D. 10 - The body of Christ in the Eucharist

After the Master has determined that three things are found in this sacrament, something that is sacrament alone, something that is reality-and-sacrament, and something that is reality alone, and according to this difference people eat of it in different ways, in this part he begins to describe individually these three things in particular. For this reason it is divided into three parts: in the first, he considers the true body of Christ itself, which is the sacrament, and the reality contained in the sacrament; in the second, the species of bread and wine, which are the sacrament alone, at Distinction 12: but if it is asked about the accidents which remain . . . in what subject they inhere, it seems to me to be better to profess that they exist without a subject than that they are in a subject; (Peter Lombard, Sententiae IV, 12.1 (66), 1.) in the third, he considers the effect of the sacrament, which is the reality alone, at the end of the distinction: and this sacrament was instituted for two causes. (Sent IV, 12.6 (71). 1.)

The first is in two parts: in the first, he shows that the true body of Christ is contained under the sacrament on the altar; in the second, he considers transubstantiation, by which it comes about that the true body of Christ is there, Distinction 11: but if it is asked what is the nature of that change . . . I am not up to the task of defining it. (Sent. IV, 11.3 (60), 1.)

The first is in three: in the first, he sets down the error of some people who deny the truth that he intends to assert, and their evidence; in the second, he unravels their arguments, at: all of these statements are to be taken according to the same line of reasoning; (Sent. IV, 10.1 (58), 4.) in the third, he cites authorities for the truth to be proved, at: they make objection by these and similar texts, etc. (Sent. IV, 10.2 (59), 1.)

The second part is divided into three parts: in the first, he explains the authorities that those men cite for their error, and confirms the exposition mentioned of the saints; in the second, he shows that there is a doubt about a certain text of Augustine cited for it, at: he then adds what troubles the reader more; (Sent. IV, 10.2 (58), 7.) in the third, he explains it, at: attend to these words with diligence. (Sent. IV, 10.1 (58), 8.)

Question 1

The body of Christ in the Eucharist

Here four questions arise:

first, whether the true body of Christ is contained in this sacrament;

• second, whether the whole Christ is contained in this sacrament;
• third, how it is there;
• fourth, how the body of Christ can be recognized as it exists under this sacrament.
• Article 1

Whether the true body of Christ is contained in this sacrament

Obj. 1: To the first we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST III, q. 75, a. 1; SCG IV, chs. 61ff.; De ven. sacr. altar., serm.* 11; Super Matt. 26; Super Ioan. 6, lec. 6; Super I ad Cor. 11, lec. 5.)* It seems that the true body of Christ is not contained in the sacrament of the altar. For in those things that pertain to piety and divine reverence, there should be nothing that implies cruelty or irreverence. But to eat the flesh of a man suggests a certain bestial cruelty and an irreverence for what is eaten. Therefore, in the sacrament of piety which is ordered toward eating as its use, it should not be the true body of Christ that is eaten.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, sacraments are ordained to our benefit. But it is said: the flesh does not profit anything (John 6:63). Therefore, the body of Christ, or his flesh, should not be in this sacrament but only his spiritual power.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, Gregory says on his Homily on Regulus: he was seeking the bodily presence of the Lord, who was never lacking through the Spirit. And so he believed less in him, whom he did not believe could give salvation unless he were bodily present. (Gregory the Great, Homilies on the Gospels, Bk. 2, homily 28, par. 1 (CCSL 141:240).) But we do not hold that the body of Christ is on the altar unless as it is a cause of salvation for us. Therefore, it seems that it proceeds from weakness of faith.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, nothing can be now in a place where it was not before unless it is changed, assuming the place already existed. But the body of Christ before the consecration was not on the altar. If therefore after the consecration it is there according to the truth, it is necessary that it has changed in some way, which cannot be said. Therefore, the true body of Christ is not there.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, no body can be in different places at the same time. But the body of Christ is truly in heaven, where he ascended. Therefore, it is impossible for it to be on the altar. Proof of the first: nothing is contained outside its limits, if the limits of any contained body are simultaneous with the limits of the containing body. Therefore, no body located in one place can be outside the limits of that place, and so it cannot be in two places at once.

Obj. 6: Furthermore, by the same reasoning it can be stated that the body of Christ is in different places and that it is everywhere, as those who say an angel can be in different places say that it is also everywhere if it wills. But to state that the body of Christ can be everywhere is heretical: for that only belongs to divinity. Therefore, it cannot be in different places at once.

Obj. 7: Furthermore, an angel is simpler than the body of Christ. But an angel cannot be in many places at one time. Therefore, neither can the body of Christ: and so the same as before.

Obj. 8: Furthermore, the body of Christ is not able to be in several places just insofar as it is a body, for then this ability would belong to any body; nor is it able to be in several places at once insofar as it is glorified, for this ability would belong with even more reason to a glorified spirit; nor as united to the divinity, for the union does not place it outside the limits of a body. Therefore, it does not apply to it in any way.

On the contrary (1), Whoever eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks to his own judgment, not discerning the body of the Lord (1 Cor 11:27, 29). But if the body of Christ were there only according to signification, it would not be necessary to discern this food from others: for any bread signifies the body of Christ by that reasoning. Therefore, it is necessary to state that it is the true body of Christ.

Furthermore (2), the truth in the New Testament should correspond to the figures of the Old Testament. But in the Old Testament the very lamb that prefigured Christ was taken as food, as is clear from Exodus 12. Therefore, in the New Law the true body of Christ itself, which was symbolized by the lamb, must be eaten.

Furthermore (3), it is said, the works of God are perfect (Deut 32:4). But we would not be perfectly united to God by the sacraments that he gives us, unless he himself were contained in one of them. Therefore, in this sacrament the true body of Christ is contained, since there is no other sacrament one could designate as really containing Christ.

For this (4) many authorities are also cited in the text.

I answer that, the true body of Christ, which he drew from the Virgin, is contained under the sacrament of the altar: and to say the opposite is heresy, for it detracts from the truth of Scripture, where the Lord says, in Matthew 26:26 and elsewhere: this is my body. Now the reason why it is necessary that Christ be contained in this sacrament was said at the beginning of this treatise, Distinction 8: namely, because Christ would not be so perfectly united with us if we only had those sacraments in which Christ is joined to us by his power participated by those sacraments. And so there has to be a certain sacrament in which Christ is contained not by participation but by his own essence, so that there is a complete union of head with members. There also follow other benefits, however, like showing the greatest charity in the fact that he gives himself to us as food; the increase of hope from such an intimate union with him; and the greatest merit of faith in that many things are believed in this sacrament that are not only beyond reason, but even against our senses, as it seems; and many other benefits that cannot sufficiently be explained.

Reply Obj. 1: It would savor of cruelty and the greatest irreverence if the body of Christ were eaten in the mode of physical food, namely so that the true body of Christ itself were torn to pieces and ground up by our teeth. However, this does not happen in sacramental eating, for it is not mangled by this eating, but it makes the ones eating it whole, when they divide the appearances under which it is hidden, as will be said below at Distinction 12.

