Estius' Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

1 Cor 11:23: "FOR I RECEIVED FROM THE LORD WHAT I ALSO DELIVERED TO YOU…"

"I DELIVERED" — not something different, but this very thing which I received from the Lord. He repeats in writing the doctrine which he had delivered by word of mouth concerning the institution of the sacred Eucharist. Which indeed he would not have done if there had not been sin committed by the Corinthians against that tradition. From which it is manifest that it was not the purpose of the Apostles to commit to writing all things pertaining to the Christian faith, but that those things alone were written by them which occurred to be written on the occasion of events; the rest remained in unwritten traditions.

Nevertheless, it is not to be doubted that this mystery of the Eucharist was handed down even in writing by the certain counsel of God. Which indeed the greatness of the mystery seemed so to demand, that it should exist written not by one, but by many. For just as it was not sufficient for the Holy Spirit that the testimony of the Father concerning Christ—"This is my beloved Son," etc.—was written by three Evangelists, but He also willed it to be written by Peter as by a fourth Evangelist, namely on account of the excellence of the mystery; so neither was it sufficient for Him that the institution of the most holy Eucharist was commemorated by three Evangelists, but He also willed it to be described by Paul as by a fourth Evangelist, so that the faith and veneration of so great a sacrament might be more commended to the faithful.

Nor indeed did John think it necessary for himself to write what he understood had already been done by four Evangelists (I mean Paul as the fourth), as by a perfect number of writers.

But now you may ask: How does this narration of Paul cohere with the preceding things? Or what altogether moved Paul to insert the description of this mystery instituted by the Lord in this place, since in the preceding things nothing was said about the Eucharist, but only about this: that the Corinthians were reproved because they had perverted the form of the Lord's Supper, which we have shown was distinct from the perception of the Eucharist?

All the Greek interpreters offer this reason: that by the example of Christ, who deemed all the disciples worthy of the same table and the same mysteries, not even removing His own betrayer, He teaches the Corinthians how they themselves ought to celebrate the Lord's Supper, common to all brothers.

But certainly, from Paul himself, a far different reason for this commemoration of the institution is gathered. For the Corinthians were celebrating the Lord's Supper in such a way that, contrary to the dignity and reverence of the sacred mysteries—whose celebration immediately followed that supper—they were sinning most gravely, inasmuch as they came to participate in them altogether unworthy, after banquets, gluttony, and drunkenness, and after injury to the poor and contempt for the Church of God.

Wishing to demonstrate this and to correct so great a sin, the Apostle recalls the institution of the sacrament, from which evidently may be understood both the greatness of the mysteries and the gravity of the sin of those by whom they had been so unworthily treated. The aim of the Apostle is manifestly proved by those words which immediately follow the narration, and by which he applies it to his purpose, warning what the faithful ought to do among the mysteries and how they ought to approach prepared to receive them, and striking terror into those who did not fear to receive badly and unworthily.

Therefore, the consequence of the Apostle's words is such: "Your deed, O Corinthians, does not deserve praise, but severe chastisement. For you offend vehemently against those mysteries long ago delivered to you by me. That you may understand this (for you seem to have forgotten the tradition), I will repeat in this place the very institution of the sacrament."

"FOR I," he says, "RECEIVED" — that is, I was taught — "FROM CHRIST THE LORD." He says he received from the Lord, not through the Apostles who had conversed with the Lord in the flesh, nor through their disciples, as Theodore Beza wishes (who also thinks it probable that Paul took this whole passage from the Gospel of Luke, since neither can it be proved that Luke wrote before Paul). And indeed in this way even the Corinthians had received from the Lord. Indeed, thus even we have received from the Lord, undoubtedly through apostolic writings and apostolic traditions.

But he feels that he received from the Lord immediately, namely through revelation, just as he says in Galatians 1 concerning his Gospel: "For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but through revelation of Jesus Christ." Paul recalls this willingly to establish the dignity and authority of his doctrine against his rivals and contemptors.

"THAT THE LORD JESUS, ON THE NIGHT WHEN HE WAS BETRAYED, TOOK BREAD…"

"This," he says, "I received and delivered: that the Lord Jesus, on the same night on which He was shortly afterwards betrayed by His disciple betrayer into the hands of the Jews, having finished the legal supper with His disciples, took bread into His hands."

The Apostle mentions the betrayal of Christ both to commend His charity, who in the near expectation of so great an injury as He was about to receive from men, delivered to men the symbols of supreme love; and to indicate how much this mystery is to be valued, which Christ, about to go to passion and death, left to us as a final memorial of Himself.

The bread which He took was unleavened. For that this narration concerns the first day of unleavened bread, toward evening, the three Evangelists—Matthew chapter 26, Mark chapter 14, and Luke chapter 22—affirm concordantly. But at that time, that anything leavened be found in the houses of the Jews was gravely forbidden (Exodus 12:15 & 19). Nor indeed is Christ to be thought to have eaten the Passover with His disciples otherwise than according to the rite prescribed by law, although not subject to the law, as He who was most observant of the paternal law given through Moses throughout His whole life, which among others Chrysostom testifies (Homily 82 on Matthew), discussing this very matter which we now treat.

