Thomas Aquinas Commentary 1 Corinthians 11:17-22

"But in giving you this charge, I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also factions among you, that they that are approved may be made manifest among you. When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord`s supper: for in your eating each one taketh before [other] his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you? In this I praise you not." — 1 Corinthians 11:17-22 (ASV)

After rebuking the Corinthians for their error in covering—that is, because the women came to the sacred mysteries with their heads uncovered—the Apostle then argues against their error concerning factions in the assembly, because they spent their time in contentions while gathered for the sacred mysteries. First, he touches on their shortcoming in general; second, he addresses it in particular (verse 18).

First, therefore, he says: But this I command. This refers to what was stated above, namely, that women should be veiled in church. He says this to persuade them to this observance in three ways: first, by reason; second, by custom; and third, by command, which should persuade them even without the other two. As it is written, “Keep my commandments and you shall live” (Proverbs 4:4); and, “A three-ply cord is not quickly broken” (Ecclesiastes 4:12). He continues: I do not praise you, but censure you, because you come together not for the better, but for the worse.

All social animals—for example, doves, cranes, and cows—form one group by natural instinct so that things go better for them physically. Therefore, man, being a social animal as the Philosopher proves in Politics I, should act according to reason, so that many form one group for their betterment. Just as in secular affairs many come together to form the unity of a city for their worldly benefit—namely, for security and a sufficiency of life—so too should believers come together into a unity for their spiritual betterment. As it says in Psalm 102:22: “When people gather together and kings, to worship the Lord.” And again, “In the counsel and congregation of the just the works of the Lord are great” (Psalms 111:1). But the Corinthians came together for the worse on account of the sins they committed when they assembled: “I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly” (Isaiah 1:13); “An assembly of the wicked is like two gathered together” .

Then, when he says, For in the first place, he mentions in detail how they assemble for the worse. First, he presents a judgment of guilt, saying: For in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. This refers to the contentions they practiced. This is by no means fitting for the church, which is established in unity, as it says in Ephesians 4:4: “There is one body and one spirit, just as you were called to one hope that belongs to your call.” But this was predicted: “You saw that the breaches of the city of David were many” (Isaiah 22:9).

A Gloss says: “By saying, first of all, he shows that the first evil is dissension, from which all the rest arise. For where there is dissension, nothing is right.” But this seems to be contradicted by other statements: “The beginning of every sin is pride” and “The love of money is the root of all evils” (1 Timothy 6:10). It must be said, however, that these authorities speak of the personal sins of individuals. The first of these is pride, which involves turning away from God, and greed for money, which involves turning toward created things. But the Gloss here speaks about the sins of the multitude, among which the first is dissension, by which the rule of discipline is weakened. Hence it says in James 3:16: “Where jealousy and contention exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.”

Secondly, he expresses his own belief in these reports when he says: And I partly believe it. This refers to some of you who were prone to contention, according to what was said above: “There is quarreling among you. What I mean is that each of you says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I belong to Apollos’ or ‘I belong to Cephas’” (1 Corinthians 1:11–12). But others were not contentious, who said: “I belong to Christ.” Hence it says in Song of Solomon 2:2: “As a lily among brambles, so is my love among maidens,” that is, the good among the evil.

Thirdly, he assigns the reason for his belief, saying: For there must be factions among you. The original implies not only factions but also heresies. Two things must be considered here: first, what heresy is; and second, why it is necessary for heresies to exist.

Regarding the first, it should be known that, as Jerome comments on the epistle to the Galatians, the Greek word “heresy” means “election” or “choice,” because each person selects for himself the discipline which he considers to be better. From this, two points can be made. First, it is the nature of heresy for a person to follow his own private discipline, as if by his own choice, rather than the public discipline handed down by God. Second, it involves obstinately clinging to this discipline, for choice implies firm adherence. Therefore, a heretic is one who scorns the discipline of the faith handed down by God and obstinately follows his own error.

