Thomas Aquinas

Where the Apostle had rebuked the Corinthians for their error in dress — namely, that women were coming to the sacred mysteries with head unveiled — he next argues against their error concerning the divisions in their assembly, namely, that while they were coming together for the sacred mysteries, they were engaging in contentions. And first he touches on their fault in general; second, in particular, where he says, first indeed, etc.

He says therefore first: This, however — that which was said above, that women should be veiled in the churches — I command, so that in this way he might induce them to this observance in a threefold manner: first indeed by reason, second by custom, third by precept, which alone, without the others, would induce necessity. Proverbs 4:4: Keep my precepts, and you shall live. And Ecclesiastes 4:12 says: A threefold cord is broken with difficulty. Not praising, but rather blaming, that you come together into the Church, not for the better, as it ought to be, but for the worse, through your own fault.

For all gregarious animals, for instance doves, cranes, sheep, come together into one by natural instinct, so that it may be better for them bodily. Hence man too, since he is a gregarious or social animal, as the Philosopher proves in Book I of the Politics, ought to act according to reason, so that many may come together into one for the sake of some good, just as in secular affairs many come together into the unity of a city, so that it may be better for them in secular terms, namely on account of the security and sufficiency of life. And therefore the faithful ought to come together into one for the sake of some spiritual good, according to Psalm 101:23: In the gathering together of peoples into one, and of kings, that they may serve the Lord. And elsewhere: In the council of the just and in the congregation, great are the works of the Lord. But these men were coming together for the worse, on account of the faults which they were committing while they came together. Isaiah 1:13: Your assemblies are wicked. Ecclesiasticus 21:10: The synagogue of sinners is gathered tow.

Then, when he says, first indeed, etc., he sets down in particular how they were coming together for the worse. And first he sets down the judgment of the fault, saying, first indeed — that is, among other things, namely that you come together for the worse — when you come together in the Church, I hear that there are divisions among you, namely through the contentions which they were carrying on. This indeed does not befit the Church, which is constituted in unity, according to Ephesians 4:4: One body and one spirit, as you are called in one hope of your calling. This, moreover, is foretold in Isaiah 22:9: You shall see the breaches of the city of David, because they are multiplied. The Gloss says, moreover, that by saying first, he shows that the first evil is dissension, from which the rest arise. For where there is dissension, nothing is right.

But this seems to be otherwise, according to what is said in Ecclesiasticus 10:15: The beginning of all sin is pride; and 1 Timothy, the last chapter: The root of all evils is covetousness. It must be said, however, that these authorities speak with respect to the personal sins of individual men, of which the first is pride on the side of aversion, and covetousness on the side of conversion. But the Gloss here is speaking of the sins of a multitude, among which the first is dissension, through which the rigor of discipline is dissolved. Hence it is said in James 3:16: Where there is envy and contention, there is inconstancy and every evil work.

Second, he sets down the credibility of the hearers, when he says, and in part I believe — that is, with respect to some of you, who were prone to contention, according to what he had said above in chapter 1, verses 11 and following: There are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you says: I indeed am of Paul, I of Apollo, I of Cephas. But others were not contentious, in whose person it is added there: But I am of Christ. Hence also Canticles 2:2 says: As the lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters — that is, the good among the wicked.

Third, he assigns the reason for his belief, saying, for there must be — not only any divisions whatsoever, but even heresies too. Here two things must be considered: first, what heresy is; second, how it is necessary that there be heresies.

Concerning the first, it must be known that, as Jerome says on the Epistle to the Galatians, heresy in Greek is named from choice — namely because each one chooses for himself that teaching which he thinks to be better; from which two things can be gathered. First indeed, that it belongs to the nature of heresy that someone follow a private teaching, as it were by his own choice, and not the public teaching, which is handed down divinely. Second, that someone adhere obstinately to this teaching. For choice implies a firm adherence; and therefore he is called a heretic who, spurning the teaching of the faith which is handed down divinely, obstinately follows his own error.

