Authors/Thomas Aquinas/Summa Theologiae/Part III/Q76

From The Logic Museum
Jump to navigationJump to search
←Q75 Q77→



Latin English
IIIª q. 76 pr. Deinde considerandum est de modo quo Christus existit in hoc sacramento. Et circa hoc quaeruntur octo. Primo, utrum totus Christus sit sub hoc sacramento. Secundo, utrum totus Christus sit sub utraque specie sacramenti. Tertio, utrum totus Christus sit sub qualibet parte specierum. Quarto, utrum dimensiones corporis Christi totae sint in hoc sacramento. Quinto, utrum corpus Christi sit in hoc sacramento localiter. Sexto, utrum corpus Christi moveatur ad motum hostiae vel calicis post consecrationem. Septimo, utrum corpus Christi sub hoc sacramento possit ab aliquo oculo videri. Octavo, utrum verum corpus Christi remaneat in hoc sacramento quando miraculose apparet sub specie pueri vel carnis. Question 76. The way in which Christ is in this sacrament 1. Is the whole Christ under this sacrament? 2. Is the entire Christ under each species of the sacrament? 3. Is the entire Christ under every part of the species? 4. Are all the dimensions of Christ's body in this sacrament? 5. Is the body of Christ in this sacrament locally? 6. After the consecration, is the body of Christ moved when the host or chalice is moved? 7. As it is in this sacrament, can Christ's body be seen by the eye? 8. Does the true body of Christ remain in this sacrament when He is seen under the appearance of a child or of flesh?
IIIª q. 76 a. 1 arg. 1 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 (2, 5; 5, 1,3), it seems that the entire Christ is not under this sacrament.
IIIª q. 76 a. 1 arg. 2 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. 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 (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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 1 arg. 3 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. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 1 s. c. 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."
IIIª q. 76 a. 1 co. 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; 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 1 ad 1 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. Anima vero realiter separata fuit a corpore, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo, si in illo triduo mortis fuisset hoc sacramentum celebratum, non fuisset ibi anima, nec ex vi sacramenti nec ex reali concomitantia. Sed quia Christus resurgens ex mortuis iam non moritur, ut dicitur Rom. VI, anima eius semper est realiter corpori unita. Et ideo in hoc sacramento corpus quidem Christi est ex vi sacramenti, anima autem ex reali concomitantia. 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" (Romans 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ex vi sacramenti sub hoc sacramento continetur, quantum ad species panis, non solum caro, sed totum corpus Christi, idest ossa et nervi et alia huiusmodi. Et hoc apparet ex forma huius sacramenti, in qua non dicitur, haec est caro mea, sed, hoc est corpus meum. Et ideo, cum dominus dixit, Ioan. VI, caro mea vere est cibus, caro ponitur ibi pro toto corpore, quia, secundum consuetudinem humanam, videtur esse magis manducationi accommodata, prout scilicet homines carnibus animalium vescuntur communiter, non ossibus vel aliis huiusmodi. 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 (John 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, facta conversione panis in corpus Christi vel vini in sanguinem, accidentia utriusque remanent. Ex quo patet quod dimensiones panis vel vini non convertuntur in dimensiones corporis Christi, sed substantia in substantiam. Et sic substantia corporis Christi vel sanguinis est in hoc sacramento ex vi sacramenti, non autem dimensiones corporis vel sanguinis Christi. Unde patet quod corpus Christi est in hoc sacramento per modum substantiae, et non per modum quantitatis. Propria autem totalitas substantiae continetur indifferenter in parva vel magna quantitate, sicut tota natura aeris in magno vel parvo aere, et tota natura hominis in magno vel parvo homine. Unde et tota substantia corporis Christi et sanguinis continetur in hoc sacramento post consecrationem, sicut ante consecrationem continebatur ibi substantia panis et vini. Reply to Objection 3. As has been already stated (75, 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sub utraque specie huius sacramenti totus Christus contineatur. Hoc enim sacramentum ad salutem fidelium ordinatur, non virtute specierum, sed virtute eius quod sub speciebus continetur, quia species erant etiam ante consecrationem, ex qua est virtus huius sacramenti. Si ergo nihil continetur sub una specie quod non contineatur sub alia, et totus Christus continetur sub utraque, videtur quod altera illarum superfluat in hoc sacramento. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, dictum est quod sub nomine carnis omnes aliae partes corporis continentur, sicut ossa, nervi et alia huiusmodi. Sed sanguis est una partium humani corporis, sicut patet per Aristotelem, in libro animalium. Si ergo sanguis Christi continetur sub specie panis, sicut continentur ibi aliae partes corporis, non deberet seorsum sanguis consecrari, sicut neque seorsum consecratur alia pars corporis. Objection 2. Further, it was stated above (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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, quod iam factum est, iterum fieri non potest. Sed corpus Christi iam incoepit esse in hoc sacramento per consecrationem panis. Ergo non potest esse quod denuo incipiat esse per consecrationem vini. Et ita sub specie vini non continebitur corpus Christi; et per consequens nec totus Christus. Non ergo sub utraque specie totus Christus continetur. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod, I Cor. XI, super illud, calicem, dicit Glossa quod sub utraque specie, scilicet panis et vini, idem sumitur. Et ita videtur quod sub utraque specie totus Christus sit. On the contrary, The gloss on 1 Corinthians 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum certissime ex supra dictis tenendum esse quod sub utraque specie sacramenti totus est Christus, aliter tamen et aliter. Nam sub speciebus panis est quidem corpus Christi ex vi sacramenti, sanguis autem ex reali concomitantia, sicut supra dictum est de anima et divinitate Christi. Sub speciebus vero vini est quidem sanguis Christi ex vi sacramenti, corpus autem Christi ex reali concomitantia, sicut anima et divinitas, eo quod nunc sanguis Christi non est ab eius corpore separatus, sicut fuit tempore passionis et mortis. Unde, si tunc fuisset hoc sacramentum celebratum, sub speciebus panis fuisset corpus Christi sine sanguine, et sub specie vini sanguis sine corpore, sicut erat in rei veritate. 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 (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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quamvis totus Christus sit sub utraque specie, non tamen frustra. Nam primo quidem, hoc valet ad repraesentandam passionem Christi, in qua seorsum sanguis fuit a corpore. Unde et in forma consecrationis sanguinis fit mentio de eius effusione. Secundo, hoc est conveniens usui huius sacramenti, ut seorsum exhibeatur fidelibus corpus Christi in cibum, et sanguis in potum. Tertio, quantum ad effectum, secundum quod supra dictum est quod corpus exhibetur pro salute corporis, sanguis pro salute animae. 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."
IIIª q. 76 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod in passione Christi, cuius hoc sacramentum est memoriale, non fuerunt aliae partes corporis ab invicem separatae, sicut sanguis, sed corpus indissolutum permansit, secundum quod legitur Exod. XII, os non comminuetis ex eo. Et ideo in hoc sacramento seorsum consecratur sanguis a corpore, non autem alia pars ab alia. 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 Exodus 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, corpus Christi non est sub specie vini ex vi sacramenti, sed ex reali concomitantia. Et ideo per consecrationem vini non fit ibi corpus Christi per se, sed concomitanter. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit totus Christus sub qualibet parte specierum panis vel vini. Species enim illae dividi possunt in infinitum. Si ergo Christus totus est sub qualibet parte specierum praedictarum, sequeretur quod infinities esset in hoc sacramento. Quod est inconveniens, nam infinitum non solum repugnat naturae, sed etiam gratiae. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, corpus Christi, cum sit organicum, habet partes determinate distantes, est enim de ratione organici corporis determinata distantia singularum partium ad invicem, sicut oculi ab oculo, et oculi ab aure. Sed hoc non posset esse si sub qualibet parte specierum esset totus Christus, oporteret enim quod sub qualibet parte esset quaelibet pars; et ita, ubi esset una pars, esset et alia. Non ergo potest esse quod totus Christus sit sub qualibet parte hostiae vel vini contenti in calice. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, corpus Christi semper veram retinet corporis naturam, nec unquam mutatur in spiritum. Sed de ratione corporis est ut sit quantitas positionem habens, ut patet in praedicamentis. Sed ad rationem huius quantitatis pertinet quod diversae partes in diversis partibus loci existant. Non ergo potest esse, ut videtur, quod totus Christus sit sub qualibet parte specierum. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in quodam sermone, singuli accipiunt Christum dominum, et in singulis portionibus totus est, nec per singulas minuitur, sed integrum se praebet in singulis. 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."