Reply Obj. 2: The flesh of Christ would have profited nothing if it were eaten physically, as was said; however, it profits much when eaten sacramentally. Hence Augustine says, flesh profits nothing, but how did they understand, for they understood flesh as what is sold as a carcass, or is torn to pieces at the butcher’s. (See Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus (CCSL 36), Tract. 27, n. 5: “quid est ergo: non prodest quidquam caro? non prodest quidquam, sed quomodo illi intellexerunt: carnem quippe sic intellexerunt, quomodo in cadauere dilaniatur, aut in macello uenditur, non quomodo spiritu uegetatur.”)

Reply Obj. 3: We do not say the true body of Christ is on the altar as though it could not confer salvation in any other way, as Regulus believed; but because this is the most fitting mode of being saved, just as also the most fitting mode of human reparation was by the fact that the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (John 1:14), although another mode of reparation was also possible.

Reply Obj. 4: It is not always necessary that something that is now where it was not before be changed, for something can be converted into it, just as when air is converted into fire. Nevertheless, fire is changed by the change of the generation, and this happens because fire is not in that conversion as the terminus of generation but as a composite of the subject of generation, namely, the matter, and the terminus, namely, the form. And this is why the form that is the terminus is not generated per se, as is proved in the Metaphysics 7. (Aristotle, Metaphysics, Bk. 7, ch. 6 (1033b5–6).) However, it is generated per accidens, since it does not subsist on its own, but in something else, and it is said to have changed when that changes. Therefore, the body of Christ is on the altar when it was not before, since the bread has converted into it, so that the whole body itself is the terminus of the conversion per se, just as the form was in the other case. Yet the body of Christ is not a being in another as form is, but subsists in itself; and so there is no need that it be moved in place, or generated, whether per se or per accidens.

Reply Obj. 5: No body is compared to a place unless by means of the dimensions of quantity, and so the body is there as something in a place where its dimensions are commensurate with the dimensions of the place; and in this regard the body of Christ is in only one place, namely, in heaven. But since the substance of the bread is converted into the body of Christ, which bread before was in this place determinately by means of its dimensions, which remain once transubstantiation has happened; therefore the place remains not indeed immediately, having an order to the body of Christ according to that body’s own dimensions, but according to the remaining dimensions of bread, under which the body of Christ takes the place of the substance of bread. And therefore it is not here as in a place, speaking per se, but as in a sacrament, not only signifying, but containing it by the power of the conversion made. And so it is clear that the body of Christ is not outside the boundaries of its own place according as it belongs to it to be somewhere or to be outside something by its proper dimensions. Now, to be somewhere by the measure of proper dimensions is to be somewhere per se, and likewise to be outside something according to the situation of proper dimensions is to be outside something per se. But the body of Christ is outside the boundaries of its place, which belongs to it according to its proper dimensions, as if per accidens, and this is how it is under the sacrament, by which it belongs to it to be somewhere by reason of those dimensions which remain from that body which was converted into the body of Christ.

Reply Obj. 6: As is clear from what has been said, the body of Christ is only said to be somewhere by reason of its proper dimensions, and those of the body that was converted into it. However, it is not possible that its proper dimensions be everywhere, nor that the body converted into it be everywhere; and so although the body of Christ is in many places in a certain way, nevertheless, it cannot be everywhere.

Reply Obj. 7: That argument would work well if the body of Christ were in many places by reason of its own boundaries, which applies even more to an angel; but to be in several places at once applies to it inasmuch as a certain body is converted into the body of Christ, but not into an angel.

Reply Obj. 8: This does not apply to the body of Christ as a body, nor as glorified, nor as united with the divinity, but as a terminus of a conversion. And that is why it would happen the same way with the body of a stone, if God in a similar way changed the substance of bread into a stone, and there is no doubt that he could do so.

Article 2

Whether the whole Christ is contained in this sacrament

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the second we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST III, q. 76, aa. 1 & 2; SCG IV, ch. 64; Quodl. VII, q. 4, a. 1; Super Matt. 26; Super Ioan. 6, lec. 6; Super I ad Cor. 11, lec. 6.) It seems that Christ is not contained under the sacrament as to his soul. For it does not belong to Christ to be on the altar, as was said, except insofar as the bread is converted into him. But the bread is obviously not converted into the soul of Christ. Therefore, the soul of Christ is not there.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, Christ is in the sacrament of the altar as the food of the faithful. But he is not food in his soul, but only in his body: for he says, my flesh is true food (John 6:55). Therefore, he is not there according to his soul.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, a sacrament’s form should correspond to the sacrament. But in the form no mention is made of the soul, but only of the body, for it is said, this is my body. Therefore, he is not there according to his soul.

On the contrary (1), whenever there are two things that are not separated according to being, where one is, the other is too. But Christ’s body and soul are one being, like matter and form. Therefore, since the body of Christ is on the altar, his soul will be there too.

Furthermore (2), the body of Christ is not an inanimate thing in the sacrament. But a body without a soul is an inanimate thing. Therefore, Christ is not there according to his body alone, but also according to his soul.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that under the appearance (The word species has many meanings, including appearance, kind, form, beauty, and the species that is opposed to genus. When Aquinas uses species to refer to the Eucharist, he means the substance of the body and blood of Christ under the appearance (or accidents) of bread and wine.) of bread Christ is only contained as living flesh. (Parallels: ST III, q. 76, a. 2; SCG IV, ch. 64; Super Ioan. 6, lec. 6; Super I ad Cor. 11, lec. 6.) For, as has been said, the body of Christ is there as food. But being food only applies to the flesh; hence, my flesh is true food (John 6:55). Therefore, no part of the body is there except the flesh.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, what is already does not need to come to be. Therefore, if all the parts of the body of Christ are in the consecrated bread, the blood will be there; therefore it will not be necessary that it come to be there again by the consecration of the wine.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, God shows truth in his revelations: otherwise the revelation would be the cause of error, which is unfitting. But sometimes the appearance of bread is shown as though only flesh were there, as is read in the life of blessed Gregory. (See John the Deacon, The Life of Saint Gregory the Great, Bk. 2, n. 41 (PL 75:103).) Therefore, under the appearance of bread there is not anything of the body of Christ but the flesh, and not blood or bone, or anything else like that.

On the contrary (1), just as the body of Christ is represented in the sacrament, so it is also contained there. But it is represented according as it is, otherwise the signification would be false. Therefore, it is there according as it is. But the flesh is not without blood and other parts of the body. Therefore there is not only flesh there, but also the other parts of the body.

Furthermore (2), in the species of bread, and likewise in the wine, is represented all that is reality alone without the sacrament, namely, the unity of the mystical body, as is clear from what was said in Distinction 8. But just as what is reality alone is represented, so also what is reality-and-sacrament is represented and contained. Therefore, the whole Christ, who is reality-and-sacrament, is contained under both species.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the body of Christ is not there according to its proper quantity. (Parallels: ST III, q. 76, a. 3; SCG IV, ch. 67; Quodl. VII, q. 4, a. 1; Super Matt. 26; Super I ad Cor. 11, lec. 5.) For nothing that remains has been converted into something else. But the quantity of bread remains. Therefore, it is not converted into the quantity of the body of Christ. But the body of Christ is only on the altar, as was said, as the terminus of conversion. Therefore it is not there according to its own quantity.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, according to the Philosopher in the Physics 4, (Aristotle, Physics, Bk. 4, ch. 1 (209a4–6).) a natural body cannot exist at the same time with separated dimensions, for then two dimensions would exist at the same time. But the dimensions of the bread remain. Therefore, the body of Christ cannot exist under the same dimensions with the dimensions of its own proper quantity.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, an accident depends more on a substance than a substance on an accident. But on the side of what is sacrament alone, an accident is found without substance. All the more therefore can can one posit on the side of what is reality-and-sacrament that it be a substance without an accident; and so the body of Christ is without quantity.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, just as was said above, wherever there is a body according to its own dimensions, it is there as in a place. But the body of Christ is not under the sacrament as in a place, since it would then be outside the boundaries of its own proper place. Therefore, it is impossible that it be there under its proper dimensions.