Now something pertains to the teaching of the faith in two ways. In one way directly, as the articles of faith, which are proposed to be believed in themselves. Hence error concerning these of itself makes one a heretic, if obstinacy be present. Now they cannot be excused from such error on account of any simplicity, especially with regard to those things which the Church solemnizes, and which are commonly on the lips of the faithful, such as the mystery of the Trinity, of the birth of Christ, and other such things. But certain things pertain indirectly to the teaching of the faith, namely insofar as they themselves are not proposed to be believed for their own sake, but from the denial of them something contrary to the faith follows — as if it were denied that Isaac was the son of Abraham, something contrary to the faith would follow, namely that sacred Scripture contains something false. From such things, however, no one is judged a heretic, unless he persevere so obstinately that he does not withdraw from the error, even when he has seen what follows from it. Thus, therefore, the obstinacy by which someone refuses, in those things which belong to the faith directly or indirectly, to submit to the judgment of the Church, makes a man a heretic. Such obstinacy, however, proceeds from the root of pride, by which someone prefers his own opinion to the whole Church. Hence the Apostle says in 1 Timothy 6:3-4: If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but languishing about questions and strifes of words.

Second, it must be considered how it is necessary that there be heresies. For if it is opportune that there be heretics, it seems that they would be commendable, and not to be uprooted. But it must be said that it is said in two ways of something that it is necessary for it to be. In one way from the intention of him who does this, as for instance if we should say that it is necessary that there be judgments — namely because judges, in carrying out judgments, intend to establish justice and peace in human affairs. In another way from the intention of God, who orders even evils toward good, just as he ordered the persecution of tyrants toward the glory of the martyrs. Hence Augustine says in the Enchiridion that God is so good that he would in no way permit any evil to be done, unless he were so powerful that he could draw good out of any evil whatsoever. And according to this it is said in Matthew 18:7: It must needs be that scandals come, nevertheless woe to that man through whom the scandal comes. And according to this the Apostle here says that there must be heresies, from the fact that God ordered the malice of heretics toward the good of the faithful.

And this he says, first indeed, for the greater manifestation of the truth. Hence Augustine says, in the City of God, Book XVI, as found in the Gloss: A question raised by an adversary becomes an occasion for learning; for many things pertaining to the Catholic faith, while they are thought out on account of the crafty disquiet of heretics, so that they may be defended against them, are considered more diligently, and understood more clearly, and preached more insistently. Hence also Proverbs 27:17: Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend. Second, to manifest the weakness of faith in those who believe rightly. And this is what the Apostle adds here: that they too who are approved — that is, approved by God — may be made manifest in you, that is, among you. Wisdom 3:6: As gold in the furnace he has proved them.

Then, when he says, when you come together, therefore, etc., he rebukes them for a third offense, namely because they were sinning in the manner and order of receiving the body of Christ. And all that follows can be expounded in two ways.

Now according to the first exposition, they are rebuked for this: that they were receiving the body of Christ after having already dined. Concerning this, therefore, he does four things. First he sets down the detriment which they were incurring; second, he sets down the fault, at the place, for each one, etc.; third, he inquires into the cause of the fault, at the place, have you not houses, etc.; fourth, he concludes with their reproach, at the place, what shall I say to you, etc.

He says, therefore, first, thus: when you come together, there are divisions among you; therefore when you come together into one, in body, not in soul, you have now arrived at this, that it is not — that is, it is not permitted or does not befit you — to eat the Lord's supper, that is, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord gave to his disciples at the supper. For this sacrament, as Augustine says on John, is the sacrament of unity and charity. And therefore it does not befit those who are at variance. Canticles 5:1: Eat, O friends, and drink, and be inebriated, dearly beloved.

Or it can better be referred to what follows, so that the sense is: not only are there divisions among you when you come together, but it now falls to you, coming together, that is, at present you have this determined, that it is not — that is, it is not permitted to you — to eat the Lord's supper, to which you come having already dined. For because the Lord handed down this sacrament to his disciples after supper, as is read in Matthew 26:26, the Corinthians also wished to receive the body of Christ after a common meal.

But the Lord did this reasonably, on account of three things. First indeed, because in fitting order the figure precedes the truth. Now the paschal lamb was the figure, or shadow, of this sacrament. And therefore after the supper of the paschal lamb, Christ gave this sacrament. For it is said in Colossians 2:17, concerning all the things of the law, that they are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. Second, so that from this sacrament he might pass immediately to the passion, of which this sacrament is a memorial. And therefore he said to the disciples, Arise, let us go hence — namely, to the passion. Third, so that this sacrament might be more closely impressed on the hearts of the disciples, to whom he handed it down in his final departure.

