EUCHARIST
(QQ [73]- 83)
OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST (SIX ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the sacrament of the Eucharist; and first of all we treat of
the sacrament itself; secondly, of its matter; thirdly, of its form; fourthly, of its
effects; fifthly, of the recipients of this sacrament; sixthly, of the minister;
seventhly, of the rite.
TP Q[73] Out.
Under the first heading there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the Eucharist is a sacrament?
(2) Whether it is one or several sacraments?
(3) Whether it is necessary for salvation?
(4) Its names;
(5) Its institution;
(6) Its figures.
TP Q[73] A[1] Thes.
Whether the Eucharist is a sacrament?
TP Q[73] A[1] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the Eucharist is not a sacrament. For two sacraments ought not to
be ordained for the same end, because every sacrament is efficacious in producing its
effect. Therefore, since both Confirmation and the Eucharist are ordained for perfection,
as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iv), it seems that the Eucharist is not a sacrament, since
Confirmation is one, as stated above (Q[65], A[1]; Q[72], A[1]).
TP Q[73] A[1] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, in every sacrament of the New Law, that which comes visibly under our
senses causes the invisible effect of the sacrament, just as cleansing with water causes
the baptismal character and spiritual cleansing, as stated above (Q[63], A[6]; Q[66],
AA[1],3,7). But the species of bread and wine, which are the objects of our senses in this
sacrament, neither produce Christ's true body, which is both reality and sacrament, nor
His mystical body, which is the reality only in the Eucharist. Therefore, it seems that
the Eucharist is not a sacrament of the New Law.
TP Q[73] A[1] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, sacraments of the New Law, as having matter, are perfected by the use
of the matter, as Baptism is by ablution, and Confirmation by signing with chrism. If,
then, the Eucharist be a sacrament, it would be perfected by the use of the matter, and
not by its consecration. But this is manifestly false, because the words spoken in the
consecration of the matter are the form of this sacrament, as will be shown later on
(Q[78], A[1]). Therefore the Eucharist is not a sacrament.
TP Q[73] A[1] OTC
On the contrary, It is said in the Collect [*Postcommunion "pro vivis et
defunctis"]: "May this Thy Sacrament not make us deserving of punishment."
TP Q[73] A[1] Body
I answer that, The Church's sacraments are ordained for helping man in the spiritual
life. But the spiritual life is analogous to the corporeal, since corporeal things bear a
resemblance to spiritual. Now it is clear that just as generation is required for
corporeal life, since thereby man receives life; and growth, whereby man is brought to
maturity: so likewise food is required for the preservation of life. Consequently, just as
for the spiritual life there had to be Baptism, which is spiritual generation; and
Confirmation, which is spiritual growth: so there needed to be the sacrament of the
Eucharist, which is spiritual food.
TP Q[73] A[1] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Perfection is twofold. The first lies within man himself; and he attains
it by growth: such perfection belongs to Confirmation. The other is the perfection which
comes to man from the addition of food, or clothing, or something of the kind; and such is
the perfection befitting the Eucharist, which is the spiritual refreshment.
TP Q[73] A[1] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The water of Baptism does not cause any spiritual effect by reason of the
water, but by reason of the power of the Holy Ghost, which power is in the water. Hence on
Jn. 5:4, "An angel of the Lord at certain times," etc., Chrysostom observes:
"The water does not act simply as such upon the baptized, but when it receives the
grace of the Holy Ghost, then it looses all sins." But the true body of Christ. bears
the same relation to the species of the bread and wine, as the power of the Holy Ghost
does to the water of Baptism: hence the species of the bread and wine produce no effect
except from the virtue of Christ's true body.
TP Q[73] A[1] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: A sacrament is so termed because it contains something sacred. Now a thing
can be styled sacred from two causes; either absolutely, or in relation to something else.
The difference between the Eucharist and other sacraments having sensible matter is that
whereas the Eucharist contains something which is sacred absolutely, namely, Christ's own
body; the baptismal water contains something which is sacred in relation to something
else, namely, the sanctifying power: and the same holds good of chrism and such like.
Consequently, the sacrament of the Eucharist is completed in the very consecration of the
matter, whereas the other sacraments are completed in the application of the matter for
the sanctifying of the individual. And from this follows another difference. For, in the
sacrament of the Eucharist, what is both reality and sacrament is in the matter itself.
but what is reality only, namely, the grace bestowed, is in the recipient; whereas in
Baptism both are in the recipient, namely, the character, which is both reality and
sacrament, and the grace of pardon of sins, which is reality only. And the same holds good
of the other sacraments.
TP Q[73] A[2] Thes.
Whether the Eucharist is one sacrament or several?
TP Q[73] A[2] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the Eucharist is not one sacrament but several, because it is said
in the Collect [*Postcommunion "pro vivis et defunctis"]: "May the
sacraments which we have received purify us, O Lord": and this is said on account of
our receiving the Eucharist. Consequently the Eucharist is not one sacrament but several.
TP Q[73] A[2] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, it is impossible for genera to be multiplied without the species being
multiplied: thus it is impossible for one man to be many animals. But, as stated above
(Q[60], A[1]), sign is the genus of sacrament. Since, then, there are more signs than one,
to wit, bread and wine, it seems to follow that here must be more sacraments than one.
TP Q[73] A[2] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, this sacrament is perfected in the consecration of the matter, as
stated above (A[1], ad 3). But in this sacrament there is a double consecration of the
matter. Therefore, it is a twofold sacrament.
TP Q[73] A[2] OTC
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:17): "For we, being many, are one
bread, one body, all that partake of one bread": from which it is clear that the
Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church's unity. But a sacrament bears the likeness of
the reality whereof it is the sacrament. Therefore the Eucharist is one sacrament.
TP Q[73] A[2] Body
I answer that, As stated in Metaph. v, a thing is said to be one, not only from being
indivisible, or continuous, but also when it is complete; thus we speak of one house, and
one man. A thing is one in perfection, when it is complete through the presence of all
that is needed for its end; as a man is complete by having all the members required for
the operation of his soul, and a house by having all the parts needful for dwelling
therein. And so this sacrament is said to be one. Because it is ordained for spiritual
refreshment, which is conformed to corporeal refreshment. Now there are two things
required for corporeal refreshment, namely, food, which is dry sustenance, and drink,
which is wet sustenance. Consequently, two things concur for the integrity of this
sacrament, to wit, spiritual food and spiritual drink, according to John: "My flesh
is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." Therefore, this sacrament is
materially many, but formally and perfectively one.
TP Q[73] A[2] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: The same Collect at first employs the plural: "May the sacraments
which we have received purify us"; and afterwards the singular number: "May this
sacrament of Thine not make us worthy of punishment": so as to show that this
sacrament is in a measure several, yet simply one.
TP Q[73] A[2] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The bread and wine are materially several signs, yet formally and
perfectively one, inasmuch as one refreshment is prepared therefrom.
TP Q[73] A[2] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: From the double consecration of the matter no more can be gathered than
that the sacrament is several materially, as stated above.
TP Q[73] A[3] Thes.
Whether the Eucharist is necessary for salvation?
TP Q[73] A[3] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that this sacrament is necessary for salvation. For our Lord said
(Jn.
6:54): "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall
not have life in you." But Christ's flesh is eaten and His blood drunk in this
sacrament. Therefore, without this sacrament man cannot have the health of spiritual life.
TP Q[73] A[3] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, this sacrament is a kind of spiritual food. But bodily food is
requisite for bodily health. Therefore, also is this sacrament, for spiritual health.
TP Q[73] A[3] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, as Baptism is the sacrament of our Lord's Passion, without which there
is no salvation, so also is the Eucharist. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:26): "For
as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of
the Lord, until He come." Consequently, as Baptism is necessary for salvation, so
also is this sacrament.
TP Q[73] A[3] OTC
On the contrary, Augustine writes (Ad Bonifac. contra
Pelag. I): "Nor are you to
suppose that children cannot possess life, who are deprived of the body and blood of
Christ."
