[III.q.73.a.1.arg.1] It seems that the Eucharist is not a sacrament. For two sacraments ought not to be ordained for the same end, because every sacrament is efficacious in producing its effect. Therefore, since both Confirmation and the Eucharist are ordained for perfection, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iv), it seems that the Eucharist is not a sacrament, since Confirmation is one, as stated above (65, 1; 72, 1).
\n[III.q.73.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod pœna purgatorii non excedat omnem pœnam temporalem hujus vitæ. Quanto enim aliquid est magis passivum tanto magis affligitur, si sensum læsionis ha-beat. Sed corpus est magis passivum quam anima separata, tum quia habet contrarietatem ad ignem agentem, tum quia habet materiam, quæ est susceptiva qualitatis agentis, quod de anima dici non potest. Ergo major est pœna quam corpus patitur in hoc mundo, quam pœna qua anima purgatur post hanc vitam.
\n[III.q.73.a.1.arg.2] Further, in every sacrament of the New Law, that which comes visibly under our senses causes the invisible effect of the sacrament, just as cleansing with water causes the baptismal character and spiritual cleansing, as stated above (63, 6; 66, 1,3,7). But the species of bread and wine, which are the objects of our senses in this sacrament, neither produce Christ's true body, which is both reality and sacrament, nor His mystical body, which is the reality only in the Eucharist. Therefore, it seems that the Eucharist is not a sacrament of the New Law.
\n[III.q.73.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, pœna purgatorii directe ordinatur contra venialia. Sed venialibus, cum sint levissima peccata, levissima pœna debetur, si secundum mensuram delicti sit plagarum modus. Ergo pœna purgatorii est levissima.
\n[III.q.73.a.1.arg.3] Further, sacraments of the New Law, as having matter, are perfected by the use of the matter, as Baptism is by ablution, and Confirmation by signing with chrism. If, then, the Eucharist be a sacrament, it would be perfected by the use of the matter, and not by its consecration. But this is manifestly false, because the words spoken in the consecration of the matter are the form of this sacrament, as will be shown later on (78, 1). Therefore the Eucharist is not a sacrament.
\n[III.q.73.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, reatus, cum sit effectus culpæ, non intenditur, nisi culpa intendatur. Sed in illo cui jam culpa dimissa est non potest culpa intendi. Ergo in eo cui culpa mortalis dimissa est pro qua non plene satisfecit, reatus non crescit in morte. Sed in hac vita non erat ei Ex editione Nicolai. reatus respectu gravissimæ pœnæ. Ergo pœna quam patietur post hanc vitam, non erit gravior omni istius vitæ.
\n[III.q.73.a.1.sc] It is said in the Collect [Postcommunion \"pro vivis et defunctis\"]: \"May this Thy Sacrament not make us deserving of punishment.\"
\n[III.q.73.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit in quodam Sermone, civ, append., § 5, col. 1947, t. 5: « Ille purgatorius ignis durior erit quam quidquid potest in hoc sæculo pœnarum aut sentiri, aut videri, aut cogitari. Præterea, quanto pœna est universalior, tanto est major. Sed anima separata toto punitur, cum sit simplex; non autem ita est de corpore. Ergo illa pœna quæ est animæ separatæ, est major omni pœna quam corpus patitur.
\n[III.q.73.a.1.co] The Church's sacraments are ordained for helping man in the spiritual life. But the spiritual life is analogous to the corporeal, since corporeal things bear a resemblance to spiritual. Now it is clear that just as generation is required for corporeal life, since thereby man receives life; and growth, whereby man is brought to maturity: so likewise food is required for the preservation of life. Consequently, just as for the spiritual life there had to be Baptism, which is spiritual generation; and Confirmation, which is spiritual growth: so there needed to be the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is spiritual food.
\n[III.q.73.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod in purgatorio erit duplex pœna: una damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus, secundum quod ab igne corporali punientur. Et quantum ad utrumque pœna purgatorii minima excedit maximam pœnam hujus vitæ. Quanto enim aliquid magis desideratur, tanto ejus absentia est molestior. Et quia affectus quo desideratur summum bonum post hanc vitam, in animabus sanctis est intensissimus, quia non retardatur affectus mole corporis, et etiam quia terminus fruendi summo bono jam advenisset, nisi aliquid impediret; ideo de retardatione maxime dolent. Similiter etiam, cum dolor non sit læsio, sed læsionis sensus, tanto aliquid magis dolet de aliquo læsivo, quanto magis est sensitivum. Unde læsiones quæ fiunt in locis maxime sensibilibus, sunt maximum dolorem causantes. Et quia totus sensus corporis est ab anima, ideo, si in ipsam animam aliquid læsivum agat, de necessitate oportet quod maxime affligatur. Quod autem anima ab igne corporali patiatur, hoc ad præsens supponimus, quia de hoc infra dicetur. Et ideo oportet quod pœna purgatorii, quantum ad pœnam damni et sensus, excedat omnem pœnam istius vitæ. Quidam autem assignant rationem ex hoc quod anima toto punitur, non autem corpus. Sed hoc nihil est; quia sic pœna damnatorum esset mitior post resurrectionem quam ante, quod falsum est.
