Commentaria in Summam contra Gentiles, Liber IV

Concerning the second difficulty,¹ which is taken from the perspective of place, St. Thomas says first, in answering the first² objection, that since it has been said that the place in which this sacrament is performed is attributed to the body of Christ by reason of the remaining dimensions of the bread, it is necessary that those things which belong to Christ be in the aforesaid place according as the nature of the aforesaid conversion requires.

He says secondly that in this sacrament something is present by the power of the conversion, namely that at which the conversion directly terminates, just as the body is under the species of bread, as is evident through the words of consecration when it is said, This is etc., while under the species of wine is the blood of Christ, as is evident when it is said, This is the chalice etc.; but something is present by natural concomitance, namely all other things at which the conversion does not terminate, but which nevertheless are really joined to that in which it terminates, such as the divinity and His soul.

He says thirdly that if this sacrament had been celebrated during the three days of Christ's death, the soul of Christ would not have been under the species of bread, because it was not really united to His body. Likewise, neither would blood have been under the species of bread, nor the body under the species of wine, on account of the separation of both in death. Now, however, because the body of Christ in its nature is not without blood, under each species the body and the blood are contained: but under the species of bread the body is contained by the power of the conversion, whereas the blood is contained by natural concomitance; under the species of wine, conversely.

II. Note first that through these statements St. Thomas, with respect to the first objection, wishes to deny this consequence: The bread and wine are separately in this sacrament by the power of the conversion. Therefore, if the flesh of Christ is under the species of bread and the blood under the species of wine, Christ does not remain whole; because it presupposes that the flesh is under the species of bread without the blood, and the blood under the species of wine without the flesh, the opposite of which has been stated. If, however, the antecedent is understood in the sense that the blood and the body are in no way together in this sacrament, it is clear from what has been said that it is false.

Note secondly that that is said to be in the sacrament by the power of the conversion into which the substance pre-existing under those accidents is converted; and St. Thomas says that this is that at which the conversion directly terminates. But to recognize this, one must look to the words of consecration: for since they effect what they signify, that must be said to be in the sacrament by the power of the conversion which is signified through the words themselves, and nothing else. Whence, since through the words of the consecration of the bread it is signified only that the body of Christ is there, while through the words of the consecration of the wine it is signified only that the blood of Christ is there, it must be said that only the body of Christ is under the species of bread by the power of the conversion, whereas only the blood is under the species of wine. For this reason, wishing to show that it is so, St. Thomas says, as is evident through the words of consecration.

Consider thirdly, from the doctrine of St. Thomas, Tertia,³ q. LXXVI, a. 1, that since the soul virtually contains the form of corporeity, we can speak of the soul of Christ in two ways. In one way, insofar as it gives corporeal being. And in this way it is necessary to say that it is in the sacrament by virtue of the conversion: because, since the body of Christ has corporeal being only through the soul, in that in one composite there is only one substantial form; if by virtue of the conversion the body of Christ is in the sacrament, it is necessary also by the power of this kind of conversion that the soul of Christ be there according as it contains the form of corporeity and gives corporeal being. — In the other way, insofar as it is the soul: that is, insofar as it gives animate being. And thus what is said here is understood, namely that it is not in the sacrament by the power of the conversion, but only by natural concomitance. For the body does not include in its notion the soul insofar as it is the soul: yet His soul is indeed really joined to the body of Christ, even insofar as it gives animate being. Therefore, even insofar as it is the soul, it is in the sacrament by concomitance.

Note, however, that by the soul as giving corporeal being, we do not understand some being of reason, as Scotus seems to impute to us, Quarto, d. XI, q. III, art. 2:⁴ but the very substance of the soul as virtually containing the form of corporeity and giving corporeal being, which is distinguished from itself as giving animate being by reason alone.

III. But concerning the aforesaid there occurs a doubt raised by Scotus.⁵ If a host consecrated by Christ at the Supper had been reserved in the pyx, during the three days the same thing initially contained would have remained there. But at that time it was not a body constituted of matter and an intellective soul. Therefore, neither at the Lord's Supper was the conversion made into a composite of matter and an intellective soul; therefore, by the power of the conversion the soul was in no way there; therefore, neither is it now.