Wherefore, the Greek Schismatics malignantly accuse the Latins, that is, the Roman Church, because they confect the sacrament of the Body of the Lord in unleavened bread, not as they themselves stupidly contend, and against the sense of all antiquity, that Christ celebrated the supper of the Paschal Lamb in leavened bread, or certainly instituted this sacrament. To refute the arguments which they adduce for their leavened bread is not of this place. Catholic writers have responded to them rightly and copiously, not only Latins, but also some Greeks, among whom Gennadius Scholarius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in Defense of the Council of Florence, chapter 2.

I add only this: the chief argument of the Greeks, which they are accustomed to draw from those words of John 18: "And they themselves did not enter into the praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover," was long ago clearly solved by their chief doctor Chrysostom, writing on Matthew Homily 85. For treating those words of chapter 26: "But those holding Jesus led Him to Caiaphas the chief priest, where the scribes and elders had convened," he says they spent the night at Caiaphas watching, so much so that they neglected to eat the Passover that night. To prove which, having interposed the recalled words from John, he thus proceeds: "Whence it is clearly evident that, out of eagerness to kill Christ, they prevaricated and ate the Passover on another day. For Christ did not transgress the time of the Passover, but those most audacious men, transgressing the precepts of the law in a thousand ways, because they were so inflamed and had often tried to seize Him, could do nothing; having unexpectedly obtained what they desired, they postponed the time of Passover that they might satisfy their minds burning with slaughter."

These things he says, manifestly signifying that Christ celebrated the Passover at the legitimate time, at which namely the rest of the people did; but the Pontiffs, lest they lose the opportunity of destroying Christ offered by the betrayer, spent that night in which the Passover was to be celebrated in plotting counsels against Christ and seeking and suborning witnesses, but transferred their own Passover to the evening of the following day. Thus evidently they dispensed with themselves, so to speak, in the divine law, which was not infrequent for them. For this also Christ had objected in John 7: "Did not Moses give you the law? And none of you keeps the law," undoubtedly speaking of the ceremonial law, which like a Lesbian rule they bent to their interpretations for private affections and conveniences. The opinion of Chrysostom, Theophylact likewise, a Greek though more hostile to the Latins, followed in all things in his commentary on Matthew. Gennadius aforementioned explains this distinctly. There are others who respond to this argument of the Greeks differently, nor in one way. But to us, what we have adduced from Chrysostom seems most prompt and probable.

1 Cor 11:24: "AND GIVING THANKS, HE BROKE…"*

"GIVING THANKS" — in Greek it is the aorist εὐχαριστήσας, having the signification of the past. They express the order of time who thus translate: "And having given thanks," or "when He had given thanks, He broke." For it is signified that the action of thanks preceded the fraction of the bread, and also the pronouncement of the words which are immediately recited.

He gave thanks, without doubt, to God the Father, which the Canon of the Mass openly declares by the words preceding the consecration of both symbols. Where also this is read: that He did this having lifted His eyes to heaven, which He also is accustomed to do elsewhere when about to work some great miracle, as when about to multiply the loaves (Matthew 14) and to raise Lazarus from death (John 11). Although it is sufficiently verisimilar that it was perpetual for Him either giving thanks to the Father or praying to lift His eyes to heaven.

Moreover, He gave thanks to the Father both generally for benefits received by Him in His own person or conferred on the human genus, and specifically for the benefit of the sacrament about to be instituted. Which benefit, although not yet actually bestowed, He nevertheless knew was preordained and promised by the Father and about to be exhibited shortly, for which reason it was matter of thanksgiving. And nevertheless, this action of thanks had joined to it a petition by which the same Lord asked of God the Father the exhibition of the said benefit, that is, the transmutation of the bread into His body. Which good prayer over the bread the Evangelists call a blessing, in that they say Christ blessed. Concerning which matter we have treated sufficiently on that passage of the preceding chapter: "The cup of blessing which we bless," etc.

From this action of thanks, moreover, the sacrament whose institution is reported here is called Eucharist, so that by the very name we also might be excited to give thanks to God. For that voice of the priest about to begin the mysteries admonishes this: "Let us give thanks to the Lord our God." In which words there is a certain imitation of the εὐχαριστία, that is, thanksgiving, which Christ made beginning this mystery; just as also in those words of the Canon: "Which oblation do Thou, O God," etc., there is an imitation of the εὐλογίας, that is, blessing, likewise made by Christ.

Concerning the fraction of which mention is made here, it may be asked whether it preceded the consecration of the bread, which the Lord is said to have broken, or followed. But there will be a place for explaining that matter below, on those words: "Which shall be delivered for you."

"AND SAID: TAKE AND EAT…"

He said, undoubtedly, to His twelve disciples, whom He alone and only had as guests of that banquet. He said, I ask, "Take and eat." Which in Greek is read without a copula: λάβετε φάγετε, just as also in Matthew and Mark. Moreover, these are words not so much of one commanding as of one inviting, although this invitation of the Lord contained the force of a command in itself for those to whom the words were spoken.

"THIS IS MY BODY…"

In Greek indeed in another order: Τοῦτό μου ἐστὶ τὸ σῶμα ("This of mine is body"), but without variation of sense. And if some Greek copies do not express the substantive verb (for certain ones of this sort have been observed), nor thus does anything perish from the sense, no more than in the consecratory words of the cup in Luke, where similarly it is not expressed. For it is familiar to the Hebrews and Syrians to omit and understand the substantive verb in enunciation, so that it is verisimilar that Christ speaking Hebrew or Syrian did not add it, the sense nevertheless remaining constant.

