No More Learning

Secondly, because, as
stated above (A[1], ad 3; A[3]), Christ's body is substantially present
in this sacrament. But substance, as such, is not visible to the bodily
eye, nor does it come under any one of the senses, nor under the
imagination, but solely under the intellect, whose object is "what a
thing is" (De Anima iii). And therefore, properly speaking, Christ's
body, according to the mode of being which it has in this sacrament, is
perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but only by
the intellect, which is called the spiritual eye.

Moreover it is perceived differently by different intellects. For since
the way in which Christ is in this sacrament is entirely supernatural,
it is visible in itself to a supernatural, i. e. the Divine, intellect,
and consequently to a beatified intellect, of angel or of man, which,
through the participated glory of the Divine intellect, sees all
supernatural things in the vision of the Divine Essence. But it can be
seen by a wayfarer through faith alone, like other supernatural things.
And not even the angelic intellect of its own natural power is capable
of beholding it; consequently the devils cannot by their intellect
perceive Christ in this sacrament, except through faith, to which they
do not pay willing assent; yet they are convinced of it from the
evidence of signs, according to James 2:19: "The devils believe, and
tremble. "

Reply to Objection 1: Our bodily eye, on account of the sacramental
species, is hindered from beholding the body of Christ underlying them,
not merely as by way of veil (just as we are hindered from seeing what
is covered with any corporeal veil), but also because Christ's body
bears a relation to the medium surrounding this sacrament, not through
its own accidents, but through the sacramental species.

Reply to Objection 2: Christ's own bodily eye sees Himself existing
under the sacrament, yet it cannot see the way in which it exists under
the sacrament, because that belongs to the intellect. But it is not the
same with any other glorified eye, because Christ's eye is under this
sacrament, in which no other glorified eye is conformed to it.

Reply to Objection 3: No angel, good or bad, can see anything with a
bodily eye, but only with the mental eye. Hence there is no parallel
reason, as is evident from what was said above.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ's body is truly there when flesh or a child appears
miraculously in this sacrament?

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 [4562](A[6]). But when flesh or a child
appears, the sacramental species cease to be present. Therefore
Christ's body is not truly there.

Objection 2: Further, wherever Christ's body is, it is there either
under its own species, or under those of the sacrament. But when such
apparitions occur, it is evident that Christ is not present under His
own species, because the entire Christ is contained in this sacrament,
and He remains entire under the form in which He ascended to heaven:
yet what appears miraculously in this sacrament is sometimes seen as a
small particle of flesh, or at times as a small child. Now it is
evident that He is not there under the sacramental species, which is
that of bread or wine. Consequently, it seems that Christ's body is not
there in any way.

Objection 3: Further, Christ's body begins to be in this sacrament by
consecration and conversion, as was said above ([4563]Q[75],
AA[2],3,4). But the flesh and blood which appear by miracle are not
consecrated, nor are they converted into Christ's true body and blood.
Therefore the body or the blood of Christ is not under those species.

On the contrary, When such apparition takes place, the same reverence
is shown to it as was shown at first, which would not be done if Christ
were not truly there, to Whom we show reverence of "latria. " Therefore,
when such apparition occurs, Christ is under the sacrament.

I answer that, Such apparition comes about in two ways, when
occasionally in this sacrament flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen.
Sometimes it happens on the part of the beholders, whose eyes are so
affected as if they outwardly saw flesh, or blood, or a child, while no
change takes place in the sacrament. And this seems to happen when to
one person it is seen under the species of flesh or of a child, while
to others it is seen as before under the species of bread; or when to
the same individual it appears for an hour under the appearance of
flesh or a child, and afterwards under the appearance of bread. Nor is
there any deception there, as occurs in the feats of magicians, because
such species is divinely formed in the eye in order to represent some
truth, namely, for the purpose of showing that Christ's body is truly
under this sacrament; just as Christ without deception appeared to the
disciples who were going to Emmaus. For Augustine says (De Qq. Evang.
ii) that "when our pretense is referred to some significance, it is not
a lie, but a figure of the truth. " And since in this way no change is
made in the sacrament, it is manifest that, when such apparition
occurs, Christ does not cease to be under this sacrament.

But it sometimes happens that such apparition comes about not merely by
a change wrought in the beholders, but by an appearance which really
exists outwardly. And this indeed is seen to happen when it is beheld
by everyone under such an appearance, and it remains so not for an
hour, but for a considerable time; and, in this case some think that it
is the proper species of Christ's body. Nor does it matter that
sometimes Christ's entire body is not seen there, but part of His
flesh, or else that it is not seen in youthful guise. but in the
semblance of a child, because it lies within the power of a glorified
body for it to be seen by a non-glorified eye either entirely or in
part, and under its own semblance or in strange guise, as will be said
later ([4564]XP, Q[85], AA[2],3).

But this seems unlikely. First of all, because Christ's body under its
proper species can be seen only in one place, wherein it is
definitively contained. Hence since it is seen in its proper species,
and is adored in heaven, it is not seen under its proper species in
this sacrament. Secondly, because a glorified body, which appears at
will, disappears when it wills after the apparition; thus it is related
(Lk. 24:31) that our Lord "vanished out of sight" of the disciples. But
that which appears under the likeness of flesh in this sacrament,
continues for a long time; indeed, one reads of its being sometimes
enclosed, and, by order of many bishops, preserved in a pyx, which it
would be wicked to think of Christ under His proper semblance.

Consequently, it remains to be said, that, while the dimensions remain
the same as before, there is a miraculous change wrought in the other
accidents, such as shape, color, and the rest, so that flesh, or blood,
or a child, is seen. And, as was said already, this is not deception,
because it is done "to represent the truth," namely, to show by this
miraculous apparition that Christ's body and blood are truly in this
sacrament. And thus it is clear that as the dimensions remain, which
are the foundation of the other accidents, as we shall see later on
([4565]Q[77], A[2]), the body of Christ truly remains in this
sacrament.

Reply to Objection 1: When such apparition takes place, the sacramental
species sometimes continue entire in themselves; and sometimes only as
to that which is principal, as was said above.

