Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It seems that the whole Christ is not contained under this sacrament, because Christ begins to be in this sacrament by conversion of the bread and wine. But it is evident that the bread and wine cannot be changed either into the Godhead or into the soul of Christ. Since therefore Christ exists in three substances, namely, the Godhead, soul and body, as shown above (Question 2, Article 5; Question 5, Articles 1,3), it seems that the entire Christ is not under this sacrament.

Objection 2: Further, Christ is in this sacrament, forasmuch as it is ordained to the refection of the faithful, which consists in food and drink, as stated above (Question 74, Article 1). But our Lord said (Jn. 6:56): "My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." Therefore, only the flesh and blood of Christ are contained in this sacrament. But there are many other parts of Christ's body, for instance, the nerves, bones, and such like. Therefore the entire Christ is not contained under this sacrament.

Objection 3: Further, a body of greater quantity cannot be contained under the measure of a lesser. But the measure of the bread and wine is much smaller than the measure of Christ's body. Therefore it is impossible that the entire Christ be contained under this sacrament.

On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Officiis): "Christ is in this sacrament."

I answer that, It is absolutely necessary to confess according to Catholic faith that the entire Christ is in this sacrament. Yet we must know that there is something of Christ in this sacrament in a twofold manner: first, as it were, by the power of the sacrament; secondly, from natural concomitance. By the power of the sacrament, there is under the species of this sacrament that into which the pre-existing substance of the bread and wine is changed, as expressed by the words of the form, which are effective in this as in the other sacraments; for instance, by the words: "This is My body," or, "This is My blood." But from natural concomitance there is also in this sacrament that which is really united with that thing wherein the aforesaid conversion is terminated. For if any two things be really united, then wherever the one is really, there must the other also be: since things really united together are only distinguished by an operation of the mind.

Reply to Objection 1: Because the change of the bread and wine is not terminated at the Godhead or the soul of Christ, it follows as a consequence that the Godhead or the soul of Christ is in this sacrament not by the power of the sacrament, but from real concomitance. For since the Godhead never set aside the assumed body, wherever the body of Christ is, there, of necessity, must the Godhead be; and therefore it is necessary for the Godhead to be in this sacrament concomitantly with His body. Hence we read in the profession of faith at Ephesus (P. I., chap. xxvi): "We are made partakers of the body and blood of Christ, not as taking common flesh, nor as of a holy man united to the Word in dignity, but the truly life-giving flesh of the Word Himself."

On the other hand, His soul was truly separated from His body, as stated above (Question 50, Article 5). And therefore had this sacrament been celebrated during those three days when He was dead, the soul of Christ would not have been there, neither by the power of the sacrament, nor from real concomitance. But since "Christ rising from the dead dieth now no more" (Rm. 6:9), His soul is always really united with His body. And therefore in this sacrament the body indeed of Christ is present by the power of the sacrament, but His soul from real concomitance.

Reply to Objection 2: By the power of the sacrament there is contained under it, as to the species of the bread, not only the flesh, but the entire body of Christ, that is, the bones the nerves, and the like. And this is apparent from the form of this sacrament, wherein it is not said: "This is My flesh," but "This is My body." Accordingly, when our Lord said (Jn. 6:56): "My flesh is meat indeed," there the word flesh is put for the entire body, because according to human custom it seems to be more adapted for eating, as men commonly are fed on the flesh of animals, but not on the bones or the like.

Reply to Objection 3: As has been already stated (Question 75, Article 5), after the consecration of the bread into the body of Christ, or of the wine into His blood, the accidents of both remain. From which it is evident that the dimensions of the bread or wine are not changed into the dimensions of the body of Christ, but substance into substance. And so the substance of Christ's body or blood is under this sacrament by the power of the sacrament, but not the dimensions of Christ's body or blood. Hence it is clear that the body of Christ is in this sacrament "by way of substance," and not by way of quantity. But the proper totality of substance is contained indifferently in a small or large quantity; as the whole nature of air in a great or small amount of air, and the whole nature of a man in a big or small individual. Wherefore, after the consecration, the whole substance of Christ's body and blood is contained in this sacrament, just as the whole substance of the bread and wine was contained there before the consecration.