TP Q[73] A[3] Body
I answer that, Two things have to be considered in this sacrament, namely, the
sacrament itself, and what is contained in it. Now it was stated above (A[1], OBJ[2]) that
the reality of the sacrament is the unity of the mystical body, without which there can be
no salvation; for there is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the
time of the deluge there was none outside the Ark, which denotes the Church, according to
1 Pt. 3:20,21. And it has been said above (Q[68], A[2]), that before receiving a
sacrament, the reality of the sacrament can be had through the very desire of receiving
the sacrament. Accordingly, before actual reception of this sacrament, a man can obtain
salvation through the desire of receiving it, just as he can before Baptism through the
desire of Baptism, as stated above (Q[68], A[2]). Yet there is a difference in two
respects. First of all, because Baptism is the beginning of the spiritual life, and the
door of the sacraments; whereas the Eucharist is, as it were, the consummation of the
spiritual life, and the end of all the sacraments, as was observed above (Q[63], A[6]):
for by the hallowings of all the sacraments preparation is made for receiving or
consecrating the Eucharist. Consequently, the reception of Baptism is necessary for
starting the spiritual life, while the receiving of the Eucharist is requisite for its
consummation; by partaking not indeed actually, but in desire, as an end is possessed in
desire and intention. Another difference is because by Baptism a man is ordained to the
Eucharist, and therefore from the fact of children being baptized, they are destined by
the Church to the Eucharist; and just as they believe through the Church's faith, so they
desire the Eucharist through the Church's intention, and, as a result, receive its
reality. But they are not disposed for Baptism by any previous sacrament, and consequently
before receiving Baptism, in no way have they Baptism in desire; but adults alone have:
consequently, they cannot have the reality of the sacrament without receiving the
sacrament itself. Therefore this sacrament is not necessary for salvation in the same way
as Baptism is.
TP Q[73] A[3] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: As Augustine says, explaining Jn. 6:54, "This food and this
drink," namely, of His flesh and blood: "He would have us understand the
fellowship of His body and members, which is the Church in His predestinated, and called,
and justified, and glorified, His holy and believing ones." Hence, as he says in his
Epistle to Boniface (Pseudo-Beda, in 1 Cor. 10:17): "No one should entertain the
slightest doubt, that then every one of the faithful becomes a partaker of the body and
blood of Christ, when in Baptism he is made a member of Christ's body; nor is he deprived
of his share in that body and chalice even though he depart from this world in the unity
of Christ's body, before he eats that bread and drinks of that chalice."
TP Q[73] A[3] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The difference between corporeal and spiritual food lies in this, that the
former is changed into the substance of the person nourished, and consequently it cannot
avail for supporting life except it be partaken of; but spiritual food changes man into
itself, according to that saying of Augustine (Confess. vii), that he heard the voice of
Christ as it were saying to him: "Nor shalt thou change Me into thyself, as food of
thy flesh, but thou shalt be changed into Me." But one can be changed into Christ,
and be incorporated in Him by mental desire, even without receiving this sacrament. And
consequently the comparison does not hold.
TP Q[73] A[3] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Baptism is the sacrament of Christ's death and Passion, according as a man
is born anew in Christ in virtue of His Passion; but the Eucharist is the sacrament of
Christ's Passion according as a man is made perfect in union with Christ Who suffered.
Hence, as Baptism is called the sacrament of Faith, which is the foundation of the
spiritual life, so the Eucharist is termed the sacrament of Charity, which is "the
bond of perfection" (Col. 3:14).
TP Q[73] A[4] Thes.
Whether this sacrament is suitably called by various names?
TP Q[73] A[4] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that this sacrament is not suitably called by various names. For names
should correspond with things. But this sacrament is one, as stated above (A[2]).
Therefore, it ought not to be called by various names.
TP Q[73] A[4] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, a species is not properly denominated by what is common to the whole
genus. But the Eucharist is a sacrament of the New Law; and it is common to all the
sacraments for grace to be conferred by them, which the name "Eucharist"
denotes, for it is the same thing as "good grace." Furthermore, all the
sacraments bring us help on our journey through this present life, which is the notion
conveyed by "Viaticum." Again something sacred is done in all the sacraments,
which belongs to the notion of "Sacrifice"; and the faithful intercommunicate
through all the sacraments, which this Greek word {Synaxis} and the Latin
"Communio" express. Therefore, these names are not suitably adapted to this
sacrament.
TP Q[73] A[4] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, a host [*From Latin "hostia," a victim] seems to be the same
as a sacrifice. Therefore, as it is not properly called a sacrifice, so neither is it
properly termed a "Host."
TP Q[73] A[4] OTC
On the contrary, is the use of these expressions by the faithful.
TP Q[73] A[4] Body
I answer that, This sacrament has a threefold significance. one with regard to the
past, inasmuch as it is commemorative of our Lord's Passion, which was a true sacrifice,
as stated above (Q[48], A[3]), and in this respect it is called a "Sacrifice."
TP Q[73] A[4] Body
With regard to the present it has another meaning, namely, that of Ecclesiastical
unity, in which men are aggregated through this Sacrament; and in this respect it is
called "Communion" or {Synaxis}. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that
"it is called Communion because we communicate with Christ through it, both because
we partake of His flesh and Godhead, and because we communicate with and are united to one
another through it."
TP Q[73] A[4] Body
With regard to the future it has a third meaning, inasmuch as this sacrament
foreshadows the Divine fruition, which shall come to pass in heaven; and according to this
it is called "Viaticum," because it supplies the way of winning thither. And in
this respect it is also called the "Eucharist," that is, "good grace,"
because "the grace of God is life everlasting" (Rm. 6:23); or because it really
contains Christ, Who is "full of grace."
TP Q[73] A[4] Body
In Greek, moreover, it is called {Metalepsis}, i.e. "Assumption," because, as
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv), "we thereby assume the Godhead of the Son."
TP Q[73] A[4] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: There is nothing to hinder the same thing from being called by several
names, according to its various properties or effects.
TP Q[73] A[4] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: What is common to all the sacraments is attributed antonomastically to
this one on account of its excellence.
TP Q[73] A[4] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: This sacrament is called a "Sacrifice" inasmuch as it represents
the Passion of Christ; but it is termed a "Host" inasmuch as it contains Christ,
Who is "a host (Douay: 'sacrifice') . . . of sweetness" (Eph. 5:2).
TP Q[73] A[5] Thes.
Whether the institution of this sacrament was appropriate?
TP Q[73] A[5] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the institution of this sacrament was not appropriate, because as
the Philosopher says (De Gener. ii): "We are nourished by the things from whence we
spring." But by Baptism, which is spiritual regeneration, we receive our spiritual
being, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii). Therefore we are also nourished by Baptism.
Consequently there was no need to institute this sacrament as spiritual nourishment.
TP Q[73] A[5] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, men are united with Christ through this sacrament as the members with
the head. But Christ is the Head of all men, even of those who have existed from the
beginning of the world, as stated above (Q[8], AA[3],6). Therefore the institution of this
sacrament should not have been postponed till the Lord's supper.
TP Q[73] A[5] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, this sacrament is called the memorial of our Lord's Passion, according
to Mt. 26 (Lk. 22:19): "Do this for a commemoration of Me." But a commemoration
is of things past. Therefore, this sacrament should not have been instituted before
Christ's Passion.
TP Q[73] A[5] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, a man is prepared by Baptism for the Eucharist, which ought to be given
only to the baptized. But Baptism was instituted by Christ after His Passion and
Resurrection, as is evident from Mt. 28:19. Therefore, this sacrament was not suitably
instituted before Christ's Passion.
TP Q[73] A[5] OTC
On the contrary, This sacrament was instituted by Christ, of Whom it is said (Mk. 7:37)
that "He did all things well."
TP Q[73] A[5] Body
I answer that, This sacrament was appropriately instituted at the supper, when Christ
conversed with His disciples for the last time. First of all, because of what is contained
in the sacrament: for Christ is Himself contained in the Eucharist sacramentally.
Consequently, when Christ was going to leave His disciples in His proper species, He left
Himself with them under the sacramental species; as the Emperor's image is set up to be
reverenced in his absence. Hence Eusebius says: "Since He was going to withdraw His
assumed body from their eyes, and bear it away to the stars, it was needful that on the
day of the supper He should consecrate the sacrament of His body and blood for our sakes,
in order that what was once offered up for our ransom should be fittingly worshiped in a
mystery."
TP Q[73] A[5] Body
Secondly, because without faith in the Passion there could never be any salvation,
according to Rm. 3:25: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in
His blood." It was necessary accordingly that there should be at all times among men
something to show forth our Lord's Passion; the chief sacrament of which in the old Law
was the Paschal Lamb. Hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:7): "Christ our Pasch is
sacrificed." But its successor under the New Testament is the sacrament of the
Eucharist, which is a remembrance of the Passion now past, just as the other was
figurative of the Passion to come. And so it was fitting that when the hour of the Passion
was come, Christ should institute a new Sacrament after celebrating the old, as Pope Leo I
says (Serm. lviii).
TP Q[73] A[5] Body
Thirdly, because last words, chiefly such as are spoken by departing friends, are
committed most deeply to memory; since then especially affection for friends is more
enkindled, and the things which affect us most are impressed the deepest in the soul.
Consequently, since, as Pope Alexander I says, "among sacrifices there can be none
greater than the body and blood of Christ, nor any more powerful oblation"; our Lord
instituted this sacrament at His last parting with His disciples, in order that it might
be held in the greater veneration. And this is what Augustine says (Respons. ad
Januar. i): "In order to commend more earnestly the death of this mystery, our Saviour willed
this last act to be fixed in the hearts and memories of the disciples whom He was about to
quit for the Passion."
