Thomas Aquinas

After the apostle has set forth the institution of this sacrament as regards the consecration of the body, here he sets forth its institution as regards the consecration of the blood. And first he sets forth the order of the institution; second, the words, when he says this cup, etc. Now the order is attended to as regards two things. First, as regards the concomitance of both species, when he says likewise also the cup. For each belongs to the perfection of this sacrament, both on account of the perfection of the refreshment, and on account of the representation of the passion, and on account of the effecting of the salvation of soul and body, as was said above. But if the body of Christ is consecrated first in this sacrament, and afterward the blood, it seems to follow that before the consecration of the blood, the body of Christ in this sacrament is bloodless: which some, judging this unfitting, said that the two forms wait upon one another in their effecting, in such a way, namely, that the first form, the consecration of the body, does not attain its effect until the form of the consecration of the blood is completed; just as it was also said, that the words which are uttered in the consecration of the body do not attain their effect until the end of the utterance of the words. But this is not alike. For the signification of the words by which the body of Christ is consecrated is not completed except at the end of their utterance. And because sacramental words effect by signifying, therefore they cannot have their effect before the end of the utterance. But they have their full signification then, even before the words of the consecration of the blood are uttered, and therefore it is necessary that even then they have their effect. Otherwise the priest would sin immediately after the words of consecration, in proposing to the people for adoration a host not consecrated, unless the body of Christ were already there, since he would be leading the people into idolatry. It must therefore be said that before the consecration of the blood, the body of Christ is in this sacrament, not without blood. For it is to be known that something is in this sacrament in two ways. In one way by force of the consecration, namely that into which the conversion of the bread and wine is terminated, as is signified by the form of consecration, and thus under the species of bread is the body of Christ. In another way something is in this sacrament by real concomitance, just as the divinity of the Word is in this sacrament on account of its indissoluble union to the body of Christ, although the substance of bread is in no way converted into the divinity. And likewise the soul is there, which is really joined to that body itself. But if in 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, which was then really separated from the body. And the same must be said of the blood. For under the species of bread, by force of the consecration, is the body of Christ, into which the substance of bread is converted. But the blood is there by real concomitance, because at that time the blood of Christ is not really separated from his body. And, by the same reasoning, under the species of wine is the blood of Christ by force of the consecration, but the body by real concomitance, so that under either species is the whole Christ. But if at the time of the passion, when the blood of Christ was poured out from the body, this sacrament had been completed by one of the apostles, under the species of bread there would have been only the body of Christ, bloodless, and under the species of wine there would have been only the blood of Christ.

Second, the order is attended to by comparison to the material foods which had preceded, where he adds after he had supped, which he seems to have added deliberately. For Christ handed over his body during supper. Hence Matt. 26 it is said that as they were supping Jesus took bread, etc. But he gave the blood expressly after supper. Hence also Lk. 22:20 it is said likewise also the cup after he had supped, saying, etc. The reason for this is that the body of Christ represents the mystery of the incarnation, which took place while the legal observances still had their standing, among which the chief was the supper 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 legal observances were brought to an end. Hence Heb. 9:12 it is said that through his own blood he entered once into the holies, eternal redemption having been found.

Then he sets forth the words, saying this cup, etc. And first he demonstrates the truth of this sacrament; second he enjoins its use, at do this, etc. As to the first, then, he says this cup, etc. This can indeed be taken in two ways. In one way metonymically, namely so that the container is put for the contained, as if he were to say: what is contained in this cup; which is more fittingly put in the consecration of wine, which on account of its humidity needs other terms to contain it, than in the consecration of bread, which on account of its dryness is contained by its own terms. In another way it can be taken metaphorically, so that the sense is: as a cup inebriates and disturbs, so also does the passion. Hence Matt. 20:22 he says: can you drink the cup that I am about to drink? And Matt. 26:39: let this cup pass from me. The sense here is therefore this cup, that is, what is contained in this cup, or this my passion, is the new testament in my blood. Hence it is to be considered that testament is taken in two ways in the Scriptures. In one way commonly for any pact whatsoever, which indeed is confirmed by witnesses, and thus it is to be considered that God entered into a pact with the human race in two ways. In one way by promising temporal goods and freeing from temporal evils: and this is called the old testament, or pact. In another way by promising spiritual goods and freeing from the opposed evils: and this is called the new testament. Hence it is said Jer. 31:31: I will make with the house of Israel and the house of Judah a new covenant, not according to the covenant which I made with your fathers, that I might lead them out of the land of Egypt, but this shall be the covenant: I will give my law in their inward parts, and I will be to them for a God. Now it is to be considered that among the ancients there was a custom that they would pour out the blood of some victim for the confirmation of a pact. Hence Gen. 31:54 it is read, that after Laban and Jacob entered into a covenant, victims having been sacrificed on the mountain, he called his brothers. Hence also Ex. 24:8 it is read, that Moses took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people, and said: this is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you. Just as, then, the old testament or pact was confirmed by the figural blood of bulls, so the new testament or pact is confirmed in the blood of Christ, who through the passion was poured out. And in this cup the sacrament is contained in such a manner.

In another way testament is taken more strictly for the disposition of an inheritance to be received, which according to the laws must be confirmed by a fixed number of witnesses. But testament taken in this way is not confirmed except by death, because, as the apostle says Heb. 9:17, a testament is confirmed in the dead, otherwise it is not yet valid, while he who made the testament lives. Now God had first indeed made a disposition concerning the eternal inheritance to be received, but under the figure of temporal goods, which pertains to the old testament; but afterward he made the new testament, expressly promising the eternal inheritance, which indeed was confirmed by the blood of Christ's death. And therefore the Lord says of this: this cup is the new testament in my blood; as if he were to say: by what is contained in the cup is commemorated the new testament confirmed through the blood of Christ.

