Articulus 8 Article 8 Utrum haec sit falsa, ‘ex pane fit corpus Christi’ Whether this proposition is false: “the Body of Christ is made out of bread? Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod haec sit falsa, ex pane fit corpus Christi. Omne enim id ex quo fit aliquid, est id quod fit illud, sed non convertitur, dicimus enim quod ex albo fit nigrum, et quod album fit nigrum; et licet dicamus quod homo fiat niger, non tamen dicimus quod ex homine fiat nigrum ut patet in I Physic. Si ergo verum est quod ex pane fiat corpus Christi, verum erit dicere quod panis fiat corpus Christi. Quod videtur esse falsum, quia panis non est subiectum factionis, sed magis est terminus. Ergo non vere dicitur quod ex pane fiat corpus Christi. Objection 1: It seems that this proposition is false: The body of Christ is made out of bread. For everything out of which another is made, is that which is made the other; but not conversely: for we say that a black thing is made out of a white thing, and that a white thing is made black: and although we may say that a man becomes black still we do not say that a black thing is made out of a man, as is shown in Phys. i. If it be true, then, that Christ’s body is made out of bread, it will be true to say that bread is made the body of Christ. But this seems to be false, because the bread is not the subject of the making, but rather its term. Therefore, it is not said truly that Christ’s body is made out of bread. Praeterea, fieri terminatur ad esse, vel ad factum esse. Sed haec nunquam est vera, panis est corpus Christi, vel, panis est factus corpus Christi, vel etiam, panis erit corpus Christi. Ergo videtur quod nec haec sit vera, ex pane fit corpus Christi. Obj. 2: Further, the term of becoming is something that is, or something that is made. But this proposition is never true: The bread is the body of Christ; or The bread is made the body of Christ; or again, The bread will be the body of Christ. Therefore it seems that not even this is true: The body of Christ is made out of bread. Praeterea, omne id ex quo fit aliquid, convertitur in id quod fit ex eo. Sed haec videtur esse falsa, panis convertitur in corpus Christi, quia haec conversio videtur esse miraculosior quam creatio; in qua tamen non dicitur quod non ens convertatur in ens. Ergo videtur quod etiam haec sit falsa, ex pane fit corpus Christi. Obj. 3: Further, everything out of which another is made is converted into that which is made from it. But this proposition seems to be false: The bread is converted into the body of Christ, because such conversion seems to be more miraculous than the creation of the world, in which it is not said that non-being is converted into being. Therefore it seems that this proposition likewise is false: The body of Christ is made out of bread. Praeterea, illud ex quo fit aliquid, potest esse illud. Sed haec est falsa, panis potest esse corpus Christi. Ergo etiam haec est falsa, ex pane fit corpus Christi. Obj. 4: Further, that out of which something is made, can be that thing. But this proposition is false: Bread can be the body of Christ. Therefore this is likewise false: The body of Christ is made out of bread. Sed contra est quod Ambrosius dicit, in libro de sacramentis, ubi accedit consecratio, de pane fit corpus Christi. On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): When the consecration takes place, the body of Christ is made out of the bread. Respondeo dicendum quod haec conversio panis in corpus Christi, quantum ad aliquid convenit cum creatione et cum transmutatione naturali, et quantum ad aliquid differt ab utroque. Est enim commune his tribus ordo terminorum, scilicet ut post hoc sit hoc, in creatione enim est esse post non esse, in hoc sacramento corpus Christi post substantiam panis, in transmutatione naturali album post nigrum vel ignis post aerem; et quod praedicti termini non sint simul. I answer that, This conversion of bread into the body of Christ has something in common with creation, and with natural transmutation, and in some respect differs from both. For the order of the terms is common to these three; that is, that after one thing there is another (for, in creation there is being after non-being; in this sacrament, Christ’s body after the substance of bread; in natural transmutation white after black, or fire after air); and that the aforesaid terms are not coexistent. Convenit autem conversio de qua nunc loquimur cum creatione, quia in neutra earum est aliquod commune subiectum utrique extremorum. Cuius contrarium apparet in omni transmutatione naturali. Now the conversion, of which we are speaking, has this in common with creation, that in neither of them is there any common subject belonging to either of the extremes; the contrary of which appears in every natural transmutation. Convenit vero haec conversio cum transmutatione naturali in duobus, licet non similiter. Primo quidem, quia in utraque unum extremorum transit in aliud, sicut panis in corpus Christi, et aer in ignem, non autem non ens convertitur in ens. Aliter tamen hoc accidit utrobique. Nam in hoc sacramento tota substantia panis transit in totum corpus Christi, sed in transmutatione naturali materia unius suscipit formam alterius, priori forma deposita. Secundo conveniunt in hoc, quod utrobique