To this it is said first: from what St. Thomas states, that during the three days of death the soul of Christ would not have been under the species of bread through consecration because it was not really united to the body of Christ, it can be gathered that according to the condition of the body of Christ outside the sacrament, so also is its condition in the sacrament: so, namely, that if outside the sacrament it includes the soul, it also includes it in the sacrament; but if it does not include the soul, neither does it include it in the sacrament. Whence it must be said that in that host consecrated at the Supper, during the three days of death the body of Christ would not have been constituted in act through the soul, as it was on the day of the Supper, but constituted through another form, say of a corpse, just as it was outside the host.

It is said secondly that during the three days the same thing initially contained would have remained in some way, but not in all ways: just as the body of Christ itself outside the host was in some way the same as before, but in some way not, according to the mind of St. Thomas, Tertia, q. L, a. 5; and Quodlib. III, q. II.⁶ For it was not the same as to form: but as to matter; and as to the supposit, which was divine; and as to the being of existence, according to the things said above,⁷ where it was shown that in Christ there is only one being of actual existence, namely the divine being.

IV. But then another doubt arises. If the matter of the body of Christ during the three days had not been informed by the soul, as it was informed at the Supper when the host was consecrated, but by another form, since it cannot be without a form: it is asked how that other form would have been in the host? For it would not have been there by the power of the conversion: because when the host was consecrated, the matter of the body was actuated through the soul, but not through that form. Nor would it have been there through natural concomitance: because at that time it was not really united to the body of Christ; indeed, it was not at all. Therefore, in no way could it have been in the host during the three days.

I would say that it would not have been there by the power of the conversion, because by the power of the conversion there is nothing in the sacrament except that into which the substance of the bread is converted at the last instant of the words of consecration; and it is agreed that at that time the matter of the body of Christ was not actuated by that form, since it did not exist: but it would have been there through natural concomitance. For something is said to be in the sacrament in this way in two ways: either, namely, because when the words of consecration are uttered, it is really joined to that into which the conversion is made; or because it is really joined to it even after such words. For if, after the consecration of some host has been made, something absolute were really joined to the body of Christ outside the host, it would also be joined to it in the host: because just as it would not be without it outside the host, so neither in the host. And in this way that form would have been in the sacrament during the three days of death: for although on the day of the Supper it was not really united to the matter of the body of Christ, it would nevertheless have been really united to it during those three days.

V. To the second objection⁸ he says that the dimensions of the body of Christ are in the sacrament by natural concomitance, but not by the power of the conversion, since the dimensions of the bread remain. And therefore the body of Christ is not compared to this place by the mediation of its own dimensions, so that the place would have to be equaled to them, but by the mediation of the remaining dimensions of the bread, to which it is equaled.

Note first, by what is said here, that St. Thomas wishes to answer that proposition: It is impossible for a greater body to be enclosed in the place of a lesser. For it is true when the greater body is in the place by reason of its own dimensions, but not when it is in the place by reason of foreign dimensions which are equaled to the place, as in the present case.

Note secondly that although a body in the genus of substance seems to include quantity in some way, by the power of the conversion it is converted into the substance of the body of Christ, without being converted into its quantity. Furthermore, St. Thomas assigns as a sign that the dimensions of the body of Christ are not in the sacrament by the power of the conversion because the dimensions of the bread remain. For that which is converted must be proportioned to that into which it is converted: so that, namely, if the substance of the bread alone is converted, while its dimensions remain, so also only the substance of the body of Christ is that into which it is converted, while its dimensions are outside the per se term of the conversion. Because, since the body of Christ succeeds the dimensions of the bread, just as the substance of the bread itself underlay those dimensions immediately, so it is fitting that the substance of the body of Christ itself, immediately and without another dimension, should underlie those dimensions by the power of the conversion. If, however, both the substance of the bread and its dimensions were converted together, the conversion would have to be made into the substance and into the dimensions of the body of Christ: so, namely, that substance would be converted into substance, and dimension into dimension.

VI. To the third objection⁹ he says that the body of Christ exists through its own dimensions in only one place; but by the mediation of the dimensions of the bread it is in as many places—not indeed divided into parts, but whole—in as many as the conversion has been celebrated.