Now it is to be noted that the same words which the apostle sets down here are found in Lk. 22:20, except that there is added: which shall be poured out for you. For Luke was a disciple of Paul and followed him in the writing of the Gospel. But Matt. 26:28 it is said for this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be poured out for many unto the remission of sins. The same words are set down in Mk. 14:24. Some therefore say that whatever forms of these words are uttered, which are written in the canon, suffice for consecration. But it seems more probable to say that consecration is accomplished only by those words which the Church uses from the tradition of the apostles, structured. For the evangelists intended to recount the Lord's words insofar as pertains to the account of the history, not, however, according as they are ordered to the consecration of the sacraments, which they kept hidden in the primitive Church, on account of unbelievers. Hence Dionysius says in the last chapter of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: it is not lawful to expound the perfective invocations in the Scriptures, nor to bring forth their mystical power, wrought beforehand in them from God, out of hiddenness into the common. But concerning those words which the Church uses in the consecration of the blood, some are of the opinion that not all of them are of the necessity of the form but only what is said this is the cup of my blood, and not the remainder which follows: of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be poured out for you and for many unto the remission of sins. But this does not seem to be fittingly said. For all of that which follows is a certain determination of the predicate. Hence it also pertains to the sense or signification of the same locution. And because, as has often been said, the forms of the sacraments effect by signifying, the whole pertains to the effective power of the form. Nor does the reason which they bring forward stand in the way, namely that in the consecration of the body it suffices that it be said this is my body, because the blood consecrated separately specially represents the passion of Christ, by which his blood was separated from the body. And therefore in the consecration of the blood it was fitting to express the power of Christ's passion, which is attended to, first indeed, with respect to our fault, which the passion of Christ abolishes, according to that Apoc. 1:5: he washed us from our sins in his own blood, and, as to this, he says which shall be poured out for you and for many unto the remission of sins. For the blood was indeed poured out for the remission of sins, not only for many, but also for all, according to that 1 Jn. 2:2: he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. But because some render themselves unworthy to receive such an effect, as to its efficacy it is said to have been poured out for many, in whom the passion of Christ has its effect. Now he says deliberately for you and for many, because this sacrament avails unto the remission of sins for those who receive it by way of sacrament, which is noted deliberately, when it is said for you, to whom he had said take. It also avails by way of sacrifice for many who do not receive it, for whom it is offered; which is signified when it is said: and for many.

Second, its power is considered by comparison to the life of justice, which it effects through faith, according to that Rom. 3:24: justified freely by his grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom he set forth as a propitiation through faith in his blood. And as to this, he says: mystery, that is, hidden, of faith, because indeed the faith of Christ's passion was hidden in all the sacrifices of the old testament, as truth in a sign. Now the Church has this from the tradition of the apostles, since it is not found in the canon of Scripture.

Third, its power is attended to as regards the life of glory, into which it is introduced through the passion of Christ, according to that Heb. 10:19: having confidence for entrance into the holies in the blood of Christ. And as to this, he says: of the new and eternal testament. Eternal indeed, because it is a disposition concerning the eternal inheritance. New, however, in contrast to the old, because it promised temporal things. Hence Heb. 9:15 it is said: therefore he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death intervening, they who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Then when he says do this, etc., he enjoins the use of this sacrament, saying do this, as often as you receive it, in my commemoration, namely in memory of my passion. Hence also Lam. 3:20 the prophet says: with remembrance I will remember, and my soul will languish within me. And Is. 63:7: I will remember the mercies of the Lord.

Now it is to be noted that in the cup wine ought chiefly to be put, for the reasons said above. But water also ought to be added. For it is probable that Christ at the supper gave the disciples mixed wine, on account of the custom of that land, in which, in order to temper the strength of the wine, wine mixed with water is drunk by all. Hence also Prov. 9:5 Wisdom says: drink the wine which I have mixed for you. Nevertheless, water mixed with wine signifies the Christian people joined to Christ through the passion, according to that Apoc. 17:15: the waters are peoples and nations. And the participation of the blood of Christ by the faithful pertains to the use of the sacrament, which is not of the necessity of this sacrament. But wine can be consecrated without water, although he who so consecrates sins, not observing the rite of the Church. And therefore if the priest before the consecration of the wine notices that water has not been added to the cup, he ought to add it. But if he notices after the consecration, he ought not to add it, but ought to complete the sacrament. For nothing after the consecration is to be mixed with the blood of Christ, because such a mixture could not be without some corruption of the consecrated wine, which pertains to the crime of sacrilege. Some, however, say that since blood and water flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross, as is read Jn. 19:34, just as the wine is converted into blood, so the water into water. But this does not fit, because in that water is figured the washing which is through Baptism. And therefore others say that, the conversion of the wine into blood having taken place, the water remains in its own substance, and is surrounded by the accidents of the wine. But this does not fit, because the water is mixed with the wine before the consecration, when it does not differ from other wine. Hence it does not remain apart, but is mixed together. And therefore it is to be said that the water is converted into wine and thus the whole is converted into the blood of Christ. On account of which the custom is to add a little water, and especially if the wine is weak, which cannot convert into itself more than a little water.

Then when he says as often as, etc., he expounds the words of the Lord which he had said, do this in my commemoration, saying for as often as you shall eat this bread, etc. And he says bread, on account of the remaining species. But he says this, on account of the same body in number signified and contained. And the cup, namely this, you shall drink, you shall announce the death of the Lord, namely representing it through this sacrament. And this, until he come, that is, until his final coming, in which it is given to understand, that this rite of the Church will not cease until the end of the world, according to that Matt. ult.: behold I am with you even to the consummation of the age. And Lk. 21:32: this generation shall not pass away, namely of the Church, until all things come to pass.