St. Thomas Aquinas

The Summa Theologica

(Benziger Bros. edition, 1947)
Translated by
Fathers of the English Dominican Province


Index  [<< | >>]
Third Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 81  [<< | >>]


Deinde considerandum est de usu huius sacramenti quo Christus usus est in prima sui institutione. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor.    We have now to consider the use which Christ made of this sacrament at its institution; under which heading there are four points of inquiry:
Primo, utrum ipse Christus sumpserit corpus et sanguinem suum.     (1) Whether Christ received His own body and blood?
Secundo, utrum Iudae dederit.     (2) Whether He gave it to Judas?
Tertio, quale corpus sumpserit aut dederit, scilicet passibile vel impassibile.     (3) What kind of body did He receive or give, namely, was it passible or impassible?
Quarto, quomodo se habuisset Christus sub hoc sacramento si fuisset in triduo mortis reservatum, aut etiam consecratum.     (4) What would have been the condition of Christ's body under this sacrament, if it had been reserved or consecrated during the three days He lay dead?


Index  [<< | >>]
Third Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 81  [<< | >>]
Article: 1  [<< | >>]

Whether Christ received His own body and blood?

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus non sumpserit corpus suum et sanguinem. Non enim de factis Christi et dictis asseri debet quod auctoritate sacrae Scripturae non traditur. Sed in Evangeliis non habetur quod Christus corpus suum manducaverit aut sanguinem biberit. Non ergo est hoc asserendum.   Objection 1: It seems that Christ did not receive His own body and blood, because nothing ought to be asserted of either Christ's doings or sayings, which is not handed down by the authority of Sacred Scripture. But it is not narrated in the gospels that He ate His own body or drank His own blood. Therefore we must not assert this as a fact.
Praeterea, nihil potest esse in seipso, nisi forte ratione partium, prout scilicet una pars eius est in alia, ut habetur in IV Physic. sed illud quod manducatur et bibitur, est in manducante et bibente. Cum ergo totus Christus sit in utraque specie sacramenti, videtur impossibile fuisse quod ipse sumpserit hoc sacramentum.   Objection 2: Further, nothing can be within itself except perchance by reason of its parts, for instance. as one part is in another, as is stated in Phys. iv. But what is eaten and drunk is in the eater and drinker. Therefore, since the entire Christ is under each species of the sacrament, it seems impossible for Him to have received this sacrament.
Praeterea, duplex est assumptio huius sacramenti, scilicet spiritualis et sacramentalis. Sed spiritualis non competebat Christo, quia nihil a sacramento accepit. Et per consequens nec sacramentalis, quae sine spirituali est imperfecta, ut supra habitum est. Ergo Christus nullo modo hoc sacramentum sumpsit.   Objection 3: Further, the receiving of this sacrament is twofold, namely, spiritual and sacramental. But the spiritual was unsuitable for Christ, as He derived no benefit from the sacrament. and in consequence so was the sacramental, since it is imperfect without the spiritual, as was observed above (Question [80], Article [1]). Consequently, in no way did Christ partake of this sacrament.
Sed contra est quod Hieronymus dicit, ad Heldibiam, dominus Iesus ipse conviva et convivium, ipse comedens et qui comeditur.   On the contrary, Jerome says (Ad Hedib., Ep. xxx), "The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself the guest and banquet, is both the partaker and what is eaten."
Respondeo dicendum quod quidam dixerunt quod Christus in cena corpus et sanguinem suum discipulis tradidit, non tamen ipse sumpsit. Sed hoc non videtur convenienter dici. Quia Christus ea quae ab aliis observanda instituit, ipse primitus observavit, unde et ipse prius baptizari voluit quam aliis Baptismum imponeret, secundum illud Act. I, coepit Iesus facere et docere. Unde et ipse primo corpus suum et sanguinem sumpsit, et postea discipulis suis tradidit sumendum. Et hoc est quod, Ruth III, super illud, cumque comedisset et bibisset etc., dicit Glossa, quod Christus comedit et bibit in cena, cum corporis et sanguinis sui sacramentum discipulis tradidit. Unde, quia pueri communicaverunt carni et sanguini, et ipse participavit eisdem.   I answer that, Some have said that Christ during the supper gave His body and blood to His disciples, but did not partake of it Himself. But this seems improbable. Because Christ Himself was the first to fulfill what He required others to observe: hence He willed first to be baptized when imposing Baptism upon others: as we read in Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach." Hence He first of all took His own body and blood, and afterwards gave it to be taken by the disciples. And hence the gloss upon Ruth 3:7, "When he had eaten and drunk, says: Christ ate and drank at the supper, when He gave to the disciples the sacrament of His body and blood. Hence, 'because the children partook [*Vulg.: 'are partakers' (Heb. 2:14)] of His flesh and blood, He also hath been partaker in the same.'"