Reply to Objection 2: As stated above, during such apparitions Christ's
proper semblance is not seen, but a species miraculously formed either
in the eyes of the beholders, or in the sacramental dimensions
themselves, as was said above.

Reply to Objection 3: The dimensions of the consecrated bread and wine
continue, while a miraculous change is wrought in the other accidents,
as stated above.
__________________________________________________________________

OF THE ACCIDENTS WHICH REMAIN IN THIS SACRAMENT (EIGHT ARTICLES)

We must now consider the accidents which remain in this sacrament;
under which head there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the accidents which remain are without a subject?

(2) Whether dimensive quantity is the subject of the other accidents?

(3) Whether such accidents can affect an extrinsic body?

(4) Whether they can be corrupted?

(5) Whether anything can be generated from them?

(6) Whether they can nourish?

(7) Of the breaking of the consecrated bread?

(8) Whether anything can be mixed with the consecrated wine?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the accidents remain in this sacrament without a subject?

Objection 1: It seems that the accidents do not remain in this
sacrament without a subject, because there ought not to be anything
disorderly or deceitful in this sacrament of truth. But for accidents
to be without a subject is contrary to the order which God established
in nature; and furthermore it seems to savor of deceit, since accidents
are naturally the signs of the nature of the subject. Therefore the
accidents are not without a subject in this sacrament.

Objection 2: Further, not even by miracle can the definition of a thing
be severed from it, or the definition of another thing be applied to
it; for instance, that, while man remains a man, he can be an
irrational animal. For it would follow that contradictories can exist
at the one time: for the "definition of a thing is what its name
expresses," as is said in Metaph. iv. But it belongs to the definition
of an accident for it to be in a subject, while the definition of
substance is that it must subsist of itself, and not in another.
Therefore it cannot come to pass, even by miracle, that the accidents
exist without a subject in this sacrament.

Objection 3: Further, an accident is individuated by its subject. If
therefore the accidents remain in this sacrament without a subject,
they will not be individual, but general, which is clearly false,
because thus they would not be sensible, but merely intelligible.

Objection 4: Further, the accidents after the consecration of this
sacrament do not obtain any composition. But before the consecration
they were not composed either of matter and form, nor of existence [quo
est] and essence [quod est]. Therefore, even after consecration they
are not composite in either of these ways. But this is unreasonable,
for thus they would be simpler than angels, whereas at the same time
these accidents are perceptible to the senses. Therefore, in this
sacrament the accidents do not remain without a subject.

On the contrary, Gregory says in an Easter Homily (Lanfranc, De Corp.
et Sang. Dom. xx) that "the sacramental species are the names of those
things which were there before, namely, of the bread and wine. "
Therefore since the substance of the bread and the wine does not
remain, it seems that these species remain without a subject.

I answer that, The species of the bread and wine, which are perceived
by our senses to remain in this sacrament after consecration, are not
subjected in the substance of the bread and wine, for that does not
remain, as stated above ([4566]Q[75], A[2]); nor in the substantial
form, for that does not remain ([4567]Q[75], A[6]), and if it did
remain, "it could not be a subject," as Boethius declares (De Trin. i).
Furthermore it is manifest that these accidents are not subjected in
the substance of Christ's body and blood, because the substance of the
human body cannot in any way be affected by such accidents; nor is it
possible for Christ's glorious and impassible body to be altered so as
to receive these qualities.

Now there are some who say that they are in the surrounding atmosphere
as in a subject. But even this cannot be: in the first place, because
atmosphere is not susceptive of such accidents. Secondly, because these
accidents are not where the atmosphere is, nay more, the atmosphere is
displaced by the motion of these species. Thirdly, because accidents do
not pass from subject to subject, so that the same identical accident
which was first in one subject be afterwards in another; because an
accident is individuated by the subject; hence it cannot come to pass
for an accident remaining identically the same to be at one time in one
subject, and at another time in another. Fourthly, since the atmosphere
is not deprived of its own accidents, it would have at the one time its
own accidents and others foreign to it. Nor can it be maintained that
this is done miraculously in virtue of the consecration, because the
words of consecration do not signify this, and they effect only what
they signify.

Therefore it follows that the accidents continue in this sacrament
without a subject. This can be done by Divine power: for since an
effect depends more upon the first cause than on the second, God Who is
the first cause both of substance and accident, can by His unlimited
power preserve an accident in existence when the substance is withdrawn
whereby it was preserved in existence as by its proper cause, just as
without natural causes He can produce other effects of natural causes,
even as He formed a human body in the Virgin's womb, "without the seed
of man" (Hymn for Christmas, First Vespers).

Reply to Objection 1: There is nothing to hinder the common law of
nature from ordaining a thing, the contrary of which is nevertheless
ordained by a special privilege of grace, as is evident in the raising
of the dead, and in the restoring of sight to the blind: even thus in
human affairs, to some individuals some things are granted by special
privilege which are outside the common law. And so, even though it be
according to the common law of nature for an accident to be in a
subject, still for a special reason, according to the order of grace,
the accidents exist in this sacrament without a subject, on account of
the reasons given above ([4568]Q[75] , A[5]).

Reply to Objection 2: Since being is not a genus, then being cannot be
of itself the essence of either substance or accident. Consequently,
the definition of substance is not---"a being of itself without a
subject," nor is the definition of accident---"a being in a subject";
but it belongs to the quiddity or essence of substance "to have
existence not in a subject"; while it belongs to the quiddity or
essence of accident "to have existence in a subject. " But in this
sacrament it is not in virtue of their essence that accidents are not
in a subject, but through the Divine power sustaining them; and
consequently they do not cease to be accidents, because neither is the
definition of accident withdrawn from them, nor does the definition of
substance apply to them.

Reply to Objection 3: These accidents acquired individual being in the
substance of the bread and wine; and when this substance is changed
into the body and blood of Christ, they remain in that individuated
being which they possessed before, hence they are individual and
sensible.