IIIª q. 76 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex supra dictis patet, quia in hoc sacramento substantia corporis Christi est ex vi sacramenti, quantitas autem dimensiva ex vi realis concomitantiae, corpus Christi est in hoc sacramento per modum substantiae, idest, per modum quo substantia est sub dimensionibus, non autem per modum dimensionum, idest, non per illum modum quo quantitas dimensiva alicuius corporis est sub quantitate dimensiva loci. Manifestum est autem quod natura substantiae tota est sub qualibet parte dimensionum sub quibus continetur, sicut sub qualibet parte aeris est tota natura aeris, et sub qualibet parte panis est tota natura panis. Et hoc indifferenter sive dimensiones sint actu divisae, sicut cum aer dividitur vel panis secatur, vel etiam sint actu indivisae, divisibiles vero potentia. Et ideo manifestum est quod Christus totus est sub qualibet parte specierum panis, etiam hostia integra manente, et non solum cum frangitur, sicut quidam dicunt, ponentes exemplum de imagine quae apparet in speculo, quae una apparet in speculo integro, infracto autem speculo apparent singulae in singulis partibus. Quod quidem non est omnino simile. Quia multiplicatio huiusmodi imaginum accidit in speculo fracto propter diversas reflexiones ad diversas partes speculi, hic autem non est nisi una consecratio propter quam corpus Christi est in sacramento. I answer that, As was observed above (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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod numerus sequitur divisionem. Et ideo, quandiu quantitas manet indivisa actu, neque substantia alicuius rei est pluries sub dimensionibus propriis, neque corpus Christi sub dimensionibus panis. Et per consequens neque infinities, sed toties in quot partes dividitur. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod illa determinata distantia partium in corpore organico fundatur super quantitatem dimensivam ipsius, ipsa autem natura substantiae praecedit etiam quantitatem dimensivam. Et quia conversio substantiae panis directe terminatur ad substantiam corporis Christi, secundum cuius modum proprie et directe est in hoc sacramento corpus Christi, talis distantia partium est quidem in ipso corpore Christi vero, sed non secundum hanc distantiam comparatur ad hoc sacramentum, sed secundum modum suae substantiae, ut dictum est. 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 (1, ad 3).
IIIª q. 76 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de natura corporis quam habet secundum quantitatem dimensivam. Dictum est autem quod corpus Christi non comparatur ad hoc sacramentum ratione quantitatis dimensivae, sed ratione substantiae, ut dictum est. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non tota quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi sit in hoc sacramento. Dictum est enim quod totum corpus Christi continetur sub qualibet parte hostiae consecratae. Sed nulla quantitas dimensiva tota continetur in aliquo toto et in qualibet parte eius. Est ergo impossibile quod tota quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi contineatur in hoc sacramento. Objection 1. It seems that the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body is not in this sacrament. For it was said (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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, impossibile est duas quantitates dimensivas esse simul, etiam si una sit separata et alia in corpore naturali, ut patet per philosophum, in III Metaphys. Sed in hoc sacramento remanet quantitas dimensiva panis, ut sensu apparet. Non ergo est ibi quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, si duae quantitates dimensivae inaequales iuxta se ponantur, maior extenditur ultra minorem. Sed quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi est multo maior quam quantitas dimensiva hostiae eius consecratae, secundum omnem dimensionem. Si ergo in hoc sacramento sit quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi cum quantitate dimensiva hostiae, quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi extendetur ultra quantitatem hostiae. Quae tamen non est sine substantia corporis Christi. Ergo substantia corporis Christi erit in hoc sacramento etiam praeter species panis. Quod est inconveniens, cum substantia corporis Christi non sit in hoc sacramento nisi per consecrationem panis, ut dictum est. Impossibile est ergo quod tota quantitas corporis Christi sit in hoc sacramento. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod quantitas dimensiva corporis alicuius non separatur secundum esse a substantia eius. Sed in hoc sacramento est tota substantia corporis Christi, ut supra habitum est. Ergo tota quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi est in hoc sacramento. 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 (1,3). Therefore the entire dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this sacrament.
