Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 76 [<< | >>]
We have now to consider the manner in which Christ exists in this
sacrament; and under this head there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the whole Christ is under this sacrament?
(2) Whether the entire Christ is under each species of the sacrament?
(3) Whether the entire Christ is under every part of the species?
(4) Whether all the dimensions of Christ's body are in this sacrament?
(5) Whether the body of Christ is in this sacrament locally?
(6) Whether after the consecration, the body of Christ is moved when the
host or chalice is moved?
(7) Whether Christ's body, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by
the eye?
(8) Whether the true body of Christ remains in this sacrament when He is
seen under the appearance of a child or of flesh?
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 76 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
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.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 76 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It seems that the whole Christ is not contained under both
species of this sacrament. For this sacrament is ordained for the
salvation of the faithful, not by virtue of the species, but by virtue of
what is contained under the species, because the species were there even
before the consecration, from which comes the power of this sacrament. If
nothing, then, be contained under one species, but what is contained
under the other, and if the whole Christ be contained under both, it
seems that one of them is superfluous in this sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, it was stated above (Article [1], ad 1) that all the other
parts of the body, such as the bones, nerves, and the like, are comprised
under the name of flesh. But the blood is one of the parts of the human
body, as Aristotle proves (De Anima Histor. i). If, then, Christ's blood
be contained under the species of bread, just as the other parts of the
body are contained there, the blood ought not to be consecrated apart,
just as no other part of the body is consecrated separately.
Objection 3: Further, what is once "in being" cannot be again "in becoming."
But Christ's body has already begun to be in this sacrament by the
consecration of the bread. Therefore, it cannot begin again to be there
by the consecration of the wine; and so Christ's body will not be
contained under the species of the wine, and accordingly neither the
entire Christ. Therefore the whole Christ is not contained under each
species.
On the contrary, The gloss on 1 Cor. 11:25, commenting on the word
"Chalice," says that "under each species," namely, of the bread and wine,
"the same is received"; and thus it seems that Christ is entire under
each species.
I answer that, After what we have said above (Article [1]), it must be held
most certainly that the whole Christ is under each sacramental species
yet not alike in each. For the body of Christ is indeed present under the
species of bread by the power of the sacrament, while the blood is there
from real concomitance, as stated above (Article [1], ad 1) in regard to the
soul and Godhead of Christ; and under the species of wine the blood is
present by the power of the sacrament, and His body by real concomitance,
as is also His soul and Godhead: because now Christ's blood is not
separated from His body, as it was at the time of His Passion and death.
Hence if this sacrament had been celebrated then, the body of Christ
would have been under the species of the bread, but without the blood;
and, under the species of the wine, the blood would have been present
without the body, as it was then, in fact.
Reply to Objection 1: Although the whole Christ is under each species, yet it is
so not without purpose. For in the first place this serves to represent
Christ's Passion, in which the blood was separated from the body; hence
in the form for the consecration of the blood mention is made of its
shedding. Secondly, it is in keeping with the use of this sacrament, that
Christ's body be shown apart to the faithful as food, and the blood as
drink. Thirdly, it is in keeping with its effect, in which sense it was
stated above (Question [74], Article [1]) that "the body is offered for the salvation of
the body, and the blood for the salvation of the soul."
Reply to Objection 2: In Christ's Passion, of which this is the memorial, the
other parts of the body were not separated from one another, as the blood
was, but the body remained entire, according to Ex. 12:46: "You shall not
break a bone thereof." And therefore in this sacrament the blood is
consecrated apart from the body, but no other part is consecrated
separately from the rest.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above, the body of Christ is not under the
species of wine by the power of the sacrament, but by real concomitance:
and therefore by the consecration of the wine the body of Christ is not
there of itself, but concomitantly.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 76 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
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.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 76 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It seems that the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body is
not in this sacrament. For it was said (Article [3]) that Christ's entire body
is contained under every part of the consecrated host. But no dimensive
quantity is contained entirely in any whole, and in its every part.
Therefore it is impossible for the entire dimensive quantity of Christ's
body to be there.
Objection 2: Further, it is impossible for two dimensive quantities to be
together, even though one be separate from its subject, and the other in
a natural body, as is clear from the Philosopher (Metaph. iii). But the
dimensive quantity of the bread remains in this sacrament, as is evident
to our senses. Consequently, the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is
not there.