That we may perceive this sense, it must be known that the words of the Lord Christ are not simply and nakedly enunciative, but operatorial, by which namely He effected what He signified. For Christ did not intend by them to affirm that the bread which He held in His hands was His body (which affirmation, unless one feigns here a hypostatic union of the bread and the body of Christ, would be manifestly false and unheard of in prior centuries), but He intended and willed by these words to work something, that is, to make His body out of bread, and to signify this very thing by the same words.

Whence also Ambrose (Book 4 on the Sacraments, chapter 4) calls this speech of Christ operatorial, just as the speech was operatorial by which He made all things in the beginning. And indeed the Lord could have used a word of the imperative mode to effect what is signified here, saying "Be" or "Let this be made my body," just as He is read to have said in Genesis at the creation of the world: "Let there be light," and as He said working miracles in the flesh: "Be thou clean," "Arise," "Look," (Luke 5, 7, 8 & 18), "Lazarus, come forth" (John 11).

But to confirm the faith of those who were about to receive this sacrament, He preferred to use an affirmative speech and one of the present tense, so that no one might doubt that simultaneously with the word pronounced, that was there which Truth Himself, Christ, by enunciating affirmed. For also elsewhere sometimes making miracles He is read to have spoken in this mode, as when He said: "Thy son lives" (John 4), "Woman, thou art loosed from thy infirmity" (Luke 13). By which words indeed the Lord worked what He enunciated.

But also we, if we had the power of transmuting the natures of things, could speak conveniently in a similar mode, or taking a stone say: "This is bread," and taking water: "This is wine." Therefore, there is no greater difficulty about the understanding of the words of Christ than there would be about the understanding of similar words pronounced by us. For since, as has been said, those words of Christ were operatorial and signifying the very thing which they worked (and that was the transmutation of bread into the body of Christ), the pronoun "this" could not point out the bread, although during the very pronunciation it was still existing there, but it pointed out that which was being made out of the bread by the words, and which upon the completion of the signification of the words, namely at the terminus of the pronunciation, was going to be there, that is, the body of Christ. So that the sense of the speaker can be rendered in this way: "That which I intend to make and do out of this bread is my body." Or, which comes to the same, in this way: "This singular thing which I demonstrate, namely for the time of the completed enunciation, is my body."

For the demonstration is of a singular thing. Moreover, the verification is made for that thing to which the predicate competes, not indeed during the pronunciation when the speech is operatorial, but upon its completion, which is common to all operatorial speeches. And this sense is explained by the former.

From these things also it is clear that the verb "is" in this enunciation and any similar one retains its proper and customary signification, just as also in the words by which the cup is consecrated. For to explain thus: "This is my body," that is, "This signifies my body," is a fabrication of heretics, long ago condemned by the Church. For neither is the verb "is" anywhere taken to mean the same as "signifies," just as we have shown above on that passage of chapter 10: "And the rock was Christ." And if it were sometimes taken so, it would be a transitive verb and consequently ought to govern an oblique case, just as when it is taken for "eats," as in the poet: "Fire eats the marrow." Therefore, for the words "This is my blood," it would have to be translated: "This is my blood" (in the accusative). Which things are absurd.

Finally, nor is it established that the verb "is" was pronounced by Christ, as we taught before. Therefore, most others have recourse to metonymy, by which the sign is put for the thing signified, making a sense of this sort: "This is my body," that is, "the sign, type, and figure of my body." As if not by a similar interpretation (to pass over other scriptures) that testimony of God the Father concerning Christ could be perverted: "This is my Son," by saying the sense is: "This is a type and a certain image of my Son."

Namely, into these most truly fits what Augustine wrote (Book 3 on Christian Doctrine, chapter 10), saying: "If the opinion of some error has preoccupied the mind of anyone, whatever scripture shall have asserted otherwise, they judge it figurated." Surely since in these words of the Lord which we treat, there is no more repugnance between the predicate and the subject than in the words of that Paternal testimony (for He does not say "The bread is my body," but "This is my body"), just as those are to be understood properly, so these are to be understood properly, with this distinction however, that the former speech is of Eternal Truth, the latter operatorial of that which before was not, just as the orthodox Fathers and writers of all centuries have understood.

I omit the other expositions of the adversaries, for they are many and various, conspiring to this: that they may retain baker's bread in the sacrament and elude the truth of the transmutation. To all which now it is sufficient for me to oppose the Ecumenical Council of Trent, which Session 13, chapter 1, among other things teaches and declares from the tradition of all antiquity, that Christ our Redeemer, in the last supper which He held with His disciples, after the blessing of bread and wine, testified that He gave them His own body and His own blood in express and perspicuous words. Which words, it says, commemorated by the holy Evangelists and repeated by Divine Paul, since they bear before them that proper and most open signification according to which they were understood by the Fathers, "it is truly an unworthy crime that they be twisted by certain contentious and wicked men to fictitious and imaginary tropes, by which the truth of the Flesh and Blood of Christ is denied, against the universal sense of the Church," etc.

Moreover, by the name of "body" in the words of Christ is signified not the whole substance of man, as some have badly thought, but the other part of the substance, namely the material and solid part, which is distinguished not only from the soul but also from the blood. For the consecration of the blood is accomplished separately and by words. And therefore neither does the blood exist there under the species of bread, nor the body under the species of wine, by the virtue of the words by which the bread and wine are consecrated, but only by the virtue of that natural connection and concomitance by which the parts of Christ the Lord, who now having risen from the dead is no longer to die, are joined among themselves. Which same thing is to be said concerning the soul of Christ with respect to either species.