\n[III.q.73.a.1.ad.1] Perfection is twofold. The first lies within man himself; and he attains it by growth: such perfection belongs to Confirmation. The other is the perfection which comes to man from the addition of food, or clothing, or something of the kind; and such is the perfection befitting the Eucharist, which is the spiritual refreshment.
\n[III.q.73.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod quam vis anima sit minus passiva quam corpus, tamen est magis cognoscitiva passionis: et ubi est major passionis sensus, ibi est major dolor, etiamsi sit minor passio.
\n[III.q.73.a.1.ad.2] The water of Baptism does not cause any spiritual effect by reason of the water, but by reason of the power of the Holy Ghost, which power is in the water. Hence on John 5:4, \"An angel of the Lord at certain times,\" etc., Chrysostom observes: \"The water does not act simply as such upon the baptized, but when it receives the grace of the Holy Ghost, then it looses all sins.\" But the true body of Christ. bears the same relation to the species of the bread and wine, as the power of the Holy Ghost does to the water of Baptism: hence the species of the bread and wine produce no effect except from the virtue of Christ's true body.
\n[III.q.73.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod acerbitas illius pœnæ non est tantum ex quantitate peccati, quantum ex dispositione puniti, quia idem peccatum gravius punitur ibi quam hic; sicut ille qui est melioris complexionis, magis punitur eisdem plagis impositis quam alius; et tamen judex utrique easdem plagas pro ejusdem culpis inferens, juste facit. Et per hoc patet solutio ad tertium.
\n[III.q.73.a.1.ad.3] A sacrament is so termed because it contains something sacred. Now a thing can be styled sacred from two causes; either absolutely, or in relation to something else. The difference between the Eucharist and other sacraments having sensible matter is that whereas the Eucharist contains something which is sacred absolutely, namely, Christ's own body; the baptismal water contains something which is sacred in relation to something else, namely, the sanctifying power: and the same holds good of chrism and such like. Consequently, the sacrament of the Eucharist is completed in the very consecration of the matter, whereas the other sacraments are completed in the application of the matter for the sanctifying of the individual. And from this follows another difference. For, in the sacrament of the Eucharist, what is both reality and sacrament is in the matter itself. but what is reality only, namely, the grace bestowed, is in the recipient; whereas in Baptism both are in the recipient, namely, the character, which is both reality and sacrament, and the grace of pardon of sins, which is reality only. And the same holds good of the other sacraments.
\n[III.q.73.a.2.arg.1] It seems that the Eucharist is not one sacrament but several, because it is said in the Collect [Postcommunion \"pro vivis et defunctis\"]: \"May the sacraments which we have received purify us, O Lord\": and this is said on account of our receiving the Eucharist. Consequently the Eucharist is not one sacrament but several.
\n[III.q.73.a.2.arg.1] Ad secundum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod illa pœna sit voluntaria, quia illi qui sunt in purgatorio rectum habent cor. Sed hæc est rectitudo cordis, ut quis voluntatem suam voluntati divinæ conformet, ut Augustinus dicit, Enarr. 11 sup. psal. xxxii, col. 277, t. 4. Ergo, cum Deus velite eos puniri, ipsi illam pœnam voluntarie sustinent.
\n[III.q.73.a.2.arg.2] Further, it is impossible for genera to be multiplied without the species being multiplied: thus it is impossible for one man to be many animals. But, as stated above (Question 60, Article 1), sign is the genus of sacrament. Since, then, there are more signs than one, to wit, bread and wine, it seems to follow that here must be more sacraments than one.
\n[III.q.73.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, omnis sapiens vult illud sine quo non potest pervenire ad finem intentum. Sed illi qui sunt in purgatorio, sciunt se non posse pervenire ad gloriam, nisi prius puniantur. Ergo volunt puniri.
\n[III.q.73.a.2.arg.3] Further, this sacrament is perfected in the consecration of the matter, as stated above (1, ad 3). But in this sacrament there is a double consecration of the matter. Therefore, it is a twofold sacrament.
\n[III.q.73.a.2.sc] The Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:17): \"For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread\": from which it is clear that the Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church's unity. But a sacrament bears the likeness of the reality whereof it is the sacrament. Therefore the Eucharist is one sacrament.
\n[III.q.73.a.2.sc] Sed contra, nullus petit liberari a pœna quam voluntarie sustinet. Sed illi qui sunt in purgatorio, petunt liberari, sicut patet per multa quæ in Dialog. Greg., lib. IV, cap. xL et LV, col. 396, t. 3, narrantur. Ergo non sustinent illam pœnam voluntarie.
