in which Christ Himself is contained, Who is the end of all sanctifying grace. Therefore, the words which pertain to the use of the sacrament are not of the substance of the form, but only those containing the truth and content of the sacrament, which he mentions last, adding: This is my body.

661. – In regard to these words three things should be considered: first, the reality signified by these words, namely, that the body of Christ is there; secondly, the truth of this statement; thirdly, whether this is a suitable form for this sacrament.

662. – In regard to the first it should be noted that some have said that the body of Christ is not truly present in this sacrament, but only as in a sign explaining what is said here: This is my body, i.e., this is a sign and figure of my body, just as it was said above (10:4): “But the rock was Christ,” i.e., as figure of Christ. But this is heretical, since the Lord expressly says: “My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (Jn. 6:56). Hence others say that the body of Christ is truly there but along with the substance of bread. This is impossible, as was shown above. Therefore, others said that only the body of Christ is there, the substance of bread not remaining because it is annihilated or reduced to prejacent matter. But this cannot be, because, as Augustine says in the Book of Eighty Three Questions: “God is not the author of tending to non-existence.” Secondly, because even this position takes away the fact the substance of bread is converted into the body of Christ; and so, since the body of Christ begins to be in this sacrament by the conversion of something else into it, the consequence is that He begins to be there by local motion: but that is impossible, as was shown above. Therefore, one must say that the body of Christ is truly in this sacrament by the conversion of bread into it.

663. – Yet it should be noted that this conversion differs from all conversions that occur in nature. For the action of nature presupposes matter, and therefore its action does not extend beyond changing something according to its form, either substantial or accidental. Hence every natural conversion is said to be formal. But God, Who makes this conversion is the author of form and of matter, and therefore the entire substance of bread, the matter not remaining, can be converted into the entire substance of the body of Christ. And because matter is the principle of individuation, this whole signated individual, which is a particular substance, is converted into another particular substance. For this reason it is called a substantial conversion or transubstantiation. In this conversion, therefore, occurs the contrary of what happens in natural conversions, in which, the subject remaining, a change sometimes occurs affecting the accidents. But here the substance is changed, while the accidents remain intact without a subject. This is done by divine power, which as the first cause sustains them without a material cause, which is the substance caused in order that the body of Christ and the blood be consumed under a different appearance, for the reasons given above. And because accidents are referred to their substance in a definite order, the dimensions remain without a subject and the other accidents remain in those dimensions as in a subject.

664. – But if no substance remains under those dimensions except the body of Christ, there could be no doubt about the breaking of the consecrated host, since the body of Christ is glorified and, therefore, unbreakable. Hence He cannot exist under this particle nor can it be pretended that He subsists, because the sacrament of truth is incompatible with any pretense. Hence nothing is perceived by the senses in this sacrament, which is not truly there. For the per se sensibles are qualities, which indeed remain as they previously existed, in this sacrament, as we have stated. Therefore, others have said that a certain breaking without a subject occurs there; hence nothing is broken there. But this cannot be said either, because, since breaking is in the category of “being acted upon,” which is a weaker category than quality, it cannot exist in this sacrament without a subject any more than quality can. Hence it must be said that the breaking is founded, as on a subject, on the dimensions of bread and wine which remain. But the body of Christ is not affected by such breaking, because the whole body remains under each part of the divided dimensions. This indeed can be considered in this way. For the body of Christ is in this sacrament from the conversion of the substance of bread into it. But the conversion does not come about by reason of the dimensions. For the dimensions of the bread remain, but only by reason of the substance. Hence, too, the body of Christ is there by reason of its own substance, but not by reason of its own dimensions, although its dimensions are there by way of consequence, inasmuch as they are not separated from His substance. But as far as the nature of the substance is concerned, it is entire under each part of the dimensions. Hence, just before the consecration the whole truth of the substance and nature of bread was under each part of its dimensions, so after the consecration the whole body of Christ is under each part of the divided bread.

