|
Objection 1: It seems that the aforesaid expressions are not true.
Because when we say: "This is My body," the word "this"
designates a substance. But according to what was said above
(Articles 1,4, ad 3; Question 75, Articles 2,7), when
the pronoun "this" is spoken, the substance of the bread is still
there, because the transubstantiation takes place in the last instant
of pronouncing the words. But it is false to say: "Bread is
Christ's body." Consequently this expression, "This is My
body," is false.
Objection 2: Further, the pronoun "this" appeals to the senses.
But the sensible species in this sacrament are neither Christ's body
nor even its accidents. Therefore this expression, "This is My
body," cannot be true.
Objection 3: Further, as was observed above (Article 4, ad
3), these words, by their signification, effect the change of the
bread into the body of Christ. But an effective cause is understood
as preceding its effect. Therefore the meaning of these words is
understood as preceding the change of the bread into the body of
Christ. But previous to the change this expression, "This is My
body," is false. Therefore the expression is to be judged as false
simply; and the same reason holds good of the other phrase: "This is
the chalice of My blood," etc.
On the contrary, These words are pronounced in the person of
Christ, Who says of Himself (Jn. 14:6): "I am the
truth."
I answer that, There have been many opinions on this point. Some
have said that in this expression, "This is My body," the word
"this" implies demonstration as conceived, and not as exercised,
because the whole phrase is taken materially, since it is uttered by a
way of narration: for the priest relates that Christ said: "This is
My body."
But such a view cannot hold good, because then these words would not
be applied to the corporeal matter present, and consequently the
sacrament would not be valid: for Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in
Joan.): "The word is added to the element, and this becomes a
sacrament." Moreover this solution ignores entirely the difficulty
which this question presents: for there is still the objection in
regard to the first uttering of these words by Christ; since it is
evident that then they were employed, not materially, but
significatively. And therefore it must be said that even when spoken
by the priest they are taken significatively, and not merely
materially. Nor does it matter that the priest pronounces them by way
of recital, as though they were spoken by Christ, because owing to
Christ's infinite power, just as through contact with His flesh the
regenerative power entered not only into the waters which came into
contact with Christ, but into all waters throughout the whole world
and during all future ages, so likewise from Christ's uttering these
words they derived their consecrating power, by whatever priest they be
uttered, as if Christ present were saying them.
And therefore others have said that in this phrase the word "this"
appeals, not to the senses, but to the intellect; so that the meaning
is, "This is My body"---i.e. "The thing signified by
'this' is My body." But neither can this stand, because, since
in the sacraments the effect is that which is signified, from such a
form it would not result that Christ's body was in very truth in this
sacrament, but merely as in a sign, which is heretical, as stated
above (Question 85, Article 1).
Consequently, others have said that the word "this" appeals to the
senses; not at the precise instant of its being uttered, but merely at
the last instant thereof; as when a man says, "Now I am silent,"
this adverb "now" points to the instant immediately following the
speech: because the sense is: "Directly these words are spoken I am
silent." But neither can this hold good, because in that case the
meaning of the sentence would be: "My body is My body," which the
above phrase does not effect, because this was so even before the
utterance of the words: hence neither does the aforesaid sentence mean
this.
Consequently, then, it remains to be said, as stated above
(Article 4), that this sentence possesses the power of effecting
the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ. And therefore it
is compared to other sentences, which have power only of signifying and
not of producing, as the concept of the practical intellect, which is
productive of the thing, is compared to the concept of our speculative
intellect which is drawn from things. because "words are signs of
concepts," as the Philosopher says (Peri Herm. i). And
therefore as the concept of the practical intellect does not presuppose
the thing understood, but makes it, so the truth of this expression
does not presuppose the thing signified, but makes it; for such is the
relation of God's word to the things made by the Word. Now this
change takes place not successively, but in an instant, as stated
above (Question 77, Article 7). Consequently one must
understand the aforesaid expression with reference to the last instant
of the words being spoken, yet not so that the subject may be
understood to have stood for that which is the term of the conversion;
viz. that the body of Christ is the body of Christ; nor again that
the subject be understood to stand for that which it was before the
conversion, namely, the bread. but for that which is commonly related
to both, i.e. that which is contained in general under those
species. For these words do not make the body of Christ to be the
body of Christ, nor do they make the bread to be the body of Christ;
but what was contained under those species, and was formerly bread,
they make to be the body of Christ. And therefore expressly our Lord
did not say: "This bread is My body," which would be the meaning
of the second opinion; nor "This My body is My body," which would
be the meaning of the third opinion: but in general: "This is My
body," assigning no noun on the part of the subject, but only a
pronoun, which signifies substance in common, without quality, that
is, without a determinate form.
Reply to Objection 1: The term "this" points to a substance, yet
without determining its proper nature, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 2: The pronoun "this" does not indicate the
accidents, but the substance underlying the accidents, which at first
was bread, and is afterwards the body of Christ, which body,
although not informed by those accidents, is yet contained under them.
Reply to Objection 3: The meaning of this expression is, in the
order of nature, understood before the thing signified, just as a
cause is naturally prior to the effect; but not in order of time,
because this cause has its effect with it at the same time, and this
suffices for the truth of the expression.
|
|