\n[III.q.73.a.2.co] As stated in Metaph. v, a thing is said to be one, not only from being indivisible, or continuous, but also when it is complete; thus we speak of one house, and one man. A thing is one in perfection, when it is complete through the presence of all that is needed for its end; as a man is complete by having all the members required for the operation of his soul, and a house by having all the parts needful for dwelling therein. And so this sacrament is said to be one. Because it is ordained for spiritual refreshment, which is conformed to corporeal refreshment. Now there are two things required for corporeal refreshment, namely, food, which is dry sustenance, and drink, which is wet sustenance. Consequently, two things concur for the integrity of this sacrament, to wit, spiritual food and spiritual drink, according to John: \"My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.\" Therefore, this sacrament is materially many, but formally and perfectively one.
\n[III.q.73.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod aliquid dicitur voluntarium dupliciter. Uno modo voluntate absoluta; et sic nulla pœna est voluntaria, quia ex hoc est ratio pœna quod voluntati contrariatur. Alio modo dicitur aliquid voluntarium voluntate conditionata; sicut ustio est voluntaria propter sanitatem consequendam. Et sic aliqua pœna potest esse voluntaria dupliciter. Uno modo quia per pœna aliquod bonum acquirimus; et sic ipsa voluntas assumit pœnam aliquam, ut patet in satisfactione; vel etiam quia ille libenter eam accipit, et non vellet eam non esse, sicut accidit in martyrio. Alio modo quia 1 Olim: « Augustinus. » Sed sermo iste Augustino jam abjudicatur et Cæsario Arel. tribuiquamvis per pœnam nullum bonum nobis accrescat, tamen sine pœna ad bonum pervenire non possumus, sicut patet de morte naturali; et tunc voluntas non assumit pœnam, et vellet ab ea liberari: sed eam supportat, et quantum ad hoc voluntaria dicitur. Et sic pœna purgatorii est voluntaria. Quidam autem dicunt quod non est aliquo modo voluntaria, quia sunt ita absorpti pœnis, quod nesciunt se per pœnam purgari, sed putant se esse damnatos. Sed hoc est falsum, quia nisi scirent se liberandos, suffragia non peterent, quod frequenter faciunt. Et per hoc patet solutio ad objecta.
\n[III.q.73.a.2.ad.1] The same Collect at first employs the plural: \"May the sacraments which we have received purify us\"; and afterwards the singular number: \"May this sacrament of Thine not make us worthy of punishment\": so as to show that this sacrament is in a measure several, yet simply one.
\n[III.q.73.a.2.ad.2] The bread and wine are materially several signs, yet formally and perfectively one, inasmuch as one refreshment is prepared therefrom.
\n[III.q.73.a.2.ad.3] From the double consecration of the matter no more can be gathered than that the sacrament is several materially, as stated above.
\n[III.q.73.a.3.arg.1] It seems that this sacrament is necessary for salvation. For our Lord said (John 6:54): \"Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.\" But Christ's flesh is eaten and His blood drunk in this sacrament. Therefore, without this sacrament man cannot have the health of spiritual life.
\n[III.q.73.a.3.arg.2] Further, this sacrament is a kind of spiritual food. But bodily food is requisite for bodily health. Therefore, also is this sacrament, for spiritual health.
\n[III.q.73.a.3.arg.3] Further, as Baptism is the sacrament of our Lord's Passion, without which there is no salvation, so also is the Eucharist. For the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 11:26): \"For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He come.\" Consequently, as Baptism is necessary for salvation, so also is this sacrament.
\n[III.q.73.a.3.sc] Augustine writes (Ad Bonifac. contra Pelag. I): \"Nor are you to suppose that children cannot possess life, who are deprived of the body and blood of Christ.\"
\n[III.q.73.a.3.co] Two things have to be considered in this sacrament, namely, the sacrament itself, and what is contained in it. Now it was stated above (1, Objection 2) that the reality of the sacrament is the unity of the mystical body, without which there can be no salvation; for there is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the Ark, which denotes the Church, according to 1 Peter 3:20-21. And it has been said above (Question 68, Article 2), that before receiving a sacrament, the reality of the sacrament can be had through the very desire of receiving the sacrament. Accordingly, before actual reception of this sacrament, a man can obtain salvation through the desire of receiving it, just as he can before Baptism through the desire of Baptism, as stated above (Question 68, Article 2). Yet there is a difference in two respects. First of all, because Baptism is the beginning of the spiritual life, and the door of the sacraments; whereas the Eucharist is, as it were, the consummation of the spiritual life, and the end of all the sacraments, as was observed above (Question 63, Article 6): for by the hallowings of all the sacraments preparation is made for receiving or consecrating the Eucharist. Consequently, the reception of Baptism is necessary for starting the spiritual life, while the receiving of the Eucharist is requisite for its consummation; by partaking not indeed actually, but in desire, as an end is possessed in desire and intention. Another difference is because by Baptism a man is ordained to the Eucharist, and therefore from the fact of children being baptized, they are destined by the Church to the Eucharist; and just as they believe through the Church's faith, so they desire the Eucharist through the Church's intention, and, as a result, receive its reality. But they are not disposed for Baptism by any previous sacrament, and consequently before receiving Baptism, in no way have they Baptism in desire; but adults alone have: consequently, they cannot have the reality of the sacrament without receiving the sacrament itself. Therefore this sacrament is not necessary for salvation in the same way as Baptism is.
