EUCHARIST (QQ [75]- 80)
OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST (SIX ARTICLES)
TP Q[75] A[5] Thes.
Whether the accidents of the bread and wine remain in this sacrament after the change?
TP Q[75] A[5] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the accidents of the bread and wine do not remain in this
sacrament. For when that which comes first is removed, that which follows is also taken
away. But substance is naturally before accident, as is proved in Metaph. vii. Since,
then, after consecration, the substance of the bread does not remain in this sacrament, it
seems that its accidents cannot remain.
TP Q[75] A[5] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, there ought not to be any deception in a sacrament of truth. But we
judge of substance by accidents. It seems, then, that human judgment is deceived, if,
while the accidents remain, the substance of the bread does not. Consequently this is
unbecoming to this sacrament.
TP Q[75] A[5] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, although our faith is not subject to reason, still it is not contrary
to reason, but above it, as was said in the beginning of this work (FP, Q[1], A[6], ad 2;
A[8]). But our reason has its origin in the senses. Therefore our faith ought not to be
contrary to the senses, as it is when sense judges that to be bread which faith believes
to be the substance of Christ's body. Therefore it is not befitting this sacrament for the
accidents of bread to remain subject to the senses, and for the substance of bread not to
remain.
TP Q[75] A[5] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, what remains after the change has taken place seems to be the subject
of change. If therefore the accidents of the bread remain after the change has been
effected, it seems that the accidents are the subject of the change. But this is
impossible; for "an accident cannot have an accident" (Metaph. iii). Therefore
the accidents of the bread and wine ought not to remain in this sacrament.
TP Q[75] A[5] OTC
On the contrary, Augustine says in his book on the Sentences of Prosper
(Lanfranc, De
Corp. et Sang. Dom. xiii): "Under the species which we behold, of bread and wine, we
honor invisible things, i.e. flesh and blood."
TP Q[75] A[5] Body
I answer that, It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine
remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of
all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink
blood. And therefore Christ's flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under
the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and
wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might be derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our
Lord under His own species. Thirdly, that while we receive our Lord's body and blood
invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.
TP Q[75] A[5] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: As is said in the book De Causis, an effect depends more on the first
cause than on the second. And therefore by God's power, which is the first cause of all
things, it is possible for that which follows to remain, while that which is first is
taken away.
TP Q[75] A[5] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: There is no deception in this sacrament; for the accidents which are
discerned by the senses are truly present. But the intellect, whose proper object is
substance as is said in De Anima iii, is preserved by faith from deception.
TP Q[75] A[5] R.O. 2
And this serves as answer to the third argument; because faith is not contrary to the
senses, but concerns things to which sense does not reach.
TP Q[75] A[5] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: This change has not properly a subject, as was stated above (A[4], ad 1);
nevertheless the accidents which remain have some resemblance of a subject.
TP Q[75] A[6] Thes.
Whether the substantial form of the bread remains in this sacrament after the
consecration?
TP Q[75] A[6] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the substantial form of the bread remains in this sacrament after
the consecration. For it has been said (A[5]) that the accidents remain after the
consecration. But since bread is an artificial thing, its form is an accident. Therefore
it remains after the consecration.
TP Q[75] A[6] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, the form of Christ's body is His soul: for it is said in De Anima ii,
that the soul "is the act of a physical body which has life in potentiality".
But it cannot be said that the substantial form of the bread is changed into the soul.
Therefore it appears that it remains after the consecration.
TP Q[75] A[6] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, the proper operation of a things follows its substantial form. But what
remains in this sacrament, nourishes, and performs every operation which bread would do
were it present. Therefore the substantial form of the bread remains in this sacrament
after the consecration.
TP Q[75] A[6] OTC
On the contrary, The substantial form of bread is of the substance of bread. But the
substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, as stated above (AA[2],3,4).
Therefore the substantial form of the bread does not remain.
TP Q[75] A[6] Body
I answer that, Some have contended that after the consecration not only do the
accidents of the bread remain, but also its substantial form. But this cannot be. First of
all, because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain, nothing of the bread
would be changed into the body of Christ, excepting the matter; and so it would follow
that it would be changed, not into the whole body of Christ, but into its matter, which is
repugnant to the form of the sacrament, wherein it is said: "This is My body."
TP Q[75] A[6] Body
Secondly, because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain, it would remain
either in matter, or separated from matter. The first cannot be, for if it were to remain
in the matter of the bread, then the whole substance of the bread would remain, which is
against what was said above (A[2]). Nor could it remain in any other matter, because the
proper form exists only in its proper matter. But if it were to remain separate from
matter, it would then be an actually intelligible form, and also an intelligence; for all
forms separated from matter are such.
TP Q[75] A[6] Body
Thirdly, it would be unbefitting this sacrament: because the accidents of the bread
remain in this sacrament, in order that the body of Christ may be seen under them, and not
under its proper species, as stated above (A[5]).
TP Q[75] A[6] Body
And therefore it must be said that the substantial form of the bread does not remain.
TP Q[75] A[6] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: There is nothing to prevent art from making a thing whose form is not an
accident, but a substantial form; as frogs and serpents can be produced by art: for art
produces such forms not by its own power, but by the power of natural energies. And in
this way it produces the substantial forms of bread, by the power of fire baking the
matter made up of flour and water.
TP Q[75] A[6] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The soul is the form of the body, giving it the whole order of perfect
being, i.e. being, corporeal being, and animated being, and so on. Therefore the form of
the bread is changed into the form of Christ's body, according as the latter gives
corporeal being, but not according as it bestows animated being.
TP Q[75] A[6] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Some of the operations of bread follow it by reason of the accidents, such
as to affect the senses, and such operations are found in the species of the bread after
the consecration on account of the accidents which remain. But some other operations
follow the bread either by reason of the matter, such as that it is changed into something
else, or else by reason of the substantial form, such as an operation consequent upon its
species, for instance, that it "strengthens man's heart" (Ps. 103:15); and such
operations are found in this sacrament, not on account of the form or matter remaining,
but because they are bestowed miraculously upon the accidents themselves, as will be said
later (Q[77], A[3], ad 2,3; AA[5],6).
TP Q[75] A[7] Thes.
Whether this change is wrought instantaneously?
TP Q[75] A[7] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that this change is not wrought instantaneously, but successively. For
in this change there is first the substance of bread, and afterwards the substance of
Christ's body. Neither, then, is in the same instant, but in two instants. But there is a
mid-time between every two instants. Therefore this change must take place according to
the succession of time, which is between the last instant in which the bread is there, and
the first instant in which the body of Christ is present.
TP Q[75] A[7] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, in every change something is "in becoming" and something is
"in being." But these two things do not exist at the one time for, what is
"in becoming," is not yet, whereas what is "in being," already is.
Consequently, there is a before and an after in such change: and so necessarily the change
cannot be instantaneous, but successive.
TP Q[75] A[7] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv) that this sacrament "is made by the
words of Christ." But Christ's words are pronounced successively. Therefore the
change takes place successively.
TP Q[75] A[7] OTC
On the contrary, This change is effected by a power which is infinite, to which it
belongs to operate in an instant.
TP Q[75] A[7] Body
I answer that, A change may be instantaneous from a threefold reason. First on the part
of the form, which is the terminus of the change. For, if it be a form that receives more
and less, it is acquired by its subject successively, such as health; and therefore
because a substantial form does not receive more and less, it follows that its
introduction into matter is instantaneous.
TP Q[75] A[7] Body
Secondly on the part of the subject, which sometimes is prepared successively for
receiving the form; thus water is heated successively. When, however, the subject itself
is in the ultimate disposition for receiving the form, it receives it suddenly, as a
transparent body is illuminated suddenly. Thirdly on the part of the agent, which
possesses infinite power: wherefore it can instantly dispose the matter for the form. Thus
it is written (Mk. 7:34) that when Christ had said, "'Ephpheta,' which is 'Be thou
opened,' immediately his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed."
TP Q[75] A[7] Body
For these three reasons this conversion is instantaneous. First, because the substance
of Christ's body which is the term of this conversion, does not receive more or less.
Secondly, because in this conversion there is no subject to be disposed successively.
Thirdly, because it is effected by God's infinite power.
TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Some [*Cf. Albert the Great, Sent. iv, D, 11; St.
Bonaventure, Sent., iv,
D, 11] do not grant simply that there is a mid-time between every two instants. For they
say that this is true of two instants referring to the same movement, but not if they
refer to different things. Hence between the instant that marks the close of rest, and
another which marks the beginning of movement, there is no mid-time. But in this they are
mistaken, because the unity of time and of instant, or even their plurality, is not taken
according to movements of any sort, but according to the first movement of the heavens,
which is the measure of all movement and rest.
TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 1
Accordingly others grant this of the time which measures movement depending on the
movement of the heavens. But there are some movements which are not dependent on the
movement of the heavens, nor measured by it, as was said in the FP, Q[53], A[3] concerning
the movements of the angels. Hence between two instants responding to those movements
there is no mid-time. But this is not to the point, because although the change in
question has no relation of itself to the movement of the heavens, still it follows the
pronouncing of the words, which (pronouncing) must necessarily be measured by the movement
of the heavens. And therefore there must of necessity be a mid-time between every two
signate instants in connection with that change.
TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 1
Some say therefore that the instant in which the bread was last, and the instant in
which the body of Christ is first, are indeed two in comparison with the things measured,
but are one comparatively to the time measuring; as when two lines touch, there are two
points on the part of the two lines, but one point on the part of the place containing
them. But here there is no likeness, because instant and time is not the intrinsic measure
of particular movements, as a line and point are of a body, but only the extrinsic
measure, as place is to bodies.
TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 1
Hence others say that it is the same instant in fact, but another according to reason.
But according to this it would follow that things really opposite would exist together;
for diversity of reason does not change a thing objectively.
TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 1
And therefore it must be said that this change, as stated above, is wrought by Christ's
words which are spoken by the priest, so that the last instant of pronouncing the words is
the first instant in which Christ's body is in the sacrament; and that the substance of
the bread is there during the whole preceding time. Of this time no instant is to be taken
as proximately preceding the last one, because time is not made up of successive instants,
as is proved in Phys. vi. And therefore a first instant can be assigned in which Christ's
body is present; but a last instant cannot be assigned in which the substance of bread is
there, but a last time can be assigned. And the same holds good in natural changes, as is
evident from the Philosopher (Phys. viii).
TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: In instantaneous changes a thing is "in becoming," and is
"in being" simultaneously; just as becoming illuminated and to be actually
illuminated are simultaneous: for in such, a thing is said to be "in being"
according as it now is; but to be "in becoming," according as it was not before.
TP Q[75] A[7] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (ad 1), this change comes about in the last instant of the
pronouncing of the words. for then the meaning of the words is finished, which meaning is
efficacious in the forms of the sacraments. And therefore it does not follow that this
change is successive.
TP Q[75] A[8] Thes.
Whether this proposition is false: "The body of Christ is made out of bread"?
TP Q[75] A[8] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that this proposition is false: "The body of Christ is made out of
bread." For everything out of which another is made, is that which is made the other;
but not conversely: for we say that a black thing is made out of a white thing, and that a
white thing is made black: and although we may say that a man becomes black still we do
not say that a black thing is made out of a man, as is shown in Phys. i. If it be true,
then, that Christ's body is made out of bread, it will be true to say that bread is made
the body of Christ. But this seems to be false, because the bread is not the subject of
the making, but rather its term. Therefore, it is not said truly that Christ's body is
made out of bread.
TP Q[75] A[8] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, the term of "becoming" is something that is, or something
that is "made." But this proposition is never true: "The bread is the body
of Christ"; or "The bread is made the body of Christ"; or again, "The
bread will be the body of Christ." Therefore it seems that not even this is true:
"The body of Christ is made out of bread."
TP Q[75] A[8] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, everything out of which another is made is converted into that which is
made from it. But this proposition seems to be false: "The bread is converted into
the body of Christ," because such conversion seems to be more miraculous than the
creation of the world, in which it is not said that non-being is converted into being.
Therefore it seems that this proposition likewise is false: "The body of Christ is
made out of bread."
TP Q[75] A[8] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, that out of which something is made, can be that thing. But this
proposition is false: "Bread can be the body of Christ." Therefore this is
likewise false: "The body of Christ is made out of bread."
TP Q[75] A[8] OTC
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "When the consecration takes place,
the body of Christ is made out of the bread."
TP Q[75] A[8] Body
I answer that, This conversion of bread into the body of Christ has something in common
with creation, and with natural transmutation, and in some respect differs from both. For
the order of the terms is common to these three; that is, that after one thing there is
another (for, in creation there is being after non-being; in this sacrament, Christ's body
after the substance of bread; in natural transmutation white after black, or fire after
air); and that the aforesaid terms are not coexistent.
TP Q[75] A[8] Body
Now the conversion, of which we are speaking, has this in common with creation, that in
neither of them is there any common subject belonging to either of the extremes; the
contrary of which appears in every natural transmutation.
TP Q[75] A[8] Body
Again, this conversion has something in common with natural transmutation in two
respects, although not in the same fashion. First of all because in both, one of the
extremes passes into the other, as bread into Christ's body, and air into fire; whereas
non-being is not converted into being. But this comes to pass differently on the one side
and on the other; for in this sacrament the whole substance of the bread passes into the
whole body of Christ; whereas in natural transmutation the matter of the one receives the
form of the other, the previous form being laid aside. Secondly, they have this in common,
that on both sides something remains the same; whereas this does not happen in creation:
yet differently; for the same matter or subject remains in natural transmutation; whereas
in this sacrament the same accidents remain.
TP Q[75] A[8] Body
From these observations we can gather the various ways of speaking in such matters.
For, because in no one of the aforesaid three things are the extremes coexistent,
therefore in none of them can one extreme be predicated of the other by the substantive
verb of the present tense: for we do not say, "Non-being is being" or,
"Bread is the body of Christ," or, "Air is fire," or, "White is
black." Yet because of the relationship of the extremes in all of them we can use the
preposition "ex" [out of], which denotes order; for we can truly and properly
say that "being is made out of non-being," and "out of bread, the body of
Christ," and "out of air, fire," and "out of white, black." But
because in creation one of the extremes does not pass into the other, we cannot use the
word "conversion" in creation, so as to say that "non-being is converted
into being": we can, however, use the word in this sacrament, just as in natural
transmutation. But since in this sacrament the whole substance is converted into the whole
substance, on that account this conversion is properly termed transubstantiation.
TP Q[75] A[8] Body
Again, since there is no subject of this conversion, the things which are true in
natural conversion by reason of the subject, are not to be granted in this conversion. And
in the first place indeed it is evident that potentiality to the opposite follows a
subject, by reason whereof we say that "a white thing can be black," or that
"air can be fire"; although the latter is not so proper as the former: for the
subject of whiteness, in which there is potentiality to blackness, is the whole substance
of the white thing; since whiteness is not a part thereof; whereas the subject of the form
of air is part thereof: hence when it is said, "Air can be fire," it is verified
by synecdoche by reason of the part. But in this conversion, and similarly in creation,
because there is no subject, it is not said that one extreme can be the other, as that
"non-being can be being," or that "bread can be the body of Christ":
and for the same reason it cannot be properly said that "being is made of [de]
non-being," or that "the body of Christ is made of bread," because this
preposition "of" [de] denotes a consubstantial cause, which consubstantiality of
the extremes in natural transmutations is considered according to something common in the
subject. And for the same reason it is not granted that "bread will be the body of
Christ," or that it "may become the body of Christ," just as it is not
granted in creation that "non-being will be being," or that "non-being may
become being," because this manner of speaking is verified in natural transmutations
by reason of the subject: for instance, when we say that "a white thing becomes
black," or "a white thing will be black."
TP Q[75] A[8] Body
Nevertheless, since in this sacrament, after the change, something remains the same,
namely, the accidents of the bread, as stated above (A[5]), some of these expressions may
be admitted by way of similitude, namely, that "bread is the body of Christ,"
or, "bread will be the body of Christ," or "the body of Christ is made of
bread"; provided that by the word "bread" is not understood the substance
of bread, but in general "that which is contained under the species of bread,"
under which species there is first contained the substance of bread, and afterwards the
body of Christ.
TP Q[75] A[8] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: That out of which something else is made, sometimes implies together with
the subject, one of the extremes of the transmutation, as when it is said "a black
thing is made out of a white one"; but sometimes it implies only the opposite or the
extreme, as when it is said---"out of morning comes the day." And so it is not
granted that the latter becomes the former, that is, "that morning becomes the
day." So likewise in the matter in hand, although it may be said properly that
"the body of Christ is made out of bread," yet it is not said properly that
"bread becomes the body of Christ," except by similitude, as was said above.
TP Q[75] A[8] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: That out of which another is made, will sometimes be that other because of
the subject which is implied. And therefore, since there is no subject of this change, the
comparison does not hold.
TP Q[75] A[8] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: In this change there are many more difficulties than in creation, in which
there is but this one difficulty, that something is made out of nothing; yet this belongs
to the proper mode of production of the first cause, which presupposes nothing else. But
in this conversion not only is it difficult for this whole to be changed into that whole,
so that nothing of the former may remain (which does not belong to the common mode of
production of a cause), but furthermore it has this difficulty that the accidents remain
while the substance is destroyed, and many other difficulties of which we shall treat
hereafter (Q[77]). Nevertheless the word "conversion" is admitted in this
sacrament, but not in creation, as stated above.
TP Q[75] A[8] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: As was observed above, potentiality belongs to the subject, whereas there
is no subject in this conversion. And therefore it is not granted that bread can be the
body of Christ: for this conversion does not come about by the passive potentiality of the
creature, but solely by the active power of the Creator.
TP Q[76] Out.
OF
THE WAY IN WHICH CHRIST IS IN THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the manner in which Christ exists in this sacrament; and under
this head there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the whole Christ is under this sacrament?
(2) Whether the entire Christ is under each species of the sacrament?
(3) Whether the entire Christ is under every part of the species?
(4) Whether all the dimensions of Christ's body are in this sacrament?
(5) Whether the body of Christ is in this sacrament locally?
(6) Whether after the consecration, the body of Christ is moved when the host or
chalice is moved?
(7) Whether Christ's body, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by the eye?
(8) Whether the true body of Christ remains in this sacrament when He is seen under the
appearance of a child or of flesh?
TP Q[76] A[1] Thes.
Whether the whole Christ is contained under this sacrament?
TP Q[76] A[1] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the whole Christ is not contained under this sacrament, because
Christ begins to be in this sacrament by conversion of the bread and wine. But it is
evident that the bread and wine cannot be changed either into the Godhead or into the soul
of Christ. Since therefore Christ exists in three substances, namely, the Godhead, soul
and body, as shown above (Q[2], A[5]; Q[5], AA[1],3), it seems that the entire Christ is
not under this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[1] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, Christ is in this sacrament, forasmuch as it is ordained to the
refection of the faithful, which consists in food and drink, as stated above (Q[74],
A[1]). But our Lord said (Jn. 6:56): "My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink
indeed." Therefore, only the flesh and blood of Christ are contained in this
sacrament. But there are many other parts of Christ's body, for instance, the nerves,
bones, and such like. Therefore the entire Christ is not contained under this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[1] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, a body of greater quantity cannot be contained under the measure of a
lesser. But the measure of the bread and wine is much smaller than the measure of Christ's
body. Therefore it is impossible that the entire Christ be contained under this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[1] OTC
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Officiis): "Christ is in this sacrament."
TP Q[76] A[1] Body
I answer that, It is absolutely necessary to confess according to Catholic faith that
the entire Christ is in this sacrament. Yet we must know that there is something of Christ
in this sacrament in a twofold manner: first, as it were, by the power of the sacrament;
secondly, from natural concomitance. By the power of the sacrament, there is under the
species of this sacrament that into which the pre-existing substance of the bread and wine
is changed, as expressed by the words of the form, which are effective in this as in the
other sacraments; for instance, by the words: "This is My body," or, "This
is My blood." But from natural concomitance there is also in this sacrament that
which is really united with that thing wherein the aforesaid conversion is terminated. For
if any two things be really united, then wherever the one is really, there must the other
also be: since things really united together are only distinguished by an operation of the
mind.
TP Q[76] A[1] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Because the change of the bread and wine is not terminated at the Godhead
or the soul of Christ, it follows as a consequence that the Godhead or the soul of Christ
is in this sacrament not by the power of the sacrament, but from real concomitance. For
since the Godhead never set aside the assumed body, wherever the body of Christ is, there,
of necessity, must the Godhead be; and therefore it is necessary for the Godhead to be in
this sacrament concomitantly with His body. Hence we read in the profession of faith at
Ephesus (P. I., chap. xxvi): "We are made partakers of the body and blood of Christ,
not as taking common flesh, nor as of a holy man united to the Word in dignity, but the
truly life-giving flesh of the Word Himself."