665. – The division of the consecrated host signifies, first of all, the passion of Christ through which His body was broken by wounds, as it says in Ps 22 (v. 16): “They have pierced by hands and my feet.” From Him, as it says below (7:4) “there are divisions of graces.” Secondly, the distribution of the gifts of Christ from his own [progredientium], as it says above (12:4): “There are varieties of gifts.” Thirdly, the various parts of the Church. For among Christ’s members some are still pilgrims in this world, some may be in glory with Christ, both as to the soul and as to the body, but some await the final resurrection at the end of the world, and this is signified by the division of the host into three parts.

666. – Secondly, one should consider the truth of this statement. For the statement, This is my body, seems to be false. For the conversion of bread into the body of Christ occurs at the time of the pronouncing of these words. For it is then that the signification of these words is completed. For the forms of the sacrament effect by signifying; therefore, it follows that in the beginning of the statement, when it is stated that the body of Christ is not there but only the substance of the bread, which is pointed out by the pronoun, this, when it points out a substance. It is the same, therefore, to say, this is my body, as to say: “The substance of bread is my body,” which is obviously false.

667. – Therefore, some have said that the priest pronounces these words materially and recitatively from the person of Christ and, therefore, this pronoun’s function of pointing out is not referred to the matter present, such that as a result the statement should be rendered false as the objection supposed. But this cannot stand. First of all, because if this statement is not applied to the material present, it will do nothing in regard to it, which is false. For Augustine On John says: “The word comes to the element and the sacrament comes to be.” Hence it is necessary to say that the words are taken formally as referring to the material present. But the priest says them from the same efficacy now, as when Christ spoke them. For the power conferred on these words does not vanish either by the difference of time or by the variety of ministers. Secondly, because the same difficulty remains in regard to the first time these words were spoken, namely, by Christ.

668. – Therefore, others say that the sense of these words is, this is my body, i.e., this bread designates my body, so that “this” designates that which is present at the beginning of the statement. But even this cannot be, because since the sacraments effect what they signify, these words effect nothing except what they signify. Secondly, because it would follow from this that nothing would be effected by these words, except that the body of Christ would be there, as under a sign, which was disproved earlier. Therefore, others say that the “this” points out something to the intellect and indicates that which will be at the end of the utterance, namely, the body of Christ. But neither does this seem to be suitable, because according to this the sense would be: “My body is my body,” which is not brought about by these words. Since this was true before the words of consecration.

669. – Therefore, there must be another explanation, namely, that the forms of the sacraments not only signify, but also make: for by signifying they make. But in every instance of making, something common must be subject as a principle. But in this conversion the common factor is not a substance but the accidents, which were present in the beginning and continue to remain. Therefore, on the part of the subject in this statement no noun is used, which signifies a definite species of substance, but a pronoun, which signifies a substance without naming its species. The sense, therefore, is this, i.e., which is contained under these accidents, is my body. And this is what occurs through the words of consecration. For before the consecration that which was contained under these accidents was not the body of Christ, but it is made the body of Christ through consecration.

670. – Thirdly, it is important to consider how this is a suitable form for this sacrament. For this sacrament, as has been said, does not consist in the use of the matter but in its consecration. But the consecration does not occur by the consecrated matter merely receiving some spiritual power, but by the fact that it is transubstantiated according to its being into the body of Christ. Therefore, no other word was to be used except a substantive, so as to say, this is my body. For by this is signified that which is at the end, which is effected by signifying.

671. – Then when he says, which will be given up for you, he touches on the mystery of this sacrament. For this sacrament represents the Lord’s passion, through which His body was delivered over to death for us, as it says in Is (50:6): “I gave my back to the smiters,” and Eph (5:2): “He gave himself for us.” And to show the reason for making frequent use of this mystery, he adds: Do this in remembrance of me, by recalling this to mind, namely, such a great blessing, for which I gave myself in death. Hence it says in Lam (3:9): “Remember my affliction and my bitterness, the wormwood and the gall,” and Ps 111 (v. 4): “He has caused his wonderful works to be remembered; the Lord is gracious and merciful. He provides food for those who fear him.”

 

11-6

            1 Cor11:25-26

25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

672. – After setting forth the institution of this sacrament as to the consecration of the body, the Apostle now sets forth its institution as to the consecration of the blood. First, he presents the order of institution; secondly, the words (v. 25b).

