Thomas Aquinas Commentary 1 Corinthians 11:25-26

"In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord`s death till he come." — 1 Corinthians 11:25-26 (ASV)

After explaining the institution of this sacrament regarding the consecration of the body, the Apostle now explains its institution regarding the consecration of the blood. First, he presents the order of institution; second, he presents the words (1 Corinthians 11:25b).

The order is considered in two respects. First is the co-presence of both species, when he says, In the same way also the cup. Both are required for the perfection of this sacrament: for the perfection of nourishment, for representing the passion, and for effecting the salvation of the soul and body, as was stated above. But if the body of Christ is consecrated first in this sacrament and the blood later, it seems to follow that before the consecration of the blood, the body of Christ is without blood in the sacrament.

Some who considered this unfitting have said that the two forms await each other to take effect. In other words, the first form for the consecration of the body does not achieve its effect until the form for the consecration of the blood is completed. This is compared to the idea that the words pronounced in consecrating the body do not take effect until the end of their pronunciation. But this comparison is not valid. The meaning of the words by which the body of Christ is consecrated is not complete until the end of their pronunciation. And because sacramental words produce their effect by signifying, they cannot take effect before their pronunciation is finished. At that point, they have their full meaning, even before the words for the consecration of the blood are begun. Therefore, they must have their effect even then.

Otherwise, the priest would sin immediately after the words of consecration by showing an unconsecrated host to the people for adoration, unless the body of Christ were already there, because he would be leading the people into idolatry. Therefore, it must be said that before the consecration of the blood, the body of Christ is in this sacrament, and not without His blood.

It should be noted that something is present in this sacrament in two ways. First, by virtue of the consecration—that is, the substance into which the bread and wine are converted, as is signified by the form of consecration. In this way, the body of Christ is present under the appearance of bread. Second, something is present by real concomitance. For example, the divinity of the Word is present in this sacrament because of its indissoluble union with the body of Christ, although the substance of bread is in no way converted into the divinity. Likewise, the soul is there, which is truly joined to the body. However, if at any time during the three days of Christ’s death the body of Christ had been consecrated by any of the apostles, the soul would not have been there, because it was truly separated from the body.

The same is true of the blood. Under the appearance of bread, Christ’s body is present by virtue of the consecration, as the substance of bread is converted into it. But the blood is there by real concomitance, because the blood of Christ is not truly separated from His body. For the same reason, under the appearance of wine, the blood of Christ is present by virtue of the consecration, but the body is present by real concomitance, so that the whole Christ is under both species. But if this sacrament had been celebrated by any of the apostles during the time of the passion, when the blood of Christ had been drained from His body, there would have been only the body of Christ without the blood under the appearance of bread, and only the blood of Christ under the appearance of wine.

The second point regarding the order concerns the material food that had preceded it, when he says, After supper. This is a significant phrase. For Christ gave His body during the meal, as it says in Matthew 26:26: As they were eating, Jesus took bread. But He gave his blood expressly after the meal, as it says in Luke 22:20: And likewise the cup after supper. The reason for this is that the body of Christ represents the mystery of the Incarnation, which occurred while the observance of the Law was still in practice. Among these observances, the most important was the meal of the paschal lamb. But the blood of Christ in the sacrament directly represents the passion, through which it was poured out and through which all observances of the Law came to an end. Hence it says in Hebrews 9:12: He went once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Then he presents the words, this cup. First, he demonstrates the truth of this sacrament; second, he commands its use (1 Corinthians 11:25c).

Regarding the first point, he says, this cup. This can be understood in two ways. First, as metonymy, where the container is used to refer to its contents. It is as if to say, "What is contained in this cup." The cup is more fittingly mentioned in the consecration of the wine than a container would be for the bread. This is because wine, by reason of its liquid nature, needs to be contained by external boundaries, whereas bread, by reason of its dryness, is contained within its own boundaries. Second, it can be taken metaphorically, meaning that just as a cup can intoxicate and overwhelm, so also can the passion. Hence, Matthew 20:22 says, Are you able to drink the cup I am to drink? and Matthew 26:39, Let this cup pass from me. The meaning, therefore, is this: This cup—that is, what is contained in this cup, or this my passion—is the new covenant in my blood.

It should be noted that "covenant" is used in two senses in the Scriptures. First, it can mean any pact confirmed by witnesses. In this sense, we can understand that God entered into a pact with the human race in two ways. One way was by promising temporal goods and freedom from temporal evils; this is called the Old Covenant or pact. The other way was by promising spiritual goods and freedom from their opposite evils; this is called the New Covenant. Hence, it says in Jeremiah 31:31: I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers, when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. But this will be the covenant: I will put my law within them and I will be their God. It should also be noted that in antiquity, the custom was to pour out the blood of a victim to confirm a pact. Hence, Genesis 31:54 says that after Laban and Jacob made a pact, victims were sacrificed on the mountain and he called his kinsmen. Likewise, in Exodus 24:8, it says that Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, Behold, the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you. Therefore, just as the Old Covenant was confirmed by the symbolic blood of bulls, so the New Covenant was confirmed in Christ’s blood, which was poured out in the passion. And this sacrament is contained in the cup.

Second, "covenant" is used more strictly to mean the disposition of an inheritance to be received, which must be confirmed by a certain number of witnesses. Such a covenant, however, is not confirmed except by death, because, as the Apostle says in Hebrews 9:17: For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. God, first of all, made a disposition of eternal rewards to be received, but under the figure of temporal goods—which pertains to the Old Covenant. But later He made a New Covenant, expressly promising an eternal inheritance, which was confirmed by the blood of Christ’s death. And therefore, the Lord says of this: This cup is the new covenant in my blood. It is as if to say: Through what is contained in the cup, the new covenant confirmed by the blood of Christ is commemorated.