TP Q[73] A[5] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: We are nourished from the same things of which we are made, but they do
not come to us in the same way; for those out of which we are made come to us through
generation, while the same, as nourishing us, come to us through being eaten. Hence, as we
are new-born in Christ through Baptism, so through the Eucharist we eat Christ.
TP Q[73] A[5] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The Eucharist is the perfect sacrament of our Lord's Passion, as
containing Christ crucified; consequently it could not be instituted before the
Incarnation; but then there was room for only such sacraments as were prefigurative of the
Lord's Passion.
TP Q[73] A[5] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: This sacrament was instituted during the supper, so as in the future to be
a memorial of our Lord's Passion as accomplished. Hence He said expressively: "As
often as ye shall do these things" [*Cf. Canon of the Mass], speaking of the future.
TP Q[73] A[5] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: The institution responds to the order of intention. But the sacrament of
the Eucharist, although after Baptism in the receiving, is yet previous to it in
intention; and therefore it behooved to be instituted first. or else it can be said that
Baptism was already instituted in Christ's Baptism; hence some were already baptized with
Christ's Baptism, as we read in Jn. 3:22.
TP Q[73] A[6] Thes.
Whether the Paschal Lamb was the chief figure of this sacrament?
TP Q[73] A[6] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the Paschal Lamb was not the chief figure of this sacrament,
because (Ps. 109:4) Christ is called "a priest according to the order of
Melchisedech," since Melchisedech bore the figure of Christ's sacrifice, in offering
bread and wine. But the expression of likeness causes one thing to be named from another.
Therefore, it seems that Melchisedech's offering was the "principal" figure of
this sacrament.
TP Q[73] A[6] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, the passage of the Red Sea was a figure of Baptism, according to 1
Cor.
10:2: "All . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea." But the immolation
of the Paschal Lamb was previous to the passage of the Red Sea, and the Manna came after
it, just as the Eucharist follows Baptism. Therefore the Manna is a more expressive figure
of this sacrament than the Paschal Lamb.
TP Q[73] A[6] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, the principal power of this sacrament is that it brings us into the
kingdom of heaven, being a kind of "viaticum." But this was chiefly prefigured
in the sacrament of expiation when the "high-priest entered once a year into the Holy
of Holies with blood," as the Apostle proves in Heb. 9. Consequently, it seems that
that sacrifice was a more significant figure of this sacrament than was the Paschal Lamb.
TP Q[73] A[6] OTC
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:7,8): "Christ our Pasch is sacrificed;
therefore let us feast . . . with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
TP Q[73] A[6] Body
I answer that, We can consider three things in this sacrament: namely, that which is
sacrament only, and this is the bread and wine; that which is both reality and sacrament,
to wit, Christ's true body; and lastly that which is reality only, namely, the effect of
this sacrament. Consequently, in relation to what is sacrament only, the chief figure of
this sacrament was the oblation of Melchisedech, who offered up bread and wine. In
relation to Christ crucified, Who is contained in this sacrament, its figures were all the
sacrifices of the Old Testament, especially the sacrifice of expiation, which was the most
solemn of all. While with regard to its effect, the chief figure was the Manna,
"having in it the sweetness of every taste" (Wis. 16:20), just as the grace of
this sacrament refreshes the soul in all respects.
TP Q[73] A[6] Body
The Paschal Lamb foreshadowed this sacrament in these three ways. First of all, because
it was eaten with unleavened loaves, according to Ex. 12:8: "They shall eat flesh . .
. and unleavened bread." As to the second because it was immolated by the entire
multitude of the children of Israel on the fourteenth day of the moon; and this was a
figure of the Passion of Christ, Who is called the Lamb on account of His innocence. As to
the effect, because by the blood of the Paschal Lamb the children of Israel were preserved
from the destroying Angel, and brought from the Egyptian captivity; and in this respect
the Paschal Lamb is the chief figure of this sacrament, because it represents it in every
respect.
TP Q[73] A[6] Body
From this the answer to the Objections is manifest.
TP Q[74] Out.
OF
THE MATTER OF THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the matter of this sacrament: and first of all as to its
species; secondly, the change of the bread and wine into the body of Christ; thirdly, the
manner in which Christ's body exists in this sacrament; fourthly, the accidents of bread
and wine which continue in this sacrament.
TP Q[74] Out.
Under the first heading there are eight points for inquiry:
(1) Whether bread and wine are the matter of this sacrament?
(2) Whether a determinate quantity of the same is required for the matter of this
sacrament?
(3) Whether the matter of this sacrament is wheaten bread?
(4) Whether it is unleavened or fermented bread?
(5) Whether the matter of this sacrament is wine from the grape?
(6) Whether water should be mixed with it?
(7) Whether water is of necessity for this sacrament?
(8) Of the quantity of the water added.
TP Q[74] A[1] Thes.
Whether the matter of this sacrament is bread and wine?
TP Q[74] A[1] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the matter of this sacrament is not bread and wine. Because this
sacrament ought to represent Christ's Passion more fully than did the sacraments of the
Old Law. But the flesh of animals, which was the matter of the sacraments under the Old
Law, shows forth Christ's Passion more fully than bread and wine. Therefore the matter of
this sacrament ought rather to be the flesh of animals than bread and wine.
TP Q[74] A[1] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, this sacrament is to be celebrated in every place. But in many lands
bread is not to be found, and in many places wine is not to be found. Therefore bread and
wine are not a suitable matter for this sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[1] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, this sacrament is for both hale and weak. But to some weak persons wine
is hurtful. Therefore it seems that wine ought not to be the matter of this sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[1] OTC
On the contrary, Pope Alexander I says (Ep. ad omnes orth.
i): "In oblations of
the sacraments only bread and wine mixed with water are to be offered."
TP Q[74] A[1] Body
I answer that, Some have fallen into various errors about the matter of this sacrament.
Some, known as the Artotyrytae, as Augustine says (De Haeres. xxviii), "offer bread
and cheese in this sacrament, contending that oblations were celebrated by men in the
first ages, from fruits of the earth and sheep." Others, called Cataphrygae and
Pepuziani, "are reputed to have made their Eucharistic bread with infants' blood
drawn from tiny punctures over the entire body, and mixed with flour." Others, styled
Aquarii, under guise of sobriety, offer nothing but water in this sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[1] Body
Now all these and similar errors are excluded by the fact that Christ instituted this
sacrament under the species of bread and wine, as is evident from Mt. 26. Consequently,
bread and wine are the proper matter of this sacrament. And the reasonableness of this is
seen first, in the use of this sacrament, which is eating: for, as water is used in the
sacrament of Baptism for the purpose of spiritual cleansing, since bodily cleansing is
commonly done with water; so bread and wine, wherewith men are commonly fed, are employed
in this sacrament for the use of spiritual eating.
TP Q[74] A[1] Body
Secondly, in relation to Christ's Passion, in which the blood was separated from the
body. And therefore in this sacrament, which is the memorial of our Lord's Passion, the
bread is received apart as the sacrament of the body, and the wine as the sacrament of the
blood.
TP Q[74] A[1] Body
Thirdly, as to the effect, considered in each of the partakers. For, as Ambrose
(Mag.
Sent. iv, D, xi) says on 1 Cor. 11:20, this sacrament "avails for the defense of soul
and body"; and therefore "Christ's body is offered" under the species of
bread "for the health of the body, and the blood" under the species of wine
"for the health of the soul," according to Lev. 17:14: "The life of the
animal [Vulg.: 'of all flesh'] is in the blood."
TP Q[74] A[1] Body
Fourthly, as to the effect with regard to the whole Church, which is made up of many
believers, just "as bread is composed of many grains, and wine flows from many
grapes," as the gloss observes on 1 Cor. 10:17: "We being many are . . . one
body," etc.
TP Q[74] A[1] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Although the flesh of slaughtered animals represents the Passion more
forcibly, nevertheless it is less suitable for the common use of this sacrament, and for
denoting the unity of the Church.
TP Q[74] A[1] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Although wheat and wine are not produced in every country, yet they can
easily be conveyed to every land, that is, as much as is needful for the use of this
sacrament: at the same time one is not to be consecrated when the other is lacking,
because it would not be a complete sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[1] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Wine taken in small quantity cannot do the sick much harm: yet if there be
fear of harm, it is not necessary for all who take Christ's body to partake also of His
blood, as will be stated later (Q[80], A[12]).
TP Q[74] A[2] Thes.
Whether a determinate quantity of bread and wine is required for the matter of this
sacrament?