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in Evangeliis legitur quod Christus accepit panem et calicem. Non est autem intelligendum quod acceperit solum in manibus, ut quidam dicunt, sed eo modo accepit quo aliis accipiendum tradidit. Unde, cum discipulis dixerit, accipite et comedite, et iterum, accipite et bibite, intelligendum est quod ipse dominus accipiens comederit et biberit. Unde et quidam metrice dixerunt,
rex sedet in cena,
turba cinctus duodena,
se tenet in manibus,
se cibat ipse cibus.
  Reply to Objection 1: We read in the Gospels how Christ "took the bread . . . and the chalice"; but it is not to be understood that He took them merely into His hands, as some say. but that He took them in the same way as He gave them to others to take. Hence when He said to the disciples, "Take ye and eat," and again, "Take ye and drink," it is to be understood that He Himself, in taking it, both ate and drank. Hence some have composed this rhyme:
"The King at supper sits,
The twelve as guests He greets,
Clasping Himself in His hands,
The food Himself now eats."
Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, Christus, secundum quod est sub hoc sacramento, comparatur ad locum non secundum proprias dimensiones, sed secundum dimensiones specierum sacramentalium, ita quod in quocumque loco ubi sunt illae species, est ipse Christus. Et quia species illae potuerunt esse in manibus et in ore Christi, ipse totus Christus potuit esse in suis manibus et in suo ore. Non autem potuisset hoc esse secundum quod comparatur ad locum secundum proprias species.   Reply to Objection 2: As was said above (Question [76], Article [5]), Christ as contained under this sacrament stands in relation to place, not according to His own dimensions, but according to the dimensions of the sacramental species; so that Christ is Himself in every place where those species are. And because the species were able to be both in the hands and the mouth of Christ, the entire Christ could be in both His hands and mouth. Now this could not come to pass were His relation to place to be according to His proper dimensions.
Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, effectus huius sacramenti est non solum augmentum habitualis gratiae, sed etiam actualis delectatio spiritualis dulcedinis. Quamvis autem Christo gratia non fuerit augmentata ex susceptione huius sacramenti, habuit tamen quandam spiritualem delectationem in nova institutione huius sacramenti, unde ipse dicebat, Luc. XXII, desiderio desideravi manducare hoc Pascha vobiscum, quod Eusebius exponit de novo mysterio huius novi testamenti quod tradebat discipulis. Et ideo spiritualiter manducavit, et similiter sacramentaliter, inquantum corpus suum sub sacramento sumpsit, quod sacramentum sui corporis intellexit et disposuit. Aliter tamen quam ceteri sacramentaliter et spiritualiter sumant, qui augmentum gratiae suscipiunt, et sacramentalibus signis indigent ad veritatis perceptionem.   Reply to Objection 3: As was stated above (Question [79], Article [1], ad 2), the effect of this sacrament is not merely an increase of habitual grace, but furthermore a certain actual delectation of spiritual sweetness. But although grace was not increased in Christ through His receiving this sacrament, yet He had a certain spiritual delectation from the new institution of this sacrament. Hence He Himself said (Lk. 22:15): "With desire I have desired to eat this Pasch with you," which words Eusebius explains of the new mystery of the New Testament, which He gave to the disciples. And therefore He ate it both spiritually and sacramentally, inasmuch as He received His own body under the sacrament which sacrament of His own body He both understood and prepared; yet differently from others who partake of it both sacramentally and spiritually, for these receive an increase of grace, and they have need of the sacramental signs for perceiving its truth.


