Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It seems that the sacramental species cannot nourish, because, as Ambrose says (De Sacram. v), "it is not this bread that enters into our body, but the bread of everlasting life, which supports the substance of our soul." But whatever nourishes enters into the body. Therefore this bread does not nourish: and the same reason holds good of the wine.

Objection 2: Further, as is said in De Gener. ii, "We are nourished by the very things of which we are made." But the sacramental species are accidents, whereas man is not made of accidents, because accident is not a part of substance. Therefore it seems that the sacramental species cannot nourish.

Objection 3: Further, the Philosopher says (De Anima ii) that "food nourishes according as it is a substance, but it gives increase by reason of its quantity." But the sacramental species are not a substance. Consequently they cannot nourish.

On the contrary, The Apostle speaking of this sacrament says (1 Cor. 11:21): "One, indeed, is hungry, and another is drunk": upon which the gloss observes that "he alludes to those who after the celebration of the sacred mystery, and after the consecration of the bread and wine, claimed their oblations, and not sharing them with others, took the whole, so as even to become intoxicated thereby." But this could not happen if the sacramental species did not nourish. Therefore the sacramental species do nourish.

I answer that, This question presents no difficulty, now that we have solved the preceding question. Because, as stated in De Anima ii, food nourishes by being converted into the substance of the individual nourished. Now it has been stated (Article 5) that the sacramental species can be converted into a substance generated from them. And they can be converted into the human body for the same reason as they can into ashes or worms. Consequently, it is evident that they nourish.

But the senses witness to the untruth of what some maintain; viz. that the species do not nourish as though they were changed into the human body, but merely refresh and hearten by acting upon the senses (as a man is heartened by the odor of meat, and intoxicated by the fumes of wine). Because such refreshment does not suffice long for a man, whose body needs repair owing to constant waste: and yet a man could be supported for long if he were to take hosts and consecrated wine in great quantity.

In like manner the statement advanced by others cannot stand, who hold that the sacramental species nourish owing to the remaining substantial form of the bread and wine: both because the form does not remain, as stated above (Question 75, Article 6): and because to nourish is the act not of a form but rather of matter, which takes the form of the one nourished, while the form of the nourishment passes away: hence it is said in De Anima ii that nourishment is at first unlike, but at the end is like.

Reply to Objection 1: After the consecration bread can be said to be in this sacrament in two ways. First, as to the species, which retain the name of the previous substance, as Gregory says in an Easter Homily (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xx). Secondly, Christ's very body can be called bread, since it is the mystical bread "coming down from heaven." Consequently, Ambrose uses the word "bread" in this second meaning, when he says that "this bread does not pass into the body," because, to wit, Christ's body is not changed into man's body, but nourishes his soul. But he is not speaking of bread taken in the first acceptation.

Reply to Objection 2: Although the sacramental species are not those things out of which the human body is made, yet they are changed into those things stated above.

Reply to Objection 3: Although the sacramental species are not a substance, still they have the virtue of a substance, as stated above.

Articulus 6

Argumentum 1

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod species sacramentales non possint nutrire.

Dicit enim Ambrosius, in libro de sacramentis, non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus, sed panis vitae aeternae, qui animae nostrae substantiam fulcit.

Sed omne quod nutrit, vadit in corpus. Ergo panis iste non nutrit. Et eadem ratio est de vino.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, sicut dicitur in libro de generat., ex eisdem nutrimur ex quibus sumus.

Species autem sacramentales sunt accidentia, ex quibus homo non constat, non enim accidens est pars substantiae. Ergo videtur quod species sacramentales nutrire non possunt.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in II de anima, quod alimentum nutrit prout est quaedam substantia, auget autem prout est aliquid quantum.

Sed species sacramentales non sunt substantia.

Ergo non possunt nutrire.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod apostolus, I Cor. XI, loquens de hoc sacramento, dicit, alius quidem esurit, alius autem ebrius est, ubi dicit Glossa quod notat illos qui, post celebrationem sacri mysterii et consecrationem panis et vini, suas oblationes vindicabant, et, aliis non communicantes, sibi solis sumebant, ita ut inde etiam inebriarentur.

Quod quidem non potest contingere si sacramentales species non nutrirent. Ergo species sacramentales nutriunt.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod haec quaestio difficultatem non habet, praecedenti quaestione soluta.

Ex hoc enim, ut dicitur in II de anima, cibus nutrit, quod convertitur in substantiam nutriti.

Dictum est autem quod species sacramentales possunt converti in substantiam aliquam quae ex eis generatur.

Per eandem autem rationem possunt converti in corpus humanum, per quam possunt converti in cineres vel in vermes.

Et ideo manifestum est quod nutriunt.

Quod autem quidam dicunt, quod non vere nutriunt, quasi in corpus humanum convertantur, sed reficiunt et confortant quadam sensuum immutatione, sicut homo confortatur ex odore cibi et inebriatur ex odore vini, ad sensum patet esse falsum. Talis enim refectio non diu sufficit homini, cuius corpus, propter continuam deperditionem, restauratione indiget. Et tamen homo diu sustentari posset, si hostias et vinum consecratum sumeret in magna quantitate.

Similiter etiam non potest stare quod quidam dicunt, quod species sacramentales nutriunt per formam substantialem panis et vini, quae remanet.

Tum quia non remanet, ut supra habitum est.

Tum quia non est actus formae nutrire, sed magis materiae, quae accipit formam nutriti, recedente forma nutrimenti.

Unde dicitur in II de anima, quod nutrimentum in principio est dissimile, in fine autem simile.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, facta consecratione, dupliciter potest dici panis in hoc sacramento. Uno modo, ipsae species panis, quae retinent nomen prioris substantiae, ut Gregorius dicit, in homilia paschali.

Alio modo, potest dici panis ipsum corpus christi, quod est panis mysticus de caelo descendens.

Ambrosius ergo, cum dicit quod iste panis non transit in corpus, accipit panem secundo modo, quia scilicet corpus christi non convertitur in corpus hominis, sed reficit mentem eius. Non autem loquitur de pane primo modo dicto.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod species sacramentales, etsi non sint ea ex quibus corpus hominis constat, tamen in ea convertuntur, sicut dictum est.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod species sacramentales, quamvis non sint substantia, habent tamen virtutem substantiae, ut dictum est.