On the contrary (1), a subject is never separated from its proper passion. But the proper passion of a bodily substance is dimensive quantity. Therefore, since the substance of the body of Christ is under the sacrament, so will his dimensive quantity also be.

Furthermore (2), organization is of the nature of a living body, as is clear from On the Soul 2. (Aristotle, On the Soul, Bk. 2, ch. 1 (412a27–412b6).) But organization requires a diverse positioning of parts, while a positioning presupposes quantity. Therefore, it is necessary, since the living body of Christ is under the sacrament, that it have its proper quantity there.

Quaestiuncula 4

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it is not there according to its whole quantity. (Parallels: ST III, q. 76, a. 4; SCG IV, chs. 63–64 and 67; Quodl. VII, q. 4, a. 1.) For it is obvious that the quantity of the body of Christ is not found outside the body of Christ, so that the body is without its proper quantity. But it is evident that the body of Christ is not beyond the dimensions of the bread, nor is there any part of its dimension under which the body of Christ is not. Therefore, if the entire quantity of the body of Christ is there, it neither exceeds the dimensions of the bread, nor is it exceeded. But it is a common conception of the soul that two quantities, of which one superimposed on the other neither exceeds nor is exceeded, are equal, as is clear in the beginning of Euclid. Therefore the whole quantity of the body of Christ is equal to the quantity of bread, which is false, because it happens to be also greater and less.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, no body according to its whole quantity can be contained equally by a great and small external quantity. But the body of Christ is contained equally in small and large pieces of consecrated bread. Therefore, it is not there according to its own entire quantity.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, whenever a body having distinct parts according to its own entire intrinsic quantity is contained under a certain extrinsic quantity, it is possible to assign under which part of that quantity individual parts are contained. But the body of Christ, since it is organic, has distinct parts. If, therefore, it is contained under these dimensions according to its whole quantity, one will be able to assign where its head and hands and feet are; which is impossible. For the smallness of quantity is not enough for such a distance, and particularly for parts having determinate distances, because of the many intermediate things having determinate quantities.

On the contrary (1), the totality of a body depends on the totality of its quantity, for according to quantity it is divided and has parts. But according to Augustine, the whole Christ is eaten in this sacrament. (See Gratian’s Decretals, Part 3, de Consecratione, d. 2, ch. 75 (PL 187:1772).) Therefore, he is there according to his whole quantity.

Furthermore (2), it is impossible for something to be somewhere according to a part of its quantity and not according to the whole, unless its quantity has been divided. But the quantity of the body of Christ is not actually divided, because that body is impassible. Therefore, since a certain quantity of his body is contained in the sacrament, it is impossible to say that it is not contained in its entirety.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that there are two ways something can be contained in the sacrament of the altar: in one way, by the power of the sacrament, in another, by natural concomitance.

By the power of the sacrament is contained what the conversion terminates in. Now, what it is that the conversion terminates in can be known by three things. First, from what was converted: for the matter of the sacrament is only converted into something that it bears a resemblance to according to the properties of its own nature, like wine into blood. Second, from the signification of the form, by whose power the conversion happens; and this is why whatever the conversion terminates in is signified by the form. Third, by the use of the sacrament: for what pertains to food is contained under the appearance (Species has many meanings, including appearance, form, kind, beauty, and the species that is contrasted with a genus. In reference to the Eucharist, Aquinas uses species to mean the substance of the body and blood of Christ under the appearance (or accidents) of bread and wine.) of bread by the power of the sacrament; what pertains to drink, under the appearance of wine.

Now by natural concomitance, and almost incidentally, there is contained under the sacrament something that is not per se a terminus of the conversion, but without which the terminus of conversion cannot exist. According to this, therefore, it is is evident that since the soul of Christ does not have any resemblance to the substance of bread, nor is any mention made of it in the sacrament’s form, nor is his soul suited to the use of the sacrament, which is to eat and drink, neither the conversion of the bread nor that of the wine terminates in the soul, but in the body and blood of Christ, which are not now separated from the soul. And this is why the soul is not contained there by the power of the sacrament, but nevertheless it is contained there by natural concomitance with the body that it animates. Hence if the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ had happened when he was dead, the soul would not have been under the sacrament. And what was said about his soul must be understood about his divinity; except that his divinity is everywhere, even apart from the sacrament.

And by this the answers to the objections are evident.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that there are two uses of the sacrament, namely, eating and drinking. But eating is the use of dry food, while drinking is the use of wet food, which is called ‘drink.’ And so under the species of bread, which is ordered to the use of eating, there is contained by the power of the sacrament not only the flesh of Christ but his bones, and every such part; but not his blood, which is contained by the power of the sacrament under the appearance of wine, which is ordered to the use of drinking; although by natural concomitance the blood is also under the appearance of bread, and the flesh is under the appearance of wine.

Reply Obj. 1: The part is included there for the whole, namely, flesh for the whole body: and this part was specifically named, so that by its likeness to physical eating, which flesh is particularly suited for, it would pave the way for the sacrament, although also bones and other parts like this are in some way suited to eating, since according to Avicenna some animals are nourished by these things. (At their Early Science Lab website, Paula Findlen and Rebecca Bence, explaining early views of the skeleton, cite the following text from Avicenna: “The bone . . . is, however, moister than hair, because bone is derived from the blood, and its fume is dry, so that it dries up the humors naturally located in the bones. This accounts for the fact that many animals thrive on bones, whereas no animal thrives on hair—or at least it would be a very exceptional thing if hair ever did provide nourishment” (see https://web.stanford.edu/class/history13/earlysciencelab/body/skeletonpages/skeleton.html, accessed January 22, 2015).)

Reply Obj. 2: What already exists does not come to be in the way in which it exists, but it can come to be in another way, since what is in potency can come into act; and so the blood of Christ, which, once the host is consecrated, exists under the sacrament not by the power of the sacrament, is made to exist there by the power of the sacrament through the consecration of the wine. Likewise also, what is in one place incidentally can at some time be made to be there essentially.

Reply Obj. 3: Physical sight, as will be said, cannot see the body of Christ as it is under the sacrament. However, what it is that sometimes appears in this sacrament in the appearance of flesh or blood will be said later in Article 4, Subquestion 2.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that the substance of bread, which is converted into the body of Christ, does not have any relation of similarity to the quantity or other accidents of Christ, but only to the substance of his body; and so, since nothing of the bread is converted into the body of Christ except its substance, since the accidents remain, it is clear that this conversion terminates directly in substance, but not in accidents, for the accidents of the bread remain. And so the quantity and other proper accidents of his body are not there by the power of the sacrament, but they are there according to the truth of reality by the natural concomitance of an accident in a subject, as was said about the soul.