Index  [<< | >>]
Third Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 81  [<< | >>]
Article: 2  [<< | >>]

Whether Christ gave His body to Judas?

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus Iudae non dederit corpus suum. Ut enim legitur Matth. XXVI, postquam dominus dederat corpus suum et sanguinem discipulis, dixit eis, non bibam amodo de hoc genimine vitis usque in diem illum cum illud bibam vobiscum novum in regno patris mei. Ex quo videtur quod illi quibus corpus suum et sanguinem dederat, cum eo essent iterum bibituri. Sed Iudas postea cum ipso non bibit. Ergo non accepit cum aliis discipulis corpus Christi et sanguinem.   Objection 1: It seems that Christ did not give His body to Judas. Because, as we read (Mt. 26:29), our Lord, after giving His body and blood to the disciples, said to them: "I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of My Father." From this it appears that those to whom He had given His body and blood were to drink of it again with Him. But Judas did not drink of it afterwards with Him. Therefore he did not receive Christ's body and blood with the other disciples.
Praeterea, dominus implevit quod praecepit, secundum illud Act. I, coepit Iesus facere et docere. Sed ipse praecepit, Matth. VII, nolite sanctum dare canibus. Cum ergo ipse cognosceret Iudam peccatorem esse, videtur quod ei corpus suum et sanguinem non dederit.   Objection 2: Further, what the Lord commanded, He Himself fulfilled, as is said in Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach." But He gave the command (Mt. 7:6): "Give not that which is holy to dogs." Therefore, knowing Judas to be a sinner, seemingly He did not give him His body and blood.
Praeterea, Christus specialiter legitur Iudae panem intinctum porrexisse, Ioan. XIII. Si ergo corpus suum ei dederit, videtur quod sub buccella ei dederit, praecipue cum legatur ibidem, et post buccellam introivit in eum Satanas; ubi Augustinus dicit, hinc nos docemur quam sit cavendum male accipere bonum. Si enim corripitur qui non diiudicat, idest, non discernit corpus domini a ceteris cibis, quomodo damnabitur qui ad eius mensam, fingens se amicum, accedit inimicus? Sed cum buccella intincta non accepit corpus Christi, ut Augustinus dicit, super illud Ioan. XIII, cum intinxisset panem, dedit Iudae Simonis Iscariotis, non, ut putant quidam negligenter legentes, tunc Iudas solus corpus Christi accepit. Ergo videtur quod Iudas corpus Christi non acceperit.   Objection 3: Further, it is distinctly related (Jn. 13:26) that Christ gave dipped bread to Judas. Consequently, if He gave His body to him, it appears that He gave it him in the morsel, especially since we read (Jn. 13:26) that "after the morsel, Satan entered into him." And on this passage Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan.): "From this we learn how we should beware of receiving a good thing in an evil way . . . For if he be 'chastised' who does 'not discern,' i.e. distinguish, the body of the Lord from other meats, how must he be 'condemned' who, feigning himself a friend, comes to His table a foe?" But (Judas) did not receive our Lord's body with the dipped morsel; thus Augustine commenting on Jn. 13:26, "When He had dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas, the son of Simon the Iscariot [Vulg.: 'to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon]," says (Tract. lxii in Joan.): "Judas did not receive Christ's body then, as some think who read carelessly." Therefore it seems that Judas did not receive the body of Christ.
Sed contra est quod Chrysostomus dicit, Iudas, particeps existens mysteriorum, conversus non est. Unde fit scelus eius utrinque immanius, tum quia tali proposito imbutus adiit mysteria; tum quia adiens melior factus non fuit, nec metu nec beneficio nec honore.   On the contrary, Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxii in Matth.): "Judas was not converted while partaking of the sacred mysteries: hence on both sides his crime becomes the more heinous, both because imbued with such a purpose he approached the mysteries, and because he became none the better for approaching, neither from fear, nor from the benefit received, nor from the honor conferred on him."
