ON THE EATING OF THE EUCHARIST
ARTICLE ONE
CONCERNING THE EATING OF THE EUCHARIST IN GENERAL
QUESTION ONE
ON THE TWOFOLD MANNER OF EATING THE EUCHARIST
So we move thus to the first. According to what the Master says,1 there ought to be two modes of eating, namely sacramental and spiritual. And so this is demonstrated:
a. First, on the authority of the canon of Scripture: John 6:57, whoever feeds on me will have life because of me, refers to the spiritual mode. But 1 Corinthians 11:29, whoever eats without recognizing the body eats judgment on himself, refers to another mode, which is not spiritual. Therefore there are multiple ways of eating the body of Christ.
b. Again, on the authority of Augustine:2 The one who eats spiritually is the one who remains in unity with Christ and the Church, which the sacrament signifies. But the one who is opposed to Christ neither eats the flesh of Christ nor drinks the blood, even if he receives the sacrament of so great a thing daily unto judgment.
c. Again, this very thing stands to reason. Because there are only two objects (res) of this sacrament and it is possible to receive one without the other; thus there are two distinct modes of eating.
d. Again, eating means the use of the sacrament; therefore, since here there is an external and an internal sacrament, it is evident that these are two ways of eating.
To the contrary: 1. It would seem that there is only one, because when there is one for the sake of another, there is only one. Therefore, if the sacramental is for the sake of the spiritual or tending toward the spiritual, just as the sign is tending toward what is signified, then there is only one eating.
2. Again, the flesh of Christ truly is food.3 Then just as it belongs to light to illuminate, so it belongs to that flesh to nourish. However this is not bodily, but rather spiritually. But the one who receives sacramentally receives the flesh, and is thus nourished spiritually. Therefore there is only one manner of eating, namely spiritually.
3. Again, it is demonstrated that there are several modes, because, as is stated in distinction 4,4 some receive in Baptism only the res, some only the sacrament, and some receive both. Therefore there are three modes; for the same reason, then, there are three ways of eating.
4. Again, union is threefold: in nature, in faith and in charity. Since sacramental eating corresponds to the union of faith, and spiritual eating corresponds to the union of charity, therefore there will be a third mode corresponding to union in nature.
5. Again, theological virtues dwell in us in a threefold manner, and each of them unites in its own way. Therefore since some mode of eating corresponds to faith, another will correspond to hope.
I respond: It must be said that the manner of eating is twofold. This distinction arises from a threefold principle, namely from the disposition of those eating. This is because some approach the sacrament with a bad disposition, and these eat sacramentally. Others approach with a proper disposition. These eat spiritually.
A further distinction arises from the second mode of partaking. This is because some receive with the mouth of the body. These receive sacramentally. Others receive with the mouth of the heart. These receive spiritually. Hence according to the twofold mouth, the eating is twofold.
Third, a distinction arises from the sacrament itself which possesses a twofold res, of which one can be received without the other.5 Thus, just as Baptism is twofold, namely of water and of fire, from a twofold res, so also is the manner of eating twofold. And this is final and complete, because one (the res) can be received without the other.
To the objections: 1. To the objection, then, that one is for the sake of another, it must be said that this is true if the one cannot be separated from the other. But since it is separated, it no longer remains one.
2. To the objection that flesh always nourishes, it must be said that such an act always depends on the disposition of the one receiving, just like illumination. Hence as the disposition is germinated, so also is the manner of eating.
3. To the objection that there are three modes in Baptism, and so etc., it must be said that this third mode is only distinguished materially from the other two.
4. To the objection concerning the union of nature, it must be said that eating pertains to a personal act. Therefore it is not eating according to nature, but that is simply presupposed.
5. To the objection concerning hope, some say that it does not unite, because hope properly concerns the future. Still it must be said that those eatings are not distinguished according to the virtues, because spiritual eating includes both faith and charity. They are, however, distinguished according to the twofold res of the sacrament. Hence every sacrament, which indeed possesses a twofold res, can be received sacramentally and spiritually.
WHAT IT MEANS TO EAT SPIRITUALLY
The second question asks what it is to eat spiritually, or by what measure one can be said to eat spiritually. And it would appear that to believe is to eat spiritually:
a. On the authority of the Lord in John 6:53, If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man you have no life in you, and John 11:26, Whoever believes in me, though he should die will never die. If, then, a spiritual life does not exist without spiritual eating, and to live in us is through faith, then either to believe is to eat or at least not without eating.
b. Again, this appears very evident on the authority of Augustine,6 who the Master likewise cites in his text:7 “Believe, and you have eaten.” It is evident that he did not understand this manner of eating sacramentally but spiritually, and thus, etc.
c. Again, anytime a person is cleansed internally, he is said to be spiritually baptized. Therefore, by the same token, whenever one chews and is refreshed spiritually, he eats spiritually. This happens through an act of devout faith, where there is internal examination (discussio) and spiritual refreshment (refectio); therefore, etc.