Reply Obj. 1: That argument proves that it is not there by the power of the sacrament, and this I grant.

Reply Obj. 2: Because the dimensions of the body of Christ are not there by the power of the sacrament, but only by the fact that they are inseparably concomitant with the substance, it is evident that the proper dimensions of Christ’s body are there in an order contrary to the dimensions of a body located in a place. For the substance of a body in place only has a relation to the place by means of the dimensions; and so, because the dimensions of a body in place cannot be together with other dimensions, it follows as a result that the substance of a body in place cannot exist together with other dimensions, whether separated or existing in another body. But here, to the contrary, the substance of the body of Christ is related immediately and per se to existing under the sacrament, and its proper dimensions as a result and incidentally. Substance, however, by the fact that it is substance, is not prevented from being together with any dimensions, whether united with it or separated, or existing in another subject, as the substance of an angel can exist simultaneously where there is another body; and so the body of Christ, too, under its proper quantity can exist under the dimensions of bread.

Reply Obj. 3: It cannot happen that the accidents of the bread remain without its substance, unless by some change of the bread, and likewise it cannot happen that the substance of the body of Christ exist without accidents unless by some change in itself. However, God could bring it about that it exist without its proper accidents, at least certain ones, without an intrinsic change. And since it is not unfitting for bread to be changed, but it would be unfitting for Christ to be changed by an intrinsic change, therefore what the argument concludes is not the same.

Reply Obj. 4: Although the body of Christ with its proper quantity exists under the sacrament, it is still not there by means of its own quantity, and so it is not there as in a place.

Response to Quaestiuncula 4

To the fourth question, it should be said that by the same account by which part of the quantity is said to be there, the whole quantity must also be said to be there: for just as the body of Christ is not separated from its proper quantity, so one part of the quantity is not separated from another; for without an intrinsic change in the body of Christ neither one can come about.

Reply Obj. 1: In superimposing, a quantity is directly applied to a quantity. And since the quantity of Christ is not directly applied to the quantity of bread, because the body of Christ does not exist under the dimensions of the bread by means of that quantity, there is not any superimposing of quantity on quantity, nor any alignment of quantities, and so it does not follow that they are equal.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as those things that do not have quantity can exist equally under small and large quantity, as is seen in the case of the soul, which is equally in large and small bodies, so also that which is contained under a certain quantity not by reason of its own quantity can be equally in large and small quantity, as is the case in the question at hand.

Reply Obj. 3: As the objection mentions, position presupposes quantity, and since the quantity of Christ has no relationship to the dimensions of the bread, neither has the position of the parts of Christ’s body. And so although the body of Christ, as it exists under the sacrament, has distinct parts situated in natural position, nevertheless one cannot assign in the parts of the dimensions of the bread where individual parts of the body of Christ lie. Nor, however, does it follow that we may call the body of Christ confused, since the parts do have order in themselves; but they are not related to external dimensions according to that order.

Article 3

How the body of Christ is there

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the third we proceed thus. (Parallels: above, at the end of a. 1; ST III, q. 75, a. 1, ad 3; q. 76, a. 5; SCG IV, chs. 62, 64, and 67; De 36 art., a. 33.) It seems that the body of Christ is contained under the sacrament circumscriptively. For every body that is in a place is circumscribed. But the body of Christ is under the sacrament as in a place, which is evident because there is no other mode of ‘being in’ that the Philosopher assigns in the Physics 4 that one can assign to it. (Aristotle, Physics, Bk. 4, ch. 3 (210a14ff.).) Therefore, the body of Christ is in the place circumscriptively.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, in the Six Principles (Gilbert de la Porrée (Gilbertus Porretanus), Sex principiis (ed. Heysse), n. 25, p. 27.) it is said that it is proper first of all to position to inhere in a substance. But the substance of the body of Christ, as it exists under the sacrament, is not stripped of its other properties. Therefore, neither is it stripped of position, and so according as it is under the sacrament, it is in a place. For position describes the order of parts in place.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, every body that is contained by the surface of another body, such that it neither exceeds nor is exceeded, is circumscribed by that surface as its place. But the whole body of Christ, as was said, is contained under the outer surface of the bread’s dimensions which remain, and it does not exceed nor is it exceeded. Therefore, it is as in a place circumscriptively.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, everything that fills its place is circumscribed by the place. But the body of Christ fills the dimensions of the place, for otherwise there would be a vacuum. Therefore, the body of Christ is circumscribed by these appearances.

On the contrary (1), every body that is circumscribed by a place is commensurate with the place that circumscribes it: for place and the thing located there are equals, as it says in the Physics 4. (Aristotle, Physics, Bk. 4, ch. 4 (211a1–2).) But the body of Christ is not commensurate with the quantity of the dimensions [of the species], as was said in the preceding article. Therefore, it is not there as in a place circumscriptively.

Furthermore (2), every body that is circumscribed by some place has its parts determinately situated in that place. But as was said, this does not apply to the body of Christ by reason of those dimensions. Therefore, it is not contained circumscriptively by them.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it is contained under the species’ dimensions at least as limited by their boundaries. (See also the preceding qa.) For there is more difference between an angel’s nature and place than between the body of Christ and place, but an angel cannot be in a place unless it is limited by that place, as it is commonly said. Therefore, much more is the body of Christ limited under these species.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, every individual physical thing is determined to ‘here’ and ‘now’. But the body of Christ is one of these things. Therefore, it is determined to the ‘here’. Therefore, it is limited by the boundaries of the species.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, every finite thing existing somewhere is limited by the boundaries of that place. But the body of Christ is one of these things. Therefore, etc.

On the contrary (1), everything that exists somewhere limited by its boundaries exists so that it is there and not elsewhere. But the body of Christ does not exist under the species such that it is there and not elsewhere. Therefore, it does not exist limited by the boundaries of the species.

Furthermore (2), everything that can exist somewhere other than here without a change in itself does not exist here as limited by its boundaries: for we say that angels are moved because of this, that they are limited by the boundaries of a place. But the body of Christ can be somewhere else than under those species without any change either of itself or of the species; for example, if the body of Christ is consecrated elsewhere. Therefore, it was not here as limited by those boundaries.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the body of Christ cannot exist in its entirety under each part of the species. (Parallels: ST III, q. 76, a. 3; SCG IV, ch. 67; Quodl. VII, q. 4, a. 1; Super Matt. 26; Super I ad Cor. 11, lec. 5.) For the dimensions of the bread remaining can be divided infinitely. If, then, the whole body of Christ were in each part of those dimensions, it would be infinitely repeated under the same dimensions, which is impossible.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, whatever things exist together with one and the same thing exist together with each other. But if in every part of the dimensions is the whole body of Christ, then wherever there is a part of the body of Christ there would be the whole of the body of Christ. Therefore, wherever one part was, another would be, and this conflicts with the distinction of parts, which is required in an organic body. Therefore it is not possible that the whole body of Christ exist under every part of the species.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, Augustine says that it is proper to spirit that it can exist wholly in different parts at the same time. (Augustine, Epistle 166, n. 4 (PL 33:721).) But the body of Christ is not placed, whether by union or by glory, outside the limits of “body” such that it could receive the property of a spirit. Therefore, the body of Christ does not exist whole in each part of the species.

