|
Objection 1: It seems that the form of the consecration of the bread
does not accomplish its effect until the form for the consecration of
the wine be completed. For, as Christ's body begins to be in this
sacrament by the consecration of the bread, so does His blood come to
be there by the consecration of the wine. If, then, the words for
consecrating the bread were to produce their effect before the
consecration of the wine, it would follow that Christ's body would be
present in this sacrament without the blood, which is improper.
Objection 2: Further, one sacrament has one completion: hence
although there be three immersions in Baptism, yet the first immersion
does not produce its effect until the third be completed. But all this
sacrament is one, as stated above (Question 73, Article 2).
Therefore the words whereby the bread is consecrated do not bring about
their effect without the sacramental words whereby the wine is
consecrated.
Objection 3: Further, there are several words in the form for
consecrating the bread, the first of which do not secure their effect
until the last be uttered, as stated above (Article 4, ad 3).
Therefore, for the same reason, neither do the words for the
consecration of Christ's body produce their effect, until the words
for consecrating Christ's blood are spoken.
On the contrary, Directly the words are uttered for consecrating the
bread, the consecrated host is shown to the people to be adored, which
would not be done if Christ's body were not there, for that would be
an act of idolatry. Therefore the consecrating words of the bread
produce their effect before. the words are spoken for consecrating the
wine.
I answer that, Some of the earlier doctors said that these two
forms, namely, for consecrating the bread and the wine, await each
other's action, so that the first does not produce its effect until
the second be uttered.
But this cannot stand, because, as stated above (Article 5, ad
3), for the truth of this phrase, "This is My body," wherein
the verb is in the present tense, it is required for the thing
signified to be present simultaneously in time with the signification of
the expression used; otherwise, if the thing signified had to be
awaited for afterwards, a verb of the future tense would be employed,
and not one of the present tense, so that we should not say, "This
is My body," but "This will be My body." But the signification
of this speech is complete directly those words are spoken. And
therefore the thing signified must be present instantaneously, and such
is the effect of this sacrament; otherwise it would not be a true
speech. Moreover, this opinion is against the rite of the Church,
which forthwith adores the body of Christ after the words are uttered.
Hence it must be said that the first form does not await the second in
its action, but has its effect on the instant.
Reply to Objection 1: It is on this account that they who
maintained the above opinion seem to have erred. Hence it must be
understood that directly the consecration of the bread is complete, the
body of Christ is indeed present by the power of the sacrament, and
the blood by real concomitance; but afterwards by the consecration of
the wine, conversely, the blood of Christ is there by the power of
the sacrament, and the body by real concomitance, so that the entire
Christ is under either species, as stated above (Question 76,
Article 2).
Reply to Objection 2: This sacrament is one in perfection, as
stated above (Question 73, Article 2), namely, inasmuch as it
is made up of two things, that is, of food and drink, each of which
of itself has its own perfection; but the three immersions of Baptism
are ordained to one simple effect, and therefore there is no
resemblance.
Reply to Objection 3: The various words in the form for
consecrating the bread constitute the truth of one speech, but the
words of the different forms do not, and consequently there is no
parallel.
|
|