For there is nothing in the matter of this sacrament which is transmutated into the soul, and certainly much less into the Divinity, which nevertheless also exists in that sacrament by a special reason, namely on account of the admirable hypostatic union of the same with the body and soul of Christ, in what manner the Council of Trent explains this whole matter in chapter 2 of the aforementioned session.

Now, that by those words "This is my body" not only Christ Himself consecrated the bread into His body, but also from His institution the priests His ministers do this even to the present day, is manifest from this: that Christ willed and commanded His disciples, and consequently their successors in administering the sacraments, to do this which He Himself had done, saying: "Do this in remembrance of me." And that has always been the mind and doctrine of the Catholic Church, declared with the Greeks consenting in the Council of Florence, last session, notwithstanding the opinion of certain Greek Schismatics who contend that the consecration is effected not by those enunciative words pronounced by Christ, or certainly not by them alone, but by certain prayers recited by the priest after those words. Whose arguments may be seen at Nicholas Cabasilas and Mark of Ephesus, the chief assertors of the opinion. But those things the Cardinal Bessarion learns and dissolves in the book entitled "By What Words the Eucharist is Consecrated," where he also adduces testimonies of the holy Fathers, both Greeks and Latins, by which he confirms the true and Catholic sentence.

But the more exact treatment of this question, as of others which are accustomed to be moved concerning these words of the Lord, belongs to Distinction 8, Book 4 of the Sentences.

"WHICH SHALL BE DELIVERED FOR YOU…"

Namely, unto death. This sense indeed our reading plainly demands, which is in all Latin codices, that you understand the delivery not by which Judas or the Jews or Pilate delivered the Lord, but by which the Lord was delivered by Himself unto death, according to the scriptures (Isaiah 53, Galatians 4, Ephesians 5, 1 Peter 2), that by these words His immense charity toward the human genus might be insinuated.

And indeed in Luke instead of this is read: "Which is given for you." Moreover, the other Evangelists add nothing to the prior words, as neither does the liturgical canon. But it is to be known that the Greek copies constantly have this: Τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν κλώμενον ("which is broken for you"). With which the Syriac agrees, and the Liturgy of Basil, nor not those which are called the liturgies of James and Mark, likewise the text of the commentary of Ambrose according to prior editions. Bede also cites the passage of Paul in the commentary on Luke 22 with these words: "This is my body which is broken for you," no mention indeed being made of the other reading which now occupies the codices.

It is asked therefore: What is this fraction of the body of Christ of which Paul speaks according to the codices and authors alleged?

Some from the sect of heretics think is signified the separation of the body and soul of Christ on the Cross when He died. But ineptly. For if the body is broken because it is separated from the soul, the soul also is broken because it is separated from the body.

Cajetan also refers this fraction to the subsequent passion of Christ, but by a more probable reason. For he says in the passion the true body of Christ was broken in many ways. For it was broken, he says, as to the skin when He was scourged, and as to the flesh in the hands and feet fixed to the cross, and finally in the side pierced by a lance. Nor does Cajetan wish the word of the present time to be an obstacle, since the three Evangelists relating the words of the consecration of the cup according to the reading of the Greeks equally use the participle of the present time ἐκχυνόμενον ("which is poured out"). Which nevertheless, as the same writer thinks and supposes, ought to be referred to the effusion of the blood of Christ which was made in His passion. Moreover, he gives this common reason of both words, the participle of the present time put for the future, that it might be signified that such fraction and effusion were not distant in time, but as it were present, because they were about to be shortly future.

The place at Augustine seems to favor this commentary, in the tract on the fourth feria, where among other things he thus addresses the Christian soul: "The table of your Spouse has whole bread and a holy cup, which bread although we saw broken and crushed in the passion, nevertheless it remained whole in its indivisible unity with His Father." Bede also in the place next cited calls the passion of the Lord the fraction of His body. "He Himself breaks the bread," he says, "which He offers, that He may show the fraction of His body was not to be without His own will, but just as He says elsewhere, He has the power of laying down His soul and taking it up again." Thus he.

Nevertheless, the exposition of Cajetan does not seem altogether solid to us. First, because the speech is hard and insolent by which the body of a man is said to be broken because it is scourged or pierced or some member of it perforated, especially if no fracture of bones occurs. Which that there was none in Christ suffering, the truthful scripture cited by the Evangelists teaches us: "You shall not break a bone of it" (Exodus 12 & John 19), so that consequently nor do we think it probable that the cranium of His head was perforated by the thorns imposed and pressed.

Secondly, it is refuted by that very argument which Cajetan adduces for himself. For that the Evangelists using the verb of the present time "which is poured out" do not look to the effusion of blood future on the cross, but to that which was poured out under the species of wine in the supper, namely from the cup into the mouths of the disciples, is shown from the words which are at Luke. In which that "Which is poured out for you" cannot be referred to the blood, namely with the case manifestly repugnant in Greek, but necessarily refers to the cup: τὸ ποτήριον τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον ("the cup which is poured out"). Which indeed was not poured out on the cross but in the supper. Wherefore similarly these words "Which is broken for you" ought to be referred to that fraction which was made in the supper, in which sense also the Greek interpreters accepted this place.