On the contrary (1), Hilary says: where there is part of the body, there is also the whole; (Gratian’s Decretals, Part 3, De consecratione, d. 2, ch. 78 (PL 187:1773).) and he is speaking of the body of the Lord in the sacrament. But in any part of the dimensions there is a certain part of the Lord’s body. Therefore, in any part of the dimensions there is the whole.

Furthermore (2), consecrated bread is a certain homogeneous whole thing, i.e., of one single notion in the whole and in the parts. But under the whole is the whole body. Therefore, under any of the body’s parts is the whole.

Quaestiuncula 4

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the body of Christ is moved when the host is moved. (Parallels: ST III, q. 76, a. 6; De 36 art., a. 34.) For everything that stops being where it formerly was and begins to be where it formerly was not, is moved either per se or incidentally. But when the host is transferred, the body of Christ stops being where it was before, namely, on the altar, and begins to be where it was not before, namely, in the pyx, or in the mouth. Therefore, the body of Christ is moved when the host is moved, either per se or incidentally.

Obj. 2: Furthermore according to the Philosopher in the Topics 2, (Aristotle, Topics, Bk. 2, ch. 7 (113a29–30).) when we are moving, those things that are in us are moved. But the body of Christ is truly contained under those species. Therefore, when the species are transferred, it too is transferred.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the soul or an angel differs more from the nature of place than the body of Christ. But a soul or an angel is moved incidentally, when the body united to it or assumed by it is moved. Therefore, much more is the body of Christ.

On the contrary (1), no resting thing remaining in the same place is moved per se or incidentally. But the body of Christ is one of these things. Therefore, etc.

Furthermore (2), what is moved incidentally at the motion of another is in it as limited by its boundaries; hence God is not moved at the movement of anything, nor is the soul at the movement of the hand. But the body of Christ is not under those species as limited by the boundaries. Therefore, it is not moved at the movement of those species.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that place is said to circumscribe what is in a place by the fact that it encompasses the figure of the thing in the place, for proper place and the thing in that place must have one shape; however, shape is the quality of quantity. And because the body of Christ does not have a relation to the species under which it is contained by means of quantity but vice versa, as was said, therefore neither does the shape of the body of Christ correspond to the shape of the species as it appears to the senses. And therefore it is evident that it is not under the species as though limited by their boundaries, and consequently neither is it in them as in a place, for nothing per se, properly speaking, is in a place as in a place, except what is limited by the boundaries in the place.

Reply Obj. 1: The relation of the body of Christ to the species under which it exists is not like any natural comparison; and so it cannot be reduced, properly speaking, to any of the modes assigned by the Philosopher. Nevertheless, it has a certain likeness to that mode of saying that something is in a place according as being in a place is being in something separate outside of one’s own substance, which is not the cause of it. And this is also how Innocent says that the body of Christ is in many places, because it is contained under many species. (Cf. Innocent III, De sacro altaris mysterio, Bk. 4, ch. 27 and ch. 44 (PL 217:875, 886).)

Reply Obj. 2: Although the body of Christ is not stripped of position, nor any of its own properties, by the fact that it is under the sacrament, nevertheless it does not follow that it is related to the sacrament’s species according as it has figure and quantity and position; just as a man is not related to a place by the fact that he has a soul, or by means of his soul; although by the fact that he exists in a place, he is not deprived of his soul.

Reply Obj. 3: For something to be circumscribed more is required, namely, that what is in a place be configured to the place, or vice versa; and this is not the case in question, for the reason already given.

Reply Obj. 4: A natural body is not capable of filling its place on account of its matter, nor on account of its form, but on account of its dimensions; hence according to the Philosopher in the Physics 4 and in the Metaphysics 3, (Aristotle, Physics, Bk. 4, ch. 1 (290a4–6); Metaphysics, Bk. 3, ch. 2 (998a13).) if one posits dimensions existing on their own (or a mathematical body, which is the same thing), they fill their place, and they cannot be there at the same time as another body. Nor is it a problem that he himself in the Physics 4, (Aristotle, Physics, Bk. 4, ch. 6 (213a11ff.).) on the nature of a vacuum, seems to use the separated dimensions like a vacuum: for it proceeds from the supposition of those who stated that separated dimensions existing between the boundaries of a containing body were place. Hence it follows that when those dimensions were without sensible body, which is called a vacuum, they would thus posit a vacuum. And so it should be said in this case that since the body of Christ is not related by means of its proper dimensions to that place in which it exists under the sacrament, it does not fill the place. Nor, however, is that place empty, for it is filled by the separated dimensions of the sacrament of the body of Christ.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that for something to be in a place as limited by its boundaries, two things are required. The first is that it belongs to it to be there, for what is not in a certain place cannot be in that place as limited by its borders. The second is that it is there as in a place commensurate in some way with its quantity or power. For a bicubital body is not bound by a space of one cubit, although it might be there in some sense; nor is the soul bound by existing in the hand, for it is in the other parts, by the fact that it is not in the hand according to its whole power. And so everything that has finite quantity, or power, must be in the place where it is, as bound by it. And that is why angels are in a place as bound, but God is not. However, although the body of Christ in truth exists under the species, it nevertheless does not belong to it to be ‘there’ by reason of itself, because it exists there neither by reason of its own quantity, as was said, nor by reason of its own power, but by reason of that thing pre-existing there that was converted into it, and the dimensions of that thing remain afterward, by which it is determined to that place; and so it is not bound by the limits of that place, but it can be elsewhere in the same way, wherever were the dimensions of the bread that was converted into it.

Reply Obj. 1: An angel is in the place by which it is bound not because something is converted into it, but by reason of its own operation, power, and essence; and so it cannot be anywhere but one place, because the substance of a thing is only once.

Reply Obj. 2: The body of Christ, just like other bodies, is determined to one place which belongs to it by reason of its quantity, for it is there as in a place; but it is not under the species in this way; and so the argument does not follow.