To the contrary: 1. If to believe is to eat spiritually, then since many sinners both believe and have some devotion, it would seem that they accordingly eat spiritually. However this is opposed to Augustine,8 who said no one eats spiritually unless he is a member of Christ and remains in Christ.
2. Again, if an act of faith also with charity suffices for spiritual eating, then everything that we believe and love we eat. Therefore since we believe many things other than this sacrament or the matter of this sacrament, it would seem that spiritual eating is of all the articles,9 which no one in his right mind would concede, and that eating is not proper to this sacrament and its res.
3. Again, spiritual eating is so termed because of its similarity to material eating. The one who eats materially takes in food, but the one who believes and loves Christ is incorporated into Christ. Therefore rather than eating he is eaten. Therefore it would seem that spiritual eating by which one eats does not consist in an act of faith and charity.
I respond: It must be said that eating is found first and properly in bodies, and from these it is transferred to spiritual things. Therefore if we wish to receive correct spiritual eating, we must transfer the proper meaning of the word to ourselves. So it is to be noted that, although many acts are connected and consequent to bodily eating, there are only two things that belong to its integrity, namely chewing and swallowing,10 as is evident to any onlooker. If, then, the character of eating is appropriately transferred to the spiritual, it is essential to find these two. Therefore spiritual eating is identified according to the things in which these two consist.
Spiritual chewing is reflecting on the food, namely the flesh of Christ offered for us with respect to the price of our redemption and with respect to food as our refreshment. Swallowing is reached when one reflects with the love of charity and is joined to what is reflected upon. In this way, one is thus swallowed into the body, and when one is swallowed into the body, one is refreshed and is made more similar.11
To the end then that someone eats spiritually, two things are required: reflection of faith and affection of charity. The chewing resides in the first, and the swallowing in the second. From these two, spiritual eating is realized. Therefore, I concede that not just any sort of faith is sufficient, but of necessity faith operating through love.12 And three of the arguments for the first part move in this direction.
To the objections: 1. To the first objection concerning formless faith, it must be said that it is true that that sort of faith does not suffice.
2. To the objection that according to this we eat all the articles, it must be said that properly speaking not just any discussion and thinking over faith is called chewing, but that which is of food. Hence not just any act of believing makes us eat, but that which is of the very flesh of Christ exposed for our redemption, which is his decoction,13 and for our refreshment, wherein true refreshment resides.
3. To the objection concerning likeness, it must be said that there is not a total likeness. However there is enough likeness for transferal, because just as there is on the one hand bodily chewing and swallowing, so also in spiritual eating. However at the same time, there is a lack of likeness. This consists in the fact that in corporeal eating the one eating converts food into himself, because he is more worthy and more noble than food. But in spiritual eating it is the other way around, because the food is more worthy and more perfect and complete. Thus it is we who are changed and incorporated into the food rather than the other way around.14 The argument is, then, not valid, because spiritual eating and material eating are not totally similar. In a transferred meaning it is not necessary to find a total likeness, but it suffices to find one somewhat similar.
WHAT IT MEANS TO EAT SACRAMENTALLY
What is it to eat sacramentally? This is the third question. Or, by what measure, can one be said to eat sacramentally? And so it is sought whether bodily action alone suffices. And it would appear that it does:
1. By comparison: for whoever is immersed, observing the form of the sacrament of Baptism, if he has no obstacle, is baptized sacramentally. So it would seem similarly that anyone who receives the sacrament bodily eats sacramentally.
2. Again, only spiritual chewing and swallowing of an object produces spiritual eating. So it would seem that only tasting or chewing the species produces sacramental eating.
3. Again, formless faith is the minimal disposition that can be had for this sacrament.15 But without this it can be eaten sacramentally. Therefore, it would seem that bodily action alone suffices. Proof of the minor: a heretical priest can confect, as will be seen below.16 But, it is no less to confect than to eat sacramentally.17 Therefore, a heretic can eat sacramentally. Thus it can be sacramentally eaten without an act of faith, and therefore by only a bodily action.
4. Again, whatever things are inseparably joined, as long as they last, are not separated by any act. Thus whoever takes and eats one, gets the other. But the species truly contain the body of Christ. Therefore whoever eats the species, eats the body of Christ. However he does not eat of this spiritually, so therefore at least sacramentally.