673. – The order is considered with respect to two things: first, the co-presence of both species, when he says: In the same way also the cup. For both are required for the perfection of this sacrament, both for the perfection of nourishment and on account of its representing the passion, and as its effecting the salvation of the soul and of the body, as has been stated above. But if the body of Christ is consecrated first in this sacrament and the blood later, it seems to follow that before the consecration of the blood, the body of Christ is without blood in the sacrament. Some who considered this unfitting have said that the two forms await each other in effecting, so that, namely, the first form of the consecration of the body does not achieve its effect before the form of consecration of the blood is completed; just as it was said that the words pronounced in consecrating the body do not achieve their effect until the end of the pronunciation of the words. But this is not similar. For the signification of the words by which the body of Christ is consecrated is not completed except at the end of the pronouncing of the words. And because sacramental words produce their effect by signifying, they cannot have effect before the end of their pronunciation. At that time they have full signification, even before the words of the consecration of the blood are begun. Therefore, it is necessary that even then they have their effect. Otherwise the priest would sin immediately after the words of consecration by showing an unconsecrated host to the people to be adored, unless the body of Christ were already there; because he would be inducing the people to idolatry. Therefore, it must be said that before the consecration of the blood the body of Christ is in this sacrament not without His blood.

674. – For it should be noted that in this sacrament something is present in two ways: in one way in virtue of the consecration, that, namely, that into which the conversion of the bread and wine is terminated, as is signified by the form of consecration; and in this way under the appearance of bread the body of Christ is present. In another way something is present in this sacrament by real concomitance, as the divinity of the Word is present in this sacrament on account of its indissoluble union with the body of Christ, although the substance of bread is in no way converted into the divinity. Likewise, the soul is there, which is really joined to the body. But if at any time during the three days of Christ’s death, the body of Christ had been consecrated by any of the apostles, the soul would not have been there, because it was really separated from the body. The same is true of the blood. For under the appearances of bread in virtue of the consecration is present Christ’s body, into which the substance of bread is converted. But the blood is there by real concomitance, because then the blood of Christ is not really separated from the body. And for the same reason under the appearance of wine the blood of Christ is present in virtue of the consecration, but the body by real concomitance, so that the whole Christ is under both species. But if during the time of the passion, when the blood of Christ had been drained from His body, this sacrament had been celebrated by any of the apostles, there would have been under the appearances of bread only the body of Christ without the blood; under the appearances of wine would there have been only the blood of Christ.

675. – The second order considered is to the material foods which had preceded when he says: After supper. This is a significant phrase. For Christ gave His body during the meal, as it says in Matt (26:26): “As they were eating, Jesus took bread.” But He gave his blood expressly after the meal, as it says in Lk (22:20): “And likewise the cup after supper.” The reason for this is that the body of Christ represents the mystery of the Incarnation, which occurred while the observance of the Law was still in vogue. Among these observances the most important was the meal of the paschal lamb. But the blood of Christ in the sacrament directly represents the passion, through which it was poured out and through which all observances of the Law came to an end; hence it says in Heb (9:12): “He went once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.”

676. – Then he presents the words, this cup: first, he demonstrates the truth of this sacrament; secondly, he enjoins its use (v. 25c).

677. – In regard to the first he says, this cup. This can be taken in two ways: in one way as metonymy, where the container is put for the content. As if to say: Contained in this cup, which is more fittingly used in the consecration of the wine, which by reason of its wetness needs to be contained by other boundaries than in the consecration of the bread, which by reason of its dryness is contained within its own boundaries. In another way it can be taken metaphorically, so that the sense would be: just as the cup intoxicates and confuses, so also the passion. Hence Matt (20:22): “Are you able to drink the cup I am to drink?” and Matt (26:39): “Let this cup pass from me.” The sense, therefore, is this: This cup, i.e., what is contained in this cup, or this my passion, is the new covenant in my blood.