Objection 3: Further, if two unequal dimensive quantities be set side by side,
the greater will overlap the lesser. But the dimensive quantity of
Christ's body is considerably larger than the dimensive quantity of the
consecrated host according to every dimension. Therefore, if the
dimensive quantity of Christ's body be in this sacrament together with
the dimensive quantity of the host, the dimensive quantity of Christ's
body is extended beyond the quantity of the host, which nevertheless is
not without the substance of Christ's body. Therefore, the substance of
Christ's body will be in this sacrament even outside the species of the
bread, which is unreasonable, since the substance of Christ's body is in
this sacrament, only by the consecration of the bread, as stated above
(Article [2]). Consequently, it is impossible for the whole dimensive quantity
of Christ's body to be in this sacrament.
On the contrary, The existence of the dimensive quantity of any body
cannot be separated from the existence of its substance. But in this
sacrament the entire substance of Christ's body is present, as stated
above (Articles [1],3). Therefore the entire dimensive quantity of Christ's body
is in this sacrament.
I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]), any part of Christ is in this
sacrament in two ways: in one way, by the power of the sacrament; in
another, from real concomitance. By the power of the sacrament the
dimensive quantity of Christ's body is not in this sacrament; for, by the
power of the sacrament that is present in this sacrament, whereat the
conversion is terminated. But the conversion which takes place in this
sacrament is terminated directly at the substance of Christ's body, and
not at its dimensions; which is evident from the fact that the dimensive
quantity of the bread remains after the consecration, while only the
substance of the bread passes away.
Nevertheless, since the substance of Christ's body is not really
deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents, hence it
comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of
Christ's body and all its other accidents are in this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 1: The manner of being of every thing is determined by what
belongs to it of itself, and not according to what is coupled
accidentally with it: thus an object is present to the sight, according
as it is white, and not according as it is sweet, although the same
object may be both white and sweet; hence sweetness is in the sight after
the manner of whiteness, and not after that of sweetness. Since, then,
the substance of Christ's body is present on the altar by the power of
this sacrament, while its dimensive quantity is there concomitantly and
as it were accidentally, therefore the dimensive quantity of Christ's
body is in this sacrament, not according to its proper manner (namely,
that the whole is in the whole, and the individual parts in individual
parts), but after the manner of substance, whose nature is for the whole
to be in the whole, and the whole in every part.
Reply to Objection 2: Two dimensive quantities cannot naturally be in the same
subject at the same time, so that each be there according to the proper
manner of dimensive quantity. But in this sacrament the dimensive
quantity of the bread is there after its proper manner, that is,
according to commensuration: not so the dimensive quantity of Christ's
body, for that is there after the manner of substance, as stated above
(ad 1).
Reply to Objection 3: The dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this
sacrament not by way of commensuration, which is proper to quantity, and
to which it belongs for the greater to be extended beyond the lesser; but
in the way mentioned above (ad 1,2).
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 76 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It seems that Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place.
Because, to be in a place definitively or circumscriptively belongs to
being in a place. But Christ's body seems to be definitively in this
sacrament, because it is so present where the species of the bread and
wine are, that it is nowhere else upon the altar: likewise it seems to be
there circumscriptively, because it is so contained under the species of
the consecrated host, that it neither exceeds it nor is exceeded by it.
Therefore Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place.
Objection 2: Further, the place of the bread and wine is not empty, because
nature abhors a vacuum; nor is the substance of the bread there, as
stated above (Question [75], Article [2]); but only the body of Christ is there.
Consequently the body of Christ fills that place. But whatever fills a
place is there locally. Therefore the body of Christ is in this sacrament
locally.
Objection 3: Further, as stated above (Article [4]), the body of Christ is in this
sacrament with its dimensive quantity, and with all its accidents. But to
be in a place is an accident of a body; hence "where" is numbered among
the nine kinds of accidents. Therefore Christ's body is in this sacrament
locally.
On the contrary, The place and the object placed must be equal, as is
clear from the Philosopher (Phys. iv). But the place, where this
sacrament is, is much less than the body of Christ. Therefore Christ's
body is not in this sacrament as in a place.
I answer that, As stated above (Article [1], ad 3; Article [3]), Christ's body is in
this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity, but
rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a place is
in the place according to the manner of dimensive quantity, namely,
inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its dimensive
quantity. Hence it remains that Christ's body is not in this sacrament as
in a place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that
way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance
of Christ's body succeeds the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence
as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after
the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ's body.
