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.
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.
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 pa.s.sive potentiality of the creature, but solely by the active power of the Creator.
_______________________
QUESTION 76
OF THE WAY IN WHICH CHRIST IS IN THIS SACRAMENT (In 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?
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 1]
Whether the Whole Christ Is Contained Under This Sacrament?
Objection 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 G.o.dhead or into the soul of Christ. Since therefore Christ exists in three substances, namely, the G.o.dhead, 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.
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 (John 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.
Obj. 3: Further, a body of greater quant.i.ty 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.
_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Officiis): "Christ is in this sacrament."
_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.
Reply Obj. 1: Because the change of the bread and wine is not terminated at the G.o.dhead or the soul of Christ, it follows as a consequence that the G.o.dhead or the soul of Christ is in this sacrament not by the power of the sacrament, but from real concomitance. For since the G.o.dhead never set aside the a.s.sumed body, wherever the body of Christ is, there, of necessity, must the G.o.dhead be; and therefore it is necessary for the G.o.dhead 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."
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" (Rom. 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.
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 (John 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.
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 quant.i.ty.
But the proper totality of substance is contained indifferently in a small or large quant.i.ty; 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.
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 2]
Whether the Whole Christ Is Contained Under Each Species of This Sacrament?
Objection 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.
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.
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.
_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.
_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 G.o.dhead 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 G.o.dhead: because now Christ"s blood is not separated from His body, as it was at the time of His Pa.s.sion 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.
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 Pa.s.sion, 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."
Reply Obj. 2: In Christ"s Pa.s.sion, 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.
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.
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 3]
Whether Christ Is Entire Under Every Part of the Species of the Bread and Wine?
Objection 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.
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.
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 "quant.i.ty having position" (Predic. iv). But it belongs to the nature of this quant.i.ty 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.
_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."
_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 quant.i.ty 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 quant.i.ty of a body is under the dimensive quant.i.ty of place.
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.
Reply Obj. 1: Number follows division, and therefore so long as quant.i.ty 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.
Reply Obj. 2: The determinate distance of parts in an organic body is based upon its dimensive quant.i.ty; but the nature of substance precedes even dimensive quant.i.ty. 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).
Reply Obj. 3: This argument is based on the nature of a body, arising from dimensive quant.i.ty. But it was said above (ad 2) that Christ"s body is compared with this sacrament not by reason of dimensive quant.i.ty, but by reason of its substance, as already stated.