the development of the notion by gary a. macy, h.b.a. …...lfrederick copleston, s.j., a history of...
Post on 28-Jul-2021
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
.Y. t~-}·.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NOTION
OF EUCHARISTIC CHANGE
IN THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS AQUINAS
by
Gary A. Macy, H.B.A.
A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfill
ment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts
Milwaukee, Wisconsin September, 1973
PREFACE
The work of st. Thomas Aquinas on the presence of Christ in the
eucharist has been the bulwark of traditional Catholic teaching on the
eucharist at least since the Council of Trent. Yet, his work has been
accepted as complete in all of the many treatments of the eucharist in
the works of Aquinas, without any question of development in thought.
As Tad Guzie, S.J., has pOinted out in his article, "The Act of
Faith According to st. Thomas",l there is a great need for comparative
i
studies of the different approaches Thomas takes to certain problems in his
various works. Such studies would help clarify not only our understanding
of the theology of st. Thomas, but also our understanding of Catholic tra-
dition in its relationship to the theology of st. Thomas .
Certainly this is true in the eucharistic theology of st. Thomas.
Traditional theology manuals have often implied that Thomas' understanding
of the presence of Christ in the eucharist is the -church's official under-
standing in this matter. This leaves open the question of whether Thomas'
own understanding of the eucharist was completely developed in his earlier
works. The textual analysis that follows shows that Thomas' work on the
eucharist does not present a unified whole, but a slow development con-
taining significant changes in his approach to the understanding of the
presence of Christ in the eucharist.
It is in hope of raising the several questions that would result from
understanding Thomas' work on the eucharist as a process of development
that this paper was written. The purpose of the paper, then, is to prove that • Thomas' work on the eucharist does not present a unified whole, but a slow
~ad Guzi~, S.J., "The Act of Faith According to st. Thomas," The Thomist, Vol. 29. no. 3 (July, 1965) pp. 239-280.
if
development that represents significant changes on his part in his approach
to the understanding of the presence of Christ in the eucharist.
This work owes its inspiration and origin almost exclusively to Dr.
Guzie, whose direction and patient help encouraged the authoF at each
stage in the writing of this paper. I also owe a great debt to Dr. Keith
Egan, O.Carm., and Dr. William Van Roo, S.J., who together introduced me to
the breadth and genius of the medieval mind, and especially, the greatness
of Aquinas. I wish to thank my wife, Ms. Barbara DeMarco, for her
patience, her kindness, and especially her genius in discerning the heart
of my arguments from the tangled and confuslng mass which I often presented
to her for comment. Finally, I wish to thank my aunt, Mrs. Jo LaValle, for
assistance in preparing the final manuscript of the paper, a job which
Gould not have been done without her expertise.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Chapter I • EARLY WORKS
II.
Scriptum super Sententiis Quodlibetales VII, IX, X Conclusion --- -- -
MIDDLE WORKS
Summa contra Gentiles ---
.'
De articulis fidei et ecc lesiae sacramentis
III.
-----De rationibus l'lCiel Conclusion
LATE WORKS
Quodlibetale s I and V Responsio - -Summa theologiae Conclusion
Page
1
7
38
49
CONCLUSION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 74
APPENDICES • • • • • • • . • . • • • • • • • • • . • •. 77
BIBLIOGRAPHY 81
DEPARTMENTAL ACCEPl'ANCE SHEET 84
1
INTRODUCTION
The works of Thomas Aquinas which deal with the question of eucharistic
change span the entire gamut of his active academic life. He returned to
this .question several times during his life, and it would indeed be sur-
prising if some changes both in his understanding and in his approach to
. the question of the eucharistic change were not apparent in his writings.
This paper investigates those passages in which Thomas deals with the
eucharistic change in order to determine whether any such developments in
his thought did in fact occur.
The two periods of Thomas' life represented by the Commentary and the
Summa mark the terminals of his literary life. His schooling began when he
~as sent from his home near Naples to the Benedictine Abbey of Monte Cassino
as an oblate in 1230 at the age of five. At fourteen he entered the Univer-
sity of Naples, where he was attracted to the Dominican order, which he
entered in 1244. Despite his family's attempt to ki~nap and imprison him,
he made his way to Paris in 1245. Thomas studied under Albert the Great both
here from 1245 to 1248 and in Cologne from 1248 to 1252. As Copleston ex
plains, "st. Albert was Thomas' Socrates."l
Thomas returned to Paris in 1252, and there lectured on scripture as
Baccalaureus Biblicus (1252-54) and as Baccalaureus sententiarus (1254-56)
on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, after which he received his Licentiate.
In 1256, Thomas received the title Magister and lectured at Paris un-
til 1259, when he returned to Italy. Here he taught at the studium curiae
attached t; the Papal Court. In 1268, he returned to Paris, and taught there
lFrederick Copleston, S.J., A History of Philosophy, Vol. II: Mediaeval PhilosophYj Part II Albert the Great to Duns Scotus. (Garden City, N.Y. Image Books, 1962) p.21. I have used Copleston 's work throughout as a source for the biographical data used in this paper.
until 1272. In 1272 he was sent to Naples to erect a Dominican studium
generale and remained there until 1274, when he was summoned by Pope
Gregory X to Lyons to take part in the Council. Thomas died on March 7,
1274, at the Cistercian monastery of Fossanuova, on his way to Lyons. l
Before we examine the individual works ' in which Thomas discusses
the change which takes place in the consecration of the species, a few
introductory remarks are in order concerning Thomas' writings. Three
sources have been used to authenticate Thomas' works in this paper:
1) p. Mandonnet's Ecrits Authentiques de Saint Thomas D'Aquin,2
2
2) P. Synave's "Le Catalogue Officiel des Oeuvres de S. Thomas D'Aquin",3
and 3) M. Grabmann's Die Werke des HI. Thomas von Aquin. 4 Only those
works which are listed as authentic in all three sources have been used
in this paper. The Expositio in evangelium Matthaei, the Expositio in
S. Paulo apostoli from chapter ten of First Corinthians on, and the
Expositio super Symbolum Apostolorum have been excluded from use also,
not because their authenticity is doubtful, but because they seem to be
reportatio rather than Thomas' own work. In fact, none of the biblical
commentaries which deal with this topic complete the requirements for
authenticity. In each case, the editions used are the best available
1 Ibid., pp. 20-22
2Pierre Mandonnet, O.P., Des Ecrits Authentiques de S. Thomas D'Aquin. (2nd ed., rev.; Fribourg: Imprimerie de L'Oeuvre de Saint-Paul, 1910).
3p . Synave, O.P., "Le Catalogue Officiel des Oeuvres de S. Thomas D'Aquin: Critique-Origine - Valeur" Archives D'Histoire Doctrinale et Litteraire du Moyen Age, III (1928) pp. 25-103.
4Martin Grabmann, Die We~ke des HI. Thomas von Aquin: Eine Literarhistorische Untersuchung und Einfllhrung, BeitrRge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, Vol; 22, hft. 1-2 (MUnster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1949).
3
editions. The following list includes the works used in this study, fol-
lowed by the editions used:
1)
2) 3) 4) 5) 6)
7)
8) 9)
10) 11)
Scriptum super IV Libros Sententiarum magister Petri Lombardi, Mandonnet-Moos Quodlibet VII, Spiazzi Quodlibet IX, Spiazzi Quodlibet X, Spiazzi Summa contra Gentiles, seu de veri tate catholicae fidei, Leonine De articulis fidei et eCCleSIae sacramentis ad archiepiscopum Fanormitanum, Marietti --De rationi bus fidei contra Saracenes, Graecos et Armenos ad cantorem Antiochenum, Marietti Quodlibet I, Spiazzi Quodlibet V, Spiazzi Responsio ad lectorum Venetum de articulis XXXVI, Marietti Summa theoIOgiae, Leonine -----
Because this study concerns itself with investigating a development
taking place slowly over a number of years, the exact dating of each of
the works is not necessary. However, it is of vital importance that each
of the works be situated within a particular period of Thomas' academic
career. The basic source used for dating the works used in this study
is M. Grabmann's Die Werke des Hl. Thomas von Aquin,l where a discussion
of the dating problems involved in each work is taken up in some detail.
The approximate dates for the works used are: Scriptum super IV
Libros Sententiarum, 1254-1257; Quodlibet VII, 1255-1257; Quodlibet IX,
1256-1258; Quodlibet X, 1258; Summa contra Gentiles, 1258-1265; De
articulis fidei et ecclesiae sacramentis, 1261-1268; De rationibus fidei
1264-1268; Quodlibet I, 1269;. Quodlibet V, 1271; Responsio de articulis
XXXVI, 1269-1271; Summa theologiae: Pars III, 1272-1273. These dates
larabmann. Also extremely useful are both Synave and Mandonnet mentioned above; Vernon J. Bourke, Thomistic Bibliography: 1920-1940 (st. Louis, Missouri: The Modern Schoolman, Supplement to Vol. XXI, 1954); Jean Destre~ Etudes Critiques sur les Oeuvres de Saint Thomas D'Aquin, Bibliotheque Thomiste, Vol. 18 (Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1933), I; Pierre Mandonnet and Jean Destrez, Bibliographie Thomiste, rev. by M.-D. Chenu, Bibliotheque Thomiste, Vol. I (2nd ed.,rev.; Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. vrin, 1960); Fr. Pelster, "Zur Forschung nach den echten Schriften des Hl. Thomas von Aquin," Philosophisches Jahrbuch,XXXVI (1923) 36-49.
were obtained by using the earliest and the latest dates given by the
sources Grabmann mentions, thus establishing a reasonable accuracy in
stating that the work was written between these two dates.
4
Basically then, the material can be divided into three main periods of
Thomas' life. His early years at Paris are represented by the Scriptum
super Libras Sententiarum and Quodlibetales VII, IX, X, that is, roughly,
between 1254 and 1259. Between 1259 and his return to Paris in 1268, he
wrote in Italy. The works representing this period are the Summa contra
Gentiles, De articulis fidei and De rationibus fidei. In his final years
in Paris, 1268-1272, Thomas wrote the Quodlibetales I, ~, Respansio de
articulis XXXVI, and the third part of the Summa, which he never completed.
We can propose as useful, then, this division of material for discussion
~urposes. The se divisions, however, represent an arbitrary discussion
technique and are not to imply a radical break or discontinuity between
the periods under discussion.
Finally, before a valid analysis can be drawn from these works, cer
tain basic notions of Thomas' philosophy and theology must be sketched.
The first of these is the philosophical relationship of substance, matter,
form and accident. I will present here only a very simplified approach to
this distinction sufficient for the discussion of eucharistic change found
in the works used.
According to Thomas, the 'first concrete objects the mind knows are
material objects perceived through the senses. Upon reflection, the mind
forms the distinction between what something is in itself, and those modes
of being which are sensible and extrinsic to the thing in itself. This is
the basic distinction between substance and accident. Reflecting upon
5
change, the mind observes that one thing is changed into something different,
that is, substantially changed. Accordingly, there must be some underlying
substrate of change which, considered in itself, has no definite substance,
and this is prime matter. Form is that which makes the substance what it is.
All material substances are made up of form and matter, and the substances
are further modified or "informed" by accidents. Thomas makes one further
distinction necessary for our purposes. If form is the universal element
which places an object in its species, which principle of being is the
individuating principle? Matter alone is pure potentiality and has not
the necessary determinative ability. "Thomas was, therefore, compelled
to say that the principle of individuation is materia signata quantitate
in the sense of matter having an exigency for the quantitative determin
ation which it receives from union with form."l
It is essential to these distinctions that they are distinctions made
by the mind in order to comprehend concrete beings. These distinctions
are not objects of cognition, but means of cognition: i d quo intelligitur,
not id quod intelligitur. Neither are they, in any sense, concrete material
objects in themselves. They are basically aids to understanding. This is
essential to any understanding of Thomas' theory of transubstantiation.
The second important distinction used in Thomas' discussion of the
sacraments is that of res, res et sacramentum, and sacramentum. The res
consists of the effects of the sacrament. In the eucharist, the res takes
many forms. PrinCipally, however, the effect of the eucharist is the
~his description of form, matter, substance,accidents and materia signata quantitative i s taken from Copleston, Albert to scotus, pp. 44-47. For a more complete discuss~on of these distinctions, see Bernard Lonergan, S.J., Verbum: Word and Idea in Aquinas, ed. by David Burrell, C.S.C. (Notre Dame: Notre Dame Press, 1967).
6
change of man into Christ. l The sacramentum is the sign of the sacrament
alone. The sacramenta in the eucharist are the accidents of the bread
and wine which signify the body and blood of Christ. 2 The third division,
res et sacramentum, represents the area with which this paper will deal.
The res et sacramentum is that which is signified by the signs of the
sacrament. In the eucharist, the res et sacramentum is the true body of
Christ contained in the sacrament. 3 These divisions were commonly used
in the Middle Ages in speaking of the sacraments, and therefore, are
necessary for an understanding of Thomas' approach to the eucharistic
change.
l"Unde proprius effectus hujus sacramenti est conversio hominis in Christum .. " S. Thomae Aquinatis, Scriptum super Sententiis, ed. Moos (4 vols.; Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1929-1947) IV, 524. Hereafter all references to the Commentary (C) will be from this edition, and will immediately follow the citation, indicated in the parentheses by Distinction number ahd paragraph number .
2c.12.12 " ... de accidentibus quae sunt sacramenta, id est, signa utriusque corporis Christi, ... "
3C.lO.6 " ... de ipse vero corpore Christi, quod est sacramentum et res contenta in sacramento, . . . ",
I
1
CHAPl'ER ONE
EARLY WORKS
Scriptum Super Sententiis
With these distinctions in mind, let us proceed to the Commentary.
The sections of the Commentary with which we will be dealing are Dis-
. tinction 10, the first article of Distinction 11, and the first article
of Distinction 12. Thomas divides his discussion of the eucharist ac-
cording to the~, res et sacramentum, and sacramentum schema (10.6).
Distinction 10 contains the discussion of the true presence of the
body of Christ in this sacrament. Thomas divides discussion of the res
et sacramentum into two parts. The first maintains that the true body
of Christ is contained In the eucharist as a sacrament. The second part
deals with the question of how the body of Christ becomes present in the
eucharist. Thomas uses the word transubstantiatio here, without strictly
defining it, to indicate the process by which this change takes place. l
This second part of the discussion of res et sacramentum takes place in
Distinction 11. Distinction 12 contains the discussion of the ~, and
of the sacramentum, thus completing the division of the material Thomas
presents on the eucharist.
Distinction 10 is subsequently divided into four articles. The first
deals with the question of whether the body of Christ is contained in the
sacrament. The second discusses whether the totality of Christ is con-
tained under the species which remain. The third discusses in what manner
-the body of Christ is present there. The fourth discusses whether it is
possible to know the body of Christ as it is present in the sacrament.