Reply to Objection 4: These accidents had no being of their own nor
other accidents, so long as the substance of the bread and wine
remained; but their subjects had "such" being through them, just as
snow is "white" through whiteness. But after the consecration the
accidents which remain have being; hence they are compounded of
existence and essence, as was said of the angels, in the [4569]FP,
Q[50], A[2], ad 3; and besides they have composition of quantitative
parts.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of the bread or wine is the
subject of the other accidents?

Objection 1: It seems that in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of
the bread or wine is not the subject of the other accidents. For
accident is not the subject of accident; because no form can be a
subject, since to be a subject is a property of matter. But dimensive
quantity is an accident. Therefore dimensive quantity cannot be the
subject of the other accidents.

Objection 2: Further, just as quantity is individuated by substance, so
also are the other accidents. If, then, the dimensive quantity of the
bread or wine remains individuated according to the being it had
before, in which it is preserved, for like reason the other accidents
remain individuated according to the existence which they had before in
the substance. Therefore they are not in dimensive quantity as in a
subject, since every accident is individuated by its own subject.

Objection 3: Further, among the other accidents that remain, of the
bread and wine, the senses perceive also rarity and density, which
cannot be in dimensive quantity existing outside matter; because a
thing is rare which has little matter under great dimensions. while a
thing is dense which has much matter under small dimensions, as is said
in Phys. iv. It does not seem, then, that dimensive quantity can be the
subject of the accidents which remain in this sacrament.

Objection 4: Further, quantity abstract from matter seems to be
mathematical quantity, which is not the subject of sensible qualities.
Since, then, the remaining accidents in this sacrament are sensible, it
seems that in this sacrament they cannot be subjected in the dimensive
quantity of the bread and wine that remains after consecration.

On the contrary, Qualities are divisible only accidentally, that is, by
reason of the subject. But the qualities remaining in this sacrament
are divided by the division of dimensive quantity, as is evident
through our senses. Therefore, dimensive quantity is the subject of the
accidents which remain in this sacrament.

I answer that, It is necessary to say that the other accidents which
remain in this sacrament are subjected in the dimensive quantity of the
bread and wine that remains: first of all, because something having
quantity and color and affected by other accidents is perceived by the
senses; nor is sense deceived in such. Secondly, because the first
disposition of matter is dimensive quantity, hence Plato also assigned
"great" and "small" as the first differences of matter (Aristotle,
Metaph. iv). And because the first subject is matter, the consequence
is that all other accidents are related to their subject through the
medium of dimensive quantity; just as the first subject of color is
said to be the surface, on which account some have maintained that
dimensions are the substances of bodies, as is said in Metaph. iii. And
since, when the subject is withdrawn, the accidents remain according to
the being which they had before, it follows that all accidents remain
founded upon dimensive quantity.

Thirdly, because, since the subject is the principle of individuation
of the accidents, it is necessary for what is admitted as the subject
of some accidents to be somehow the principle of individuation: for it
is of the very notion of an individual that it cannot be in several;
and this happens in two ways. First, because it is not natural to it to
be in any one; and in this way immaterial separated forms, subsisting
of themselves, are also individuals of themselves. Secondly, because a
form, be it substantial or accidental, is naturally in someone indeed,
not in several, as this whiteness, which is in this body. As to the
first, matter is the principle of individuation of all inherent forms,
because, since these forms, considered in themselves, are naturally in
something as in a subject, from the very fact that one of them is
received in matter, which is not in another, it follows that neither
can the form itself thus existing be in another. As to the second, it
must be maintained that the principle of individuation is dimensive
quantity. For that something is naturally in another one solely, is due
to the fact that that other is undivided in itself, and distinct from
all others. But it is on account of quantity that substance can be
divided, as is said in Phys. i. And therefore dimensive quantity itself
is a particular principle of individuation in forms of this kind,
namely, inasmuch as forms numerically distinct are in different parts
of the matter. Hence also dimensive quantity has of itself a kind of
individuation, so that we can imagine several lines of the same
species, differing in position, which is included in the notion of this
quantity; for it belongs to dimension for it to be "quantity having
position" (Aristotle, Categor. iv), and therefore dimensive quantity
can be the subject of the other accidents, rather than the other way
about.

Reply to Objection 1: One accident cannot of itself be the subject of
another, because it does not exist of itself. But inasmuch as an
accident is received in another thing, one is said to be the subject of
the other, inasmuch as one is received in a subject through another, as
the surface is said to be the subject of color. Hence when God makes an
accident to exist of itself, it can also be of itself the subject of
another.

Reply to Objection 2: The other accidents, even as they were in the
substance of the bread, were individuated by means of dimensive
quantity, as stated above. And therefore dimensive quantity is the
subject of the other accidents remaining in this sacrament, rather than
conversely.

Reply to Objection 3: Rarity and density are particular qualities
accompanying bodies, by reason of their having much or little matter
under dimensions; just as all other accidents likewise follow from the
principles of substance. And consequently, as the accidents are
preserved by Divine power when the substance is withdrawn, so, when
matter is withdrawn, the qualities which go with matter, such as rarity
and density, are preserved by Divine power.

Reply to Objection 4: Mathematical quantity abstracts not from
intelligible matter, but from sensible matter, as is said in Metaph.
vii. But matter is termed sensible because it underlies sensible
qualities. And therefore it is manifest that the dimensive quantity,
which remains in this sacrament without a subject, is not mathematical
quantity.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the species remaining in this sacrament can change external objects?

Objection 1: It seems that the species which remain in this sacrament
cannot affect external objects. For it is proved in Phys. vii, that
forms which are in matter are produced by forms that are in matter, but
not from forms which are without matter, because like makes like. But
the sacramental species are species without matter, since they remain
without a subject, as is evident from what was said above [4570](A[1]).
Therefore they cannot affect other matter by producing any form in it.

