Thomas Aquinas Commentary 1 Corinthians 11:23-24

"For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me." — 1 Corinthians 11:23-24 (ASV)

After rebuking the Corinthians for their improper behavior when they gathered for the Eucharist, the Apostle now addresses the sacrament itself. First, he discusses the dignity of this sacrament; second, he urges the faithful to receive it reverently (verse 27). Regarding the first point, he does two things: he establishes the authority of the doctrine he is about to deliver, and then he presents the doctrine concerning the dignity of this sacrament (verse 23b).

Concerning the first matter, he establishes the doctrine’s authority in two ways. First, he establishes its authority from its author, who is Christ, saying: I received from the Lord. He calls the sacrament of the Eucharist the Lord’s supper, for he received this teaching from the Lord—that is, Christ, who is the author of this doctrine, not any mere man. As it is written, Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through men, but through Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:1), and, It was declared at first by the Lord (Hebrews 2:3). Second, he establishes the doctrine’s authority from its minister, who is Paul himself, when he adds, what I also delivered to you. This is in keeping with the scriptures: What I have heard from the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, I announce to you (Isaiah 21:10); I learned without guile and I impart without envy .

Then, when he says, that the Lord Jesus, he establishes the dignity of this sacrament by describing its institution. He addresses:

1. the one who institutes it;
2. the time of its institution (verse 23c);
3. and the manner of its institution (verse 23d).

The one who institutes this sacrament is Christ. Hence Paul says, that the Lord Jesus. As was stated previously when the sacrament of baptism was discussed, Christ possesses an excellence of power in the sacraments, which includes four things. First, his virtue and merit operate in the sacraments. Second, the sacraments are sanctified in his name. Third, he can produce the effect of a sacrament without the sacrament itself. Fourth, he can institute a new sacrament. It was especially fitting that he should institute in his own person this sacrament, in which his body and blood are communicated. For this reason, he himself says in John 6:51: The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.

Next, when he says, on the night when he was betrayed, he describes the time this sacrament was instituted. This was fitting for two reasons. First, regarding the nature of the time, it was night, and the soul is enlightened by the power of this sacrament. As 1 Samuel 14:27 says of Jonathan, he put out the tip of the staff... and dipped it in a honeycomb and put his hand to his mouth, and his eyes became bright. For this reason, Psalms 139:12 says, the night is as bright as the day. Second, regarding the events taking place at that time, it was when he was handed over to his passion, through which he passed to the Father, that he instituted this sacrament, which is a memorial of that passion. As it is written, Come here, stranger, and prepare the table, and if you have anything at hand, let me have it to eat .

Then, when he says, he took bread, he shows the manner of the institution. First, he relates what Christ said and did in instituting this sacrament; second, he explains its meaning (verse 26). In the first part, he deals with the institution of this sacrament concerning the body of Christ, and then concerning his blood (verse 25).

Before explaining the text regarding the first part, we must consider the need for this sacrament’s institution. It should be noted that the sacraments were instituted because of a need in the spiritual life. And because physical things are likenesses of spiritual things, it is fitting that the sacraments correspond to things necessary for physical life. In physical life, generation comes first, to which baptism corresponds, through which one is reborn into the spiritual life. Second, physical life requires growth, by which one is brought to full stature and strength. The sacrament of confirmation corresponds to this, in which the Holy Spirit is given for strength. Third, physical life requires food to sustain the body; likewise, the spiritual life is fed by the sacrament of the Eucharist, as it says in Psalm 23:2: He makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still waters.

It should be understood that the one who generates is not joined in substance to the one generated, but only in power. Food, however, is joined in substance to the one who is fed. Therefore, in the sacrament of baptism, by which Christ regenerates us for salvation, Christ is present not in his substance but only in his power. But in the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is spiritual food, Christ is present in his substance.

He is contained under another appearance for three reasons:

1. It would be abhorrent to the faithful to receive this sacrament if they ate the flesh of a man and drank his blood in their natural form.
2. It would prevent the sacrament from being a source of mockery for unbelievers.
3. It allows the merit of faith to increase, which consists in believing something unseen.

This sacrament is presented under two species for three reasons:

1. For the sake of its perfection. Since it is spiritual refreshment, it should be both spiritual food and spiritual drink, just as physical refreshment is incomplete without both. Hence the Apostle says above, All ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink (1 Corinthians 10:3–4).
2. For the sake of its symbolic meaning. It is the memorial of the Lord’s passion, through which the blood of Christ was separated from his body. That is why in this sacrament the blood is offered separately from the body.
3. For the sake of its health-giving effect. It contributes to the health of the body, and so the body is offered; and it contributes to the health of the soul, and so the blood is offered, for the life of the flesh is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11).

This sacrament is offered specifically under the appearance of bread and wine for three reasons. First, because people generally use bread and wine for their refreshment, these are used in this sacrament, just as water is used in baptism. Second, because of the effect of this sacrament, for bread strengthens the heart, while wine gladdens it. Third, because the bread, which is made from many grains, signifies the unity of the faithful. Furthermore, this Eucharist is especially the sacrament of unity and charity, as Augustine says in his commentary on John.