TP Q[76] A[1] R.O. 1
On the other hand, His soul was truly separated from His body, as stated above (Q[50],
A[5]). And therefore had this sacrament been celebrated during those three days when He
was dead, the soul of Christ would not have been there, neither by the power of the
sacrament, nor from real concomitance. But since "Christ rising from the dead dieth
now no more" (Rm. 6:9), His soul is always really united with His body. And therefore
in this sacrament the body indeed of Christ is present by the power of the sacrament, but
His soul from real concomitance.
TP Q[76] A[1] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: By the power of the sacrament there is contained under it, as to the
species of the bread, not only the flesh, but the entire body of Christ, that is, the
bones the nerves, and the like. And this is apparent from the form of this sacrament,
wherein it is not said: "This is My flesh," but "This is My body."
Accordingly, when our Lord said (Jn. 6:56): "My flesh is meat indeed," there the
word flesh is put for the entire body, because according to human custom it seems to be
more adapted for eating, as men commonly are fed on the flesh of animals, but not on the
bones or the like.
TP Q[76] A[1] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: As has been already stated (Q[75], A[5]), after the consecration of the
bread into the body of Christ, or of the wine into His blood, the accidents of both
remain. From which it is evident that the dimensions of the bread or wine are not changed
into the dimensions of the body of Christ, but substance into substance. And so the
substance of Christ's body or blood is under this sacrament by the power of the sacrament,
but not the dimensions of Christ's body or blood. Hence it is clear that the body of
Christ is in this sacrament "by way of substance," and not by way of quantity.
But the proper totality of substance is contained indifferently in a small or large
quantity; as the whole nature of air in a great or small amount of air, and the whole
nature of a man in a big or small individual. Wherefore, after the consecration, the whole
substance of Christ's body and blood is contained in this sacrament, just as the whole
substance of the bread and wine was contained there before the consecration.
TP Q[76] A[2] Thes.
Whether the whole Christ is contained under each species of this sacrament?
TP Q[76] A[2] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the whole Christ is not contained under both species of this
sacrament. For this sacrament is ordained for the salvation of the faithful, not by virtue
of the species, but by virtue of what is contained under the species, because the species
were there even before the consecration, from which comes the power of this sacrament. If
nothing, then, be contained under one species, but what is contained under the other, and
if the whole Christ be contained under both, it seems that one of them is superfluous in
this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[2] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, it was stated above (A[1], ad 1) that all the other parts of the body,
such as the bones, nerves, and the like, are comprised under the name of flesh. But the
blood is one of the parts of the human body, as Aristotle proves (De Anima
Histor. i). If,
then, Christ's blood be contained under the species of bread, just as the other parts of
the body are contained there, the blood ought not to be consecrated apart, just as no
other part of the body is consecrated separately.
TP Q[76] A[2] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, what is once "in being" cannot be again "in
becoming." But Christ's body has already begun to be in this sacrament by the
consecration of the bread. Therefore, it cannot begin again to be there by the
consecration of the wine; and so Christ's body will not be contained under the species of
the wine, and accordingly neither the entire Christ. Therefore the whole Christ is not
contained under each species.
TP Q[76] A[2] OTC
On the contrary, The gloss on 1 Cor. 11:25, commenting on the word "Chalice,"
says that "under each species," namely, of the bread and wine, "the same is
received"; and thus it seems that Christ is entire under each species.
TP Q[76] A[2] Body
I answer that, After what we have said above (A[1]), it must be held most certainly
that the whole Christ is under each sacramental species yet not alike in each. For the
body of Christ is indeed present under the species of bread by the power of the sacrament,
while the blood is there from real concomitance, as stated above (A[1], ad 1) in regard to
the soul and Godhead of Christ; and under the species of wine the blood is present by the
power of the sacrament, and His body by real concomitance, as is also His soul and
Godhead: because now Christ's blood is not separated from His body, as it was at the time
of His Passion and death. Hence if this sacrament had been celebrated then, the body of
Christ would have been under the species of the bread, but without the blood; and, under
the species of the wine, the blood would have been present without the body, as it was
then, in fact.
TP Q[76] A[2] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Although the whole Christ is under each species, yet it is so not without
purpose. For in the first place this serves to represent Christ's Passion, in which the
blood was separated from the body; hence in the form for the consecration of the blood
mention is made of its shedding. Secondly, it is in keeping with the use of this
sacrament, that Christ's body be shown apart to the faithful as food, and the blood as
drink. Thirdly, it is in keeping with its effect, in which sense it was stated above
(Q[74], A[1]) that "the body is offered for the salvation of the body, and the blood
for the salvation of the soul."
TP Q[76] A[2] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: In Christ's Passion, of which this is the memorial, the other parts of the
body were not separated from one another, as the blood was, but the body remained entire,
according to Ex. 12:46: "You shall not break a bone thereof." And therefore in
this sacrament the blood is consecrated apart from the body, but no other part is
consecrated separately from the rest.
TP Q[76] A[2] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above, the body of Christ is not under the species of wine by
the power of the sacrament, but by real concomitance: and therefore by the consecration of
the wine the body of Christ is not there of itself, but concomitantly.
TP Q[76] A[3] Thes.
Whether Christ is entire under every part of the species of the bread and wine?
TP Q[76] A[3] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ is not entire under every part of the species of bread and
wine. Because those species can be divided infinitely. If therefore Christ be entirely
under every part of the said species, it would follow that He is in this sacrament an
infinite number of times: which is unreasonable; because the infinite is repugnant not
only to nature, but likewise to grace.
TP Q[76] A[3] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, since Christ's is an organic body, it has parts determinately distant.
for a determinate distance of the individual parts from each other is of the very nature
of an organic body, as that of eye from eye, and eye from ear. But this could not be so,
if Christ were entire under every part of the species; for every part would have to be
under every other part, and so where one part would be, there another part would be. It
cannot be then that the entire Christ is under every part of the host or of the wine
contained in the chalice.
TP Q[76] A[3] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, Christ's body always retains the true nature of a body, nor is it ever
changed into a spirit. Now it is the nature of a body for it to be "quantity having
position" (Predic. iv). But it belongs to the nature of this quantity that the
various parts exist in various parts of place. Therefore, apparently it is impossible for
the entire Christ to be under every part of the species.
TP Q[76] A[3] OTC
On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon (Gregory,
Sacramentarium): "Each
receives Christ the Lord, Who is entire under every morsel, nor is He less in each
portion, but bestows Himself entire under each."
TP Q[76] A[3] Body
I answer that, As was observed above (A[1], ad 3), because the substance of Christ's
body is in this sacrament by the power of the sacrament, while dimensive quantity is there
by reason of real concomitance, consequently Christ's body is in this sacrament
substantively, that is, in the way in which substance is under dimensions, but not after
the manner of dimensions, which means, not in the way in which the dimensive quantity of a
body is under the dimensive quantity of place.
TP Q[76] A[3] Body
Now it is evident that the whole nature of a substance is under every part of the
dimensions under which it is contained; just as the entire nature of air is under every
part of air, and the entire nature of bread under every part of bread; and this
indifferently, whether the dimensions be actually divided (as when the air is divided or
the bread cut), or whether they be actually undivided, but potentially divisible. And
therefore it is manifest that the entire Christ is under every part of the species of the
bread, even while the host remains entire, and not merely when it is broken, as some say,
giving the example of an image which appears in a mirror, which appears as one in the
unbroken mirror, whereas when the mirror is broken, there is an image in each part of the
broken mirror: for the comparison is not perfect, because the multiplying of such images
results in the broken mirror on account of the various reflections in the various parts of
the mirror; but here there is only one consecration, whereby Christ's body is in this
sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[3] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Number follows division, and therefore so long as quantity remains
actually undivided, neither is the substance of any thing several times under its proper
dimensions, nor is Christ's body several times under the dimensions of the bread; and
consequently not an infinite number of times, but just as many times as it is divided into
parts.
TP Q[76] A[3] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The determinate distance of parts in an organic body is based upon its
dimensive quantity; but the nature of substance precedes even dimensive quantity. And
since the conversion of the substance of the bread is terminated at the substance of the
body of Christ, and since according to the manner of substance the body of Christ is
properly and directly in this sacrament; such distance of parts is indeed in Christ's true
body, which, however, is not compared to this sacrament according to such distance, but
according to the manner of its substance, as stated above (A[1], ad 3).
TP Q[76] A[3] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: This argument is based on the nature of a body, arising from dimensive
quantity. But it was said above (ad 2) that Christ's body is compared with this sacrament
not by reason of dimensive quantity, but by reason of its substance, as already stated.
TP Q[76] A[4] Thes.
Whether the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this sacrament?
TP Q[76] A[4] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body is not in this
sacrament. For it was said (A[3]) that Christ's entire body is contained under every part
of the consecrated host. But no dimensive quantity is contained entirely in any whole, and
in its every part. Therefore it is impossible for the entire dimensive quantity of
Christ's body to be there.
TP Q[76] A[4] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, it is impossible for two dimensive quantities to be together, even
though one be separate from its subject, and the other in a natural body, as is clear from
the Philosopher (Metaph. iii). But the dimensive quantity of the bread remains in this
sacrament, as is evident to our senses. Consequently, the dimensive quantity of Christ's
body is not there.
TP Q[76] A[4] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, if two unequal dimensive quantities be set side by side, the greater
will overlap the lesser. But the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is considerably
larger than the dimensive quantity of the consecrated host according to every dimension.
Therefore, if the dimensive quantity of Christ's body be in this sacrament together with
the dimensive quantity of the host, the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is extended
beyond the quantity of the host, which nevertheless is not without the substance of
Christ's body. Therefore, the substance of Christ's body will be in this sacrament even
outside the species of the bread, which is unreasonable, since the substance of Christ's
body is in this sacrament, only by the consecration of the bread, as stated above (A[2]).
Consequently, it is impossible for the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body to be in
this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[4] OTC
On the contrary, The existence of the dimensive quantity of any body cannot be
separated from the existence of its substance. But in this sacrament the entire substance
of Christ's body is present, as stated above (AA[1],3). Therefore the entire dimensive
quantity of Christ's body is in this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[4] Body
I answer that, As stated above (A[1]), any part of Christ is in this sacrament in two
ways: in one way, by the power of the sacrament; in another, from real concomitance. By
the power of the sacrament the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is not in this
sacrament; for, by the power of the sacrament that is present in this sacrament, whereat
the conversion is terminated. But the conversion which takes place in this sacrament is
terminated directly at the substance of Christ's body, and not at its dimensions; which is
evident from the fact that the dimensive quantity of the bread remains after the
consecration, while only the substance of the bread passes away.