Reply Obj. 3: Finite and infinite are characteristics of quantity, according to the Philosopher in the Physics 1. (Aristotle, Physics, Bk. 1, ch. 2 (185a33–34).) Hence, since it is not by the nature of its quantity that the body of Christ is able to exist where it is consecrated, but rather by the conversion of something else into the body of Christ itself, in the same way, to be in many things and not in one as bound by its limits, does not pertain to its finiteness or infiniteness but rather to the number of those things that are converted into it.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that there are two opinions about this. For some people say that while the host remains complete, Christ is whole under the whole host, not, however, under any little part of the host; but once the host is divided, the whole Christ remains under any part. And they give the example of a mirror, for Augustine says that just as appearances or images are multiplied by a broken mirror, in the same way after the bread is broken, Christ is there in every part. (By the time he wrote the Summa theologiae, Thomas knew that this had not been said by Augustine; instead he merely says “quidam dicunt” (ST III, q. 76, a. 3). The editors of the Editiones Paulinae ST note that this opinion was recounted by, among others, Innocent III (De sacro altaris mysterio, Bk. 4, ch. 8 [PL 217:861]) and Bonaventure (In IV Sent. d. 10, p. 1, a. 1, q. 5 [Quarrachi ed., IV:224]).) However, it is evident that before the mirror was broken there was only one image there. But that cannot stand; for while the host remains whole, in some way the body of Christ exists under the parts of the host. Therefore, if it is not there as a whole, it will be there as a part, but everything that is whole in a whole, and its part in a part, is there as in a place, and so the body of Christ would be present as in a place under the sacrament, and circumscriptively; which is impossible. Moreover, the example is not fitting: for the image in a mirror is not there as a form resting absolutely in a subject, but produced by reflection, and so as long as there is a surface of mirror, a reflection will be made, and an image results; however, once the mirror is broken there are many surfaces, and consequently many reflections, and many resulting images. But if there were a form reposing absolutely in a subject, either it would follow quantity, as whiteness is founded in a surface; or it would precede quantity, like substantial form. If in the first way, it would necessarily be whole in the whole and a part in the part before the breaking of the mirror as well as after. But if it preceeded quantity, it would be whole in the whole and whole in the parts both before and after, as the whole substantial form of wood is in each part of it; for the totality of substantial form does not receive the totality of quantity, as it is with the totality of accidental forms, which are founded in quantity and presuppose it.

However, the body of Christ is contained absolutely under the species; and this does not happen to the substance by means of quantity, as was said, but by reason of the substance, inasmuch as the substance of the bread has been converted. And so also before the breaking, the whole is in all and the whole is in the parts, for wherever there was the whole nature of bread, there is the whole nature of the body of Christ, and consequently also the whole body, and all its quantity. And this is the other opinion, which seems more true.

Reply Obj. 1: The unity of a thing is consequent on its being. However, if something is continuous and homogeneous, its parts do not have actual being before it is divided, but only potential being; and thus none of them have proper unity actually. Hence their number cannot be taken in act but only in potency. And because of this, the form that is whole in a whole like this, and whole in its parts, is not said to be there actually many times before the division of its continuum, but only potentially. But after the division it is multiplied actually, as is evident with the soul in anulose animals. And similarly, although before the division of the host, the body of Christ is whole under any tiny piece of the host, nevertheless, it does not exist many times under those pieces actually, but only potentially. Nor is it unfitting that it exists there an infinite number of times potentially.

Reply Obj. 2: Confusion is the opposite of the ordering of parts that is the nature of position. And since the body of Christ does not exist as localized under the sacrament, therefore the fact that in any tiny thing representing the host there is the whole body, and any part of it, does not result in a confusion of parts. For although one cannot take the order of the parts of Christ’s body according to their relation to the pieces of the host, nevertheless one can take the order of those very parts to each other in the body of Christ according to proper quantity.

Reply Obj. 3: It belongs to spirit to be completely in the whole, as well as in any part, for it does not have quantity, nor does its substance depend on quantity. However, although the body of Christ considered in itself is not cut off from its proper quantity, nevertheless, it is not related according to its proper quantity to the host under which it exists. And therefore it is not spirit, but it partakes of a certain property of spirit in its relation to the species under which it is contained.

Response to Quaestiuncula 4

To the fourth question, it should be said that to be moved in a place includes being in a place; hence for something to be moved per se in a place it is necessary that it be per se in a place, and that it be moved per se, not at the movement of another. But something is moved incidentally in a place in two ways: in one way, when it is incidentally in a place, as forms are moved incidentally; in another way when it is per se in a place, but it is moved in the place incidentally, as is seen in things that are carried, for the place that they change is per se their proper or common place. But the body of Christ is not per se in the place which the species change, neither as in a proper place nor as in a common place, as can be seen from what has been said. And so in that place it cannot be moved per se, nor incidentally, like bodies are moved incidentally, but in that way in which something is both incidentally in a place and is moved incidentally. Nor does it make any difference, as some people say it does, whether the species are moved in the same place or transferred from one place to another: for what, remaining in the same place according to its substance, is moved, changes place not only according to parts but according to the whole, as is proved in the Physics 6. (Aristotle, Physics, Bk. 6, ch. 9 (240a29ff.).)

And according to this the answers to both parts are evident, except the last.

Reply Obj. 2: Although it is not limited by this place, nevertheless it is completely there both as to its substance and as to its power, though incidentally. However, the soul is not perfectly present in the hand, and so it is not the same.

Article 4

How the body of Christ can be recognized as it exists under this sacrament

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the fourth we proceed thus. (Parallel: ST III, q. 76, aa. 7–8.) It seems that the eyes of the glorified can see the very body of Christ existing under these appearances. For Christ himself existing under these appearances sees himself there with his bodily eyes. But a glorified body is conformed to his body, as it says in Philippians 3:21. Therefore also, the eyes of someone else glorified, for example the Virgin, can do the same.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, as will be said later, the body of Christ is set forth under a different appearance, so that faith may have merit. But those who are in glory do not have faith. Therefore, they attain to seeing the very substance of his body with their bodily eyes, even as he exists under the sacrament.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, because of the veil of the species under which the true body of Christ is veiled, the senses of those wayfaring in this life are deceived. But the state of glory does not admit of deception nor of veils. Therefore, they see the very substance of the body of Christ under the sacrament.

On the contrary (1), the greater magnitude seen from an equal distance seems to be under a greater angle, as perspectives prove. But the quantity of the body of Christ is greater than that of the host, and the distance to the eye is the same. Therefore, the eye seeing the body of Christ and the host sees the body of Christ under a greater angle. But the body of Christ is seen under the appearance of the host. Therefore the smaller angle contains the larger, which is impossible.

Furthermore (2), it is not the nature of a body to move the sight except by moving the medium. But the medium is not moved by the color of the body of Christ, for then we too would see it. Therefore, it is impossible that it be seen by any eyes; for no eyes see unless moved by color.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that when it appears in the appearance of flesh or of a child on the altar that it is seen in its proper appearance. (Parallels: ST III, q. 76, a. 8; De ven. sacr. altar., serm. 11.) For the body of Christ does not exist except under its proper species or the species of bread. But in this case the species of bread cease to be there. Therefore, if that is not the proper species in which it is seen, it will be there in no way at all.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, an apparition like that is for building up the faith. But faith would not be confirmed if Christ appeared under the appearance of some other flesh. Therefore, he appears there in his own appearance.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, nothing that is not in a thing can appear in it. But in the sacrament of the altar there is nothing but the appearance of the bread that is sacrament alone, and the body of Christ, which is the reality contained; however, what appears there is not the species of bread. Therefore, it is the species of the body of Christ.

On the contrary (1), since in this sacrament there is no deception, therefore what the senses perceive there must be there according to the truth. But the senses perceive there certain small dimensions, and the judgment of them belongs to the senses. Therefore, those dimensions are there. But they are not the dimensions of the body of Christ, since they are much smaller. Therefore other dimensions are there than the dimensions of the body of Christ, and the species which appear there are grounded in those dimensions. Therefore, since the species of the body of Christ are not grounded in anything but their own proper dimensions, it does not seem that the body of Christ is there in its own species.

