Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in sacramento altaris non contineatur verum corpus Christi. In his enim quae ad pietatem et reverentiam pertinent divinam, nihil debet esse quod in crudelitatem vel irreverentiam sonet. Sed manducare carnes hominis sonat in quamdam bestialem crudelitatem et irreverentiam manducati. Ergo et in sacramento pietatis, quod ad manducationis usum ordinatur, non debet esse verum corpus Christi quod manducatur. Obj. 1: To the first we proceed thus. It seems that the true body of Christ is not contained in the sacrament of the altar. For in those things that pertain to piety and divine reverence, there should be nothing that implies cruelty or irreverence. But to eat the flesh of a man suggests a certain bestial cruelty and an irreverence for what is eaten. Therefore, in the sacrament of piety which is ordered toward eating as its use, it should not be the true body of Christ that is eaten. Praeterea, sacramenta ordinantur ad utilitatem nostram. Sed Joan. 6, 64, dicitur: caro non prodest quidquam. Ergo corpus Christi, sive ejus caro, non debet esse in hoc sacramento, sed solum ejus spiritualis virtus. Obj. 2: Furthermore, sacraments are ordained to our benefit. But it is said: the flesh does not profit anything (John 6:63). Therefore, the body of Christ, or his flesh, should not be in this sacrament but only his spiritual power. Praeterea, Gregorius dicit in Homil. de regulo: corporalem praesentiam Domini quaerebat, qui per spiritum nunquam deerat. Minus itaque in illum credidit, quem non putabat posse salutem dare, nisi praesens esset in corpore. Sed non ponimus quod corpus Christi sit in altari, nisi ut nobis sit causa salutis. Ergo videtur quod ex infirmitate fidei procedat. Obj. 3: Furthermore, Gregory says on his Homily on Regulus: he was seeking the bodily presence of the Lord, who was never lacking through the Spirit. And so he believed less in him, whom he did not believe could give salvation unless he were bodily present. But we do not hold that the body of Christ is on the altar unless as it is a cause of salvation for us. Therefore, it seems that it proceeds from weakness of faith. Praeterea, nihil potest esse nunc ubi prius non fuit, loco praeexistente, nisi ipsum mutetur. Sed corpus Christi ante consecrationem non erat in altari. Si ergo post consecrationem sit ibi secundum veritatem, oportet quod aliquo modo sit mutatum; quod non potest dici. Ergo non est verum ibi corpus Christi. Obj. 4: Furthermore, nothing can be now in a place where it was not before unless it is changed, assuming the place already existed. But the body of Christ before the consecration was not on the altar. If therefore after the consecration it is there according to the truth, it is necessary that it has changed in some way, which cannot be said. Therefore, the true body of Christ is not there. Praeterea, nullum corpus potest esse simul in diversis locis. Sed corpus Christi est in caelo vere, quo ascendit. Ergo impossibile est quod sit in altari. Probatio primae. Nihil continetur extra suos terminos, si termini cujuslibet corporis locati sunt simul cum terminis corporis locantis. Ergo nullum corpus locatum in uno loco, potest esse extra terminos illius loci; et ita non potest esse in duobus locis simul. Obj. 5: Furthermore, no body can be in different places at the same time. But the body of Christ is truly in heaven, where he ascended. Therefore, it is impossible for it to be on the altar. Proof of the first: nothing is contained outside its limits, if the limits of any contained body are simultaneous with the limits of the containing body. Therefore, no body located in one place can be outside the limits of that place, and so it cannot be in two places at once. Praeterea, eadem ratione potest poni corpus Christi esse in diversis locis et esse ubique, sicut ponentes angelum esse in diversis locis, dicunt quod est etiam ubique si velit. Sed ponere quod corpus Christi ubique possit esse, est haereticum: quia hoc solius divinitatis est. Ergo non potest esse in diversis locis simul. Obj. 6: Furthermore, by the same reasoning it can be stated that the body of Christ is in different places and that it is everywhere, as those who say an angel can be in different places say that it is also everywhere if it wills. But to state that the body of Christ can be everywhere is heretical: for that only belongs to divinity. Therefore, it cannot be in different places at once. Praeterea, angelus est simplicior quam corpus Christi. Sed angelus non potest esse simul in pluribus locis. Ergo neque corpus Christi: et sic idem quod prius. Obj. 7: Furthermore, an angel is simpler than the body of Christ. But an angel cannot be in many places at one time. Therefore, neither can the body of Christ: and so the same as before. Praeterea, corpus Christi, inquantum corpus, non habet quod sit in pluribus locis, quia sic cuilibet corpori conveniret; neque inquantum gloriosum, quia multo fortius spiritui glorificato conveniret; neque inquantum divinitati unitum, quia unio non ponit ipsum extra limites corporis. Ergo nullo modo sibi competit. Obj. 8: Furthermore, the body of Christ is not able to be in several places just insofar as it is a body, for then this ability would belong to any body; nor is it able to be in several places at once insofar as it is glorified, for this ability would belong with even more reason to a glorified spirit; nor as united to the divinity, for the union does not place it outside the limits of a body. Therefore, it does not apply to it in any way. Sed contra, 1 Corinth. 