\n[III.q.73.a.3.ad.1] As Augustine says, explaining John 6:54, \"This food and this drink,\" namely, of His flesh and blood: \"He would have us understand the fellowship of His body and members, which is the Church in His predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified, His holy and believing ones.\" Hence, as he says in his Epistle to Boniface (Pseudo-Beda, in 1 Corinthians 10:17): \"No one should entertain the slightest doubt, that then every one of the faithful becomes a partaker of the body and blood of Christ, when in Baptism he is made a member of Christ's body; nor is he deprived of his share in that body and chalice even though he depart from this world in the unity of Christ's body, before he eats that bread and drinks of that chalice.\"
\n[III.q.73.a.3.ad.2] The difference between corporeal and spiritual food lies in this, that the former is changed into the substance of the person nourished, and consequently it cannot avail for supporting life except it be partaken of; but spiritual food changes man into itself, according to that saying of Augustine (Confess. vii), that he heard the voice of Christ as it were saying to him: \"Nor shalt thou change Me into thyself, as food of thy flesh, but thou shalt be changed into Me.\" But one can be changed into Christ, and be incorporated in Him by mental desire, even without receiving this sacrament. And consequently the comparison does not hold.
\n[III.q.73.a.3.ad.3] Baptism is the sacrament of Christ's death and Passion, according as a man is born anew in Christ in virtue of His Passion; but the Eucharist is the sacrament of Christ's Passion according as a man is made perfect in union with Christ Who suffered. Hence, as Baptism is called the sacrament of Faith, which is the foundation of the spiritual life, so the Eucharist is termed the sacrament of Charity, which is \"the bond of perfection\" (Colossians 3:14).
\n[III.q.73.a.4.arg.1] It seems that this sacrament is not suitably called by various names. For names should correspond with things. But this sacrament is one, as stated above (Article 2). Therefore, it ought not to be called by various names.
\n[III.q.73.a.4.arg.1] Ad quartum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod per pœnam purgatorii non expietur peccatum veniale quoad culpam, quia Super illud I Joan., v: Est peccatum ad mortem, etc., dicitGlossa, lib. XVI Moral., § 82, col. 1160, t. 1: «Quod in hac vita non corrigitur, frustra post mortem ejus venia postulatur. » Ergo nullum peccatum post hanc vitam quoad culpam dimittitur.
\n[III.q.73.a.4.arg.2] Further, a species is not properly denominated by what is common to the whole genus. But the Eucharist is a sacrament of the New Law; and it is common to all the sacraments for grace to be conferred by them, which the name \"Eucharist\" denotes, for it is the same thing as \"good grace.\" Furthermore, all the sacraments bring us help on our journey through this present life, which is the notion conveyed by \"Viaticum.\" Again something sacred is done in all the sacraments, which belongs to the notion of \"Sacrifice\"; and the faithful intercommunicate through all the sacraments, which this Greek word Synaxis and the Latin \"Communio\" express. Therefore, these names are not suitably adapted to this sacrament.
\n[III.q.73.a.4.arg.2] 2. Præterea, ejusdem est labi in peccatum, et a peccato liberari. Sed anima post mortem non potest peccare venialiter. Ergo nec a peccato veniali absolvi.
\n[III.q.73.a.4.arg.3] Further, a host [From Latin \"hostia,\" a victim] seems to be the same as a sacrifice. Therefore, as it is not properly called a sacrifice, so neither is it properly termed a \"Host.\"
\n[III.q.73.a.4.arg.3] 3. Præterea, Gregorius dicit, lib. IV Dialog., cap. xxxix, col. 396, t. 3, quod talis in judicio quisque futurus est, qualis de corpore exivit, quia lignum ubi ceciderit ibi erit, Eccl., xi, 3. Si ergo aliquis ex hac vita cum veniali exit, in judicio cum veniali erit; et ita per purgatorium non expiatur aliquis a culpa veniali.
\n[III.q.73.a.4.sc] is the use of these expressions by the faithful.
\n[III.q.73.a.4.sc] Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit in IV Dialog., ubi supr., et Augustinus, lib. De vera et falsa pænitentia, cap. iv, § 9, col. 1116, et cap. xviii, col. 1128, t. 6, quod quædam culpæ leves in futuro remittuntur. Nec potest intelligi quoad pœnam; quia sic omnes culpæ quantum-cumque graves, quantum ad reatum pœnæ, per ignem purgatorium expiarientur. Ergo venialia quantum ad culpam purgantur per ignem purgatorium. Præterea, I Corinth., 111, 12, perlignum, fenum et stipulam, venialia intelliguntur, ut dictum est. Sed lignum, fenum et stipula per purgatorium consumuntur. Ergo ipsæ veniales culpæ post hanc vitam remittuntur.