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non totus christus contineatur sub hoc sacramento. Christus enim incipit esse in hoc sacramento per conversionem panis et vini. Sed manifestum est quod panis et vinum non possunt converti neque in divinitatem christi, neque in eius animam. Cum ergo christus existat ex tribus substantiis, scilicet divinitate, anima et corpore, ut supra habitum; videtur quod christus totus non sit in hoc sacramento.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, christus est in hoc sacramento secundum quod competit refectioni fidelium, quae in cibo et potu consistit, sicut supra dictum est.

Sed dominus dicit, Ioan. VI, caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus.

Ergo solum caro et sanguis christi continetur in hoc sacramento.

Sunt autem multae aliae partes corporis christi, puta nervi et ossa et alia huiusmodi. Non ergo totus christus continetur sub hoc sacramento.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, corpus maioris quantitatis non potest totum contineri sub minoris quantitatis mensura. Sed mensura panis et vini consecrati est multo minor quam propria mensura corporis christi.

Non potest ergo esse quod totus christus sit sub hoc sacramento.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Ambrosius dicit, in libro de offic., in illo sacramento christus est.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod omnino necesse est confiteri secundum fidem catholicam quod totus christus sit in hoc sacramento.

Sciendum tamen quod aliquid christi est in hoc sacramento dupliciter, uno modo, quasi ex VI sacramenti; alio modo, ex naturali concomitantia. Ex VI quidem sacramenti, est sub speciebus huius sacramenti id in quod directe convertitur substantia panis et vini praeexistens, prout significatur per verba formae, quae sunt effectiva in hoc sacramento sicut et in ceteris, puta cum dicitur, hoc est corpus meum, hic est sanguis meus.

Ex naturali autem concomitantia est in hoc sacramento illud quod realiter est coniunctum ei in quod praedicta conversio terminatur. Si enim aliqua duo sunt realiter coniuncta, ubicumque est unum realiter, oportet et aliud esse, sola enim operatione animae discernuntur quae realiter sunt coniuncta.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quia conversio panis et vini non terminatur ad divinitatem vel animam christi, consequens est quod divinitas vel anima christi non sit in hoc sacramento ex VI sacramenti, sed ex reali concomitantia. Quia enim divinitas corpus assumptum nunquam deposuit, ubicumque est corpus christi, necesse est et eius divinitatem esse. Et ideo in hoc sacramento necesse est esse divinitatem christi concomitantem eius corpus.

Unde in symbolo ephesino legitur, participes efficimur corporis et sanguinis christi, non ut communem carnem percipientes, nec viri sanctificati et verbo coniuncti secundum dignitatis unitatem, sed vere vivificatricem, et ipsius verbi propriam factam.

Anima vero realiter separata fuit a corpore, ut supra dictum est.

Et ideo, si in illo triduo mortis fuisset hoc sacramentum celebratum, non fuisset ibi anima, nec ex VI sacramenti nec ex reali concomitantia. Sed quia christus resurgens ex mortuis iam non moritur, ut dicitur Rom. VI, anima eius semper est realiter corpori unita.

Et ideo in hoc sacramento corpus quidem christi est ex VI sacramenti, anima autem ex reali concomitantia.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod ex VI sacramenti sub hoc sacramento continetur, quantum ad species panis, non solum caro, sed totum corpus christi, idest ossa et nervi et alia huiusmodi. Et hoc apparet ex forma huius sacramenti, in qua non dicitur, haec est caro mea, sed, hoc est corpus meum.

Et ideo, cum dominus dixit, Ioan. VI, caro mea vere est cibus, caro ponitur ibi pro toto corpore, quia, secundum consuetudinem humanam, videtur esse magis manducationi accommodata, prout scilicet homines carnibus animalium vescuntur communiter, non ossibus vel aliis huiusmodi.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, facta conversione panis in corpus christi vel vini in sanguinem, accidentia utriusque remanent. Ex quo patet quod dimensiones panis vel vini non convertuntur in dimensiones corporis christi, sed substantia in substantiam. Et sic substantia corporis christi vel sanguinis est in hoc sacramento ex VI sacramenti, non autem dimensiones corporis vel sanguinis christi. Unde patet quod corpus christi est in hoc sacramento per modum substantiae, et non per modum quantitatis. Propria autem totalitas substantiae continetur indifferenter in parva vel magna quantitate, sicut tota natura aeris in magno vel parvo aere, et tota natura hominis in magno vel parvo homine. Unde et tota substantia corporis christi et sanguinis continetur in hoc sacramento post consecrationem, sicut ante consecrationem continebatur ibi substantia panis et vini.