TP Q[74] A[2] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that a determinate quantity of bread and wine is required for the
matter of this sacrament. Because the effects of grace are no less set in order than those
of nature. But, "there is a limit set by nature upon all existing things, and a
reckoning of size and development" (De Anima ii). Consequently, in this sacrament,
which is called "Eucharist," that is, "a good grace," a determinate
quantity of the bread and wine is required.
TP Q[74] A[2] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, Christ gave no power to the ministers of the Church regarding matters
which involve derision of the faith and of His sacraments, according to 2 Cor. 10:8:
"Of our power which the Lord hath given us unto edification, and not for your
destruction." But it would lead to mockery of this sacrament if the priest were to
wish to consecrate all the bread which is sold in the market and all the wine in the
cellar. Therefore he cannot do this.
TP Q[74] A[2] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, if anyone be baptized in the sea, the entire sea-water is not
sanctified by the form of baptism, but only the water wherewith the body of the baptized
is cleansed. Therefore, neither in this sacrament can a superfluous quantity of bread be
consecrated.
TP Q[74] A[2] OTC
On the contrary, Much is opposed to little, and great to small. But there is no
quantity, however small, of the bread and wine which cannot be consecrated. Therefore,
neither is there any quantity, however great, which cannot be consecrated.
TP Q[74] A[2] Body
I answer that, Some have maintained that the priest could not consecrate an immense
quantity of bread and wine, for instance, all the bread in the market or all the wine in a
cask. But this does not appear to be true, because in all things containing matter, the
reason for the determination of the matter is drawn from its disposition to an end, just
as the matter of a saw is iron, so as to adapt it for cutting. But the end of this
sacrament is the use of the faithful. Consequently, the quantity of the matter of this
sacrament must be determined by comparison with the use of the faithful. But this cannot
be determined by comparison with the use of the faithful who are actually present;
otherwise the parish priest having few parishioners could not consecrate many hosts. It
remains, then, for the matter of this sacrament to be determined in reference to the
number of the faithful absolutely. But the number of the faithful is not a determinate
one. Hence it cannot be said that the quantity of the matter of this sacrament is
restricted.
TP Q[74] A[2] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: The matter of every natural object has its determinate quantity by
comparison with its determinate form. But the number of the faithful, for whose use this
sacrament is ordained, is not a determinate one. Consequently there is no comparison.
TP Q[74] A[2] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The power of the Church's ministers is ordained for two purposes: first
for the proper effect, and secondly for the end of the effect. But the second does not
take away the first. Hence, if the priest intends to consecrate the body of Christ for an
evil purpose, for instance, to make mockery of it, or to administer poison through it, he
commits sin by his evil intention, nevertheless, on account of the power committed to him,
he accomplishes the sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[2] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The sacrament of Baptism is perfected in the use of the matter: and
therefore no more of the water is hallowed than what is used. But this sacrament is
wrought in the consecration of the matter. Consequently there is no parallel.
TP Q[74] A[3] Thes.
Whether wheaten bread is required for the matter of this sacrament?
TP Q[74] A[3] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that wheaten bread is not requisite for the matter of this sacrament,
because this sacrament is a reminder of our Lord's Passion. But barley bread seems to be
more in keeping with the Passion than wheaten bread, as being more bitter, and because
Christ used it to feed the multitudes upon the mountain, as narrated in Jn. 6. Therefore
wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[3] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, in natural things the shape is a sign of species. But some cereals
resemble wheat, such as spelt and maize, from which in some localities bread is made for
the use of this sacrament. Therefore wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this
sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[3] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, mixing dissolves species. But wheaten flour is hardly to be found
unmixed with some other species of grain, except in the instance of specially selected
grain. Therefore it does not seem that wheaten bread is the proper matter for this
sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[3] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, what is corrupted appears to be of another species. But some make the
sacrament from bread which is corrupted, and which no longer seems to be wheaten bread.
Therefore, it seems that such bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[3] OTC
On the contrary, Christ is contained in this sacrament, and He compares Himself to a
grain of wheat, saying (Jn. 12:24): "Unless the grain of wheat falling into the
ground die, itself remaineth alone." Therefore bread from corn, i.e. wheaten bread,
is the matter of this sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[3] Body
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), for the use of the sacraments such matter is
adopted as is commonly made use of among men. Now among other breads wheaten bread is more
commonly used by men; since other breads seem to be employed when this fails. And
consequently Christ is believed to have instituted this sacrament under this species of
bread. Moreover this bread strengthens man, and so it denotes more suitably the effect of
this sacrament. Consequently, the proper matter for this sacrament is wheaten bread.
TP Q[74] A[3] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Barley bread serves to denote the hardness of the Old Law; both on account
of the hardness of the bread, and because, as Augustine says (Q[83]): "The flour
within the barley, wrapped up as it is within a most tenacious fibre, denotes either the
Law itself, which was given in such manner as to be vested in bodily sacraments; or else
it denotes the people themselves, who were not yet despoiled of carnal desires, which
clung to their hearts like fibre." But this sacrament belongs to Christ's "sweet
yoke," and to the truth already manifested, and to a spiritual people. Consequently
barley bread would not be a suitable matter for this sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[3] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: A begetter begets a thing like to itself in species. yet there is some
unlikeness as to the accidents, owing either to the matter, or to weakness within the
generative power. And therefore, if there be any cereals which can be grown from the seed
of the wheat (as wild wheat from wheat seed grown in bad ground), the bread made from such
grain can be the matter of this sacrament: and this does not obtain either in barley, or
in spelt, or even in maize, which is of all grains the one most resembling the wheat
grain. But the resemblance as to shape in such seems to denote closeness of species rather
than identity; just as the resemblance in shape between the dog and the wolf goes to show
that they are allied but not of the same species. Hence from such grains, which cannot in
any way be generated from wheat grain, bread cannot be made such as to be the proper
matter of this sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[3] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: A moderate mixing does not alter the species, because that little is as it
were absorbed by the greater. Consequently, then, if a small quantity of another grain be
mixed with a much greater quantity of wheat, bread may be made therefrom so as to be the
proper matter of this sacrament; but if the mixing be notable, for instance, half and
half; or nearly so, then such mixing alters the species; consequently, bread made
therefrom will not be the proper matter of this sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[3] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: Sometimes there is such corruption of the bread that the species of bread
is lost, as when the continuity of its parts is destroyed, and the taste, color, and other
accidents are changed; hence the body of Christ may not be made from such matter. But
sometimes there is not such corruption as to alter the species, but merely disposition
towards corruption, which a slight change in the savor betrays, and from such bread the
body of Christ may be made: but he who does so, sins from irreverence towards the
sacrament. And because starch comes of corrupted wheat, it does not seem as if the body of
Christ could be made of the bread made therefrom, although some hold the contrary.
TP Q[74] A[4] Thes.
Whether this sacrament ought to be made of unleavened bread?
TP Q[74] A[4] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that this sacrament ought not to be made of unleavened bread. because
in this sacrament we ought to imitate Christ's institution. But Christ appears to have
instituted this sacrament in fermented bread, because, as we have read in Ex. 12, the
Jews, according to the Law, began to use unleavened bread on the day of the Passover which
is celebrated on the fourteenth day of the moon; and Christ instituted this sacrament at
the supper which He celebrated "before the festival day of the Pasch"
(Jn.
13:1,4). Therefore we ought likewise to celebrate this sacrament with fermented bread.
TP Q[74] A[4] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, legal observances ought not to be continued in the time of grace. But
the use of unleavened bread was a ceremony of the Law, as is clear from Ex. 12. Therefore
we ought not to use unfermented bread in this sacrament of grace.
TP Q[74] A[4] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, as stated above (Q[65], A[1]; Q[73], A[3]), the Eucharist is the
sacrament of charity just as Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But the fervor of charity
is signified by fermented bread, as is declared by the gloss on Mt. 13:33: "The
kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven," etc. Therefore this sacrament ought to be
made of leavened bread.
TP Q[74] A[4] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, leavened or unleavened are mere accidents of bread, which do not vary
the species. But in the matter for the sacrament of Baptism no difference is observed
regarding the variation of the accidents, as to whether it be salt or fresh, warm or cold
water. Therefore neither ought any distinction to be observed, as to whether the bread be
unleavened or leavened.
TP Q[74] A[4] OTC
On the contrary, According to the Decretals (Extra, De
Celebr. Miss.), a priest is
punished "for presuming to celebrate, using fermented bread and a wooden cup."
TP Q[74] A[4] Body
I answer that, Two things may be considered touching the matter of this sacrament
namely, what is necessary, and what is suitable. It is necessary that the bread be
wheaten, without which the sacrament is not valid, as stated above (A[3]). It is not,
however, necessary for the sacrament that the bread be unleavened or leavened, since it
can be celebrated in either.