Moreover, the body of Christ is said to be broken by a received and customary locution among ecclesiastical authors, because the species of bread under which it is contained are broken, namely by that reason by which those things which happen concerning the species are said to happen concerning the body or in the body of Christ, which is joined to the species in a certain singular way. Since therefore properly bread is said to be broken when it is divided by hands, and that by a phrase very frequent in the scriptures, it happens that with the bread transmutated, the fraction which is made in the species is attributed to the body of Christ, either under the name of bread, as in the preceding chapter: "The bread which we break," etc., and in the Acts of the Apostles several times, or under the name of the body of Christ, as in the prior confession of Berengar, in which it is said: "The body of Christ is in truth handled and broken by the hands of priests and ground by the teeth of the faithful."

Moreover, the Lord says "Which is broken for you" because the fraction of the body in the sacrament is a certain mystical representation of His passion which He sustained for us on the cross, so that the broken bread is understood to be that one who was crushed on the cross for our crimes (Isaiah 53). And this Augustine willed when he said the bread broken and crushed in the passion. For he looks to the fraction of bread in the sacrament which signifies, as I said, the passion of Christ on the cross. Nor yet does he say Christ or His body was broken and crushed, but the bread, using evidently the customary speech, just as also Ignatius Martyr in the epistle to the Philadelphians: "One blood," he says, "which was poured out for us. One bread also was broken or crushed for all." In Greek: ἐθρύφθη.

Moreover, Bede indeed calls the Lord's passion the fraction of His body, not however explaining the words of Paul, but only indicating the mystery of the fraction of which the Evangelist speaks, and by the very name of fraction alluding to that. For what is to be noted on account of this signification of the mystery is that the same fraction constitutes a certain part of the unbloody sacrifice which Christ was offering in this institution of the sacrament. Which thing St. Thomas teaches (2-2, question 85, article 3, ad 3), where, recounting the actions in which the sacrifice of the Eucharist consists, he names also the fraction.

The argument for this thing is that for the participle κλώμενον ("which is broken"), written by Paul, Luke, his disciple, wrote διδόμενον ("which is given"), that is, offered indeed for you, which both expressed. From which it is understood that this fraction pertains to the very oblation or sacrifice as some part of it. Whence, for what reason Luke reports the Lord to have said concerning His consecrated body that it "is given for you," Paul records Him to have said concerning the same that it "is broken for you." For the whole sacrifice, according to all its parts, is propitiatory, availing for the salvation and remission of sins of those for whom it is offered. But concerning this matter we have said more at Distinction 12, Book 4 of the Sentences.

It is asked however whether the fraction signified in these words of the Lord is the same with the fraction of which Paul before and the three Evangelists speak when they commemorate that Christ broke the bread received. Surely it can be said that it is the same. For there is nothing in the whole narration or in the Greek text that repugns this, although some make a double fraction: one prior to the consecration into larger parts, the other posterior into smaller parts, but without necessity, since the verb "broke," which is in all [accounts], can easily be referred to the time of the pronouncement of the words by which it was said "which is broken for you," so that this was the order of the actions of Christ the Lord in this sacrament: to consecrate, to break, to distribute. Which is the same order of those actions when they are done by the priest minister, as Cardinal Bessarion thinks and well explains in the book of which I made mention above.

"DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME"

In Greek indeed it is εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν ("into my commemoration" or "recollection"), because among the Greeks "my" (meam) and "of me" (mei) do not differ. In Latin however it would rather be said "In remembrance of me" (In mei commemorationem), just as Erasmus translated the text, following Ambrose and the annotation of Valla, just as also it is read in the Canon of the Mass: "You shall do in memory of me."

These same words are reported by Luke and have this sense: "What I now do, and what you, at my command, now do, I wish henceforth to be done by you and your successors and by the rest of the faithful, and this in remembrance of me"—that is, while recalling the memory of my passion and death for you. For thus Paul himself immediately explains this commemoration with those words: "For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the cup, you shall show the death of the Lord."

Nevertheless, it is to be known that not all actions comprehended by the precept where it is said "Do this" pertain to all the faithful, but some indeed pertain to the disciples, in whom their successors also are understood, others however to the faithful in general. For to the disciples, as to future ministers and vicars of Christ, it is commanded that they do that which Christ did, that is, that they consecrate, offer, and distribute the Body of the Lord to others, and together with the precept the power is given of doing these things. Whence also the priests of the New Testament are constituted by this word, not because the word "to do" is the same as "to sacrifice," as some have interpreted it, plainly against the mind of Scripture (for also in that which is said in the Canon: "As often as you shall do these things, you shall do them in memory of me," "to do" can in no way be explained except forcibly as "to sacrifice"), but because by that word the power was given of doing those things which Christ did, among which without doubt the oblation of the sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech is to be numbered.

That moreover a precept of this sort was given together with the power, the Council of Trent declares (Session 22, chapter 1), when it says that Christ commanded His Apostles, whom He was then constituting priests of the New Testament, and their successors in the priesthood, to offer by these words "Do this in remembrance of me," adding that the Catholic Church has always so understood and taught.