678. – Hence it should be noted that “covenant” is taken in two senses in the Scriptures. In one way for any pact which is confirmed by witnesses; and so it must be supposed that God entered into a pact with the human race in two ways: In one way by promising temporal goods and by freeing from temporal evils; and this is called the Old Covenant or pact. In another way by promising spiritual goods and by freeing from opposite evils, and this is called the New Covenant. Hence it says in Jer (31:31): “I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers, when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. But this will be the covenant: I will put my law within them and I will be their God.” But it should be noted that in antiquity the custom was that they would pour out the blood of some victim to confirm a pact. Hence it says in Gen (31:54) that after Laban and Jacob made a pact, victims were sacrificed on the mountain and called his kinsmen. Hence, too, in Ex (24:8) its says that Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people and said: “Behold, the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you.” Therefore, just as the Old Covenant or pact was confirmed by the figural blood of bulls, so the New Covenant or pact was confirmed in Christ’s blood, which was poured out in the passion. And in the cup the sacrament is so contained.

679. – In another way “covenant” is taken more strictly for the disposition of an inheritance to be received and which must be confirmed by a certain number of witnesses. Such a covenant, however, is not confirmed except by death, because, as the Apostle says in Heb (9:17): “For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.” God, first of all, made disposition of eternal rewards to be received, but under the figure of temporal

oods – which pertain to the Old Covenant. But later He made a New Covenant, expressly promising an eternal inheritance, which was confirmed by the blood of Christ’s death. And therefore, the Lord says of this: This cup is the new covenant in my blood. As if to say: Through that which is contained in the cup is commemorated the new covenant confirmed by the blood of Christ.

680. – But it should be noted that the same words the Apostle gives here are found in Lk (22:20), except that Luke adds: “which shall be shed for you.” For Luke was a disciple of Paul and followed him in writing his Gospel. But Matt (26:28) says: “This is my blood of the new covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” The same words appear in Mk (14:24). Therefore, some say that whichever forms of these words written in the canon are said, they suffice for consecration. But it seems more probable to say that consecration is accomplished only by those words which the Church structured on the apostles’ uses. For the evangelists intended to recite the Lord’s words as part of His history, but not as they are ordained to consecration of the sacrament, which they held in secret in the early Church on account of unbelievers. Hence Denis says in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: “It is not permitted to explain openly in writing the perfective invocations in the Scriptures or to bring to light their secret meaning.”

681. – But in regard to the words the Church uses in the consecration of the blood, some believe that not all are necessary for the form, but only that “This is the cup of my blood” but not “of the new and eternal covenant, a mystery of faith, which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.” But it does not seem fitting to say this. For all that follows is a determination of the predicate. Hence, it pertains to the meaning or signification of the same statement; and because, as has often been said, the forms of the sacraments effect by signifying, and totality pertains to the effective power of the sacrament. Nor is there any merit in the reason they adduce, because in the consecration of the body it is enough to say: “This is my body,” because the blood separately consecrated especially represents the passion of Christ, through which His blood was separated from the body.

682. – Therefore, in the consecration of the blood it was necessary to express the power of Christ’s passion, which is looked at, first of all, with respect to our guilt, which the passion of Christ abolishes, as it says in Rev (1:5): “He washed us from our sins in His blood.” In regard to this he says, “which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.” The blood was indeed shed for the remission of sins, not only for many but for all, as it says in 1 John (2:2): “He is the expiation for our sins, and not for ourselves only but also for the sins of the whole world.” But because some make themselves unworthy to receive such an effect, as far as its efficacy is concerned, it is said to have been shed for many, in which the passion of Christ has an effect. But he expressly says, “for you and for many,” because this sacrament can produce remission of sin for those who receive it after the manner of a sacrifice for many not receiving [communion] for whom it is offered; which is signified, when it is said: “and for many.” Secondly, its power is considered with respect to the life of justice it effects through faith, as it says in Rom (3:24): “They are justified by his grace as a gift through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood to be received by faith.” As to this he says: “The mystery,” i.e., the sacrament “of faith,” namely, because faith in the passion of Christ was hidden in all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant, as the truth in a figure. But the Church has this from the tradition of the apostles, since it is not found in the canon of Scripture. Thirdly, its power is regarded with respect to the life of glory, as it says in Heb (10:19): “Having confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus.” As to this he says: “Of the new and eternal covenant.” “Eternal,” indeed, because it is the disposition for the eternal inheritance. “New” to distinguish from the Old, because it promised temporal things. Hence, it says in Heb (9:15): “Therefore, he is the mediator of a New Covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since his death has occurred.