To the contrary: a. Intention is required for a sacramental act, as was proven above.18 Thus, if one should say the words and not intending to consecrate, he would not effect the sacrament. Therefore one who eats, if he does not intend to, does not eat sacramentally.
b. Again, faith is the foundation of all the sacraments, especially of this one, because in its form is said “Mystery of faith.” Therefore, if someone tastes and does not believe, he does not eat sacramentally.
c. Again, two things belong to the integrity of the sacrament, namely signification and sanctification. Therefore, if some character of the sacrament is to be salvaged, it is necessary that something of these two be found. However, for the one who does not believe, the sacrament neither signifies nor offers effective sanctification. Therefore, by no means does such a one eat.
d. Again, if bodily chewing alone would suffice, then a mouse, or an angel taking on a body, or an ignorant person would eat sacramentally. This is not fitting for any of these. So it remains that it does not suffice. The question is then, What is required?
I respond: It must be said that to eat sacramentally means to eat the sacrament and to eat it as a sacrament. This is due to the fact that to eat sacramentally is a disposition of the act of eating. Hence, for the act to be sacramental it is necessary that one consider this sacrament as a sacrament. But in order for someone to eat the sacrament by eating the species, two things are required, namely the existence of the food and natural fittingness for eating. The first is required because if the confection of the sacrament does not precede, the eating of it cannot follow. The second is required because this food is provided only for human persons. Hence because only a human person is baptized, so the body of Christ is eaten sacramentally only by a human person. Also, just as only a human person receives the sacrament of Baptism, so only a human person receives the sacrament of the Eucharist. Further, in order that one eat it as a sacrament, it is necessary that there be intention and regulation of the intention either according to the faith that is in the person, or according to the faith that is in someone else. The intention, I say, is necessary. For if one should approach the table intending to refresh his body, and someone offers him the sacrament in place of common bread, and he intends absolutely to take bodily food, no one would say that he ate it sacramentally. It is also necessary that that intention be directed either according to the faith that is within him or in another. This is because it is required either that under that species something spiritual is hidden that he intends to take in, or it is necessary that he at least intend to take in what he judges others to believe, though he does not believe. Hence I believe that if some heretic intends to receive what he judges the Church believes is the body of Christ, although he does not believe, he eats sacramentally. This is because although his intention neither is joined to nor attains the matter of the sacrament by way of his own faith, it reaches it by means of the faith of another. Hence he eats it sacramentally, although he does not reach it as the one who believes with his own faith.
Thus it is evident by what measure one can be said to eat sacramentally, namely because the sacrament first truly exists, and the one who eats intends to eat it as a sacrament, either because he believes it to be a true sacrament or because he judges that others believe it. To the objection then that bodily eating alone suffices, it must be said that this is false, just as the arguments in opposition demonstrate. This is because four things are required, as has been mentioned.
To the objections: 1. To the objection concerning immersion, it must be said that it does not suffice for an adult, as was previously said,19 unless there is intention directed by faith either in oneself or in another. Thus this objection is answered in the argument above.
2. To the objection concerning spiritual eating, it must be said that there is no similarity of it to physical eating, because the spiritual res is always attained in the act of faith and charity. Thus the spiritual res is not frustrated. But when one eats bodily it is possible that it does not reach something that underlies spiritually, either by understanding or by affection, either on one’s own or by way of another; and thus, one does not eat it as a sacrament. So that is clear.
3. To the objection concerning formless faith, it must be said that it is false, because the knowledge of valuation20 is less than faith, and intending to do what someone else does is less than to intend what he believes; and because it is a certain disposition, hence in some manner it is a sacramental eating, though not so fully.
4. To the objection concerning inseparability, it must be said that they are inseparable with respect to their situatedness, but they are not inseparable with respect to act.21 For someone can strike and perforate and break the species, and still have no effect upon the res. Thus it is the same with eating. And because the sacrament presumes a comparison with the res, nothing is said to reach sacramentally unless it also reaches the res. This can happen, as we have seen; and hence it does not suffice only to eat the species for sacramental eating unless it reaches the res through regulated intention with some kind of knowledge, namely of valuation, formless faith, informed faith, or even of certain knowledge, as in Christ.
_______________
1 Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 9, c. 1, 286: Et sicut duae sunt res illius sacramenti, etiam duo modi manducandi: unus sacramentalis scilicet, quo boni et mali edunt; alter spiritualis, quo soli boni manducant.