Something pertains to the discipline of the faith in two ways. In one way, directly, such as the articles of faith, which are proposed to be believed in themselves. An error regarding these makes one a heretic, if obstinacy is present. A person cannot be excused from such an error by pleading ignorance, especially concerning those truths about which the Church has made a solemn proclamation and which are commonly spoken of by the faithful, such as the mystery of the Trinity, the birth of Christ, and so on. Other things pertain to the discipline of the faith indirectly, in that from their denial something contrary to the faith follows. For example, if one denies that Isaac was the son of Abraham, it follows that Sacred Scripture contains something false. For such things, one is not judged a heretic unless he continues in his opinion so obstinately that he would not depart from his error, even after seeing what follows from his position.

Therefore, the obstinacy with which someone spurns the judgment of the Church in matters pertaining to the faith, whether directly or indirectly, makes a person a heretic. Such obstinacy proceeds from pride, whereby a person prefers his own judgment to that of the entire Church. Hence the Apostle says in 1 Timothy 6:3–4: “If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words.”

Secondly, we must consider how it is fitting for heresies to exist. For if it is fitting for heretics to exist, it seems they would be praiseworthy and should not be eliminated. But it should be noted that something can be described as fitting in two ways. One way is from the intention of the one who does it; for example, if we say that judgments ought to exist because judges make them with the intention of establishing justice and peace. The other way is from the intention of God, who ordains evil things for good, directing the persecutions of tyrants to the glory of the martyrs. Hence Augustine says in the Enchiridion that God is so good that He would not permit evil in any way unless He were powerful enough to draw some good from every evil. In this sense, it says in Matthew 18:7: “Woe to the world for temptations to sin. For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to that man from whom temptations come.”

According to this principle, the Apostle says that heresies must exist, inasmuch as God has ordained the malice of heretics for the good of the faithful. He says this, first, for the clearer declaration of truth. As Augustine says in The City of God: “A question raised by an adversary is an occasion for learning; indeed, many things pertaining to the Catholic faith, when they are devised by the clever energy of heretics, are, in order to be defended against them, considered more carefully, understood more clearly, and preached with more emphasis.” Hence it says in Proverbs 27:17: “Iron sharpens iron; and one man sharpens another.” Secondly, heresies serve to reveal the weakness of faith in those who believe rightly. This is what the Apostle means when he says: so that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. As it is written: “Like gold in the furnace he tried them” .

Then, when he says, When you meet together, he accuses them of a third fault: they sinned in the manner and order in which they received the body of Christ. All that follows can be explained in two ways. According to the first explanation, they are accused of receiving the body of Christ just after eating other food. In this regard, he does four things: first, he mentions the harm they incur; second, he mentions the fault (verse 21); third, he seeks the cause of the fault (verse 22); and fourth, he concludes his rebuke (verse 22b).

He says, therefore, first: When you come together, there are factions among you. Therefore, meeting in body but not in mind, you have come to this point where it is not to eat the Lord's supper. That is, it is not lawful or becoming for you to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord gave His disciples at supper. “For this sacrament,” says Augustine, “is the sacrament of unity and love.” Therefore, it is not suited for those in dissent. “Eat, O friends and drink; drink deeply, O lovers” (Song of Solomon 5:2).

Alternatively, this can be referred to what follows, so that the meaning is: not only are there disputes among you when you come together, but it has now become your custom to do what is not lawful for you, namely, to eat the Lord’s supper right after eating a common meal. Because the Lord gave this sacrament to His disciples after supper (Matthew 26:26), the Corinthians also wanted to receive the body of Christ after a common meal. But the Lord did this for three reasons. First, because the figure properly precedes the truth, and the paschal lamb was a figure of this sacrament. Accordingly, Christ gave this sacrament after the supper of the paschal lamb. For it says in Colossians 2:17 about all the practices of the Law: “These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.” Second, He did it so that from this sacrament He might pass immediately to His passion, of which this sacrament is the memorial. Therefore, He said to the disciples, “Arise, let us go from here” (John 14:31), that is, to His passion. Third, He did it so that this sacrament would be impressed more sharply on the hearts of the disciples, to whom He gave it during His last peaceful time with them. But out of reverence for this great sacrament, the Church later established that it can be received only by those who are fasting. The sick were excepted from this, as necessity knows no law, and they could receive the body of Christ without fasting.