But out of reverence for so great a sacrament, the Church afterward instituted that it be received only by those who are fasting, from which the sick are excepted, who, in a case of necessity, which has no law, can receive the body of Christ without fasting. But because water does not break the fast, some have judged that after drinking water someone could receive this sacrament, especially because, as they say, water does not nourish, no more than does any other simple element. But although water in itself does not nourish, and on this account does not break the fast of the Church, according to which some are said to be fasting, nevertheless when mixed with other things it does nourish, and therefore it breaks the fast of nature. And according to this some are said to be fasting, namely those who on the same day have taken nothing, neither food nor drink. And because the remnants of food which remain in the mouth are taken in the manner of saliva, this does not prevent some from being fasting. Likewise it also does not prevent some from being fasting, if they have not slept at all through the night, or even if they have not fully digested, provided that on that same day they have taken absolutely nothing of food or drink. Hence, because the beginning of the day is to be reckoned, according to the usage of the Church, from midnight, therefore whoever after midnight has taken anything, however small, of food or drink, cannot on that same day receive this sacrament.

Then, when he says, for each one, etc., he sets down the fault, and first insofar as they were sinning against God; second, insofar as they were sinning against their neighbor, at the place, and one indeed, etc. He says therefore first: I say this, that it is not lawful for you to eat the Lord's supper, because each one of you takes before — that is, takes in advance — his own supper, namely of common foods, to eat. For each of them was carrying prepared dishes to the church, and each one was eating separately before he received the sacred mysteries. Hosea 4:18: Their banquet is separated, now they shall perish. Ecclesiasticus 11:19 it is said in the person of the miserly: I have found rest for myself, and I ate of my own goods alone.

Then, when he says, and one indeed, etc., he argues their fault, insofar as it was against their neighbor. For the rich were eating sumptuously in the church, and drinking even to drunkenness, but they were giving nothing to the poor, so that they remained hungry. And this is what is said: and one indeed is hungry, namely the poor man, who did not have the means to prepare for himself, while another is drunk, namely the rich man, who ate and drank to excess, contrary to what is said in Nehemiah 8:10: Eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions to them that have not prepared for themselves. Job 31:17: If I have eaten my morsel alone, and the fatherless has not eaten of it.

Then, when he says, have you not houses, etc., he inquires into the cause of this fault. And first he excludes the cause by which they might have been excused. For it is not lawful to apply the house of God, which is set apart for sacred uses, to common uses. Hence also the Lord, in John 2:16, casting out the buyers and sellers from the temple, said: My house shall be called the house of prayer, but you have made it a house of trading. And Augustine says in the Rule: In the oratory let no one do anything except that for which it was made, whence also it received its name. Nevertheless, on account of necessity, namely when someone could not find another house, he could lawfully use the church for eating, or for other such lawful uses. This excuse, therefore, the Apostle excludes, saying, have you not houses, namely your own, to eat and to drink in? So that on this account you might be excused, if you celebrate feasts in the church which you ought to hold in your own houses. Hence also in Luke 5:29 it is said that Levi made a great feast for Christ in his own house.

Second, when he says, or the Church of God, etc., he asserts the cause which renders them inexcusable, of which the first is contempt of the Church of God. And this he sets down, saying, or do you despise the Church of God? And therefore in the church you presume to eat your own supper. And here Church can be taken both for the congregation of the faithful, and for the sacred house, which is not to be despised, according to Psalm 92:5: Holiness becomes your house; and Jeremiah 7:11: Is this house, in which my name has been called upon in your eyes, become a den of robbers? But these men were despising both, since, in the presence of the assembly of the faithful, they were celebrating feasts in the sacred place.

Second, he sets down contempt for their neighbors in that which is added: and you put to shame them that have not. For in this the poor were made to blush, that they themselves were hungry in the sight of the whole multitude, while others were eating and drinking sumptuously. Now it is said in Proverbs 17:5: He that despises the poor reproaches his Maker. And Ecclesiasticus 4:2: Do not despise a hungry soul.

Then, when he says, what shall I say, etc., he concludes with their reproach, saying: What shall I say to you from the consideration of the things aforesaid? Shall I praise you? And he answers: and if in other deeds I praise you, yet in this deed I do not praise you. And it must be noted that above, while he was speaking about the dress of women, he at least ironically praised them, saying: I praise you, that in all things of me, etc. But here he does not wish to praise them even ironically, because in more grave offenses sinners are in no way to be handled gently. Hence also in Psalm 9:3 it is said: because the sinner is praised in the desires of his soul, and the unjust man is blessed. The sinner has provoked the Lord. And Isaiah 3:12: O my people, they that call you blessed, the same deceive you.

