|
Objection 1: It seems that Christ both received and gave to the
disciples His impassible body. Because on Mt. 17:2, "He was
transfigured before them," the gloss says: "He gave to the
disciples at the supper that body which He had through nature, but
neither mortal nor passible." And again, on Lev. 2:5, "if thy
oblation be from the frying-pan," the gloss says: "The Cross
mightier than all things made Christ's flesh fit for being eaten,
which before the Passion did not seem so suited." But Christ gave
His body as suited for eating. Therefore He gave it just as it was
after the Passion, that is, impassible and immortal.
Objection 2: Further, every passible body suffers by contact and by
being eaten. Consequently, if Christ's body was passible, it would
have suffered both from contact and from being eaten by the disciples.
Objection 3: Further, the sacramental words now spoken by the
priest in the person of Christ are not more powerful than when uttered
by Christ Himself. But now by virtue of the sacramental words it is
Christ's impassible and immortal body which is consecrated upon the
altar. Therefore, much more so was it then.
On the contrary, As Innocent III says (De Sacr. Alt.
Myst. iv), "He bestowed on the disciples His body such as it
was." But then He had a passible and a mortal body. Therefore,
He gave a passible and mortal body to the disciples.
I answer that, Hugh of Saint Victor (Innocent III, De
Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), maintained, that before the Passion,
Christ assumed at various times the four properties of a glorified body
---namely, subtlety in His birth, when He came forth from the
closed womb of the Virgin; agility, when He walked dryshod upon the
sea; clarity, in the Transfiguration; and impassibility at the Last
Supper, when He gave His body to the disciples to be eaten. And
according to this He gave His body in an impassible and immortal
condition to His disciples.
But whatever may be the case touching the other qualities, concerning
which we have already stated what should be held (Question 28,
Article 2, ad 3; Question 45, Article 2), nevertheless the
above opinion regarding impassibility is inadmissible. For it is
manifest that the same body of Christ which was then seen by the
disciples in its own species, was received by them under the
sacramental species. But as seen in its own species it was not
impassible; nay more, it was ready for the Passion. Therefore,
neither was Christ's body impassible when given under the sacramental
species.
Yet there was present in the sacrament, in an impassible manner, that
which was passible of itself; just as that was there invisibly which of
itself was visible. For as sight requires that the body seen be in
contact with the adjacent medium of sight, so does passion require
contact of the suffering body with the active agents. But Christ's
body, according as it is under the sacrament, as stated above
(Article 1, ad 2; Question 76, Article 5), is not compared
with its surroundings through the intermediary of its own dimensions,
whereby bodies touch each other, but through the dimensions of the
bread and wine; consequently, it is those species which are acted upon
and are seen, but not Christ's own body.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ is said not to have given His mortal
and passible body at the supper, because He did not give it in mortal
and passible fashion. But the Cross made His flesh adapted for
eating, inasmuch as this sacrament represents Christ's Passion.
Reply to Objection 2: This argument would hold, if Christ's
body, as it was passible, were also present in a passible manner in
this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (Question 76, Article
4), the accidents of Christ's body are in this sacrament by real
concomitance, but not by the power of the sacrament, whereby the
substance of Christ's body comes to be there. And therefore the
power of the sacramental words extends to this, that the body, i.e.
Christ's, is under this sacrament, whatever accidents really exist
in it.
|
|