IIIª q. 76 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, dupliciter aliquid Christi est in hoc sacramento, uno modo, ex vi sacramenti; alio modo, ex naturali concomitantia. Ex vi quidem sacramenti quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi non est in hoc sacramento. Ex vi enim sacramenti est in hoc sacramento illud in quod directe conversio terminatur. Conversio autem quae fit in hoc sacramento, terminatur directe ad substantiam corporis Christi, non autem ad dimensiones eius. Quod patet ex hoc quod quantitas dimensiva remanet facta consecratione, sola substantia panis transeunte. Quia tamen substantia corporis Christi realiter non denudatur a sua quantitate dimensiva et ab aliis accidentibus, inde est quod, ex vi realis concomitantiae, est in hoc sacramento tota quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi, et omnia alia accidentia eius. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod modus existendi cuiuslibet rei determinatur secundum illud quod est ei per se, non autem secundum illud quod est ei per accidens, sicut corpus est in visu secundum quod est album, non autem secundum quod est dulce, licet idem corpus sit album et dulce. Unde et dulcedo est in visu secundum modum albedinis, et non secundum modum dulcedinis. Quia igitur ex vi sacramenti huius est in altari substantia corporis Christi, quantitas autem dimensiva eius est ibi concomitanter et quasi per accidens, ideo quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi est in hoc sacramento, non secundum proprium modum, ut scilicet sit totum in toto et singulae partes in singulis partibus; sed per modum substantiae, cuius natura est tota in toto et tota in qualibet parte. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod duae quantitates dimensivae non possunt naturaliter simul esse in eodem ita quod utraque sit secundum proprium modum quantitatis dimensivae. In hoc autem sacramento quantitas dimensiva panis est secundum proprium modum, scilicet secundum commensurationem quandam, non autem quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi, sed est ibi per modum substantiae, ut dictum est. 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).
IIIª q. 76 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi non est in hoc sacramento secundum modum commensurationis, qui est proprius quantitati, ad quem pertinet quod maior quantitas extendatur ultra minorem, sed est ibi per modum iam dictum. 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).
IIIª q. 76 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod corpus Christi sit in hoc sacramento sicut in loco. Esse enim in aliquo definitive vel circumscriptive est pars eius quod est esse in loco. Sed corpus Christi videtur esse definitive in hoc sacramento, quia ita est ubi sunt species panis vel vini, quod non est in alio loco altaris. Videtur etiam ibi esse circumscriptive, quia ita continetur superficie hostiae consecratae quod nec excedit nec exceditur. Ergo corpus Christi est in hoc sacramento sicut in loco. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, locus specierum panis non est vacuus, natura enim non patitur vacuum. Nec est ibi substantia panis, ut supra habitum est, sed est ibi solum corpus Christi. Ergo corpus Christi replet locum illum. Sed omne quod replet locum aliquem, est in eo localiter. Ergo corpus Christi est in hoc sacramento localiter. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, in hoc sacramento, sicut dictum est, corpus Christi est cum sua quantitate dimensiva et cum omnibus suis accidentibus. Sed esse in loco est accidens corporis, unde et ubi connumeratur inter novem genera accidentium. Ergo corpus Christi est in hoc sacramento localiter. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod oportet locum et locatum esse aequalia, ut patet per philosophum, in IV Physic. Sed locus ubi est hoc sacramentum, est multo minor quam corpus Christi. Ergo corpus Christi non est in hoc sacramento sicut in loco. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut iam dictum est, corpus Christi non est in hoc sacramento secundum proprium modum quantitatis dimensivae, sed magis secundum modum substantiae. Omne autem corpus locatum est in loco secundum modum quantitatis dimensivae, inquantum scilicet commensuratur loco secundum suam quantitatem dimensivam. Unde relinquitur quod corpus Christi non est in hoc sacramento sicut in loco, sed per modum substantiae, eo scilicet modo quo substantia continetur a dimensionibus. Succedit enim substantia corporis Christi in hoc sacramento substantiae panis. Unde, sicut substantia panis non erat sub suis dimensionibus localiter, sed per modum substantiae, ita nec substantia corporis Christi. Non tamen substantia corporis Christi est subiectum illarum dimensionum, sicut erat substantia panis. Et ideo panis ratione suarum dimensionum localiter erat ibi, quia comparabatur ad locum mediantibus propriis dimensionibus. Substantia autem corporis Christi comparatur ad locum illum mediantibus dimensionibus alienis, ita quod e converso dimensiones propriae corporis Christi comparantur ad locum illum mediante substantia. Quod est contra rationem corporis locati. Unde nullo modo corpus Christi est in hoc sacramento localiter. I answer that, As stated above (1, ad 3; 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod corpus Christi non est in hoc sacramento definitive, quia sic non esset alibi quam in hoc altari ubi conficitur hoc sacramentum; cum tamen sit et in caelo in propria specie, et in multis aliis altaribus sub specie sacramenti. Similiter etiam patet quod non est in hoc sacramento circumscriptive, quia non est ibi secundum commensurationem propriae quantitatis, ut dictum est. Quod autem non est extra superficiem sacramenti, nec est in alia parte altaris, non pertinet ad hoc quod sit ibi definitive vel circumscriptive, sed ad hoc quod incoepit ibi esse per consecrationem et conversionem panis et vini, ut supra dictum est. 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 (1; 15, 2, sqq.).
IIIª q. 76 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod locus ille in quo est corpus Christi, non est vacuus. Neque tamen proprie est repletus substantia corporis Christi, quae non est ibi localiter, sicut dictum est. Sed est repletus speciebus sacramentorum, quae habent replere locum vel propter naturam dimensionum; vel saltem miraculose, sicut et miraculose subsistunt per modum substantiae. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod accidentia corporis Christi sunt in hoc sacramento, sicut supra dictum est, secundum realem concomitantiam. Et ideo illa accidentia corporis Christi sunt in hoc sacramento quae sunt ei intrinseca. Esse autem in loco est accidens per comparationem ad extrinsecum continens. Et ideo non oportet quod Christus sit in hoc sacramento sicut in loco. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod corpus Christi sit mobiliter in hoc sacramento. Dicit enim philosophus, in II Topic., quod, moventibus nobis, moventur ea quae in nobis sunt. Quod quidem verum est etiam de spirituali substantia animae. Sed Christus est in hoc sacramento, ut supra habitum est. Ergo movetur ad motum ipsius. 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 (74, 1). Therefore He is moved when it is moved.
IIIª q. 76 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, veritas debet respondere figurae. Sed de agno paschali, qui erat figura huius sacramenti, non remanebat quidquam usque mane, sicut praecipitur Exod. XII. Ergo neque etiam, si hoc sacramentum reservetur in crastinum, erit ibi corpus Christi. Et ita non est immobiliter in hoc sacramento. Objection 2. Further, the truth ought to correspond with the figure. But, according to the commandment (Exodus 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, si corpus Christi remaneat sub hoc sacramento etiam in crastino, pari ratione remanebit et per totum sequens tempus, non enim potest dici quod desinat ibi esse cessantibus speciebus, quia esse corporis Christi non dependet a speciebus illis. Non autem remanet sub hoc sacramento Christus per totum tempus futurum. Videtur ergo quod statim in crastino, vel post modicum tempus, desinat esse sub hoc sacramento. Et ita videtur quod Christus mobiliter sit in hoc sacramento. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra, impossibile est idem esse motum et quietum, quia sic contradictoria verificarentur de eodem. Sed corpus Christi in caelo quietum residet. Non ergo est mobiliter in hoc sacramento. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, cum aliquid est unum subiecto et multiplex secundum esse, nihil prohibet secundum aliquid moveri et secundum aliud immobile permanere, sicut corpori aliud est esse album, et aliud est esse magnum, unde potest moveri secundum albedinem, et permanere immobile secundum magnitudinem. Christo autem non est idem esse secundum se, et esse sub sacramento, quia per hoc ipsum quod dicimus ipsum esse sub sacramento, significatur quaedam habitudo eius ad hoc sacramentum. Secundum igitur hoc esse non movetur Christus per se secundum locum, sed solum per accidens. Quia Christus non est in hoc sacramento sicut in loco, sicut praedictum est, quod autem non est in loco, non movetur per se in loco, sed solum ad motum eius in quo est. Similiter autem neque per se movetur, secundum esse quod habet in hoc sacramento, quacumque alia mutatione, puta quantum ad hoc quod desinat esse sub hoc sacramento. Quia illud quod de se habet esse indeficiens, non potest esse deficiendi principium, sed, alio deficiente, hoc desinit esse in eo; sicut Deus, cuius esse est indeficiens et immortale, desinit esse in aliqua creatura corruptibili per hoc quod creatura corruptibilis desinit esse. Et hoc modo, cum Christus habeat esse indeficiens et incorruptibile, non desinit esse sub sacramento neque per hoc quod ipsum desinat esse, neque etiam per motum localem sui, ut ex dictis patet, sed solum per hoc quod species huius sacramenti desinunt esse. Unde patet quod Christus, per se loquendo, immobiliter est in hoc sacramento. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de motu per accidens, quo ad motum nostri moventur ea quae in nobis sunt. Aliter tamen ea quae per se possunt esse in loco, sicut corpora, et aliter ea quae per se non possunt esse in loco, sicut formae et spirituales substantiae. Ad quem modum potest reduci quod dicimus Christum moveri per accidens secundum esse quod habet in hoc sacramento, in quo non est sicut in loco. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod hac ratione moti videntur fuisse quidam ponentes quod corpus Christi non remanet sub hoc sacramento si in crastinum reservetur. Contra quos Cyrillus dicit, insaniunt quidam dicentes mysticam benedictionem a sanctificatione cessare si quae reliquiae remanserint eius in diem subsequentem. Non enim mutabitur sacrosanctum corpus Christi, sed virtus benedictionis et vivificativa gratia iugis in eo est. Sicut et omnes aliae consecrationes immobiliter manent, permanentibus rebus consecratis, propter quod non iterantur. Veritas autem licet figurae respondeat, tamen figura non potest eam adaequare. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod corpus Christi remanet in hoc sacramento non solum in crastinum, sed etiam in futurum, quousque species sacramentales manent. Quibus cessantibus, desinit esse corpus Christi sub eis, non quia ab eis dependeat, sed quia tollitur habitudo corporis Christi ad illas species. Per quem modum Deus desinit esse dominus creaturae desinentis. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod corpus Christi prout est in hoc sacramento, possit videri ab aliquo oculo, saltem glorificato. Oculus enim noster impeditur a visione corporis Christi in hoc sacramento existentis, propter species sacramentales ipsum circumvelantes. Sed oculus glorificatus non potest ab aliquo impediri, quin corpora quaelibet videat prout sunt. Ergo oculus glorificatus potest videre corpus Christi prout est in hoc sacramento. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, corpora gloriosa sanctorum erunt configurata corpori claritatis Christi, ut dicitur Philipp. III. Sed oculus Christi videt seipsum prout est in hoc sacramento. Ergo pari ratione quilibet alius oculus glorificatus potest ipsum videre. Objection 2. Further, the glorified bodies of the saints will be "made like to the body" of Christ's "glory," according to Philippians 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, sancti in resurrectione erunt aequales Angelis, ut dicitur Luc. XX. Sed Angeli vident corpus Christi prout est in hoc sacramento, quia etiam Daemones inveniuntur huic sacramento reverentiam exhibere, et ipsum timere. Ergo pari ratione oculus glorificatus potest ipsum videre prout est in hoc sacramento. Objection 3. Further, in the resurrection the saints will be equal to the angels, according to Luke 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra, nihil idem existens potest simul ab eodem videri in diversis speciebus. Sed oculus glorificatus semper videt Christum prout est in sua specie, secundum illud Isaiae XXXIII, regem in decore suo videbunt. Ergo videtur quod non videat Christum prout est sub specie huius sacramenti. 