Respondeo dicendum quod Hilarius posuit, super Matth., quod Christus Iudae corpus suum et sanguinem non dedit. Et hoc quidem conveniens fuisset, considerata malitia Iudae. Sed quia Christus debuit nobis esse exemplum iustitiae, non conveniebat eius magisterio ut Iudam, occultum peccatorem, sine accusatore et evidenti probatione, ab aliorum communione separaret, ne per hoc daretur exemplum praelatis Ecclesiae similia faciendi; et ipse Iudas, inde exasperatus, sumeret occasionem peccandi. Et ideo dicendum est quod Iudas cum aliis discipulis corpus domini et sanguinem suscepit, ut dicit Dionysius in libro Eccles. Hier., et Augustinus, super Ioannem.   I answer that, Hilary, in commenting on Mt. 26:17, held that Christ did not give His body and blood to Judas. And this would have been quite proper, if the malice of Judas be considered. But since Christ was to serve us as a pattern of justice, it was not in keeping with His teaching authority to sever Judas, a hidden sinner, from Communion with the others without an accuser and evident proof. lest the Church's prelates might have an example for doing the like, and lest Judas himself being exasperated might take occasion of sinning. Therefore, it remains to be said that Judas received our Lord's body and blood with the other disciples, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), and Augustine (Tract. lxii in Joan.).
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa est ratio Hilarii ad ostendendum quod Iudas corpus Christi non sumpsit. Non tamen cogit. Quia Christus loquitur discipulis, a quorum collegio Iudas se separavit, non autem Christus eum exclusit. Et ideo Christus, quantum est in se, etiam cum Iuda vinum in regno Dei bibit, sed hoc convivium ipse Iudas repudiavit.   Reply to Objection 1: This is Hilary's argument, to show that Judas did not receive Christ's body. But it is not cogent; because Christ is speaking to the disciples, from whose company Judas separated himself: and it was not Christ that excluded him. Therefore Christ for His part drinks the wine even with Judas in the kingdom of God; but Judas himself repudiated this banquet.
Ad secundum dicendum quod Christo nota erat Iudae iniquitas sicut Deo, non autem erat sibi nota per modum quo hominibus innotescit. Et ideo Christus Iudam non repulit a communione, ut daret exemplum tales peccatores occultos non esse ab aliis sacerdotibus repellendos.   Reply to Objection 2: The wickedness of Judas was known to Christ as God; but it was unknown to Him, after the manner in which men know it. Consequently, Christ did not repel Judas from Communion; so as to furnish an example that such secret sinners are not to be repelled by other priests.
Ad tertium dicendum quod sine dubio Iudas sub pane intincto corpus Christi non sumpsit, sed simplicem panem. Significatur autem fortassis, ut Augustinus dicit ibidem, per panis intinctionem fictio Iudae, ut enim inficiantur, nonnulla tinguntur. Si autem bonum aliquod hic significat tinctio, scilicet dulcedinem bonitatis divinae, quia panis ex intinctione sapidior redditur, eidem bono ingratum non immerito secuta est damnatio. Et propter hanc ingratitudinem id quod est bonum, factum est ei malum, sicut accidit circa sumentes corpus Christi indigne.   Reply to Objection 3: Without any doubt Judas did not receive Christ's body in the dipped bread; he received mere bread. Yet as Augustine observes (Tract. lxii in Joan.), "perchance the feigning of Judas is denoted by the dipping of the bread; just as some things are dipped to be dyed. If, however, the dipping signifies here anything good" (for instance, the sweetness of the Divine goodness, since bread is rendered more savory by being dipped), "then, not undeservedly, did condemnation follow his ingratitude for that same good." And owing to that ingratitude, "what is good became evil to him, as happens to them who receive Christ's body unworthily."
Et, sicut Augustinus dicit ibidem, intelligendum est quod dominus iam antea distribuerat omnibus discipulis suis sacramentum corporis et sanguinis sui, ubi et ipse Iudas erat, sicut Lucas narrat. Ac deinde ad hoc ventum est, ubi, secundum narrationem Ioannis, dominus per buccellam tinctam atque porrectam suum exprimit proditorem.    And as Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan.), "it must be understood that our Lord had already distributed the sacrament of His body and blood to all His disciples, among whom was Judas also, as Luke narrates: and after that, we came to this, where, according to the relation of John, our Lord, by dipping and handing the morsel, does most openly declare His betrayer."