remanet aliquid idem, quod non accidit in creatione. Differenter tamen, nam in transmutatione naturali remanet eadem materia vel subiectum; in hoc autem sacramento remanent eadem accidentia. Again, this conversion has something in common with natural transmutation in two respects, although not in the same fashion. First of all because in both, one of the extremes passes into the other, as bread into Christ’s body, and air into fire; whereas non-being is not converted into being. But this comes to pass differently on the one side and on the other; for in this sacrament the whole substance of the bread passes into the whole body of Christ; whereas in natural transmutation the matter of the one receives the form of the other, the previous form being laid aside. Second, they have this in common, that on both sides something remains the same; whereas this does not happen in creation: yet differently; for the same matter or subject remains in natural transmutation; whereas in this sacrament the same accidents remain. Et ex his accipi potest qualiter differenter in talibus loqui debeamus. Quia enim in nullo praedictorum trium extrema sunt simul ideo in nullo eorum potest unum extremum de alio praedicari per verbum substantivum praesentis temporis, non enim dicimus, non ens est ens, vel, panis est corpus Christi, vel, aer est ignis aut album nigrum. Propter ordinem vero extremorum, possumus uti in omnibus hac praepositione ex, quae ordinem designat. Possumus enim vere et proprie dicere quod ex non ente fit ens, et ex pane corpus Christi, et ex aere ignis vel ex albo nigrum. Quia vero in creatione unum extremorum non transit in alterum, non possumus in creatione uti verbo conversionis, ut dicamus quod non ens convertitur in ens. Quo tamen verbo uti possumus in hoc sacramento, sicut et in transmutatione naturali. Sed quia in hoc sacramento tota substantia in totam mutatur, propter hoc haec conversio proprie transubstantiatio vocatur. From these observations we can gather the various ways of speaking in such matters. For, because in no one of the aforesaid three things are the extremes coexistent, therefore in none of them can one extreme be predicated of the other by the substantive verb of the present tense: for we do not say, Non-being is being or, Bread is the body of Christ, or, Air is fire, or, White is black. Yet because of the relationship of the extremes in all of them we can use the preposition ex (out of), which denotes order; for we can truly and properly say that being is made out of non-being, and out of bread, the body of Christ, and out of air, fire, and out of white, black. But because in creation one of the extremes does not pass into the other, we cannot use the word conversion in creation, so as to say that non-being is converted into being: we can, however, use the word in this sacrament, just as in natural transmutation. But since in this sacrament the whole substance is converted into the whole substance, on that account this conversion is properly termed transubstantiation. Rursus, quia huius conversionis non est accipere aliquod subiectum, ea quae verificantur in conversione naturali ratione subiecti, non sunt concedenda in hac conversione. Et primo quidem, manifestum est quod potentia ad oppositum consequitur subiectum, ratione cuius dicimus quod album potest esse nigrum, vel aer potest esse ignis. Licet haec non sit ita propria sicut prima, nam subiectum albi, in quo est potentia ad nigredinem, est tota substantia albi, non enim albedo est pars eius; subiectum autem formae aeris est pars eius; unde, cum dicitur, aer potest esse ignis, verificatur ratione partis per synecdochen. Sed in hac conversione et similiter in creatione, quia nullum est subiectum, non dicitur quod unum extremum possit esse aliud, sicut quod non ens possit esse ens, vel quod panis possit esse corpus Christi. Et eadem ratione non potest proprie dici quod de non ente fiat ens, vel quod de pane fiat corpus Christi, quia haec praepositio de designat causam consubstantialem; quae quidem consubstantialitas extremorum in transmutationibus naturalibus attenditur penes convenientiam in subiecto. Et simili ratione non conceditur quod panis erit corpus Christi, vel quod fiat corpus Christi, sicut neque conceditur in creatione quod non ens erit ens, vel quod non ens fiat ens, quia hic modus loquendi verificatur in transmutationibus naturalibus ratione subiecti, puta cum dicimus quod album fit nigrum, vel album erit nigrum. Again, since there is no subject of this conversion, the things which are true in natural conversion by reason of the subject, are not to be granted in this conversion. And in the first place indeed it is evident that potentiality to the opposite follows a subject, by reason whereof we say that a white thing can be black, or that air can be fire; although the latter is not so proper as the former: for the subject of whiteness, in which there is potentiality to blackness, is the whole substance of the white thing; since whiteness is not a part thereof; whereas the subject of the form of air is part thereof: hence when it is said, Air can be fire, it is verified by synecdoche by reason of the part. But in this conversion, and similarly in creation, because there is no subject, it is not said that one extreme can be the other, as