Whether the Sacramental Species Can Nourish?
Objection 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.
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.
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 quant.i.ty." But the sacramental species are not a substance. Consequently they cannot nourish.
_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.
_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.
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 quant.i.ty.
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 pa.s.ses away: hence it is said in _De Anima_ ii that nourishment is at first unlike, but at the end is like.
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 pa.s.s 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.
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.
Reply Obj. 3: Although the sacramental species are not a substance, still they have the virtue of a substance, as stated above.
_______________________
SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 77, Art. 7]
Whether the Sacramental Species Are Broken in This Sacrament?
Objection 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.
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.
Obj. 3: Further, breaking and mastication are seemingly of the same object. But it is Christ"s true body that is eaten, according to John 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.
_On the contrary,_ Breaking arises from the division of that which has quant.i.ty. But nothing having quant.i.ty 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.
_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.
Others accordingly have said that there was indeed a genuine breaking, but without any subject. But this again contradicts our senses; because a quant.i.tative 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.
But it cannot be said that Christ"s true body is broken. First of all, because it is incorruptible and impa.s.sible: 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.
It remains, then, that the breaking is in the dimensive quant.i.ty 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 Pa.s.sion, which was in Christ"s true body.
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.
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.
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 John 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.
_______________________
EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 77, Art. 8]
Whether Any Liquid Can Be Mingled with the Consecrated Wine?
Objection 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.
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.
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.
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 quant.i.ty, 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.
_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.
_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.
Nevertheless there would be a different effect of such mixing both according to the form and according to the quant.i.ty 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 pa.s.ses 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.
But if the liquid added were of such minute quant.i.ty 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 pa.s.ses into the species of wine (De Gener. i).
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 quant.i.ty 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 quant.i.ty 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.
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.
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 quant.i.ty, 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 quant.i.tatively, but not one as to the species of the matter.
Reply Obj. 3: As Pope Innocent says in the aforesaid Decretal, "if after the consecration other wine be put in the chalice, it is not changed into the blood, nor is it mingled with the blood, but, mixed with the accidents of the previous wine, it is diffused throughout the body which underlies them, yet without wetting what surrounds it." Now this is to be understood when there is not sufficient mixing of extraneous liquid to cause the blood of Christ to cease to be under the whole; because a thing is said to be "diffused throughout,"
not because it touches the body of Christ according to its proper dimensions, but according to the sacramental dimensions, under which it is contained. Now it is not the same with holy water, because the blessing works no change in the substance of the water, as the consecration of the wine does.
Reply Obj. 4: Some have held that however slight be the mixing of extraneous liquid, the substance of Christ"s blood ceases to be under the whole, and for the reason given above (Obj. 4); which, however, is not a cogent one; because "more" or "less" diversify dimensive quant.i.ty, not as to its essence, but as to the determination of its measure. In like manner the liquid added can be so small as on that account to be hindered from permeating the whole, and not simply by the dimensions; which, although they are present without a subject, still they are opposed to another liquid, just as substance would be if it were present, according to what was said at the beginning of the article.
_______________________
QUESTION 78
OF THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT (In Six Articles)
We must now consider the form of this sacrament; concerning which there are six points of inquiry:
(1) What is the form of this sacrament?