Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It seems that Christ did not receive His own body and blood, because nothing ought to be asserted of either Christ's doings or sayings, which is not handed down by the authority of Sacred Scripture. But it is not narrated in the gospels that He ate His own body or drank His own blood. Therefore we must not assert this as a fact.

Objection 2: Further, nothing can be within itself except perchance by reason of its parts, for instance. as one part is in another, as is stated in Phys. iv. But what is eaten and drunk is in the eater and drinker. Therefore, since the entire Christ is under each species of the sacrament, it seems impossible for Him to have received this sacrament.

Objection 3: Further, the receiving of this sacrament is twofold, namely, spiritual and sacramental. But the spiritual was unsuitable for Christ, as He derived no benefit from the sacrament. and in consequence so was the sacramental, since it is imperfect without the spiritual, as was observed above (Question 80, Article 1). Consequently, in no way did Christ partake of this sacrament.

On the contrary, Jerome says (Ad Hedib., Ep. xxx), "The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself the guest and banquet, is both the partaker and what is eaten."

I answer that, Some have said that Christ during the supper gave His body and blood to His disciples, but did not partake of it Himself. But this seems improbable. Because Christ Himself was the first to fulfill what He required others to observe: hence He willed first to be baptized when imposing Baptism upon others: as we read in Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach." Hence He first of all took His own body and blood, and afterwards gave it to be taken by the disciples. And hence the gloss upon Ruth 3:7, "When he had eaten and drunk, says: Christ ate and drank at the supper, when He gave to the disciples the sacrament of His body and blood. Hence, 'because the children partook of His flesh and blood, He also hath been partaker in the same.'"

Reply to Objection 1: We read in the Gospels how Christ "took the bread . . . and the chalice"; but it is not to be understood that He took them merely into His hands, as some say. but that He took them in the same way as He gave them to others to take. Hence when He said to the disciples, "Take ye and eat," and again, "Take ye and drink," it is to be understood that He Himself, in taking it, both ate and drank. Hence some have composed this rhyme:

"The King at supper sits,

The twelve as guests He greets,

Clasping Himself in His hands,

The food Himself now eats."

Reply to Objection 2: As was said above (Question 76, Article 5), Christ as contained under this sacrament stands in relation to place, not according to His own dimensions, but according to the dimensions of the sacramental species; so that Christ is Himself in every place where those species are. And because the species were able to be both in the hands and the mouth of Christ, the entire Christ could be in both His hands and mouth. Now this could not come to pass were His relation to place to be according to His proper dimensions.

Reply to Objection 3: As was stated above (Question 79, Article 1, ad 2), the effect of this sacrament is not merely an increase of habitual grace, but furthermore a certain actual delectation of spiritual sweetness. But although grace was not increased in Christ through His receiving this sacrament, yet He had a certain spiritual delectation from the new institution of this sacrament. Hence He Himself said (Lk. 22:15): "With desire I have desired to eat this Pasch with you," which words Eusebius explains of the new mystery of the New Testament, which He gave to the disciples. And therefore He ate it both spiritually and sacramentally, inasmuch as He received His own body under the sacrament which sacrament of His own body He both understood and prepared; yet differently from others who partake of it both sacramentally and spiritually, for these receive an increase of grace, and they have need of the sacramental signs for perceiving its truth.

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod christus non sumpserit corpus suum et sanguinem. Non enim de factis christi et dictis asseri debet quod auctoritate sacrae Scripturae non traditur.

Sed in evangeliis non habetur quod christus corpus suum manducaverit aut sanguinem biberit. Non ergo est hoc asserendum.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, nihil potest esse in seipso, nisi forte ratione partium, prout scilicet una pars eius est in alia, ut habetur in IV physic.

Sed illud quod manducatur et bibitur, est in manducante et bibente. Cum ergo totus christus sit in utraque specie sacramenti, videtur impossibile fuisse quod ipse sumpserit hoc sacramentum.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, duplex est assumptio huius sacramenti, scilicet spiritualis et sacramentalis. Sed spiritualis non competebat christo, quia nihil a sacramento accepit. Et per consequens nec sacramentalis, quae sine spirituali est imperfecta, ut supra habitum est.

Ergo christus nullo modo hoc sacramentum sumpsit.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Hieronymus dicit, ad heldibiam, dominus iesus ipse conviva et convivium, ipse comedens et qui comeditur.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod quidam dixerunt quod christus in cena corpus et sanguinem suum discipulis tradidit, non tamen ipse sumpsit.

Sed hoc non videtur convenienter dici. Quia christus ea quae ab aliis observanda instituit, ipse primitus observavit, unde et ipse prius baptizari voluit quam aliis baptismum imponeret, secundum illud Act. I, coepit iesus facere et docere.

Unde et ipse primo corpus suum et sanguinem sumpsit, et postea discipulis suis tradidit sumendum.

Et hoc est quod, Ruth III, super illud, cumque comedisset et bibisset etc., dicit Glossa, quod christus comedit et bibit in cena, cum corporis et sanguinis sui sacramentum discipulis tradidit. Unde, quia pueri communicaverunt carni et sanguini, et ipse participavit eisdem.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in evangeliis legitur quod christus accepit panem et calicem. Non est autem intelligendum quod acceperit solum in manibus, ut quidam dicunt, sed eo modo accepit quo aliis accipiendum tradidit. Unde, cum discipulis dixerit, accipite et comedite, et iterum, accipite et bibite, intelligendum est quod ipse dominus accipiens comederit et biberit.

Unde et quidam metrice dixerunt, rex sedet in cena, turba cinctus duodena, se tenet in manibus, se cibat ipse cibus.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, christus, secundum quod est sub hoc sacramento, comparatur ad locum non secundum proprias dimensiones, sed secundum dimensiones specierum sacramentalium, ita quod in quocumque loco ubi sunt illae species, est ipse christus. Et quia species illae potuerunt esse in manibus et in ore christi, ipse totus christus potuit esse in suis manibus et in suo ore. Non autem potuisset hoc esse secundum quod comparatur ad locum secundum proprias species.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, effectus huius sacramenti est non solum augmentum habitualis gratiae, sed etiam actualis delectatio spiritualis dulcedinis.

Quamvis autem christo gratia non fuerit augmentata ex susceptione huius sacramenti, habuit tamen quandam spiritualem delectationem in nova institutione huius sacramenti, unde ipse dicebat, Luc. XXII, desiderio desideravi manducare hoc Pascha vobiscum, quod eusebius exponit de novo mysterio huius novi testamenti quod tradebat discipulis.

Et ideo spiritualiter manducavit, et similiter sacramentaliter, inquantum corpus suum sub sacramento sumpsit, quod sacramentum sui corporis intellexit et disposuit. Aliter tamen quam ceteri sacramentaliter et spiritualiter sumant, qui augmentum gratiae suscipiunt, et sacramentalibus signis indigent ad veritatis perceptionem.