Nevertheless the substance of Christ's body is not the subject of those
dimensions, as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the
substance of the bread was there locally by reason of its dimensions,
because it was compared with that place through the medium of its own
dimensions; but the substance of Christ's body is compared with that
place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary,
the proper dimensions of Christ's body are compared with that place
through the medium of substance; which is contrary to the notion of a
located body.
Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ's body is not in this sacrament definitively, because then it would be only on the particular altar where this sacrament is performed: whereas it is in heaven under its own species, and on many other altars under the sacramental species. Likewise it is evident that it is not in this sacrament circumscriptively, because it is not there according to the commensuration of its own quantity, as stated above. But that it is not outside the superficies of the sacrament, nor on any other part of the altar, is due not to its being there definitively or circumscriptively, but to its being there by consecration and conversion of the bread and wine, as stated above (Article [1]; Question [15], Article [2], sqq.).
Reply to Objection 2: The place in which Christ's body is, is not empty; nor yet
is it properly filled with the substance of Christ's body, which is not
there locally, as stated above; but it is filled with the sacramental
species, which have to fill the place either because of the nature of
dimensions, or at least miraculously, as they also subsist miraculously
after the fashion of substance.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (Article [4]), the accidents of Christ's body are
in this sacrament by real concomitance. And therefore those accidents of
Christ's body which are intrinsic to it are in this sacrament. But to be
in a place is an accident when compared with the extrinsic container. And
therefore it is not necessary for Christ to be in this sacrament as in a
place.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 76 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It seems that Christ's body is movably in this sacrament, because the Philosopher says (Topic. ii) that "when we are moved, the things within us are moved": and this is true even of the soul's spiritual substance. "But Christ is in this sacrament," as shown above (Question [74], Article [1]). Therefore He is moved when it is moved.
Objection 2: Further, the truth ought to correspond with the figure. But,
according to the commandment (Ex. 12:10), concerning the Paschal Lamb, a
figure of this sacrament, "there remained nothing until the morning."
Neither, therefore, if this sacrament be reserved until morning, will
Christ's body be there; and so it is not immovably in this sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, if Christ's body were to remain under this sacrament
even until the morrow, for the same reason it will remain there during
all coming time; for it cannot be said that it ceases to be there when
the species pass, because the existence of Christ's body is not dependent
on those species. Yet Christ does not remain in this sacrament for all
coming time. It seems, then, that straightway on the morrow, or after a
short time, He ceases to be under this sacrament. And so it seems that
Christ is in this sacrament movably.
On the contrary, it is impossible for the same thing to be in motion and
at rest, else contradictories would be verified of the same subject. But
Christ's body is at rest in heaven. Therefore it is not movably in this
sacrament.
I answer that, When any thing is one, as to subject, and manifold in
being, there is nothing to hinder it from being moved in one respect, and
yet to remain at rest in another just as it is one thing for a body to be
white, and another thing, to be large; hence it can be moved as to its
whiteness, and yet continue unmoved as to its magnitude. But in Christ,
being in Himself and being under the sacrament are not the same thing,
because when we say that He is under this sacrament, we express a kind of
relationship to this sacrament. According to this being, then, Christ is
not moved locally of Himself, but only accidentally, because Christ is
not in this sacrament as in a place, as stated above (Article [5]). But what is
not in a place, is not moved of itself locally, but only according to the
motion of the subject in which it is.
In the same way neither is it moved of itself according to the being
which it has in this sacrament, by any other change whatever, as for
instance, that it ceases to be under this sacrament: because whatever
possesses unfailing existence of itself, cannot be the principle of
failing; but when something else fails, then it ceases to be in it; just
as God, Whose existence is unfailing and immortal, ceases to be in some
corruptible creature because such corruptible creature ceases to exist.
And in this way, since Christ has unfailing and incorruptible being, He
ceases to be under this sacrament, not because He ceases to be, nor yet
by local movement of His own, as is clear from what has been said, but
only by the fact that the sacramental species cease to exist.
Hence it is clear that Christ, strictly speaking is immovably in this
sacrament.
Reply to Objection 1: This argument deals with accidental movement, whereby
things within us are moved together with us. But with things which can of
themselves be in a place, like bodies, it is otherwise than with things
which cannot of themselves be in a place, such as forms and spiritual
substances. And to this mode can be reduced what we say of Christ, being
moved accidentally, according to the existence which He has in this
sacrament, in which He is not present as in a place.