Objection 2: Further, when the action of the principal agent ceases,
then the action of the instrument must cease, as when the carpenter
rests, the hammer is moved no longer. But all accidental forms act
instrumentally in virtue of the substantial form as the principal
agent. Therefore, since the substantial form of the bread and wine does
not remain in this sacrament, as was shown above ([4571]Q[75], A[6]),
it seems that the accidental forms which remain cannot act so as to
change external matter.

Objection 3: Further, nothing acts outside its species, because an
effect cannot surpass its cause. But all the sacramental species are
accidents. Therefore they cannot change external matter, at least as to
a substantial form.

On the contrary, If they could not change external bodies, they could
not be felt; for a thing is felt from the senses being changed by a
sensible thing, as is said in De Anima ii.

I answer that, Because everything acts in so far as it is an actual
being, the consequence is that everything stands in the same relation
to action as it does to being. Therefore, because, according to what
was said above [4572](A[1]), it is an effect of the Divine power that
the sacramental species continue in the being which they had when the
substance of the bread and wine was present, it follows that they
continue in their action. Consequently they retain every action which
they had while the substance of the bread and wine remained, now that
the substance of the bread and wine has passed into the body and blood
of Christ. Hence there is no doubt but that they can change external
bodies.

Reply to Objection 1: The sacramental species, although they are forms
existing without matter, still retain the same being which they had
before in matter, and therefore as to their being they are like forms
which are in matter.

Reply to Objection 2: The action of an accidental form depends upon the
action of a substantial form in the same way as the being of accident
depends upon the being of substance; and therefore, as it is an effect
of Divine power that the sacramental species exist without substance,
so is it an effect of Divine power that they can act without a
substantial form, because every action of a substantial or accidental
form depends upon God as the first agent.

Reply to Objection 3: The change which terminates in a substantial form
is not effected by a substantial form directly, but by means of the
active and passive qualities, which act in virtue of the substantial
form. But by Divine power this instrumental energy is retained in the
sacramental species, just as it was before: and consequently their
action can be directed to a substantial form instrumentally, just in
the same way as anything can act outside its species, not as by its own
power, but by the power of the chief agent.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the sacramental species can be corrupted?

Objection 1: It seems that the sacramental species cannot be corrupted,
because corruption comes of the separation of the form from the matter.
But the matter of the bread does not remain in this sacrament, as is
clear from what was said above ([4573]Q[75], A[2]). Therefore these
species cannot be corrupted.

Objection 2: Further, no form is corrupted except accidentally, that
is, when its subject is corrupted; hence self-subsisting forms are
incorruptible, as is seen in spiritual substances. But the sacramental
species are forms without a subject. Therefore they cannot be
corrupted.

Objection 3: Further, if they be corrupted, it will either be naturally
or miraculously. But they cannot be corrupted naturally, because no
subject of corruption can be assigned as remaining after the corruption
has taken place. Neither can they be corrupted miraculously, because
the miracles which occur in this sacrament take place in virtue of the
consecration, whereby the sacramental species are preserved: and the
same thing is not the cause of preservation and of corruption.
Therefore, in no way can the sacramental species be corrupted.

On the contrary, We perceive by our senses that the consecrated hosts
become putrefied and corrupted.

I answer that, Corruption is "movement from being into non-being"
(Aristotle, Phys. v). Now it has been stated [4574](A[3]) that the
sacramental species retain the same being as they had before when the
substance of the bread was present. Consequently, as the being of those
accidents could be corrupted while the substance of the bread and wine
was present, so likewise they can be corrupted now that the substance
has passed away.

But such accidents could have been previously corrupted in two ways: in
one way, of themselves; in another way, accidentally. They could be
corrupted of themselves, as by alteration of the qualities, and
increase or decrease of the quantity, not in the way in which increase
or decrease is found only in animated bodies, such as the substances of
the bread and wine are not, but by addition or division; for, as is
said in Metaph. iii, one dimension is dissolved by division, and two
dimensions result; while on the contrary, by addition, two dimensions
become one. And in this way such accidents can be corrupted manifestly
after consecration, because the dimensive quantity which remains can
receive division and addition; and since it is the subject of sensible
qualities, as stated above [4575](A[1]), it can likewise be the subject
of their alteration, for instance, if the color or the savor of the
bread or wine be altered.

An accident can be corrupted in another way, through the corruption of
its subject, and in this way also they can be corrupted after
consecration; for although the subject does not remain, still the being
which they had in the subject does remain, which being is proper, and
suited to the subject. And therefore such being can be corrupted by a
contrary agent, as the substance of the bread or wine was subject to
corruption, and, moreover, was not corrupted except by a preceding
alteration regarding the accidents.

Nevertheless, a distinction must be made between each of the aforesaid
corruptions; because, when the body and the blood of Christ succeed in
this sacrament to the substance of the bread and wine, if there be such
change on the part of the accidents as would not have sufficed for the
corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood of Christ do
not cease to be under this sacrament on account of such change, whether
the change be on the part of the quality, as for instance, when the
color or the savor of the bread or wine is slightly modified; or on the
part of the quantity, as when the bread or the wine is divided into
such parts as to keep in them the nature of bread or of wine. But if
the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would
have been corrupted, then Christ's body and blood do not remain under
this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when
the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so
altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or
else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be
reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops
that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.

Reply to Objection 1: Since it belongs essentially to corruption to
take away the being of a thing, in so far as the being of some form is
in matter, it results that by corruption the form is separated from the
matter. But if such being were not in matter, yet like such being as is
in matter, it could be taken away by corruption, even where there is no
matter; as takes place in this sacrament, as is evident from what was
said above.

Reply to Objection 2: Although the sacramental species are forms not in
matter, yet they have the being which they had in matter.

Reply to Objection 3: This corruption of species is not miraculous, but
natural; nevertheless, it presupposes the miracle which is wrought in
the consecration, namely, that those sacramental species retain without
a subject, the same being as they had in a subject; just as a blind
man, to whom sight is given miraculously, sees naturally.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether anything can be generated from the sacramental species?