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 Isaiah 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod duplex est oculus, scilicet corporalis, proprie dictus; et intellectualis, qui per similitudinem dicitur. A nullo autem oculo corporali corpus Christi potest videri prout est in hoc sacramento. Primo quidem, quia corpus visibile per sua accidentia immutat medium. Accidentia autem corporis Christi sunt in hoc sacramento mediante substantia, ita scilicet quod accidentia corporis Christi non habent immediatam habitudinem neque ad hoc sacramentum, neque ad corpora quae ipsum circumstant. Et ideo non possunt immutare medium, ut sic ab aliquo corporali oculo videri possint. Secundo quia, sicut supra dictum est, corpus Christi est in hoc sacramento per modum substantiae. Substantia autem, inquantum huiusmodi, non est visibilis oculo corporali, neque subiacet alicui sensui, neque imaginationi, sed soli intellectui, cuius obiectum est quod quid est, ut dicitur in III de anima. Et ideo, proprie loquendo, corpus Christi, secundum modum essendi quem habet in hoc sacramento, neque sensu neque imaginatione perceptibile est, sed solo intellectu, qui dicitur oculus spiritualis. Percipitur autem diversimode a diversis intellectibus. Quia enim modus essendi quo Christus est in hoc sacramento, est penitus supernaturalis, a supernaturali intellectu, scilicet divino, secundum se visibilis est, et per consequens ab intellectu beato vel Angeli vel hominis, qui secundum participatam claritatem divini intellectus videt ea quae supernaturalia sunt, per visionem divinae essentiae. Ab intellectu autem hominis viatoris non potest conspici nisi per fidem, sicut et cetera supernaturalia. Sed nec etiam intellectus angelicus, secundum sua naturalia, sufficit ad hoc intuendum. Unde Daemones non possunt videre per intellectum Christum in hoc sacramento, nisi per fidem, cui non voluntate assentiunt, sed ad eam signorum evidentia convincuntur, prout dicitur, Iac. II, quod Daemones credunt et contremiscunt. 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 (1, ad 3; 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."
IIIª q. 76 a. 7 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod oculus noster corporeus per species sacramentales impeditur a visione corporis Christi sub eis existentis, non solum per modum tegumenti, sicut impedimur videre id quod est velatum quocumque corporali velamine, sed quia corpus Christi non habet habitudinem ad medium quod circumstat hoc sacramentum mediantibus propriis accidentibus sed mediantibus speciebus sacramentalibus. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 7 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod oculus corporalis Christi videt seipsum sub sacramento existentem, non tamen potest videre ipsum modum essendi quo est sub sacramento, quod pertinet ad intellectum. Nec tamen est simile de alio oculo glorioso, quia et ipse oculus Christi est sub hoc sacramento; in quo non conformatur ei alius oculus gloriosus. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 7 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Angelus bonus vel malus non potest aliquid videre oculo corporeo, sed solum oculo intellectuali. Unde non est similis ratio, ut ex dictis patet. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod, quando in hoc sacramento miraculose apparet vel caro vel puer, quod non sit ibi vere corpus Christi. Corpus enim Christi desinit esse sub hoc sacramento quando desinunt esse species sacramentales, ut dictum est. Sed quando apparet caro vel puer, desinunt esse species sacramentales. Ergo non est ibi vere corpus Christi. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, ubicumque est corpus Christi, vel est ibi sub specie propria, vel sub specie sacramenti. Sed quando tales apparitiones fiunt, manifestum est quod non est ibi Christus sub specie propria, quia in hoc sacramento totus Christus continetur, qui permanet integer in forma qua ascendit in caelum; cum tamen id quod miraculose apparet in hoc sacramento, quandoque videatur ut quaedam parva caro, quandoque autem ut parvus puer. Manifestum est etiam quod non est ibi sub specie sacramenti, quae est species panis vel vini. Ergo videtur quod corpus Christi nullo modo sit ibi. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 8 arg. 3 Praeterea, corpus Christi incipit esse in hoc sacramento per consecrationem et conversionem, ut supra dictum est. Sed caro aut sanguis miraculose apparens non sunt consecrata, nec conversa in verum corpus et sanguinem Christi. Non ergo sub his speciebus est corpus vel sanguis Christi. Objection 3. Further, Christ's body begins to be in this sacrament by consecration and conversion, as was said above (75, 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra est quod, tali apparitione facta, eadem reverentia exhibetur ei quod apparet, quae et prius exhibebatur. Quod quidem non fieret si non vere esset ibi Christus, cui reverentiam latriae exhibemus. Ergo, etiam tali apparitione facta, Christus est sub hoc sacramento. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod dupliciter contingit talis apparitio, qua quandoque in hoc sacramento miraculose videtur caro aut sanguis, aut etiam aliquis puer. Quandoque enim hoc contingit ex parte videntium, quorum oculi immutantur tali immutatione ac si expresse viderent exterius carnem aut sanguinem vel puerum, nulla tamen immutatione facta ex parte sacramenti. Et hoc quidem videtur contingere quando uni videtur sub specie carnis vel pueri, aliis tamen videtur, sicut et prius, sub specie panis; vel quando eidem ad horam videtur sub specie carnis vel pueri, et postmodum sub specie panis. Nec tamen hoc pertinet ad aliquam deceptionem, sicut accidit in magorum praestigiis, quia talis species divinitus formatur in oculo ad aliquam veritatem figurandam, ad hoc scilicet quod manifestetur vere corpus Christi esse sub hoc sacramento; sicut etiam Christus absque deceptione apparuit discipulis euntibus in Emmaus. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de quaestionibus Evangelii, quod, cum fictio nostra refertur ad aliquam significationem, non est mendacium, sed aliqua figura veritatis. Et quia per hunc modum nulla immutatio fit ex parte sacramenti, manifestum est quod non desinit esse Christus sub hoc sacramento, tali apparitione facta. Quandoque vero contingit talis apparitio non per solam immutationem videntium, sed specie quae videtur realiter exterius existente. Et hoc quidem videtur esse quando sub tali specie ab omnibus videtur; et non ad horam, sed per longum tempus ita permanet. Et in hoc casu quidam dicunt quod est propria species corporis Christi. Nec obstat quod quandoque non videtur ibi totus Christus, sed aliqua pars carnis; vel etiam videtur non in specie iuvenili, sed in effigie puerili, quia in potestate est corporis gloriosi, ut infra dicetur, quod videatur ab oculo non glorificato vel secundum totum vel secundum partem, et in effigie vel propria vel aliena, ut infra dicetur. Sed hoc videtur esse inconveniens. Primo quidem, quia corpus Christi non potest in propria specie videri nisi in uno loco, in quo definitive continetur. Unde, cum videatur in propria specie et adoretur in caelo, sub propria specie non videtur in hoc sacramento. Secundo, quia corpus gloriosum, quod apparet ut vult, post apparitionem cum voluerit disparet, sicut dicitur, Luc. ult., quod dominus ab oculis discipulorum evanuit. Hoc autem quod sub specie carnis in hoc sacramento apparet, diu permanet, quinimmo quandoque legitur esse inclusum, et multorum episcoporum consilio in pixide reservatum; quod nefas est de Christo sentire secundum propriam speciem. Et ideo dicendum quod, manentibus dimensionibus quae prius fuerunt, fit miraculose quaedam immutatio circa alia accidentia, puta figuram et colorem et alia huiusmodi, ut videatur caro vel sanguis, aut etiam puer. Et, sicut prius dictum est, hoc non est deceptio, quia fit in figuram cuiusdam veritatis, scilicet ad ostendendum per hanc miraculosam apparitionem quod in hoc sacramento est vere corpus Christi et sanguis. Et sic patet quod, remanentibus dimensionibus, quae sunt fundamenta aliorum accidentium, ut infra dicetur, remanet vere corpus Christi in hoc sacramento. 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, 85, 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 (Luke 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 (77, 2), the body of Christ truly remains in this sacrament.
IIIª q. 76 a. 8 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, facta tali apparitione, species sacramentales quandoque quidem totaliter manent in seipsis, quandoque autem secundum illud quod est principale in eis, ut dictum est. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 8 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod in huiusmodi apparitionibus, sicut dictum est, non videtur propria species Christi, sed species miraculose formata vel in oculis intuentium, vel etiam in ipsis sacramentalibus dimensionibus, ut dictum est. 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.
IIIª q. 76 a. 8 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod dimensiones panis et vini consecrati manent, immutatione circa eas miraculose facta quantum ad alia accidentia, ut dictum est. 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.

Notes

Retrieved from ‘http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/index.php?title=Authors/Thomas_Aquinas/Summa_Theologiae/Part_III/Q76&oldid=11382’