Furthermore (2), the surface of that species that appears there touches the air surrounding it. Therefore, what possesses that surface is there as in a place. But the body of Christ is not there as in a place, as was said. Therefore that species that appears there is not the species of the body of Christ.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that in this case it should be consumed. For devotion is required in the one receiving. But such an apparition happens to increase devotion. Therefore, when this happens, all the more should it be consumed.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, whoever consecrates must consume, according to the canons; and this could not happen unless what appears under the species of flesh were consumed. Therefore, he must consume it.

On the contrary, nothing abhorrent is to be committed in this sacrament. But it is abhorrent to eat raw flesh. Therefore, what appears in the substance of raw flesh is not to be consumed.

Quaestiuncula 4

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that neither can an angel see the body of Christ under the sacrament. For certain saints are greater than some of the angels, as is held in the Gloss on this text: we will judge angels (1 Cor 6:3). (See the Glossa Lombardi, PL 191:1576.) But the eyes of a glorified human saint cannot see it. Therefore, neither can an angel.

Obj. 2: Moreover, if something that is visible is not seen by anyone, this is because of a defect in the one seeing. But the eyes of the glorified, who do not see the body of Christ under the sacrament, are immune from all defect. Therefore, the body of Christ is not visible in itself when existing under the sacrament. But what is not visible in itself can be seen by no one. Therefore neither can an angel see the body of Christ under the sacrament.

On the contrary, Gregory says: for what is there they may not see who see the one who sees all? (Cf. Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob (CCSL 143), Bk. 2, ch. 3: “Quid enim de his quae scienda sunt nesciunt qui scientem omnia sciunt?”) But angels see God, who sees all things, as is clear from that text, their angels are always looking upon the face of the Father (Matt 18:10). Therefore, they see the body of Christ under the sacrament.

Quaestiuncula 5

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it can be comprehended by the understanding of someone wayfaring in this life. For what is above the understanding is above speech, as is clear in the Book of Causes. (Proposition 6. For the text of this proposition as well as discussion of it, see Thomas’s Commentary on the Book of Causes, trans. Vincent Guagliardo, Charles Hess, and Richard Taylor (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1996), 45–52.) But we speak of the body of Christ contained under the sacrament. Therefore, it is not entirely above our understanding.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, no one is bound to what is impossible. But anyone is bound to concede and to hold in his mind, that the true body of Christ is under the sacrament. Therefore, it can be grasped by the mind.

On the contrary, our understanding has its origin in our senses. But the body of Christ under the sacrament is not perceptible to the senses, as was proved. Therefore, it is not available to our understanding.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that nothing is seen by physical sight unless its eye is moved by the object according to the likeness of color existing in it, which likeness indeed first happens in the medium, and then in the senses. But the body of Christ does not stand in a relationship to the species under which it exists by reason of its quantity; and so a likeness of its color cannot be replicated in the air touching the species, for two reasons. First, because every physical action requires contact, but bodily touch follows quantity, for it is nothing else than the union of the boundaries of two quantities; and so the body of Christ does not touch the surrounding air; and because of this it cannot generate in it a likeness of its color. Second, because color follows quantity, since its immediate subject is the surface; and because the body of Christ does not stand in a relationship to this place by reason of its quantity, neither does it by reason of its color; and so just as it is not joined to the air surrounding it according to quantity, so also it does not assimilate it to itself by generating the likeness of its own color in it.

Reply Obj. 1: If the eyes of Christ were outside the species of the sacrament, they would not see its substance contained within the species by the nature of glory, except miraculously; and so it would not be necessary that the eyes of the glorified see it, except perhaps by a miracle.

Reply Obj. 2: Those who possess the beatific vision, although they do not perhaps see the body of Christ by physical sight under the sacrament, do see by full intellectual sight; and so it is not necessary that they have faith about it, but perfect knowledge.

Reply Obj. 3: The senses are not deceived in this sacrament, for the senses are not able to judge about substance, but about sensible forms; and so since the sensible forms are true there, there is no deception in the judgment of the senses. But there can be deception in the judgment of the understanding, unless faith is present, or full knowledge. And although it may be hidden from the physical sight of the blessed, nevertheless it is not hidden from the blessed themselves, who look with understanding; just as also their physical eyes do not see the essence of God, but the eyes of their minds do, as Augustine says in his book On Seeing God. (See Augustine, Epistle 148, n. 5 (CSEL 44:347).)

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that without any doubt what appears there is the true body of Christ (otherwise it may not be adored), just as it also was before when it was seen in the species of bread. But whether that species which appears there is the species of the body of Christ is difficult to determine.

For some people say that that appearance of flesh, or of the Christ-child, is only in the eye of the one seeing: and so perhaps it is true sometimes, when it is seen by one person in the species of bread, and by another in the species of flesh or of a child; and even sometimes after a little while it is seen again by the same person in the species of bread, which before was seen in the species of flesh; and according to this it can happen by a divine miracle that a likeness of the body of Christ comes about in the eye, just as would have happened naturally, if the body of Christ were present. Nor is it a deception, because it only happens for instruction in the faith, and for exciting devotion.

But since sometimes it is seen this way by everyone, and sometimes it is kept this way for a long time under such appearances, therefore others say that the true species of the body of Christ changes the outward appearance. Nor does it matter that it is seen in a smaller quantity, and not in its glorified appearance, for it is in the power of the glorified body to show itself in whole or in part, as glorified or not glorified. But since a change in appearance by a body through the medium happens by the contact of what is sensed with the medium by which it is sensed, it would be necessary according to this to say that the body of Christ would touch the medium of sight, and as a result, that it would be there as in a place, and so either it would be in many places at the same time, or it would be locally moved, by coming down from heaven, which is nevertheless not impossible for it.

This contradicts what Guitmund says, (Guitmundus, De veritate Eucharistiae, Bk. 2 (PL 149:1449–50).) that it was confirmed by the agreement of many bishops that what appeared in the species of the body of Christ was sealed and placed upon the altar. But the body of Christ, if it was there as in a place, would disappear after it had appeared, as happened to the disciples going to Emmaus; and in no way would it be reserved enclosed.

And so it seems safer to say that just as when the body of Christ was seen under the appearance of bread there were certain subsistent dimensions, and in them other sensible accidents were based, so also those same dimensions remain, and other accidents are brought in to replace them by divine power, which display the appearance of flesh, just as also the accidents which existed before displayed the appearance of bread. And it can be that afterwards, by the same power, once those accidents are removed, the accidents of bread may again return, since even by natural action something of those accidents might be changed sometime while the dimensions remain, like the odor of the wine or its flavor, if it is kept a long time.

Reply Obj. 1: The appearance of the bread still remains in the dimensions that were subsisting before, and they were principal in the sacrament, although color and other things like that do not remain, when divine power does this; and so under those dimensions the body of Christ still remains.

Reply Obj. 2: Faith is built up and devotion is excited because those accidents are entirely like the accidents of the true body of Christ, which was not the case with the accidents of bread, although they are not the very accidents of the body of Christ.

Reply Obj. 3: Although those accidents of flesh were not there before, nevertheless they are brought in by divine power for the instruction of the faith.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that the use of this sacrament should be suited to the sacrament’s matter, as washing is suited to water in baptism. And since in this sacrament the body of Christ is presented to us under the appearance of bread, therefore the use of the sacrament is by eating, as was said above. Therefore, when appearing in its proper species, or in the species of raw flesh, or in a similar species, it does not have the account of food, and so it should not be received by anyone to whom it appears in these ways, but by another to whom it appears under the species of bread. However, if it appears to everyone under the species of flesh, then it should be set aside with the relics.