11, 19: qui manducat et bibit indigne, judicium sibi manducat et bibit, non dijudicans corpus Domini. Sed si esset corpus Christi ibi secundum solam significationem, non oporteret dijudicare hunc cibum ab aliis: quia quilibet panis eadem ratione significat corpus Christi. Ergo oportet ponere quod sit ibi verum corpus Christi. On the contrary, Whoever eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks to his own judgment, not discerning the body of the Lord (1 Cor 11:27, 29). But if the body of Christ were there only according to signification, it would not be necessary to discern this food from others: for any bread signifies the body of Christ by that reasoning. Therefore, it is necessary to state that it is the true body of Christ. Praeterea, veritas in novo testamento debet respondere figuris veteris testamenti. Sed in veteri testamento ipse agnus, qui figurabat Christum, sumebatur in cibum, ut patet Exod. 12: ergo in nova lege ipsum verum corpus Christi quod per agnum significatur, debet manducari. Furthermore, the truth in the New Testament should correspond to the figures of the Old Testament. But in the Old Testament the very lamb that prefigured Christ was taken as food, as is clear from Exodus 12. Therefore, in the New Law the true body of Christ itself, which was symbolized by the lamb, must be eaten. Praeterea, Deuter. 32, 4 dicitur: Dei perfecta sunt opera. Sed non perfecte conjungeremur Deo per sacramenta quae nobis tradit, nisi sub aliquo eorum ipse vere contineretur. Ergo in hoc sacramento verum corpus Christi continetur: quia non est aliud assignare sacramentum in quo Christus realiter contineatur. Furthermore, it is said, the works of God are perfect (Deut 32:4). But we would not be perfectly united to God by the sacraments that he gives us, unless he himself were contained in one of them. Therefore, in this sacrament the true body of Christ is contained, since there is no other sacrament one could designate as really containing Christ. Ad hoc etiam sunt multae auctoritates in littera positae. For this many authorities are also cited in the text. Respondeo dicendum, quod sub sacramento altaris continetur verum corpus Christi, quod de Virgine traxit: et contrarium dicere est haeresis, quia derogatur veritati Scripturae, qua Dominus dicit, Mat. xxvi et alibi: hoc est corpus meum. Ratio autem quare oportet quod in hoc sacramento ipse Christus contineatur, in principio hujus tractatus, dist. 8, dicta est: quia scilicet non ita perfecte nobis Christus conjungeretur, si sola sacramenta illa haberemus in quibus conjungitur nobis Christus per virtutem suam in sacramentis illis participatam; et ideo oportet esse aliquod sacramentum in quo Christus non participative, sed per suam essentiam contineatur, ut sit perfecta conjunctio capitis ad membra. Consequuntur autem et aliae utilitates, sicut ostensio maximae caritatis in hoc quod seipsum dat nobis in cibum, sublevatio spei ex tam familiari conjunctione ad ipsum, et maximum meritum fidei in hoc quod creduntur multa in hoc sacramento quae non solum praeter rationem sunt, sed etiam contra sensum, ut videtur; et multae aliae utilitates, quae explicari sufficienter non possunt. I answer that, the true body of Christ, which he drew from the Virgin, is contained under the sacrament of the altar: and to say the opposite is heresy, for it detracts from the truth of Scripture, where the Lord says, in Matthew 26:26 and elsewhere: this is my body. Now the reason why it is necessary that Christ be contained in this sacrament was said at the beginning of this treatise, Distinction 8: namely, because Christ would not be so perfectly united with us if we only had those sacraments in which Christ is joined to us by his power participated by those sacraments. And so there has to be a certain sacrament in which Christ is contained not by participation but by his own essence, so that there is a complete union of head with members. There also follow other benefits, however, like showing the greatest charity in the fact that he gives himself to us as food; the increase of hope from such an intimate union with him; and the greatest merit of faith in that many things are believed in this sacrament that are not only beyond reason, but even against our senses, as it seems; and many other benefits that cannot sufficiently be explained. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod in crudelitatem saperet, et maximam irreverentiam, si corpus Christi ad modum cibi corporalis manducaretur, ut scilicet ipsum verum corpus Christi dilaniaretur et dentibus attereretur. Hoc autem non contingit in sacramentali manducatione: quia ipsum per manducationem non laceratur, sed manducantes integros facit, speciebus, sub quibus latet, divisis, ut infra dicetur, dist. 12. Reply Obj. 1: It would savor of cruelty and the greatest irreverence if the body of Christ were eaten in the mode of physical food, namely so that the true body of Christ itself were torn to pieces and ground up by our teeth. However, this does not happen in sacramental eating, for it is not mangled by this eating, but it makes the ones eating it whole, when they divide the appearances under which it is hidden, as will be said below at Distinction 12. Ad secundum dicendum, quod nihil prodesset caro Christi corporaliter manducata, ut dictum est; multum autem prodest sacramentaliter manducata. Unde Augustinus dicit: caro non prodest quidquam; sed quomodo illi intellexerunt: sic enim intellexerunt carnem quomodo in cadaver venditur, aut in macello dilaniatur. Reply Obj. 2: The flesh of Christ would have profited nothing if it were eaten physically, as was said; however, it profits much when eaten sacramentally. Hence Augustine says, flesh profits nothing, but how did they understand, for they understood flesh as what is sold as a carcass, or is torn to pieces at the butcher’s. Ad tertium dicendum, quod non dicimus verum corpus Christi esse in altari, eo quod aliter non posset salutem conferre, sicut Regulus credebat; sed quia iste est convenientissimus modus salvandi, sicut et convenientissimus modus reparationis humanae fuit per hoc quod verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis: quamvis etiam alius modus reparationis fuit possibilis. Reply Obj. 3: We do not say the true body of Christ is on the altar as though it could not confer salvation in any other way, as Regulus believed; but because this is the most fitting mode of being saved, just as also the most fitting mode of human reparation was by the fact that the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (John 1:14), although another mode of reparation was also possible. Ad quartum dicendum, quod non oportet semper illud quod est nunc ubi prius non fuit localiter, mutatum esse: quia potest aliquid esse conversum in ipsum, sicut cum aer in ignem convertitur. Sed tamen ignis mutatur mutatione generationis; et hoc accidit, quia ignis in illa conversione non est terminus generationis, sed compositum ex subjecto generationis, scilicet materia, et termino, scilicet forma; unde forma ipsa quae est terminus, per se non generatur, ut in 7 Metaphysica probatur: generatur autem per accidens, quia non est per se subsistens, sed in alio, quo mutato mutari dicitur. Corpus ergo Christi est in altari cum prius non fuerit, quia panis conversus est in ipsum, ita quod ipsum totum corpus est terminus per se conversionis, sicut ibi erat forma: non tamen est ens in alio sicut forma, sed per se subsistens; et ita non oportet quod sit localiter motum, neque generatum per se, neque per accidens. Reply Obj. 4: It is not always necessary that something that is now where it was not before be changed, for something can be converted into it, just as when air is converted into fire. Nevertheless, fire is changed by the change of the generation, and this happens because fire is not in that conversion as the terminus of generation but as a composite of the subject of generation, namely, the matter, and the terminus, namely, the form. And this is why the form that is the terminus is not generated per se, as is proved in Metaphysics 7. However, it is generated per accidens, since it does not subsist on its own, but in something else, and it is said to have changed when that changes. Therefore, the body of Christ is on the altar when it was not before, since the bread has converted into it, so that the whole body itself is the terminus of the conversion per se, just as the form was in the other case. Yet the body of Christ is not a being in another as form is, but subsists in itself; and so there is no need that it be moved in place, or generated, whether per se or per accidens. Ad quintum dicendum, quod nullum corpus comparatur ad locum nisi mediantibus dimensionibus quantitatis; et ideo ibi corpus est aliquod ut in loco, ubi commensurantur dimensiones ejus dimensionibus loci; et secundum hoc corpus Christi non est nisi in uno loco tantum, scilicet in caelo. Sed quia conversa est in corpus Christi substantia panis, qui prius erat in hoc loco determinate mediantibus dimensionibus suis, quae manent transubstantiatione facta; ideo manet locus, non quidem immediate habens ordinem ad corpus Christi secundum proprias dimensiones, sed secundum dimensiones panis remanentes, sub quibus succedit corpus Christi substantiae panis. Et ideo non est hic ut in loco, per se loquendo, sed ut in sacramento, non solum significante, sed continente ipsum ex vi conversionis factae. Et sic patet quod corpus Christi non est extra terminos loci sui per quem modum competit