TP Q[74] A[4] Body
But it is suitable that every priest observe the rite of his Church in the celebration
of the sacrament. Now in this matter there are various customs of the Churches: for,
Gregory says: "The Roman Church offers unleavened bread, because our Lord took flesh
without union of sexes: but the Greek Churches offer leavened bread, because the Word of
the Father was clothed with flesh; as leaven is mixed with the flour." Hence, as a
priest sins by celebrating with fermented bread in the Latin Church, so a Greek priest
celebrating with unfermented bread in a church of the Greeks would also sin, as perverting
the rite of his Church. Nevertheless the custom of celebrating with unleavened bread is
more reasonable. First, on account of Christ's institution: for He instituted this
sacrament "on the first day of the Azymes" (Mt. 26:17; Mk. 14:12; Lk. 22:7), on
which day there ought to be nothing fermented in the houses of the Jews, as is stated in
Ex. 12:15,19. Secondly, because bread is properly the sacrament of Christ's body, which
was conceived without corruption, rather than of His Godhead, as will be seen later
(Q[76], A[1], ad 1). Thirdly, because this is more in keeping with the sincerity of the
faithful, which is required in the use of this sacrament, according to 1 Cor. 5:7:
"Christ our Pasch is sacrificed: therefore let us feast . . . with the unleavened
bread of sincerity and truth."
TP Q[74] A[4] Body
However, this custom of the Greeks is not unreasonable both on account of its
signification, to which Gregory refers, and in detestation of the heresy of the Nazarenes,
who mixed up legal observances with the Gospel.
TP Q[74] A[4] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: As we read in Ex. 12, the paschal solemnity began on the evening of the
fourteenth day of the moon. So, then, after immolating the Paschal Lamb, Christ instituted
this sacrament: hence this day is said by John to precede the day of the Pasch, while the
other three Evangelists call it "the first day of the Azymes," when fermented
bread was not found in the houses of the Jews, as stated above. Fuller mention was made of
this in the treatise on our Lord's Passion (Q[46], A[9], ad 1).
TP Q[74] A[4] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Those who celebrate the sacrament with unleavened bread do not intend to
follow the ceremonial of the Law, but to conform to Christ's institution; so they are not
Judaizing; otherwise those celebrating in fermented bread would be Judaizing, because the
Jews offered up fermented bread for the first-fruits.
TP Q[74] A[4] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Leaven denotes charity on account of one single effect, because it makes
the bread more savory and larger; but it also signifies corruption from its very nature.
TP Q[74] A[4] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: Since whatever is fermented partakes of corruption, this sacrament may not
be made from corrupt bread, as stated above (A[3], ad 4); consequently, there is a wider
difference between unleavened and leavened bread than between warm and cold baptismal
water: because there might be such corruption of fermented bread that it could not be
validly used for the sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[5] Thes.
Whether wine of the grape is the proper matter of this sacrament?
TP Q[74] A[5] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that wine of the grape is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
Because, as water is the matter of Baptism, so is wine the matter of this sacrament. But
Baptism can be conferred with any kind of water. Therefore this sacrament can be
celebrated in any kind of wine, such as of pomegranates, or of mulberries; since vines do
not grow in some countries.
TP Q[74] A[5] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, vinegar is a kind of wine drawn from the grape, as Isidore says (Etym.
xx). But this sacrament cannot be celebrated with vinegar. Therefore, it seems that wine
from the grape is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[5] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, just as the clarified wine is drawn from grapes, so also are the juice
of unripe grapes and must. But it does not appear that this sacrament may be made from
such, according to what we read in the Sixth Council (Trull., Can. 28): "We have
learned that in some churches the priests add grapes to the sacrifice of the oblation; and
so they dispense both together to the people. Consequently we give order that no priest
shall do this in future." And Pope Julius I rebukes some priests "who offer wine
pressed from the grape in the sacrament of the Lord's chalice." Consequently, it
seems that wine from the grape is not the proper matter of this sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[5] OTC
On the contrary, As our Lord compared Himself to the grain of wheat, so also He
compared Himself to the vine, saying (Jn. 15:1): "I am the true vine." But only
bread from wheat is the matter of this sacrament, as stated above (A[3]). Therefore, only
wine from the grape is the proper matter of this sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[5] Body
I answer that, This sacrament can only be performed with wine from the grape. First of
all on account of Christ's institution, since He instituted this sacrament in wine from
the grape, as is evident from His own words, in instituting this sacrament (Mt. 26:29):
"I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine." Secondly, because,
as stated above (A[3]), that is adopted as the matter of the sacraments which is properly
and universally considered as such. Now that is properly called wine, which is drawn from
the grape, whereas other liquors are called wine from resemblance to the wine of the
grape. Thirdly, because the wine from the grape is more in keeping with the effect of this
sacrament, which is spiritual; because it is written (Ps. 103:15): "That wine may
cheer the heart of man."
TP Q[74] A[5] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Such liquors are called wine, not properly but only from their resemblance
thereto. But genuine wine can be conveyed to such countries wherein the grape-vine does
not flourish, in a quantity sufficient for this sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[5] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Wine becomes vinegar by corruption; hence there is no returning from
vinegar to wine, as is said in Metaph. viii. And consequently, just as this sacrament may
not be made from bread which is utterly corrupt, so neither can it be made from vinegar.
It can, however, be made from wine which is turning sour, just as from bread turning
corrupt, although he who does so sins, as stated above (A[3]).
TP Q[74] A[5] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The juice of unripe grapes is at the stage of incomplete generation, and
therefore it has not yet the species of wine: on which account it may not be used for this
sacrament. Must, however, has already the species of wine, for its sweetness [*"Aut
dulcis musti Vulcano decoquit humorem"; Virgil, Georg. i, 295] indicates fermentation
which is "the result of its natural heat" (Meteor. iv); consequently this
sacrament can be made from must. Nevertheless entire grapes ought not to be mixed with
this sacrament, because then there would be something else besides wine. It is furthermore
forbidden to offer must in the chalice, as soon as it has been squeezed from the grape,
since this is unbecoming owing to the impurity of the must. But in case of necessity it
may be done: for it is said by the same Pope Julius, in the passage quoted in the
argument: "If necessary, let the grape be pressed into the chalice."
TP Q[74] A[6] Thes.
Whether water should be mixed with the wine?
TP Q[74] A[6] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that water ought not to be mixed with the wine, since Christ's
sacrifice was foreshadowed by that of Melchisedech, who (Gn. 14:18) is related to have
offered up bread and wine only. Consequently it seems that water should not be added in
this sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[6] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, the various sacraments have their respective matters. But water is the
matter of Baptism. Therefore it should not be employed as the matter of this sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[6] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, bread and wine are the matter of this sacrament. But nothing is added
to the bread. Therefore neither should anything be added to the wine.
TP Q[74] A[6] OTC
On the contrary, Pope Alexander I writes (Ep. 1 ad omnes
orth.): "In the
sacramental oblations which in mass are offered to the Lord, only bread and wine mixed
with water are to be offered in sacrifice."
TP Q[74] A[6] Body
I answer that, Water ought to be mingled with the wine which is offered in this
sacrament. First of all on account of its institution: for it is believed with probability
that our Lord instituted this sacrament in wine tempered with water according to the
custom of that country: hence it is written (Prov. 9:5): "Drink the wine which I have
mixed for you." Secondly, because it harmonizes with the representation of our Lord's
Passion: hence Pope Alexander I says (Ep. 1 ad omnes orth.): "In the Lord's chalice
neither wine only nor water only ought to be offered, but both mixed because we read that
both flowed from His side in the Passion." Thirdly, because this is adapted for
signifying the effect of this sacrament, since as Pope Julius says (Concil. Bracarens iii,
Can. 1): "We see that the people are signified by the water, but Christ's blood by
the wine. Therefore when water is mixed with the wine in the chalice, the people is made
one with Christ." Fourthly, because this is appropriate to the fourth effect of this
sacrament, which is the entering into everlasting life: hence Ambrose says (De
Sacram. v):
"The water flows into the chalice, and springs forth unto everlasting life."
TP Q[74] A[6] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: As Ambrose says (De Sacram. v), just as Christ's sacrifice is denoted by
the offering of Melchisedech, so likewise it is signified by the water which flowed from
the rock in the desert, according to 1 Cor. 10:4: "But they drank of the spiritual
rock which came after them."
TP Q[74] A[6] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: In Baptism water is used for the purpose of ablution: but in this
sacrament it is used by way of refreshment, according to Ps. 22:3: "He hath brought
me up on the water of refreshment."
TP Q[74] A[6] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Bread is made of water and flour; and therefore, since water is mixed with
the wine, neither is without water.
TP Q[74] A[7] Thes.
Whether the mixing with water is essential to this sacrament?
