|
Objection 1: It seems that the sacramental species cannot be
corrupted, because corruption comes of the separation of the form from
the matter. But the matter of the bread does not remain in this
sacrament, as is clear from what was said above (Question 75,
Article 2). Therefore these species cannot be corrupted.
Objection 2: Further, no form is corrupted except accidentally,
that is, when its subject is corrupted; hence self-subsisting forms
are incorruptible, as is seen in spiritual substances. But the
sacramental species are forms without a subject. Therefore they cannot
be corrupted.
Objection 3: Further, if they be corrupted, it will either be
naturally or miraculously. But they cannot be corrupted naturally,
because no subject of corruption can be assigned as remaining after the
corruption has taken place. Neither can they be corrupted
miraculously, because the miracles which occur in this sacrament take
place in virtue of the consecration, whereby the sacramental species
are preserved: and the same thing is not the cause of preservation and
of corruption. Therefore, in no way can the sacramental species be
corrupted.
On the contrary, We perceive by our senses that the consecrated hosts
become putrefied and corrupted.
I answer that, Corruption is "movement from being into non-being"
(Aristotle, Phys. v). Now it has been stated (Article 3)
that the sacramental species retain the same being as they had before
when the substance of the bread was present. Consequently, as the
being of those accidents could be corrupted while the substance of the
bread and wine was present, so likewise they can be corrupted now that
the substance has passed away.
But such accidents could have been previously corrupted in two ways:
in one way, of themselves; in another way, accidentally. They could
be corrupted of themselves, as by alteration of the qualities, and
increase or decrease of the quantity, not in the way in which increase
or decrease is found only in animated bodies, such as the substances of
the bread and wine are not, but by addition or division; for, as is
said in Metaph. iii, one dimension is dissolved by division, and two
dimensions result; while on the contrary, by addition, two dimensions
become one. And in this way such accidents can be corrupted manifestly
after consecration, because the dimensive quantity which remains can
receive division and addition; and since it is the subject of sensible
qualities, as stated above (Article 1), it can likewise be the
subject of their alteration, for instance, if the color or the savor
of the bread or wine be altered.
An accident can be corrupted in another way, through the corruption of
its subject, and in this way also they can be corrupted after
consecration; for although the subject does not remain, still the
being which they had in the subject does remain, which being is
proper, and suited to the subject. And therefore such being can be
corrupted by a contrary agent, as the substance of the bread or wine
was subject to corruption, and, moreover, was not corrupted except by
a preceding alteration regarding the accidents.
Nevertheless, a distinction must be made between each of the aforesaid
corruptions; because, when the body and the blood of Christ succeed
in this sacrament to the substance of the bread and wine, if there be
such change on the part of the accidents as would not have sufficed for
the corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood of
Christ do not cease to be under this sacrament on account of such
change, whether the change be on the part of the quality, as for
instance, when the color or the savor of the bread or wine is slightly
modified; or on the part of the quantity, as when the bread or the
wine is divided into such parts as to keep in them the nature of bread
or of wine. But if the change be so great that the substance of the
bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ's body and blood
do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the
qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread
and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread
or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance,
if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into
such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.
Reply to Objection 1: Since it belongs essentially to corruption to
take away the being of a thing, in so far as the being of some form is
in matter, it results that by corruption the form is separated from the
matter. But if such being were not in matter, yet like such being as
is in matter, it could be taken away by corruption, even where there
is no matter; as takes place in this sacrament, as is evident from
what was said above.
Reply to Objection 2: Although the sacramental species are forms
not in matter, yet they have the being which they had in matter.
Reply to Objection 3: This corruption of species is not
miraculous, but natural; nevertheless, it presupposes the miracle
which is wrought in the consecration, namely, that those sacramental
species retain without a subject, the same being as they had in a
subject; just as a blind man, to whom sight is given miraculously,
sees naturally.
|
|