ei esse alicubi vel esse extra aliquid ex dimensionibus propriis. Esse autem alicubi per commensurationem propriarum dimensionum est per se alicubi esse. Et similiter esse extra aliquid secundum situm propriarum dimensionum est per se extra aliquid esse. Sed corpus Christi est extra terminos loci sui qui competit ei secundum proprias dimensiones, quasi per accidens, et hoc modo est sub sacramento quo competit ei esse alicubi ratione illarum dimensionum quae remanserunt ex illo corpore quod conversum est in corpus Christi. Reply Obj. 5: No body is compared to a place unless by means of the dimensions of quantity, and so the body is there as something in a place where its dimensions are commensurate with the dimensions of the place; and in this regard the body of Christ is in only one place, namely, in heaven. But since the substance of the bread is converted into the body of Christ, which bread before was in this place determinately by means of its dimensions, which remain once transubstantiation has happened; therefore the place remains not indeed immediately, having an order to the body of Christ according to that body’s own dimensions, but according to the remaining dimensions of bread, under which the body of Christ takes the place of the substance of bread. And therefore it is not here as in a place, speaking per se, but as in a sacrament, not only signifying, but containing it by the power of the conversion made. And so it is clear that the body of Christ is not outside the boundaries of its own place according as it belongs to it to be somewhere or to be outside something by its proper dimensions. Now, to be somewhere by the measure of proper dimensions is to be somewhere per se, and likewise to be outside something according to the situation of proper dimensions is to be outside something per se. But the body of Christ is outside the boundaries of its place, which belongs to it according to its proper dimensions, as if per accidens, and this is how it is under the sacrament, by which it belongs to it to be somewhere by reason of those dimensions which remain from that body which was converted into the body of Christ. Ad sextum dicendum, quod sicut ex dictis patet, corpus Christi non dicitur esse alicubi nisi ratione dimensionum propriarum, et illius corporis quod in ipsum conversum est. Non est autem possibile quod dimensiones ejus propriae sint ubique, neque quod corpus in ipsum convertendum ubique sit; et ideo quamvis corpus Christi sit in pluribus locis aliquo modo, non tamen potest esse ubique. Reply Obj. 6: As is clear from what has been said, the body of Christ is only said to be somewhere by reason of its proper dimensions, and those of the body that was converted into it. However, it is not possible that its proper dimensions be everywhere, nor that the body converted into it be everywhere; and so although the body of Christ is in many places in a certain way, nevertheless, it cannot be everywhere. Ad septimum dicendum, quod ratio illa bene sequeretur, si ratione propriorum terminorum esset in pluribus locis, quod multo fortius angelo conveniret; sed convenit ei inquantum aliquod corpus convertitur in corpus Christi, non autem in angelum. Reply Obj. 7: That argument would work well if the body of Christ were in many places by reason of its own boundaries, which applies even more to an angel; but to be in several places at once applies to it inasmuch as a certain body is converted into the body of Christ, but not into an angel. Ad octavum dicendum, quod hoc non competit corpori Christi neque inquantum est corpus, neque inquantum est glorificatum, neque inquantum divinitati unitum, sed inquantum est terminus conversionis; unde similiter accideret de corpore lapidis, si Deus simili modo panis substantiam in lapidem converteret, quod non est dubium eum posse. Reply Obj. 8: This does not apply to the body of Christ as a body, nor as glorified, nor as united with the divinity, but as a terminus of a conversion. And that is why it would happen the same way with the body of a stone, if God in a similar way changed the substance of bread into a stone, and there is no doubt that he could do so. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum totus Christus contineatur in sacramento sub speciebus quae manent Whether the whole Christ is contained in this sacrament Quaestiuncula 1 Quaestiuncula 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus non contineatur sub sacramento quantum ad animam. Quia Christo non competit esse in altari, ut dictum est, nisi secundum quod panis in ipsum convertitur. Sed constat quod panis non convertitur in animam Christi. Ergo anima Christi non est ibi. Obj. 1: To the second we proceed thus. It seems that Christ is not contained under the sacrament as to his soul. For it does not belong to Christ to be on the altar, as was said, except insofar as the bread is converted into him. But the bread is obviously not converted into the soul of Christ. Therefore, the soul of Christ is not there. Praeterea, Christus est in