Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 139 (1/2)
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 4]
Whether the Whole Dimensive Quant.i.ty of Christ's Body Is in This Sacrament?
Objection 1: It seems that the whole dimensive quant.i.ty of Christ's body is not in this sacrament. For it was said (A. 3) that Christ's entire body is contained under every part of the consecrated host.
But no dimensive quant.i.ty is contained entirely in any whole, and in its every part. Therefore it is impossible for the entire dimensive quant.i.ty of Christ's body to be there.
Obj. 2: Further, it is impossible for two dimensive quant.i.ties to be together, even though one be separate from its subject, and the other in a natural body, as is clear from the Philosopher (Metaph. iii).
But the dimensive quant.i.ty of the bread remains in this sacrament, as is evident to our senses. Consequently, the dimensive quant.i.ty of Christ's body is not there.
Obj. 3: Further, if two unequal dimensive quant.i.ties be set side by side, the greater will overlap the lesser. But the dimensive quant.i.ty of Christ's body is considerably larger than the dimensive quant.i.ty of the consecrated host according to every dimension. Therefore, if the dimensive quant.i.ty of Christ's body be in this sacrament together with the dimensive quant.i.ty of the host, the dimensive quant.i.ty of Christ's body is extended beyond the quant.i.ty of the host, which nevertheless is not without the substance of Christ's body.
Therefore, the substance of Christ's body will be in this sacrament even outside the species of the bread, which is unreasonable, since the substance of Christ's body is in this sacrament, only by the consecration of the bread, as stated above (A. 2). Consequently, it is impossible for the whole dimensive quant.i.ty of Christ's body to be in this sacrament.
_On the contrary,_ The existence of the dimensive quant.i.ty of any body cannot be separated from the existence of its substance. But in this sacrament the entire substance of Christ's body is present, as stated above (AA. 1, 3). Therefore the entire dimensive quant.i.ty of Christ's body is in this sacrament.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), any part of Christ is in this sacrament in two ways: in one way, by the power of the sacrament; in another, from real concomitance. By the power of the sacrament the dimensive quant.i.ty of Christ's body is not in this sacrament; for, by the power of the sacrament that is present in this sacrament, whereat the conversion is terminated. But the conversion which takes place in this sacrament is terminated directly at the substance of Christ's body, and not at its dimensions; which is evident from the fact that the dimensive quant.i.ty of the bread remains after the consecration, while only the substance of the bread pa.s.ses away.
Nevertheless, since the substance of Christ's body is not really deprived of its dimensive quant.i.ty and its other accidents, hence it comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quant.i.ty of Christ's body and all its other accidents are in this sacrament.
Reply Obj. 1: The manner of being of every thing is determined by what belongs to it of itself, and not according to what is coupled accidentally with it: thus an object is present to the sight, according as it is white, and not according as it is sweet, although the same object may be both white and sweet; hence sweetness is in the sight after the manner of whiteness, and not after that of sweetness. Since, then, the substance of Christ's body is present on the altar by the power of this sacrament, while its dimensive quant.i.ty is there concomitantly and as it were accidentally, therefore the dimensive quant.i.ty of Christ's body is in this sacrament, not according to its proper manner (namely, that the whole is in the whole, and the individual parts in individual parts), but after the manner of substance, whose nature is for the whole to be in the whole, and the whole in every part.
Reply Obj. 2: Two dimensive quant.i.ties cannot naturally be in the same subject at the same time, so that each be there according to the proper manner of dimensive quant.i.ty. But in this sacrament the dimensive quant.i.ty of the bread is there after its proper manner, that is, according to commensuration: not so the dimensive quant.i.ty of Christ's body, for that is there after the manner of substance, as stated above (ad 1).
Reply Obj. 3: The dimensive quant.i.ty of Christ's body is in this sacrament not by way of commensuration, which is proper to quant.i.ty, and to which it belongs for the greater to be extended beyond the lesser; but in the way mentioned above (ad 1, 2).
_______________________
FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 5]
Whether Christ's Body Is in This Sacrament As in a Place?
Objection 1: It seems that Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place. Because, to be in a place definitively or circ.u.mscriptively belongs to being in a place. But Christ's body seems to be definitively in this sacrament, because it is so present where the species of the bread and wine are, that it is nowhere else upon the altar: likewise it seems to be there circ.u.mscriptively, because it is so contained under the species of the consecrated host, that it neither exceeds it nor is exceeded by it. Therefore Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place.
Obj. 2: Further, the place of the bread and wine is not empty, because nature abhors a vacuum; nor is the substance of the bread there, as stated above (Q. 75, A. 2); but only the body of Christ is there. Consequently the body of Christ fills that place. But whatever fills a place is there locally. Therefore the body of Christ is in this sacrament locally.
Obj. 3: Further, as stated above (A. 4), the body of Christ is in this sacrament with its dimensive quant.i.ty, and with all its accidents. But to be in a place is an accident of a body; hence ”where” is numbered among the nine kinds of accidents. Therefore Christ's body is in this sacrament locally.
_On the contrary,_ The place and the object placed must be equal, as is clear from the Philosopher (Phys. iv). But the place, where this sacrament is, is much less than the body of Christ. Therefore Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1, ad 3; A. 3), Christ's body is in this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quant.i.ty, but rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a place is in the place according to the manner of dimensive quant.i.ty, namely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its dimensive quant.i.ty. Hence it remains that Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ's body succeeds the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ's body. Nevertheless the substance of Christ's body is not the subject of those dimensions, as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was there locally by reason of its dimensions, because it was compared with that place through the medium of its own dimensions; but the substance of Christ's body is compared with that place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper dimensions of Christ's body are compared with that place through the medium of substance; which is contrary to the notion of a located body.
Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament.
Reply Obj. 1: Christ's body is not in this sacrament definitively, because then it would be only on the particular altar where this sacrament is performed: whereas it is in heaven under its own species, and on many other altars under the sacramental species.
Likewise it is evident that it is not in this sacrament circ.u.mscriptively, because it is not there according to the commensuration of its own quant.i.ty, as stated above. But that it is not outside the superficies of the sacrament, nor on any other part of the altar, is due not to its being there definitively or circ.u.mscriptively, but to its being there by consecration and conversion of the bread and wine, as stated above (A. 1; Q. 15, A. 2, sqq.).
Reply Obj. 2: The place in which Christ's body is, is not empty; nor yet is it properly filled with the substance of Christ's body, which is not there locally, as stated above; but it is filled with the sacramental species, which have to fill the place either because of the nature of dimensions, or at least miraculously, as they also subsist miraculously after the fas.h.i.+on of substance.
Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (A. 4), the accidents of Christ's body are in this sacrament by real concomitance. And therefore those accidents of Christ's body which are intrinsic to it are in this sacrament. But to be in a place is an accident when compared with the extrinsic container. And therefore it is not necessary for Christ to be in this sacrament as in a place.