Now that the same words according to some actions also pertain to the other faithful, insofar as namely in them is included the precept of receiving and eating, and that in memory of the Lord's passion, is clear from those following words of the Apostle: "For as often as you shall eat this bread," etc., by which, explaining these things said by Christ to the disciples "Do this in remembrance of me," he refers them to the whole Church of the Corinthians which he addresses. Which would not be a fitting explanation if those words did not pertain to all the faithful but to priests alone. The same thing is clear from the Canon of the Mass, in which the priest, after the words cited a little before, "As often as you shall do these things, you shall do them in memory of me," immediately inferring subjoins: "Wherefore also mindful, O Lord, we Thy servants, but also Thy holy people," etc. Nor let the word "we offer" which follows move you. For we do not altogether remove the act of offering from the laity. For they also offer in their way, namely through the ministry of the priests offering for them, to which ministry they join their faith, consent, and devotion, according to that which the priest says in the prior part of the Canon: "Whose faith is known to Thee and noted devotion, for whom we offer to Thee, or who offer to Thee." By which reason also in the Old Law the people were said to offer, as Leviticus 17:4, Numbers 9:13, 2 Chron 30:7, 15.

In nearly the same mode which I have said, John Hessels explains and illustrates this part "Do this," adducing testimonies of the Fathers, in the book On Communion Under One Species, Treatise 1, Response to Argument 4. Which author's opinion Cardinal Bellarmine reports and praises (Book 4 on the Eucharist, chapter 25).

Moreover, that from the vocabulary of "commemoration" the heretics argue that this sacrament was not instituted so that it might be a sacrifice, nor has any power of propitiating God for us, is very easily refuted. For it was not instituted for sole and naked commemoration, but so that it might be a commemorative sacrifice, and indeed such that by the oblation of it, commemorating the benefit of the death of Christ by which we were redeemed, we might obtain a more copious effect of the same redemption. Which knowing and acknowledging, the Church thus prays to God in the celebration of the sacrament itself: "Grant us to frequent these mysteries worthily, because as often as the commemoration of this Host is celebrated, the work of our redemption is exercised"; and elsewhere, the prayer turned to Christ: "We humbly beseech that what You have commanded us to do in Your commemoration may profit for the aid of our infirmity" (Sunday 9 and 22 after Pentecost).

Surely with the same argument the adversary will conclude that there was no sacrifice in the Old Law, and will exclude not only propitiatory sacrifices but also peace offerings and holocausts. Since indeed all were instituted either for the commemoration of benefits received or at least for the signification and hope of future things.

1 Cor 11:25: "IN LIKE MANNER ALSO THE CUP AFTER HE HAD SUPPED"

Here now he describes the institution of the other part of this sacrament and sacrifice. "In like manner," he says, that is, with a similar rite and order observed. In Greek ὡσαύτως ("in the same way"). "And the cup," in which wine was contained, "he took into his hands after he had supped," for which is read in the Canon of the Mass "after supper was ended."

Moreover, what is said concerning the cup taken and consecrated after supper, the same is to be understood concerning the bread, as we warned above when we were treating of the vocabulary of the Lord's Supper. It can be asked however why Paul, and Luke and the author of the Canon, did not append this determination of time "after he had supped" when he was speaking of the bread, but here only where he speaks of the cup, as if namely the bread had been consecrated before the supper was finished. And the scruple is increased because Matthew, speaking of the consecration of the bread, says "while they were eating," or as in the Greek it is at Matthew and Mark, "while they were eating."

These arguments moved St. Thomas to think that Christ delivered His body to the disciples while eating, but His blood however after supper. For which thing also he attempts to give a certain mystical reason. But certainly it is much more verisimilar, as we have said, that both were given after supper. For what is objected from Matthew and Mark is rightly thus understood: "while eating" or "while they were eating," that is, when the time of the supper or evening refreshment was still lasting, the table namely not yet removed. Which whole time we showed at the said place is sometimes comprehended by the name of supper.

To the prior doubt however, nothing appears to be able to be responded more probably than that Paul, Luke, and the author of the Canon, in commemorating the cup, peculiarly added mention of the supper finished so that they might distinguish this cup from the prior one, of which Luke alone makes mention, which Christ in the supper of the immolated Paschal Lamb, as a libation of that legal sacrifice, having tasted Himself, ordered to be offered to the disciples in a circle around the table so that all might drink from it. This reason Cajetan and Francis bring forward and well explain in their commentaries on Luke chapter 22. Besides these, Jerome distinguishes the cups at Luke, writing on Matthew chapter 26; Bede and Theophylact on chapter Luke 22; John Hessels approves the opinion in his commentary on Matthew, and Arias Montanus on Luke, where he declares the rite of drinking that legal cup from the tradition of the Jews; likewise Cardinal Bellarmine (Book 1 on the Eucharist, chapter 11) and some others.

It is to be noted in passing that what our interpreter in Paul and at the Evangelists calls a "cup" (calicem), by them is called by the common vocabulary ποτήριον, that is, a drinking vessel (poculum), which in the text of the commentary of Ambrose is read. For "cup" (calix) in Greek is κύλιξ, a certain kind of drinking vessel.

"SAYING: THIS CUP IS THE NEW TESTAMENT IN MY BLOOD"

At Luke again the same words are had, unless that he omitted the verb "is," Paul expressed it, and vice versa he added "Which shall be poured out for you," which Paul omitted.

Moreover, what we said before concerning those words "This is my body," that they are not simply enunciative but operatorial of that which they enunciate, the same is to be said concerning these words. For the Lord intends through them to work something, that is, to make His blood out of wine, and to signify this very thing by the same words.