2 Cf. Augustine, In Ioannis evangelium tractatus, tr. 26, n. 15 (PL 35, 1614; CCSL 36, 267): In hoc vero cibo et potu, id est corpore et sanguine Domini, non ita est. Nam et qui eam non sumit, non habet vitam: et qui eam sumit, habet vitam, et hanc utique aeternam. Hunc itaque cibum et potum societatem vult intelligi corporis et membrorum suorum, quod est sancta Ecclesia in praedestinatis et vocatis, et justificatis, et glorificatis sanctis, et fidelibus ejus. See also Peter Lombard, In epistolam I ad Corinthios, c. 11 v. 29 (PL 191, 1647): Spiritualiter enim manducat, qui in unitate Christi et Ecclesiae quam ipsum sacramentum significat manet. See also Prosper of Aquitaine, Sententiarum, n. 343 (PL 51, 481C): Qui edunt corpus Christi escam vitae accipit, et aeternitatis poculum bibit, qui in Christo manet, et cujus Christus habitator est. Nam qui discordat a Christo, nec carnem ejus manducat, nec sanguinem bibit: etiam si tantae rei sacramentum ad judicium suae praesumptionis quotidie indifferenter accipiat.
3 John 6:56.
4 Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 4, c. 1, 251: Hic dicendum est aliquos suscipere sacramentum et rem, aliquos sacramentum et non rem, aliquos rem et non sacramentum.
5 The res tantum can be received through spiritual communion without receiving the res et sacramentum.
6 Augustine, In Ioannis evangelium tractatus, tr. 25, n. 12 (PL 35, 1602; CCSL 36, 254): Crede, et manducasti.
7 Cf. Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 9, c. 1.2, 287.
8 Latin: …magis assimilator. Cf. above, d. 9, a. 1, q. 1b.
9 Bonaventure means the articles of the Creed.
10 The Latin term used here is incorporatio, which involved more than just swallowing, yet since Bonaventure says that the act of incorporation can be viewed by an onlooker, we have felt it best to translate this as “swallowing.” This also fits better with the notion of a sacrament being a visible sign. Inward, spiritual swallowing accompanies the outward, physical sign of swallowing, which can be observed by the one receiving as well as any onlooker. Below Bonaventure says there are three stages of eating: chewing, swallowing, and incorporation (digestion). Here he conflates chewing and incorporation as one act, while below he separates them to make a distinction about whether the body of Christ is broken in the fraction. Furthermore, Bonaventure makes clear that he refers here to swallowing when he discusses whether the body of Christ descends into the stomach; see below IV, d. 13, a. 2, q. 2, e.
11 Paschasius Radbertus similiarly remarks that in the Eucharist the believer is “eaten and drunk.” De corpore et sanguine Domini 1:163 (CCCM 16): Et ideo carne Verbi pascimur et potamur sanguine.
12 Cf. Galatians 5:6.
13 Here, Bonaventure is saying that, with respect to his being food, Christ’s exposure on the cross is where he was cooked, or simmered. The Latin decoctio has the connotation of making a potion, which would be in keeping with Bonaventure’s teaching that the sacrament is medicine or remedy for the healing from sin.
14 This is a very significant theological statement. Bonaventure is saying that we do not incorporate Christ into our bodies, but rather, we are incorporated. This follows the thinking of Augustine. Cf. Augustine, Sermo 272 (PL 38, 1247): Corpus ergo Christi si vis intelligere, Apostolum audi dicentem fidelibus, vos autem estis corpus Christi, et membra. Si ergo vos estis corpus Christi et membra, mysterium vestrum in mensa Dominica positum est: mysterium vestrum accipitis. Ad id quod estis, Amen respondetis, et respondendo subscribitis. Audis enim, Corpus Christi; et respondes, Amen. Esto membrum corporis Christi, ut verum sit, Amen. Since this text is so important, the editors have decided to add an English translation from WSA III/7, 300: “So if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle telling the faithful, You, though, are the body of Christ and its members (1 Cor 12:27). So it’s you that are the body of Christ and its members, it’s the mystery, meaning you, that has been placed on the Lord’s table; what you receive is the mystery that means you. It is to what you are that you reply Amen, and by so replying you express your assent. What you hear, you see, is The body of Christ, and you answer Amen. So be a member of the body of Christ, in order to make that Amen true.” See also Paschasius Radbertus, De corpore, 1:163 (CCCM 16) for how this idea of being incorporated was transmitted through the theological tradition.
15 Cf. above, d. 9, a. 1, q. 2, obj. 1.
16 Cf. below, d. 13, q. 1.
17 Latin: Sed non minus est conficere quam sacramentaliter sumere.
18 Cf. above, d. 6, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1.
19 Cf. above, d. 4, p. 1, a. 2, q.1. See also d. 6, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1, ad. 2
20 Latin: …aestimatio. This word means ascribing some value to a thing.
21 Latin: Ad illud quod obicitur de inseparabilitate, dicendum quod inseparabilia sunt quantum ad situm non tamen sunt inseparabilia quantum ad actum. Here situs seems to refer to the metaphorical relations between the species and the res.