But because the mixing of water with flour is essential to this sacrament, as making the composition of bread, if rose-water, or any other liquor besides true water, be mixed with the flour, the sacrament would not be valid, because it would not be true bread.
_______________________
EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 74, Art. 8]
Whether Water Should Be Added in Great Quant.i.ty?
Objection 1: It seems that water ought to be added in great quant.i.ty, because as blood flowed sensibly from Christ"s side, so did water: hence it is written (John 19:35): "He that saw it, hath given testimony." But water could not be sensibly present in this sacrament except it were used in great quant.i.ty. Consequently it seems that water ought to be added in great quant.i.ty.
Obj. 2: Further, a little water mixed with much wine is corrupted.
But what is corrupted no longer exists. Therefore, it is the same thing to add a little water in this sacrament as to add none. But it is not lawful to add none. Therefore, neither is it lawful to add a little.
Obj. 3: Further, if it sufficed to add a little, then as a consequence it would suffice to throw one drop of water into an entire cask. But this seems ridiculous. Therefore it does not suffice for a small quant.i.ty to be added.
_On the contrary,_ It is said in the Decretals (Extra, De Celeb.
Miss.): "The pernicious abuse has prevailed in your country of adding water in greater quant.i.ty than the wine, in the sacrifice, where according to the reasonable custom of the entire Church more wine than water ought to be employed."
_I answer that,_ There is a threefold opinion regarding the water added to the wine, as Pope Innocent III says in a certain Decretal.
For some say that the water remains by itself when the wine is changed into blood: but such an opinion cannot stand, because in the sacrament of the altar after the consecration there is nothing else save the body and the blood of Christ. Because, as Ambrose says in De Officiis (De Mysteriis ix): "Before the blessing it is another species that is named, after the blessing the Body is signified; otherwise it would not be adored with adoration of latria." And therefore others have said that as the wine is changed into blood, so the water is changed into the water which flowed from Christ"s side.
But this cannot be maintained reasonably, because according to this the water would be consecrated apart from the wine, as the wine is from the bread.
And therefore as he (Innocent III, Decretals, Extra, De Celeb. Miss.) says, the more probable opinion is that which holds that the water is changed into wine, and the wine into blood. Now, this could not be done unless so little water was used that it would be changed into wine. Consequently, it is always safer to add little water, especially if the wine be weak, because the sacrament could not be celebrated if there were such addition of water as to destroy the species of the wine. Hence Pope Julius I reprehends some who "keep throughout the year a linen cloth steeped in must, and at the time of sacrifice wash a part of it with water, and so make the offering."
Reply Obj. 1: For the signification of this sacrament it suffices for the water to be appreciable by sense when it is mixed with the wine: but it is not necessary for it to be sensible after the mingling.
Reply Obj. 2: If no water were added, the signification would be utterly excluded: but when the water is changed into wine, it is signified that the people is incorporated with Christ.
Reply Obj. 3: If water were added to a cask, it would not suffice for the signification of this sacrament, but the water must be added to the wine at the actual celebration of the sacrament.
_______________________
QUESTION 75
OF THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE INTO THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST (In Eight Articles)
We have to consider the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ; under which head there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the substance of bread and wine remain in this sacrament after the consecration?*
(2) Whether it is annihilated?
(3) Whether it is changed into the body and blood of Christ?
(4) Whether the accidents remain after the change?
(5) Whether the substantial form remains there?
(6) Whether this change is instantaneous?
(7) Whether it is more miraculous than any other change?
(8) By what words it may be suitably expressed?
[*The t.i.tles of the Articles here given were taken by St. Thomas from his Commentary on the Sentences (Sent. iv, D, 90). However, in writing the Articles he introduced a new point of inquiry, that of the First Article; and subst.i.tuted another division of the matter under discussion, as may be seen by referring to the t.i.tles of the various Articles. Most editions have ignored St. Thomas"s original division, and give the one to which he subsequently adhered.]
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 75, Art. 1]
Whether the Body of Christ Be in This Sacrament in Very Truth, or Merely As in a Figure or Sign?
Objection 1: It seems that the body of Christ is not in this sacrament in very truth, but only as in a figure, or sign. For it is written (John 6:54) that when our Lord had uttered these words: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood,"
etc., "Many of His disciples on hearing it said: "this is a hard saying"": to whom He rejoined: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing": as if He were to say, according to Augustine"s exposition on Ps. 4 [*On Ps. 98:9]: "Give a spiritual meaning to what I have said. You are not to eat this body which you see, nor to drink the blood which they who crucify Me are to spill.
It is a mystery that I put before you: in its spiritual sense it will quicken you; but the flesh profiteth nothing."
Obj. 2: Further, our Lord said (Matt. 28:20): "Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world." Now in explaining this, Augustine makes this observation (Tract. x.x.x in Joan.): "The Lord is on high until the world be ended; nevertheless the truth of the Lord is here with us; for the body, in which He rose again, must be in one place; but His truth is spread abroad everywhere."
Therefore, the body of Christ is not in this sacrament in very truth, but only as in a sign.
Obj. 3: Further, no body can be in several places at the one time.
For this does not even belong to an angel; since for the same reason it could be everywhere. But Christ"s is a true body, and it is in heaven. Consequently, it seems that it is not in very truth in the sacrament of the altar, but only as in a sign.