Because water does not break the fast, some supposed that they could receive this sacrament after a drink of water, especially because, as they say, water is not nourishment any more than any other element. But although water by itself is not nourishment and therefore does not break the Eucharistic fast in that sense, it does nourish when mixed with other things. In another sense, some are said to be fasting who on the same day take neither food nor drink. Because pieces of food remaining in the mouth are swallowed in the same way as saliva, this does not prevent one from being fasting. Likewise, the fast is not broken if a person does not sleep at all during the night, or even if the food is not fully digested, provided that on that same day he took absolutely no food or drink. Since the beginning of a day is reckoned from midnight according to the custom of the Church, whoever partakes of even a little food or drink after midnight cannot receive this sacrament on that day.

Then, when he says, For in eating, each one goes ahead, he mentions the fault: first, in that they sinned against God; and second, in that they sinned against their neighbor (verse 21b).

He says, therefore, first: The reason I say that it is not lawful for you to eat the Lord’s supper is that each one of you goes ahead with his own meal, that is, of common food. For each one carried to the church a tray of food already prepared, and each one ate by himself before he received the sacred mysteries. “They banquet separately; now they shall perish” (Hosea 9:9). And in the person of the frugal man,Ecclesiastes 11:19 says: “I have found rest, and I ate of my own goods alone.”

Then, when he says, and one is hungry and another is drunk, he accuses them of sinning against their neighbor. For the wealthy ate lavishly in church and drank until they were drunk, but they gave nothing to the poor, who remained hungry. This is what he says: and one is hungry, namely, the poor man, who did not have the means to prepare anything, and another is drunk, namely, the rich man, who over-ate and over-drank. This is contrary to Nehemiah 8:10: “Go your way, eat the fat and drink sweet wine and send portions to him for whom nothing is prepared.” It is also contrary to Job 31:17: “I have eaten my morsel alone, and the fatherless has not eaten of it.”

Then, when he says, What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? he investigates the cause of this sin. First, he excludes a reason by which they could be excused. It is not lawful to apply to profane uses the house of God, which is set aside for sacred uses. Hence the Lord, when driving the buyers and sellers from the temple, said, “My house is a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves” (Matthew 21:13). And Augustine says in his Rule: “In the oratory let no one do anything except that for which it was built and from which it gets its name.” Yet in a case of necessity, when one can find no other house, he may lawfully use the church for eating or for other such lawful purposes. But the Apostle rejects this excuse, saying: Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? You would have an excuse only if you had no other place to celebrate banquets, which you ought to do in your own homes. Hence Luke 5:29 says that Levi made Christ a great feast in his house.

Secondly, when he says, or do you despise the church of God, he asserts the cause which makes them inexcusable. The first cause is contempt for the church of God. He states this, saying: Do you despise the church of God? Is that why you presume to eat your supper in the church? Here “church” can be taken for either the congregation of believers or the sacred house, which is not to be despised, as it says in Psalm 93:5: “Holiness befits your house.” And in Jeremiah 7:11: “Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?” But they despised both when they held feasts in a holy place in the presence of the congregation of believers. Secondly, he mentions their contempt for their neighbor when he says: and humiliate those who have nothing? For the poor were humiliated, since they were hungry in the presence of the entire group while others were eating and drinking lavishly. But it says in Proverbs 17:7: “He who mocks the poor insults his Maker,” and in Sirach 4:2: “Do not grieve the one who is hungry.”

Then, when he says, What shall I say to you? he concludes his reprimand, saying: What shall I say to you in the light of the above? Shall I praise you? And he answers: In this I do not praise you. Although I praise you for other things, in this matter I cannot praise you. It should be noted that above, when he spoke about women’s apparel, he praised them at least ironically, saying: “I praise you, because you remember me in everything.” But here he does not want to praise them even ironically, because in more serious matters sinners must not be handled gently. Hence it says in Psalm 10:3: “For the sinner is praised in the desires of his soul and the wicked man is blessed. And the sinner renounces the Lord.” And in Isaiah 3:12: “My people, those who called you happy, misled you.”