\n[III.q.73.a.4.co] This sacrament has a threefold significance. one with regard to the past, inasmuch as it is commemorative of our Lord's Passion, which was a true sacrifice, as stated above (Question 48, Article 3), and in this respect it is called a \"Sacrifice.\"
\nWith regard to the present it has another meaning, namely, that of Ecclesiastical unity, in which men are aggregated through this Sacrament; and in this respect it is called \"Communion\" or Synaxis. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that \"it is called Communion because we communicate with Christ through it, both because we partake of His flesh and Godhead, and because we communicate with and are united to one another through it.\"
\nWith regard to the future it has a third meaning, inasmuch as this sacrament foreshadows the Divine fruition, which shall come to pass in heaven; and according to this it is called \"Viaticum,\" because it supplies the way of winning thither. And in this respect it is also called the \"Eucharist,\" that is, \"good grace,\" because \"the grace of God is life everlasting\" (Romans 6:23); or because it really contains Christ, Who is \"full of grace.\"
\nIn Greek, moreover, it is called Metalepsis, i.e. \"Assumption,\" because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv), \"we thereby assume the Godhead of the Son.\"
\n[III.q.73.a.4.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod quidam dixerunt, quod post hanc vitam non dimittitur aliquod peccatum quoad culpam; et si cum mortali culpa quis decedat, damnatur et remissionis non est capax; non autem potest esse quod cum veniali decedat sine mortali, quia ipsi gratia finalis culpam purgat venialem; veniale enim peccatum contingit ex hoc quod aliquis Christum habens in fundamento, nimis aliquod temporale diligit; qui quidem excessus ex concupiscentia corruptione contingit. Unde si gratia omnino concupiscentia corruptionem vincat, sicut in B. Virgine fuit, non manet aliquis locus veniali. Et ita, cum in morte omnino diminuatur et annihiletur ista concupiscentia, potentiæ animæ totaliter gratia subjiciuntur, et venialia expelluntur. Sed hæc opinio frivola est et in se et in causa sua. In se quidem, quia dictis sanctorum et Evangelii adversatur, quæ non possunt exponi de remissione venialium quantum ad pœnam, ut Magister in Littera dicit, IV, dist. xx1, quia sic tam levia quam gravia in futuro dimittuntur. Gregorius autem, loc. cit., leves culpas tantum post hanc vitam remitti perhibet. Nec sufficit quod dicunt, quod hoc dicitur specialiter de levibus, ne putetur nihil grave pro eis nos passuros, quia remissio pœnæ, magis aufert gravitatem pœnarum quam ponat. Quantum ad causam autem, frivola apparet, quia defectus corporalis, qualis est in ultimo vitæ, non aufert concupiscentia corruptionem, vel diminuit quantum ad radicem, sed quantum ad actum, sicut patet de illis qui graviter infirmantur: nec iterum tranquillat potentias animæ, ut eas gratiae subjiciat, quia tranquillitas potentiarum, et subjectio earum ad gratiam est quando inferiores vires obediunt superioribus, quæ legi Dei condelectantur; quod in statu illo esse non potest, cum actus utra-rumque impediatur, nisi tranquillitas dicatur privatio pugnæ, sicut in dormientibus accidit; nec tamen propter hoc somnus dicitur concupiscentiam diminuere, aut vires animæ tranquillare, aut eas gratiae subdere. Et præterea, dato quod concupiscentiam radicaliter diminueret defectus ille, et vires animæ subderet gratiae, adhuc hoc non sufficeret ad purgationem culpæ venialis jam commissæ, quamvis sufficeret ad vitationem futuræ, quia culpa actualis, etiam venialis, non dimittitur sine actuali contritionis motu, ut supra dictum est, quantumcumque habitualiter intendatur. Contingit autem quandoque quod aliquis dormiens moritur, in gratia existens, qui cum veniali obdormivit. Et talis non potest actum contritionis habere de veniali ante mortem. Nec potest dici, ut dicunt quod si non pœnituit actu vel proposito, in generali vel speciali, sit versum in mortale, propter hoc quod « veniale fit mortale, dum placet; » quia non quælibet placentia peccati venialis facit peccatum mortale, alias omne veniale esset mortale, quia quodlibet veniale placet, cum sit voluntarium, sed talis placentia, quæ ad fruitionem spectat, in qua omnis humana perversitas consistit, dum rebus utendis fruimur, ut Augustinus dicit, lib. X De Trinit., cap. x, § 13, col. 984, t. 8. Et sic placentia illa quæ fecit peccatum mortale, est actualis placentia, quia omne peccatum mortale in actu consistit. Potest autem contingere quod aliquis, postquam veniale peccatum commisit, nihil actualiter cogitet de peccato vel dimittendo vel tenendo; sed cogitet forte quod triangulus habet tres angulos æquales duobus rectis, et in hac cogitatione obdormiat et moriatur Unde patet quod hæc opinio omnino irrationalis est. Et ideo cum aliis dicendum quod culpa venialis in eo qui cum gratia decedit, post hanc vitam dimittitur per ignem purgatorium; quia pœna illa aliqualiter voluntaria, virtute gratia habebit vim expiandi culpam omnem, quae simul cum gratia stare potest.