TP Q[76] A[4] Body
Nevertheless, since the substance of Christ's body is not really deprived of its
dimensive quantity and its other accidents, hence it comes that by reason of real
concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body and all its other accidents are
in this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[4] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: The manner of being of every thing is determined by what belongs to it of
itself, and not according to what is coupled accidentally with it: thus an object is
present to the sight, according as it is white, and not according as it is sweet, although
the same object may be both white and sweet; hence sweetness is in the sight after the
manner of whiteness, and not after that of sweetness. Since, then, the substance of
Christ's body is present on the altar by the power of this sacrament, while its dimensive
quantity is there concomitantly and as it were accidentally, therefore the dimensive
quantity of Christ's body is in this sacrament, not according to its proper manner
(namely, that the whole is in the whole, and the individual parts in individual parts),
but after the manner of substance, whose nature is for the whole to be in the whole, and
the whole in every part.
TP Q[76] A[4] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Two dimensive quantities cannot naturally be in the same subject at the
same time, so that each be there according to the proper manner of dimensive quantity. But
in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of the bread is there after its proper manner,
that is, according to commensuration: not so the dimensive quantity of Christ's body, for
that is there after the manner of substance, as stated above (ad 1).
TP Q[76] A[4] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this sacrament not by way of
commensuration, which is proper to quantity, and to which it belongs for the greater to be
extended beyond the lesser; but in the way mentioned above (ad 1,2).
TP Q[76] A[5] Thes.
Whether Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place?
TP Q[76] A[5] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place. Because, to be
in a place definitively or circumscriptively belongs to being in a place. But Christ's
body seems to be definitively in this sacrament, because it is so present where the
species of the bread and wine are, that it is nowhere else upon the altar: likewise it
seems to be there circumscriptively, because it is so contained under the species of the
consecrated host, that it neither exceeds it nor is exceeded by it. Therefore Christ's
body is in this sacrament as in a place.
TP Q[76] A[5] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, the place of the bread and wine is not empty, because nature abhors a
vacuum; nor is the substance of the bread there, as stated above (Q[75], A[2]); but only
the body of Christ is there. Consequently the body of Christ fills that place. But
whatever fills a place is there locally. Therefore the body of Christ is in this sacrament
locally.
TP Q[76] A[5] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, as stated above (A[4]), the body of Christ is in this sacrament with
its dimensive quantity, and with all its accidents. But to be in a place is an accident of
a body; hence "where" is numbered among the nine kinds of accidents. Therefore
Christ's body is in this sacrament locally.
TP Q[76] A[5] OTC
On the contrary, The place and the object placed must be equal, as is clear from the
Philosopher (Phys. iv). But the place, where this sacrament is, is much less than the body
of Christ. Therefore Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place.
TP Q[76] A[5] Body
I answer that, As stated above (A[1], ad 3; A[3]), Christ's body is in this sacrament
not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity, but rather after the manner of
substance. But every body occupying a place is in the place according to the manner of
dimensive quantity, namely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its
dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a
place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that way in which substance
is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ's body succeeds the substance
of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its
dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ's
body. Nevertheless the substance of Christ's body is not the subject of those dimensions,
as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was there
locally by reason of its dimensions, because it was compared with that place through the
medium of its own dimensions; but the substance of Christ's body is compared with that
place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper
dimensions of Christ's body are compared with that place through the medium of substance;
which is contrary to the notion of a located body.
TP Q[76] A[5] Body
Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[5] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Christ's body is not in this sacrament definitively, because then it would
be only on the particular altar where this sacrament is performed: whereas it is in heaven
under its own species, and on many other altars under the sacramental species. Likewise it
is evident that it is not in this sacrament circumscriptively, because it is not there
according to the commensuration of its own quantity, as stated above. But that it is not
outside the superficies of the sacrament, nor on any other part of the altar, is due not
to its being there definitively or circumscriptively, but to its being there by
consecration and conversion of the bread and wine, as stated above (A[1]; Q[15], A[2],
sqq.).
TP Q[76] A[5] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The place in which Christ's body is, is not empty; nor yet is it properly
filled with the substance of Christ's body, which is not there locally, as stated above;
but it is filled with the sacramental species, which have to fill the place either because
of the nature of dimensions, or at least miraculously, as they also subsist miraculously
after the fashion of substance.
TP Q[76] A[5] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: As stated above (A[4]), the accidents of Christ's body are in this
sacrament by real concomitance. And therefore those accidents of Christ's body which are
intrinsic to it are in this sacrament. But to be in a place is an accident when compared
with the extrinsic container. And therefore it is not necessary for Christ to be in this
sacrament as in a place.
TP Q[76] A[6] Thes.
Whether Christ's body is in this sacrament movably?
TP Q[76] A[6] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ's body is movably in this sacrament, because the
Philosopher says (Topic. ii) that "when we are moved, the things within us are
moved": and this is true even of the soul's spiritual substance. "But Christ is
in this sacrament," as shown above (Q[74], A[1] ). Therefore He is moved when it is
moved.
TP Q[76] A[6] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, the truth ought to correspond with the figure. But, according to the
commandment (Ex. 12:10), concerning the Paschal Lamb, a figure of this sacrament,
"there remained nothing until the morning." Neither, therefore, if this
sacrament be reserved until morning, will Christ's body be there; and so it is not
immovably in this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[6] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, if Christ's body were to remain under this sacrament even until the
morrow, for the same reason it will remain there during all coming time; for it cannot be
said that it ceases to be there when the species pass, because the existence of Christ's
body is not dependent on those species. Yet Christ does not remain in this sacrament for
all coming time. It seems, then, that straightway on the morrow, or after a short time, He
ceases to be under this sacrament. And so it seems that Christ is in this sacrament
movably.
TP Q[76] A[6] OTC
On the contrary, it is impossible for the same thing to be in motion and at rest, else
contradictories would be verified of the same subject. But Christ's body is at rest in
heaven. Therefore it is not movably in this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[6] Body
I answer that, When any thing is one, as to subject, and manifold in being, there is
nothing to hinder it from being moved in one respect, and yet to remain at rest in another
just as it is one thing for a body to be white, and another thing, to be large; hence it
can be moved as to its whiteness, and yet continue unmoved as to its magnitude. But in
Christ, being in Himself and being under the sacrament are not the same thing, because
when we say that He is under this sacrament, we express a kind of relationship to this
sacrament. According to this being, then, Christ is not moved locally of Himself, but only
accidentally, because Christ is not in this sacrament as in a place, as stated above
(A[5]). But what is not in a place, is not moved of itself locally, but only according to
the motion of the subject in which it is.
TP Q[76] A[6] Body
In the same way neither is it moved of itself according to the being which it has in
this sacrament, by any other change whatever, as for instance, that it ceases to be under
this sacrament: because whatever possesses unfailing existence of itself, cannot be the
principle of failing; but when something else fails, then it ceases to be in it; just as
God, Whose existence is unfailing and immortal, ceases to be in some corruptible creature
because such corruptible creature ceases to exist. And in this way, since Christ has
unfailing and incorruptible being, He ceases to be under this sacrament, not because He
ceases to be, nor yet by local movement of His own, as is clear from what has been said,
but only by the fact that the sacramental species cease to exist.
TP Q[76] A[6] Body
Hence it is clear that Christ, strictly speaking is immovably in this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[6] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: This argument deals with accidental movement, whereby things within us are
moved together with us. But with things which can of themselves be in a place, like
bodies, it is otherwise than with things which cannot of themselves be in a place, such as
forms and spiritual substances. And to this mode can be reduced what we say of Christ,
being moved accidentally, according to the existence which He has in this sacrament, in
which He is not present as in a place.
TP Q[76] A[6] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: It was this argument which seems to have convinced those who held that
Christ's body does not remain under this sacrament if it be reserved until the morrow. It
is against these that Cyril says (Ep. lxxxiii): "Some are so foolish as to say that
the mystical blessing departs from the sacrament, if any of its fragments remain until the
next day: for Christ's consecrated body is not changed, and the power of the blessing, and
the life-giving grace is perpetually in it." Thus are all other consecrations
irremovable so long as the consecrated things endure; on which account they are not
repeated. And although the truth corresponds with the figure, still the figure cannot
equal it.
TP Q[76] A[6] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The body of Christ remains in this sacrament not only until the morrow,
but also in the future, so long as the sacramental species remain: and when they cease,
Christ's body ceases to be under them, not because it depends on them, but because the
relationship of Christ's body to those species is taken away, in the same way as God
ceases to be the Lord of a creature which ceases to exist.
TP Q[76] A[7] Thes.
Whether the body of Christ, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by any eye, at
least by a glorified one?
TP Q[76] A[7] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the body of Christ, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by the
eye, at least by a glorified one. For our eyes are hindered from beholding Christ's body
in this sacrament, on account of the sacramental species veiling it. But the glorified eye
cannot be hindered by anything from seeing bodies as they are. Therefore, the glorified
eye can see Christ's body as it is in this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[7] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, the glorified bodies of the saints will be "made like to the
body" of Christ's "glory," according to Phil. 3:21. But Christ's eye
beholds Himself as He is in this sacrament. Therefore, for the same reason, every other
glorified eye can see Him.
TP Q[76] A[7] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, in the resurrection the saints will be equal to the angels, according
to Lk. 20:36. But the angels see the body of Christ as it is in this sacrament, for even
the devils are found to pay reverence thereto, and to fear it. Therefore, for like reason,
the glorified eye can see Christ as He is in this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[7] OTC
On the contrary, As long as a thing remains the same, it cannot at the same time be
seen by the same eye under diverse species. But the glorified eye sees Christ always, as
He is in His own species, according to Is. 33:17: "(His eyes) shall see the king in
his beauty." It seems, then, that it does not see Christ, as He is under the species
of this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[7] Body
I answer that, The eye is of two kinds, namely, the bodily eye properly so-called, and
the intellectual eye, so-called by similitude. But Christ's body as it is in this
sacrament cannot be seen by any bodily eye. First of all, because a body which is visible
brings about an alteration in the medium, through its accidents. Now the accidents of
Christ's body are in this sacrament by means of the substance; so that the accidents of
Christ's body have no immediate relationship either to this sacrament or to adjacent
bodies; consequently they do not act on the medium so as to be seen by any corporeal eye.