Index  [<< | >>]
Third Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 81  [<< | >>]
Article: 3  [<< | >>]

Whether Christ received and gave to the disciples His impassible body?

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus sumpserit et dederit corpus suum discipulis impassibile. Quia super illud Matth. XVII, transfiguratus est ante illos, dicit quaedam Glossa, illud corpus quod habuit per naturam, dedit discipulis in cena, non mortale et passibile. Et Levit. II, super illud, si oblatio tua fuerit de sartagine, dicit Glossa, crux, super omnia fortis, carnem Christi, quae ante passionem non videbatur esui apta, post aptam fecit. Sed Christus dedit corpus suum ut aptum ad manducandum. Ergo dedit tale quale habuit post passionem, scilicet impassibile et immortale.   Objection 1: It seems that Christ both received and gave to the disciples His impassible body. Because on Mt. 17:2, "He was transfigured before them," the gloss says: "He gave to the disciples at the supper that body which He had through nature, but neither mortal nor passible." And again, on Lev. 2:5, "if thy oblation be from the frying-pan," the gloss says: "The Cross mightier than all things made Christ's flesh fit for being eaten, which before the Passion did not seem so suited." But Christ gave His body as suited for eating. Therefore He gave it just as it was after the Passion, that is, impassible and immortal.
Praeterea, omne corpus passibile per contactum et manducationem patitur. Si ergo corpus Christi erat passibile, per contactum et comestionem discipulorum passum fuisset.   Objection 2: Further, every passible body suffers by contact and by being eaten. Consequently, if Christ's body was passible, it would have suffered both from contact and from being eaten by the disciples.
Praeterea, verba sacramentalia non sunt modo maioris virtutis quando proferuntur a sacerdote in persona Christi, quam tunc quando fuerunt prolata ab ipso Christo. Sed nunc virtute verborum sacramentalium in altari consecratur corpus Christi impassibile et immortale. Ergo multo magis tunc.   Objection 3: Further, the sacramental words now spoken by the priest in the person of Christ are not more powerful than when uttered by Christ Himself. But now by virtue of the sacramental words it is Christ's impassible and immortal body which is consecrated upon the altar. Therefore, much more so was it then.
Sed contra est quod, sicut Innocentius III dicit, tale corpus tunc dedit discipulis quale habuit. Habuit autem tunc corpus passibile et mortale. Ergo corpus passibile et mortale discipulis dedit.   On the contrary, As Innocent III says (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), "He bestowed on the disciples His body such as it was." But then He had a passible and a mortal body. Therefore, He gave a passible and mortal body to the disciples.
Respondeo dicendum quod Hugo de sancto Victore posuit quod Christus ante passionem diversis temporibus quatuor dotes corporis glorificati assumpsit, scilicet subtilitatem in nativitate, quando exivit de clauso utero virginis; agilitatem, quando siccis pedibus super mare ambulavit; claritatem, in transfiguratione; impassibilitatem, in cena, quando corpus suum tradidit discipulis ad manducandum. Et secundum hoc, dedit discipulis suis corpus impassibile et immortale.   I answer that, Hugh of Saint Victor (Innocent III, De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), maintained, that before the Passion, Christ assumed at various times the four properties of a glorified body ---namely, subtlety in His birth, when He came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin; agility, when He walked dryshod upon the sea; clarity, in the Transfiguration; and impassibility at the Last Supper, when He gave His body to the disciples to be eaten. And according to this He gave His body in an impassible and immortal condition to His disciples.