Although however these words have not a little obscurity, not only because of the metonymy by which the container is taken for the contained in the vocabulary of the cup, but also on account of the variation of cases in the rest and the verb "is" itself divorced from its subject, nevertheless the sense of them can be accepted without difficulty both from the collation of the words by which the bread is consecrated into the Body of the Lord, which indeed are plain and open at all [accounts], and from Matthew and Mark, who report the words of the consecration of the cup thus: "This is my blood of the new testament," for which these are read in the Canon of the Mass: "This is the cup of my blood of the new and eternal testament," and finally from the collation of the words which Moses spoke in the sanction of the old testament to the people (Exodus 24), saying: "This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you."

Therefore the sense is of this sort: What is contained in this cup is my blood, in which—that is, by which—the new testament is sanctioned and confirmed. For just as the old testament was confirmed by the effusion of the blood of calves and its sprinkling on the people, as Moses reports in the chapter already cited, so Christ, as mediator of the new testament, confirmed and made firm the new testament by the effusion of His blood to be sacramentally distributed to the people, which distribution He signified by that which was first made to the disciples as certain seeds of the peoples who were afterwards to believe.

Moreover, that promise is called the "new testament" by which God promised to give to His elect spiritual goods—that is, faith, hope, charity, forgiveness of sins, obedience to the law, perseverance, and eternal life—in the manner in which the old testament is called the pact of God which He made with the Israelites, that if they kept the law given by Himself, He would repay them the abundance of temporal goods.

It is called "new" both by reason of time, because it was promulgated in the last times of the world, although already long ago and from the beginning revealed and in part bestowed on the elect; and because through the new Adam, in whose blood it was dedicated, it makes man new from old in a new way, that is, gratuitously. But this [old testament is called old] both because it was manifested in prior time, and because it did not take away the oldness of sin from man, but rather increased it on occasion of the law given. Concerning both testaments there is a place at Jeremiah chapter 31, repeated by Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews chapter 8, where God, with the prior testament reprobated, predicts and promises a new one, that is, the effects of the new testament to be multiplied everywhere in the whole world. Concerning which consult St. Augustine, Book On the Spirit and the Letter, chapter 19 and several following.

There is also this difference between these two pacts or promises: that although the appellation of "pact" seems to belong more properly to the old than to the new, on the other hand however the new is called a "testament" in a more special and proper reason than the old. For a testament properly so called is not confirmed except by the death of the testator, as the Apostle teaches (Hebrews 9). But that was done by Christ, by whose death and blood access to the eternal inheritance was opened to us, since otherwise that old pact was confirmed not by the death of the testator himself—that is, of God, who could not die—but by the death and blood of brute animals.

But concerning the signification of the Greek vocabulary διαθήκη, for which the interpreters translate "testament," and concerning the Hebrew בְּרִית (berith) corresponding to it, we shall say more partly in the commentary on Galatians 3:4, 15, partly and more fully on Hebrews 9:4, 17.

Someone may ask whether by these words of the Lord posited by the Apostle the consecration of the cup can be made. St. Thomas denies this, both in this place and in the Summa Theologiae, Part 3, question 78, article 3, and this not only concerning the words which Paul and Luke report, but also concerning those which Matthew and Mark [report]. For he thinks the consecration is made by those words alone which the Church uses in the Canon of the Mass from Apostolic tradition, and he simply arbitrates all those things to be necessary for consecrating the cup by the necessity of the sacrament.

But if it were so, besides other things, that absurdity would follow: that Greek priests, who from the ancient tradition of the Fathers have a canon different from the Latins and do not use all the same words as the Latins for the consecration of the cup, and this with the Roman Church permitting and approving, neither now nor in prior centuries before the schism, truly and efficaciously consecrated the cup. Moved especially by this argument, Cajetan openly recedes from the opinion of his doctor.

Therefore it does not seem by any reason to be doubted that at least those words suffice for the consecration of the cup which are read either at Paul or at any of the Evangelists, or which are had in the liturgies of the Greeks, indeed it is very probable that these alone suffice: "This is the cup of my blood" or "This is my blood," just as for the consecration of the bread these suffice: "This is my body." For both contain the whole signification of that which is effected. Which is not only the opinion of Cajetan but common to nearly all the Scholastics, as well ancient ones such as Alexander, Albert, Bonaventure, as recent ones such as Gabriel explaining the Canon and others.

Although as far as the necessity of the precept is concerned, each priest is bound in consecrating the Body and Blood of the Lord to use those words which he has prescribed to himself from the tradition of his Church, and there is the same reason concerning unleavened bread and leavened. But concerning these things it is disputed expressly in Book 4 of the Sentences, Distinction 8.

"DO THIS, AS OFTEN AS YOU DRINK IT, IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME"

"You shall drink" (Bibetis): in Greek πίνητε ("you shall drink"). "In my" or "of my remembrance": explain as above, "to recall the memory of my passion and death." Which indeed is more expressly represented by the cup of blood consecrated and received separately from the body than by the consecration and reception of the Body of Christ alone.

Moreover, the verb "do" is restricted by this which is added: "as often as you shall drink," to one action which is to drink. But from the fact that here it was not said absolutely "Do this in remembrance of me," as it had been said absolutely after the consecration of the body, but with the determination "as often as you shall drink," Catholic writers take an argument not improbable by which they teach that the use of the cup is not necessary for all the faithful. For not without cause did Paul, in whom the Spirit of God was speaking, specially add that determination in this posterior place. Nor does any other cause appear than to insinuate that there is not the same reason for both species to be taken promiscuously by the faithful, because many causes can occur which persuade or compel abstaining from the species of wine, which it is not necessary to refer to here singly.

