|
Objection 1: It seems that Christ is not entire under every part of
the species of bread and wine. Because those species can be divided
infinitely. If therefore Christ be entirely under every part of the
said species, it would follow that He is in this sacrament an infinite
number of times: which is unreasonable; because the infinite is
repugnant not only to nature, but likewise to grace.
Objection 2: Further, since Christ's is an organic body, it has
parts determinately distant. for a determinate distance of the
individual parts from each other is of the very nature of an organic
body, as that of eye from eye, and eye from ear. But this could not
be so, if Christ were entire under every part of the species; for
every part would have to be under every other part, and so where one
part would be, there another part would be. It cannot be then that
the entire Christ is under every part of the host or of the wine
contained in the chalice.
Objection 3: Further, Christ's body always retains the true
nature of a body, nor is it ever changed into a spirit. Now it is the
nature of a body for it to be "quantity having position" (Predic.
iv). But it belongs to the nature of this quantity that the various
parts exist in various parts of place. Therefore, apparently it is
impossible for the entire Christ to be under every part of the
species.
On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon (Gregory,
Sacramentarium): "Each receives Christ the Lord, Who is entire
under every morsel, nor is He less in each portion, but bestows
Himself entire under each."
I answer that, As was observed above (Article 1, ad 3),
because the substance of Christ's body is in this sacrament by the
power of the sacrament, while dimensive quantity is there by reason of
real concomitance, consequently Christ's body is in this sacrament
substantively, that is, in the way in which substance is under
dimensions, but not after the manner of dimensions, which means, not
in the way in which the dimensive quantity of a body is under the
dimensive quantity of place.
Now it is evident that the whole nature of a substance is under every
part of the dimensions under which it is contained; just as the entire
nature of air is under every part of air, and the entire nature of
bread under every part of bread; and this indifferently, whether the
dimensions be actually divided (as when the air is divided or the bread
cut), or whether they be actually undivided, but potentially
divisible. And therefore it is manifest that the entire Christ is
under every part of the species of the bread, even while the host
remains entire, and not merely when it is broken, as some say, giving
the example of an image which appears in a mirror, which appears as one
in the unbroken mirror, whereas when the mirror is broken, there is an
image in each part of the broken mirror: for the comparison is not
perfect, because the multiplying of such images results in the broken
mirror on account of the various reflections in the various parts of the
mirror; but here there is only one consecration, whereby Christ's
body is in this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 1: Number follows division, and therefore so
long as quantity remains actually undivided, neither is the substance
of any thing several times under its proper dimensions, nor is
Christ's body several times under the dimensions of the bread; and
consequently not an infinite number of times, but just as many times as
it is divided into parts.
Reply to Objection 2: The determinate distance of parts in an
organic body is based upon its dimensive quantity; but the nature of
substance precedes even dimensive quantity. And since the conversion
of the substance of the bread is terminated at the substance of the body
of Christ, and since according to the manner of substance the body of
Christ is properly and directly in this sacrament; such distance of
parts is indeed in Christ's true body, which, however, is not
compared to this sacrament according to such distance, but according to
the manner of its substance, as stated above (Article 1, ad 3).
Reply to Objection 3: This argument is based on the nature of a
body, arising from dimensive quantity. But it was said above (ad
2) that Christ's body is compared with this sacrament not by reason
of dimensive quantity, but by reason of its substance, as already
stated.
|
|