1 c.lo.6. "In secunda determinat de transubstantiatione, per quam fit ut ubi sit verum corpus Christi , ... "
8
The first article here is the most important, for it sets the basic
arguments for the real presence, and for the mode of change. It consists
of a single question: Videtur quod ~~ sacramento altaris ~ contineatur
~ corpus Christi (10.7). This question is followed by eight arguments.
The first argument holds that no sacrament should lead us into impiety or
irreverence, yet to eat flesh is both impious and irreverent, therefore,
· the body of Chri s t cannot be present. The second and third arguments both
use quotations to prove the spiritual ineffectuality of corporeal things .
The second quotes J ohn 6:64, Caro ~ prodest qui dquam and the third argu
ment quotes Gregory 's commentary on the army officer in the gospel who de
sired the presence of the Lord to heal his daughter. Gregory r ebukes this
lack of faith which relies only on corporeal ' things . Thus the corporeal
presence would not be to our spiritual advantage.
The fourth objection states that nothing is able to exist in a place
where it had previously not existed, unless the thing changing is itself
changedj and since in this case that is impossible, the true body of Christ
cannot be present. The fifth objection argues that nothing can be simul
taneously in t wo places. The body of Christ is in heaven, and, therefore,
cannot also be present on the altar. Following this argument, Thomas adds
a short prelatio primae proving that nothing can be simultaneously in two
placesj for everything having limits cannot exist outside those limitsj
and as the limits of an ob ject determine its locality, nothing is able to
be in two localities at the same time.
The sixth objection argues that the body of Christ cannot be in two
places, for that would admit the possibility of its being everywhere, as
some say of angels, and that is . the realm of the Divinity alone. Angels,
however, are simpler than the body of Christ, argues the seventh objectionj
9
and as they cannot be in two places at once, neither can the body of Christ.
Finally, in the eighth objection, it is argued that the body of 'Christ can
not be present insofar as it is a body; for as a body, it acts as a body.
Nor can it be present as a glorified body; for as glorious it' would more
strongly agree with the glorified spirits, and as we have seen, they cannot
be in two places simultaneously. Nor can the body of Christ be present
insofar as it is united to the Divinity, for the union does not exist out
side the limits of the body. Therefore, the body of Christ is not able to
be present in the eucharist in any of these ways of existence (10.7 ).
Three of the eight objections derive their force from theological argu
ments. They argue that the real corporeal presence of Christ would be against
the faith of the Church. They use scriptures and the Fathers as a basis for
these arguments. The other five arguments, that is, the majority of the
arguments, offer metaphysical reasons why the body of Christ could not be
present in the eucharist.
Throughout this discussion, the distinction between "theological" and
"metaphysical" approaches to the eucharist will be used. Since both words
have extremely ambiguous meanings, the following definition is offered to
provide clarity at least insofar as that distinction is used here. "Meta
physical" describes the relationship of the substance and accidents of the
bread and wine to the substance and accidents of the body and blood of
Christ as they are involved in the eucharistic change. A metaphysical em
phasis, then, would be one that concerns itself with the problems involved
because of the relationship of these substances in the eucharistic change.
"Theological" describes the relationship of this change to the believer.
A theological emphasis, then, is concerned with what the relationship of
10
substances involved in the eucharistic change means to a believer as a
believer.
In the Sed Contra Thomas offers four arguments from authority against
the position of the first article. First, he quotes the passage in Corin-
thians, where Paul rebukes those non dijudicans corpus Domini. If there
were no body present, how could anyone be rebuked for not discerning it?
Secondly, he asserts that Old Testament figures should properly prefigure
the New Testament. If the paschal lamb was consumed as food, so should
the true body of Christ. Thirdly, since all the works of God are perfect,
the true body must be present for us to be perfectly joined to God in the
sacrament. Fourthly, he alludes to the many fathers quoted in Lombard (10.8-11).
The Responsio begins with the unambiguous statement:
Dicendum quod sub sacramento altaris continetur verum corpus Christi quod de Virgine traxit, et contrarium dicere est haeresis, quia derogatur veritati Scripturae qua Dominus dicit, Mat. XXVI, 26, et alili: 'Hoc est corpus meum' (10.12).
Thomas adds that from the viewpoint of rational consistency, Christ himself
must be contained in this sacrament. For, according to the principle laid
down in Distinction 8, Christ himself is the first source of sanctification,
and therefore of this sacrament which is for the sanctification of man (8 .15).
We are not joined perfectly to Christ if in the eucharist he is joined to us
in sign only. Christ is present, however, non participative, sed per suam
essentiam. And this is so in order that there might be a perfect union of
head and members in the church.
This -union also reveals the greatest charity in that Christ gives him-
self to us as food; the greatest hope in that we are joined to Christ in so
familiar a way; and the greatest merit of faith in that this sacrament
11
requires faith not only beyond reason, but also against the testimony of
our senses. I
Theologically, Thomas' arguments here in favor of the eucharistic
presence of the true body of Christ are twofold. First, and most impor-
tantly, to deny the real presence i s to contradict the word of God, which
is heresy ~ This is the focal point of Thomas' argument in favor of the
real presence. For Thomas, the theological question of whether the real
body of Christ is present in the eucharist is simply and undeniably
answered by Scripture . The second set of arguments used by Thomas to
support this view stems from the ~, the effects of the sacrament which
rationally follow from and agree with the real presence.
To the first three objections, Thomas replies that the eucharist is
riot a corporeal eating, but is eaten sacramentaliter. And this mode of
reception is the most convenient for our salvation. This answer serves
as an introduction to the answers to the following objections, which begin
to describe how this theologically undeniable presence is metaphysically
possible.
In answer to the fourth objection, Thomas describes how such a change
takes place. It does not necessarily follow that a thing must first be
changed in order to be present locally where it had not been previously
present. As in the case of air being changed into fire, the thing changed
is conversum in ipsum. 2
The bread, too, undergoes such a change. However,
the change from air to fire is a change by generation, where the form as the
IC •. IO.13 " ... quae non s,olum praeter rationem sunt, sed etiam contra sensum ... "
2C.IO.18 "Corpus ergo Christi est in altari cum prius non fuerit, quia panis conversus est in ipsum, ... "
12
terminus of the change is generated by the accidents. In the case of
the eucharistic change, the entire body of Christ is the terminus of the
change, replacing the form of the bread, and subsisting in itself; The
change, therefore, is a unique kind of change. Thus, the objection does
not hold.
Thomas answers the next three objections by describing how the body
is present. That is, since the body has replaced the substance of the
bread, it exists according to the remaining dimensions of the bread.
This, however, is not an existence in loco, for the body of Christ exists
in loco only in heaven. Again, Thomas speaks of a special kind of presence.
Et ideo non est hic ut in loco per se loquendo, sed ut in sacramento, non solum significante, sed continenti ipsum ex vi conversionis factae (10.19).
Therefore, the body is not present everywhere, but only where such a change
take s place.
In answer to the eighth objection, Thomas sums up his argument as to
how the body of Christ can be metaphysically present in the eucharist.
The body of Christ is present only insofar as it is the object of a change,
and that change is different from all other natural changes. It is a change
of one total thing into another total thing. Thomas does not say that this
change is different from all other miraculous changes. God, for instance,
could change the substance of bread into the body of a rock in the same
1 way.
Thomas approaches the eucharistic change in the first article as a
theological given, for which a metaphysical explanation must be given.
lC.lO.24 "Unde similiter accideret de corpore lapidis, si ])eus simili mode panis substantiam in lapidem converteret; quod non est dubium eum posse."
I
I
13
Scripture affirms, and every believer must accept the fact, that the body
and blood of Christ are truly present under the species of the bread and
wine. The problem remains as to how such a thing is metaphysically possi-
ble. How are the substance of the bread and the body of Christ so related
that a change of this nature is possible? This is the question to which
Thomas addresses himself almost exclusively in the remainder of his dis-
cussion of the eucharistic change.
In his answer to the last five objections, he sets down two principles
for understanding this change. First, the body of Christ is present only
as the terminus of the change; secondly, this change is a total change of
the substance of the bread, and thus different from all natural changes.
By not separating it from all other miraculous changes, Thomas poses the
metaphysical question of the eucharistic change as a general question of
the power of God. He does not present the eucharistic change as metaphysi-
cally unique, nor does he raise the question of what a change might mean
theologically.
Thus the answers to the arguments concerning the corporeal presence
lead into the main question of article two: utrum totus Christus contineatur
in sacramento sub speciebus quae manent. In this article, there are four
" topi~s for discussion: first, whether the soul of Christ is contained in
this sacrament; secondly, whether Christ is present under the species of
bread only as far as his carnal soul is concerned; thirdly, whether the body
of Christ is present in its proper quantity; and fourthly, whether the body
of Christ is present in its total quantity.
Thomas answers the first question by explaining that Christ is con-
tained "in the sacrament in two ways: uno modo ex vi sacramenti, alio modo
14
ex naturali concomitantia. Further, there are three ways to recognize
those things belonging to the mode: first, by those things which have
been changed (as wine into blood), secondly, by the signification of
the forms, and,thirdly, by the use of the sacrament.
other things may be present in the eucharist, even though they are
not present through the power of the sacrament, if they are necessary to
the change itself. The soul of Christ, for example, cannot be separated
from the body of Christ. Therefore, it is in the sacrament by virtue of
its concomitance with the body (10. 38).
To the second question Thomas replies that although, as argued above,
the body of Christ is present by the power of the sacrament only to the
bread and the blood only to the wine, the whole body is present by natural
concomitance in both species (10.40).
In the same way, Thomas holds the other accidents of Christ's bodily
substance to be present:
••. ideo quantitas et alia accidentia propria corporis Christi non sunt ibi ex vi sacramenti; sunt tamen ibi secundum rei veritatem ex naturali concomitantia accidentis ad subjectum, ut de anima dictum est (10.44).
Therefore, the actual dimensions of the body of Christ can be present
both in heaven and under the dimensions of the bread. They are actually
present in heaven, situated by presence in a place. They are present in
the sacrament, however, only through concomitance, and not as if they were
situated in a particular place (10.46-49). Question four, then, is easily
handled in the same manner.
The topic of the ne~t article logically follows: Qualiter sit ibi.
This article contains four questions: first, whether Christ is contained
15
in the sacrament circumscriptively; secondly, whether Christ is contained
definitively under the species; thirdly, whether the body of Chr~st is con~
tained totally under each part of the species; and fourthly, whether the body
of Christ is moved with the motion of the host.
Using the distinctions set up in the second article, Thomas answers
the first question by explaining that as the body of Christ is not present
in the species of the bread as a substance mediated by quantity, but only
through a change by the power of the sacrament, therefore the figure of
Christ does not correspond to the figure of the species, and is therefore
not circumscribed by them (10.67-69). Thomas uses the example of the soul
in man to explain this sort of presence (10.71).
Thomas answers the second question by describing two requirements for
b~ing in a place definitively. Either something exists in a place defini
tively by reason of its being, or by reason of some other mode of its
quantity or power (10.75). The body of Christ, however, is present in
neither of these two ways, but only insofar as it has become that which
existed beforehand (10.76).
In describing how the body of Christ is present in each part of the
species (question three), Thomas discusses the example of the broken mirror
used by Augustine for the same purpose. Augustine argues that the body is
present in each part of the bread when it is broken in the same way each
part of a mirror reflects the same image when it is shattered. Thomas dis
misses Augustine's example as inappropriate. First of all, the image in a
mirror is generated by reflection, and does not exist ut forma absolute
quiescens I n subjecto as the body of Christ does. Secondly, it speaks
-t" 16
only of Christ being in each part after the mirror is broken, and does
not adequately describe the situation of the body being present in every
part before the bread is broken (10.80-83). Thomas uses instead a more
suitable metaphysical explanation:
Corpus autem Christi continetur absolute sub specie bus. t" .. ·u("J.,t... Et hoc non convenit substantiae mediante quantitate, ut dictum est, sed ratione substantiae inquantum substantia panis est conversa. Et ideo etiam ante fractionem est totum in toto, et totum in partibus; qua ubicumque erat tota natura panis, est tota natura corporis Christi ... (10.84)
This presentation fits perfectly wit~ his metaphysics of substance
and accidents, and, of course, easily dismisses question four, for the body
of Christ is not quantitatively subject to the accidents of the bread.
The fact that Thomas rejects this example of Augustine's in favor of the
more metaphysically satisfying answer given above, indicates once again that
Thomas sees this question of the eucharistic change as a metaphysical ques-
tion, that is, as a question of the relationship between the substance of .-/
the bread and the body of Christ.
The fourth article deals mainly with traditional or devotional ques-
tions, but presents some interesting answers by Thomas. Here there are
five questions: 1) whether the glorified eyes are able to see the true body
of Christ under the species; 2) whether when flesh or a boy appear on the
altar, the body of Christ is seen in its proper species; 3) whether in this
case, it ought to be consumed; 4) whether the angels are able to see the
body of Christ under the sacrament; and 5) whether this is able to be under-
stood by the intellect of the faithful on earth.
To the first question, Thomas responds that the body of Christ cannot
be seen by any corporeal vision, even of the gloriOUS, for it is not present
by reason of its own quantity, but under the species. Therefore, the
necessary contact between the accident of color and the eyes needed for
vision are not present (10.107-109).
17
Oddly, Thomas adds an argument in the Sed Contra which denies the
ability of seeing the body in the host if it were possible to "see" the
body. He argues that since the body of Christ is bigger than the host,
and since they are at an equal distance from the viewer, the angle of per
spective must be greater between the body and viewer than that between the
host and the viewer. But since the body of Christ is seen as under the
species of the host, the greater angle must be th.e same as the smaller
angle and this is impossible (10.96). Again, this is an indication of the
strictly metaphysical approach which Thomas is taking in the Commentary.
FUrther, it is an odd argument because Thomas holds that the presence can
~ot be seen in any case.
To the second question, Thomas answers that there can be no doubt
that the true body is present when carnal appearances happen, but whether
this is the true body of Christ in its true quantity (not under species) it
is hard to say. It may be just a vision given to over-zealous believers,
or Christ may really appear. It seems safe to assume though that even if
Christ may appear, it would only be momentarily, so it is most likely that
these appearances are simply other accidents superimposed by divine power
for the purposes of adoration (10.14-18). In answer to the third question,
then, Thomas simply explains that this species is for adoration, not con
sumption.