Reply to Objection 2: It was this argument which seems to have convinced those
who held that Christ's body does not remain under this sacrament if it be
reserved until the morrow. It is against these that Cyril says (Ep.
lxxxiii): "Some are so foolish as to say that the mystical blessing
departs from the sacrament, if any of its fragments remain until the next
day: for Christ's consecrated body is not changed, and the power of the
blessing, and the life-giving grace is perpetually in it." Thus are all
other consecrations irremovable so long as the consecrated things endure;
on which account they are not repeated. And although the truth
corresponds with the figure, still the figure cannot equal it.
Reply to Objection 3: The body of Christ remains in this sacrament not only until
the morrow, but also in the future, so long as the sacramental species
remain: and when they cease, Christ's body ceases to be under them, not
because it depends on them, but because the relationship of Christ's body
to those species is taken away, in the same way as God ceases to be the
Lord of a creature which ceases to exist.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 76 [<< | >>]
Article: 7 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It seems that the body of Christ, as it is in this sacrament, can
be seen by the eye, at least by a glorified one. For our eyes are
hindered from beholding Christ's body in this sacrament, on account of
the sacramental species veiling it. But the glorified eye cannot be
hindered by anything from seeing bodies as they are. Therefore, the
glorified eye can see Christ's body as it is in this sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, the glorified bodies of the saints will be "made like to
the body" of Christ's "glory," according to Phil. 3:21. But Christ's eye
beholds Himself as He is in this sacrament. Therefore, for the same
reason, every other glorified eye can see Him.
Objection 3: Further, in the resurrection the saints will be equal to the
angels, according to Lk. 20:36. But the angels see the body of Christ as
it is in this sacrament, for even the devils are found to pay reverence
thereto, and to fear it. Therefore, for like reason, the glorified eye
can see Christ as He is in this sacrament.
On the contrary, As long as a thing remains the same, it cannot at the
same time be seen by the same eye under diverse species. But the
glorified eye sees Christ always, as He is in His own species, according
to Is. 33:17: "(His eyes) shall see the king in his beauty." It seems,
then, that it does not see Christ, as He is under the species of this
sacrament.
I answer that, The eye is of two kinds, namely, the bodily eye properly
so-called, and the intellectual eye, so-called by similitude. But
Christ's body as it is in this sacrament cannot be seen by any bodily
eye. First of all, because a body which is visible brings about an
alteration in the medium, through its accidents. Now the accidents of
Christ's body are in this sacrament by means of the substance; so that
the accidents of Christ's body have no immediate relationship either to
this sacrament or to adjacent bodies; consequently they do not act on the
medium so as to be seen by any corporeal eye. Secondly, because, as
stated above (Article [1], ad 3; Article [3]), Christ's body is substantially present
in this sacrament. But substance, as such, is not visible to the bodily
eye, nor does it come under any one of the senses, nor under the
imagination, but solely under the intellect, whose object is "what a
thing is" (De Anima iii). And therefore, properly speaking, Christ's
body, according to the mode of being which it has in this sacrament, is
perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but only by the
intellect, which is called the spiritual eye.
Moreover it is perceived differently by different intellects. For since
the way in which Christ is in this sacrament is entirely supernatural, it
is visible in itself to a supernatural, i.e. the Divine, intellect, and
consequently to a beatified intellect, of angel or of man, which, through
the participated glory of the Divine intellect, sees all supernatural
things in the vision of the Divine Essence. But it can be seen by a
wayfarer through faith alone, like other supernatural things. And not
even the angelic intellect of its own natural power is capable of
beholding it; consequently the devils cannot by their intellect perceive
Christ in this sacrament, except through faith, to which they do not pay
willing assent; yet they are convinced of it from the evidence of signs,
according to James 2:19: "The devils believe, and tremble."
Reply to Objection 1: Our bodily eye, on account of the sacramental species, is
hindered from beholding the body of Christ underlying them, not merely as
by way of veil (just as we are hindered from seeing what is covered with
any corporeal veil), but also because Christ's body bears a relation to
the medium surrounding this sacrament, not through its own accidents, but
through the sacramental species.
Reply to Objection 2: Christ's own bodily eye sees Himself existing under the
sacrament, yet it cannot see the way in which it exists under the
sacrament, because that belongs to the intellect. But it is not the same
with any other glorified eye, because Christ's eye is under this
sacrament, in which no other glorified eye is conformed to it.
