Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It seems that the substance of the bread and wine does remain in this sacrament after the consecration: because Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): "Since it is customary for men to eat bread and drink wine, God has wedded his Godhead to them, and made them His body and blood": and further on: "The bread of communication is not simple bread, but is united to the Godhead." But wedding together belongs to things actually existing. Therefore the bread and wine are at the same time, in this sacrament, with the body and the blood of Christ.

Objection 2: Further, there ought to be conformity between the sacraments. But in the other sacraments the substance of the matter remains, like the substance of water in Baptism, and the substance of chrism in Confirmation. Therefore the substance of the bread and wine remains also in this sacrament.

Objection 3: Further, bread and wine are made use of in this sacrament, inasmuch as they denote ecclesiastical unity, as "one bread is made from many grains and wine from many grapes," as Augustine says in his book on the Creed (Tract. xxvi in Joan.). But this belongs to the substance of bread and wine. Therefore, the substance of the bread and wine remains in this sacrament.

On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "Although the figure of the bread and wine be seen, still, after the Consecration, they are to be believed to be nothing else than the body end blood of Christ."

I answer that, Some have held that the substance of the bread and wine remains in this sacrament after the consecration. But this opinion cannot stand: first of all, because by such an opinion the truth of this sacrament is destroyed, to which it belongs that Christ's true body exists in this sacrament; which indeed was not there before the consecration. Now a thing cannot be in any place, where it was not previously, except by change of place, or by the conversion of another thing into itself; just as fire begins anew to be in some house, either because it is carried thither, or because it is generated there. Now it is evident that Christ's body does not begin to be present in this sacrament by local motion. First of all, because it would follow that it would cease to be in heaven: for what is moved locally does not come anew to some place unless it quit the former one. Secondly, because every body moved locally passes through all intermediary spaces, which cannot be said here. Thirdly, because it is not possible for one movement of the same body moved locally to be terminated in different places at the one time, whereas the body of Christ under this sacrament begins at the one time to be in several places. And consequently it remains that Christ's body cannot begin to be anew in this sacrament except by change of the substance of bread into itself. But what is changed into another thing, no longer remains after such change. Hence the conclusion is that, saving the truth of this sacrament, the substance of the bread cannot remain after the consecration.

Secondly, because this position is contrary to the form of this sacrament, in which it is said: "This is My body," which would not be true if the substance of the bread were to remain there; for the substance of bread never is the body of Christ. Rather should one say in that case: "Here is My body."

Thirdly, because it would be opposed to the veneration of this sacrament, if any substance were there, which could not be adored with adoration of latria.

Fourthly, because it is contrary to the rite of the Church, according to which it is not lawful to take the body of Christ after bodily food, while it is nevertheless lawful to take one consecrated host after another. Hence this opinion is to be avoided as heretical.

Reply to Objection 1: God "wedded His Godhead," i.e. His Divine power, to the bread and wine, not that these may remain in this sacrament, but in order that He may make from them His body and blood.

Reply to Objection 2: Christ is not really present in the other sacraments, as in this; and therefore the substance of the matter remains in the other sacraments, but not in this.

Reply to Objection 3: The species which remain in this sacrament, as shall be said later (Article 5), suffice for its signification; because the nature of the substance is known by its accidents.

Articulus 2

Argumentum 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in hoc sacramento remaneat substantia panis et vini post consecrationem.

Dicit enim Damascenus, in libro IV, quia consuetudo est hominibus comedere panem et vinum, coniugavit eis deitatem, et fecit ea corpus et sanguinem suum.

Et infra, panis communicationis non panis simplex est, sed unitus deitati.

Sed coniugatio est rerum actu existentium. Ergo panis et vinum simul sunt in hoc sacramento cum corpore et sanguine christi.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, inter ecclesiae sacramenta debet esse conformitas. Sed in aliis sacramentis substantia materiae manet, sicut in baptismo substantia aquae, et in confirmatione substantia chrismatis.

Ergo et in hoc sacramento substantia panis et vini manet.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, panis et vinum assumitur in hoc sacramento inquantum significat ecclesiasticam unitatem, prout unus panis fit ex multis granis, et unum vinum ex multis racemis, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de symbolo.

Sed hoc pertinet ad ipsam substantiam panis et vini.

Ergo substantia panis et vini remanet in hoc sacramento.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Ambrosius dicit, in libro de sacramentis, licet figura panis et vini videatur, nihil tamen aliud quam caro christi et sanguis post consecrationem credenda sunt.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod quidam posuerunt post consecrationem substantiam panis et vini in hoc sacramento remanere.

Sed haec positio stare non potest.

Primo quidem, quia per hanc positionem tollitur veritas huius sacramenti, ad quam pertinet ut verum corpus christi in hoc sacramento existat. Quod quidem ibi non est ante consecrationem. Non autem aliquid potest esse alicubi ubi prius non erat, nisi per loci mutationem, vel per alterius conversionem in ipsum, sicut in domo aliqua de novo incipit esse ignis aut quod illuc defertur, aut quod ibi generatur. Manifestum est autem quod corpus christi non incipit esse in hoc sacramento per motum localem. Primo quidem, quia sequeretur quod desineret esse in caelo, non enim quod localiter movetur, pervenit de novo ad aliquem locum, nisi deserat priorem. Secundo, quia omne corpus localiter motum pertransit omnia media, quod hic dici non potest.

Tertio, quia impossibile est quod unus motus eiusdem corporis localiter moti terminetur simul ad diversa loca, cum tamen in pluribus locis corpus christi sub hoc sacramento simul esse incipiat. Et propter hoc relinquitur quod non possit aliter corpus christi incipere esse de novo in hoc sacramento nisi per conversionem substantiae panis in ipsum. Quod autem convertitur in aliquid, facta conversione, non manet.

Unde relinquitur quod, salva veritate huius sacramenti, substantia panis post consecrationem remanere non possit.

Secundo, quia haec positio contrariatur formae huius sacramenti, in qua dicitur, hoc est corpus meum.

Quod non esset verum si substantia panis ibi remaneret, nunquam enim substantia panis est corpus christi.

Sed potius esset dicendum, hic est corpus meum.

Tertio, quia contrariaretur venerationi huius sacramenti, si aliqua substantia esset ibi quae non posset adorari adoratione latriae.

Quarto, quia contrariaretur ritui ecclesiae, secundum quem post corporalem cibum non licet sumere corpus christi, cum tamen post unam hostiam consecratam liceat sumere aliam.

Unde haec positio vitanda est tanquam haeretica.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod deus coniugavit divinitatem suam, idest divinam virtutem, pani et vino, non ut remaneant in hoc sacramento, sed ut faciat inde corpus et sanguinem suum.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod in aliis sacramentis non est ipse christus realiter, sicut in hoc sacramento. Et ideo in sacramentis aliis manet substantia materiae, non autem in isto.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod species quae remanent in hoc sacramento, ut infra dicetur, sufficiunt ad significationem huius sacramenti, nam per accidentia cognoscitur ratio substantiae.