|
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.
Objection 2: Further, it was stated above (Article 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.
Objection 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 (Article 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 (Article 1, ad 1) in regard to the soul and Godhead 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 Godhead: because now Christ's blood is not separated
from His body, as it was at the time of His Passion 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 to Objection 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 Passion, 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 (Question
74, Article 1) that "the body is offered for the salvation of the
body, and the blood for the salvation of the soul."
Reply to Objection 2: In Christ's Passion, 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 to Objection 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.
|
|