Secondly, because, as stated above (A[1], ad 3; A[3]), Christ's body is substantially
present in this sacrament. But substance, as such, is not visible to the bodily eye, nor
does it come under any one of the senses, nor under the imagination, but solely under the
intellect, whose object is "what a thing is" (De Anima iii). And therefore,
properly speaking, Christ's body, according to the mode of being which it has in this
sacrament, is perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but only by the
intellect, which is called the spiritual eye.
TP Q[76] A[7] Body
Moreover it is perceived differently by different intellects. For since the way in
which Christ is in this sacrament is entirely supernatural, it is visible in itself to a
supernatural, i.e. the Divine, intellect, and consequently to a beatified intellect, of
angel or of man, which, through the participated glory of the Divine intellect, sees all
supernatural things in the vision of the Divine Essence. But it can be seen by a wayfarer
through faith alone, like other supernatural things. And not even the angelic intellect of
its own natural power is capable of beholding it; consequently the devils cannot by their
intellect perceive Christ in this sacrament, except through faith, to which they do not
pay willing assent; yet they are convinced of it from the evidence of signs, according to
James 2:19: "The devils believe, and tremble."
TP Q[76] A[7] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Our bodily eye, on account of the sacramental species, is hindered from
beholding the body of Christ underlying them, not merely as by way of veil (just as we are
hindered from seeing what is covered with any corporeal veil), but also because Christ's
body bears a relation to the medium surrounding this sacrament, not through its own
accidents, but through the sacramental species.
TP Q[76] A[7] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Christ's own bodily eye sees Himself existing under the sacrament, yet it
cannot see the way in which it exists under the sacrament, because that belongs to the
intellect. But it is not the same with any other glorified eye, because Christ's eye is
under this sacrament, in which no other glorified eye is conformed to it.
TP Q[76] A[7] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: No angel, good or bad, can see anything with a bodily eye, but only with
the mental eye. Hence there is no parallel reason, as is evident from what was said above.
TP Q[76] A[8] Thes.
Whether Christ's body is truly there when flesh or a child appears miraculously in this
sacrament?
TP Q[76] A[8] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that Christ's body is not truly there when flesh or a child appears
miraculously in this sacrament. Because His body ceases to be under this sacrament when
the sacramental species cease to be present, as stated above (A[6]). But when flesh or a
child appears, the sacramental species cease to be present. Therefore Christ's body is not
truly there.
TP Q[76] A[8] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, wherever Christ's body is, it is there either under its own species, or
under those of the sacrament. But when such apparitions occur, it is evident that Christ
is not present under His own species, because the entire Christ is contained in this
sacrament, and He remains entire under the form in which He ascended to heaven: yet what
appears miraculously in this sacrament is sometimes seen as a small particle of flesh, or
at times as a small child. Now it is evident that He is not there under the sacramental
species, which is that of bread or wine. Consequently, it seems that Christ's body is not
there in any way.
TP Q[76] A[8] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, Christ's body begins to be in this sacrament by consecration and
conversion, as was said above (Q[75], AA[2],3,4). But the flesh and blood which appear by
miracle are not consecrated, nor are they converted into Christ's true body and blood.
Therefore the body or the blood of Christ is not under those species.
TP Q[76] A[8] OTC
On the contrary, When such apparition takes place, the same reverence is shown to it as
was shown at first, which would not be done if Christ were not truly there, to Whom we
show reverence of "latria." Therefore, when such apparition occurs, Christ is
under the sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[8] Body
I answer that, Such apparition comes about in two ways, when occasionally in this
sacrament flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. Sometimes it happens on the part of the
beholders, whose eyes are so affected as if they outwardly saw flesh, or blood, or a
child, while no change takes place in the sacrament. And this seems to happen when to one
person it is seen under the species of flesh or of a child, while to others it is seen as
before under the species of bread; or when to the same individual it appears for an hour
under the appearance of flesh or a child, and afterwards under the appearance of bread.
Nor is there any deception there, as occurs in the feats of magicians, because such
species is divinely formed in the eye in order to represent some truth, namely, for the
purpose of showing that Christ's body is truly under this sacrament; just as Christ
without deception appeared to the disciples who were going to Emmaus. For Augustine says
(De Qq. Evang. ii) that "when our pretense is referred to some significance, it is
not a lie, but a figure of the truth." And since in this way no change is made in the
sacrament, it is manifest that, when such apparition occurs, Christ does not cease to be
under this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[8] Body
But it sometimes happens that such apparition comes about not merely by a change
wrought in the beholders, but by an appearance which really exists outwardly. And this
indeed is seen to happen when it is beheld by everyone under such an appearance, and it
remains so not for an hour, but for a considerable time; and, in this case some think that
it is the proper species of Christ's body. Nor does it matter that sometimes Christ's
entire body is not seen there, but part of His flesh, or else that it is not seen in
youthful guise. but in the semblance of a child, because it lies within the power of a
glorified body for it to be seen by a non-glorified eye either entirely or in part, and
under its own semblance or in strange guise, as will be said later (XP, Q[85], AA[2],3).
TP Q[76] A[8] Body
But this seems unlikely. First of all, because Christ's body under its proper species
can be seen only in one place, wherein it is definitively contained. Hence since it is
seen in its proper species, and is adored in heaven, it is not seen under its proper
species in this sacrament. Secondly, because a glorified body, which appears at will,
disappears when it wills after the apparition; thus it is related (Lk. 24:31) that our
Lord "vanished out of sight" of the disciples. But that which appears under the
likeness of flesh in this sacrament, continues for a long time; indeed, one reads of its
being sometimes enclosed, and, by order of many bishops, preserved in a pyx, which it
would be wicked to think of Christ under His proper semblance.
TP Q[76] A[8] Body
Consequently, it remains to be said, that, while the dimensions remain the same as
before, there is a miraculous change wrought in the other accidents, such as shape, color,
and the rest, so that flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. And, as was said already, this
is not deception, because it is done "to represent the truth," namely, to show
by this miraculous apparition that Christ's body and blood are truly in this sacrament.
And thus it is clear that as the dimensions remain, which are the foundation of the other
accidents, as we shall see later on (Q[77], A[2]), the body of Christ truly remains in
this sacrament.
TP Q[76] A[8] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: When such apparition takes place, the sacramental species sometimes
continue entire in themselves; and sometimes only as to that which is principal, as was
said above.
TP Q[76] A[8] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: As stated above, during such apparitions Christ's proper semblance is not
seen, but a species miraculously formed either in the eyes of the beholders, or in the
sacramental dimensions themselves, as was said above.
TP Q[76] A[8] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The dimensions of the consecrated bread and wine continue, while a
miraculous change is wrought in the other accidents, as stated above.
TP Q[77] Out.
OF
THE ACCIDENTS WHICH REMAIN IN THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We must now consider the accidents which remain in this sacrament; under which head
there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the accidents which remain are without a subject?
(2) Whether dimensive quantity is the subject of the other accidents?
(3) Whether such accidents can affect an extrinsic body?
(4) Whether they can be corrupted?
(5) Whether anything can be generated from them?
(6) Whether they can nourish?
(7) Of the breaking of the consecrated bread?
(8) Whether anything can be mixed with the consecrated wine?
TP Q[77] A[1] Thes.
Whether the accidents remain in this sacrament without a subject?
TP Q[77] A[1] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the accidents do not remain in this sacrament without a subject,
because there ought not to be anything disorderly or deceitful in this sacrament of truth.
But for accidents to be without a subject is contrary to the order which God established
in nature; and furthermore it seems to savor of deceit, since accidents are naturally the
signs of the nature of the subject. Therefore the accidents are not without a subject in
this sacrament.
TP Q[77] A[1] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, not even by miracle can the definition of a thing be severed from it,
or the definition of another thing be applied to it; for instance, that, while man remains
a man, he can be an irrational animal. For it would follow that contradictories can exist
at the one time: for the "definition of a thing is what its name expresses," as
is said in Metaph. iv. But it belongs to the definition of an accident for it to be in a
subject, while the definition of substance is that it must subsist of itself, and not in
another. Therefore it cannot come to pass, even by miracle, that the accidents exist
without a subject in this sacrament.
TP Q[77] A[1] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, an accident is individuated by its subject. If therefore the accidents
remain in this sacrament without a subject, they will not be individual, but general,
which is clearly false, because thus they would not be sensible, but merely intelligible.
TP Q[77] A[1] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, the accidents after the consecration of this sacrament do not obtain
any composition. But before the consecration they were not composed either of matter and
form, nor of existence [quo est] and essence [quod est]. Therefore, even after
consecration they are not composite in either of these ways. But this is unreasonable, for
thus they would be simpler than angels, whereas at the same time these accidents are
perceptible to the senses. Therefore, in this sacrament the accidents do not remain
without a subject.
TP Q[77] A[1] OTC
On the contrary, Gregory says in an Easter Homily (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom.
xx)
that "the sacramental species are the names of those things which were there before,
namely, of the bread and wine." Therefore since the substance of the bread and the
wine does not remain, it seems that these species remain without a subject.
TP Q[77] A[1] Body
I answer that, The species of the bread and wine, which are perceived by our senses to
remain in this sacrament after consecration, are not subjected in the substance of the
bread and wine, for that does not remain, as stated above (Q[75], A[2]); nor in the
substantial form, for that does not remain (Q[75], A[6]), and if it did remain, "it
could not be a subject," as Boethius declares (De Trin. i). Furthermore it is
manifest that these accidents are not subjected in the substance of Christ's body and
blood, because the substance of the human body cannot in any way be affected by such
accidents; nor is it possible for Christ's glorious and impassible body to be altered so
as to receive these qualities.
TP Q[77] A[1] Body
Now there are some who say that they are in the surrounding atmosphere as in a subject.
But even this cannot be: in the first place, because atmosphere is not susceptive of such
accidents. Secondly, because these accidents are not where the atmosphere is, nay more,
the atmosphere is displaced by the motion of these species. Thirdly, because accidents do
not pass from subject to subject, so that the same identical accident which was first in
one subject be afterwards in another; because an accident is individuated by the subject;
hence it cannot come to pass for an accident remaining identically the same to be at one
time in one subject, and at another time in another. Fourthly, since the atmosphere is not
deprived of its own accidents, it would have at the one time its own accidents and others
foreign to it. Nor can it be maintained that this is done miraculously in virtue of the
consecration, because the words of consecration do not signify this, and they effect only
what they signify.