Thomas answers the fourth question by asserting that the angels can
see the body of Christ in the sacrament, but only because they share in the
beatific vision. Et ideo sicut fides credit corpus Christi esse sub sacra-
18
mento, ita in visione beata Angeli vident (10.127). He adds, however,
that he believes that the angels see the body of Christ not unde naturali
cognitione but sed solem beata (10.128). Finally, in answer to the fifth
question, Thomas argues that since the int~llect can only "see" those things
which are principles of science, or apprehended through sense, the intellect
of mortal man (intellectus viatoris) cannot see, much less understand, the
presence of the body of Christ in the sacrament (10.132-133).
In summary, Distinction 10 presents the eucharist change as a theologi-'
cal given demanding a metaphysical explanation. The eucharistic change is
related to the believer as an object of faith, above the power of his
'intellect, and in contradiction to the evidence of his senses. The question
as to how the substance of the bread is related to the body of Christ is
approached as an abstract metaphysical problem. Thomas would have ap
proached the problem the same way if God had revealed that He had changed
the substance of bread into the body of a rock. The answer Thomas gives is
simple. The body of Christ is present only as the object of the eucharistic
change, which is a total change of the substance of the bread into the body
of Christ. Therefore, the body of Christ is present in the bread as the
substance of the bread was present totum in toto, et totum in partibus.
Distinction 11 continues the discussion of how this metaphysical change
takes place.
In the second section of the Commentary with which we shall deal, the
divisions are somewhat different. Distinction 11 is divided into three
parts whi~h roughly correspond to the res et sacramentum, sacramentum,
and res divisions. He twill deal only with the first part, that is,
Prima de conversione panis in c'orpus Christi et vini in sanguinem (11.13).
This part is divided into four articles: 1) utrum post consecrationem remaneat
ibi panis; 2) utrum annihiletur; 3) utrum convertatur in corpus Christi; and
19
4) de locutionibus quae in hac materia concedendae sunt (11.13).
The first article contains three questions: 1) whether the substance
of the bread remains after the consecration; 2) whether the species of
the bread ought to remain; and 3) whether the form of the substance of
the bread ought to remain.
The opinion that the substance of bread remains is, for Thomas,
incompetens huic sacramento et impossibilis et haeretica (11.23). It
is unsuitable for the substance of the bread to remain because then the
veneration of latria would be an occasion of idolatry; for the species
would lead to the substance of bread which would be worshipped, rather
than the true body. Finally, it would deny the spiritual use of the
sacrament, and offer instead a corporeal use (11.24).
It is impossible for the substance of the bread to remain, for if it
did not change~ then the body of Christ could only have become present as
a result of local motion (11.25). But this is impossible, for the eucharist
is confected in many places simultaneously and the body of Christ can only
be locally present in one place (11.25).
It is heretical for the substance of the bread to remain for this
contradicts the truth of scripture: non enim posit verum dicere: 'Hoc est
corpus meum' sed'Hic est corpus meum'; ... (11.26).
Thomas offers three reasons why the substance of the bread cannot re-
main in this change. Thomas makes his strongest accusations on the basis
of scripture. This opinion is heretical because it denies the word of God.
Further, it is ·impossible for the metaphysical reasons which he has dis-
cussed earlier. The third argument offers a theological argument showing
merely the unsuitability of this opinion. The believer would not be able , to worship the reserved species unless the true body of Christ were present.
20
This is one of the few places where Thomas offers a theological argument
in favor of his explanation of the eucharistic change. There is, no full
explanation given, and we are left with only a hint of what the theologi-
cal implications of his position might be.
Regarding the second question, Thomas argues that the use of the
sacrament is spiritual eating. The species of bread and wine fit this
action most suitably since the consumption of the flesh of Christ would
be abhorrent and, further, the corporeal bread and wine stand as corporeal
1 signs of the spiritual action as befits a sacrament. Thomas offers no
explanation as to how this argument fits into the schema of substantial
change.
Regarding the third question, whether the form of bread remains, Thomas
p~ts forward three arguments. First, this is a substantial change, and
hence, the substantial form .must be involved in the change. FUrther, this
substantial change is indicated by the use of the word hoc in the institu-
tion:
Unde cum in eis exprimatur per hoc pronQmen hoc suostantia in actu composita, oportet quod illud quod convertitur in corpus Christi, sit etiam substantia composita, non materia panis tantumj et ita forma panis non manet (11.37)
Secondly, the form exists as part of the substance, so if the sub-
stance changes, the form changes. The accidents remain because they are
the visible signs, but form cannot fulfill this role, as it is not visible.
So there is no reason for the form to remain (11 .38 ). Thirdly, if the form
remained, the accidents which lead to a knowledge of the form would lead to
the form of the bread, not to the body of Christ, and the sacramental s i gnifi-
bol1.32 "Potest assignari et alia causa ex parte ips ius sacramentij ... et quia corpus Christi verum non est cibus corporalis, sed spiritualis ... "
21
cance would fail (11.39). This is, of course, the same argument as
offered in the first question.
The second article consists of a single question: whether the bread
has been annihilated in the change. Thomas argues that this is possible
only, in two ways : either the substance o f the bread is resolved into pre-
existent matter, or it is completely annihilated.
In answer to the first possibility, he argues that praejacen~ materia
can be understood in two ways. According to the first understanding, the
substance of the bread would become materia sine forma omni; but this is
impossible for the substance of bread is already in actu, that is, with a
form, and so cannot become potential materia sine forma omni (11.52).
According to the second understanding, the substance of the bread would be
resolved in materialia 'elementa. But this would mean either two bodies
(both that of Christ and that of the bread exist within the same dimensions)
or else that a local motion would occur. Both of these, as Thoma.s has shown,
are impossible (11.53-54).
In answer to the second possibility, Thomas argues that if the sub-
stance of the bread were annihilated, the body of Christ would not be the
terminus ad quem of this change, but rather the terminus ad quem would be
nothing. But as was shown, the body of Christ cannot be shown to be present
locally, so it must be the terminus ad quem (11.55).
What Thomas is dOing in Distinction 11 is refuting all other possible
explanations of how the eucharistic change takes place. First, he rejects
the argument that the substance of the bread could somehow remain. Next,
he attacks those who would argue that the form of the bread would remain ,
in order to support the accidents. Finally, he refutes those who would
. 22
argue that the substance of the bread somehow. goes out of existence.
After affirming that this indeed must be a substantial change, Thomas ex-
plains in the third article how this change differs from other kinds of
change .
. The third article consists of three questions: 1) whether the bread
is able to be changed into the body of Christ; 2) whether this change is
. successive; and 3) whether this change is more miraculous than any other
change.
Thomas begins his answer to the first question by describing the
basic metaphysics of natural changes. In all natural changes, matter, the
underlying prinCiple, exists throughout change, while form undergoes change.
Matter, however, is subject to God as agens primum for its individuating
:principle. Therefore, God can change the individuating prinCiple of matter. l
Thus the eucharistic change differs from natural change in fOcIT ways:
1) this change extends even insofar as matter is concerned; 2) therefore,
this· change does not have matter as the prime subject; 3) the entire form
and matter of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, totum convertitur
in totum; and 4) only one term of the change is affected, the bread (11.72-76).
Thomas answers the second question concerning succession in two ways.
Distance can be reckoned according to dimensions of place and quantity, or
according to repugnance of form or nature. The latter of these distances
does not apply here; for as author of all nature, God cannot be repugnant
to any of nature (11.81). Since this is not a change of place or quantity,
the first definition of distance does not apply, and therefore the change
takes place instantaneously. . \
Ie .11. 71 !lEt quia materia signata est indi viduationis princlplum, ideo solius Dei operatione hoc fieri potest, ut hoc individuum demonstratum fiat illud individuum demonstratum. Et talis modus conversionis est in hoc sacramen-to, qua ex pane fit hoc corpus Christi."
23
In answer to the second objection of this argument, Thomas gives
several different opinions of others who try to justify the instantaneous
change of the eucharist. The first of these arguments states that a~ the
instant of change, the body of Christ and the substance of bread are simul-
taneously present secundum rem but distinct secundem rationem. The second
argument reasons that at the instant of the change, two "times" intersect
as do two tangential lines, so as to be simultaneous and yet separate. A
third argument offers the solution that time measures action, and in this
case, two actions are measured. The action of being the substance of bread
ends and the action of being the body of Christ begins without an inter-
vening time. A fourth argument sees this change as above nature, and there-
fore not subject to the ordinary measure of time, the heavens. Finally,
the :argument is offered that there is an instant between the moment when the
substance of bread exists and when the body of Christ exists, but this
mediating instant is nothing (hoc iterum nihil est) (11. 85-98).
Thomas argues that the true way to understand the instantaneous nature
of this change is to think of it as one time, ending in a final moment. It
is at the final moment of a change that the change takes place. In the
eucharist, the change takes place at the last instant in which the words of
institution are said. Before that instant, the substance of bread is presentj
after that instant, the body of Christ is present (11.100).
The devotional third question Thomas answers by explaining that creation
was a greater miracle than the change in the eucharist because while the
eucharist requires the change from one substance to another, creation in-
volved the creation of substance from nothing (11.107-110). The incarna-
tion, however, is the greatest of the miracles of change, for it joins to
gether human nature and divine nature. l
!c.il.ilO "Sed ex parte ejus ad quod est mutatio, mutatio quae est in unione humanae naturae ad divinam personam, praecellit has et omnes alias mutationes in difficultate."
24
The fourth article of part one of Distinction 11 contains four ques-
tions: 1) whether the change ought to be able to be expressed iI). some other
tense than the present; 2) whether the words "The bread becomes the body of
Christ" ought to express this; 3) whether it is false to say "The body of
Christ is made from the bread"; and 4) whether it would be true to say "The
bread is able to be the body of Christ".
These four questions concerning predication Thomas handles by ex-
plaining that as this change has no common term, that is, matter, it would
be improper to use any phrase suggesting this, such as "That was this" or
"That will be this". And, since only the bread is changed by the power of
God, so too all phrases which indicate an active role on the part of the
bread are inexact, such as "The bread is able to be the body of Christ"
(11.123-125, 136).
Distinction 11 follows almost the same format as Distinction 10.
Having introduced the argument that this change is a substantial change,
Thomas defends it theologically by quoting the words of institution. He
then proceeds to describe and answer the metaphysical problems involved
in such a change. In Distinction 11, however, he does make some slight
attempt to relate the two areas. In the argument that the substance of the
bread must change to allow worship of the species, Thomas holds that the
accidents lead to a knowledge of the substance, and therefore the substance
of this sacrament must be the true body of Christ. He still offers no ex-
planation of the theological implications of the fact that this is a sub-
stantial change, but he does affirm that there are theological reasons why
this change must be substantial. At most, then, Thomas here offers theologi-
• cal arguments to support the metaphysical arguments which remain his prime
concern.
25
Distinction 12 is also divided into three sections which corres-
pond to discussions of res et sacramentum, res and sacramentum. ' The
first part concerns this discussion as it speaks of the accidents ex-
clusively as they exist in the consecrated host. There are t'hree articles:
1) whether the accidents are here without substance; 2) concerning the
operations of these accidents; and 3) concerning the breaking in which
they are involved.
The first article is divided into three questions: 1) whether God
is able to make accidents exist without substance; 2) whether it is
agreeable to this sacrament that the accidents exist without a subject;
and 3) whether the accidents are in this sacrament without a substance.
Thomas answers the first question quite simply. God is the first
cause of all being. If substance which is the secondary cause of being
is removed, the first cause, God, can easily support the accidents (12.23).
Thomas offers four answers to the second question. First of all,
the existence of the accidents is appropriate for the signification of the
sacrament; for they lead immediately to the body of Christ, rather than
to the substance of the bread (12.28). Secondly, this existence corres-
ponds to the effect of the sacrament, which is the union of the head and
members of the church in faith (12.29). Thirdly, the use of the sacrament,
that is, spiritual eating, is served. For if the accidents existed in a
subject, this would constitute corporeal eating (12.30). Finally, the per-
fection of the sacrament -- that is, that the bread be changed into the body
of Christ -- necessitates the existence of the accidents without a subject
(12.31). These arguments represent a virtual summary of the different • theological arguments which Thomas has offered in the previous distinctions.
26
The third question deals with the way in which the accidents exist in
the sacrament. Thomas reject s several arguments before offering his own
solution. First, he re jects arguments of consubstantiation or the exi stence
of the form of the bread as he did in Distinction 11 (12.23-26). Further,
he rejects the opinion of those who argue that the accidents exist in the
substance of the air. This is impossible for it would involve local motion,
and result in the air having both the accidents of bread and air, which is
impossible (12. 35-42).
Therefore, Thomas asserts that the accidents must exist without a sub-
ject because the body of· Christ does not exist in the eucharist as a subject
(12.43). He explains, however, that as the quantitative dimension of the
species is the primary disposition of its matter, the other accidents inhere
~n quantity, while the latter alone is supported by divine power.
Virtute autem divina confertur dimensionibus quae fuerunt panis, ut sine subjecto subsistant in hoc sacramento, quod est prima proprietas substantiae; et per consequens datur eis ut sustineant alia accidentia, sicut et sustinebant, quando substantia eis suberat. Et sic alia accidentia sunt in dimensionibus sicut in subjecto, ipsae vero dimensiones non sunt in subjecto (12.46).
The concept of the quantitative dimensions taking over as the. subject
of the other accidents represents a key notion for Thomas. If indeed, a
substantial change has taken place, how can one reconcile the fact that the
bread to all appearances remains the same and acts the same? Thomas answers
by explaining that the quantitative dimensions act in the same way as a sub-
stance to subsist the presence of the accidents.
The second article is divided into six questions: 1) whether the acci-
dents which remain in the sacrament are able to change into anything in-
trinsic; 2) whether they are able to change anything extrinsic in a sub-
27
statial way; 3) whether these accidents are in any way able to be corrupted;
4) whether from them anything is able to be generated; 5) whether they are
able to nourish; 6) whether any liquid is able to permeate the species.
The first three questions are really answered by Thomas' answer to the
first question, that is,
Quia ergo in sacramento quantitates retinent eumdem modem essendi quem habebant substantia panis eXistente, ideo habent eumdem modum agendi, ut immutent et agant naturaliter sicut prius (12.72).
Thus, the quantity and quality of the species are susceptible to the same
changes as was the substance of the bread, that is, extrinsic change and
corruption. If and when the quantitative and qualitative dimensions are
changed, the species cease to be sacrament and Christ is no longer present
(12.82).
In answering the question of how generation is possible in the sacra-
ment, Thomas discusses several arguments as to how this might occur. The
most important of these is that which argues that the substance of bread
returns when generation takes place. Thomas argues that this is impossi-
ble; it would mean that the body of Christ would turn into the substance
of bread. This is clearly absurd. He does accept, however, a different
answer: a new substance could replace the old substance, if it were
created by a miracle (12.99-100). Either new matter is created for the
new substance generated; or the dimensions themselves, since they act as
substance by divine power, subsist such a change.