Objection 1: It seems that nothing can be generated from the
sacramental species: because, whatever is generated, is generated out
of some matter: for nothing is generated out of nothing, although by
creation something is made out of nothing. But there is no matter
underlying the sacramental species except that of Christ's body, and
that body is incorruptible. Therefore it seems that nothing can be
generated from the sacramental species.

Objection 2: Further, things which are not of the same genus cannot
spring from one another: thus a line is not made of whiteness. But
accident and substance differ generically.
Therefore, since the
sacramental species are accidents, it seems that no substance can be
generated from them.

Objection 3: Further, if any corporeal substance be generated from
them, such substance will not be without accident. Therefore, if any
corporeal substance be generated from the sacramental species, then
substance and accident would be generated from accident, namely, two
things from one, which is impossible. Consequently, it is impossible
for any corporeal substance to be generated out of the sacramental
species.

On the contrary, The senses are witness that something is generated out
of the sacramental species, either ashes, if they be burned, worms if
they putrefy, or dust if they be crushed.

I answer that, Since "the corruption of one thing is the generation of
another" (De Gener. i), something must be generated necessarily from
the sacramental species if they be corrupted, as stated above
[4576](A[4]); for they are not corrupted in such a way that they
disappear altogether, as if reduced to nothing; on the contrary,
something sensible manifestly succeeds to them.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to see how anything can be generated from
them. For it is quite evident that nothing is generated out of the body
and blood of Christ which are truly there, because these are
incorruptible. But if the substance, or even the matter, of the bread
and wine were to remain in this sacrament, then, as some have
maintained, it would be easy to account for this sensible object which
succeeds to them. But that supposition is false, as was stated above
([4577]Q[75], AA[2],4,8).

Hence it is that others have said that the things generated have not
sprung from the sacramental species, but from the surrounding
atmosphere. But this can be shown in many ways to be impossible. In the
first place, because when a thing is generated from another, the latter
at first appears changed and corrupted; whereas no alteration or
corruption appeared previously in the adjacent atmosphere; hence the
worms or ashes are not generated therefrom. Secondly, because the
nature of the atmosphere is not such as to permit of such things being
generated by such alterations. Thirdly, because it is possible for many
consecrated hosts to be burned or putrefied; nor would it be possible
for an earthen body, large enough to be generated from the atmosphere,
unless a great and, in fact, exceedingly sensible condensation of the
atmosphere took place. Fourthly, because the same thing can happen to
the solid bodies surrounding them, such as iron or stone, which remain
entire after the generation of the aforesaid things. Hence this opinion
cannot stand, because it is opposed to what is manifest to our senses.

And therefore others have said that the substance of the bread and wine
returns during the corruption of the species, and so from the returning
substance of the bread and wine, ashes or worms or something of the
kind are generated. But this explanation seems an impossible one. First
of all, because if the substance of the bread and wine be converted
into the body and blood of Christ, as was shown above (Q[75], AA[2],4),
the substance of the bread and wine cannot return, except the body and
blood of Christ be again changed back into the substance of bread and
wine, which is impossible: thus if air be turned into fire, the air
cannot return without the fire being again changed into air. But if the
substance of bread or wine be annihilated, it cannot return again,
because what lapses into nothing does not return numerically the same.
Unless perchance it be said that the said substance returns, because
God creates anew another new substance to replace the first. Secondly,
this seems to be impossible, because no time can be assigned when the
substance of the bread returns. For, from what was said above
[4578](A[4]; Q[76], A[6], ad 3), it is evident that while the species
of the bread and wine remain, there remain also the body and blood of
Christ, which are not present together with the substance of the bread
and wine in this sacrament, according to what was stated above (Q[75],
A[2]). Hence the substance of the bread and wine cannot return while
the sacramental species remain; nor, again, when these species pass
away; because then the substance of the bread and wine would be without
their proper accidents, which is impossible. Unless perchance it be
said that in the last instant of the corruption of the species there
returns (not, indeed, the substance of bread and wine, because it is in
that very instant that they have the being of the substance generated
from the species, but) the matter of the bread and wine; which, matter,
properly speaking, would be more correctly described as created anew,
than as returning. And in this sense the aforesaid position might be
held.

However, since it does not seem reasonable to say that anything takes
place miraculously in this sacrament, except in virtue of the
consecration itself, which does not imply either creation or return of
matter, it seems better to say that in the actual consecration it is
miraculously bestowed on the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine
to be the subject of subsequent forms. Now this is proper to matter;
and therefore as a consequence everything which goes with matter is
bestowed on dimensive quantity; and therefore everything which could be
generated from the matter of bread or wine, if it were present, can be
generated from the aforesaid dimensive quantity of the bread or wine,
not, indeed, by a new miracle, but by virtue of the miracle which has
already taken place.

Reply to Objection 1: Although no matter is there out of which a thing
may be generated, nevertheless dimensive quantity supplies the place of
matter, as stated above.

Reply to Objection 2: Those sacramental species are indeed accidents,
yet they have the act and power of substance, as stated above
[4579](A[3]).

Reply to Objection 3: The dimensive quantity of the bread and wine
retains its own nature, and receives miraculously the power and
property of substance; and therefore it can pass to both, that is, into
substance and dimension.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the sacramental species can nourish?

Objection 1: It seems that the sacramental species cannot nourish,
because, as Ambrose says (De Sacram. v), "it is not this bread that
enters into our body, but the bread of everlasting life, which supports
the substance of our soul. " But whatever nourishes enters into the
body. Therefore this bread does not nourish: and the same reason holds
good of the wine.

Objection 2: Further, as is said in De Gener. ii, "We are nourished by
the very things of which we are made. " But the sacramental species are
accidents, whereas man is not made of accidents, because accident is
not a part of substance. Therefore it seems that the sacramental
species cannot nourish.

Objection 3: Further, the Philosopher says (De Anima ii) that "food
nourishes according as it is a substance, but it gives increase by
reason of its quantity. " But the sacramental species are not a
substance. Consequently they cannot nourish.