683. – Then when he says, Do this, he enjoins the use of this sacrament, saying: Do this as often as you take it in remembrance of me, namely, in the mystery of my passion. Hence the prophet says in Lam (3:20): “My soul continually thinks of it and is bowed down within me,” and in Is (63:7): “I will recall the mercies of the Lord.”

684. – But it should be noted that principally wine should be put in the cup. But water should be added. For it is probable that Christ at the meal gave the disciples wine mixed with water on account of a custom of that land, in which the strength of the wine had to tempered, so that all drink their wine mixed with water. Hence in Pr (9:5) Wisdom says: “Drink the wine I have mixed for you.” Nevertheless, water mixed with wine signifies the Christian people joined to Christ by passion, as it says in Rev (17:15): “The waters you saw are peoples and nations.” And partaking of the blood of Christ by the faithful pertains to the use of the sacrament, although it is not necessary. But wine can be consecrated without water, although one so consecrating would sin by not observing the rite of the Church. Therefore, if the priest before the consecration of the wine recalls that water was not added to the wine, he should add it. But if he recalls it after the consecration, he should not add it but should complete the sacrament. For after the consecration, nothing should be mixed with the blood of Christ, because such a mixing could not take place without some sort of corruption of the consecrated wine, which pertains to the crime of sacrilege.

685. –But some say that when from the side of Christ hanging on the cross blood and water flowed, as it says in Jn. 19:34, then as wine is converted into blood, so water into water. But this is not suitable, because in that water is figured the washing which is through baptism. But some say that after the conversion of wine into the blood the water remains as water and is surrounded by the accidents of the wine. But this is awkward, because the water is mixed with the wine before consecration, when it does not differ from other wine. Hence, they do not remain separated but are commingled. Therefore, it must be said that water is converted into wine and this whole is converted into the blood of Christ. Accordingly, the custom is to add a small amount of water, especially if the wine is weak, which can convert only a slight amount of water into itself.

686. – Then when he says, As often as, he explains the Lord’s words, which said: “Do this in memory of me,” saying: For as often as you eat this bread. He says bread on account of the appearances that remain. He says this on account of the numerically same body signified and contained. And drink the cup, you will proclaim the Lord’s death, namely, by representing it through this sacrament. And this, until he comes, i.e., until His final coming. This gives us to understand that this rite of the Church will not cease until the end of the world: “I am with you always to the end of the world” (Matt 27:20); “This generation,” namely, of the Church, “will not pass away, till all has taken place” (Lk 21:32).

 

11-7

            1 Cor 11:27-34

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— 34 if any one is hungry, let him eat at home—lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

687. – After showing the dignity of this sacrament, the Apostle now rouses the faithful to receive it reverently. First, he outlines the peril threatening those who receive unworthily; secondly, he applies a saving remedy (v. 28).

688. – First, therefore, he says, Therefore, from the fact that this which is received sacramentally is the body of Christ and what is drunk is the blood of Christ, whoever eats this bread or drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will by guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. In these words must be considered, first, how someone eats or drinks unworthily. According to a Gloss this happens in three ways: first, as to the celebration of this sacrament, namely, because someone celebrates the sacrament in a manner different from that handed down by Christ; for example, if he offers in this sacrament a bread other than wheaten or some liquid other than wine from the grape of the vine. Hence it says in Lev (10:1) that Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron, offered before the Lord “unholy fire, such as he had not commanded them. And fire came forth from the presence of the Lord and devoured them.”