\n[III.q.73.a.4.ad.1] There is nothing to hinder the same thing from being called by several names, according to its various properties or effects.
\n[III.q.73.a.4.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Glossa loquitur de peccato mortali. Vel dicendum, quod, quamvis in hac vita non corrigatur in se, corrigitur tamen in merito, quia hic homo meruit ut ibi illa pœna sit meritoria sibi.
\n[III.q.73.a.4.ad.2] What is common to all the sacraments is attributed antonomastically to this one on account of its excellence.
\n[III.q.73.a.4.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod peccatum veniale contingit ex corruptione fo-mitis, qui in anima separata in purgatorio existente non erit, et ideo non poterit peccare venialiter. Sed remissio culpæ venialis est ex voluntate gratia informata, quæ in purgatorio erit in anima separata. Et ideo non est simile.
\n[III.q.73.a.4.ad.3] This sacrament is called a \"Sacrifice\" inasmuch as it represents the Passion of Christ; but it is termed a \"Host\" inasmuch as it contains Christ, Who is \"a host (Douay: 'sacrifice') . . . of sweetness\" (Ephesians 5:2).
\n[III.q.73.a.4.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod venialia non variant statum hominis, quia neque tollunt neque diminuunt charitatem, secundum quam mensuratur quantitas gratuitæ bonitatis animæ. Et ideo per hoc quod venialia dimittuntur vel commit-tuntur, talis manet anima qualis prius.
\n[III.q.73.a.5.arg.1] It seems that the institution of this sacrament was not appropriate, because as the Philosopher says (De Gener. ii): \"We are nourished by the things from whence we spring.\" But by Baptism, which is spiritual regeneration, we receive our spiritual being, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii). Therefore we are also nourished by Baptism. Consequently there was no need to institute this sacrament as spiritual nourishment.
\n[III.q.73.a.5.arg.1] Ad quintum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod ignis purgatorius non liberet a reatu pœnæ. Omnis enim purgatio respicit fœditatem. Sed pœna non importat aliquam fœditatem. Ergo ignis purgatorius non liberat a pœna.
\n[III.q.73.a.5.arg.2] Further, men are united with Christ through this sacrament as the members with the head. But Christ is the Head of all men, even of those who have existed from the beginning of the world, as stated above (8, 3,6). Therefore the institution of this sacrament should not have been postponed till the Lord's supper.
\n[III.q.73.a.5.arg.2] 2. Præterea, contrarium non purgatur nisi per suum contrarium. Sed pœna non contrariatur pœnæ. Ergo per pœnam purgatorii non purgatur aliquis a reatu pœnæ.
\n[III.q.73.a.5.arg.3] Further, this sacrament is called the memorial of our Lord's Passion, according to Matthew 26 (Luke 22:19): \"Do this for a commemoration of Me.\" But a commemoration is of things past. Therefore, this sacrament should not have been instituted before Christ's Passion.
\n[III.q.73.a.5.arg.3] 3. Præterea, I Corinth., 111, super illud: Salvus erit, sic tamen, etc., dicit Glossa: «Ignis iste tentatio tribulationis, de qua scriptum est: Vasa figuli probat fornax, etc., Eccli., xxvii, 6. » Ergo homo expiatur ab omni pœna per pœnas hujus mundi, saltem per mortem, quæ est maxima pœnarum, et non per purgatorium ignem.
\n[III.q.73.a.5.arg.4] Further, a man is prepared by Baptism for the Eucharist, which ought to be given only to the baptized. But Baptism was instituted by Christ after His Passion and Resurrection, as is evident from Matthew 28:19. Therefore, this sacrament was not suitably instituted before Christ's Passion.
\n[III.q.73.a.5.sc] This sacrament was instituted by Christ, of Whom it is said (Mark 7:37) that \"He did all things well.\"
\n[III.q.73.a.5.sc] Sed contra est quod pœna purgatorii est gravior quam pœna quælibet hujus mundi, ut supra dictum est. Sed per pœnam satisfactoriam, quam aliquis in hac vita sustinet, expiatura debito pœnæ. Ergo multo fortius per pœnam purgatorii.
