_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 4]
Whether the Whole Dimensive Quant.i.ty of Christ"s Body Is in This Sacrament?
Objection 1: It seems that the whole dimensive quant.i.ty 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 quant.i.ty is contained entirely in any whole, and in its every part. Therefore it is impossible for the entire dimensive quant.i.ty of Christ"s body to be there.
Obj. 2: Further, it is impossible for two dimensive quant.i.ties 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 quant.i.ty of the bread remains in this sacrament, as is evident to our senses. Consequently, the dimensive quant.i.ty of Christ"s body is not there.
Obj. 3: Further, if two unequal dimensive quant.i.ties be set side by side, the greater will overlap the lesser. But the dimensive quant.i.ty of Christ"s body is considerably larger than the dimensive quant.i.ty of the consecrated host according to every dimension. Therefore, if the dimensive quant.i.ty of Christ"s body be in this sacrament together with the dimensive quant.i.ty of the host, the dimensive quant.i.ty of Christ"s body is extended beyond the quant.i.ty 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 quant.i.ty of Christ"s body to be in this sacrament.
_On the contrary,_ The existence of the dimensive quant.i.ty 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 quant.i.ty of Christ"s body is in this sacrament.
_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 quant.i.ty 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 quant.i.ty of the bread remains after the consecration, while only the substance of the bread pa.s.ses away.
Nevertheless, since the substance of Christ"s body is not really deprived of its dimensive quant.i.ty and its other accidents, hence it comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quant.i.ty of Christ"s body and all its other accidents are in this sacrament.
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 quant.i.ty is there concomitantly and as it were accidentally, therefore the dimensive quant.i.ty 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.
Reply Obj. 2: Two dimensive quant.i.ties cannot naturally be in the same subject at the same time, so that each be there according to the proper manner of dimensive quant.i.ty. But in this sacrament the dimensive quant.i.ty of the bread is there after its proper manner, that is, according to commensuration: not so the dimensive quant.i.ty of Christ"s body, for that is there after the manner of substance, as stated above (ad 1).
Reply Obj. 3: The dimensive quant.i.ty of Christ"s body is in this sacrament not by way of commensuration, which is proper to quant.i.ty, and to which it belongs for the greater to be extended beyond the lesser; but in the way mentioned above (ad 1, 2).
_______________________
FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 5]
Whether Christ"s Body Is in This Sacrament As in a Place?
Objection 1: It seems that Christ"s body is in this sacrament as in a place. Because, to be in a place definitively or circ.u.mscriptively 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 circ.u.mscriptively, 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.
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.
Obj. 3: Further, as stated above (A. 4), the body of Christ is in this sacrament with its dimensive quant.i.ty, 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.
_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.
_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 quant.i.ty, but rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a place is in the place according to the manner of dimensive quant.i.ty, namely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its dimensive quant.i.ty. 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.
Hence in no way is Christ"s body locally in this sacrament.
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 circ.u.mscriptively, because it is not there according to the commensuration of its own quant.i.ty, 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 circ.u.mscriptively, but to its being there by consecration and conversion of the bread and wine, as stated above (A. 1; Q. 15, A. 2, sqq.).
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.
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.
_______________________
SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 6]
Whether Christ"s Body Is in This Sacrament Movably?
Objection 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.
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.
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 pa.s.s, 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.
_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.
_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.
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 G.o.d, 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.
Hence it is clear that Christ, strictly speaking is immovably in this sacrament.
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.
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. lx.x.xiii): "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.
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 G.o.d ceases to be the Lord of a creature which ceases to exist.
_______________________
SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 7]
Whether the Body of Christ, As It Is in This Sacrament, Can Be Seen by Any Eye, at Least by a Glorified One?
Objection 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.
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.
Obj. 3: Further, in the resurrection the saints will be equal to the angels, according to Luke 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.
_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 Isa. 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.
_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.
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 partic.i.p.ated 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 a.s.sent; yet they are convinced of it from the evidence of signs, according to James 2:19: "The devils believe, and tremble."
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.
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.
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.
_______________________