Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It seems unlawful to receive the body of Christ without the blood. For Pope Gelasius says (cf. De Consecr. ii): "We have learned that some persons after taking only a portion of the sacred body, abstain from the chalice of the sacred blood. I know not for what superstitious motive they do this: therefore let them either receive the entire sacrament, or let them be withheld from the sacrament altogether." Therefore it is not lawful to receive the body of Christ without His blood.

Objection 2: Further, the eating of the body and the drinking of the blood are required for the perfection of this sacrament, as stated above (Question 73, Article 2; Question 76, Article 2, ad 1). Consequently, if the body be taken without the blood, it will be an imperfect sacrament, which seems to savor of sacrilege; hence Pope Gelasius adds (cf. De Consecr. ii), "because the dividing of one and the same mystery cannot happen without a great sacrilege."

Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is celebrated in memory of our Lord's Passion, as stated above (Question 73, Articles 4,5; Question 74, Article 1), and is received for the health of soul. But the Passion is expressed in the blood rather than in the body; moreover, as stated above (Question 74, Article 1), the blood is offered for the health of the soul. Consequently, one ought to refrain from receiving the body rather than the blood. Therefore, such as approach this sacrament ought not to take Christ's body without His blood.

On the contrary, It is the custom of many churches for the body of Christ to be given to the communicant without His blood.

I answer that, Two points should be observed regarding the use of this sacrament, one on the part of the sacrament, the other on the part of the recipients; on the part of the sacrament it is proper for both the body and the blood to be received, since the perfection of the sacrament lies in both, and consequently, since it is the priest's duty both to consecrate and finish the sacrament, he ought on no account to receive Christ's body without the blood.

But on the part of the recipient the greatest reverence and caution are called for, lest anything happen which is unworthy of so great a mystery. Now this could especially happen in receiving the blood, for, if incautiously handled, it might easily be spilt. And because the multitude of the Christian people increased, in which there are old, young, and children, some of whom have not enough discretion to observe due caution in using this sacrament, on that account it is a prudent custom in some churches for the blood not to be offered to the reception of the people, but to be received by the priest alone.

Reply to Objection 1: Pope Gelasius is speaking of priests, who, as they consecrate the entire sacrament, ought to communicate in the entire sacrament. For, as we read in the (Twelfth) Council of Toledo, "What kind of a sacrifice is that, wherein not even the sacrificer is known to have a share?"

Reply to Objection 2: The perfection of this sacrament does not lie in the use of the faithful, but in the consecration of the matter. And hence there is nothing derogatory to the perfection of this sacrament; if the people receive the body without the blood, provided that the priest who consecrates receive both.

Reply to Objection 3: Our Lord's Passion is represented in the very consecration of this sacrament, in which the body ought not to be consecrated without the blood. But the body can be received by the people without the blood: nor is this detrimental to the sacrament. Because the priest both offers and consumes the blood on behalf of all; and Christ is fully contained under either species, as was shown above (Question 76, Article 2).

Articulus 12

Argumentum 1

Ad duodecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non liceat sumere corpus domini sine sanguine.

Dicit enim Gelasius Papa, et habetur de consecrat., dist. II, comperimus quod quidam, sumpta tantummodo corporis sacri portione, a calice sacrati cruoris abstinent. Qui procul dubio, quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur adstringi, aut integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur.

Non ergo licet corpus christi sumere sine sanguine.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, ad perfectionem huius sacramenti concurrit manducatio corporis et potatio sanguinis, ut supra habitum est.

Si ergo sumatur corpus sine sanguine, erit sacramentum imperfectum.

Quod ad sacrilegium pertinere videtur.

Unde ibidem Gelasius subdit, quia divisio unius eiusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, hoc sacramentum celebratur in memoriam dominicae passionis, ut supra habitum est, et sumitur pro animae salute.

Sed passio christi magis exprimitur in sanguine quam in corpore, sanguis etiam pro salute animae offertur, ut supra habitum est.

Ergo potius esset abstinendum a sumptione corporis quam a sumptione sanguinis. Non ergo accedentes ad hoc sacramentum debent sumere corpus sine eius sanguine.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est multarum ecclesiarum usus, in quibus populo communicanti datur corpus christi sumendum, non autem sanguis.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod circa usum huius sacramenti duo possunt considerari, unum ex parte ipsius sacramenti; aliud ex parte sumentium. Ex parte ipsius sacramenti convenit quod utrumque sumatur, scilicet et corpus et sanguis, quia in utroque consistit perfectio sacramenti. Et ideo, quia ad sacerdotem pertinet hoc sacramentum consecrare et perficere, nullo modo debet corpus christi sumere sine sanguine.

Ex parte autem sumentium requiritur summa reverentia, et cautela ne aliquid accidat quod vergat in iniuriam tanti mysterii. Quod praecipue posset accidere in sanguinis sumptione, qui quidem, si incaute sumeretur, de facili posset effundi. Et quia, crescente multitudine populi christiani, in qua continentur senes et iuvenes et parvuli, quorum quidam non sunt tantae discretionis ut cautelam debitam circa usum huius sacramenti adhiberent, ideo provide in quibusdam ecclesiis observatur ut populo sanguis sumendus non detur, sed solum a sacerdote sumatur.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Gelasius Papa loquitur quantum ad sacerdotes, qui, sicut totum consecrant sacramentum, ita etiam toti communicare debent.

Ut enim legitur in Concilio toletano, quale erit sacrificium, ubi nec ipse sacrificans esse dignoscitur?

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod perfectio huius sacramenti non est in usu fidelium, sed in consecratione materiae. Et ideo nihil derogat perfectioni huius sacramenti si populus sumat corpus sine sanguine, dummodo sacerdos consecrans sumat utrumque.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod repraesentatio dominicae passionis agitur in ipsa consecratione huius sacramenti, in qua non debet corpus sine sanguine consecrari. Potest autem a populo corpus sine sanguine sumi, nec exinde aliquod sequitur detrimentum.

Quia sacerdos in persona omnium sanguinem offert et sumit, et sub utraque specie totus christus continetur, ut supra habitum est.