Having considered these points, we must now explain the text, looking first at what Christ did, and second, at what he said (verse 24).

He does three things. The first is designated when the text says, He took bread. This can signify two things: first, that he voluntarily accepted the passion, of which this sacrament is the memorial, as it says in Isaiah 53:7: He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth. Second, that he received from the Father the power to bring about this sacrament, according to Matthew 11:27: All things have been handed over to me by my Father. He touches on the second action when he says, and broke it, fulfilling the command, Share your bread with the hungry (Isaiah 58:7).

But this seems contrary to the practice of the Church, according to which the body of Christ is first consecrated and then broken. This cannot be, because when the priest is consecrating, he does not speak those words in his own person but in the person of Christ consecrating. It is clear, therefore, that Christ consecrated with the same words with which we consecrate. It should be noted that the phrase and said is not to be taken sequentially, as though Christ took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and then said the words that follow. Rather, these actions are to be understood as happening simultaneously: while he took the bread, giving thanks, he broke it and said the words. Therefore, with Matthew 26:26, it should be stated that Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it. The Apostle here did not bother to mention the blessing, understanding that the blessing was nothing other than what the Lord said: This is my body.

Then, when he says, and said, he shows what Christ said when instituting this sacrament. In doing so, he first commanded the use of the sacrament, second, expressed the truth of the sacrament, and third, taught its mystery.

He commanded the use of the sacrament, saying, Take. It is as if to say that it is not by any human power or merit that you are worthy to use this sacrament, but by an eminent gift of God: You gave your people food of angels ; What do you have that you did not receive? (1 Corinthians 4:7). And he specifies the manner of use when he says, and eat, in keeping with John 6:53: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man; and Job 31:31: If the men of my tent have not said, ‘Oh, that we had of his flesh! We cannot be satisfied.’

It should be noted, however, that these words are not part of the form of consecration. There is a difference between this and other sacraments: the latter are fulfilled not in the consecration of the matter but in the use of the consecrated matter, as in the washing with water or the anointing with oil or chrism. The reason is that in the forms of the other sacraments, the use of the sacrament is mentioned, as when it is stated, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." But this sacrament is fulfilled in the very consecration of the matter, in which Christ himself is contained, who is the end of all sanctifying grace. Therefore, the words that pertain to the use of the sacrament are not of the essence of the form, but only those containing the truth and content of the sacrament, which he mentions last, adding: This is my body.

Regarding these words, three things should be considered:

1. The reality signified by these words, namely, that the body of Christ is truly there.
2. The truth of this statement.
3. Whether this is a suitable form for this sacrament.

Concerning the first point, some have said that the body of Christ is not truly present in this sacrament, but only as a sign, explaining the words This is my body to mean, "This is a sign and figure of my body," just as it was said above, and that Rock was Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4), meaning it was a figure of Christ. But this is heretical, since the Lord expressly says, For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink (John 6:55). Others say that the body of Christ is truly there but along with the substance of bread. This is impossible, as was shown above. Still others say that only the body of Christ is there, the substance of bread not remaining because it is annihilated or reduced to prejacent matter. But this cannot be, because, as Augustine says in his Book of Eighty-Three Questions, "God is not the author of tending to non-existence." Furthermore, this position denies that the substance of bread is converted into the body of Christ. If the body of Christ begins to be in this sacrament by some means other than the conversion of something else into it, the consequence is that he begins to be there by local motion, which is impossible, as was shown above. Therefore, one must say that the body of Christ is truly in this sacrament by the conversion of the bread into it.

It should be noted that this conversion differs from all conversions that occur in nature. Natural processes presuppose matter, and therefore their action does not extend beyond changing a thing's form, whether substantial or accidental. Hence, every natural conversion is said to be formal. But God, who brings about this conversion, is the author of both form and matter. Therefore, the entire substance of bread, with the matter not remaining, can be converted into the entire substance of the body of Christ. And because matter is the principle of individuation, this whole signated individual, which is a particular substance, is converted into another particular substance. For this reason, it is called a substantial conversion, or transubstantiation.

In this conversion, the opposite of what happens in natural conversions occurs. In natural conversions, the subject remains while a change sometimes affects the accidents. But here, the substance is changed, while the accidents remain intact without a subject. This is done by divine power, which, as the first cause, sustains them without a material cause (the substance) so that the body and blood of Christ may be consumed under a different appearance, for the reasons given above. And because accidents relate to their substance in a definite order, the dimensions remain without a subject, and the other accidents remain in those dimensions as in a subject.