Et tunc vel ex consequenti adveniet etiam materia propter • concomitantiam naturalem formae ad materiam, sicut propter concomitiantiam naturalem animae Christi ad corpus, erat
- '
28
anima sub sacramento -- et hoc quodammodo redit in primum dictum, ut scilicet materia de novo fiatj -- vel ipsi dimensioni virtute divina dabitur natura materiae propter propinquitatemad ipsam, ut sic illud generatum sit compositum ex materia et forma. (12.102).
The fifth question is handled in the same manner as the first three.
As the substance of the species could nourish, so now the quantitative
dimensions act as the substance, and can nourish (12.110). Using the same
reasoning as he used in the answer to question three, Thomas answers ques-
tion six by replying that adding liquid to the consecrated wine affects the
presence of the blood and body of Christ only so far as it changes the
quantity or a quality of the species (12.119-120).
The last article contains three questions: 1) whether the true body of
Christ is broken in this sacramentj 2) whether only the species are brokenj
and 3) whether the significance of the breaking is appropriately assigned.
Thomas answers the first question by referring to his argument in
answer to the third question of article 2, Distinction 10 (10.46). Since
the body of Christ is present only by the sacrament, and not as mediated
by quantity, it is not affected by the breaking of the species (12.133-134).
Since the body of Christ is not broken in the sacrament, the species are
the thing broken. This is possible because the qualitative dimension acts
as the substance of the bread (12.46). In this way, Thomas answers the
second question (12.140-141). The third question defends different tra-
ditional meanings attributed to the breaking of the species and need not
concern us here (12.145-156).
Before proceeding to the other works of Thomas, we will present a
short summary of this Father lengthy work. The Commentary presents
integral metaphysical arguments explaining the change which takes place
. 29
in the species in the sacrament of the eucharist. For Thomas, there must
be a change in the species for several reasons. First and most , importantl~,
the word of God (Matthew 26:12) assures us that such a change takes place.
Also, to deny such a change would mea~ that the worshipper of the consecrated
species is performing idol worship by worshipping bread. Finally, the body ~
of Christ must be present in the eucharist in order to effect the union of
God and man which is the result of this sacrament. All of these explanations
of why there must be a change in the eucharist are theological explanations.
They show the relationship of the believer to the eucharist. It is the re-
lationship between the species and the believer which indicates for Thomas
that a change takes place in the eucharist and raises the metaphysical ques-
tion of whether such a change is possible.
But in the Commentary, Thomas is much more preoccupied with the meta-
physics of the eucharistic change. The main thrust of his argument is that
this change is a substantial change. This is the central tenet of his ex-
planation of the change. There is a place in Distinction 11, however,
where Thomas deviates from this central usage by referring to the change
as a material change (11.70). He does this to emphasize the difference
between the formal natural change and the special change in the eucharist,
but the impression such a usage gives is one of a still unmastered use of
analytic language.
Not only is this change a substantial change, but as the object of
the change, the body of Christ is present only ex vi sacramenti, while
the total Christ is present ex naturali concomitantia. Therefore, the body
of Christ is not present as in a place. This represents t he second important
focus of Thomas' argument.
30
The third important point in Thomas' metaphysical argument holds that
the quantitative dimensions act as the subject for the other accidents,
therefore allowing the bread to act in any way in which it acted before
the change took place .
. The aspect of the argument missing from the discussion of the euchar
istic change is the theological meaning of the change itself . Thomas offers
. theological reasons as to the existence and necessity of the change, but
offers no theological explanation of the change itself.
31
Quodlibetales VII, IX, X
st. Thomas discussed the question of eucharistic change three times in
the quolibetales which occurred during his first stay in Paris. Since these
disputes seemed to occur about the same time, or slightly after the time
Thomas wrote the Commentary on the Sentences, a more rounded picture of
the theology of Thomas regarding the eucharistic change would include an
evaluation of these disputes in light of the rather lengthy discussion of
the Commentary.
The first of the discussions is that found in Quodlibet VII. This
work contains three articles on the eucharistic change, and it is the
longest discussion of this change in the three early quodlibetales.
Question 4 (de sacramento altarisl ) consists of three articles: 1) whether
the body of Christ is contained under these species in its entirety;
2) whether the body of Christ and the bread exist in the same instant;
and 3) whether God is able to make whiteness and the other qualities
exist without quantity, since quantity exists in this sacrament without
a subject. These all refer to the central metaphysical problems which
Thomas handles in the Commentary.
The first question deals with the problem of the larger dimensions of
Christ being present in the smaller dimensions of the species. The question
is very similar to that raised in Distinction 10, article 2, question 4 of
the Commentary, and answered in almost the same words used in the arguments
of article 2. Again, the distinction between ex vi sacramenti and ex
naturali concomitantiais made (Q.7.4.1). There is, however, a preference
1 S. Thomae Aquinatis, ' Quaestiones Quodlibetales, ed. Spiazzi, (Rome: Marietti,Editio VIII revisa 1949) p.40. Hereafter all references to the Quodlibetales will be from this edition, and will immediately follow the citation and be indicated in parentheses by Quodlibet, question number and article number.
32
in the quodlibet for the term transubstantiationis terminus in describing
the mode ex vi sacramenti rather than the term illud ad quod conversio
terminatur used in the Commentary (10.37). The argument however is the
same. The dimensions of the body of Christ are present only ex naturali
concomitantia and, therefore, not in conflict with the dimensions of the
species, while the body of Christ is present in the species as was the
substance of the bread (Q.7.4.1).
The second article also follows an argument similar to that found in
the Commentary. Thomas argues that the instantaneous change of the sub-
stance of the bread is to be understood as taking place in the last instant
of time before the body of Christ becomes present.
Dicendum, quod nullo modo in eodem instanti est ibi corpus Christi et substantia panis; nec est assignare ultimum ins tans in quo est ibi panis, sed ultimum tempus quod continuatur ad ins tans illud in quo primo est ibi corpus Christi (Q.7.4.2).
This argument parallels that found in the Commentary, and quoted in the
discussion of that argument (11.100). Although Thomas does not discuss
the long list of opinions he mentions in the Commentary on this subject
(11.85-98), he does use similar examples of changes in nature. 11.99 and
Q.7.4.2 have parallel uses of the example of the change of air to fire;
and the Commentary hints at the longer development of the example of light
used in the Quodlibet in the phrase Et similiter est in illuminatione
respectu motus localis in the same section.
The third question, although it is related to matters covered in the
Commentary (12.48-50), appears as quite tangential to the eucharistic
theology of change. Thomas takes up the question of whether it would be
possible for God to make the other aCCidents, say, the whiteness of the
bread, to be without quantity, as he has made quantity to be without a
33
subject. Thomas answers by making a distinction between whiteness in
itself and whiteness as it is individuated (Q.7.4.3). It would be pos
sible for natura albedinis to exist without quantity through a miracle.
This whiteness, however, is not haec albedo sensibilis but rather quae dam
forma intelligibilis ad modum formarum separatarum, quas Plato po suit
(Q.7.4.3). It is interesting to note here that Thomas refers to Platonic
forms, while he himself uses the categories of Aristotle for his arguments.
Quantitas individuata can exist without a subject, because it is
individuated not only by a subject, but also ex situ; that is, it has a
quantitative dimension giving it position (Q.7.4.3). But, since albedo
individuata is not individuated except ex subjecto, it would be impossi
ble for it to exist without a subject (Q.7.4.3).
In conclusion, Quodlibet VII presents a metaphysical approach
differing little from the approach taken in the Commentary.
The second discussion of eucharistic change undertaken by Thomas in
the Quaestiones Quodlibetales of his first stay at Paris appears in
Quodlibet IX and consists in the single article of question three. This
question asks whether the accidents of the species in the eucharist exist
without a subject. Again, this is one of the major points of the argu
ments offered in the Commentary. The argument offered by Thomas parallels
exactly that of the Commentary, to which he gives a reference (Q.9.3.183).
Since God is the prime cause of all beings, he supports the accidents when
the subject is removed.
Also interesting is Thomas' answer to the third objection concerning the
generation of worms or ashes from the species. Here, as in the Commentary
(12.l00-102),he argues that there are two possible opinions as to how
34
this occurs, and selects two possible answers.. One of these is the argu
ment that the substance of the bread returns where corruption takes place . .
He again disagrees with the argument, for it means that Christ is, changed
into the substance of bread. However·, if new matter were created for this
purpose, this argument could hold. Thus, the first solution is that God
creates matter to sustain this change (Q.9.3.l). The second solution
offered by Thomas is that the accidents as held in existence by the divine
power have themselves the power of a subject, and are able to change just
as the bread before it was changed into the body of Christ (Q.9.3.l).
These are substantially the same two arguments which Thomas offers
in the Commentary, although here Thomas does not speak about the particu
lar role of the quantitative dimensions in subsisting under the other
~ccidents. Also, there·is a more marked preference on Thomas' part for
the second argument (Alia vero est planior). Thomas uses clearer language
in speaking of the way in which God holds the accidents in existence. In
the Commentary he uses the word materia (ipsi dimensioni virtute dabitur
natura materiae) while in the Quodlibet he uses the phrase accident1a
sicut datum est per se subsistere divina virtute. Since in this change
the matter of the bread is no longer present, the explanation in the Quodlibet
seems clearer.
The third and final discussion of eucharistic change in the early
quodlibetal disputes occurs in QUOdlibet X. Again the discussion con-
sists of a single article, that is article three of question one: whether
the species of the wine which remains irnthe sacrament after the consecration
is able to- be mixed with any other liquid.
The answer Thomas gives is the same as the one he gave in the Commentary.
If the amount of the liquid added to the wine is enough, it ceases to be the
blood of the Lord under the sacramental species. He adds to this argument
a point not included in the Commentary. The liquid added to the wine in
small amounts does not become the blood of Christ (Q.IO.I.3).
In general, the Quodlibetales of this period add little more than
slight metaphysical refinement to the treatment given by Thomas in the
Commentary. These refinements have been mentioned as the tendency towards
accepting one argument in describing the process of generation. in the
species, and the added pOint in the description of the result of adding
liquid to the species of wine.
35
Conclusion
Let us now summarize the dominant features of the theology of the
eucharistic change found in the Quodlibetales and in the Commentary.
36
The first and most striking emphasis is on the metaphysics of the
eucharistic change. The fact of the change is a theological given based
on Matthew 26:12. Thomas addresses himself almost exclusively to the
metaphysical problems involved in such a change. With the single excep
tion of the acceptance of Platonic forms in the argument in Quodlibet IX
(probably occasioned by the context of some Parisian disputation), Thomas
uses an Aristotelian category (i.e., sUbstance) to describe this change . .
Although he uses the word transubstantiatio sparingly in the Commentary,
and more readily in the Quodlibetales, he does not insist upon it, nor
does he define it closely.
On the whole, Thomas refrains from accepting any more miracles sur
rounding the eucharist than that involved in transubstantiation. On two
occasions, however, he admits the possibility of further miracles. He ac
cepts with reservations the possibility of the true quantitative body of
Christ being present in a miracle, or the possibility of other accidents
being imposed by God on the bread for reasons of adoration (C.lO.14-l8).
He also accepts (although more reluctantly in the Quodlibet) the possi
bility that God miraculously creates new matter when the species of bread
and wine corrupt.
In short, he is mainly concerned with the question of the metaphysical
possibility of the eucharistic change. How is such a change possible?
The slight inconsistencies and hesitation mentioned above seem to indicate
that he still lacks complete mastery of his chief means of answering that
question, that is Aristotelian categories.
37
Finally, what is most striking ' is what is missing. How do the
Aristotelian categories aid our theological understanding of the ' eucharist?
What does it mean theologically to say that the substance of the bread is
replaced by the body of Christ? Thomas comes closest to answ'ering this
question when he argues that the accidents of the species would lead to
the substance of the bread if it remained, and this would be idolatry
(C .11. 24) • He does not say how or why the accidents "indicate" (ducerent)
the body of Christ after the consecration.
In conclusion, the emphasis of the arguments of the Commentary and
early Quodlibetales remains on the metaphysical problems raised by the
theological given of the eucharistic change. The question of the theologi
cal significance of the manner of the change -- the theological signifi
c'ance of the metaphysical arguments themselves -- is rarely and only
indirectly raised in the theological arguments which Thomas use s to prove
that the change does indeed take place, and must be a substantial change.
38
CHAPl'ER 'IWO
MIDDIE WORKS
In 1259, Thomas left Paris, and returned to Italy. There he taught
theology at the studium curiae attached to the papal Court. This would
indicate that he taught at Anagni under Alexander IV (1259-61), at Orvieto
_under Urban IV (1261-64), at santa Sabina in Rome (1265-67), and at
Viterbo under Clement IV (1267-68).1 During that time he wrote several
works dealing with the subject of the eucharistic change. Using the
dating from the introduction of this work, the eucharistic discussions
from Thomas' stay in Italy are found in the Summa contra Gentiles, De
articulis fidei and De rationibus fidei.
Once again, I wish-to emphasize that the divisions introduced in the
paper are working divisions and are only to serve as aids in comparing
the large amount of material which Thomas wrote on this problem. Most
of all, I do not intend that the division represents "stages" in Thomas'
thought, neatly divided according to where he lived. Therefore, I will
try to introduce comparisons freely from the Commentary and Quodlibetales
to show the continuity of thought involved here.
1 Copleston, Albert to Scotus, pp. 21-22.
39
Summa Contra Gentiles
The Summa contra Gentiles contains a discussion of the eucharistic
change in terms of the difficulties involved in accepting the fact of
this change. Capitulum 62 of book four, entitled de errore infidelium
circa sacramentum eucharistiae contains five areas of difficulty for the
unbeliever in accepting the fact of the change in the eucharist. Each of
these five areas is taken up in order in the five following capitula.
Therefore, I will deal with each area in the order found in capitulum 62,
and then refer to the appropriate capitulum to continue the discussion
and Thomas' answer to the difficulty.
The first problem raised is how the body of Christ comes to be present
on the altar. l An object can become present only in one of two ways.
Either it can become present by local motion, or else by the change of
another into itself. Now the body of Christ cannot become present by
local motion, because it is pre-existent. Nor can th~ body of Christ
become present by local motion because this would mean Christ would leave
heaven to which he ascended; and furthermore, through local motion, he
could not be present on many different altars simultaneously.
Thomas answers these arguments in capitulum 63. First, Thomas affirms
that this change cannot be one of local motion, but is in fact a change of
sUbstance (201.1.5-9). Therefore, those who say that the body of Christ
and the substance of tre bread exist simultaneously, or that the substance
of the bread is changed into prime matter, or that it dissolves into
nothing, must be in error (201.1.15-18). The kind of change which takes
IS. Thomae Aquinatis, Opera Omnia, Vol. 15. Summa contra Gentiles (Rome: Leonine Edition, 1930) p.199. Hereafter all references will be from this edition, and numbers in parentheses refer to page, column and line in this edition.
