Export a Citation 
Print View
hide main text 
show main text 
hide table of contents
show table of contents
previous
A. First Opinion, which is from Pope Innocent III
1. Exposition of the Opinion
451. There is an opinion here from Innocent III On the Sacrament of the Altar 4.11,56 which says the substance of bread returns.
452. This can be proved as follows, that Christ is in the Eucharist as spiritual nourishment, and suitable bodily nourishment remains as long as the species exist; therefore when the species cease to have the idea of suitable nourishment (as substances unsuitable for nourishment bodily would be if they were in the substance of bread and wine), then the body of Christ really ceases to be there as spiritual nourishment; but when the Eucharist ceases, the substance returns. Therefore in such change the substance returns.
453. Nor must one posit a new miracle here, because the body of Christ ceases to be there when the species would not be of a nature to affect the substances converted, for God has instituted the Eucharist not to remain unless suitable species remain.
454. Nor too is there a new miracle because, namely, the substance returns there when the body of Christ ceases to be there, for God has ordained accidents never to be without a subject save in the Eucharist.
2. Rejection of the Opinion
455. Against this: I ask when the substance of bread returns.
456. Either this is in the final instant, when a new substance is generated there, and then it follows that bread and non-bread are there together; for bread is corrupted when something different is generated,57 and for you the bread is there first, and this is unacceptable.
457. Or it is before the final instant, and then two unacceptable things seem to follow:
The first is that the Eucharist does not remain as long as the non-corrupted species remain, or that the Eucharist will remain there at the same time and that the substance of bread will be there along with the body of Christ.
458. The second unacceptable thing is because, when one part of the motion is no more repugnant to the receptive subject than another part is (this is apparent from what was said above in q.1 [nn.367-372]), an agent that has power for part of the motion has power for the whole of the motion and for the term. But, as long as the species are not simply corrupted but are being altered otherwise, one part of the alteration is no more repugnant to the species than another part is; therefore an agent with power for one part of the alteration has power also for any degree of it; so while the alteration remains the substance should not return.
459. But, as to this argument, it would be more probable to grant the second member [n.457].
460. And then the first thing inferred [n.457] would perhaps not be unacceptable to one holds the opinion; for he would say that the Eucharist does not remain when the species are disposed in just any way but as long as they remain as suitable for nourishment. But the species could be so altered that, before they are totally corrupted, they are not suitable for nourishment, just as bread, before the flavor and the other accidents were corrupted [sc. in the process of eating?], could not be suitable nourishment; and then it would be difficult to find the definite degree of alteration or putrefaction up to which precisely the Eucharist would remain.
461. To the second [n.458] it might be said that the substance ought not to return on account of the whole alteration that precedes the corruption of the species and, consequently, the corruption of the Eucharist, but that it ought to return on account of the generation that follows the alteration and accompanies the corruption of the species; but it cannot return when the corruption is going on, because then it would both be and not be.
462. But this response does not assign a return of the substance of the bread that is sufficient; for a natural agent could, for you, do as much up to the final instance if the substance of the bread did not return; so the response does not speak sufficiently.