TP Q[77] A[1] Body
Therefore it follows that the accidents continue in this sacrament without a subject.
This can be done by Divine power: for since an effect depends more upon the first cause
than on the second, God Who is the first cause both of substance and accident, can by His
unlimited power preserve an accident in existence when the substance is withdrawn whereby
it was preserved in existence as by its proper cause, just as without natural causes He
can produce other effects of natural causes, even as He formed a human body in the
Virgin's womb, "without the seed of man" (Hymn for Christmas, First Vespers).
TP Q[77] A[1] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: There is nothing to hinder the common law of nature from ordaining a
thing, the contrary of which is nevertheless ordained by a special privilege of grace, as
is evident in the raising of the dead, and in the restoring of sight to the blind: even
thus in human affairs, to some individuals some things are granted by special privilege
which are outside the common law. And so, even though it be according to the common law of
nature for an accident to be in a subject, still for a special reason, according to the
order of grace, the accidents exist in this sacrament without a subject, on account of the
reasons given above (Q[75] , A[5]).
TP Q[77] A[1] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Since being is not a genus, then being cannot be of itself the essence of
either substance or accident. Consequently, the definition of substance is not---"a
being of itself without a subject," nor is the definition of accident---"a being
in a subject"; but it belongs to the quiddity or essence of substance "to have
existence not in a subject"; while it belongs to the quiddity or essence of accident
"to have existence in a subject." But in this sacrament it is not in virtue of
their essence that accidents are not in a subject, but through the Divine power sustaining
them; and consequently they do not cease to be accidents, because neither is the
definition of accident withdrawn from them, nor does the definition of substance apply to
them.
TP Q[77] A[1] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: These accidents acquired individual being in the substance of the bread
and wine; and when this substance is changed into the body and blood of Christ, they
remain in that individuated being which they possessed before, hence they are individual
and sensible.
TP Q[77] A[1] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: These accidents had no being of their own nor other accidents, so long as
the substance of the bread and wine remained; but their subjects had "such"
being through them, just as snow is "white" through whiteness. But after the
consecration the accidents which remain have being; hence they are compounded of existence
and essence, as was said of the angels, in the FP, Q[50], A[2], ad 3; and besides they
have composition of quantitative parts.
TP Q[77] A[2] Thes.
Whether in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of the bread or wine is the subject of
the other accidents?
TP Q[77] A[2] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of the bread or wine is
not the subject of the other accidents. For accident is not the subject of accident;
because no form can be a subject, since to be a subject is a property of matter. But
dimensive quantity is an accident. Therefore dimensive quantity cannot be the subject of
the other accidents.
TP Q[77] A[2] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, just as quantity is individuated by substance, so also are the other
accidents. If, then, the dimensive quantity of the bread or wine remains individuated
according to the being it had before, in which it is preserved, for like reason the other
accidents remain individuated according to the existence which they had before in the
substance. Therefore they are not in dimensive quantity as in a subject, since every
accident is individuated by its own subject.
TP Q[77] A[2] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, among the other accidents that remain, of the bread and wine, the
senses perceive also rarity and density, which cannot be in dimensive quantity existing
outside matter; because a thing is rare which has little matter under great dimensions.
while a thing is dense which has much matter under small dimensions, as is said in Phys.
iv. It does not seem, then, that dimensive quantity can be the subject of the accidents
which remain in this sacrament.
TP Q[77] A[2] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, quantity abstract from matter seems to be mathematical quantity, which
is not the subject of sensible qualities. Since, then, the remaining accidents in this
sacrament are sensible, it seems that in this sacrament they cannot be subjected in the
dimensive quantity of the bread and wine that remains after consecration.
TP Q[77] A[2] OTC
On the contrary, Qualities are divisible only accidentally, that is, by reason of the
subject. But the qualities remaining in this sacrament are divided by the division of
dimensive quantity, as is evident through our senses. Therefore, dimensive quantity is the
subject of the accidents which remain in this sacrament.
TP Q[77] A[2] Body
I answer that, It is necessary to say that the other accidents which remain in this
sacrament are subjected in the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine that remains:
first of all, because something having quantity and color and affected by other accidents
is perceived by the senses; nor is sense deceived in such. Secondly, because the first
disposition of matter is dimensive quantity, hence Plato also assigned "great"
and "small" as the first differences of matter (Aristotle, Metaph. iv). And
because the first subject is matter, the consequence is that all other accidents are
related to their subject through the medium of dimensive quantity; just as the first
subject of color is said to be the surface, on which account some have maintained that
dimensions are the substances of bodies, as is said in Metaph. iii. And since, when the
subject is withdrawn, the accidents remain according to the being which they had before,
it follows that all accidents remain founded upon dimensive quantity.
TP Q[77] A[2] Body
Thirdly, because, since the subject is the principle of individuation of the accidents,
it is necessary for what is admitted as the subject of some accidents to be somehow the
principle of individuation: for it is of the very notion of an individual that it cannot
be in several; and this happens in two ways. First, because it is not natural to it to be
in any one; and in this way immaterial separated forms, subsisting of themselves, are also
individuals of themselves. Secondly, because a form, be it substantial or accidental, is
naturally in someone indeed, not in several, as this whiteness, which is in this body. As
to the first, matter is the principle of individuation of all inherent forms, because,
since these forms, considered in themselves, are naturally in something as in a subject,
from the very fact that one of them is received in matter, which is not in another, it
follows that neither can the form itself thus existing be in another. As to the second, it
must be maintained that the principle of individuation is dimensive quantity. For that
something is naturally in another one solely, is due to the fact that that other is
undivided in itself, and distinct from all others. But it is on account of quantity that
substance can be divided, as is said in Phys. i. And therefore dimensive quantity itself
is a particular principle of individuation in forms of this kind, namely, inasmuch as
forms numerically distinct are in different parts of the matter. Hence also dimensive
quantity has of itself a kind of individuation, so that we can imagine several lines of
the same species, differing in position, which is included in the notion of this quantity;
for it belongs to dimension for it to be "quantity having position" (Aristotle,
Categor. iv), and therefore dimensive quantity can be the subject of the other accidents,
rather than the other way about.
TP Q[77] A[2] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: One accident cannot of itself be the subject of another, because it does
not exist of itself. But inasmuch as an accident is received in another thing, one is said
to be the subject of the other, inasmuch as one is received in a subject through another,
as the surface is said to be the subject of color. Hence when God makes an accident to
exist of itself, it can also be of itself the subject of another.
TP Q[77] A[2] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The other accidents, even as they were in the substance of the bread, were
individuated by means of dimensive quantity, as stated above. And therefore dimensive
quantity is the subject of the other accidents remaining in this sacrament, rather than
conversely.
TP Q[77] A[2] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Rarity and density are particular qualities accompanying bodies, by reason
of their having much or little matter under dimensions; just as all other accidents
likewise follow from the principles of substance. And consequently, as the accidents are
preserved by Divine power when the substance is withdrawn, so, when matter is withdrawn,
the qualities which go with matter, such as rarity and density, are preserved by Divine
power.
TP Q[77] A[2] R.O. 4
Reply OBJ 4: Mathematical quantity abstracts not from intelligible matter, but from
sensible matter, as is said in Metaph. vii. But matter is termed sensible because it
underlies sensible qualities. And therefore it is manifest that the dimensive quantity,
which remains in this sacrament without a subject, is not mathematical quantity.
TP Q[77] A[3] Thes.
Whether the species remaining in this sacrament can change external objects?
TP Q[77] A[3] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the species which remain in this sacrament cannot affect external
objects. For it is proved in Phys. vii, that forms which are in matter are produced by
forms that are in matter, but not from forms which are without matter, because like makes
like. But the sacramental species are species without matter, since they remain without a
subject, as is evident from what was said above (A[1]). Therefore they cannot affect other
matter by producing any form in it.
TP Q[77] A[3] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, when the action of the principal agent ceases, then the action of the
instrument must cease, as when the carpenter rests, the hammer is moved no longer. But all
accidental forms act instrumentally in virtue of the substantial form as the principal
agent. Therefore, since the substantial form of the bread and wine does not remain in this
sacrament, as was shown above (Q[75], A[6]), it seems that the accidental forms which
remain cannot act so as to change external matter.
TP Q[77] A[3] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, nothing acts outside its species, because an effect cannot surpass its
cause. But all the sacramental species are accidents. Therefore they cannot change
external matter, at least as to a substantial form.
TP Q[77] A[3] OTC
On the contrary, If they could not change external bodies, they could not be felt; for
a thing is felt from the senses being changed by a sensible thing, as is said in De Anima
ii.
TP Q[77] A[3] Body
I answer that, Because everything acts in so far as it is an actual being, the
consequence is that everything stands in the same relation to action as it does to being.
Therefore, because, according to what was said above (A[1]), it is an effect of the Divine
power that the sacramental species continue in the being which they had when the substance
of the bread and wine was present, it follows that they continue in their action.
Consequently they retain every action which they had while the substance of the bread and
wine remained, now that the substance of the bread and wine has passed into the body and
blood of Christ. Hence there is no doubt but that they can change external bodies.
TP Q[77] A[3] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: The sacramental species, although they are forms existing without matter,
still retain the same being which they had before in matter, and therefore as to their
being they are like forms which are in matter.
TP Q[77] A[3] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The action of an accidental form depends upon the action of a substantial
form in the same way as the being of accident depends upon the being of substance; and
therefore, as it is an effect of Divine power that the sacramental species exist without
substance, so is it an effect of Divine power that they can act without a substantial
form, because every action of a substantial or accidental form depends upon God as the
first agent.
TP Q[77] A[3] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The change which terminates in a substantial form is not effected by a
substantial form directly, but by means of the active and passive qualities, which act in
virtue of the substantial form. But by Divine power this instrumental energy is retained
in the sacramental species, just as it was before: and consequently their action can be
directed to a substantial form instrumentally, just in the same way as anything can act
outside its species, not as by its own power, but by the power of the chief agent.
TP Q[77] A[4] Thes.
Whether the sacramental species can be corrupted?
TP Q[77] A[4] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the sacramental species cannot be corrupted, because corruption
comes of the separation of the form from the matter. But the matter of the bread does not
remain in this sacrament, as is clear from what was said above (Q[75], A[2]). Therefore
these species cannot be corrupted.
TP Q[77] A[4] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, no form is corrupted except accidentally, that is, when its subject is
corrupted; hence self-subsisting forms are incorruptible, as is seen in spiritual
substances. But the sacramental species are forms without a subject. Therefore they cannot
be corrupted.