-40
place in the eucharist is a special kind of change outside the ordinary
changes of nature; that is) it is a sUbstantial change in which the for-
mer accidents remain.
Sed in conversione praedicta subiectum transit in subiectum et accidentia manent: unde haec conversio substantialis nominatur (202.1.47-50).
This is) of course) the central tenet of the metaphysical argument
found in the Commentary. In fact) the entire discussion of the Summa
contra Gentiles follows almost in a summary form the main tenets of the
Commentary discussion. In continuing my survey of Thomas' discussion in
the Summa contra Gentiles) I will give a short synopsis of the arguments
brought forward) elaborating only on those areas which offer a different
approach from that of the Commentary.
Thomas continues his description of the sort of change which must be
involved in the eucharist by asserting that this change takes place through
divine power) which has control over all matter. Since something must sub-
sist in the change) however, the accidents remain (201.2.23-26).
But regarding the question of aCCidents, there is a certain order to
be considered. All the other accidents inhere in the substance as mediated
by the accident of quantity. Therefore) one ought to hold that the accident
of quantity alone exists without a subject and the other accidents inhere in
it (201.2.44-48). Furthermore) this change cannot properly be called one of
motion at all, but one of substantial succession (substantialis successlo).
Because this is the kind of change involved, the accidents must remain,
or there would be no s~tial link between the species and the body of
Christ (202.1:12-2:18).
The second set of difficulties with which Thomas deals has to do with
41
place (199.2.6). The first objection is that if the bread and wine are
seen to be separated in this sacrament, it would seem that the body of
Christ does not remain whole (199.2.13-14). And if the whole of Christ .
is contained in the bread, then the dimensions of Christ are larger than
that of the bread; since a larger body cannot be contained in a smaller
body, this is impossible. Finally, it would be impossible for one body
to exist in many places simultaneously; yet the sacrament is so celebrated
in many places.
Thomas answers these objections in capitulum 64. He first points out
that the body ot Christ is present in the place of the sacrament by reason
of the dimensions of the bread remaining after the change. As in the
Commentary, Thomas distinguishes between aliquid esse ex vi convers ionis
and aliquid autem ex naturali concomitantia (206.1.12-13). Only the body
of Christ is present in the bread, and blood in the wine ex vi conversionis.
However, the entire Christ is present in both species ex naturali concomitantia.
Thus the body of Christ is not related to the place of ' the sacrament through
its own dimensions, which are present only ex naturali concomitantia, but ,
through the dimensions of the bread. Therefore, there is no conflict of
dimensions nor is there a problem of plurality of places.
Again, it should be pointed out that the discussion of the eucharistic ;{
change in the Summa contra Gentiles offers an almost outline summary of
the main metaphysical argwnents of the Commentary. The theological argu-
ments are completely missing. Thomas only picks up main areas of diffi-
culty and offers, in outline form, the answers which he first developed
in the Commentary.
A third set of objections is raised regarding the things which our
senses perceive in this sacrament (199.2.37-38). Since our senses cannot
42
be deceived as to sensibles, and since we can perceive the accidents of
species after the conversion, the accidents must be present. yet they
cannot inhere in the body of Christ nor in the surrounding air; for they
require a subject of determinate nature, and both the air and the body of
Christ lack this quality (199.2.47-49). Further, since accidents must
inhere in a subject, or else they would be universal forms (formae uni-
versales), they must inhere in the subject of the bread and wine (200.1.3-6).
Thomas answers these arguments in capitulum 65 by referring to his
previous argument in capitulum 63. In this substantial change, the
quantitas dimensiva exists without a subject and the other accidents
inhere in it. Nor is this impossible for God, who as first cause can
produce the effects of any secondary cause, without the secondary cause
being present (209.1.25-27). The quantitas dimensiva had the property of
individuation. Therefore, the other accidents are individuated by in-
hering in the quantity (209.2.27-33).
The fourth objection raised concerns the actions and passions which
appear in the bread and wine after consecration. It would appear that
Christ is not present in the species, for many unseemly things can happen
to the bread or wine after the consecration, such as rotting, burning, or
being eaten by mice (200:1.6-13, 2:1-4). Thomas answers in capitulum 66
that there are two matters here, one dealt with easily, the other of more
difficulty (213.1.3-6).
The actions and passions of the species, such as odor or color or
alteration of accidents, causes no great problem; for if accidents are
founded in the dimensions as in a subject, then those changes which took
place before the consecration would be possible after the consecration.
The greatest difficulty appears in regard to generation and corruption of
43
the species. Thomas argues that the question. of nourishment presents the
same difficulty as that of corruption (213.2.15-19). As in the ,Comwentary .
and Quodlibetales, Thomas lists and rejects several arguments offered by
others as to how this generation might be possible. The arguments in the
Summa contra Gentiles, however, appear in a more abbreviated form. The
most important argument which Thomas rejects here is the argument that the
substance of the bread returns to the species to effect the generation.
He rejects this argument for two reasons. First, this would mean that the
body of Christ would become bread and this is absurd. Secondly, since the
body of Christ is present while the species remain, the substance of the
bread could only return after the corruption has taken place, and of course
by then another substance has taken over.
Earlier, in the Commentary and in Quodlibet IX, Thomas had accepted
this argument, on the condition that the SUbstance of the bread not re-
turn to the speCies, but that a new substance created by God subsist the
generated object. In the Summa contra Gentiles Thomas rejects this argu-
ment. He accepts only one answer to this problem. The accidents themselves,
as a result of the consecration, act as a substancej therefore, they are
able to generate new substances, just like the substance of the bread be-
fore the change (214.2.8-12). Thus Thomas rejects the argume~t which he
accepted in the Commentary and, more reluctantly in the Quodlibetales,
that a new substance might be miraculously created by God to subsist the
new being generated by the species. Thomas is more and more inclined to
limit the number of miracles which must be posited to explain the eucharistic
change. Indeed, he ends this discussion in the Summa contra Gentiles with
the words:
Unde sine novo miraculo, et inebriare et nutrire, et incinerari et putrefieri possunt, eodem modo et ordine ac si substantia panis et vini adesset (214.2.8-12).
44
The Summa contra Gentiles stands as a summary treatment of the meta-
physical arguments contained in the Commentary. But there are two impor-
tant differences from the treatment in the Commentary. First, the theologi-
cal arguments offered in the Commentary are not found here. Therefore,
his discussion of the eucharistic change in the Summa contra Gentiles
is completely concerned with understanding the relationship between the
species and the body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic change.
The second difference is Thomas' acceptance of only one correct
answer to the question of how substances can be generated from the species.
This change indicates a refinement in Thomas' metaphysical system by the
elimination of the necessity for a second miracle in the eucharist.
45
De Articulis Fidei et Ecclesiae Sacramentis
A second mention of the eucharistic change dating from Thomas' stay
in Italy is found in the short work De articulis fidei et ecclesiae
sacramentis ad archiepiscopum Panormitanum. This mention consists of
a single paragraph stating the main tenet of Thomas' metaphysics of the
eucharistic change: the change is a substantial change containing the
. whole Christ .
... nam virtute praedictorum verborum panis convertitur in corpus Christi, et vinum in sanguinem, ita tamen quod totus Christus continetur. sub speciebus panis, quae remanent sine subiecto, et totus Christus continetur sub speciebus vini: et sub qualibet parte hostiae consecratae, vini consecrati, separatione facta, est totus Christusl
This brief passage emphasizes the importance Thomas places on the meta-
physical aspect of the problem of the eucharistic change.
IS. Thomae Aquinatis, Opuscula Theologica, ed. Verardo, Vol. I (Rome: Marietti, . 1954), pp. 149-150.
46
De Rationibus Fidei
The third and final mention of the eucharistic change found in the
works of Thomas dating from his stay in Italy is found in the De rationibus
fidei contra Saracenos, Graecos et Armenos ad Cantorem Antiochenum. l Chap-
ter eight, entitled Qualiter sit accipiendum quod fide l es acc ipiunt corpus
Christi, presents an explanation to the unbelievers of the belief in the
presence of the body of Christ in the eucharist. 2 Thomas pOints out that
believers do not hold that the body of Christ is divided up and consumed in
such a way that it is eventually completely eaten up. Rather, the body of
Christ is eaten through the change of the bread into the body of Christ
(8.1002). Nor is this change to be doubted by unbelievers as i mpossible,
for God is omnipotent. He has the power not only to change the form of a
substance but the substance itself (9.1003). The body and blood appear
under the species of bread and Wine, for this is a spiritual eating
(spiritualis et divina refectio) and not simply an ordinary meal, as it
would be repulsive to eat human flesh and drink blood (8.1004). Nor is this
presence merely a phantasm effected by magic (solum in phantasia videntium,
sicut solet esse in praestigiis artis magicae). God, creator of subjects
and accidents, is able to hold the visible accidents in being after their
subject has changed. This is possible through His omnipotence.
Thomas stresses the importance of the omnipotence of God in his dis-
cussion, for he is addressing the Saracens and others who believe in the
omnipotence of God '(8.1005). Thus he feels that they can accept that what
he has said is possible, and so he ends his discussion (8. 1006).
. , lIt is not known who this Cantor Antiochenus to whom Thomas wri tes was. A. Walz suggests that he might ,have been the bishop of Antioch who at this time was a Dominican named Christianus Elias. Ibid.,p.25l.
2Ibid ., p . . 263. The references in parentheses indicate chapter and paragraph.
47
Although the discussion in the De rationibus does not differ signifi
cantly from the other discussions of the Summa contra Gentile s and the De
articulis fidei, two e l ements are worth noting for our purposes. First, of
the three works, only the De rationibus makes use of the theological argument
that the eucharist is a spiritual eating rather than a carnal eating, and
should be so understood. Secondly, the emphasis of all three works has
been on the fact that this is a substantial change. The " lack of precision
on this point found in the Commentary has disappeared. There are no
references to a material change i n these works.
48
Conclusion
In the works examined in this chapter, Thomas' main arguments remain
unchanged: the importance of understanding the eucharistic change' as a
substantial change, the existence of the e~tire person of Christ ~
naturali concomitantia, and the miraculous inherence of the accidents
of the bread in the quantitative dimensions of the bread and wine.
The one major divergence from the presentation found in the Commen
tary is found in capitulum 66 of the Summa contra Gentiles. Here Thomas
abandons the argument which asserts that God would create new substances
for anything generated from the consecrated species. This change indicates
a move on Thomas' part toward a less complicated view of the eucharistic
change. The phrase unde sine novo miraculo seems to be an indication that
for Thomas the view of the eucharistic change which would best fit meta
physical reality is that which least depends on miracles. Again, in thes~
short selections there is no indication that Thomas relates his metaphysi
cal arguments concerning the relationship between the substance of the bread
and the body of Christ to the faith of the believer. The theological ex
planation of the eucharistic change has not developed from the first dis
cussion of that change in the Commentary, despite the fact that Thomas has
refined his metaphysical arguments.
But these texts are short, and all three represent a form of apologetics
addressed to different groups of unbelievers. We now need to see whether
our third and final body of texts contains a theological refinement concomitant
with the metaphysical refinement encountered in the Summa contra Gentiles.
CRAPl'ER THREE
lATE WORKS
49
Thomas left Italy in l268 and returned for a brief period to the
University of Paris. Quodlibetales I and y date from this stay (l269-
l272). In l272, Thomas returned to Italy to establish a studium generale
. for the Dominican order in Naples. He remained there until 1274, when
Gregory X summoned him to the Council of Lyons. He died on the way to
the Council on March 7, l284, at Fossanuova, between Naples and Rome.
Four works dating from this last period of Thomas' life contain
references to the eucharistic change. Quodlibet I and Quodlibet V both
contain articles on the eucharistic change. Responsio ad lectorem Venetum
de articulis XXXVI presents a more complete sketch of Thomas' approach to
the eucharistic change (articles 31-35). Finally, the treatment of the
eucharistic change found in the Summa theologiae, Part III, in questions 75-77
is the most complete presentation of this matter which Thomas was to under
take after the Commentary on the Sentences.
,-
50
Quodlibetales I and V
The first of the two Quodlibetales which deal with the eucharistic
change in the later period of Thomas' life is Quodlibet I, question 10,
article 2, which discusses whether glorious bodies are miraculously able
1 to exist in the same place as another body (Q.l.10.2). Although the
subject of this Quodlibet is not exactly that of eucharistic change,
Thomas makes two references to the eucharistic change in his answer to the
question concerning glorified bodies. First, in describing the power of
God as omnium causa prima he uses the eucharistic change as one example
of the miraculous use of this power (Q.l.10.2). Secondly~ in describing
the contradiction involved in one body existing localiter in two places,
Thomas denies that the presence of Christ in the altar is an exception to
this contradiction for the body of Christ is not present localiter, but
only through the power of the change (Q.l.10.2).
Quodlibet V, question 6, article 2 deals more specifically with the
matter of the eucharistic change, that is, whether the form of the bread
is annihilated in the sacrament of the eucharist (Q.5.6.1). Thomas answers
that change always consists of a terminus a quo and a terminus ad quem.
The terminus ad quem in annihilation is nothing (nihil). However, since
in the eucharistic change the terminus ad quem is the body of Christ, this
change cannot involve the annihilation of the bread. Nor is the body of
Christ present through local motion, nor does it cease to exist in heaven
(Q.5.6.1). Once again, Thomas stresses the importance of considering the
eucharistic change as a total change of the substance of the bread into
the body of Christ. I~ this discussion, he speaks of the totus panis as
being changed (Q.5.6.1).
1 Again these parenthetical references refer to the QUOdlibet, question and article number in the Spiazzi edition.
51
These two short discussions of specific metaphysical problems in
volved in the eucharistic change offer nothing new to our analysis ex
cept to point out once again the metaphysical emphasis which Thomas
places on discussions of the eucharistic change, and to show that the
main "point of this emphasis centers around his insistence on this being
a substantial change.
::->!,.
52
Responsio
The Responsio ad lectorem Venetum de articulo XXXVI,like the discus-
sion in Quodlibet V and Quodlibet I, contains only short discussions of
individual metaphysical problems arising from the eucharistic change.
Again, the only significant feature of this discussion is the comparative
ease with which Thomas handles the metaphysical problems, when one recalls
the awkward usages found in the Commentary.
The points Thomas makes are all familiar ones: the eucharistic change
occurs miraculously, not naturally, and it is by virtue of a miracle that
the substance of the body of Christ exists under the speciesj the dimen-
sions proper to the body of Christ and the dimensions of the bread are not
equal, nor is the body of Christ in the sacrament moved with the motion of
the host, because the body is not in the sacrament as in a place (ut in loco)j
although the eucharistic change itself is miraculous, changes effecting the
species of bread and wine take place naturally.l
1 . 6 S. Thomae Aquinatis, Opuscula Theologiae, I, pp. 20 -207. The discussion of the eucharist covers articles 31-35.
