.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.