|
Objection 1: It seems that this change is not wrought
instantaneously, but successively. For in this change there is first
the substance of bread, and afterwards the substance of Christ's
body. Neither, then, is in the same instant, but in two instants.
But there is a mid-time between every two instants. Therefore this
change must take place according to the succession of time, which is
between the last instant in which the bread is there, and the first
instant in which the body of Christ is present.
Objection 2: Further, in every change something is "in becoming"
and something is "in being." But these two things do not exist at
the one time for, what is "in becoming," is not yet, whereas what
is "in being," already is. Consequently, there is a before and an
after in such change: and so necessarily the change cannot be
instantaneous, but successive.
Objection 3: Further, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv) that this
sacrament "is made by the words of Christ." But Christ's words
are pronounced successively. Therefore the change takes place
successively.
On the contrary, This change is effected by a power which is
infinite, to which it belongs to operate in an instant.
I answer that, A change may be instantaneous from a threefold
reason. First on the part of the form, which is the terminus of the
change. For, if it be a form that receives more and less, it is
acquired by its subject successively, such as health; and therefore
because a substantial form does not receive more and less, it follows
that its introduction into matter is instantaneous.
Secondly on the part of the subject, which sometimes is prepared
successively for receiving the form; thus water is heated
successively. When, however, the subject itself is in the ultimate
disposition for receiving the form, it receives it suddenly, as a
transparent body is illuminated suddenly. Thirdly on the part of the
agent, which possesses infinite power: wherefore it can instantly
dispose the matter for the form. Thus it is written (Mk. 7:34)
that when Christ had said, "'Ephpheta,' which is 'Be thou
opened,' immediately his ears were opened, and the string of his
tongue was loosed."
For these three reasons this conversion is instantaneous. First,
because the substance of Christ's body which is the term of this
conversion, does not receive more or less. Secondly, because in this
conversion there is no subject to be disposed successively. Thirdly,
because it is effected by God's infinite power.
Reply to Objection 1: Some [Albert the Great, Sent. iv, D,
11; St. Bonaventure, Sent., iv, D, 11] do not grant
simply that there is a mid-time between every two instants. For they
say that this is true of two instants referring to the same movement,
but not if they refer to different things. Hence between the instant
that marks the close of rest, and another which marks the beginning of
movement, there is no mid-time. But in this they are mistaken,
because the unity of time and of instant, or even their plurality, is
not taken according to movements of any sort, but according to the
first movement of the heavens, which is the measure of all movement and
rest.
Accordingly others grant this of the time which measures movement
depending on the movement of the heavens. But there are some movements
which are not dependent on the movement of the heavens, nor measured by
it, as was said in the FP, Question 53, Article 3. concerning
the movements of the angels. Hence between two instants responding to
those movements there is no mid-time. But this is not to the point,
because although the change in question has no relation of itself to the
movement of the heavens, still it follows the pronouncing of the
words, which (pronouncing) must necessarily be measured by the
movement of the heavens. And therefore there must of necessity be a
mid-time between every two signate instants in connection with that
change.
Some say therefore that the instant in which the bread was last, and
the instant in which the body of Christ is first, are indeed two in
comparison with the things measured, but are one comparatively to the
time measuring; as when two lines touch, there are two points on the
part of the two lines, but one point on the part of the place
containing them. But here there is no likeness, because instant and
time is not the intrinsic measure of particular movements, as a line
and point are of a body, but only the extrinsic measure, as place is
to bodies.
Hence others say that it is the same instant in fact, but another
according to reason. But according to this it would follow that things
really opposite would exist together; for diversity of reason does not
change a thing objectively.
And therefore it must be said that this change, as stated above, is
wrought by Christ's words which are spoken by the priest, so that the
last instant of pronouncing the words is the first instant in which
Christ's body is in the sacrament; and that the substance of the
bread is there during the whole preceding time. Of this time no
instant is to be taken as proximately preceding the last one, because
time is not made up of successive instants, as is proved in Phys.
vi. And therefore a first instant can be assigned in which Christ's
body is present; but a last instant cannot be assigned in which the
substance of bread is there, but a last time can be assigned. And the
same holds good in natural changes, as is evident from the Philosopher
(Phys. viii).
Reply to Objection 2: In instantaneous changes a thing is "in
becoming," and is "in being" simultaneously; just as becoming
illuminated and to be actually illuminated are simultaneous: for in
such, a thing is said to be "in being" according as it now is; but
to be "in becoming," according as it was not before.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (ad 1), this change comes
about in the last instant of the pronouncing of the words. for then the
meaning of the words is finished, which meaning is efficacious in the
forms of the sacraments. And therefore it does not follow that this
change is successive.
|
|