Note first that St. Thomas wishes to say, regarding that proposition, It is impossible for one body to be in several places, that it is true by reason of its own dimensions, but false by reason of foreign dimensions.

Note secondly that from what has been said it follows that the body of Christ, according to the being it has in the sacrament, is not only not in a place circumscriptively according to itself, but neither definitively, as St. Thomas also holds, Tertia, q. LXXVI, a. 5¹⁰ and IV Sent., d. X, q. 1, a. 3:¹¹ because what is definitively somewhere is there in such a way that it is not elsewhere. But here it has been said that the body of Christ, by reason of the dimensions of the bread converted into it, is simultaneously in as many places as that conversion has been celebrated.

Note thirdly, from the doctrine of St. Thomas,¹² that the effect of quantity is twofold. One is altogether intrinsic to the quantified subject: namely, to be quantified, and divisibility into parts, and the order of parts in the whole. The other is in some way extrinsic, insofar namely as it belongs to the subject in relation to what is extrinsic: namely, to be divided with respect to another quantity, and that its parts correspond to the parts of the place. The first belongs to quantity necessarily and per se; but the second does not belong to it except when it has primarily and per se an order to place and to extrinsic dimensions. Therefore, in the sacrament of the Altar, the quantity of the body of Christ, existing under the dimensions of the bread, has the first effect, because the body of Christ is in itself divisible and has the order of parts in the whole; but it does not have the second effect, because the parts of the body of Christ do not correspond to the parts of the dimension of the bread nor to the parts of the place, but the whole is under every part. From which it follows that the body of Christ can be said to be under the dimensions of the bread both divisibly and indivisibly: divisibly indeed, because it has divisibility of parts in itself; but indivisibly, because its parts do not correspond to the parts of those dimensions, but the whole to every part, just as the soul is whole in every part. — And from this are solved all the arguments of Scotus, Quarto, d. X, q. 1, and of Aureol, in Capreolus, Quarto, d. X, q. 11.¹³

Note fourthly that just as a substance that is in a place by reason of its own dimensions has their mode, so a dimension that is in a place by reason of substance has the mode of the substance itself. But the mode of a dimension existing in a place primarily and per se is that it be in it commensuratively and divisibly: so, namely, that it be commensurated to the quantity of the place, and that its parts correspond to the parts of the place. But the mode of a substance is that it be indivisibly in a place: because, since substance according to itself is indivisible, and division does not belong to it except by reason of quantity, where a substance is not compared to another by reason of quantity but through itself, it is not compared to it divisibly, but indivisibly. Because, therefore, the quantity of the body of Christ is not in the sacrament by the power of the conversion, but only concomitantly, insofar as it inheres in the substance; and on that account the substance of the body of Christ itself is not compared to the dimensions of the bread or to its place by the mediation of its own dimensions, but conversely those dimensions are present there by reason of the substance, and consequently indivisibly: therefore the body of Christ is there indivisibly, and can, although in itself it is greater than the dimensions of the bread, be contained under them; because that which is compared to some quantity indivisibly does not have to be commensurated to it, so as to be greater or lesser than it, or equal to it; for a large sphere can touch a small sphere, in that it touches it only at an indivisible point. — Whence, while quantity is posited to be here in an indivisible mode, nothing incompossible with it is posited in quantity, as Durandus thinks.¹⁴ For this reason St. Thomas said that the body of Christ is in several places sacramentally, not divided into parts, but whole in each one, because it is not in them by reason of its own dimensions, but by reason of the dimensions of the bread.

Note lastly that although the body of Christ is not said to be commensurated to the place of the bread per se by reason of its own dimensions, it can nevertheless be said to be commensurated to it through another, that is, by reason of the proper dimensions of the bread. For this does not mean that the substance of the body of Christ itself is immediately commensurated to the place, but the dimension itself under which it is sacramentally contained: just as the soul can be said to be circumscribed by a place by reason of the quantity of the body of which it is the form, because the quantity itself is circumscriptively in the place, not that it according to itself is circumscribed by the place immediately. For this reason St. Thomas said that by the mediation of the dimensions of the bread, to which the place is equaled, it is compared to the place: as if to say that by reason of those dimensions it is equaled to the place of the bread, and is equal to it, but is not greater than it.