53
Summa Theologiae
The Summa offers the last comprehensive discussion of the eucharistic
change by st. Thomas. It is his mature work on the eucharist, some twenty
years after the Commentary. It represents the conclusions of the process of
sophistication and refinement which can be traced in the shorter discussions
offered by Thomas during those years.
The three questions which deal with eucharistic change in the Summa
are questions 75, 76 and 77 of Part III. In general they follow the same
order of discussion as found in the Commentary. There are, however, cer
tain differences worth noting. The first and most noticeable change is
the order of presentation. Question 75 of the Summa deals with the change
of the bread and wine into the body and blood, and question 76 discusses
the real presence. In the Commentary, these subjects were in reverse
order, the discussion of the presence preceding the discussion of the
change. A comparison of order of presentation in table form appears in
Appendix One.
There are also differences because the Commentary follows the order
of Lombard's Sentences, while the Summa does not. Distinctions 11 and 12,
for instance, are each divided according to discussions of ~, res et
sacramentum and sacramentum. Thomas uses the same division in the Summa;
but this time he divides the entire discussion of the eucharist according
to this pattern, rather than individual questions. Thus, question 74 dis
cusses the sacramentum of the sacrament; question 75 discusses the relation
ship of the sacramentum to the res et sacramentum; questions 76 and 77 dis
cuss the res et sacramentum. The effects of the sacrament (~ sacramentJ)
are taken up in the subsequent questions.
54
Question 75, the first of questions dealing with the eucharistic
change, presents an interesting situation. It is the only place in the
Summa where the summary of the articles presented at the beginning of
the question is different from the articles actually discussed. The
Leonine edition presents the situation in this light:
Hanc materiae tractandae analysin Auctor ex suoCommentario in librum Sent. IV. dist. XI. assumpsit; sed mutatio in operis executione consilio novam materiam, primi scilicet articuli, introduxit, illam vero de qua hic Septimo articulo quaerendum esse diCit, alio modo distribuit: cf. art. 8 . ad 3 . QUO casu factum sit ut lectio analyseos in autographo per Auctorem vel amanuensem non corrigeretus ad normam ordinis executi, nos utique latet; sed quod tunc temporis omissum sit nunc per nos fieri necesse esse non putamus, ideoque lectionem tot ius fere traditionis manuscriptae non tangimus. l
It seems that the manuscript reflects an unedited version of this
section of the Summa. If this is so, as the editors of the Leonine edition
seem to feel, then in the writing of this section of the Summa, Thomas
decided not to follow the outlines of the discussion of the eucharistic
change which he had used in the Commentary. In the actual writing of
Article 75, Thomas seems to have decided to introduce a major change, at
least in format, from his earlier version. 2
There are two noticeable changes in this procedure: first, the inser-
tion of article one, which does not appear in the summary (utrum in hoc
sacramento sit corpus Christi secundum veritatem, vel solum secundum
figuram vel sicut in signo). This is the same question with which he
lsancti Thomae Aquinatis, Opera Omnia, Vol. 12, Tertia Pars Summae Theologiae (Rome: Leonine edition, 1906) Page 155, t~. All references to the Summa will be from this edition and will be indicated in parenthesis by part, question and article.
2A comparison of the article as outlined, and as actually used in article 75 appears in Appendix 2.
55
began Distinction 10 of the Commentary. Secondly, he removed the question
utrum sit miraculosior omni alia mutatione from the discussion.
In order to determine what changes in content Thomas may have in-
tended by these changes in format, let us proceed to an analysis of the
first article: whether the body of Christ exists in this sacrament in
truth, or only according to sign or figure. The first in contrarium
argument offers the statements from John 6 and from Augustine's
Enarrationes in Psalmos 98, caro non prodest quidquam; therefore, the
body is present only as a sign. The second argument, also quoting from
Augustine, commenting on Matthew 28:20, argues that Augustine's statement:
Corpus enim in quo resurrexit, uno in loco esse oportet: veritas autem
eius ubique diffusa est implies only a presence in signo. The third argu-
ment holds that no body, even that of an angel, can be in two places at
one time; since Christ's body is in heaven, it cannot be in two places at
one time. The fourth and final argument offers the commentary of Gregory
on John 4:48 and that of Augustine on John 16:7, both of which reprimand
the insistence on the bodily presence of Jesus, for the bodily presence
is not ad utilitatem fidelium.
The emphasis of the arguments presented here is heavily theological.
That is, theological rather than metaphysical objections are raised against a
bodily presence. This is true especially in comparison to the arguments
1 offered in the parallel discussion in the Commentary. The Summa arguments
in favor of a presence in sign deal almost exclusively with the relationship
of the believer to the presence of Christ in the sacrament. The arguments
lsee above pp. 8-10.
56
demand a presence in sign only because a presence in fact would not be
of benefit to the believer. The arguments in the Commentary, on the
other hand, emphasized the problems involved in the relationship be-
tween the bread and the body of Christ.
Indeed, the difference is even more striking in the opening lines
of the Responsio where the anathema offered in the Commentary is replaced
by an explanation of how, theologically, the bodi ly presence in the euchar-
ist cannot be detected by the senses, but only by faith, which is based
on divine authority.
Responaio dicendum quod verum corpus Christi et sanguinem esse in hoc sacramento, non sensu deprehendi potest, sed sola fide, quae auctoritati divinae innititur (ST3.75.l).
' Thus the relationship of the believer to the real presence is perceived
only in faith.
Thomas offers three reasons why it is fitting that the body of Christ
be truly present in the eucharist. First, as the sacrifice of the New Law,
it is fitting that the eucharist contain the reality of him whose passion
was foreshadowed in the Law. Secondly, as the greatest sign of friendship
and love, Christ joins his body to ours, giving us hope in our earthly
journey. Thirdly, the eucharistic change offers the perfection of our
faith, since Christ is present in both his humanity and his divinity.
Further, this sacrament follows the manner of faith, that is, it is hidden:
Et quia fides est invisibilium, sicut divinitatem suam nobis exhibet Christus invisibiliter, ita et in hoc sacramento carnem suam nobis exhibit invisibili modo (ST3.75.l) .
. . Throughout the article, Thomas, emphasizes the important role of faith in
the relationship of the real presence to the believer. Indeed, the presence
57
itself is known to the believer only invisibly, only in the manner of
faith.
Because some people do not attend to these pOints , Thomas continues,
they heretically hold, as Berengarius did, that Christ is only present
in the eucharist sicut in signo. Therefore, the sayings of Augustine
and the others mentioned in the ob jections are to be understood, not as
denying a real presence, but as denying an eating of the corporeal flesh
of Christ. Indeed, Thomas repeats, this change takes place invisibiliter.
The particular emphasis in this open~ng article on the invisible,
spiritual nature of the eucharistic presence presents a new dimension in
Thomas' discussion of the eucharist not found in any of the other works
investigated in this paper. This emphasis, I feel, represents a shift
from a metaphysical approach in explaining the eucharistic change to a
theological approach. The emphasis of the discussion as set by the first
~ article is no longer on how the change is possible, but what such a change
means to the believer. The substantial change is now also seen as invisi-
ble spiritual change.
The second article discusses whether the substance of the bread and ----- -wine remain after the consecration and consists of three arguments. The
first objection cites the words of John Damascene:Fanis communicationis
non panis simplex est, sed unitus deitati;such a unity must consist of
uniting two realities, and therefore the substance of bread must remain.
The second objection argues that the sacraments should be in conformity
with one another; and since in the other sacraments the substance of the
elements remains, the s ame should hold true for the eucharist. Thirdly,
the significance of the bread and wine, according to Augustine, is the
unity of the church; this significance depends on the substance of the
bread and wine, and so the substance must remain.
58
In the Responsio Thomas offers four arguments against those who hold
that the substance of the bread remains in the sacrament after the conse
cration. First, this view would destroy the truth of this sacrament: for
the true body of Christ is present in this sacrament. Now since the body
of Christ is not present before the change, it must become present either
through local motion, or else through generation. But it cannot become
present through local motion: first, because that would involve the body
of Christ leaving heaven; secondly, because it would involve the absurdity
of the body passing through the intervening space; and thirdly, because
local motion must terminate in a single destination, while the body of
Christ appears on many altars simultaneously. Therefore, since Christ
cannot begin to be on the altar, he must take the place of something al
ready present, and that which he takes the place of cannot be said to
remain.
Secondly, this opinion is contrary to the words of consecration.
For if the substance of bread remained, the words would have to be Hic est
corpus meum rather than Hoc est corpus meum. Thirdly, if the substance
of the bread were present, the veneration of the reserved species would be
contrary to the reverence of this sacrament. Fourthly, it would contradict
the right of the Church which does not allow the eating of corporeal food
before the eucharist, but does allow the consumption of one host after
another. Thomas ends his objections to this stance with the rather strong
statement Unde haec positio vitanda est tanquam haeretica (ST3.75.2). The
Commentary had also condemned this position as heretical. Thomas' metaphysical
argument in explanation of the eucharistic change demands that the change
taking place be a substantial change in which the substance of the bread is
replaced by the body of Christ. We have seen how the arguments in favor
59
of substantial change have matured in the later works of Thomas. The basic
position, however, has remained constant.
James F. McCue, in his article "The Doctrine of Transubstantiation
from Berengar through the Council of Trent", points out that Thomas was
the first person to condemn conSUbstantiation as heretical. He claims
that Thomas does this because of the metaphysical problem of .local motion
involved in such a position.l But the above analysis shows that there are
theological and not just metaphysical reasons why Thomas rejects this
opinion. It will become clearer in later sections of the Summa how these
two sets of arguments complement each other and demand that the eucharistic
change involve the removal of the substance of the bread.
The third article discusses alternatives to substantial change.
Thomas explains that several theologians hold that the substance of the
bread and wine are not changed into the body and blood of Christ, but
somehow are resolved into praeiacens materia or are annihilated. If they
were resolved into praeiacens materia, they could not be re.solved into
prima materia for it cannot exist without form. Nor can this be a change
per motum localem for our sense would have perceived this. Also, this
change is instantaneous, and there would be no instant for the praeiacens
materia to become present. Therefore, neither can it be said that the
substance of bread and wine change graduall y into praeiacens materia or that
they gradually depart. Thomas insists very strongly that the only way of
explaining the change is by substantial change.
IJames F. McCue, "The Doctrine of Transubstantiation from Berengar through the Council of Trent," Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue, Vol. III The Eucharist as Sacrifice (Washington,D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, New York: U.S.A. National Committee for · Lutheran World Federation, 1967) pp. 96, 100-102.
Quia non erit dare aliquem modum quo corpus Christi verum incipiat esse in hoc sacramento, nisi per conversionem substantiae panis in ipsum: quae quidem conversio t ollitur, posita vel annihilatione panis vel . resolutione in praeiacentem materiam (ST3.75.3).
Nor is there a good reason for these other·theories. The effect of the
60
sacrament should be signified by its form, but neither of these theories
are signified by the words Hoc est corpus meum. Thomas concludes that
these positions are, therefore, false (ST3.75 .3 ).
The fourth article deals with the question of whether the bread is
able to be changed into the body of Christ, and it contains several im-
portant features of Thomas' notion of eucharistic change. First of all,
this is not a natural change. God, as infinite actuality, here performs
a complete substantial change, while natural changes involve only formal
changes. As has been pointed out in previous works, especially Quodlibet V,
Thomas describes this substantial change as a total change, and he becomes
more exact in his terminology as his work matures. In the Summa, his defin-
itions are exact. In this article he describes this change as:
••. conversionem totius entis, ut scilicet tota substantia hujus convertatur in totam substantiam illius (ST3.75.4).
Finally, Thomas insists that this sort of substantial change is the kind that
takes place in the eucharist, and he formally defines, for the first time
in the material we have seen, the word transubstantiatio:
Unde haec conversio non est formalis, sed substantialis. Nec continetur inter species motus naturalis, sed proprio nomine potest dici transubstantiatio · (ST3.75.4).
In article five"Thomas discusses whether the accidents of bread and
wine remain in the sacrament. He raises four objections against the argument
61
that they should remain. First of all, since the accidents are dependent
on the substance, when the substance is removed, the accidents must also
be removed. The second argument holds that there should be no deception
in this sacrament of t ruth; yet since we determine a substance t hr ough its
accidents, we would be deceived if the accidents alone remained . The third
objection posits that faith should be not contrary to reason, but above it;
yet if the accidents of bread remain, there is a contradiction, for our
senses perceive bread while our faith believes the substantial body of
Christ to be present. Fourthly, whatever remains in change is understood
to be the subject of that change. If the accidents remain, it would seem
that they are the subject of the change; this is impossible, and therefore
they ought not to remain.
Objections two and three deal directly with the question of the re
lationship of the believer to the substantial change which takes place in
the eucharist. This article plainly deals with the theological aspects
of the argument in favor of substantial change which Thomas offers. In
deed, the three reasons Thomas offers in the Responsio in favor of the
accidents remaining are all theological. First, since people do not cus
tomarily eat human flesh or drink blood, the flesh and blood of Christ
were given to us under the appearances of ordinary human food, that is,
bread and wine. Secondly, this was done lest the sacrament be scorned by
unbelievers, who would otherwise accuse us of eating Christ under his own
species. This argument is taken over from the treatment in the Summa contra
Gentiles. Finally, we increase our merit of faith by partaking of the body
and blood of our Lord in an invisible fashion. This is the argument which
was developed in the first article of question 75, and which introduced the
significantly different emphasis which Thomas presents in the Summa.
62
Thomas answers the first objection easily, by affirming God as pri-
mary cause of accidents, and thus capable of supporting the remaining
accidents. The answer to the second objection contains the explicit tie
between the metaphysical theory of substantial change presented by Thomas
throughout his work, and the specifically theological emphasis introduced
in the first article of question 75. Thomas argues that there is no decep-
tion in the eucharist, for the senses perceive their proper object, that
is, the accidents; and the intellect, preserved from error by faith, per-
ceives its proper ob ject, which is the substance:
... sunt enim ibi secundem rei veritatem accidentia, quae sensibus diiudicantur. Intellectus autem, cuius est proprium obiectum substantia, ut dicitur in De Anima, per fidem a deceptione praeservatur. (ST3.75.5ad 2).
In his answer to the third objection, Thomas reinforces what he has ~
said in his answer to the second. Faith here is not contrary to the senses, -~
but concerns those things which the senses cannot reach: Nam fides non est
contra sensum, sed est de eo ad quod sensus non attingit.