TP Q[74] A[7] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the mixing with water is essential to this sacrament. Because
Cyprian says to Cecilius (Ep. lxiii): "Thus the Lord's chalice is not water only and
wine only, but both must be mixed together: in the same way as neither the Lord's body be
of flour only, except both," i.e. the flour and the water "be united as
one." But the admixture of water with the flour is necessary for this sacrament.
Consequently, for the like reason, so is the mixing of water with the wine.
TP Q[74] A[7] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, at our Lord's Passion, of which this is the memorial, water as well as
blood flowed from His side. But wine, which is the sacrament of the blood, is necessary
for this sacrament. For the same reason, therefore, so is water.
TP Q[74] A[7] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, if water were not essential to this sacrament, it would not matter in
the least what kind of water was used; and so water distilled from roses, or any other
kind might be employed; which is contrary to the usage of the Church. Consequently water
is essential to this sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[7] OTC
On the contrary, Cyprian says (Ep. lxiii): "If any of our predecessors, out of
ignorance or simplicity, has not kept this usage," i.e. of mixing water with the
wine, "one may pardon his simplicity"; which would not be the case if water were
essential to the sacrament, as the wine or the bread. Therefore the mingling of water with
the wine is not essential to the sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[7] Body
I answer that, Judgment concerning a sign is to be drawn from the thing signified. Now
the adding of water to the wine is for the purpose of signifying the sharing of this
sacrament by the faithful, in this respect that by the mixing of the water with the wine
is signified the union of the people with Christ, as stated (A[6]). Moreover, the flowing
of water from the side of Christ hanging on the cross refers to the same, because by the
water is denoted the cleansing from sins, which was the effect of Christ's Passion. Now it
was observed above (Q[73], A[1], ad 3), that this sacrament is completed in the
consecration of the matter: while the usage of the faithful is not essential to the
sacrament, but only a consequence thereof. Consequently, then, the adding of water is not
essential to the sacrament.
TP Q[74] A[7] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Cyprian's expression is to be taken in the same sense in which we say that
a thing cannot be, which cannot be suitably. And so the comparison refers to what ought to
be done, not to what is essential to be done; since water is of the essence of bread, but
not of the essence of wine.
TP Q[74] A[7] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The shedding of the blood belonged directly to Christ's Passion: for it is
natural for blood to flow from a wounded human body. But the flowing of the water was not
necessary for the Passion; but merely to show its effect, which is to wash away sins, and
to refresh us from the heat of concupiscence. And therefore the water is not offered apart
from the wine in this sacrament, as the wine is offered apart from the bread; but the
water is offered mixed with the wine to show that the wine belongs of itself to this
sacrament, as of its very essence; but the water as something added to the wine.
TP Q[74] A[7] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Since the mixing of water with the wine is not necessary for the
sacrament, it does not matter, as to the essence of the sacrament, what kind of water is
added to the wine, whether natural water, or artificial, as rose-water, although, as to
the propriety of the sacrament, he would sin who mixes any other than natural and true
water, because true water flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross, and not
phlegm, as some have said, in order to show that Christ's body was truly composed of the
four elements; as by the flowing blood, it was shown to be composed of the four humors, as
Pope Innocent III says in a certain Decree. But because the mixing of water with flour is
essential to this sacrament, as making the composition of bread, if rose-water, or any
other liquor besides true water, be mixed with the flour, the sacrament would not be
valid, because it would not be true bread.
TP Q[74] A[8] Thes.
Whether water should be added in great quantity?
TP Q[74] A[8] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that water ought to be added in great quantity, because as blood flowed
sensibly from Christ's side, so did water: hence it is written (Jn. 19:35): "He that
saw it, hath given testimony." But water could not be sensibly present in this
sacrament except it were used in great quantity. Consequently it seems that water ought to
be added in great quantity.
TP Q[74] A[8] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, a little water mixed with much wine is corrupted. But what is corrupted
no longer exists. Therefore, it is the same thing to add a little water in this sacrament
as to add none. But it is not lawful to add none. Therefore, neither is it lawful to add a
little.
TP Q[74] A[8] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, if it sufficed to add a little, then as a consequence it would suffice
to throw one drop of water into an entire cask. But this seems ridiculous. Therefore it
does not suffice for a small quantity to be added.
TP Q[74] A[8] OTC
On the contrary, It is said in the Decretals (Extra, De
Celeb. Miss.): "The
pernicious abuse has prevailed in your country of adding water in greater quantity than
the wine, in the sacrifice, where according to the reasonable custom of the entire Church
more wine than water ought to be employed."
TP Q[74] A[8] Body
I answer that, There is a threefold opinion regarding the water added to the wine, as
Pope Innocent III says in a certain Decretal. For some say that the water remains by
itself when the wine is changed into blood: but such an opinion cannot stand, because in
the sacrament of the altar after the consecration there is nothing else save the body and
the blood of Christ. Because, as Ambrose says in De Officiis (De Mysteriis ix):
"Before the blessing it is another species that is named, after the blessing the Body
is signified; otherwise it would not be adored with adoration of latria." And
therefore others have said that as the wine is changed into blood, so the water is changed
into the water which flowed from Christ's side. But this cannot be maintained reasonably,
because according to this the water would be consecrated apart from the wine, as the wine
is from the bread.
TP Q[74] A[8] Body
And therefore as he (Innocent III, Decretals, Extra, De
Celeb. Miss.) says, the more
probable opinion is that which holds that the water is changed into wine, and the wine
into blood. Now, this could not be done unless so little water was used that it would be
changed into wine. Consequently, it is always safer to add little water, especially if the
wine be weak, because the sacrament could not be celebrated if there were such addition of
water as to destroy the species of the wine. Hence Pope Julius I reprehends some who
"keep throughout the year a linen cloth steeped in must, and at the time of sacrifice
wash a part of it with water, and so make the offering."
TP Q[74] A[8] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: For the signification of this sacrament it suffices for the water to be
appreciable by sense when it is mixed with the wine: but it is not necessary for it to be
sensible after the mingling.
TP Q[74] A[8] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: If no water were added, the signification would be utterly excluded: but
when the water is changed into wine, it is signified that the people is incorporated with
Christ.
TP Q[74] A[8] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: If water were added to a cask, it would not suffice for the signification
of this sacrament, but the water must be added to the wine at the actual celebration of
the sacrament.
TP Q[75] Out.
OF
THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE INTO THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We have to consider the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ;
under which head there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the substance of bread and wine remain in this sacrament after the
consecration?*
(2) Whether it is annihilated?
(3) Whether it is changed into the body and blood of Christ?
(4) Whether the accidents remain after the change?
(5) Whether the substantial form remains there?
(6) Whether this change is instantaneous?
(7) Whether it is more miraculous than any other change?
(8) By what words it may be suitably expressed?
[*The titles of the Articles here given were taken by St. Thomas from his Commentary on
the Sentences (Sent. iv, D, 90). However, in writing the Articles he introduced a new
point of inquiry, that of the First Article; and substituted another division of the
matter under discussion, as may be seen by referring to the titles of the various
Articles. Most editions have ignored St. Thomas's original division, and give the one to
which he subsequently adhered.]
TP Q[75] A[1] Thes.
Whether the body of Christ be in this sacrament in very truth, or merely as in a figure
or sign?
TP Q[75] A[1] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the body of Christ is not in this sacrament in very truth, but
only as in a figure, or sign. For it is written (Jn. 6:54) that when our Lord had uttered
these words: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood,"
etc., "Many of His disciples on hearing it said: 'this is a hard saying'": to
whom He rejoined: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth
nothing": as if He were to say, according to Augustine's exposition on Ps. 4 [*On Ps.
98:9]: "Give a spiritual meaning to what I have said. You are not to eat this body
which you see, nor to drink the blood which they who crucify Me are to spill. It is a
mystery that I put before you: in its spiritual sense it will quicken you; but the flesh
profiteth nothing."
TP Q[75] A[1] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, our Lord said (Mt. 28:20): "Behold I am with you all days even to
the consummation of the world." Now in explaining this, Augustine makes this
observation (Tract. xxx in Joan.): "The Lord is on high until the world be ended;
nevertheless the truth of the Lord is here with us; for the body, in which He rose again,
must be in one place; but His truth is spread abroad everywhere." Therefore, the body
of Christ is not in this sacrament in very truth, but only as in a sign.
TP Q[75] A[1] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, no body can be in several places at the one time. For this does not
even belong to an angel; since for the same reason it could be everywhere. But Christ's is
a true body, and it is in heaven. Consequently, it seems that it is not in very truth in
the sacrament of the altar, but only as in a sign.
TP Q[75] A[1] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, the Church's sacraments are ordained for the profit of the faithful.
But according to Gregory in a certain Homily (xxviii in Evang.), the ruler is rebuked
"for demanding Christ's bodily presence." Moreover the apostles were prevented
from receiving the Holy Ghost because they were attached to His bodily presence, as
Augustine says on Jn. 16:7: "Except I go, the Paraclete will not come to you"
(Tract. xciv in Joan.). Therefore Christ is not in the sacrament of the altar according to
His bodily presence.