Reply to Objection 3: No angel, good or bad, can see anything with a bodily eye,
but only with the mental eye. Hence there is no parallel reason, as is
evident from what was said above.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 76 [<< | >>]
Article: 8 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It seems that Christ's body is not truly there when flesh or a
child appears miraculously in this sacrament. Because His body ceases to
be under this sacrament when the sacramental species cease to be present,
as stated above (Article [6]). But when flesh or a child appears, the
sacramental species cease to be present. Therefore Christ's body is not
truly there.
Objection 2: Further, wherever Christ's body is, it is there either under its
own species, or under those of the sacrament. But when such apparitions
occur, it is evident that Christ is not present under His own species,
because the entire Christ is contained in this sacrament, and He remains
entire under the form in which He ascended to heaven: yet what appears
miraculously in this sacrament is sometimes seen as a small particle of
flesh, or at times as a small child. Now it is evident that He is not
there under the sacramental species, which is that of bread or wine.
Consequently, it seems that Christ's body is not there in any way.
Objection 3: Further, Christ's body begins to be in this sacrament by
consecration and conversion, as was said above (Question [75], Articles [2],3,4). But
the flesh and blood which appear by miracle are not consecrated, nor are
they converted into Christ's true body and blood. Therefore the body or
the blood of Christ is not under those species.
On the contrary, When such apparition takes place, the same reverence is
shown to it as was shown at first, which would not be done if Christ were
not truly there, to Whom we show reverence of "latria." Therefore, when
such apparition occurs, Christ is under the sacrament.
I answer that, Such apparition comes about in two ways, when
occasionally in this sacrament flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen.
Sometimes it happens on the part of the beholders, whose eyes are so
affected as if they outwardly saw flesh, or blood, or a child, while no
change takes place in the sacrament. And this seems to happen when to one
person it is seen under the species of flesh or of a child, while to
others it is seen as before under the species of bread; or when to the
same individual it appears for an hour under the appearance of flesh or a
child, and afterwards under the appearance of bread. Nor is there any
deception there, as occurs in the feats of magicians, because such
species is divinely formed in the eye in order to represent some truth,
namely, for the purpose of showing that Christ's body is truly under this
sacrament; just as Christ without deception appeared to the disciples who
were going to Emmaus. For Augustine says (De Qq. Evang. ii) that "when
our pretense is referred to some significance, it is not a lie, but a
figure of the truth." And since in this way no change is made in the
sacrament, it is manifest that, when such apparition occurs, Christ does
not cease to be under this sacrament.
But it sometimes happens that such apparition comes about not merely by
a change wrought in the beholders, but by an appearance which really
exists outwardly. And this indeed is seen to happen when it is beheld by
everyone under such an appearance, and it remains so not for an hour, but
for a considerable time; and, in this case some think that it is the
proper species of Christ's body. Nor does it matter that sometimes
Christ's entire body is not seen there, but part of His flesh, or else
that it is not seen in youthful guise. but in the semblance of a child,
because it lies within the power of a glorified body for it to be seen by
a non-glorified eye either entirely or in part, and under its own
semblance or in strange guise, as will be said later (XP, Question [85], Articles [2],3).
But this seems unlikely. First of all, because Christ's body under its
proper species can be seen only in one place, wherein it is definitively
contained. Hence since it is seen in its proper species, and is adored in
heaven, it is not seen under its proper species in this sacrament.
Secondly, because a glorified body, which appears at will, disappears
when it wills after the apparition; thus it is related (Lk. 24:31) that
our Lord "vanished out of sight" of the disciples. But that which appears
under the likeness of flesh in this sacrament, continues for a long time;
indeed, one reads of its being sometimes enclosed, and, by order of many
bishops, preserved in a pyx, which it would be wicked to think of Christ
under His proper semblance.
Consequently, it remains to be said, that, while the dimensions remain the same as before, there is a miraculous change wrought in the other accidents, such as shape, color, and the rest, so that flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. And, as was said already, this is not deception, because it is done "to represent the truth," namely, to show by this miraculous apparition that Christ's body and blood are truly in this sacrament. And thus it is clear that as the dimensions remain, which are the foundation of the other accidents, as we shall see later on (Question [77], Article [2]), the body of Christ truly remains in this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 1: When such apparition takes place, the sacramental species
sometimes continue entire in themselves; and sometimes only as to that
which is principal, as was said above.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above, during such apparitions Christ's proper
semblance is not seen, but a species miraculously formed either in the
eyes of the beholders, or in the sacramental dimensions themselves, as
was said above.
Reply to Objection 3: The dimensions of the consecrated bread and wine continue,
while a miraculous change is wrought in the other accidents, as stated
above.