1Cor 11:25

“We may not, I say, we may not call into question the truth of the (poor vilified) senses, lest we should even in Christ Himself, bring doubt upon the truth of their sensation; lest perchance it should be said that He did not really "behold Satan as lightning fall from heaven; " that He did not really hear the Father's voice testifying of Himself; or that He was deceived in touching Peter's wife's mother; or that the fragrance of the ointment which He afterwards smelled was different from that which He accepted for His burial; and that the taste of the wine was different from that which He consecrated in memory of His blood. On this false principle it was that Marcion actually chose to believe that He was a phantom, denying to Him the reality of a perfect body.”

“"In like manner also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the New Covenant in My Blood: this do, as oft as ye drink of it, in remembrance of Me." What sayest thou? Art thou making a remembrance of Christ, and despisest thou the poor and tremblest not? Why, if a son or brother had died and thou wert making a remembrance of him, thou wouldst have been smitten by thy conscience, hadst thou not fulfilled the custom and invited the poor: and when thou art making remembrance of thy Master, dost thou not so much as simply give a portion of the Table? But what is it which He saith, "This cup is the New Covenant?" Because there was also a cup of the Old Covenant; the libations and the blood of the brute creatures. For after sacrificing, they used to receive the blood in a chalice and bowl and so pour it out. Since then instead of the blood of beasts He brought in His own Blood; lest any should be troubled on hearing this, He reminds them of that ancient sacrifice.”

“The word cup means nothing other than the new covenant in the Lord.… The grace of suffering was intended by the Lord when the word cup is used. For what did he wish to be understood when he said to the sons of Zebedee, "Can you drink the cup that I am going to drink?" … and "Shall I not drink the cup that the Father gave me?" A stone's throw from his disciples he is torn away to die for the sins of humanity. This is his cup of suffering. He shows his feelings of human weakness, saying … "Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me.".”

“And in the Old Testament there were cups into which, after the sacrifice, the blood of irrational animals was poured (Exod. 24:6–8), and it was received with a goblet and a cup. Therefore, in place of the blood of irrational animals, which sealed the Old Testament, I now offer My Blood, sealing with it the New Testament. Therefore, do not be troubled when you hear of blood. For if in the Old Testament you received the blood of irrational animals, how much more ought you now to receive the Divine Blood? And through the cup, he says, you perform a remembrance of the Master's death. How then do you alone drink and get drunk, when this fearful cup was given equally for all?”

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

“when he had supped--Greek, "after the eating of supper," namely, the Passover supper which preceded the Lord's Supper, as the love-feast did subsequently. Therefore, you Corinthians ought to separate common meals from the Lord's Supper [BENGEL]. the new testament--or "covenant." The cup is the parchment-deed, as it were, on which My new covenant, or last will is written and sealed, making over to you all blessings here and hereafter. in my blood--ratified by MY blood: "not by the blood of goats and calves" (Heb 9:12). as oft as--Greek, "as many times soever": implying that it is an ordinance often to be partaken of. in remembrance of me--Luke (Luk 22:19) expresses this, which is understood by Matthew and Mark. Paul twice records it (Co1 11:24 and here) as suiting his purpose. The old sacrifices brought sins continually to remembrance (Heb 10:1, Heb 10:3). The Lord's Supper brings to remembrance Christ and His sacrifice once for all for the full and final remission of sins.”