On the contrary, The Apostle speaking of this sacrament says (1 Cor.
11:21): "One, indeed, is hungry, and another is drunk": upon which the
gloss observes that "he alludes to those who after the celebration of
the sacred mystery, and after the consecration of the bread and wine,
claimed their oblations, and not sharing them with others, took the
whole, so as even to become intoxicated thereby. " But this could not
happen if the sacramental species did not nourish. Therefore the
sacramental species do nourish.

I answer that, This question presents no difficulty, now that we have
solved the preceding question. Because, as stated in De Anima ii, food
nourishes by being converted into the substance of the individual
nourished. Now it has been stated [4580](A[5]) that the sacramental
species can be converted into a substance generated from them. And they
can be converted into the human body for the same reason as they can
into ashes or worms. Consequently, it is evident that they nourish.

But the senses witness to the untruth of what some maintain; viz. that
the species do not nourish as though they were changed into the human
body, but merely refresh and hearten by acting upon the senses (as a
man is heartened by the odor of meat, and intoxicated by the fumes of
wine). Because such refreshment does not suffice long for a man, whose
body needs repair owing to constant waste: and yet a man could be
supported for long if he were to take hosts and consecrated wine in
great quantity.

In like manner the statement advanced by others cannot stand, who hold
that the sacramental species nourish owing to the remaining substantial
form of the bread and wine: both because the form does not remain, as
stated above ([4581]Q[75], A[6]): and because to nourish is the act not
of a form but rather of matter, which takes the form of the one
nourished, while the form of the nourishment passes away: hence it is
said in De Anima ii that nourishment is at first unlike, but at the end
is like.

Reply to Objection 1: After the consecration bread can be said to be in
this sacrament in two ways. First, as to the species, which retain the
name of the previous substance, as Gregory says in an Easter Homily
(Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xx). Secondly, Christ's very body can
be called bread, since it is the mystical bread "coming down from
heaven. " Consequently, Ambrose uses the word "bread" in this second
meaning, when he says that "this bread does not pass into the body,"
because, to wit, Christ's body is not changed into man's body, but
nourishes his soul. But he is not speaking of bread taken in the first
acceptation.

Reply to Objection 2: Although the sacramental species are not those
things out of which the human body is made, yet they are changed into
those things stated above.

Reply to Objection 3: Although the sacramental species are not a
substance, still they have the virtue of a substance, as stated above.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the sacramental species are broken in this sacrament?

Objection 1: It seems that the sacramental species are not broken in
this sacrament, because the Philosopher says in Meteor. iv that bodies
are breakable owing to a certain disposition of the pores; a thing
which cannot be attributed to the sacramental species. Therefore the
sacramental species cannot be broken.

Objection 2: Further, breaking is followed by sound. But the
sacramental species emit no sound: because the Philosopher says (De
Anima ii), that what emits sound is a hard body, having a smooth
surface. Therefore the sacramental species are not broken.

Objection 3: Further, breaking and mastication are seemingly of the
same object. But it is Christ's true body that is eaten, according to
Jn. 6:57: "He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood. " Therefore
it is Christ's body that is broken and masticated: and hence it is said
in the confession of Berengarius: "I agree with the Holy Catholic
Church, and with heart and lips I profess, that the bread and wine
which are placed on the altar, are the true body and blood of Christ
after consecration, and are truly handled and broken by the priest's
hands, broken and crushed by the teeth of believers. " Consequently, the
breaking ought not to be ascribed to the sacramental species.

On the contrary, Breaking arises from the division of that which has
quantity. But nothing having quantity except the sacramental species is
broken here, because neither Christ's body is broken, as being
incorruptible, nor is the substance of the bread, because it no longer
remains. Therefore the sacramental species are broken.

I answer that, Many opinions prevailed of old on this matter. Some held
that in this sacrament there was no breaking at all in reality, but
merely in the eyes of the beholders. But this contention cannot stand,
because in this sacrament of truth the sense is not deceived with
regard to its proper object of judgment, and one of these objects is
breaking, whereby from one thing arise many: and these are common
sensibles, as is stated in De Anima ii.

Others accordingly have said that there was indeed a genuine breaking,
but without any subject. But this again contradicts our senses; because
a quantitative body is seen in this sacrament, which formerly was one,
and is now divided into many, and this must be the subject of the
breaking.

But it cannot be said that Christ's true body is broken. First of all,
because it is incorruptible and impassible: secondly, because it is
entire under every part, as was shown above ([4582]Q[76], A[3]), which
is contrary to the nature of a thing broken.

It remains, then, that the breaking is in the dimensive quantity of the
bread, as in a subject, just as the other accidents. And as the
sacramental species are the sacrament of Christ's true body, so is the
breaking of these species the sacrament of our Lord's Passion, which
was in Christ's true body.

Reply to Objection 1: As rarity and density remain under the
sacramental species, as stated above (A[2], ad 3), so likewise
porousness remains, and in consequence breakableness.

Reply to Objection 2: Hardness results from density; therefore, as
density remains under the sacramental species, hardness remains there
too, and the capability of sound as a consequence.

Reply to Objection 3: What is eaten under its own species, is also
broken and masticated under its own species; but Christ's body is eaten
not under its proper, but under the sacramental species. Hence in
explaining Jn. 6:64, "The flesh profiteth nothing," Augustine (Tract.
xxvii in Joan. ) says that this is to be taken as referring to those who
understood carnally: "for they understood the flesh, thus, as it is
divided piecemeal, in a dead body, or as sold in the shambles. "
Consequently, Christ's very body is not broken, except according to its
sacramental species. And the confession made by Berengarius is to be
understood in this sense, that the breaking and the crushing with the
teeth is to be referred to the sacramental species, under which the
body of Christ truly is.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether any liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine?

Objection 1: It seems that no liquid can be mingled with the
consecrated wine, because everything mingled with another partakes of
its quality. But no liquid can share in the quality of the sacramental
species, because those accidents are without a subject, as stated above
[4583](A[1]). Therefore it seems that no liquid can be mingled with the
sacramental species of the wine.