Therefore by this part a precept of doing is not contained, that is, of drinking from the cup, but it is commanded that as often and whenever they drank from this, they do it in remembrance of the Lord. Now follow the words of Paul by which he explains the commemoration commanded by Christ.

1 Cor 11:26: "FOR AS OFTEN AS YOU SHALL EAT THIS BREAD AND DRINK THE CUP, YOU SHALL SHOW THE DEATH OF THE LORD"

Again in Greek the words are of the subjunctive mode: ἐσθίητε, πίνητε ("you shall eat," "you shall drink"). Thus Cyprian in the Epistle to Caecilius 62: "You shall eat this bread and you shall drink this cup." In that mode the interpreter translates immediately after: "He shall have eaten, he shall have drunk."

And here again in the vocabulary of "cup" there is a metonymy. Now for what reason he calls the Body of Christ "bread" was said on that passage of the preceding chapter: "The bread which we break," etc.

"You shall show" (Annuntiabitis): in Greek it is καταγγέλλετε ("you show" or "show"). For it can be translated in either way. Nor does the sense differ. For it is a precept with the signification of that which is perpetually done and future in the Church.

To show the death of the Lord is to recall with grateful memory the death and whole passion of Him undertaken for us. Where it is to be noted that in the oblation and participation of the unbloody sacrifice, the memory of the Lord's passion is to be recalled principally, that is, of the bloody sacrifice offered on the cross for us. For this is properly represented by the unbloody sacrifice from the very institution of Christ. But nevertheless in the same oblation it is accustomed by the Church for the memory of certain other mysteries of Christ also to be named, namely of the resurrection, of the ascent into heaven, which pertain to the glory of Christ, to which He arrived through the ignominy of the cross. Whence in the epistle of the Synod of Ephesus to Nestorius it is thus read: "Announcing the death of the Only-Begotten Son of God, that is, Jesus Christ, and His resurrection from the dead, and professing His same assumption into heaven, we perform the unbloody worship in the Church of God." Which same things are read in the Canon of the Roman liturgy in that part: "Wherefore also we mindful," etc. But the liturgies of the Greeks, Basil and Chrysostom, add mention also of the session of Christ at the right hand of God the Father and of His second and glorious coming, of which Paul subjoins "Until he come."

Moreover, generally the Eucharist according to its name is offered by the Church to God as a Eucharistic sacrifice, that is, of thanksgiving for all benefits received from God.

It is to be noted besides that Paul does not say "by eating and drinking," that is, by the very act of eating and drinking, "you shall show the death of the Lord," but "as often," that is, "whenever you shall eat and drink." Moreover, this eating and drinking, whether by the priest or by other faithful, is done at that time when the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of the Lord is offered. Or if the eating is done afterwards, as by the sick to whom the Host is carried, nevertheless that eating also is referred and pertains to the sacrifice by which the Host was offered, which indeed the very name of "Host," which we are accustomed to say is carried to the sick, sufficiently indicates. And thus by the reception of the Host even they become participants of the sacrifice.

The sacrifice itself however is commemorative of the passion and death of the Lord. Therefore not only those who eat and drink of it, but also whoever does one of these things as participants of the commemorative sacrifice, commemorate and show the death of the Lord. Nor these only, but truly also whoever with pious devotion of heart offer together with them, even if they do not touch the offered things with the mouth.

Wherefore badly and imperitely from this place of Paul do the adversaries collect that communion under both species is necessary for all the faithful, so that the showing of the Lord's death, which the Lord commanded, can be done by them, since neither is the perception of one species necessary for that thing. Which is also shown by this argument: For if in the Old Law, eating nothing of the sacrifice, such as the holocaust, of which no one ate, not even the priest, and the sacrifice for sin, of which he who had sinned did not eat, by the sole oblation of the sacrifice they were able to preannounce the future passion of the Lord, even with the fruit of salvation and propitiation, surely also now those who offer together with the priest, as was said before, even if they do not communicate sacramentally, can announce the same past passion of the Lord, and that with the fruit of the redemption of their souls. See John Hessels in the Treatise cited above, to Argument 5, where he declares this matter largely and learnedly.

Surely as far as the present place of the Apostle is concerned, in that he says "As often as you shall eat and drink," it is easily understood that he left out "or" one of these things, or certainly he put the conjunctive particle for the disjunctive. For he expressed this in the following verse, treating of those communicating unworthily.

Finally, I add this: although the representation of the Lord's death is more express in both species taken separately, nevertheless it is also congruously done when the species of bread is exhibited without the species of wine, as if the Body of the Lord were offered without blood. For in that thing also there is no obscure signification of death.

"UNTIL HE COME"

Not the death of the Lord, who dead and revived now dies no more (Romans 6), but He Himself the Lord. "Until," he says, "He Himself come," or as in the Greek "shall have come," namely glorious to judgment.

"Whence," says St. Thomas, "it is understood that this rite of the Church will not cease until the end of the world." For the Apostle does not say this only as commanding, but also as knowing that to be the will of Christ instituting this sacrifice, that both it and the showing of His death through it by continued succession may endure until His advent. For He who willed His Church to remain until the end of the age, willed also the mysteries instituted by Himself to remain in continuous observation with her for the same time. And thus Chrysostom accepted this place.

 

CONTINUE