Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 152 (2/2)
Whether Christ Received and Gave to the Disciples His Impa.s.sible Body?
Objection 1: It seems that Christ both received and gave to the disciples His impa.s.sible body. Because on Matt. 17:2, ”He was transfigured before them,” the gloss says: ”He gave to the disciples at the supper that body which He had through nature, but neither mortal nor pa.s.sible.” And again, on Lev. 2:5, ”if thy oblation be from the frying-pan,” the gloss says: ”The Cross mightier than all things made Christ's flesh fit for being eaten, which before the Pa.s.sion did not seem so suited.” But Christ gave His body as suited for eating. Therefore He gave it just as it was after the Pa.s.sion, that is, impa.s.sible and immortal.
Obj. 2: Further, every pa.s.sible body suffers by contact and by being eaten. Consequently, if Christ's body was pa.s.sible, it would have suffered both from contact and from being eaten by the disciples.
Obj. 3: Further, the sacramental words now spoken by the priest in the person of Christ are not more powerful than when uttered by Christ Himself. But now by virtue of the sacramental words it is Christ's impa.s.sible and immortal body which is consecrated upon the altar. Therefore, much more so was it then.
_On the contrary,_ As Innocent III says (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), ”He bestowed on the disciples His body such as it was.” But then He had a pa.s.sible and a mortal body. Therefore, He gave a pa.s.sible and mortal body to the disciples.
_I answer that,_ Hugh of Saint Victor (Innocent III, De Sacr. Alt.
Myst. iv), maintained, that before the Pa.s.sion, Christ a.s.sumed at various times the four properties of a glorified body--namely, subtlety in His birth, when He came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin; agility, when He walked dryshod upon the sea; clarity, in the Transfiguration; and impa.s.sibility at the Last Supper, when He gave His body to the disciples to be eaten. And according to this He gave His body in an impa.s.sible and immortal condition to His disciples.
But whatever may be the case touching the other qualities, concerning which we have already stated what should be held (Q. 28, A. 2, ad 3; Q. 45, A. 2), nevertheless the above opinion regarding impa.s.sibility is inadmissible. For it is manifest that the same body of Christ which was then seen by the disciples in its own species, was received by them under the sacramental species. But as seen in its own species it was not impa.s.sible; nay more, it was ready for the Pa.s.sion.
Therefore, neither was Christ's body impa.s.sible when given under the sacramental species.
Yet there was present in the sacrament, in an impa.s.sible manner, that which was pa.s.sible of itself; just as that was there invisibly which of itself was visible. For as sight requires that the body seen be in contact with the adjacent medium of sight, so does pa.s.sion require contact of the suffering body with the active agents. But Christ's body, according as it is under the sacrament, as stated above (A. 1, ad 2; Q. 76, A. 5), is not compared with its surroundings through the intermediary of its own dimensions, whereby bodies touch each other, but through the dimensions of the bread and wine; consequently, it is those species which are acted upon and are seen, but not Christ's own body.
Reply Obj. 1: Christ is said not to have given His mortal and pa.s.sible body at the supper, because He did not give it in mortal and pa.s.sible fas.h.i.+on. But the Cross made His flesh adapted for eating, inasmuch as this sacrament represents Christ's Pa.s.sion.
Reply Obj. 2: This argument would hold, if Christ's body, as it was pa.s.sible, were also present in a pa.s.sible manner in this sacrament.
Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 76, A. 4), the accidents of Christ's body are in this sacrament by real concomitance, but not by the power of the sacrament, whereby the substance of Christ's body comes to be there. And therefore the power of the sacramental words extends to this, that the body, i.e. Christ's, is under this sacrament, whatever accidents really exist in it.
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 81, Art. 4]
Whether, If This Sacrament Had Been Reserved in a Pyx, or Consecrated at the Moment of Christ's Death by One of the Apostles, Christ Himself Would Have Died There?
Objection 1: It seems that if this sacrament had been reserved in a pyx at the moment of Christ's death, or had then been consecrated by one of the apostles, that Christ would not have died there. For Christ's death happened through His Pa.s.sion. But even then He was in this sacrament in an impa.s.sible manner. Therefore, He could not die in this sacrament.
Obj. 2: Further, on the death of Christ, His blood was separated from the body. But His flesh and blood are together in this sacrament.
Therefore He could not die in this sacrament.
Obj. 3: Further, death ensues from the separation of the soul from the body. But both the body and the soul of Christ are contained in this sacrament. Therefore Christ could not die in this sacrament.
_On the contrary,_ The same Christ Who was upon the cross would have been in this sacrament. But He died upon the cross. Therefore, if this sacrament had been reserved, He would have died therein.
_I answer that,_ Christ's body is substantially the same in this sacrament, as in its proper species, but not after the same fas.h.i.+on; because in its proper species it comes in contact with surrounding bodies by its own dimensions: but it does not do so as it is in this sacrament, as stated above (A. 3). And therefore, all that belongs to Christ, as He is in Himself, can be attributed to Him both in His proper species, and as He exists in the sacrament; such as to live, to die, to grieve, to be animate or inanimate, and the like; while all that belongs to Him in relation to outward bodies, can be attributed to Him as He exists in His proper species, but not as He is in this sacrament; such as to be mocked, to be spat upon, to be crucified, to be scourged, and the rest. Hence some have composed this verse:
”Our Lord can grieve beneath the sacramental veils But cannot feel the piercing of the thorns and nails.”
Reply Obj. 1: As was stated above, suffering belongs to a body that suffers in respect of some extrinsic body. And therefore Christ, as in this sacrament, cannot suffer; yet He can die.
Reply Obj. 2: As was said above (Q. 76, A. 2), in virtue of the consecration, the body of Christ is under the species of bread, while His blood is under the species of wine. But now that His blood is not really separated from His body; by real concomitance, both His blood is present with the body under the species of the bread, and His body together with the blood under the species of the wine. But at the time when Christ suffered, when His blood was really separated from His body, if this sacrament had been consecrated, then the body only would have been present under the species of the bread, and the blood only under the species of the wine.
Reply Obj. 3: As was observed above (Q. 76, A. 1, ad 1), Christ's soul is in this sacrament by real concomitance; because it is not without the body: but it is not there in virtue of the consecration.
And therefore, if this sacrament had been consecrated then, or reserved, when His soul was really separated from His body, Christ's soul would not have been under this sacrament, not from any defect in the form of the words, but owing to the different dispositions of the thing contained.
_______________________
QUESTION 82
<script>