689. – Secondly, from the fact that someone approached the Eucharist with a mind not devout. This lack of devotion is sometimes venial, as when someone with his mind distracted by worldly affairs approaches this sacrament habitually retaining due reverence toward it; and such lack of devotion, although it impedes the fruit of this sacrament, which is spiritual refreshment, does not make one guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, as the Apostle says here. But a certain lack of devotion is a mortal sin, i.e., when it involves contempt of this sacrament, as it says in Mal (1:12): “But you profane it when you say that the Lord’s table is polluted and its food may be despised.” It is of such lack of devotion that the Gloss speaks.

690. – In a third way someone is said to be unworthy, because he approaches the Eucharist with the intention of sinning mortally. For it says in Lev (21:23): “He shall not approach the altar, because he has a blemish.” Someone is understood to have a blemish as long as he persists in the intention of sinning, which, however, is taken away through penitence. By contrition, indeed, which takes away the will to sin with the intention of confession and making satisfaction, as to the remission of guilt and eternal punishment; by confession and satisfaction as to the total remission of punishment and reconciliation with the members of the Church. Therefore, in cases of necessity, as when someone does not have an abundance of confessors, contrition is enough for receiving this sacrament. But as a general rule, confession with some satisfaction should precede. Hence in the book on Church Dogmas it says: “One who desires to go to communion should make satisfaction with tears and prayers, and trusting in the Lord approach the Eucharist clean, free from care, and secure. But I say this of the person not burdened with capital and mortal sins. For the one whom mortal sins committed after baptism press down, I advise to make satisfaction with public penance, and so be joined to communion by the judgment of the priest, if he does not wish to receive the condemnation of the Church.”

691. – But it seems that sinners do not approach this sacrament unworthily. For in this sacrament Christ is received, and He is the spiritual physician, Who says of Himself in Matt (9:12): “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.” The answer is that this sacrament is spiritual food, as baptism is spiritual birth. But one is born in order to live, but he is not nourished unless he is already alive. Therefore, this sacrament does not befit sinners who are not yet alive by grace; although baptism befits them. Furthermore, the Eucharist is the sacrament of love and ecclesial unity, as Augustine say On John. Since, therefore, the sinner lacks charity and is deservedly separated from the unity of the Church, if he approaches this sacrament, he commits a falsehood, since he is signifying that he has charity, but does not. Yet because a sinner sometimes has faith in this sacrament, it is lawful for him to look at this sacrament, which is absolutely denied to unbelievers, as Denis says in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.

692. – Secondly, it is necessary to consider how one who receives this sacrament unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. This is explained in three ways in a Gloss. In one way materially: for one incurs guilt from a sin committed against the body and blood of Christ, as contained in this sacrament, which he receives unworthily and from this his guilt is increased. For his guilt is increased to the extent that a greater person is offended against: “How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God and profaned the blood of the covenant?” (Heb 10:29).

693. – Secondly, it is explained by a similitude, so that the sense would be: He will be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, i.e., he will be punished as if he had killed Christ, as it says in Heb (6:6): “They crucify the son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.” But according to this the gravest sin seems to be committed by those who receive the body of Christ unworthily. The answer is that a sin is grave in two ways: in one way from the sin’s species, which is taken from its object; according to this a sin against the godhead, such as unbelief, blasphemy and so on, is graver than one committed against the humanity of Christ. Hence, the Lord Himself says (Matt 12:32): “Whoever says a word against the son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.” And again a sin committed against the humanity in its own species is graver than under the sacramental species. In another way the gravity of sin is considered on the part of the sinner. But one sins more, when he sins from hatred or envy or any other maliciousness, as those sinned who crucified Christ, than one who sins from weakness, as they sometimes sin who receive this sacrament unworthily. It does not follow, therefore, that the sin of receiving this sacrament unworthily should be compared to the sin of killing Christ, as though the sins were equal, but on account of a specific likeness: because each concerns the same Christ.

694. – He will be guilty of the body and blood of Christ is explained in a third way, i.e., the body and blood of the Lord will make him guilty. For something good evilly received hurts one, inasmuch as evil well used profits one, as the sting of Satan profited Paul. By these words is excluded the error of those who say that as soon as this sacrament is touched by the lips of a sinner, the body of Christ ceases to be under it. Against this is the word of the Apostle: “Whoever eats this bread or drinks the Lord’s cup unworthily.” For according to the above opinion no one unworthy would eat or drink. But this opinion is contrary to the truth of this sacrament, according to which the body and blood of Christ remain in this sacrament, as long as the appearances remain, no matter where they exist.