TP Q[75] A[1] OTC
On the contrary, Hilary says (De Trin. viii): "There is no room for doubt
regarding the truth of Christ's body and blood; for now by our Lord's own declaring and by
our faith His flesh is truly food, and His blood is truly drink." And Ambrose says
(De Sacram. vi): "As the Lord Jesus Christ is God's true Son so is it Christ's true
flesh which we take, and His true blood which we drink."
TP Q[75] A[1] Body
I answer that, The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be
detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine
authority. Hence, on Lk. 22:19: "This is My body which shall be delivered up for
you," Cyril says: "Doubt not whether this be true; but take rather the Saviour's
words with faith; for since He is the Truth, He lieth not."
TP Q[75] A[1] Body
Now this is suitable, first for the perfection of the New Law. For, the sacrifices of
the Old Law contained only in figure that true sacrifice of Christ's Passion, according to
Heb. 10:1: "For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very
image of the things." And therefore it was necessary that the sacrifice of the New
Law instituted by Christ should have something more, namely, that it should contain Christ
Himself crucified, not merely in signification or figure, but also in very truth. And
therefore this sacrament which contains Christ Himself, as Dionysius says (Eccl.
Hier.
iii), is perfective of all the other sacraments, in which Christ's virtue is participated.
TP Q[75] A[1] Body
Secondly, this belongs to Christ's love, out of which for our salvation He assumed a
true body of our nature. And because it is the special feature of friendship to live
together with friends, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix), He promises us His bodily
presence as a reward, saying (Mt. 24:28): "Where the body is, there shall the eagles
be gathered together." Yet meanwhile in our pilgrimage He does not deprive us of His
bodily presence; but unites us with Himself in this sacrament through the truth of His
body and blood. Hence (Jn. 6:57) he says: "He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My
blood, abideth in Me, and I in him." Hence this sacrament is the sign of supreme
charity, and the uplifter of our hope, from such familiar union of Christ with us.
TP Q[75] A[1] Body
Thirdly, it belongs to the perfection of faith, which concerns His humanity just as it
does His Godhead, according to Jn. 14:1: "You believe in God, believe also in
Me." And since faith is of things unseen, as Christ shows us His Godhead invisibly,
so also in this sacrament He shows us His flesh in an invisible manner.
TP Q[75] A[1] Body
Some men accordingly, not paying heed to these things, have contended that Christ's
body and blood are not in this sacrament except as in a sign, a thing to be rejected as
heretical, since it is contrary to Christ's words. Hence Berengarius, who had been the
first deviser of this heresy, was afterwards forced to withdraw his error, and to
acknowledge the truth of the faith.
TP Q[75] A[1] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: From this authority the aforesaid heretics have taken occasion to err from
evilly understanding Augustine's words. For when Augustine says: "You are not to eat
this body which you see," he means not to exclude the truth of Christ's body, but
that it was not to be eaten in this species in which it was seen by them. And by the
words: "It is a mystery that I put before you; in its spiritual sense it will quicken
you," he intends not that the body of Christ is in this sacrament merely according to
mystical signification, but "spiritually," that is, invisibly, and by the power
of the spirit. Hence (Tract. xxvii), expounding Jn. 6:64: "the flesh profiteth
nothing," he says: "Yea, but as they understood it, for they understood that the
flesh was to be eaten as it is divided piecemeal in a dead body, or as sold in the
shambles, not as it is quickened by the spirit . . . Let the spirit draw nigh to the flesh
. . . then the flesh profiteth very much: for if the flesh profiteth nothing, the Word had
not been made flesh, that It might dwell among us."
TP Q[75] A[1] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: That saying of Augustine and all others like it are to be understood of
Christ's body as it is beheld in its proper species; according as our Lord Himself says
(Mt. 26:11): "But Me you have not always." Nevertheless He is invisibly under
the species of this sacrament, wherever this sacrament is performed.
TP Q[75] A[1] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Christ's body is not in this sacrament in the same way as a body is in a
place, which by its dimensions is commensurate with the place; but in a special manner
which is proper to this sacrament. Hence we say that Christ's body is upon many altars,
not as in different places, but "sacramentally": and thereby we do not
understand that Christ is there only as in a sign, although a sacrament is a kind of sign;
but that Christ's body is here after a fashion proper to this sacrament, as stated above.
TP Q[75] A[1] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: This argument holds good of Christ's bodily presence, as He is present
after the manner of a body, that is, as it is in its visible appearance, but not as it is
spiritually, that is, invisibly, after the manner and by the virtue of the spirit. Hence
Augustine (Tract. xxvii in Joan.) says: "If thou hast understood" Christ's words
spiritually concerning His flesh, "they are spirit and life to thee; if thou hast
understood them carnally, they are also spirit and life, but not to thee."
TP Q[75] A[2] Thes.
Whether in this sacrament the substance of the bread and wine remains after the
consecration?
TP Q[75] A[2] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the substance of the bread and wine does remain in this sacrament
after the consecration: because Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): "Since it is
customary for men to eat bread and drink wine, God has wedded his Godhead to them, and
made them His body and blood": and further on: "The bread of communication is
not simple bread, but is united to the Godhead." But wedding together belongs to
things actually existing. Therefore the bread and wine are at the same time, in this
sacrament, with the body and the blood of Christ.
TP Q[75] A[2] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, there ought to be conformity between the sacraments. But in the other
sacraments the substance of the matter remains, like the substance of water in Baptism,
and the substance of chrism in Confirmation. Therefore the substance of the bread and wine
remains also in this sacrament.
TP Q[75] A[2] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, bread and wine are made use of in this sacrament, inasmuch as they
denote ecclesiastical unity, as "one bread is made from many grains and wine from
many grapes," as Augustine says in his book on the Creed (Tract. xxvi in Joan.). But
this belongs to the substance of bread and wine. Therefore, the substance of the bread and
wine remains in this sacrament.
TP Q[75] A[2] OTC
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "Although the figure of the bread
and wine be seen, still, after the Consecration, they are to be believed to be nothing
else than the body end blood of Christ."
TP Q[75] A[2] Body
I answer that, Some have held that the substance of the bread and wine remains in this
sacrament after the consecration. But this opinion cannot stand: first of all, because by
such an opinion the truth of this sacrament is destroyed, to which it belongs that
Christ's true body exists in this sacrament; which indeed was not there before the
consecration. Now a thing cannot be in any place, where it was not previously, except by
change of place, or by the conversion of another thing into itself; just as fire begins
anew to be in some house, either because it is carried thither, or because it is generated
there. Now it is evident that Christ's body does not begin to be present in this sacrament
by local motion. First of all, because it would follow that it would cease to be in
heaven: for what is moved locally does not come anew to some place unless it quit the
former one. Secondly, because every body moved locally passes through all intermediary
spaces, which cannot be said here. Thirdly, because it is not possible for one movement of
the same body moved locally to be terminated in different places at the one time, whereas
the body of Christ under this sacrament begins at the one time to be in several places.
And consequently it remains that Christ's body cannot begin to be anew in this sacrament
except by change of the substance of bread into itself. But what is changed into another
thing, no longer remains after such change. Hence the conclusion is that, saving the truth
of this sacrament, the substance of the bread cannot remain after the consecration.
TP Q[75] A[2] Body
Secondly, because this position is contrary to the form of this sacrament, in which it
is said: "This is My body," which would not be true if the substance of the
bread were to remain there; for the substance of bread never is the body of Christ. Rather
should one say in that case: "Here is My body."
TP Q[75] A[2] Body
Thirdly, because it would be opposed to the veneration of this sacrament, if any
substance were there, which could not be adored with adoration of latria.
TP Q[75] A[2] Body
Fourthly, because it is contrary to the rite of the Church, according to which it is
not lawful to take the body of Christ after bodily food, while it is nevertheless lawful
to take one consecrated host after another. Hence this opinion is to be avoided as
heretical.
TP Q[75] A[2] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: God "wedded His Godhead," i.e. His Divine power, to the bread
and wine, not that these may remain in this sacrament, but in order that He may make from
them His body and blood.
TP Q[75] A[2] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Christ is not really present in the other sacraments, as in this; and
therefore the substance of the matter remains in the other sacraments, but not in this.
TP Q[75] A[2] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The species which remain in this sacrament, as shall be said later (A[5]),
suffice for its signification; because the nature of the substance is known by its
accidents.
TP Q[75] A[3] Thes.
Whether the substance of the bread or wine is annihilated after the consecration of
this sacrament, or dissolved into their original matter?