Objection 2: Further, if any kind of liquid be mixed with those
species, then some one thing must be the result. But no one thing can
result from the liquid, which is a substance, and the sacramental
species, which are accidents; nor from the liquid and Christ's blood,
which owing to its incorruptibility suffers neither increase nor
decrease. Therefore no liquid can be mixed with the consecrated wine.

Objection 3: Further, if any liquid be mixed with the consecrated wine,
then that also would appear to be consecrated; just as water added to
holy-water becomes holy. But the consecrated wine is truly Christ's
blood. Therefore the liquid added would likewise be Christ's blood
otherwise than by consecration, which is unbecoming. Therefore no
liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine.

Objection 4: Further, if one of two things be entirely corrupted, there
is no mixture (De Gener. i). But if we mix any liquid, it seems that
the entire species of the sacramental wine is corrupted, so that the
blood of Christ ceases to be beneath it; both because great and little
are difference of quantity, and alter it, as white and black cause a
difference of color; and because the liquid mixed, as having no
obstacle, seems to permeate the whole, and so Christ's blood ceases to
be there, since it is not there with any other substance. Consequently,
no liquid can be mixed with the consecrated wine.

On the contrary, It is evident to our senses that another liquid can be
mixed with the wine after it is consecrated, just as before.

I answer that, The truth of this question is evident from what has been
said already. For it was said above [4584](A[3]; A[5], ad 2) that the
species remaining in this sacrament, as they acquire the manner of
being of substance in virtue of the consecration, so likewise do they
obtain the mode of acting and of being acted upon, so that they can do
or receive whatever their substance could do or receive, were it there
present. But it is evident that if the substance of wine were there
present, then some other liquid could be mingled with it.

Nevertheless there would be a different effect of such mixing both
according to the form and according to the quantity of the liquid. For
if sufficient liquid were mixed so as to spread itself all through the
wine, then the whole would be a mixed substance. Now what is made up of
things mixed is neither of them, but each passes into a third resulting
from both: hence it would result that the former wine would remain no
longer. But if the liquid added were of another species, for instance,
if water were mixed, the species of the wine would be dissolved, and
there would be a liquid of another species. But if liquid of the same
species were added, of instance, wine with wine, the same species would
remain, but the wine would not be the same numerically, as the
diversity of the accidents shows: for instance, if one wine were white
and the other red.

But if the liquid added were of such minute quantity that it could not
permeate the whole, the entire wine would not be mixed, but only part
of it, which would not remain the same numerically owing to the
blending of extraneous matter: still it would remain the same
specifically, not only if a little liquid of the same species were
mixed with it, but even if it were of another species, since a drop of
water blended with much wine passes into the species of wine (De Gener.
i).

Now it is evident that the body and blood of Christ abide in this
sacrament so long as the species remain numerically the same, as stated
above [4585](A[4]; Q[76], A[6], ad 3); because it is this bread and
this wine which is consecrated. Hence, if the liquid of any kind
whatsoever added be so much in quantity as to permeate the whole of the
consecrated wine, and be mixed with it throughout, the result would be
something numerically distinct, and the blood of Christ will remain
there no longer. But if the quantity of the liquid added be so slight
as not to permeate throughout, but to reach only a part of the species,
Christ's blood will cease to be under that part of the consecrated
wine, yet will remain under the rest.

Reply to Objection 1: Pope Innocent III in a Decretal writes thus: "The
very accidents appear to affect the wine that is added, because, if
water is added, it takes the savor of the wine. The result is, then,
that the accidents change the subject, just as subject changes
accidents; for nature yields to miracle, and power works beyond
custom. " But this must not be understood as if the same identical
accident, which was in the wine previous to consecration, is afterwards
in the wine that is added; but such change is the result of action;
because the remaining accidents of the wine retain the action of
substance, as stated above, and so they act upon the liquid added, by
changing it.

Reply to Objection 2: The liquid added to the consecrated wine is in no
way mixed with the substance of Christ's blood. Nevertheless it is
mixed with the sacramental species, yet so that after such mixing the
aforesaid species are corrupted entirely or in part, after the way
mentioned above [4586](A[5]), whereby something can be generated from
those species. And if they be entirely corrupted, there remains no
further question, because the whole will be uniform. But if they be
corrupted in part, there will be one dimension according to the
continuity of quantity, but not one according to the mode of being,
because one part thereof will be without a subject while the other is
in a subject; as in a body that is made up of two metals, there will be
one body quantitatively, but not one as to the species of the matter.

Reply to Objection 3: As Pope Innocent says in the aforesaid Decretal,
"if after the consecration other wine be put in the chalice, it is not
changed into the blood, nor is it mingled with the blood, but, mixed
with the accidents of the previous wine, it is diffused throughout the
body which underlies them, yet without wetting what surrounds it. " Now
this is to be understood when there is not sufficient mixing of
extraneous liquid to cause the blood of Christ to cease to be under the
whole; because a thing is said to be "diffused throughout," not because
it touches the body of Christ according to its proper dimensions, but
according to the sacramental dimensions, under which it is contained.
Now it is not the same with holy water, because the blessing works no
change in the substance of the water, as the consecration of the wine
does.

Reply to Objection 4: Some have held that however slight be the mixing
of extraneous liquid, the substance of Christ's blood ceases to be
under the whole, and for the reason given above (OBJ[4]); which,
however, is not a cogent one; because "more" or "less" diversify
dimensive quantity, not as to its essence, but as to the determination
of its measure. In like manner the liquid added can be so small as on
that account to be hindered from permeating the whole, and not simply
by the dimensions; which, although they are present without a subject,
still they are opposed to another liquid, just as substance would be if
it were present, according to what was said at the beginning of the
article.
__________________________________________________________________

OF THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT (SIX ARTICLES)

We must now consider the form of this sacrament; concerning which there
are six points of inquiry:

(1) What is the form of this sacrament?

(2) Whether the form for the consecration of the bread is appropriate?

(3) Whether the form for the consecration of the blood is appropriate?

(4) Of the power of each form?

(5) Of the truth of the expression?

