Chapter 62 — The error of unbelievers concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist

Even as some of the disciples were troubled and exclaimed: This is a hard saying; who can listen to it? (John 6:60) when Christ spoke the above words, so again heretics have arisen and denied the truth of the Church’s teaching. They say that this sacrament contains the body and blood of Christ not in reality, but only in signification. Thus, when Christ said, this is my body, his meaning would be, this signifies or represents my body, in the same way as the Apostle says, and the Rock was Christ—that is, represented Christ (1 Cor 10:4). To support this interpretation they quote all the similar expressions of Scripture.

As a plea for holding this opinion, they allege the words of our Lord who, wishing to allay the scandal occasioned to his disciples by his speaking of his body and blood as meat and drink, explained himself by saying: The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life (John 6:64), as though his previous statement were to be taken, not literally, but in a spiritual sense.

Moreover, they are led to hold this view by the many difficulties which would seem to follow from the teaching of the Church in this matter, and on account of which this saying of Christ and of the Church seems hard to them.

In the first place, it is hard to see how the true body of Christ begins to be present on the altar. A thing begins in two ways to be where it was not before: either by local movement, or by something else being changed into it. Thus fire begins to be in a place either by being kindled there, or by being brought there. Now it is clear that the true body of Christ was not always present on this or that altar, since the Church declares that Christ ascended bodily into heaven.

And it is seemingly impossible for anything here below to be changed anew into Christ’s body. For surely nothing is changed into that which is already in existence, since that into which a thing is changed acquires existence by that change. And it is evident that Christ’s body was already in existence through having been conceived in the Virgin’s womb. Consequently, it is seemingly impossible that he should begin to be present on the altar through something else being changed into him.

But neither could he begin to be there by local movement, since whatever is moved thus begins to be in another place in such a way as not to be where it was before. And so, since Christ begins to be present on this altar where this sacrament is being enacted, we shall have to say that he is no longer in heaven, where he had ascended. Moreover, no local movement terminates in two places at the same time. Now it is clear that this sacrament is celebrated on several altars simultaneously. Therefore, it is impossible that Christ begin to be present there by local movement.

A second difficulty is one of place. As long as a thing remains entire, its parts are not scattered about in various places. Now, in this sacrament, it is plain that the bread and wine exist apart in separate places. If, then, Christ’s flesh be under the appearance of bread, and his blood under the appearance of wine, it would seem to follow that Christ does not remain entire, but that whenever this sacrament is enacted his blood is separated from his body.

Moreover, it seems impossible for a greater body to be enclosed in the space of a smaller body. And yet it is evident that Christ’s body is greater in quantity than the bread that is offered on the altar. Therefore, it seems impossible for the whole body of Christ to be where there seems to be bread. And if his whole body is not there then, but only part of it, we come back to the first difficulty, namely, that whenever this sacrament is enacted, the parts of Christ’s body are separated.

Further, one body cannot be in several places. Yet it is clear that this sacrament is celebrated in several places. Therefore, it seems impossible for Christ’s body to be truly present in this sacrament, unless one were to say that one part of him is here, and another part there. And thus again it follows that the celebration of this sacrament involves the division of Christ’s body into parts. But it would seem that the size of Christ’s body is insufficient to be divided into as many parts as there are places in which this sacrament is enacted.

A third difficulty arises from what our senses perceive in this sacrament. Even after the consecration, we clearly perceive all the accidents of bread and wine—namely, color, taste, smell, shape, quantity, and weight. And about these things we cannot be deceived, because the senses are not deceived about their proper sensible objects.

Now these accidents cannot be subjected in Christ’s body, nor can they be in the air immediately surrounding it, since several of them are natural accidents, and require a subject of a certain particular nature differing from that of the human body or the air.

Nor can they exist by themselves, seeing that the very essence of an accident is to be in something.

And accidents, since they are forms, cannot be individualized save by a subject. Hence, apart from a subject, they are universal forms. It follows, then, that these accidents are in their respective determinate subjects—namely, the substances of bread and wine. Therefore, the substance of bread and wine is present, and not the substance of Christ’s body, since two bodies, seemingly, cannot be in the same place.

A fourth difficulty arises from the fact that the bread and wine have the same action, and undergo the same changes, after the consecration as before. Thus the wine, if it were taken in great quantity, would heat and inebriate; the bread would strengthen and nourish. Moreover, if they be kept for a long time and carelessly, they are liable to putrefy, and to be consumed by mice. Again, they can be burnt and turned into ashes and steam. All these things are incompatible with Christ’s body, which is impassible according to faith. Therefore, it would seem that the substance of Christ’s body cannot be present in this sacrament.

A fifth difficulty regards especially the breaking of the bread, since this breaking is apparent to the senses, and is impossible without a subject. And it is absurd to say that the subject of that breaking is Christ’s body. Therefore, it seems that Christ’s body is not there, but the substance of bread and wine.

For these and like reasons the teaching of Christ and the Church appears to be hard.