TP Q[75] A[3] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the substance of the bread is annihilated after the consecration
of this sacrament, or dissolved into its original matter. For whatever is corporeal must
be somewhere. But the substance of bread, which is something corporeal, does not remain,
in this sacrament, as stated above (A[2]); nor can we assign any place where it may be.
Consequently it is nothing after the consecration. Therefore, it is either annihilated, or
dissolved into its original matter.
TP Q[75] A[3] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, what is the term "wherefrom" in every change exists no
longer, except in the potentiality of matter; e.g. when air is changed into fire, the form
of the air remains only in the potentiality of matter; and in like fashion when what is
white becomes black. But in this sacrament the substance of the bread or of the wine is
the term "wherefrom," while the body or the blood of Christ is the term
"whereunto": for Ambrose says in De Officiis (De Myster. ix): "Before the
blessing it is called another species, after the blessing the body of Christ is
signified." Therefore, when the consecration takes place, the substance of the bread
or wine no longer remains, unless perchance dissolved into its (original) matter.
TP Q[75] A[3] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, one of two contradictories must be true. But this proposition is false:
"After the consecration the substance of the bread or wine is something."
Consequently, this is true: "The substance of the bread or wine is nothing."
TP Q[75] A[3] OTC
On the contrary, Augustine says (Q[83]): "God is not the cause of tending to
nothing." But this sacrament is wrought by Divine power. Therefore, in this sacrament
the substance of the bread or wine is not annihilated.
TP Q[75] A[3] Body
I answer that, Because the substance of the bread and wine does not remain in this
sacrament, some, deeming that it is impossible for the substance of the bread and wine to
be changed into Christ's flesh and blood, have maintained that by the consecration, the
substance of the bread and wine is either dissolved into the original matter, or that it
is annihilated.
TP Q[75] A[3] Body
Now the original matter into which mixed bodies can be dissolved is the four elements.
For dissolution cannot be made into primary matter, so that a subject can exist without a
form, since matter cannot exist without a form. But since after the consecration nothing
remains under the sacramental species except the body and the blood of Christ, it will be
necessary to say that the elements into which the substance of the bread and wine is
dissolved, depart from thence by local motion, which would be perceived by the senses. In
like manner also the substance of the bread or wine remains until the last instant of the
consecration; but in the last instant of the consecration there is already present there
the substance of the body or blood of Christ, just as the form is already present in the
last instant of generation. Hence no instant can be assigned in which the original matter
can be there. For it cannot be said that the substance of the bread or wine is dissolved
gradually into the original matter, or that it successively quits the species, for if this
began to be done in the last instant of its consecration, then at the one time under part
of the host there would be the body of Christ together with the substance of bread, which
is contrary to what has been said above (A[2]). But if this begin to come to pass before
the consecration, there will then be a time in which under one part of the host there will
be neither the substance of bread nor the body of Christ, which is not fitting. They seem
indeed to have taken this into careful consideration, wherefore they formulated their
proposition with an alternative viz. that (the substance) may be annihilated. But even
this cannot stand, because no way can be assigned whereby Christ's true body can begin to
be in this sacrament, except by the change of the substance of bread into it, which change
is excluded the moment we admit either annihilation of the substance of the bread, or
dissolution into the original matter. Likewise no cause can be assigned for such
dissolution or annihilation, since the effect of the sacrament is signified by the form:
"This is My body." Hence it is clear that the aforesaid opinion is false.
TP Q[75] A[3] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: The substance of the bread or wine, after the consecration, remains
neither under the sacramental species, nor elsewhere; yet it does not follow that it is
annihilated; for it is changed into the body of Christ; just as if the air, from which
fire is generated, be not there or elsewhere, it does not follow that it is annihilated.
TP Q[75] A[3] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The form, which is the term "wherefrom," is not changed into
another form; but one form succeeds another in the subject; and therefore the first form
remains only in the potentiality of matter. But here the substance of the bread is changed
into the body of Christ, as stated above. Hence the conclusion does not follow.
TP Q[75] A[3] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Although after the consecration this proposition is false: "The
substance of the breed is something," still that into which the substance of the
bread is changed, is something, and consequently the substance of the bread is not
annihilated.
TP Q[75] A[4] Thes.
Whether bread can be converted into the body of Christ?
TP Q[75] A[4] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that bread cannot be converted into the body of Christ. For conversion
is a kind of change. But in every change there must be some subject, which from being
previously in potentiality is now in act. because as is said in Phys. iii: "motion is
the act of a thing existing in potentiality." But no subject can be assigned for the
substance of the bread and of the body of Christ, because it is of the very nature of
substance for it "not to be in a subject," as it is said in Praedic. iii.
Therefore it is not possible for the whole substance of the bread to be converted into the
body of Christ.
TP Q[75] A[4] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, the form of the thing into which another is converted, begins anew to
inhere in the matter of the thing converted into it: as when air is changed into fire not
already existing, the form of fire begins anew to be in the matter of the air; and in like
manner when food is converted into non-pre-existing man, the form of the man begins to be
anew in the matter of the food. Therefore, if bread be changed into the body of Christ,
the form of Christ's body must necessarily begin to be in the matter of the bread, which
is false. Consequently, the bread is not changed into the substance of Christ's body.
TP Q[75] A[4] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, when two things are diverse, one never becomes the other, as whiteness
never becomes blackness, as is stated in Phys. i. But since two contrary forms are of
themselves diverse, as being the principles of formal difference, so two signate matters
are of themselves diverse, as being the principles of material distinction. Consequently,
it is not possible for this matter of bread to become this matter whereby Christ's body is
individuated, and so it is not possible for this substance of bread to be changed into the
substance of Christ's body.
TP Q[75] A[4] OTC
On the contrary, Eusebius Emesenus says: "To thee it ought neither to be a novelty
nor an impossibility that earthly and mortal things be changed into the substance of
Christ."
TP Q[75] A[4] Body
I answer that, As stated above (A[2]), since Christ's true body is in this sacrament,
and since it does not begin to be there by local motion, nor is it contained therein as in
a place, as is evident from what was stated above (A[1], ad 2), it must be said then that
it begins to be there by conversion of the substance of bread into itself.
TP Q[75] A[4] Body
Yet this change is not like natural changes, but is entirely supernatural, and effected
by God's power alone. Hence Ambrose says [(De Sacram. iv): "See how Christ's word
changes nature's laws, as He wills: a man is not wont to be born save of man and woman:
see therefore that against the established law and order a man is born of a Virgin":
and] [*The passage in the brackets is not in the Leonine edition] (De Myster. iv):
"It is clear that a Virgin begot beyond the order of nature: and what we make is the
body from the Virgin. Why, then, do you look for nature's order in Christ's body, since
the Lord Jesus was Himself brought forth of a Virgin beyond nature?" Chrysostom
likewise (Hom. xlvii), commenting on Jn. 6:64: "The words which I have spoken to
you," namely, of this sacrament, "are spirit and life," says: i.e.
"spiritual, having nothing carnal, nor natural consequence; but they are rent from
all such necessity which exists upon earth, and from the laws here established."
TP Q[75] A[4] Body
For it is evident that every agent acts according as it is in act. But every created
agent is limited in its act, as being of a determinate genus and species: and consequently
the action of every created agent bears upon some determinate act. Now the determination
of every thing in actual existence comes from its form. Consequently, no natural or
created agent can act except by changing the form in something; and on this account every
change made according to nature's laws is a formal change. But God is infinite act, as
stated in the FP, Q[7], A[1]; Q[26], A[2]; hence His action extends to the whole nature of
being. Therefore He can work not only formal conversion, so that diverse forms succeed
each other in the same subject; but also the change of all being, so that, to wit, the
whole substance of one thing be changed into the whole substance of another. And this is
done by Divine power in this sacrament; for the whole substance of the bread is changed
into the whole substance of Christ's body, and the whole substance of the wine into the
whole substance of Christ's blood. Hence this is not a formal, but a substantial
conversion; nor is it a kind of natural movement: but, with a name of its own, it can be
called "transubstantiation."
TP Q[75] A[4] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: This objection holds good in respect of formal change, because it belongs
to a form to be in matter or in a subject; but it does not hold good in respect of the
change of the entire substance. Hence, since this substantial change implies a certain
order of substances, one of which is changed into the other, it is in both substances as
in a subject, just as order and number.
TP Q[75] A[4] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: This argument also is true of formal conversion or change, because, as
stated above (ad 1), a form must be in some matter or subject. But this is not so in a
change of the entire substance; for in this case no subject is possible.
TP Q[75] A[4] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Form cannot be changed into form, nor matter into matter by the power of
any finite agent. Such a change, however, can be made by the power of an infinite agent,
which has control over all being, because the nature of being is common to both forms and
to both matters; and whatever there is of being in the one, the author of being can change
into whatever there is of being in the other, withdrawing that whereby it was distinguished from the other.
|