TP Q[77] A[4] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, if they be corrupted, it will either be naturally or miraculously. But
they cannot be corrupted naturally, because no subject of corruption can be assigned as
remaining after the corruption has taken place. Neither can they be corrupted
miraculously, because the miracles which occur in this sacrament take place in virtue of
the consecration, whereby the sacramental species are preserved: and the same thing is not
the cause of preservation and of corruption. Therefore, in no way can the sacramental
species be corrupted.
TP Q[77] A[4] OTC
On the contrary, We perceive by our senses that the consecrated hosts become putrefied
and corrupted.
TP Q[77] A[4] Body
I answer that, Corruption is "movement from being into non-being" (Aristotle,
Phys. v). Now it has been stated (A[3]) that the sacramental species retain the same being
as they had before when the substance of the bread was present. Consequently, as the being
of those accidents could be corrupted while the substance of the bread and wine was
present, so likewise they can be corrupted now that the substance has passed away.
TP Q[77] A[4] Body
But such accidents could have been previously corrupted in two ways: in one way, of
themselves; in another way, accidentally. They could be corrupted of themselves, as by
alteration of the qualities, and increase or decrease of the quantity, not in the way in
which increase or decrease is found only in animated bodies, such as the substances of the
bread and wine are not, but by addition or division; for, as is said in Metaph. iii, one
dimension is dissolved by division, and two dimensions result; while on the contrary, by
addition, two dimensions become one. And in this way such accidents can be corrupted
manifestly after consecration, because the dimensive quantity which remains can receive
division and addition; and since it is the subject of sensible qualities, as stated above
(A[1]), it can likewise be the subject of their alteration, for instance, if the color or
the savor of the bread or wine be altered.
TP Q[77] A[4] Body
An accident can be corrupted in another way, through the corruption of its subject, and
in this way also they can be corrupted after consecration; for although the subject does
not remain, still the being which they had in the subject does remain, which being is
proper, and suited to the subject. And therefore such being can be corrupted by a contrary
agent, as the substance of the bread or wine was subject to corruption, and, moreover, was
not corrupted except by a preceding alteration regarding the accidents.
TP Q[77] A[4] Body
Nevertheless, a distinction must be made between each of the aforesaid corruptions;
because, when the body and the blood of Christ succeed in this sacrament to the substance
of the bread and wine, if there be such change on the part of the accidents as would not
have sufficed for the corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood of Christ
do not cease to be under this sacrament on account of such change, whether the change be
on the part of the quality, as for instance, when the color or the savor of the bread or
wine is slightly modified; or on the part of the quantity, as when the bread or the wine
is divided into such parts as to keep in them the nature of bread or of wine. But if the
change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then
Christ's body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of
the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so
altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of
the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine
divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.
TP Q[77] A[4] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Since it belongs essentially to corruption to take away the being of a
thing, in so far as the being of some form is in matter, it results that by corruption the
form is separated from the matter. But if such being were not in matter, yet like such
being as is in matter, it could be taken away by corruption, even where there is no
matter; as takes place in this sacrament, as is evident from what was said above.
TP Q[77] A[4] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Although the sacramental species are forms not in matter, yet they have
the being which they had in matter.
TP Q[77] A[4] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: This corruption of species is not miraculous, but natural; nevertheless,
it presupposes the miracle which is wrought in the consecration, namely, that those
sacramental species retain without a subject, the same being as they had in a subject;
just as a blind man, to whom sight is given miraculously, sees naturally.
TP Q[77] A[5] Thes.
Whether anything can be generated from the sacramental species?
TP Q[77] A[5] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that nothing can be generated from the sacramental species: because,
whatever is generated, is generated out of some matter: for nothing is generated out of
nothing, although by creation something is made out of nothing. But there is no matter
underlying the sacramental species except that of Christ's body, and that body is
incorruptible. Therefore it seems that nothing can be generated from the sacramental
species.
TP Q[77] A[5] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, things which are not of the same genus cannot spring from one another:
thus a line is not made of whiteness. But accident and substance differ generically.
Therefore, since the sacramental species are accidents, it seems that no substance can be
generated from them.
TP Q[77] A[5] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, if any corporeal substance be generated from them, such substance will
not be without accident. Therefore, if any corporeal substance be generated from the
sacramental species, then substance and accident would be generated from accident, namely,
two things from one, which is impossible. Consequently, it is impossible for any corporeal
substance to be generated out of the sacramental species.
TP Q[77] A[5] OTC
On the contrary, The senses are witness that something is generated out of the
sacramental species, either ashes, if they be burned, worms if they putrefy, or dust if
they be crushed.
TP Q[77] A[5] Body
I answer that, Since "the corruption of one thing is the generation of
another" (De Gener. i), something must be generated necessarily from the sacramental
species if they be corrupted, as stated above (A[4]); for they are not corrupted in such a
way that they disappear altogether, as if reduced to nothing; on the contrary, something
sensible manifestly succeeds to them.
TP Q[77] A[5] Body
Nevertheless, it is difficult to see how anything can be generated from them. For it is
quite evident that nothing is generated out of the body and blood of Christ which are
truly there, because these are incorruptible. But if the substance, or even the matter, of
the bread and wine were to remain in this sacrament, then, as some have maintained, it
would be easy to account for this sensible object which succeeds to them. But that
supposition is false, as was stated above (Q[75], AA[2],4,8).
TP Q[77] A[5] Body
Hence it is that others have said that the things generated have not sprung from the
sacramental species, but from the surrounding atmosphere. But this can be shown in many
ways to be impossible. In the first place, because when a thing is generated from another,
the latter at first appears changed and corrupted; whereas no alteration or corruption
appeared previously in the adjacent atmosphere; hence the worms or ashes are not generated
therefrom. Secondly, because the nature of the atmosphere is not such as to permit of such
things being generated by such alterations. Thirdly, because it is possible for many
consecrated hosts to be burned or putrefied; nor would it be possible for an earthen body,
large enough to be generated from the atmosphere, unless a great and, in fact, exceedingly
sensible condensation of the atmosphere took place. Fourthly, because the same thing can
happen to the solid bodies surrounding them, such as iron or stone, which remain entire
after the generation of the aforesaid things. Hence this opinion cannot stand, because it
is opposed to what is manifest to our senses.
TP Q[77] A[5] Body
And therefore others have said that the substance of the bread and wine returns during
the corruption of the species, and so from the returning substance of the bread and wine,
ashes or worms or something of the kind are generated. But this explanation seems an
impossible one. First of all, because if the substance of the bread and wine be converted
into the body and blood of Christ, as was shown above (Q[75], AA[2],4), the substance of
the bread and wine cannot return, except the body and blood of Christ be again changed
back into the substance of bread and wine, which is impossible: thus if air be turned into
fire, the air cannot return without the fire being again changed into air. But if the
substance of bread or wine be annihilated, it cannot return again, because what lapses
into nothing does not return numerically the same. Unless perchance it be said that the
said substance returns, because God creates anew another new substance to replace the
first. Secondly, this seems to be impossible, because no time can be assigned when the
substance of the bread returns. For, from what was said above (A[4]; Q[76], A[6], ad 3),
it is evident that while the species of the bread and wine remain, there remain also the
body and blood of Christ, which are not present together with the substance of the bread
and wine in this sacrament, according to what was stated above (Q[75], A[2]). Hence the
substance of the bread and wine cannot return while the sacramental species remain; nor,
again, when these species pass away; because then the substance of the bread and wine
would be without their proper accidents, which is impossible. Unless perchance it be said
that in the last instant of the corruption of the species there returns (not, indeed, the
substance of bread and wine, because it is in that very instant that they have the being
of the substance generated from the species, but) the matter of the bread and wine; which,
matter, properly speaking, would be more correctly described as created anew, than as
returning. And in this sense the aforesaid position might be held.
TP Q[77] A[5] Body
However, since it does not seem reasonable to say that anything takes place
miraculously in this sacrament, except in virtue of the consecration itself, which does
not imply either creation or return of matter, it seems better to say that in the actual
consecration it is miraculously bestowed on the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine
to be the subject of subsequent forms. Now this is proper to matter; and therefore as a
consequence everything which goes with matter is bestowed on dimensive quantity; and
therefore everything which could be generated from the matter of bread or wine, if it were
present, can be generated from the aforesaid dimensive quantity of the bread or wine, not,
indeed, by a new miracle, but by virtue of the miracle which has already taken place.
TP Q[77] A[5] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Although no matter is there out of which a thing may be generated,
nevertheless dimensive quantity supplies the place of matter, as stated above.
TP Q[77] A[5] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Those sacramental species are indeed accidents, yet they have the act and
power of substance, as stated above (A[3]).
TP Q[77] A[5] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: The dimensive quantity of the bread and wine retains its own nature, and
receives miraculously the power and property of substance; and therefore it can pass to
both, that is, into substance and dimension.
TP Q[77] A[6] Thes.
Whether the sacramental species can nourish?
TP Q[77] A[6] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the sacramental species cannot nourish, because, as Ambrose says
(De Sacram. v), "it is not this bread that enters into our body, but the bread of
everlasting life, which supports the substance of our soul." But whatever nourishes
enters into the body. Therefore this bread does not nourish: and the same reason holds
good of the wine.
TP Q[77] A[6] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, as is said in De Gener. ii, "We are nourished by the very things
of which we are made." But the sacramental species are accidents, whereas man is not
made of accidents, because accident is not a part of substance. Therefore it seems that
the sacramental species cannot nourish.
TP Q[77] A[6] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, the Philosopher says (De Anima ii) that "food nourishes according
as it is a substance, but it gives increase by reason of its quantity." But the
sacramental species are not a substance. Consequently they cannot nourish.
TP Q[77] A[6] OTC
On the contrary, The Apostle speaking of this sacrament says (1
Cor. 11:21): "One,
indeed, is hungry, and another is drunk": upon which the gloss observes that "he
alludes to those who after the celebration of the sacred mystery, and after the
consecration of the bread and wine, claimed their oblations, and not sharing them with
others, took the whole, so as even to become intoxicated thereby." But this could not
happen if the sacramental species did not nourish. Therefore the sacramental species do
nourish.
TP Q[77] A[6] Body
I answer that, This question presents no difficulty, now that we have solved the
preceding question. Because, as stated in De Anima ii, food nourishes by being converted
into the substance of the individual nourished. Now it has been stated (A[5]) that the
sacramental species can be converted into a substance generated from them. And they can be
converted into the human body for the same reason as they can into ashes or worms.