Obj. 4: Further, the Church"s sacraments are ordained for the profit of the faithful. But according to Gregory in a certain Homily (xxviii in Evang.), the ruler is rebuked "for demanding Christ"s bodily presence." Moreover the apostles were prevented from receiving the Holy Ghost because they were attached to His bodily presence, as Augustine says on John 16:7: "Except I go, the Paraclete will not come to you" (Tract. xciv in Joan.). Therefore Christ is not in the sacrament of the altar according to His bodily presence.
_On the contrary,_ Hilary says (De Trin. viii): "There is no room for doubt regarding the truth of Christ"s body and blood; for now by our Lord"s own declaring and by our faith His flesh is truly food, and His blood is truly drink." And Ambrose says (De Sacram. vi): "As the Lord Jesus Christ is G.o.d"s true Son so is it Christ"s true flesh which we take, and His true blood which we drink."
_I answer that,_ The presence of Christ"s true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority. Hence, on Luke 22:19: "This is My body which shall be delivered up for you," Cyril says: "Doubt not whether this be true; but take rather the Saviour"s words with faith; for since He is the Truth, He lieth not."
Now this is suitable, first for the perfection of the New Law. For, the sacrifices of the Old Law contained only in figure that true sacrifice of Christ"s Pa.s.sion, according to Heb. 10:1: "For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things." And therefore it was necessary that the sacrifice of the New Law inst.i.tuted by Christ should have something more, namely, that it should contain Christ Himself crucified, not merely in signification or figure, but also in very truth. And therefore this sacrament which contains Christ Himself, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), is perfective of all the other sacraments, in which Christ"s virtue is partic.i.p.ated.
Secondly, this belongs to Christ"s love, out of which for our salvation He a.s.sumed a true body of our nature. And because it is the special feature of friendship to live together with friends, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix), He promises us His bodily presence as a reward, saying (Matt. 24:28): "Where the body is, there shall the eagles be gathered together." Yet meanwhile in our pilgrimage He does not deprive us of His bodily presence; but unites us with Himself in this sacrament through the truth of His body and blood. Hence (John 6:57) he says: "He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him." Hence this sacrament is the sign of supreme charity, and the uplifter of our hope, from such familiar union of Christ with us.
Thirdly, it belongs to the perfection of faith, which concerns His humanity just as it does His G.o.dhead, according to John 14:1: "You believe in G.o.d, believe also in Me." And since faith is of things unseen, as Christ shows us His G.o.dhead invisibly, so also in this sacrament He shows us His flesh in an invisible manner.
Some men accordingly, not paying heed to these things, have contended that Christ"s body and blood are not in this sacrament except as in a sign, a thing to be rejected as heretical, since it is contrary to Christ"s words. Hence Berengarius, who had been the first deviser of this heresy, was afterwards forced to withdraw his error, and to acknowledge the truth of the faith.
Reply Obj. 1: From this authority the aforesaid heretics have taken occasion to err from evilly understanding Augustine"s words. For when Augustine says: "You are not to eat this body which you see," he means not to exclude the truth of Christ"s body, but that it was not to be eaten in this species in which it was seen by them. And by the words: "It is a mystery that I put before you; in its spiritual sense it will quicken you," he intends not that the body of Christ is in this sacrament merely according to mystical signification, but "spiritually," that is, invisibly, and by the power of the spirit.
Hence (Tract. xxvii), expounding John 6:64: "the flesh profiteth nothing," he says: "Yea, but as they understood it, for they understood that the flesh was to be eaten as it is divided piecemeal in a dead body, or as sold in the shambles, not as it is quickened by the spirit ... Let the spirit draw nigh to the flesh ... then the flesh profiteth very much: for if the flesh profiteth nothing, the Word had not been made flesh, that It might dwell among us."
Reply Obj. 2: That saying of Augustine and all others like it are to be understood of Christ"s body as it is beheld in its proper species; according as our Lord Himself says (Matt. 26:11): "But Me you have not always." Nevertheless He is invisibly under the species of this sacrament, wherever this sacrament is performed.
Reply Obj. 3: Christ"s body is not in this sacrament in the same way as a body is in a place, which by its dimensions is commensurate with the place; but in a special manner which is proper to this sacrament.
Hence we say that Christ"s body is upon many altars, not as in different places, but "sacramentally": and thereby we do not understand that Christ is there only as in a sign, although a sacrament is a kind of sign; but that Christ"s body is here after a fashion proper to this sacrament, as stated above.
Reply Obj. 4: This argument holds good of Christ"s bodily presence, as He is present after the manner of a body, that is, as it is in its visible appearance, but not as it is spiritually, that is, invisibly, after the manner and by the virtue of the spirit. Hence Augustine (Tract. xxvii in Joan.) says: "If thou hast understood" Christ"s words spiritually concerning His flesh, "they are spirit and life to thee; if thou hast understood them carnally, they are also spirit and life, but not to thee."
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 75, Art. 2]
Whether in This Sacrament the Substance of the Bread and Wine Remains After the Consecration?
Objection 1: It seems that the substance of the bread and wine does remain in this sacrament after the consecration: because Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): "Since it is customary for men to eat bread and drink wine, G.o.d has wedded his G.o.dhead to them, and made them His body and blood": and further on: "The bread of communication is not simple bread, but is united to the G.o.dhead." But wedding together belongs to things actually existing. Therefore the bread and wine are at the same time, in this sacrament, with the body and the blood of Christ.