Sed, quidquid sit de aliis, de quibus supra dictum est quid sentiri debeat, circa impassibilitatem tamen impossibile est esse quod dicitur. Manifestum est enim quod idem verum corpus Christi erat quod a discipulis tunc in propria specie videbatur, et in specie sacramenti sumebatur. Non autem erat impassibile secundum quod in propria specie videbatur, quinimmo erat passioni paratum. Unde nec ipsum corpus quod in specie sacramenti dabatur, impassibile erat.    But whatever may be the case touching the other qualities, concerning which we have already stated what should be held (Question [28], Article [2], ad 3; Question [45], Article [2]), nevertheless the above opinion regarding impassibility is inadmissible. For it is manifest that the same body of Christ which was then seen by the disciples in its own species, was received by them under the sacramental species. But as seen in its own species it was not impassible; nay more, it was ready for the Passion. Therefore, neither was Christ's body impassible when given under the sacramental species.
Impassibili tamen modo erat sub specie sacramenti quod in se erat passibile, sicut invisibiliter quod in se erat visibile. Sicut enim visio requirit contactum corporis quod videtur ad circumstans medium visionis, ita passio requirit contactum corporis quod patitur ad ea quae agunt. Corpus autem Christi, secundum quod est sub sacramento, ut supra dictum est, non comparatur ad ea quae circumstant mediantibus propriis dimensionibus, quibus corpora se tangunt, sed mediantibus dimensionibus specierum panis et vini. Et ideo species illae sunt quae patiuntur et videntur, non autem ipsum corpus Christi.    Yet there was present in the sacrament, in an impassible manner, that which was passible of itself; just as that was there invisibly which of itself was visible. For as sight requires that the body seen be in contact with the adjacent medium of sight, so does passion require contact of the suffering body with the active agents. But Christ's body, according as it is under the sacrament, as stated above (Article [1], ad 2; Question [76], Article [5]), is not compared with its surroundings through the intermediary of its own dimensions, whereby bodies touch each other, but through the dimensions of the bread and wine; consequently, it is those species which are acted upon and are seen, but not Christ's own body.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus dicitur non dedisse in cena corpus suum mortale et passibile, quia non dedit corporali et passibili modo. Crux autem facit carnem Christi aptam manducationi, inquantum hoc sacramentum repraesentat passionem Christi.   Reply to Objection 1: Christ is said not to have given His mortal and passible body at the supper, because He did not give it in mortal and passible fashion. But the Cross made His flesh adapted for eating, inasmuch as this sacrament represents Christ's Passion.
Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procederet si corpus Christi sicut erat passibile, ita passibili modo fuisset sub sacramento.   Reply to Objection 2: This argument would hold, if Christ's body, as it was passible, were also present in a passible manner in this sacrament.
Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, accidentia corporis Christi sunt in hoc sacramento ex reali concomitantia, non autem ex vi sacramenti, ex qua est ibi substantia corporis Christi. Et ideo virtus verborum sacramentalium ad hoc se extendit ut sit sub hoc sacramento corpus, Christi scilicet, quibuscumque accidentibus realiter in eo existentibus.   Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (Question [76], Article [4]), the accidents of Christ's body are in this sacrament by real concomitance, but not by the power of the sacrament, whereby the substance of Christ's body comes to be there. And therefore the power of the sacramental words extends to this, that the body, i.e. Christ's, is under this sacrament, whatever accidents really exist in it.