\n[III.q.73.a.5.co] This sacrament was appropriately instituted at the supper, when Christ conversed with His disciples for the last time. First of all, because of what is contained in the sacrament: for Christ is Himself contained in the Eucharist sacramentally. Consequently, when Christ was going to leave His disciples in His proper species, He left Himself with them under the sacramental species; as the Emperor's image is set up to be reverenced in his absence. Hence Eusebius says: \"Since He was going to withdraw His assumed body from their eyes, and bear it away to the stars, it was needful that on the day of the supper He should consecrate the sacrament of His body and blood for our sakes, in order that what was once offered up for our ransom should be fittingly worshiped in a mystery.\"
\nSecondly, because without faith in the Passion there could never be any salvation, according to Romans 3:25: \"Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood.\" It was necessary accordingly that there should be at all times among men something to show forth our Lord's Passion; the chief sacrament of which in the old Law was the Paschal Lamb. Hence the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 5:7): \"Christ our Pasch is sacrificed.\" But its successor under the New Testament is the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is a remembrance of the Passion now past, just as the other was figurative of the Passion to come. And so it was fitting that when the hour of the Passion was come, Christ should institute a new Sacrament after celebrating the old, as Pope Leo I says (Serm. lviii).
\nThirdly, because last words, chiefly such as are spoken by departing friends, are committed most deeply to memory; since then especially affection for friends is more enkindled, and the things which affect us most are impressed the deepest in the soul. Consequently, since, as Pope Alexander I says, \"among sacrifices there can be none greater than the body and blood of Christ, nor any more powerful oblation\"; our Lord instituted this sacrament at His last parting with His disciples, in order that it might be held in the greater veneration. And this is what Augustine says (Respons. ad Januar. i): \"In order to commend more earnestly the death of this mystery, our Saviour willed this last act to be fixed in the hearts and memories of the disciples whom He was about to quit for the Passion.\"
\n[III.q.73.a.5.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod quicum-que est debitor alicujus per hoc a debito absolvitur quod debitum solvit. Et quia reatus nihil est aliud quam debitum pœnæ, per hoc quod aliquis pœnam sustinet quam debebat, a reatu absolvitur; et secundum hoc pœna purgatorii a reatu purgat.
\n[III.q.73.a.5.ad.1] We are nourished from the same things of which we are made, but they do not come to us in the same way; for those out of which we are made come to us through generation, while the same, as nourishing us, come to us through being eaten. Hence, as we are new-born in Christ through Baptism, so through the Eucharist we eat Christ.
\n[III.q.73.a.5.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod reatus quamvis non importet fœditatem quantum in se est, tamen habet ordinem ad fœditatem ex causa sua.
\n[III.q.73.a.5.ad.2] The Eucharist is the perfect sacrament of our Lord's Passion, as containing Christ crucified; consequently it could not be instituted before Incarnation; but then there was room for only such sacraments as were prefigurative of the Lord's Passion.
\n[III.q.73.a.5.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod pœna, quamvis non contrarietur pœnæ, tamen contrariatur reatui ad pœnam, quia ex hoc manet obligatio ad pœnam quod pœnam non sustinuit quam debebat.
\n[III.q.73.a.5.ad.3] This sacrament was instituted during the supper, so as in the future to be a memorial of our Lord's Passion as accomplished. Hence He said expressively: \"As often as ye shall do these things\" [Cf. Canon of the Mass, speaking of the future.
\n[III.q.73.a.5.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod in eisdem verbis sacræ Scripturæ latet multiplex intellectus: unde ignis ille potest intelligi et tribulatio præsens et pœna sequens; et per utrumque venialia purgari possunt. Sed quod mors naturalis ad hoc non sufficiat, supra dictum est.
\n[III.q.73.a.5.ad.4] The institution responds to the order of intention. But the sacrament of the Eucharist, although after Baptism in the receiving, is yet previous to it in intention; and therefore it behooved to be instituted first. or else it can be said that Baptism was already instituted in Christ's Baptism; hence some were already baptized with Christ's Baptism, as we read in John 3:22.
\n[III.q.73.a.6.arg.1] It seems that the Paschal Lamb was not the chief figure of this sacrament, because (Psalm 109:4) Christ is called \"a priest according to the order of Melchisedech,\" since Melchisedech bore the figure of Christ's sacrifice, in offering bread and wine. But the expression of likeness causes one thing to be named from another. Therefore, it seems that Melchisedech's offering was the \"principal\" figure of this sacrament.
\n[III.q.73.a.6.arg.1] Ad sextum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod ab illa pœna unus non liberetur alio citius. Quanto enim gravior est culpa et major reatus, tanto acerbior pœna imponitur in purgatorio. Sed quæ est proportio pœna acerbioris ad culpam graviorem, eadem est proportio pœnæ levioris ad culpam leviorem. Ergo ita cito liberatur unus a pœna illa, sicut alius.
\n[III.q.73.a.6.arg.2] Further, the passage of the Red Sea was a figure of Baptism, according to 1 Corinthians 10:2: \"All . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea.\" But the immolation of the Paschal Lamb was previous to the passage of the Red Sea, and the Manna came after it, just as the Eucharist follows Baptism. Therefore the Manna is a more expressive figure of this sacrament than the Paschal Lamb.
\n[III.q.73.a.6.arg.2] 2. Præterea, inæqualibus meritis reduntur æquales retributiones et in cælo et in inferno, quantum ad durationem. Ergo videtur similiter esse in purgatorio.