sacramento altaris, ut cibus fidelium. Sed non est cibus secundum animam, sed secundum corpus: quia dicit Joan. 6, 55: caro mea vere est cibus. Ergo non est ibi secundum animam. Obj. 2: Furthermore, Christ is in the sacrament of the altar as the food of the faithful. But he is not food in his soul, but only in his body: for he says, my flesh is true food (John 6:55). Therefore, he is not there according to his soul. Praeterea, forma sacramenti debet respondere sacramento. Sed in forma non fit mentio de anima, sed solum de corpore: quia dicitur: hoc est corpus meum. Ergo non est ibi secundum animam. Obj. 3: Furthermore, a sacrament’s form should correspond to the sacrament. But in the form no mention is made of the soul, but only of the body, for it is said, this is my body. Therefore, he is not there according to his soul. Sed contra, quaecumque non separantur secundum esse, ubicumque est unum, et aliud. Sed unum est esse animae Christi et corporis, sicut materiae et formae. Ergo cum corpus Christi sit in altari, erit ibi anima. On the contrary, whenever there are two things that are not separated according to being, where one is, the other is too. But Christ’s body and soul are one being, like matter and form. Therefore, since the body of Christ is on the altar, his soul will be there too. Praeterea, corpus Christi non est in sacramento inanimatum. Sed corpus sine anima est inanimatum. Ergo Christus non est ibi secundum corpus tantum, sed etiam secundum animam. Furthermore, the body of Christ is not an inanimate thing in the sacrament. But a body without a soul is an inanimate thing. Therefore, Christ is not there according to his body alone, but also according to his soul. Quaestiuncula 2 Quaestiuncula 2 Ulterius. Videtur quod sub specie panis Christus non contineatur inquantum ad carnem animatam. Quia, ut dictum est, corpus Christi est ibi secundum quod cibus. Sed esse cibum non convenit nisi carni; unde Joan. 6, 55: caro mea vere est cibus. Ergo non est ibi aliqua pars corporis, nisi caro. Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that under the appearance of bread Christ is only contained as living flesh. For, as has been said, the body of Christ is there as food. But being food only applies to the flesh; hence, my flesh is true food (John 6:55). Therefore, no part of the body is there except the flesh. Praeterea, quod jam est, non oportet fieri. Si ergo in pane consecrato sunt omnes partes corporis Christi, erit ibi sanguis; ergo non oporteret quod per consecrationem vini iterum ibi fieret. Obj. 2: Furthermore, what is already does not need to come to be. Therefore, if all the parts of the body of Christ are in the consecrated bread, the blood will be there; therefore it will not be necessary that it come to be there again by the consecration of the wine. Praeterea, Deus in revelationibus veritatem ostendit: alias revelatio esset causa erroris, quod est inconveniens. Sed species panis ostensa est aliquando ut caro tantum, sicut legitur in vita beati Gregorii. Ergo non est sub specie panis aliquid de corpore Christi nisi caro, et non sanguis vel os, vel aliquid hujusmodi. Obj. 3: Furthermore, God shows truth in his revelations: otherwise the revelation would be the cause of error, which is unfitting. But sometimes the appearance of bread is shown as though only flesh were there, as is read in the life of blessed Gregory. Therefore, under the appearance of bread there is not anything of the body of Christ but the flesh, and not blood or bone, or anything else like that. Sed contra, sicut corpus Christi significatur in sacramento, ita continetur ibi. Sed significatur secundum quod est; alias significatio esset falsa. Ergo est ibi secundum quod est. Sed caro non est sine sanguine et aliis partibus corporis. Ergo est ibi non solum caro, sed etiam aliae partes corporis. On the contrary, just as the body of Christ is represented in the sacrament, so it is also contained there. But it is represented according as it is, otherwise the signification would be false. Therefore, it is there according as it is. But the flesh is not without blood and other parts of the body. Therefore there is not only flesh there, but also the other parts of the body. Praeterea, in specie panis significatur totum id quod est res tantum sine sacramento, scilicet unitas corporis mystici, et similiter in vino, ut ex dictis, 8 dist., patet. Sed sicut significatur id quod est res tantum, ita significatur et continetur id quod est res et sacramentum. Ergo et totus Christus, qui est res et sacramentum, continetur sub utraque specie. Furthermore, in the species of bread, and likewise in the wine, is represented all that is reality alone without the sacrament, namely, the unity of the mystical body, as is clear from what was said in Distinction 8. But just as what is reality alone is represented, so also what is reality-and-sacrament is represented and contained. Therefore, the whole Christ, who is reality-and-sacrament, is contained under both species. Quaestiuncula 3 Quaestiuncula 3