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 Ulterius. Videtur quod non sit ibi corpus Christi secundum propriam qualitatem. Nihil enim quod manet convertitur in alterum. Sed quantitas panis manet. Ergo non convertitur in quantitatem corporis Christi. Sed corpus Christi non est in altari, ut dictum est, nisi ut est terminus conversionis. Ergo non est ibi secundum propriam quantitatem. Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the body of Christ is not there according to its proper quantity. For nothing that remains has been converted into something else. But the quantity of bread remains. Therefore, it is not converted into the quantity of the body of Christ. But the body of Christ is only on the altar, as was said, as the terminus of conversion. Therefore it is not there according to its own quantity. Praeterea, secundum Philosophum in 4 Physica, corpus naturale non potest esse simul cum dimensionibus separatis: quia tunc duae dimensiones essent simul. Sed dimensiones panis manent. Ergo sub eisdem dimensionibus non potest esse corpus Christi cum dimensionibus propriae quantitatis. Obj. 2: Furthermore, according to the Philosopher in the Physics 4, a natural body cannot exist at the same time with separated dimensions, for then two dimensions would exist at the same time. But the dimensions of the bread remain. Therefore, the body of Christ cannot exist under the same dimensions with the dimensions of its own proper quantity. Praeterea, accidens plus dependet a substantia quam substantia ab accidente. Sed ex parte ejus quod est sacramentum tantum, invenitur accidens sine substantia. Ergo multo magis potest poni ex parte ejus quod est res et sacramentum, quod sit substantia sine accidente; et ita corpus Christi sine quantitate. Obj. 3: Furthermore, an accident depends more on a substance than a substance on an accident. But on the side of what is sacrament alone, an accident is found without substance. All the more therefore can can one posit on the side of what is reality-and-sacrament that it be a substance without an accident; and so the body of Christ is without quantity. Praeterea, sicut dictum est supra, ubicumque est corpus aliquod secundum proprias dimensiones, est ibi ut in loco. Sed corpus Christi non est sub sacramento ut in loco, quia jam esset extra terminos loci proprii. Ergo impossibile est quod sit ibi secundum dimensiones proprias. Obj. 4: Furthermore, just as was said above, wherever there is a body according to its own dimensions, it is there as in a place. But the body of Christ is not under the sacrament as in a place, since it would then be outside the boundaries of its own proper place. Therefore, it is impossible that it be there under its proper dimensions. Sed contra, subjectum nunquam separatur a propria passione. Sed substantiae corporalis propria passio est quantitas dimensiva. Ergo cum substantia corporis Christi sit sub sacramento et quantitas ejus dimensiva erit. On the contrary, a subject is never separated from its proper passion. But the proper passion of a bodily substance is dimensive quantity. Therefore, since the substance of the body of Christ is under the sacrament, so will his dimensive quantity also be. Praeterea, de ratione corporis vivi est organizatio, ut patet in 2 de Anima. Sed organizatio requirit diversum situm partium; situs autem praesupponit quantitatem. Ergo oportet, cum corpus Christi sit vivum sub sacramento, quod sit ibi sub propria quantitate. Furthermore, organization is of the nature of a living body, as is clear from On the Soul 2. But organization requires a diverse positioning of parts, while a positioning presupposes quantity. Therefore, it is necessary, since the living body of Christ is under the sacrament, that it have its proper quantity there. Quaestiuncula 4 Quaestiuncula 4 Ulterius. Videtur quod non sit ibi secundum totam quantitatem suam. Constat enim quod quantitas corporis Christi non invenitur extra corpus Christi, ut corpus Christi sit sine propria quantitate. Sed constat quod corpus Christi non est ultra dimensiones panis, neque aliqua pars dimensionis est sub qua non sit corpus Christi. Ergo si est ibi quantitas tota corporis Christi, neque excedit dimensiones panis, neque exceditur. Sed communis animi conceptio est quod duae quantitates, quarum una alteri superposita neque excedit neque exceditur, sunt aequales, ut patet in principio Euclidis. Ergo quantitas corporis Christi tota aequatur quantitati panis: quod est falsum; quia contingit esse etiam majorem et minorem. Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it is not there according to its whole quantity. For it is obvious that the quantity of the body of Christ is not found outside the body of Christ, so that the body is without its proper quantity. But it is evident that the body of Christ is not beyond the dimensions of the bread, nor is there any part of its dimension under which the body of Christ is not. Therefore, if the entire quantity of the body of Christ is there, it neither exceeds the dimensions of the bread, nor is it exceeded. But it is a common conception of the soul that two quantities, of which one superimposed on the other neither exceeds nor is exceeded, are equal, as is clear in the beginning of Euclid. Therefore the whole quantity of the body of Christ is equal to the quantity of bread, which is false, because it happens to be also greater and less. Praeterea, nullum corpus secundum totam suam quantitatem potest contineri indifferenter a magna et parva quantitate extrinseca. Sed corpus Christi continetur indifferenter sub parva parte vel magna panis consecrati. Ergo non est ibi secundum totam suam quantitatem. Obj. 2: Furthermore, no body according to its whole quantity can be contained equally by a great and small external quantity. But the body of Christ is contained equally in small and large pieces of consecrated bread. Therefore, it is not there according to its own entire quantity. Praeterea, quandocumque sub aliqua quantitate extrinseca continetur corpus aliquod habens partes distinctas secundum suam intrinsecam quantitatem totam; contingit assignare sub qua parte illius quantitatis singulae partes contineantur. Sed corpus Christi, cum sit organicum, habet partes distinctas. Si ergo secundum totam suam quantitatem continetur sub dimensionibus, erit assignare ubi sit caput ejus et manus et pes; quod est impossibile: quia parvitas quantitatis non sufficit ad talem distantiam; et praecipue cum partes habeant distantias determinatas. Obj. 3: Furthermore, whenever a body having distinct parts according to its own entire intrinsic quantity is contained under a certain extrinsic quantity, it is possible to assign under which part of that quantity individual parts are contained. But the body of Christ, since it is organic, has distinct parts. If, therefore, it is contained under these dimensions according to its whole quantity, one will be able to assign where its head and hands and feet are; which is impossible. For the smallness of quantity is not enough for such a distance, and particularly for parts having determinate distances, because of the many intermediate things having determinate quantities. Sed contra, totalitas corporis attenditur secundum totalitatem quantitatis ejus; quia secundum quantitatem dividitur et partes habet. Sed secundum Augustinum, Christus totus manducatur in sacramento. Ergo est ibi secundum totam suam quantitatem. On the contrary, the totality of a body depends on the totality of its quantity, for according to quantity it is divided and has parts. But according to Augustine, the whole Christ is eaten in this sacrament. Therefore, he is there according to his whole quantity. Praeterea, impossibile est aliquid esse alicubi secundum partem quantitatis et non secundum totam, nisi divisa quantitate ipsius. Sed quantitas corporis Christi non dividitur actu, quia corpus illud est impassibile. Ergo cum in sacramento contineatur aliquid quantitatis corporis ejus, impossibile est dicere quod non contineatur in toto. Furthermore, it is impossible for something to be somewhere according to a part of its quantity and not according to the whole, unless its quantity has been divided. But the quantity of the body of Christ is not actually divided, because that body is impassible. Therefore, since a certain quantity of his body is contained in the sacrament, it is impossible to say that it is not contained in its entirety. Quaestiuncula 1 Response to Quaestiuncula 1