|
Objection 1: It seems that the whole Christ is not contained under
this sacrament, because Christ begins to be in this sacrament by
conversion of the bread and wine. But it is evident that the bread and
wine cannot be changed either into the Godhead or into the soul of
Christ. Since therefore Christ exists in three substances, namely,
the Godhead, soul and body, as shown above (Question 2, Article
5; Question 5, Articles 1,3), it seems that the entire
Christ is not under this sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, Christ is in this sacrament, forasmuch as
it is ordained to the refection of the faithful, which consists in food
and drink, as stated above (Question 74, Article 1). But our
Lord said (Jn. 6:56): "My flesh is meat indeed, and My
blood is drink indeed." Therefore, only the flesh and blood of
Christ are contained in this sacrament. But there are many other
parts of Christ's body, for instance, the nerves, bones, and such
like. Therefore the entire Christ is not contained under this
sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, a body of greater quantity cannot be
contained under the measure of a lesser. But the measure of the bread
and wine is much smaller than the measure of Christ's body.
Therefore it is impossible that the entire Christ be contained under
this sacrament.
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Officiis): "Christ is in
this sacrament."
I answer that, It is absolutely necessary to confess according to
Catholic faith that the entire Christ is in this sacrament. Yet we
must know that there is something of Christ in this sacrament in a
twofold manner: first, as it were, by the power of the sacrament;
secondly, from natural concomitance. By the power of the sacrament,
there is under the species of this sacrament that into which the
pre-existing substance of the bread and wine is changed, as expressed
by the words of the form, which are effective in this as in the other
sacraments; for instance, by the words: "This is My body," or,
"This is My blood." But from natural concomitance there is also in
this sacrament that which is really united with that thing wherein the
aforesaid conversion is terminated. For if any two things be really
united, then wherever the one is really, there must the other also
be: since things really united together are only distinguished by an
operation of the mind.
Reply to Objection 1: Because the change of the bread and wine is
not terminated at the Godhead or the soul of Christ, it follows as a
consequence that the Godhead or the soul of Christ is in this
sacrament not by the power of the sacrament, but from real
concomitance. For since the Godhead never set aside the assumed
body, wherever the body of Christ is, there, of necessity, must the
Godhead be; and therefore it is necessary for the Godhead to be in
this sacrament concomitantly with His body. Hence we read in the
profession of faith at Ephesus (P. I., chap. xxvi): "We are
made partakers of the body and blood of Christ, not as taking common
flesh, nor as of a holy man united to the Word in dignity, but the
truly life-giving flesh of the Word Himself."
On the other hand, His soul was truly separated from His body, as
stated above (Question 50, Article 5). And therefore had this
sacrament been celebrated during those three days when He was dead,
the soul of Christ would not have been there, neither by the power of
the sacrament, nor from real concomitance. But since "Christ rising
from the dead dieth now no more" (Rm. 6:9), His soul is always
really united with His body. And therefore in this sacrament the body
indeed of Christ is present by the power of the sacrament, but His
soul from real concomitance.
Reply to Objection 2: By the power of the sacrament there is
contained under it, as to the species of the bread, not only the
flesh, but the entire body of Christ, that is, the bones the
nerves, and the like. And this is apparent from the form of this
sacrament, wherein it is not said: "This is My flesh," but
"This is My body." Accordingly, when our Lord said (Jn.
6:56): "My flesh is meat indeed," there the word flesh is put
for the entire body, because according to human custom it seems to be
more adapted for eating, as men commonly are fed on the flesh of
animals, but not on the bones or the like.
Reply to Objection 3: As has been already stated (Question 75,
Article 5), after the consecration of the bread into the body of
Christ, or of the wine into His blood, the accidents of both
remain. From which it is evident that the dimensions of the bread or
wine are not changed into the dimensions of the body of Christ, but
substance into substance. And so the substance of Christ's body or
blood is under this sacrament by the power of the sacrament, but not
the dimensions of Christ's body or blood. Hence it is clear that the
body of Christ is in this sacrament "by way of substance," and not
by way of quantity. But the proper totality of substance is contained
indifferently in a small or large quantity; as the whole nature of air
in a great or small amount of air, and the whole nature of a man in a
big or small individual. Wherefore, after the consecration, the
whole substance of Christ's body and blood is contained in this
sacrament, just as the whole substance of the bread and wine was
contained there before the consecration.
|
|