Commentary on 1 Corinthians
But the Lord did this for three reasons: first, because the figure precedes the truth in proper order. But the paschal lamb was a figure or shadow of this sacrament. Accordingly, after the supper of the paschal lamb, Christ gave this sacrament. For it is said about all practices of the law: these are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ (Col 2:17). Second, in order 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), namely, to his passion. Third, in order that this sacrament be impressed more sharply on the hearts of the disciples, to whom he gave it in his last quiet retreat.
But out of reverence for this great sacrament the Church later established that it can be taken only by those fasting; from which the sick were excepted, who in necessity, which knows no law, could take the body of Christ without fasting.
632. But because water does not break the fast, some supposed that after a drink of water they could take this sacrament, 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 the sense that some are said to fast, nevertheless when it is mixed with other things, it does nourish. And in this sense some are said to be fasting who on the same day take neither food nor drink. And because the pieces of food remaining in the mouth are consumed after the manner of 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 one and the same day he took absolutely no food or drink.
Hence because the beginning of a day is reckoned from midnight according to the custom of the Church, then whoever partakes of food or drink, no matter how little, after midnight, cannot receive this sacrament on that day.
633. Then when he says, for every one, he mentions the fault:
first, insofar as they sinned against God;
second, insofar as they sinned against their neighbor, at and one indeed is hungry.
634. He says, therefore, first: the reason I say that it is not lawful for you to eat the Lord’s supper is that every one takes before his own supper to eat, namely, of common food. For each one carried to the church a tray of food already prepared, and each one ate by himself, before he took the sacred mysteries: they banquet separately; now they shall perish (Hos 9:9); and in the person of the frugal, it is said: I have found rest, and I ate of my own goods alone (Sir 11:19).
635. Then when he says, and one indeed is hungry, he accuses them of the sin against the neighbor.
For the wealthy ate lavishly in church and imbibed until they were drunk; they gave nothing to the poor, who remained hungry. And this is what he says, and one indeed is hungry, namely, the poor man, who did not have the means to prepare anything, and another is drunk, namely, the rich, who overate and over-drank, which is contrary to what is said: go your way, eat the fat and drink sweet wine and send portions to him for whom nothing is prepared (Neh 8:10); and: I have eaten my morsel alone, and the fatherless has not eaten of it (Job 31:17).
636. Then when he says, what, have you no houses, he looks into the cause of this sin.
First, he excludes a reason, by which they could be excused. For 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 (Matt 21:13). And Augustine says in his Rule: in the oratory let no one do anything except for what it was built and from which it gets its name. Yet in case of necessity, namely, when one can find no other house, he may lawfully use the church for eating, or for other such lawful uses.
But the Apostle rejects this excuse, saying, what, have you no houses, namely, your own, to eat and to drink in? Then you would have an excuse, if you celebrated banquets in the church, which you ought to do in your own homes. Hence it is said that Levi made Christ a great feast in his house (Luke 5:29).
637. Second, when he says, or do you despise, he asserts the cause which makes them inexcusable, the first of which is contempt for the church of God. And he states this, saying, or 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 of the sacred house, which is not to be despised: holiness befits your house (Ps 93:5), and: has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? (Jer 7:11). But they despise both, when in the presence of the congregation of believers, they hold feasts in a holy place.
Second, he mentions their contempt of neighbor when he says: and put them to shame that have not? For the poor were humiliated, inasmuch as they were hungry in the presence of the entire group, while others were eating and drinking lavishly. But it is said: he who mocks the poor insults his maker (Prov 17:7) and: do not grieve the one who is hungry (Sir 4:2).
638. 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? Do I praise you? And he answers: although I praise you for other things, in this I praise you not.
It should be noted that above when he spoke about women’s apparel, he praised them at least ironically, saying, I praise you. . . that in all things you are mindful of me (1 Cor 11:2). But here he does not want to praise them even ironically, because in more serious matters sinners must in no way be handled gently. Hence it is said: for the sinner is praised in the desires of his soul and the wicked man is blessed (Ps 10:3). And the sinner renounces the Lord; and: my people, those who called you happy, misled you (Isa 3:12).
639. According to another explanation, they are reprimanded for a different fault.
For 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; 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 come together therefore into one place, it is not now 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 he tries to justify himself, because he offered it to God. And this is what he adds, every one takes, i.e., presumptuously attempts to eat, namely of the Lord, i.e., consecrated bread and wine, as his own, i.e., taking them as though they were his own, namely, the things consecrated to the Lord, for their use. And so it follows that one, namely, the poor person who offered nothing is hungry, but another, namely, the rich man who offered much is drunk; literally, because he took too much of the consecrated wine, which he demanded as his own.
640. But it seems to be impossible for one to get drunk from consecrated wine or even be nourished by the bread, because after consecration nothing remains under the appearance of bread and wine except the substance of Christ’s body and blood, which cannot be changed into man’s body, so as to nourish him or make him drunk.
641. Therefore, some say that this does not come to pass by any conversion, but by the sole change of a man’s senses by the accidents of bread and wine, which remain after consecration. For men were wont to be strengthened by the mere order of food and be stupefied and, as it were, made drunk from the strong odor of wine.
But strengthening or stupefaction, which come solely from a change of the senses, lasts a short time, while, nevertheless, after the consecration of the bread and wine, if the wine or bread were taken in large quantities, a man would be sustained for a long time on account of the bread or stupefied on account of 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 they can nourish, since nourishment requires no more than that the food be changed into the substance of the one fed.
642. Therefore, others assert that the bread or consecrated wine can be converted into something else and so can nourish, because the substance of bread or wine remain there with the substance of the body and blood of Christ.
But this conflicts with the words of Scripture. For what the Lord says would not be true, namely, this is my body (Matt 26:26), because this thing pointed to is bread; he should rather have said: here, i.e., 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. Hence, what is left is that he begins to be there by the conversion of something else, i.e., of the bread, into himself; hence, it cannot be that the substance of bread remains.
Therefore, others say that there remains the bread’s substantial form, from which springs a thing’s activity; consequently, it nourishes, just as bread itself nourishes.
But this cannot be, because to nourish is to be converted into the substance of the nourished. But this does not belong to any nutriment by reason of the form, whose function is to act, but rather by reason of the matter, whose function is to be acted upon. Hence, if the substantial form were there, it would be unable to nourish.
643. But others say that the surrounding air is converted either into the substance of the one nourished or into anything else of the sort. But this could not happen without much condensation of air, which would not fail to be detected by a sense.
Therefore, others say that by divine power the substance of bread and wine return, in order that the sacrament not be detected in these changes.
But this seems to be 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 into bread.