It should be noted that the same words the Apostle gives here are found in Luke 22:20, except that Luke adds, which is poured out for you. For Luke was a disciple of Paul and followed him in writing his Gospel. But Matthew 26:28 says, This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. The same words appear in Mark 14:24. Therefore, some say that whichever of these forms of words written in the canon are said, they are sufficient for consecration. But it seems more probable to say that consecration is accomplished only by those words which the Church structured on the apostles' practices. For the evangelists intended to recite the Lord’s words as part of His history, but not as they are appointed for the consecration of the sacrament, which they held in secret in the early Church because of unbelievers. Hence Denis says in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: “It is not permitted to explain openly in writing the perfective invocations in the Scriptures or to bring to light their secret meaning.”

Regarding the words the Church uses in the consecration of the blood, some believe that not all of them are necessary for the form. They hold that only the words This is the cup of my blood are essential, but not the rest: of the new and eternal covenant, a mystery of faith, which will be shed for you and for many for the remission of sins. But this does not seem correct, for all that follows is a determination of the predicate. Therefore, it pertains to the meaning of the statement. And because, as has often been said, the forms of the sacraments take effect by signifying, the entirety of the phrase pertains to the effective power of the sacrament. Nor is there merit in the reason they give: that in the consecration of the body it is enough to say, This is my body. This is because the separately consecrated blood especially represents the passion of Christ, through which His blood was separated from His body.

Therefore, in the consecration of the blood, it was necessary to express the power of Christ’s passion. This power is viewed in three ways:

1. First, with respect to our guilt, which the passion of Christ abolishes, as it says in Revelation 1:5: He washed us from our sins in His blood. In regard to this, the words are, which will be shed for you and for many for the remission of sins. The blood was indeed shed for the remission of sins, not only for many but for all, as it says in 1 John 2:2: He is the expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but also for the sins of the whole world. But because some make themselves unworthy to receive this effect, it is said to have been shed "for many" in terms of its efficacy—that is, for those in whom the passion of Christ has its effect. The phrase says for you and for many because this sacrament, as a sacrifice, can produce the remission of sin both for those who receive it and for many who do not receive communion but for whom it is offered. This latter group is signified by the words and for many.
2. Second, with respect to the life of righteousness it brings about through faith, as it says in Romans 3:24-25: They are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. Regarding this, the words are, the mystery of faith. This means the sacrament of faith, because faith in the passion of Christ was hidden in all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant, as truth is hidden in a figure. The Church has this phrase from the tradition of the apostles, since it is not found in the canon of Scripture.
3. Third, with respect to the life of glory, as it says in Hebrews 10:19: Having confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus. Regarding this, the words are, of the new and eternal covenant. It is "eternal" because it is the disposition for the eternal inheritance. It is "new" to distinguish it from the Old Covenant, which promised temporal things. Hence, Hebrews 9:15 says: Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred.

Then, when he says, Do this, he commands the use of this sacrament, saying, Do this as often as you take it in remembrance of me—that is, in remembrance of the mystery of my passion. Hence the prophet says in Lamentations 3:20, My soul continually thinks of it and is bowed down within me, and in Isaiah 63:7, I will recall the mercies of the Lord.

It should be noted that wine should be the principal element put in the cup, but water should be added. It is probable that Christ at the meal gave the disciples wine mixed with water because of a custom in that land, where the strength of the wine had to be tempered. Thus, everyone drank their wine mixed with water. Hence in Proverbs 9:5 Wisdom says, Drink the wine I have mixed for you. Nevertheless, water mixed with wine signifies the Christian people joined to Christ by the passion, as it says in Revelation 17:15: The waters you saw are peoples and nations. And the faithful's partaking of the blood of Christ pertains to the use of the sacrament, although it is not necessary. However, wine can be consecrated without water, although a priest who does so would sin by not observing the rite of the Church. Therefore, if the priest recalls before the consecration that water was not added to the wine, he should add it. But if he recalls it after the consecration, he should not add it but should complete the sacrament. For after the consecration, nothing should be mixed with the blood of Christ, because such a mixing could not take place without some sort of corruption of the consecrated wine, which constitutes the crime of sacrilege.

Some say that when blood and water flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross, as it says in John 19:34, then just as the wine is converted into blood, so the water is converted into the water from Christ's side. But this is not fitting, because that water symbolizes the washing that occurs through baptism. Others say that after the conversion of the wine into the blood, the water remains as water and is surrounded by the appearances of the wine. But this is awkward, because the water is mixed with the wine before consecration, when it is no different from the rest of the wine. Therefore, they do not remain separated but are mixed together. It must be said, therefore, that the water is converted into the wine, and this whole mixture is then converted into the blood of Christ. Accordingly, the custom is to add only a small amount of water, especially if the wine is weak, as it can only convert a small amount of water into itself.

Then, when he says, As often as, he explains the Lord’s words, Do this in memory of me, saying, For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death—that is, by representing it through this sacrament. And this is done until he comes—that is, until His final coming. This helps us understand that this rite of the Church will not cease until the end of the world. As it says in Matthew 28:20, I am with you always, to the end of the age, and in Luke 21:32, This generation—that is, the Church—will not pass away until all has taken place.