Index  [<< | >>]
Third Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 81  [<< | >>]
Article: 4  [<< | >>]

Whether, if this sacrament had been reserved in a pyx, or consecrated at the moment of Christ's death by one of the apostles, Christ Himself would have died there?

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod, si hoc sacramentum tempore mortis Christi fuisset servatum in pyxide, vel ab aliquo apostolorum consecratum, non ibi moreretur. Mors enim Christi accidit per eius passionem. Sed Christus impassibili modo etiam tunc erat in hoc sacramento. Ergo non poterat mori in hoc sacramento.   Objection 1: It seems that if this sacrament had been reserved in a pyx at the moment of Christ's death, or had then been consecrated by one of the apostles, that Christ would not have died there. For Christ's death happened through His Passion. But even then He was in this sacrament in an impassible manner. Therefore, He could not die in this sacrament.
Praeterea, in morte Christi separatus fuit sanguis eius a corpore. Sed in hoc sacramento simul est corpus Christi et sanguis. Ergo Christus in hoc sacramento non moreretur.   Objection 2: Further, on the death of Christ, His blood was separated from the body. But His flesh and blood are together in this sacrament. Therefore He could not die in this sacrament.
Praeterea, mors accidit per separationem animae a corpore. Sed in hoc sacramento continetur tam corpus Christi quam anima. Ergo in hoc sacramento non poterat Christus mori.   Objection 3: Further, death ensues from the separation of the soul from the body. But both the body and the soul of Christ are contained in this sacrament. Therefore Christ could not die in this sacrament.
Sed contra est quod idem Christus qui erat in cruce, fuisset in sacramento. Sed in cruce moriebatur. Ergo et in sacramento conservato moreretur.   On the contrary, The same Christ Who was upon the cross would have been in this sacrament. But He died upon the cross. Therefore, if this sacrament had been reserved, He would have died therein.
Respondeo dicendum quod corpus Christi idem in substantia est in hoc sacramento et in propria specie, sed non eodem modo, nam in propria specie contingit circumstantia corpora per proprias dimensiones, non autem prout est in hoc sacramento, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo quidquid pertinet ad Christum secundum quod est in se, potest attribui ei et in propria specie et in sacramento existenti, sicut vivere, mori, dolere, animatum vel inanimatum esse, et cetera huiusmodi. Quaecumque vero conveniunt ei per comparationem ad corpora extrinseca, possunt ei attribui in propria specie existenti, non autem prout est in sacramento, sicut irrideri, conspui, crucifigi, flagellari, et cetera huiusmodi. Unde quidam metrice dixerunt,
pyxide servato poteris sociare dolorem innatum,
sed non illatus convenit illi.
  I answer that, Christ's body is substantially the same in this sacrament, as in its proper species, but not after the same fashion; because in its proper species it comes in contact with surrounding bodies by its own dimensions: but it does not do so as it is in this sacrament, as stated above (Article [3]). And therefore, all that belongs to Christ, as He is in Himself, can be attributed to Him both in His proper species, and as He exists in the sacrament; such as to live, to die, to grieve, to be animate or inanimate, and the like; while all that belongs to Him in relation to outward bodies, can be attributed to Him as He exists in His proper species, but not as He is in this sacrament; such as to be mocked, to be spat upon, to be crucified, to be scourged, and the rest. Hence some have composed this verse:
"Our Lord can grieve beneath the sacramental veils
But cannot feel the piercing of the thorns and nails."
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, passio convenit corpori passo per comparationem ad agens extrinsecum. Et ideo Christus, secundum quod est sub sacramento, pati non potest. Potest tamen mori.   Reply to Objection 1: As was stated above, suffering belongs to a body that suffers in respect of some extrinsic body. And therefore Christ, as in this sacrament, cannot suffer; yet He can die.
Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, sub specie panis est corpus Christi ex vi consecrationis, sanguis autem sub specie vini. Sed nunc quidem, quando realiter sanguis Christi non est separatus ab eius corpore, ex reali concomitantia et sanguis Christi est sub specie panis simul cum corpore, et corpus sub specie vini simul cum sanguine. Sed, si in tempore passionis Christi, quando realiter sanguis fuit separatus a corpore, fuisset hoc sacramentum consecratum, sub specie panis fuisset solum corpus, et sub specie vini fuisset solus sanguis.   Reply to Objection 2: As was said above (Question [76], Article [2]), in virtue of the consecration, the body of Christ is under the species of bread, while His blood is under the species of wine. But now that His blood is not really separated from His body; by real concomitance, both His blood is present with the body under the species of the bread, and His body together with the blood under the species of the wine. But at the time when Christ suffered, when His blood was really separated from His body, if this sacrament had been consecrated, then the body only would have been present under the species of the bread, and the blood only under the species of the wine.
Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, anima Christi est in hoc sacramento ex reali concomitantia, quia non est sine corpore, non autem ex vi consecrationis. Et ideo, si tunc fuisset hoc sacramentum consecratum vel servatum quando anima erat a corpore realiter separata, non fuisset anima Christi sub hoc sacramento, non propter defectum virtutis verborum sed propter aliam dispositionem rei.   Reply to Objection 3: As was observed above (Question [76], Article [1], ad 1), Christ's soul is in this sacrament by real concomitance; because it is not without the body: but it is not there in virtue of the consecration. And therefore, if this sacrament had been consecrated then, or reserved, when His soul was really separated from His body, Christ's soul would not have been under this sacrament, not from any defect in the form of the words, but owing to the different dispositions of the thing contained.

This document converted to HTML on Fri Jan 02 19:10:46 1998.