Here, I believe, is the key to understanding the shift iIi emphasis
which I have spoken of as a shift from metaphysical arguments to theologi-
cal arguments. Thomas is no longer speaking merely of the relationship
between two substances which allows one substance to replace another. He
is speaking of what this change in substance means to the believer. This
is not a change related to the senses of the believer. This change is an
invisible change, a change understood only in faith, an intellectual change:
all of these ideas are ' now explicitly associated with Thomas' concept of
"substantial" change. Substar..tialiter here is no longer just a word to
63
indicate that which is the subject of the change, it becomes synonymous
with the words invisibiliter and spiritualiter. Therefore, to speak of
the change as a substantial change means more to Thomas in the Summa than
a metaphysical explanation of the two entities involved; the concept also
includes the relationship of the believer to his Lord in the eucharist.
This whole explanation appears only in the Summa, and it clearly indicates
a new dimension in Thomas' thought.
The remaining discussion of the eucharistic change in the Summa fol
lows the main outlines of the arguments Thomas used to explain substantial
change in his earlier works, but the discussion is underpinned by a more
refined concept of "substance". In the following pages I shall be con
cerned especially with the differences between the Summa arguments and
those of the earlier works.
Article six of question 75 takes up a point already discussed in the
Commentary: whether the form of the bread remains in the sacrament after
the consecration. l Two of the arguments which Thomas uses remain the same.
The form of the bread cannot remain, for form is part of substance and
-I
here the entire substance changes. Also, this would contradict the pronoun
hoc found in the words of institution. The second argument taken over from
the Commentary holds that if the form remained, the accidents would not lead
one to the body of Christ, but rather to the form of the bread. Thomas adds
a further argument to this discussion, that if the form existed here it
would have to exist apart from the substance, and that all such forms are
intelligible forms and inappropriate here. The addition of this argument
emphasizes a more exact knowledge of the metaphysics involved in a substantial
change, and is part of the maturing process which we have seen.
lsee above p. 20.
64
Article seven discusses whether the change in the eucharist is an
instantaneous change, and the answer Thomas offers is exactly the same
as that which he used in the Commentary and in Quodlibet VII.I The change
takes place instantaneously, at the last moment in which the words of con-
secration are being said.
In article eight Thomas combines and condenses the arguments which he
used in the Commentary.2 The treatment is thus shorter, easier to follow
and more exact. First, Thomas explains the relationship between three kinds ,
of change: the eucharistic change, creation and natural change. Common to
all three is the order of the terminals; one thing follows another . Common
to creation and the eucharistic change is that in both cases the terms have
no common underlying subject. The similarities between the eucharistic
change and natural change are these: first, one term is changed into
another; and secondly, something identical remains in each term. Because
of these similarities and differences, different predications are appropri-
ate. For none of the changes is it true to say one term is the other; how-
ever, the preposition ex can be used for this. Because in creation one
term does not become the other, we do not use the word conversio as we do
in the other changes. Here Thomas again insists on the special substantial
change in the eucharist:
Sed quia in hoc sacramento tota substantia in totam mutatur, propter hoc haec conversio proprie transubstantiatio vocatur (ST3·75. 8) .
FUrther, since there is no subject of change here, expressions referring
to such a subject cannot be used. Because the accidents remain, however,
some expressions can be used, so long as 'the name panis is not understood
as substantia panis.
lsee above pp 22, 23, 32.
2see above pp 23, 24.
65
In the Commentary, Thomas had discussed these matters of related types
of change and predication separately, divided by a discussion of the
instantaneous nature of the eucharistic change. The combination of the
articles provides more clarity and gives a more concise presentation.
' Question 76 discusses the way in which Christ exists in the sacrament
of the eucharist. The first article discusses whether Christ is present in
this sacrament in his totality, and it explains the two modes of existence
which Thomas has ascribed to the presence of Christ in this sacrament. These
are, of course, ex vi sacramenti and ex naturali concomitantia. This is the
same argument which Thomas offered in the Commentary, the Swnma contra
Gentiles and Quodlibet VII. There are significant differences in approach,
however. First of all, Thomas begins his argument by asserting that the
faith of the church requires faith in the presence of the whole and entire
Christ in this sacrament. l Again, this is an insistence and self-assurance
not present in earlier works. Secondly, Thomas asserts that the division
of the modes of presence is only the result of the actions of the intellect;
thus he reaffirms the relationship of the category of substance to the oper-
ations of the intellect, which alone account for what we say about any sub-
stance.
Article two discusses whether the totality of Christ appears under both
species. Again, the distinction between ex vi sacramenti and ex naturali
concomitantia is used to answer this question just as it was in the Commentary
and in the Summa contra Gentiles. The only significant difference in approach
remains Thpmas' new firmness regarding his opinion:
Responsio dicehdum certissime ex supra dictis utraque specie sacramenti totus est Christus: (ST3. 76.2) .
tenendum esse quod sub aliter tamen et aliter
lsT3. 76. 1. "Responsio dicendum quod omnino necesse est confiteri secundum fidem Catholicam quod totus Christus sit in hoc sacramento."
66
Articles three and four, discussing whether the totality of Christ is
present in each part of the bread and wine and whether the total quantita- .
tive dimensions of the body of Christ are present in the sacrament, offer
no new arguments. Thomas merely argues, as in earlier works, that since
Christ is present in the mode of a substance, he exists, as does a sub-
stance, in every part of the species without conflicting with its quantita-
tive dimensions.
Article five argues, as in the earlier works, that the body of Christ
is not present in the sacrament sicut in loco because it is present in the
way a substance is present. But Thomas adds some clarification to the argu-
ment presented in article thirty-three of the Responsio. In the Responsio,
Thomas argues that the body of Christ is present on the altar in loco, but
~ot sicut in loco; but the distinction between these two types of presence
remains somewhat vague (R.33.765). In the Summa, Thomas explains that just
because the body of Christ can be said to exist only within the boundaries
of the sacrament, this does not prove that the body is bound definitively
or circumscriptively to the species, but only that it begins to be there
as a result of the consecration. I This is another instance of the clarity
which exists in the Summa in comparison even with a work as late as the
Responsio.
Article six, which discusses whether the body of Christ can be moved
in this sacrament, makes use of the distinctions of article five to explain
that Christ is moved in the sacrament only after the fashion in which he
can be said to be contained in the species. Therefore, Christ is moved
when the species are moved, but not as in local motion. Again, this is •
further clarification of the argument in article thirty-four of the Responsio,
IST3.76.5 ad I "Quod autem non est extra superficiem sacramenti, nec est in alia parte altaris, non pertinet ad hoc quod sit ibi definitive vel circumscriptive: sed ad hoc quod incoepit ibi esse per consecrationem et conversionem panil> et vini, ut supra. dictum est."
61
where Thomas argues that although the body of Christ is moved in loco,
it is not moved in itself, or through accidents in loco.
Article seven discusses whether the body of Christ as it exists in
the eucharist could ever be seen by any eye, even the eyes of the glorious.
Here 'we find one of the most striking demonstrations of the new dimension
to Thomas' thought in the Summa. Thomas here combines what were three
separate questions in the Commentary, where he had discussed first,
whether glorified eyes could see the body of Christ in the sacrament ,
and secondly" whether angels could see the body here, and finally, whether
the intellect of the faithful on earth could understand the presence.
Although the answers which Thomas gives are substantially the same
as those in the Commentary, the answer in the Summa makes use of the new
role of substance as the ob ject of the intellect to combine these questions
under one principle. Thomas answers that no corporeal eye can see Christ
as he is in the sacrament. The intellect, however, as a kind of spiritual
eye is open to the presence. Here there is a clear link between "sub-
stantial" and "spiritual" as categories of understanding.
Et ideo, proprie loquendo, corpus Christi, secundum modum essendi quem habet in hoc sacramento, neq~ sensu nequo imaginatione perceptibile est: sed solo intellectu, qui dicitur oculus spiritualis (ST3.76.7).
There are, however, different levels of intellect. God can understand
this directly~ and the minds of angels and glorified men can by sharing in
the beatific vision intellectually "see" the body as does God. The minds
of the faithful on earth, however, know of this presence only in faith, as
in the , case of other supernatural realities. In answer to the second ob-
jection, Thomas replies that not even Christ can see himself as he exists
68
in this sacrament, except intellectually, because this means of existence
pertains only to the intellect. l This is one of the clearest examples of
how Thomas adds a new theological dimension to his thought by equating
"substantial" with "spiritual" and "intellectual" modes of existence and
understanding.
Article eight discusses whether, when flesh or a child appear miracu-
lously on the altar, the body of Christ is actually present under its own
species. The answer which Thomas gives 1s essentially the same as his
answer in the Commentary. Either such phenomena appear only to a particu-
lar person whose eyes are changed by God for purposes of faith, so that it
appears to him that such a change takes place; or it may be that the acci-
dents of the species may miraculously be changed by God for purposes of
,faith. In the Commentary Thomas had also accepted a third explanation,
namely, that the body of Christ actually appears on the altar, although
briefly. In the Summa, he rejects this explanation. The body of Christ
exists in its proper species only in heaven, and therefore can be seen in
its proper form only in heaven, not on the altar. This is another indicatl on
of the type of clarification and simplification which appears in the later
works of ~Thomas.
' The final question with which we will be dealing is Question 77, which
deals with the accidents remaining in the sacrament. As in Question 76, we
will concern ourselves only with those sections which show a marked differ-
ence from Thomas' earlier discussions.
The first three articles discuss whether the accidents remain in the
sacrament without a subject, whether the quantitative dimensions of the
lsT3.76.7 ad 2 "Ad secundum diCendum quod oculus corporalis Christi videt seipsum sub sacramento existentem; non tamen potest videre ipsum modum essendi quo est sub sacramento, quod pertinet ad intE;!llectum."
69
species are the subject of the other accidents, and whether the accidents
which remain in the sacrament are able to change extrinsically : The
answers Thomas offers are those we have already seen in earlier w.orks.
The quantitative dimensions exist without a subject through the power of
God as prime cause of all accidents. The other accidents adhere in them
as in a subject, and they act as a sub j ect for extrinsic changes.
Article four, which discusses whether the species are able to be cor-
rupted, contains the answer found in earlier works: the accidents underlie
the process of corruption, and therefore the species are able to be cor-
rupted. In response to objection three, Thomas quite explicitly reduces
the number of miracles to the single miracle of the consecration:
Ad tertium dicendum quod corruptio illa specierum non est miraculosa, sea naturalis: praesupponit tamen miracul um quod est factum in consecratione, scilicet quod illae species sacramentales retineant esse sine subjecto quod prius habebant in subjecto; s i cut et caecus miraculose illuminatus naturaliter videt (ST3.77.4 ad 3).
The argument that God creates new substances for anything generated
from the species was accepted in the Commentary and in Quodlibet IX, but
dropped in the Summa contra Gentiles. In article five, Thomas again dis-
cusses whether the species can generate anything. He accepts as possible
the position that God could miraculously create new SUbstances for anything
generated from the species (Et secundum hoc, posset sustineri praedicta
positio). Thomas immediately adds that although this argument is possible,
it is not reasonable, on the grounds that this would involve another miracle
besides that of the consecration. l A better solution would be to say that
. . the quantitative dimensions underlie this change as would the substance of
1 ST3·77·5 "Verum, quia non rationabiliter videtur dici quod miraculose
aliquid accidat in hoc sacramento nisi ex ipsa consecratione, ex qua non est quod materia creetur vel redeat; ... "
· 70
bread. Thomas condenses and clarifies his earlier arguments here, and
ends his response by emphasizing the fact that there is no new miracle
except the power of the first miracle of the consecration (ST.3.71.5).
The rest of question 77 repeats what Thomas has said earlier on
various points regarding the sacramental species. One text, however, is
particularly noteworthy, namely where Thomas gives his interpretation of
~rengarius' famous oath. For Thomas, this oath refers only to the sacra
mental species and not to the true body and blood of our Lord which under
lies the sacramental species (ST3.77.7 ad 3). This is the first time
Thomas explains his understanding of the oath, and it indicates hi.s confi
dence in being able to handle such questions within the system he had per
fected.
Thomas is able to distinguish between the sacramentum or sacramental
body and the verum corpus which hung on the cross and is now glorified in
heaven. I shall return to this point shortly.
71
Conclusion
The most noticeable characteristic of the works examined in the third ·
section of this paper is the added theological emphasis found in the Summa.
Although the arguments used closely parallel the more refined metaphysical
discussions found in the later works, the specific meaning of the relation-
ship between the eucharist and the believer is emphasized. "Substance" is
spoken of not only as metaphysical entity, but as the object of the intellect
of the believer, an object known only in faith, the basis for recognizing
the spiritual change in the eucharist.
Throughout this work, the terms "metaphysical" and "theological" have
been used to describe two different approaches taken by Thomas in his ex-
planation of how Christ is present in the eucharist. In the Summa, these
two approaches have been merged so completely that they become one. In
the Summa, Thomas no longer gives two approaches to the understanding of
the eucharist, but one explanation derived from two approaches.
The novelty and genius of his approach appear by comparing them with
the traditional understandings which he presents. The most important of
these is his explanation of Berengarius' oath. As we have just seen,
Thomas denies that the oath of Berengarius refers to the body of Christ
in its proper species, where the oath speaks of rending, breaking, and
handling. The oath of Berengarius is to be understood as referring to the
species under which the true body of Christ eXists. l Certainly, this inter-
pretation of the oath could not have been understood at the time the oath
was composed . In that whole dispute, neither side had adequate means of
distinguishing between the historical or glorified body and the body that
lsT3 ,77. 7 ad 3 "Et hoc modo intelligenda est confessio Berengarii: ut fractio et contritio dentium referatur ad speciem sacramentalem, sub qua vere est corpus Christi."
· 72
is handled and broken at the altar. yet at the same time, Thomas is not
advocating a presence merely in signo. In question 75, article 1, he con-'
demns all those who hold this heresy, of whom the first was Berengarius.
The key to understanding how Thomas can in good faith reinterpret the
oath. of Berengarius, and yet at the same time condemn him, lies in his
unique understanding of the presence of Christ in the eucharist. The
presence of Christ in the eucharist is according to the mode of faith,
that is invisibiliter and at the same time substantialiter. Substance is
no longer only a cosmological category for Thomas. Substance is the intel
lectual category that is used to describe the relationship between Christ
and the believer in the eucharist. In other words, it has become the mediating
category between the understander and the understood. Substance is here used
'as a relational category, in the same sense in which modern theologians
speak of symbols. The accidents of bread lead to their own substance,
which is itself an intellectual category used to understand the essential
nature of bread. In the eucharist, the essential and real nature of the
bread is no longer that it is bread, but that it "carries" the presence of
Christ. Therefore, in the eucharist, the accidents which we perceive lead
to their new reality, which we know in faith to be the presence of Christ.