(6) Of the comparison of the one form with the other?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether this is the form of this sacrament: "This is My body," and "This is
the chalice of My blood"?

Objection 1: It seems that this is not the form of this sacrament:
"This is My body," and, "This is the chalice of My blood. " Because
those words seem to belong to the form of this sacrament, wherewith
Christ consecrated His body and blood. But Christ first blessed the
bread which He took, and said afterwards: "Take ye and eat; this is My
body" (Mat. 26:26). Therefore the whole of this seems to belong to the
form of this sacrament: and the same reason holds good of the words
which go with the consecration of the blood.

Objection 2: Further, Eusebius Emissenus (Pseudo-Hieron: Ep. xxix;
Pseudo-Isid. : Hom. iv) says: "The invisible Priest changes visible
creatures into His own body, saying: 'Take ye and eat; this is My
body. '" Therefore, the whole of this seems to belong to the form of
this sacrament: and the same hold good of the works appertaining to the
blood.

Objection 3: Further, in the form of Baptism both the minister and his
act are expressed, when it is said, "I baptize thee. " But in the words
set forth above there is no mention made either of the minister or of
his act. Therefore the form of the sacrament is not a suitable one.

Objection 4: Further, the form of the sacrament suffices for its
perfection; hence the sacrament of Baptism can be performed sometimes
by pronouncing the words of the form only, omitting all the others.
Therefore, if the aforesaid words be the form of this sacrament, it
would seem as if this sacrament could be performed sometimes by
uttering those words alone, while leaving out all the others which are
said in the mass; yet this seems to be false, because, were the other
words to be passed over, the said words would be taken as spoken in the
person of the priest saying them, whereas the bread and wine are not
changed into his body and blood. Consequently, the aforesaid words are
not the form of this sacrament.

On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "The consecration is
accomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus. Because,
by all the other words spoken, praise is rendered to God, prayer is put
up for the people, for kings, and others; but when the time comes for
perfecting the sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words, but
the words of Christ. Therefore, it is Christ's words that perfect this
sacrament. "

I answer that, This sacrament differs from the other sacraments in two
respects. First of all, in this, that this sacrament is accomplished by
the consecration of the matter, while the rest are perfected in the use
of the consecrated matter. Secondly, because in the other sacraments
the consecration of the matter consists only in a blessing, from which
the matter consecrated derives instrumentally a spiritual power, which
through the priest who is an animated instrument, can pass on to
inanimate instruments. But in this sacrament the consecration of the
matter consists in the miraculous change of the substance, which can
only be done by God; hence the minister in performing this sacrament
has no other act save the pronouncing of the words. And because the
form should suit the thing, therefore the form of this sacrament
differs from the forms of the other sacraments in two respects. First,
because the form of the other sacraments implies the use of the matter,
as for instance, baptizing, or signing; but the form of this sacrament
implies merely the consecration of the matter, which consists in
transubstantiation, as when it is said, "This is My body," or, "This is
the chalice of My blood. " Secondly, because the forms of the other
sacraments are pronounced in the person of the minister, whether by way
of exercising an act, as when it is said, "I baptize thee," or "I
confirm thee," etc. ; or by way of command, as when it is said in the
sacrament of order, "Take the power," etc. ; or by way of entreaty, as
when in the sacrament of Extreme Unction it is said, "By this anointing
and our intercession," etc. But the form of this sacrament is
pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person, so that it is given to
be understood that the minister does nothing in perfecting this
sacrament, except to pronounce the words of Christ.

Reply to Objection 1: There are many opinions on this matter. Some have
said that Christ, Who had power of excellence in the sacraments,
performed this sacrament without using any form of words, and that
afterwards He pronounced the words under which others were to
consecrate thereafter. And the words of Pope Innocent III seem to
convey the same sense (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), where he says: "In good
sooth it can be said that Christ accomplished this sacrament by His
Divine power, and subsequently expressed the form under which those who
came after were to consecrate. " But in opposition to this view are the
words of the Gospel in which it is said that Christ "blessed," and this
blessing was effected by certain words. Accordingly those words of
Innocent are to be considered as expressing an opinion, rather than
determining the point.

Others, again, have said that the blessing was effected by other words
not known to us. But this statement cannot stand, because the blessing
of the consecration is now performed by reciting the things which were
then accomplished; hence, if the consecration was not performed then by
these words, neither would it be now.

Accordingly, others have maintained that this blessing was effected by
the same words as are used now; but that Christ spoke them twice, at
first secretly, in order to consecrate, and afterwards openly, to
instruct others. But even this will not hold good, because the priest
in consecrating uses these words, not as spoken in secret, but as
openly pronounced. Accordingly, since these words have no power except
from Christ pronouncing them, it seems that Christ also consecrated by
pronouncing them openly.

And therefore others said that the Evangelists did not always follow
the precise order in their narrative as that in which things actually
happened, as is seen from Augustine (De Consens. Evang. ii). Hence it
is to be understood that the order of what took place can be expressed
thus: "Taking the bread He blessed it, saying: This is My body, and
then He broke it, and gave it to His disciples. " But the same sense can
be had even without changing the words of the Gospel; because the
participle "saying" implies sequence of the words uttered with what
goes before. And it is not necessary for the sequence to be understood
only with respect to the last word spoken, as if Christ had just then
pronounced those words, when He gave it to His disciples; but the
sequence can be understood with regard to all that had gone before; so
that the sense is: "While He was blessing, and breaking, and giving it
to His disciples, He spoke the words, 'Take ye,'" etc.

Reply to Objection 2: In these words, "Take ye and eat," the use of the
consecrated, matter is indicated, which is not of the necessity of this
sacrament, as stated above ([4587]Q[74], A[7]). And therefore not even
these words belong to the substance of the form. Nevertheless, because
the use of the consecrated matter belongs to a certain perfection of
the sacrament, in the same way as operation is not the first but the
second perfection of a thing, consequently, the whole perfection of
this sacrament is expressed by all those words: and it was in this way
that Eusebius understood that the sacrament was accomplished by those
words, as to its first and second perfection.