|
Objection 1: It seems that the sacramental species cannot nourish,
because, as Ambrose says (De Sacram. v), "it is not this bread
that enters into our body, but the bread of everlasting life, which
supports the substance of our soul." But whatever nourishes enters
into the body. Therefore this bread does not nourish: and the same
reason holds good of the wine.
Objection 2: Further, as is said in De Gener. ii, "We are
nourished by the very things of which we are made." But the
sacramental species are accidents, whereas man is not made of
accidents, because accident is not a part of substance. Therefore it
seems that the sacramental species cannot nourish.
Objection 3: Further, the Philosopher says (De Anima ii) that
"food nourishes according as it is a substance, but it gives increase
by reason of its quantity." But the sacramental species are not a
substance. Consequently they cannot nourish.
On the contrary, The Apostle speaking of this sacrament says (1
Cor. 11:21): "One, indeed, is hungry, and another is
drunk": upon which the gloss observes that "he alludes to those who
after the celebration of the sacred mystery, and after the consecration
of the bread and wine, claimed their oblations, and not sharing them
with others, took the whole, so as even to become intoxicated
thereby." But this could not happen if the sacramental species did
not nourish. Therefore the sacramental species do nourish.
I answer that, This question presents no difficulty, now that we
have solved the preceding question. Because, as stated in De Anima
ii, food nourishes by being converted into the substance of the
individual nourished. Now it has been stated (Article 5) that the
sacramental species can be converted into a substance generated from
them. And they can be converted into the human body for the same
reason as they can into ashes or worms. Consequently, it is evident
that they nourish.
But the senses witness to the untruth of what some maintain; viz.
that the species do not nourish as though they were changed into the
human body, but merely refresh and hearten by acting upon the senses
(as a man is heartened by the odor of meat, and intoxicated by the
fumes of wine). Because such refreshment does not suffice long for a
man, whose body needs repair owing to constant waste: and yet a man
could be supported for long if he were to take hosts and consecrated
wine in great quantity.
In like manner the statement advanced by others cannot stand, who hold
that the sacramental species nourish owing to the remaining substantial
form of the bread and wine: both because the form does not remain, as
stated above (Question 75, Article 6): and because to nourish
is the act not of a form but rather of matter, which takes the form of
the one nourished, while the form of the nourishment passes away:
hence it is said in De Anima ii that nourishment is at first unlike,
but at the end is like.
Reply to Objection 1: After the consecration bread can be said to
be in this sacrament in two ways. First, as to the species, which
retain the name of the previous substance, as Gregory says in an
Easter Homily (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xx).
Secondly, Christ's very body can be called bread, since it is the
mystical bread "coming down from heaven." Consequently, Ambrose
uses the word "bread" in this second meaning, when he says that
"this bread does not pass into the body," because, to wit,
Christ's body is not changed into man's body, but nourishes his
soul. But he is not speaking of bread taken in the first acceptation.
Reply to Objection 2: Although the sacramental species are not
those things out of which the human body is made, yet they are changed
into those things stated above.
Reply to Objection 3: Although the sacramental species are not a
substance, still they have the virtue of a substance, as stated
above.
|
|