But if no substance remains under those dimensions except the body of Christ, there could be doubt about the breaking of the consecrated host, since the body of Christ is glorified and, therefore, unbreakable. He cannot exist under this particle, nor can it be pretended that he does, because the sacrament of truth is incompatible with any deception. Nothing is perceived by the senses in this sacrament that is not truly there. For the per se sensibles are qualities, which indeed remain as they previously existed in this sacrament. Therefore, others have said that a certain breaking occurs there without a subject, meaning nothing is actually broken. But this cannot be said either, because breaking is in the category of "being acted upon," which is a weaker category than quality; it cannot exist in this sacrament without a subject any more than quality can. Hence, it must be said that the breaking is founded, as on a subject, on the dimensions of the bread and wine which remain. But the body of Christ is not affected by such breaking, because the whole Christ remains under each part of the divided dimensions.

This can be understood in this way: the body of Christ is in this sacrament from the conversion of the substance of bread into it. This conversion does not happen because of the dimensions, for the dimensions of the bread remain; it happens only by reason of the substance. Therefore, the body of Christ is there by reason of its own substance, not by reason of its own dimensions, although its dimensions are there consequently, inasmuch as they are not separated from his substance. But as far as the nature of substance is concerned, it is entire under each part of the dimensions. Therefore, just as before the consecration the entire substance and nature of the bread was under each part of its dimensions, so after the consecration the whole body of Christ is under each part of the divided bread.

The division of the consecrated host signifies three things:

1. The passion of Christ, through which his body was broken by wounds, as it says in Psalm 22:16: They have pierced my hands and my feet.
2. The distribution of Christ's gifts proceeding from him, as it says above: Now there are varieties of gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4).
3. The various parts of the Church. For among Christ’s members, some are still pilgrims in this world, some are in glory with Christ in both soul and body, and some await the final resurrection at the end of the world. This is signified by the division of the host into three parts.

Secondly, one should consider the truth of this statement. For the statement, This is my body, seems to be false. The conversion of bread into the body of Christ occurs at the time these words are pronounced, for it is then that their signification is completed. Since the forms of the sacraments bring about their effect by signifying it, it follows that at the beginning of the statement, the body of Christ is not yet there, but only the substance of bread. The pronoun "this" points to that substance. Therefore, to say, "this is my body," would be the same as saying, "The substance of bread is my body," which is obviously false.

Therefore, some have said that the priest pronounces these words materially, as a recitation, in the person of Christ, and that the pronoun’s demonstrative function does not refer to the matter at hand, which would render the statement false as the objection supposed. But this cannot stand. First, because if this statement is not applied to the material present, it will do nothing to it, which is false. For Augustine says in his commentary on John, "The word comes to the element, and the sacrament comes to be." Hence, it is necessary to say that the words are taken formally as referring to the material present. The priest says them with the same efficacy now as when Christ first spoke them, for the power conferred on these words does not vanish with the difference of time or the variety of ministers. Second, because the same difficulty remains regarding the first time these words were spoken by Christ himself.

Therefore, others say that the sense of these words is, "This is my body," i.e., "This bread designates my body," so that "this" designates what is present at the beginning of the statement. But this cannot be, because since the sacraments bring about what they signify, these words would effect nothing except what they signify. It would follow from this that nothing would be effected by these words, except that the body of Christ would be there as if under a sign, which was disproved earlier. Others say that the "this" points out something to the intellect and indicates that which will be present at the end of the utterance, namely, the body of Christ. But this does not seem suitable either, because according to this the sense would be, "My body is my body," which is a tautology not brought about by these words, since it was true even before the words of consecration.

Therefore, there must be another explanation. The forms of the sacraments do not merely signify, but also effect; for by signifying, they effect. In every act of making, there must be some common underlying principle. In this conversion, the common factor is not a substance but the accidents, which were present in the beginning and continue to remain. Therefore, on the part of the subject in this statement, no noun is used which signifies a definite species of substance, but a pronoun, which signifies a substance without naming its species. The meaning, therefore, is: "This"—that is, that which is contained under these accidents—"is my body." And this is what occurs through the words of consecration. For before the consecration, that which was contained under these accidents was not the body of Christ, but it is made the body of Christ through consecration.

Thirdly, it is important to consider how this is a suitable form for this sacrament. This sacrament, as has been said, does not consist in the use of the matter but in its consecration. But the consecration does not occur by the consecrated matter merely receiving some spiritual power, but by the fact that it is transubstantiated in its very being into the body of Christ. Therefore, no word other than a substantive was to be used, so as to say, this is my body. For by this is signified that which is at the end, which is effected by signifying.

Then when he says, which is for you, he explains the mystery of this sacrament. For this sacrament is a memorial of the Lord’s passion, through which his body was delivered over to death for us, as it says in Isaiah 50:6: I gave my back to those who strike, and Ephesians 5:2: and gave himself up for us. And to show the reason for making frequent use of this mystery, he adds: Do this in remembrance of me, by calling to mind such a great blessing, for which I gave myself in death. Hence it says in Lamentations 3:19: Remember my affliction and my wanderings, the wormwood and the gall! and Psalm 111:4-5: He has caused his wondrous works to be remembered; the Lord is gracious and merciful. He provides food for those who fear him.