Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It seems that the whole Christ is not contained under both species of this sacrament. For this sacrament is ordained for the salvation of the faithful, not by virtue of the species, but by virtue of what is contained under the species, because the species were there even before the consecration, from which comes the power of this sacrament. If nothing, then, be contained under one species, but what is contained under the other, and if the whole Christ be contained under both, it seems that one of them is superfluous in this sacrament.

Objection 2: Further, it was stated above (Article 1, ad 1) that all the other parts of the body, such as the bones, nerves, and the like, are comprised under the name of flesh. But the blood is one of the parts of the human body, as Aristotle proves (De Anima Histor. i). If, then, Christ's blood be contained under the species of bread, just as the other parts of the body are contained there, the blood ought not to be consecrated apart, just as no other part of the body is consecrated separately.

Objection 3: Further, what is once "in being" cannot be again "in becoming." But Christ's body has already begun to be in this sacrament by the consecration of the bread. Therefore, it cannot begin again to be there by the consecration of the wine; and so Christ's body will not be contained under the species of the wine, and accordingly neither the entire Christ. Therefore the whole Christ is not contained under each species.

On the contrary, The gloss on 1 Cor. 11:25, commenting on the word "Chalice," says that "under each species," namely, of the bread and wine, "the same is received"; and thus it seems that Christ is entire under each species.

I answer that, After what we have said above (Article 1), it must be held most certainly that the whole Christ is under each sacramental species yet not alike in each. For the body of Christ is indeed present under the species of bread by the power of the sacrament, while the blood is there from real concomitance, as stated above (Article 1, ad 1) in regard to the soul and Godhead of Christ; and under the species of wine the blood is present by the power of the sacrament, and His body by real concomitance, as is also His soul and Godhead: because now Christ's blood is not separated from His body, as it was at the time of His Passion and death. Hence if this sacrament had been celebrated then, the body of Christ would have been under the species of the bread, but without the blood; and, under the species of the wine, the blood would have been present without the body, as it was then, in fact.

Reply to Objection 1: Although the whole Christ is under each species, yet it is so not without purpose. For in the first place this serves to represent Christ's Passion, in which the blood was separated from the body; hence in the form for the consecration of the blood mention is made of its shedding. Secondly, it is in keeping with the use of this sacrament, that Christ's body be shown apart to the faithful as food, and the blood as drink. Thirdly, it is in keeping with its effect, in which sense it was stated above (Question 74, Article 1) that "the body is offered for the salvation of the body, and the blood for the salvation of the soul."

Reply to Objection 2: In Christ's Passion, of which this is the memorial, the other parts of the body were not separated from one another, as the blood was, but the body remained entire, according to Ex. 12:46: "You shall not break a bone thereof." And therefore in this sacrament the blood is consecrated apart from the body, but no other part is consecrated separately from the rest.

Reply to Objection 3: As stated above, the body of Christ is not under the species of wine by the power of the sacrament, but by real concomitance: and therefore by the consecration of the wine the body of Christ is not there of itself, but concomitantly.

Articulus 2

Argumentum 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sub utraque specie huius sacramenti totus christus contineatur. Hoc enim sacramentum ad salutem fidelium ordinatur, non virtute specierum, sed virtute eius quod sub speciebus continetur, quia species erant etiam ante consecrationem, ex qua est virtus huius sacramenti.

Si ergo nihil continetur sub una specie quod non contineatur sub alia, et totus christus continetur sub utraque, videtur quod altera illarum superfluat in hoc sacramento.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, dictum est quod sub nomine carnis omnes aliae partes corporis continentur, sicut ossa, nervi et alia huiusmodi.

Sed sanguis est una partium humani corporis, sicut patet per Aristotelem, in libro animalium.

Si ergo sanguis christi continetur sub specie panis, sicut continentur ibi aliae partes corporis, non deberet seorsum sanguis consecrari, sicut neque seorsum consecratur alia pars corporis.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, quod iam factum est, iterum fieri non potest. Sed corpus christi iam incoepit esse in hoc sacramento per consecrationem panis. Ergo non potest esse quod denuo incipiat esse per consecrationem vini. Et ita sub specie vini non continebitur corpus christi; et per consequens nec totus christus.

Non ergo sub utraque specie totus christus continetur.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod, I Cor. XI, super illud, calicem, dicit Glossa quod sub utraque specie, scilicet panis et vini, idem sumitur.

Et ita videtur quod sub utraque specie totus christus sit.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum certissime ex supra dictis tenendum esse quod sub utraque specie sacramenti totus est christus, aliter tamen et aliter. Nam sub speciebus panis est quidem corpus christi ex VI sacramenti, sanguis autem ex reali concomitantia, sicut supra dictum est de anima et divinitate christi.

Sub speciebus vero vini est quidem sanguis christi ex VI sacramenti, corpus autem christi ex reali concomitantia, sicut anima et divinitas, eo quod nunc sanguis christi non est ab eius corpore separatus, sicut fuit tempore passionis et mortis.

Unde, si tunc fuisset hoc sacramentum celebratum, sub speciebus panis fuisset corpus christi sine sanguine, et sub specie vini sanguis sine corpore, sicut erat in rei veritate.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quamvis totus christus sit sub utraque specie, non tamen frustra. Nam primo quidem, hoc valet ad repraesentandam passionem christi, in qua seorsum sanguis fuit a corpore. Unde et in forma consecrationis sanguinis fit mentio de eius effusione. Secundo, hoc est conveniens usui huius sacramenti, ut seorsum exhibeatur fidelibus corpus christi in cibum, et sanguis in potum. Tertio, quantum ad effectum, secundum quod supra dictum est quod corpus exhibetur pro salute corporis, sanguis pro salute animae.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod in passione christi, cuius hoc sacramentum est memoriale, non fuerunt aliae partes corporis ab invicem separatae, sicut sanguis, sed corpus indissolutum permansit, secundum quod legitur Exod. XII, os non comminuetis ex eo.

Et ideo in hoc sacramento seorsum consecratur sanguis a corpore, non autem alia pars ab alia.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, corpus christi non est sub specie vini ex VI sacramenti, sed ex reali concomitantia. Et ideo per consecrationem vini non fit ibi corpus christi per se, sed concomitanter.