Thomas is the first to condemn consubstantiation as heretical, and it
may be that he does so for strictly metaphysical reasOns in the Commentary.
In the Summa, however, his whole relational understanding of the eucharistic
presence leads him to insist even more firmly that this change is different
from all other changes. He insists that the change which takes place in
the eucharist must be F substantial change, and a total substantial change,
because only such a change can account for the totally new relationship of
the eucharistic elements to the believer.
73
And yet the Summa does not give a "merely symbolic" understanding of
the eucharist. For, at the same time that the category of s ubstance acts
as a relational category, it remains a metaphysical category. Thus while
Thomas uses the category of substance in a unique way in the Summa to des
cribe the relationship of the accidents of the bread, the body of Christ!
and the believer, he uses the same category to describe the relationship
between the bread itself and the body of Christ. All the metaphysical argu
ments of the earlier works can be incorporated into the S~ without losing .
any of their former significance, and yet they take on the new dimension that
comes from conceiving substance as a relational category. The change is a
real change, but the reality of the change is grasped only in relation to
faith.
, 74
CONCLUSION .....
The purpose of this paper has been to examine the authentic works of
Thomas Aquinas concerning the eucharistic change in order to determine if
any changes in understanding or approach occurred within that body of works.
The answer to that question has been carefully spelled out in the shorter
_conclusions given at the end of each of the three sections. The purpose
here will be mainly to summarize these conclusions and offer some sugges-
tions for further research.
The first difference noted between the different works was a develop-
ment in the sophistication and use of metaphysical language. Several less
sophisticated arguments and phrases found in the Commentary were found to
pe absent in later works. The use of the word materia to describe the change
in the eucharist is found only in the Commentary. Also, the argument that
Christ could not be contained in the eucharistic species, because the angle
of vision would be different because of the different sizes of ' the species
and the body, disappears in later works. The argument that God would create
new substances for anything generated from the consecrated species which
appears as an acceptable argument in the Commentary and in Quodlibet IX, is
rejected in the Summa contra Gentiles, and is finally, considered possible
but not rational in the Summa. There is a very exact use of language in
Thomas' last work and it is in the Summa that the term transubstantiatio is
first formally defined. Here, too, Thomas rejects all miracles involved in
the eucharist except that of the consecration. Several other distinctions
are clarified in the Summa. The distinction between a presence in loco and •
sicut in loco found in the Responsio is completely clarified in the Summa,
as is the relationship of the eucharistic change to all other natural and
miraculous changes.
75
It is also in the Summa that we find the second important development
in Thomas' eucharistic thought, namely, regarding the concept of substance'.
The fact that Thomas did not follow his original outline in question 75
suggests that this development took place during the writing of the Summa
itself. The development in the Summa involves a qualitative change in the
use of the concept of substance, which is given a relational and indeed
symbolic significance. Substance is synonomous with the words in modo fidei
and invisibiliter, and so it becomes a relational category mediating between
the eucharistic presence and the faith of the recipient. Substance is thus
a "symbolic" category, not in the Berengarian sense of an opposition between
symbol and reality, but in the sense that our intellectual categories medi-
ate the real and bring us into touch with the real. Thomas' metaphysical
statements about substance, such as those he makes in his earliest writings,
all emphasize that the eucharistic presence is a reality which is not created
by the faith of the believer. But his treatment in the Summa makes it clear
for the first time that any statements made by their very nature are "symbolic"
statements, i.e., statements employing an intellectual category (SUbstance)
which in this context has no meaning apart from faith.
If this analysis of the new dimension of thought found in the Summa is
correct, then it is no longer correct to attribute to st. Thomas any inter
pretation of "transubstantiation" which speaks of the ' eucharistic change as
something that happens to the bread and wine in abstraction from faith.
The whole point of Thomas' approach in the Summa, beginning with his first
article, is that the relational change is a real change which alone renders
intelligible anything ~e say about the bread and wine. The later Thomas
would probably find Trent's statement on the real presence (ns 1636) incom
plete and theologically inadequate, because that statement prescinds from
. 76
the relational change in talking about the conversion of the elements.
Honesty demands that the several shortcomings of this analysis be
pointed out. First of all, this study is a textual study only of those
manuscripts which appear to be authentic. Earlier works of Thomas, now
lost .to us, might show that this unique development in the Summa occurred
earlier in his thought. Secondly, this study has limited itself only to
the proof that some development does take place in the eucharistic works
of Thomas. The very important question of how and why these changes took
place remains to be answered. One point of departure for such research
might be the influence of the Fathers, especially Augustine, on the later
writings of Thomas.
But apart from any further research, we need not hesitate to conclude
that the eucharistic theology found in the Summa represents a remarkable
conceptual advance. The misfortune of history is that this theology came
to be read in terms of later understandings of the concept of substance
which lacked the important nuances developed by Aquinas .
" . ;~!i~~. ., jl",.
APPENDIX I
commentary
Distinctio 10
I. utrum in sacramento altaris contineatur verum Corpus Christi
II. utrum totus Christus contineatur in sacramento sub speciebus quae manent
1. An Christus continea-
Summa ---Quaestio 75
I. utrum substantia panis et vini remaneat in hoc sacramento post consecrationem
II. utrum annihiletur
III. utrum convertatur in corpus tur sub sacramento quantum ad et sanguinem Christi animam
2. An sub specie panis IV. utrum remaneant ibi accidentia Christus contineatur solum quan- post conversionem tum ad carnem animatam
77
'3. An sit ibi Corpus Chris- V. utrum remaneat ibi forma substan-ti secundum propriam quantitatem tialis,
4. An sit ibi secundem totam suam
III. Qualiter sit ibi 1) An Corpus Christi contin
eatur sub sacramento circumscriptive
2) An contineatur sub eis saltem definitive
3) An Corpus Christi possit esse totum sub qualibet parte specierum
4) An Corpus Christi moveatur ad motum hostiae
IV. QUomodo possit agnosci Corpus Christi secundum quod est sub sacramento
1) An oculus glorificatus possit videre ipsum verum Corpus Christi sub speciebus existens
2) An quando apparet in specie carnis vel pueri in altari, videatur in specie propria
3) . An in hoc casu debeat sumi
4) An et angelus possit videre Corpus Christi sub sacramento
5) An comprehendi possit intellectu viatoris
Distinctio 11, article '1
I. utrum post consecrationem remaneat ibi panis
VI. utrum conversio ista fiat subito
VII. utrum sit miraculosior omni alia mutatione
VIII. Quibus verbis convenientur exprimi possit
Quaestio 76
I. utrum totus Christus sit sub hoc sacramento
1) An substantia panis remaneat post consecrationem, ut dicit tertia opinio
2) An debeant species panis remanere
3) An etiam forma substantialis panis debeat remanere
II. utrum panis facta conversione annihiletur
III. utrUm convertatur in Corpus Christi
1) An panis possit converti in Corpus Christi
2) An ista conversio ist successiva
3) An haec conversio sit miraculosior alia mutatione
IV. De locutionibus quae in hac materia concedendae sunt
1) An praedicta conversio possit exprimi per verbum ~ubstantivum alterius temporis quam praesentis
2) An haec sit falsa: "Panis fit Corpus Christi"
3) An haec sit vera: "De panis fit Corpus Christi"
4) An haec sit falsa: "Panis potest esse Corpus Christi"
Distinctio 12, Article 1
I. utrum accidentia sint hic sine substantia
1) An accidentia esse sine substantia Deus facere possit
2) An sit congruum huic sacramento quod accidentia sint sine substantia
3) An accidentia sint in hoc sacramento sine substantia
II. De operatione illorum acci-dentium
II. utrum totus Christus sit sub utraque specie sacramenti
· 78
III. utrum totus Christus sit sub qualibet parte specierum
IV. utrum dj.mensiones corporis Christi totae sint in hoc sacramento
V. utrum corpus Christi sit in hoc sacramento localiter
VI. utrum corpus ChriSti moveatur ad motum hostiae vel calicis post consecrationem
VII. utrum corpus Christi sub hoc sacramento possit ab aliquo oculo videre
VIII. utrum verum corpus Christi remaneat quando miraculose apparet sub specie -pueri vel carnis
Quaestio 77
I. utrum accidentia quae remanent sint sine subjecto
II. utrum quantitas dimensiva sit subjectum aliorumaccidentium
III. utrum hujusmodi accidentia possunt immutare ali quod corpus extrinsecum
IV. utrum possunt corrumpi
1) An accidentia , quae V. utrum ex eis aliquid possit remanent in hoc sacramento possint generari immutare ali quid extrinsecum
2) An possint aliquid VI. utrum possint nutrire extrinsecum immutare substantialiter
79
3) An ista accidentia aliquo VII. De fractione panis consecrati modo possint corrumpi
4) An ex eis possit aliquid VIII. utrum vino consecrato possit generari
5) An possint nutrire 6) An aliquis liquor possit
speciebus illis permisceri
III. De fractione quae in eis fundatur
1) Christi
2)
An ipsum verum Corpus frangatur in sacramento An etiam species frangantur
3) An convenienter assignetur in Littera significatio partium fractionis
. ,
aliquid admisceri .
80
APPENDIX II
Articles Outlined
I. utrum substantia panis et vini remaneat in hoc sacramento post consecrationem
II. utrum annihiletur
III. utrum convertatur in corpus et sanguinem Christi
IV. utrum remaneant ibi accidentia post conversionem
V. utrum remaneat ibi forma substantialis
VI. Utrum conversio ista fiat
Articles Used
I. Utrum in hoc sacramento sit corpus Christi secundum veri tatem, vel solum secundem figuram vel sicut in signo.
II. Utrum in hoc sacramento remaneat substantia panis et vini post consecrationem
III. Utrum substantia panis, post consecrationem huius sacramenti, annihiletur, aut in pristinam materiam resolvatur
IV. Utrum panis possit converti in corpus Christi
subito V. Utrum in hoc sacramento remaneant accidentia panis et vini
VII. Utrum sit miraculosior omni alia mutatione
VIII. Quibus verbis convenientur exprimi possit
VI. Utrum, facta consecratione, remaneat in hoc sacramento forma substantialis panis
VII. Utrum ista conversio fiat in instanti vel fiat successive
VIII. Utrum haec sit vera "ex pane fit corpus Christi"
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Source s
st. Thomas Aquinas. On the Truth of the Catholic Faith: Book Four: Salvation, translated by Charles J. O'Neil. Garden City, New 'York: Image Books, 1957.
Opera Omnia. ius sa impensaque Leonis XIII P.M. edita. 4trvols. Rome: ex typographis Polyglotta S.C. De Propaganda Fide, 1882-
Opera Omnia. Secundum Impressionem Petri Fiaccadori Parmae 1852-1873 Photolithographice Reimpressa. 25 vols. New York: Musurgia Publishers, 1948 .
Opuscula Theologica. cura et studio P. Doct. Fr. Raymundi A. Verardo, O.P., and P. Fr. Raymundi M. Spiazzi, O.P. 2 vols. Rome: Marietti, 1954.
Quaestiones Quodlibetales. introduction by R. P. Mandonnet. Paris: P. Lethielleux, Editoris, 1926.
Quaestiones Quodlibetales. ed. by P. Fr. Raymundi Spiazzi, O.P. 8th ed., rev. Rome: Marietti, 1949.
Scriptum Super Sententiis. ed. by R. P. Fabianus Moos, O.P. ~ols. Paris: Sumptibus p. Lethielleux, Editoris, 1929-1947.
81
Summa Theologiae. ed. by Thomas Gilby, O.P., and T. C. O'Brien, O.P. 60 vols. Blackf riars in conjunction with New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., and London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1964.
Super Evangelium S. Matthaei Lectura. cura P. Raphaelis Cai, O.P. 5th ed., rev. Rome: Marietti, 1951.
Super Epistolas S. Pauli Lectura. cura P. Raphaelis Cai, O.P., 2 vols. 8th ed., rev. Rome: Marietti, 1953.
Secondary Sources
Bourke, Vernon J. Thomistic Bibl iography: 1920-1940. st. Louis, Missouri: The Modern Schoolman, Supplement to Vol. XXI, 1945.
Copleston, Fredrick, S. J. A History of Philosophy, Vol. II: Medieval Philosophy; Part II Albert the Great to Dun Scotus. Garden City, New York: Image Books, 1962 .
Deferrari, Roy J. and Sister M. Inviolata Barry, C.D.P. A Lexicon of st. Thomas Aquinas. Washington, D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1948 .
82
Destrez, Jean. Etudes Critiques sur les Oeuvres de Saint Thomas D'Aquin. Bibliotheque Thomiste, Vol. 18. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1933.
Dondaine, H. F. and H. V. Schooner. Codices Manuscripti Operum Thomae de Aquino. Rome: Commissio Leonina, 1967.
Grabmann, Martin. Die Werke des Hl. Thomas von Aquin: Eine Literarhistorische Untersuchung und Einftihrung. BeitrHge zur Geschichte der Philosophie and Theologie des Mittelalters, Vol. 22, hft. 1-2. Mtinster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1949.
Guzie, Tad, S.J. "The Act of Faith According to Thomas" The Thomist, Vol. 29, no. 3 (July, 1965) pp. 239-280.
Lonergan, Bernard J., S. J. Verbum: Word and Idea in Aquinas. ed. by David Burrell, C.S.C. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1967.
Lubac, Henri de. Corpus Mysticum: L'Eucharistie et L'Eglise au Moyen Age. Theologie: Etudes Publiees sous la direction de la faculte de th~ologie S.J. de Lyon-Fourvi~re, Vol. 3 2nd ed., rev. Paris: Aubier, Editions Montaigne, 1949.
Mandonnet, Pierre, and Jean Destrez. Bibliographie Thomiste. rev. by M.-D. Chenu. Biblioth~que Thomiste, Vol. 1. 2nd ed., rev. Paris: Libraire Philosophique J. Vrin, 1960.
Mandonnet, Pierre, O.P. Des Escrits Authentiques de S. Thomas D'Aquin. 2nd ed., rev. Fribourg: Imprimerie de L'Oeuvre de Saint-Paul, 1910.
McCue, James F. "The Doctrine of Transubstantiation from Berengar through the Council of Trent," Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue, Vol. III, The Eucharist as Sacrifice. Washington, D. C.: United states Catholic Conference; and New York: U.S.A. National Committee for Lutheran World Federation, 1967. . ,
83
Schillebeeckx, E., O.P. The Eucharist. transl. by N.D. Smith. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968.
Synave, P., O.P. "I.e Catalogue Officiel des Oeuvres de S. Thomas D'Aquin," Archives D'Histoire Doctrinale et Litteraire du Moyen Age, Vol. III (1928) pp. 25-103.
top related