But according to the other exposition, they are accused of another fault. For in the primitive Church the faithful used to offer bread and wine, which were consecrated into the blood and body of Christ; and when these had already been consecrated, the rich, who had offered much, would claim back the same for themselves, and thus they themselves received abundantly, while the poor, who had offered nothing, received nothing. Of this fault, therefore, the Apostle here reproves them, saying: for when you come together into one, it is now not — that is, it does not happen among you — to eat the Lord's supper. For the Lord's supper is common to the whole family; but each one of you receives it, not as common, but as his own, since he wishes to claim for himself what he offered to God; and this is what he adds: each one takes before — that is, presumptuously attempts — to eat the supper, namely of the Lord, that is, the consecrated bread and wine, as his own — that is, claiming as his own property, namely those things which have been consecrated to the Lord, for his own uses. And so it follows that one, namely the poor man who offered nothing, is hungry, taking nothing of the consecrated things, while another, namely the rich man who offered much, is drunk; literally, on account of this, that he took too much of the consecrated wine, which he demanded back as it were his own.

But this seems to be impossible, that anyone should be made drunk from the consecrated wine, or even be nourished from the bread, since after the consecration nothing remains under the species of bread and wine except the substance of the body and blood of Christ, which cannot be converted into the body of a man, so that he might be nourished from them, or be made drunk. Some therefore say that this does not happen through any conversion, but only through an alteration of a man's senses by the accidents of bread and wine, which remain after the consecration. For men are accustomed to be strengthened merely by the odor of foods, and to be stupefied and, as it were, made drunk by a great deal of the odor of wine. But the strengthening or stupefaction, which arises only from an alteration of the senses, lasts for a short time; whereas after the consecration of bread or wine, if wine or bread were taken in a great quantity, a man would be sustained for a long time on account of the bread, or would be stupefied on account of the wine. And moreover it is clear that the consecrated bread can be converted into another substance, from the fact that through putrefaction it is dissolved into dust, or through burning into ashes. Hence there is no reason why it should be denied that it can nourish, since for nourishing nothing else is required except that the food be converted into the substance of the one nourished.

Some, therefore, have held that the consecrated bread or wine can be converted into something else, and thus nourish, because the substance of bread or wine remains there together with the substance of the body and blood of Christ. But this is contrary to the words of Scripture. For it would not be true, what the Lord says in Matthew 26:26: For this is my body, because this, which is pointed to, would be bread — but rather it would have to be said, here, that is, in this place, is my body. And moreover the body of Christ does not begin to be in this sacrament through a change of place, because then it would cease to be in heaven. Hence it remains that it begins to be there through the conversion of something else, namely of the bread, into itself; hence it cannot be that the substance of bread remains.

And therefore others have said that the substantial form of bread remains there, to which the operation of the thing pertains, and therefore it nourishes, just as bread would nourish. But this cannot be, because to nourish is to be converted into the substance of the one nourished, which does not belong to the nourishment 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 alone were there, the bread could not nourish.

But others said that the surrounding air is converted either into the substance of the one nourished, or into whatever else of this kind; but this could not happen without a great condensation of the air, which could not escape the senses. And therefore others have said that, by divine power, so that the sacrament may not be detected in conversions of this kind, the substance of bread and wine returns. But this seems to be impossible, because, since the substance of bread has been converted into the body of Christ, it does not seem that the substance of bread could return, unless conversely the body of Christ were converted into bread. And moreover, if the substance of bread returns, either this happens with the accidents of bread remaining — and thus there would be at the same time there the substance of bread and the substance of the body of Christ, which was disproved above; for the substance of the body of Christ is there for as long as the species remain. Or it returns with the species not remaining, which is also impossible, because thus the substance of bread would be without its own accidents — unless perhaps it be understood that God, at the term of the conversion, would cause there a certain matter which would be the subject of this conversion.

But it is better to say that, just as by the power of consecration it is miraculously conferred on the species of bread and wine that they subsist without a subject after the manner of a substance, so also it is miraculously conferred on them, as a consequence, that they act and are acted upon in whatever way the substance of bread or wine could act or be acted upon, if it 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. The rest is not changed from the first exposition.