Consequently, it is evident that they nourish.
TP Q[77] A[6] Body
But the senses witness to the untruth of what some maintain; viz. that the species do
not nourish as though they were changed into the human body, but merely refresh and
hearten by acting upon the senses (as a man is heartened by the odor of meat, and
intoxicated by the fumes of wine). Because such refreshment does not suffice long for a
man, whose body needs repair owing to constant waste: and yet a man could be supported for
long if he were to take hosts and consecrated wine in great quantity.
TP Q[77] A[6] Body
In like manner the statement advanced by others cannot stand, who hold that the
sacramental species nourish owing to the remaining substantial form of the bread and wine:
both because the form does not remain, as stated above (Q[75], A[6]): and because to
nourish is the act not of a form but rather of matter, which takes the form of the one
nourished, while the form of the nourishment passes away: hence it is said in De Anima ii
that nourishment is at first unlike, but at the end is like.
TP Q[77] A[6] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: After the consecration bread can be said to be in this sacrament in two
ways. First, as to the species, which retain the name of the previous substance, as
Gregory says in an Easter Homily (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xx). Secondly, Christ's
very body can be called bread, since it is the mystical bread "coming down from
heaven." Consequently, Ambrose uses the word "bread" in this second
meaning, when he says that "this bread does not pass into the body," because, to
wit, Christ's body is not changed into man's body, but nourishes his soul. But he is not
speaking of bread taken in the first acceptation.
TP Q[77] A[6] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Although the sacramental species are not those things out of which the
human body is made, yet they are changed into those things stated above.
TP Q[77] A[6] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: Although the sacramental species are not a substance, still they have the
virtue of a substance, as stated above.
TP Q[77] A[7] Thes.
Whether the sacramental species are broken in this sacrament?
TP Q[77] A[7] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that the sacramental species are not broken in this sacrament, because
the Philosopher says in Meteor. iv that bodies are breakable owing to a certain
disposition of the pores; a thing which cannot be attributed to the sacramental species.
Therefore the sacramental species cannot be broken.
TP Q[77] A[7] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, breaking is followed by sound. But the sacramental species emit no
sound: because the Philosopher says (De Anima ii), that what emits sound is a hard body,
having a smooth surface. Therefore the sacramental species are not broken.
TP Q[77] A[7] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, breaking and mastication are seemingly of the same object. But it is
Christ's true body that is eaten, according to Jn. 6:57: "He that eateth My flesh,
and drinketh My blood." Therefore it is Christ's body that is broken and masticated:
and hence it is said in the confession of Berengarius: "I agree with the Holy
Catholic Church, and with heart and lips I profess, that the bread and wine which are
placed on the altar, are the true body and blood of Christ after consecration, and are
truly handled and broken by the priest's hands, broken and crushed by the teeth of
believers." Consequently, the breaking ought not to be ascribed to the sacramental
species.
TP Q[77] A[7] OTC
On the contrary, Breaking arises from the division of that which has quantity. But
nothing having quantity except the sacramental species is broken here, because neither
Christ's body is broken, as being incorruptible, nor is the substance of the bread,
because it no longer remains. Therefore the sacramental species are broken.
TP Q[77] A[7] Body
I answer that, Many opinions prevailed of old on this matter. Some held that in this
sacrament there was no breaking at all in reality, but merely in the eyes of the
beholders. But this contention cannot stand, because in this sacrament of truth the sense
is not deceived with regard to its proper object of judgment, and one of these objects is
breaking, whereby from one thing arise many: and these are common sensibles, as is stated
in De Anima ii.
TP Q[77] A[7] Body
Others accordingly have said that there was indeed a genuine breaking, but without any
subject. But this again contradicts our senses; because a quantitative body is seen in
this sacrament, which formerly was one, and is now divided into many, and this must be the
subject of the breaking.
TP Q[77] A[7] Body
But it cannot be said that Christ's true body is broken. First of all, because it is
incorruptible and impassible: secondly, because it is entire under every part, as was
shown above (Q[76], A[3]), which is contrary to the nature of a thing broken.
TP Q[77] A[7] Body
It remains, then, that the breaking is in the dimensive quantity of the bread, as in a
subject, just as the other accidents. And as the sacramental species are the sacrament of
Christ's true body, so is the breaking of these species the sacrament of our Lord's
Passion, which was in Christ's true body.
TP Q[77] A[7] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: As rarity and density remain under the sacramental species, as stated
above (A[2], ad 3), so likewise porousness remains, and in consequence
breakableness.
TP Q[77] A[7] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: Hardness results from density; therefore, as density remains under the
sacramental species, hardness remains there too, and the capability of sound as a
consequence.
TP Q[77] A[7] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: What is eaten under its own species, is also broken and masticated under
its own species; but Christ's body is eaten not under its proper, but under the
sacramental species. Hence in explaining Jn. 6:64, "The flesh profiteth
nothing," Augustine (Tract. xxvii in Joan.) says that this is to be taken as
referring to those who understood carnally: "for they understood the flesh, thus, as
it is divided piecemeal, in a dead body, or as sold in the shambles." Consequently,
Christ's very body is not broken, except according to its sacramental species. And the
confession made by Berengarius is to be understood in this sense, that the breaking and
the crushing with the teeth is to be referred to the sacramental species, under which the
body of Christ truly is.
TP Q[77] A[8] Thes.
Whether any liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine?
TP Q[77] A[8] Obj. 1
OBJ 1: It seems that no liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine, because
everything mingled with another partakes of its quality. But no liquid can share in the
quality of the sacramental species, because those accidents are without a subject, as
stated above (A[1]). Therefore it seems that no liquid can be mingled with the sacramental
species of the wine.
TP Q[77] A[8] Obj. 2
OBJ 2: Further, if any kind of liquid be mixed with those species, then some one thing
must be the result. But no one thing can result from the liquid, which is a substance, and
the sacramental species, which are accidents; nor from the liquid and Christ's blood,
which owing to its incorruptibility suffers neither increase nor decrease. Therefore no
liquid can be mixed with the consecrated wine.
TP Q[77] A[8] Obj. 3
OBJ 3: Further, if any liquid be mixed with the consecrated wine, then that also would
appear to be consecrated; just as water added to holy-water becomes holy. But the
consecrated wine is truly Christ's blood. Therefore the liquid added would likewise be
Christ's blood otherwise than by consecration, which is unbecoming. Therefore no liquid
can be mingled with the consecrated wine.
TP Q[77] A[8] Obj. 4
OBJ 4: Further, if one of two things be entirely corrupted, there is no mixture (De
Gener. i). But if we mix any liquid, it seems that the entire species of the sacramental
wine is corrupted, so that the blood of Christ ceases to be beneath it; both because great
and little are difference of quantity, and alter it, as white and black cause a difference
of color; and because the liquid mixed, as having no obstacle, seems to permeate the
whole, and so Christ's blood ceases to be there, since it is not there with any other
substance. Consequently, no liquid can be mixed with the consecrated wine.
TP Q[77] A[8] OTC
On the contrary, It is evident to our senses that another liquid can be mixed with the
wine after it is consecrated, just as before.
TP Q[77] A[8] Body
I answer that, The truth of this question is evident from what has been said already.
For it was said above (A[3]; A[5], ad 2) that the species remaining in this sacrament, as
they acquire the manner of being of substance in virtue of the consecration, so likewise
do they obtain the mode of acting and of being acted upon, so that they can do or receive
whatever their substance could do or receive, were it there present. But it is evident
that if the substance of wine were there present, then some other liquid could be mingled
with it.
TP Q[77] A[8] Body
Nevertheless there would be a different effect of such mixing both according to the
form and according to the quantity of the liquid. For if sufficient liquid were mixed so
as to spread itself all through the wine, then the whole would be a mixed substance. Now
what is made up of things mixed is neither of them, but each passes into a third resulting
from both: hence it would result that the former wine would remain no longer. But if the
liquid added were of another species, for instance, if water were mixed, the species of
the wine would be dissolved, and there would be a liquid of another species. But if liquid
of the same species were added, of instance, wine with wine, the same species would
remain, but the wine would not be the same numerically, as the diversity of the accidents
shows: for instance, if one wine were white and the other red.
TP Q[77] A[8] Body
But if the liquid added were of such minute quantity that it could not permeate the
whole, the entire wine would not be mixed, but only part of it, which would not remain the
same numerically owing to the blending of extraneous matter: still it would remain the
same specifically, not only if a little liquid of the same species were mixed with it, but
even if it were of another species, since a drop of water blended with much wine passes
into the species of wine (De Gener. i).
TP Q[77] A[8] Body
Now it is evident that the body and blood of Christ abide in this sacrament so long as
the species remain numerically the same, as stated above (A[4]; Q[76], A[6], ad 3);
because it is this bread and this wine which is consecrated. Hence, if the liquid of any
kind whatsoever added be so much in quantity as to permeate the whole of the consecrated
wine, and be mixed with it throughout, the result would be something numerically distinct,
and the blood of Christ will remain there no longer. But if the quantity of the liquid
added be so slight as not to permeate throughout, but to reach only a part of the species,
Christ's blood will cease to be under that part of the consecrated wine, yet will remain
under the rest.
TP Q[77] A[8] R.O. 1
Reply OBJ 1: Pope Innocent III in a Decretal writes thus: "The very accidents
appear to affect the wine that is added, because, if water is added, it takes the savor of
the wine. The result is, then, that the accidents change the subject, just as subject
changes accidents; for nature yields to miracle, and power works beyond custom." But
this must not be understood as if the same identical accident, which was in the wine
previous to consecration, is afterwards in the wine that is added; but such change is the
result of action; because the remaining accidents of the wine retain the action of
substance, as stated above, and so they act upon the liquid added, by changing it.
TP Q[77] A[8] R.O. 2
Reply OBJ 2: The liquid added to the consecrated wine is in no way mixed with the
substance of Christ's blood. Nevertheless it is mixed with the sacramental species, yet so
that after such mixing the aforesaid species are corrupted entirely or in part, after the
way mentioned above (A[5]), whereby something can be generated from those species. And if
they be entirely corrupted, there remains no further question, because the whole will be
uniform. But if they be corrupted in part, there will be one dimension according to the
continuity of quantity, but not one according to the mode of being, because one part
thereof will be without a subject while the other is in a subject; as in a body that is
made up of two metals, there will be one body quantitatively, but not one as to the
species of the matter.
TP Q[77] A[8] R.O. 3
Reply OBJ 3: As Pope Innocent says in th |