\n[III.q.73.a.6.arg.3] Further, the principal power of this sacrament is that it brings us into the kingdom of heaven, being a kind of \"viaticum.\" But this was chiefly prefigured in the sacrament of expiation when the \"high-priest entered once a year into the Holy of Holies with blood,\" as the Apostle proves in Hebrews 9. Consequently, it seems that that sacrifice was a more significant figure of this sacrament than was the Paschal Lamb.
\n[III.q.73.a.6.sc] The Apostle says (1 Corinthians 5:7-8): \"Christ our Pasch is sacrificed; therefore let us feast . . . with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.\"
\n[III.q.73.a.6.sc] Sed contra est similitudo Apostoli, qui differentias venialium per lignum, fenum et stipulam, significavit, I Cor., III. Sed constat quod lignum diutius manet inigne quam fenum et stipula. Ergo unum peccatum veniale diutius punitur in purgatorio quam aliud.
\n[III.q.73.a.6.co] We can consider three things in this sacrament: namely, that which is sacrament only, and this is the bread and wine; that which is both reality and sacrament, to wit, Christ's true body; and lastly that which is reality only, namely, the effect of this sacrament. Consequently, in relation to what is sacrament only, the chief figure of this sacrament was the oblation of Melchisedech, who offered up bread and wine. In relation to Christ crucified, Who is contained in this sacrament, its figures were all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, especially the sacrifice of expiation, which was the most solemn of all. While with regard to its effect, the chief figure was the Manna, \"having in it the sweetness of every taste\" (Wisdom 16:20), just as the grace of this sacrament refreshes the soul in all respects.
\nThe Paschal Lamb foreshadowed this sacrament in these three ways. First of all, because it was eaten with unleavened loaves, according to Exodus 12:8: \"They shall eat flesh . . . and unleavened bread.\" As to the second because it was immolated by the entire multitude of the children of Israel on the fourteenth day of the moon; and this was a figure of the Passion of Christ, Who is called the Lamb on account of His innocence. As to the effect, because by the blood of the Paschal Lamb the children of Israel were preserved from the destroying Angel, and brought from the Egyptian captivity; and in this respect the Paschal Lamb is the chief figure of this sacrament, because it represents it in every respect.
\nFrom this the answer to the Objections is manifest.
\nThe Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
\n[III.q.73.a.6.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod quædam venialia sunt majoris adhærentiæ quam alia, secundum quod affectus magis ad ea inclinatur, et fortius in eis figitur. Et quia ea quæ sunt majoris adhærentiæ, tardius purgantur, ideo quidam in pur- 4 Nicolaï addit.: « Cæterum quod sit ignis proprie dictus vera purgatorii pœna, ut supponitur ex prædictis, patet aperte satis ex Latinorum et Græcorum locutione uniformi, priusquam in dubium ac disceptationem ejus veritas vocaretur. Inter Latinos enim Augustinus, in ps. xxxvii: « In hac vita me purges, et talem reddas cui emendatorioigne non sit opus: » et lib. L Homiliarum, hom. xvi: « Qui temporalibus pœnis digna gesserunt, per ignem quemdam purgatorium transibunt; » ut et lib. II De Genesi contra Manich., cap. xx: « Qui agrum suum non coluerit, et spinis eum opprimi permiserit, vel ignem purgationis, vel pœnam æternam, post hanc vitam habebit. » Ambrosius in psal. cxviii, conc. 3: « Hic, seu in præsenti vita, purgatus necesse habet illic purificari, scilicet post hanc vitam, ut unusquisque nostrum ustus romphæa illa flammea, non exustus, introgressus in illam paradisi amœnitatem gratias agat Deo, etc. » Non refert quod post consummationem sæculi hoc futurum indicat, quia si qui reperiantur eo tempore purgatione indigenes, per ignem purgabuntur, quem symbolice per flammeam romphæam, seu flammeum gladium in vestibulo paradisi terrestris collocatum designat; idem de illis quadam proportione subintelligi debet qui post cosummationem vitæ suæ purgatione opus habent, ut ad æternam vitam et gloriam subinde admittantur, quam ante judicium universale, vel consummationem sæculi, percipiunt, ex Ambrosii mente, qui ea digni sunt habiti; cum de Anacholio dicat, lib. III Epistolarum, epist. xxii, vel, ut alii citant, lib. VII, epist. xxxix, quod « jam æternæ Jerusalem possessor videt facie ad faciem; » unde purgantem ignem statim post consummationem vitæ in purgandis agnoscit. Hieronymus etiam peccatorum christianorum opera « igne probanda et purganda, » in Isaiam significat, purgatorium insinuans, quod in æternum cruciandis opposit: similiter et Gregorius, lib. IV Dialogorum, cap. xxxix: « De levibus quibusdam culpis esse ante judicium purgatorius ignis credendus est. » Bernardus quoque inter gatorio diutius quam alii torquentur, secundum quod effectus eorum ad venialia fuit magis immersus.
\n