According to another explanation, they are reprimanded for a different fault. In the early church, the faithful offered bread and wine, which were consecrated into the body and blood of Christ. After the consecration, the rich, who had offered much, wanted the same amount returned to them. And so they took an abundant share, while the poor, who had offered nothing, received nothing. Therefore, it is for this fault that the Apostle reprimands them, saying: When you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For the Lord’s supper is common to the whole family, but each of you takes it not as common but as his own, while trying to justify himself because he offered it to God. This is what he adds: Each one goes ahead to take his own supper to eat, that is, he presumptuously attempts to eat the consecrated bread and wine as his own, taking for his own use the things consecrated to the Lord. And so it follows that one goes hungry—the poor person who offered nothing—but another is drunk—the rich man who offered much and took too much of the consecrated wine, which he demanded as his own.

But it seems impossible for one to get drunk from consecrated wine or even be nourished by the bread. After consecration, nothing remains under the appearances of bread and wine except the substance of Christ’s body and blood, which cannot be changed into a human body so as to nourish it or cause drunkenness.

Therefore, some say that this happens not by any conversion of substance, but by a mere change in a person’s senses caused by the accidents of bread and wine, which remain after consecration. For people were known to be strengthened by the mere odor of food and to be stupefied, as it were, from the strong odor of wine. But strengthening or stupefaction that comes solely from a change of the senses lasts only a short time. However, if the consecrated bread or wine were taken in large quantities, a person would be sustained for a long time by the bread or stupefied by the wine. Besides, it is clear that the consecrated bread can be changed into another substance, since it is changed into dust by putrefaction or into ashes by burning. Hence, there is no reason to deny that it can nourish, since nourishment requires only that the food be changed into the substance of the one fed.

Therefore, others assert that the consecrated bread or wine can be converted into something else and so can nourish, because the substance of bread or wine remains there with the substance of the body and blood of Christ. But this conflicts with the words of Scripture. For what the Lord says in Matthew 26:26, “This is my body,” would not be true, because the thing pointed to would still be bread. He should rather have said, “Here, in this place, is my body.” Besides, the body of Christ does not begin to be in this sacrament by local motion, because He would then cease to be in heaven. It must be, then, that He begins to be there by the conversion of something else—the bread—into Himself. Therefore, the substance of bread cannot remain.

Others say that the bread’s substantial form remains, from which a thing’s activity springs; consequently, it nourishes just as bread itself nourishes. But this cannot be, because to nourish is to be converted into the substance of the one nourished. This does not belong to any nutrient by reason of its form, whose function is to act, but rather by reason of its matter, whose function is to be acted upon. Hence, if only the substantial form were there, it would be unable to nourish.

Still others say that the surrounding air is converted either into the substance of the one nourished or into something else of that sort. But this could not happen without a great condensation of air, which would surely be detected by the senses. Therefore, others say that by divine power the substance of bread and wine returns, so that the sacrament is not detected in these changes. But this seems impossible, because since the substance of bread was converted into the body of Christ, it does not seem that the substance of bread could return unless the body of Christ were converted back into bread. Besides, if the substance of bread returns, this occurs either with the accidents of bread remaining—and then the substance of bread and the substance of Christ’s body would be there simultaneously, which was disproved above—or it returns with the species (the appearances) not remaining, which is also impossible. For the substance of Christ’s body is there as long as the species remain.

But it is better to say that just as, by the power of the consecration, the appearances of bread and wine are miraculously given the ability to subsist without a subject and to exist in the manner of a substance, so also they are miraculously given the consequent ability to act and be acted upon in the same way as the substance of bread and wine would, if they were present. For this reason, those species of bread and wine can nourish and cause drunkenness, just as if the substance of bread and wine were there. As for the rest of the argument, there are no changes from the first explanation.