695. – Then when he says, Let a man examine himself, he applies a remedy against this peril. First, he suggests the remedy; secondly, he assigns a reason (v. 29); thirdly, he clarifies the reason with a sign (v. 30).

696. – First, therefore, he says: because one who receives this sacrament unworthily incurs so much guilt, it is necessary that a man first examine himself, i.e., carefully inspect his conscience, lest there exist in it the intention to sin mortally or any past sin for which he has not repented sufficiently. And so, secure after a careful examination, eat of that bread and drink of that cup, because for those who receive worthily, it is not poison but medicine: “Let each one test his own work” (Gal 6:4); “Examine yourselves to see whether you are holding to your faith” (2 Cor 13:5).

697. – Then when he says, anyone who eats, he assigns the reason for the above remedy, saying: A previous examination is required, because anyone who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment, i.e., condemnation, upon himself: “Those who have done evil will rise to the resurrection of judgment” (Jn. 5:29). Not discerning the body of the Lord, i.e., from the fact that he does not distinguish the body of the Lord from other things, receiving Him indiscriminately as other foods: “Anyone who approaches the holy things while he has an uncleanness, that person shall be cut off from my presence” (Lev 22:3).

698. – On the other hand it says in John (6:58): “He that eats me shall live because of me.” The answer is that there are two ways of receiving this sacrament, namely, spiritually and sacramentally. Therefore, some receive sacramentally and spiritually, namely, those who receive this sacrament in such a way that they also share in the reality [res] of the sacrament, namely, charity through which ecclesial unity exists. To such the Lord’s words apply: “He that eats me will live because of me.” But some receive only sacramentally, namely, those who receive this sacrament in such a way that they do not have the [res] reality of the sacrament, i.e., charity. To these are applied the words spoken here: “He that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” Besides these two ways by which the sacrament is taken, there is a third way, by which one eats per accidens, namely, when it is taken not as a sacrament. This can happen in three ways: in one way, as when a believer receives the consecrated host, which he does not believe is consecrated: such a one has the habit of receiving this sacrament, but he does not use it actually as a sacrament. In another way, as when an unbeliever receives the consecrated host, but he has no faith about this sacrament: such a person does not have the habit of using this sacrament, but only the potentiality. In a third way, as when a mouse or other brute animal eats the sacred host: such animals do have even the potentiality to use this sacrament.

699. – Therefore, from the fact that those who receive this sacrament spiritually acquire life, some are drawn to receive this sacrament frequently. But from the fact that those who receive unworthily acquire judgment upon themselves, many are deterred and rarely receive. Both seem commendable, for we read in Lk (19:6): “Zacheaus rejoiced to receive the Lord into his house.” In this his charity is commended. We also read in Lk (7:6) that the centurion said to Christ: “I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof.” In this case his honor and reverence toward Christ is commended. But because of themselves love is preferred to fear, it seems more commendable to receive more frequently rather than more rarely. Yet because something more choiceworthy in itself can be less choiceworthy in regard to this or that person, each one should consider in himself which effect the frequent reception of this sacrament would have in him. For if someone feels that it helps him make progress to the fervor of his love of Christ and in his strength to resist sins, he ought to receive frequently. But if someone feels in himself less reverence for his sacrament by receiving it frequently, he should be advised to receive it rarely. Hence, even in the book On the Dogmas of the Church it says: “I neither praise nor condemn daily communion.”

700. – Then when he says, That is why, he clarifies the reason he gave with a sign. First, he mentions the sign; secondly, he assigns the cause of that sign (v. 31).