Reply Obj. 1: In this case, devotion is not excited by eating, but by venerating, since it is not presented under the appearance of food.

Reply Obj. 2: In such a case the priest must celebrate again, as some people say, and consume the body of Christ. And if this should happen again the second time, he should celebrate again a third time. However, certain people say that in such a case spiritual eating suffices, nor is a priest made a transgressor of the regulations of the Church on account of this, because the laws are tailored to the things that usually happen.

Response to Quaestiuncula 4

To the fourth question, it should be said that an angel sees nothing with bodily vision, for even if he assumed a body, it is still not granted that he see by means of his assumed body; hence it remains that in him there is only intellectual vision, which indeed is not through receiving from sensible objects, as is said in Book II, Distinction 3, Question 2, Article 1, reply to the second objection, but either by inborn species, for things that they understand by natural knowledge, or else, what they see through the Word, for those things that are above their natural understanding. And since angels are blessed, they must have full vision of all those things that faith deals with in the glorified vision, which replaces faith; and so just as faith believes the body of Christ to exist under the sacrament, in the same way the angels see it in the beatific vision. However, I believe that all those things that are of the faith are above the natural knowledge of the angels, just as they are above the natural reason of men. And this is why the mysteries of the faith are said to be hidden in God from the ages, as it says in Ephesians 3:9; hence the angels do not see the body of Christ under the sacrament by their natural knowledge, but only by beatified vision. But the demons do not see it fully in any way, but they believe and tremble (Jas 2:19).

Reply Obj. 1: The blessed see the body of Christ under the sacrament with the intellectual vision of glory, although not with bodily vision, in which they do not share with the angels.

Reply Obj. 2: According as it is under the sacrament the body of Christ in itself is not visible by bodily vision; however, it is visible by intellectual vision.

Response to Quaestiuncula 5

To the fifth question, it should be answered that as was said in Book III, Distinction 34, Question 1, Article 2, Subquestion 1, our intellect is only said to see those things, properly speaking, whose essences are represented to it whether by natural light or by the light of grace or of glory. And so consequently it is said to see first those things that are known immediately when their terms are known, when as it were the essences of terms are seen, and only subsequently to see those things that are reduced to those principles, like the conclusions of the sciences; but things that in no way have an order to naturally known principles, nor to the perception of the senses, cannot be seen in the wayfaring state. And since the body of Christ under the sacrament has no order to naturally known principles, which are the principles of the sciences, nor can it even be apprehended by us through our senses, for this reason the intellect of a wayfarer cannot see it in any way, and much less understand it. For something is seen that is not comprehended, like the divine essence in the heavenly fatherland; unless ‘to see’ is said broadly, as we say we see those things that are of faith in a mirror dimly (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Reply Obj. 1: Just as we see imperfectly, so also we speak deficiently.

Reply Obj. 2: No one is bound to see in the present, but one is bound to believe. Now while faith is about things that are not seen, believing, on the other hand, is possible.

Exposition of the Text

“It is not this body, which you can see, which you will eat.” (Sent. IV, 10.1 (58), 2, citing Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos, on Ps. 54, n. 23.) This is to be understood per se, i.e., according as it is seen in its own form.

“The body that is eaten is the same and not the same as the one which was seen.” (Sent IV, 10.1 (58). 4 citing Lanfranc, Liber de corpore et sanguine Domini, c18.) It seems to be a contradiction. And it should be said that it is not: for this very body of Christ in its proper species is not eaten; and Augustine says this, visibly, because in its proper species the body of Christ can be seen, but under the species of bread it is eaten. And he says invisibly, because in its proper species it cannot be seen. (For the text atttributed to Augustine, see Lanfranc, Liber de corpore et sanguine Domini, ch. 18 (PL 150:430).)

“The sacrifice of the Church is confected in two things.” (Sent IV, 10.1 (58). 6 citing Lanfranc, Liber de corpore et sanguine Domini, c10.) Not that from those one thing is made in essence, but because from those one sacrament is made. But the way that the person of Christ may be said to be composed from two natures was said in Book III, Distinction 6.

“The flesh is the sacrament of flesh, and the blood of blood.” (Sent IV, 10.1 (58). 7 citing Lanfranc, Liber de corpore et sanguine Domini, c14.) This seems to be false: for nothing is a sign of itself. And it should be said that he calls these species the flesh that signifies, which species are the sign of the flesh, and this figuratively, as the Master says; and those species with flesh contained are called the invisible flesh, for under that species the flesh of Christ is not seen. However, he calls the very flesh of Christ the flesh signified, according as it is seen under its proper form; hence it is also said ‘visibly’.

”Who would dare to eat his Lord?” (Sent IV, 10.1 (58). 10 citing Augustine, Sermo Mai 129, n1.) To the first of these arguments the answer is in the first article of this distinction. To the second, the solution will be clear from what will be said in Article 2 of the next distinction.

“If the word of Elias had such power as to bring down fire from heaven, shall the word of Christ not have such power to change substances?” (Sent IV, 10.2 (59). 3 citing Ambrose, De mysteriis, c9 n52.) This text argues from the lesser, and so it is to be understood that the word of Christ, and the word uttered in the person of Christ, has greater strength; for the word of Elijah had no power in itself, but it worked by way of intercession. However, the word of Christ, namely, this sacrament’s form, has intrinsic power, as was said above in Distinction 8.

“Why then do you seek the order of nature?” (Sent IV, 10.2 (59). 4 citing Ambrose, De mysteriis, c9 n53.) Therefore, it seems that it is not permitted to discuss this sacrament with rational arguments. And to this it should be said that he is speaking against those who wish to believe nothing in this sacrament or in the other sacraments of the faith except what can be proved by natural reason; but not against those who discuss from the principles of the faith and who do not wish to prove matters of faith from natural principles, but to defend them. For although matters of faith are above reason, nevertheless they are not against reason; otherwise God would be contrary to himself, if he had placed other things in our reason than the truth of the matter holds.

“If such power is in the Lord’s word of the Lord that things that were not began to be, how much more effective it is in keeping in being things that already were, even as it changes them into something else.” (Sent IV, 10.2 (59). 6 citing Ambrose, De sacramentis, Bk. 4 ch. 4 nn15–17 and 19.) It seems that this proof does not work: for the Word by which all things were made out of nothing is the uncreated Word; but now he must be speaking of the created word, namely, the sacrament’s form. And it should be said that the authority of this power resides in the uncreated Word, but it exists in the created word instrumentally, as was said.

“Just as through the Spirit true flesh is created without coition, so through the same Spirit, the same body of Christ and his blood is consecrated from the substance of bread and wine.” (Sent IV, 10.2 (59). 7 citing Paschasius Radbertus, De corpore et sanguine Domini*, c4 n1.)* It seems that this transubstantiation should not be appropriated to the Holy Spirit, but rather to the Son. And it should be said that this is appropriated to the Son as the one working, for he is the priest and victim; but it is appropriated to the Holy Spirit as that by which he works: for he is the power by which healing goes out of Christ (cf. Luke 6:19).