that non-being can be being, or that bread can be the body of Christ: and for the same reason it cannot be properly said that being is made of (de) non-being, or that the body of Christ is made of bread, because this preposition of (de) denotes a consubstantial cause, which consubstantiality of the extremes in natural transmutations is considered according to something common in the subject. And for the same reason it is not granted that bread will be the body of Christ, or that it may become the body of Christ, just as it is not granted in creation that non-being will be being, or that non-being may become being, because this manner of speaking is verified in natural transmutations by reason of the subject: for instance, when we say that a white thing becomes black, or a white thing will be black. Quia tamen in hoc sacramento, facta conversione, aliquid idem manet, scilicet accidentia panis, ut supra dictum est, secundum quandam similitudinem aliquae harum locutionum possunt concedi, scilicet quod panis sit corpus Christi, vel, panis erit corpus Christi, vel, de pane fit corpus Christi; ut nomine panis non intelligatur substantia panis, sed in universali hoc quod sub speciebus panis continetur, sub quibus prius continetur substantia panis, et postea corpus Christi. Nevertheless, since in this sacrament, after the change, something remains the same, namely, the accidents of the bread, as stated above (A. 5), some of these expressions may be admitted by way of similitude, namely, that bread is the body of Christ, or, bread will be the body of Christ, or the body of Christ is made of bread; provided that by the word bread is not understood the substance of bread, but in general that which is contained under the species of bread, under which species there is first contained the substance of bread, and afterwards the body of Christ. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illud ex quo aliquid fit, quandoque quidem importat simul subiectum cum uno extremorum transmutationis, sicut cum dicitur, ex albo fit nigrum. Quandoque vero importat solum oppositum, vel extremum, sicut cum dicitur, ex mane fit dies. Et sic non conceditur quod hoc fiat illud, idest quod mane fiat dies. Et ita etiam in proposito, licet proprie dicatur quod ex pane fiat corpus Christi, non tamen proprie dicitur quod panis fiat corpus Christi, nisi secundum quandam similitudinem, ut dictum est. Reply Obj. 1: That out of which something else is made, sometimes implies together with the subject, one of the extremes of the transmutation, as when it is said a black thing is made out of a white one; but sometimes it implies only the opposite or the extreme, as when it is said—out of morning comes the day. And so it is not granted that the latter becomes the former, that is, that morning becomes the day. So likewise in the matter in hand, although it may be said properly that the body of Christ is made out of bread, yet it is not said properly that bread becomes the body of Christ, except by similitude, as was said above. Ad secundum dicendum quod illud ex quo fit aliquid, quandoque erit illud, propter subiectum quod importatur. Et ideo, cum huius conversionis non sit aliquod subiectum, non est similis ratio. Reply Obj. 2: That out of which another is made, will sometimes be that other because of the subject which is implied. And therefore, since there is no subject of this change, the comparison does not hold. Ad tertium dicendum quod in hac conversione sunt plura difficilia quam in creatione, in qua hoc solum difficile est, quod aliquid fit ex nihilo, quod tamen pertinet ad proprium modum productionis primae causae, quae nihil aliud praesupponit. Sed in hac conversione non solum est difficile quod hoc totum convertitur in illud totum, ita quod nihil prioris remaneat, quod non pertinet ad communem modum productionis alicuius causae, sed etiam habet hoc difficile, quod accidentia remanent corrupta substantia, et multa alia, de quibus in sequentibus agetur. Tamen verbum conversionis recipitur in hoc sacramento, non autem in creatione, sicut dictum est. Reply Obj. 3: In this change there are many more difficulties than in creation, in which there is but this one difficulty, that something is made out of nothing; yet this belongs to the proper mode of production of the first cause, which presupposes nothing else. But in this conversion not only is it difficult for this whole to be changed into that whole, so that nothing of the former may remain (which does not belong to the common mode of production of a cause), but furthermore it has this difficulty that the accidents remain while the substance is destroyed, and many other difficulties of which we shall treat hereafter (Q. 77). Nevertheless the word conversion is admitted in this sacrament, but not in creation, as stated above. Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, potentia pertinet ad subiectum, quod non est accipere in hac conversione. Et ideo non conceditur quod panis possit esse corpus Christi, non enim haec conversio fit per potentiam passivam creaturae, sed per solam potentiam activam creatoris. Reply Obj. 4: As was observed above, potentiality belongs to the subject, whereas there is no subject in this conversion. And therefore it is not granted that bread can be the body of Christ: for this conversion does not come about by the passive potentiality of the creature, but solely by the active power of the Creator. Quaestio 76 Question 76 De modo quo Christus existit in hoc sacramento The Way in Which Christ is in This Sacrament Deinde considerandum est de modo quo Christus existit in hoc sacramento. Et circa hoc quaeruntur octo. We have now to consider the manner in which Christ exists in this sacrament; and under this head there are eight points of inquiry: Primo, utrum totus Christus sit sub hoc sacramento. (1) Whether the whole Christ is under this sacrament? Secundo, utrum totus Christus sit sub utraque specie sacramenti. (2) Whether the entire Christ is under each species of the sacrament? Tertio, utrum totus Christus sit sub qualibet parte specierum. (3) Whether the entire Christ is under every part of the species? Quarto, utrum dimensiones corporis Christi totae sint in hoc sacramento. (4) Whether all the dimensions of Christ’s body are in this sacrament? Quinto, utrum corpus Christi sit in hoc sacramento localiter. (5) Whether the body of Christ is in this sacrament locally? Sexto, utrum corpus Christi moveatur ad motum hostiae vel calicis post consecrationem. (6) Whether after the consecration, the body of Christ is moved when the host or chalice is moved? Septimo, utrum corpus Christi sub hoc sacramento possit ab aliquo oculo videri. (7) Whether Christ’s body, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by the eye? Octavo, utrum verum corpus Christi remaneat in hoc sacramento quando miraculose apparet sub specie pueri vel carnis. (8) Whether the true body of Christ remains in this sacrament when He is seen under the appearance of a child or of flesh? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum totus Christus contineatur sub hoc sacramento Whether the whole Christ is contained under this sacrament? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non totus Christus contineatur sub hoc sacramento. Christus enim incipit esse in hoc sacramento per conversionem panis et vini. Sed manifestum est quod panis et vinum non possunt converti neque in divinitatem Christi, neque in eius animam. Cum ergo Christus existat ex tribus substantiis, scilicet divinitate, anima et corpore, ut supra habitum; videtur quod Christus totus non sit in hoc sacramento. 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 (Q. 2, A. 5; Q. 5, AA. 1, 3), it seems that the entire Christ is not under this sacrament. Praeterea, Christus est in hoc sacramento secundum quod competit refectioni fidelium, quae in cibo et potu consistit, sicut supra dictum est. Sed dominus dicit, Ioan. VI, caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus. Ergo solum caro et sanguis Christi continetur in hoc sacramento. Sunt autem multae aliae partes corporis Christi, puta nervi et ossa et alia huiusmodi. Non ergo totus Christus continetur sub hoc sacramento. Obj. 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 (Q. 74, A. 1). But our Lord said (John 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. Praeterea, corpus maioris quantitatis non potest totum contineri sub minoris quantitatis mensura. Sed mensura panis et vini consecrati est multo minor quam propria mensura corporis Christi. Non potest ergo esse quod totus Christus sit sub hoc sacramento. Obj. 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. Sed contra est quod Ambrosius dicit, in libro de Offic., in illo sacramento Christus est. On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Officiis): Christ is in this sacrament. Respondeo dicendum quod omnino necesse est confiteri secundum fidem Catholicam quod totus Christus sit in hoc sacramento. Sciendum tamen quod aliquid Christi est in hoc sacramento dupliciter, uno modo, quasi ex vi sacramenti; alio modo, ex naturali concomitantia. Ex vi quidem sacramenti, est sub speciebus huius sacramenti id in quod directe convertitur substantia panis et vini praeexistens, prout significatur per verba formae, quae sunt effectiva in hoc sacramento sicut et in ceteris, puta cum dicitur, hoc est corpus meum, hic est sanguis meus. Ex naturali autem concomitantia est in hoc sacramento illud quod realiter est coniunctum ei in quod praedicta conversio terminatur. Si enim aliqua duo sunt realiter coniuncta, ubicumque est unum realiter, oportet et aliud esse, sola enim operatione animae discernuntur quae realiter sunt coniuncta. 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; second, 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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quia conversio panis et vini non terminatur ad divinitatem vel animam Christi, consequens est quod divinitas vel anima Christi non sit in hoc sacramento ex vi sacramenti, sed ex reali concomitantia. Quia enim divinitas corpus assumptum nunquam deposuit, ubicumque est corpus Christi, necesse est et eius divinitatem esse. Et ideo in hoc sacramento necesse est esse divinitatem Christi concomitantem eius corpus. Unde in symbolo Ephesino legitur, participes efficimur corporis et sanguinis Christi, non ut communem carnem percipientes, nec viri sanctificati et verbo coniuncti secundum dignitatis unitatem, sed vere vivificatricem, et ipsius verbi propriam factam. Reply Obj. 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.