701. – In regard to the first it should be noted that, as Augustine says in The City of God: “If God punished every sin with a penalty now, it would be thought that nothing was left for the final judgment.” Again, if He punished no sin now, it would be believed that there is no divine providence. As a sign of the future judgment, God even in this world punishes certain ones temporarily in this world. This is especially seen in the beginning of the legislation both of the Old and of the New. For we read in Ex (32:28) that on account of the sin of adoring the golden calf many thousands of men fell. Again we read in Ac (5:1-11) that on account of the sin of lying and of theft Ananias and Sapphira were destroyed. Hence also for the sin of receiving this sacrament unworthily some in the early Church were punished by God with bodily infirmity or even death. Hence he says, that is why, namely, as a sign of the future judgment among you many unworthily receiving the body of Christ are weak bodily “Their sorrows are multiplied” (Ps 16:4), and ill, i.e., labor under a long sickness, and some have died, namely, a bodily death (1 Th. 4:12).

702. – Then when he says, But if we judged, he assigns two reasons for the above sign: the first is taken on our part; the second on God’s part (v. 32).

703. – On our part the cause of divine punishment is from negligence, because we neglect to punish ourselves for sins committed. Hence he says that if we judged ourselves truly by rebuking and punishing our sins, we should not be judged, i.e., not punished by the Lord either later in the future or even in the present.

704. – But on the other hand it says above (4:3): “I do not even judge myself” and in Rom (14:22): “Blessed is he that does not judge himself.” The answer is that someone can judge himself in three ways: in one way by examination, and in this way one ought to judge himself both as to past works and as to future ones, according to Gal (6:4): “Let each one prove his own work.” In another way by absolving himself decisionally as though judging himself innocent as to the past; and according to this, no one should judge himself, namely, that he judge himself innocent, according to Jb (9:20): “Though I am innocent, my own mouth would condemn me; though I am blameless, he would prove me perverse.” In a third way by reprehending, namely, that he did something he judges evil. In this way is understood the statement: “Blessed is he who does not judge himself for what he approves.” But as to things already done, each one ought to judge himself by blaming and punishing oneself for evil deeds. Hence it says in Jb (13:15): “I will defend my ways to his face” and (23:4): “I would lay my case before him and fill my mouth with arguments.” In the book On Penance, Augustine says of this judgment: “Let the image of the future judgment play before your eyes and let a man rise up against himself before his own face, and having made a judgment in his heart, let thought be the accuser and conscience the witness and the heart executioner. Then let the blood of the confessing spirit break out in tears. Finally, from the mind itself let such a sentence issue that the man judges himself unworthy to partake of the body and blood of the Lord.”

705. – Then when he says, But when we, he presents the cause on God’s part, saying: But when we are judged by the Lord, i.e., punished in this world, we are chastened, i.e., this is done for our correction, in order, namely, that each one withdraw from sin on account of the punishment he endured: “Happy is the man whom God reproves” (Jb 5:17); “Whom the Lord loves he chastises” (Pr 3:12), or even when through the punishment of one, another ceases to sin: “Strike a scoffer and the simple will learn prudence” (Pr 19:25) and this in order that we may not be condemned with eternal damnation in the future, along with the world, i.e., with worldly men.

706. – Then when he says, So then, he leads them back to due observance: first, he presents what he now ordains; secondly, he gives a promise of a future ordination (v. 34b).

707. – In regard to the first he does three things: first, he makes his ordination, saying: So then, my brethren, so that no one will presume to eat his meal, when you come together, namely, in the church, to eat, namely, the body of Christ, wait for one another, so that all may receive at the same time. Hence it says in Ex (12:6): “The holy assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lamb.” Secondly, he excludes an excuse, saying: If anyone is hungry and cannot wait, let him eat at home, namely, ordinary food, not to receive the Eucharist later: “The stomach will take any food” (Sir 36:18). Thirdly, he gives the reason saying: lest you come together, namely, to receive the body of Christ, to be condemned.

708. – Then a promise is made when he says: About other things, namely, which are not so perilous, when I come home very soon, I will give directions, namely, how to conserve them. From this it is clear that the Church has many things arranged by the Apostle that are not contained in Sacred Scripture: “The cities will be inhabited,” i.e., the churches will be set in order “by the sense of prudent men,” namely, of the apostles (Sir 10:3).