A. Opinion of Henry of Ghent

1. Exposition of the Opinion

188. But one way of putting the point is as follows [Henry of Ghent and his followers], namely that the same body can be elsewhere than in its natural place by conversion of something else into it, because where the thing converted was there that into which it is converted is - not by location but sacramentally. And in this way, namely sacramentally, the same body can be in another place, and in several places. Now it is not there by location nor in its dimensions, because being there by location would involve a contradiction (following their reasons set down in the preceding question, nn.81-84); but its being there sacramentally does not involve a contradiction, because it is not there according to the laws of place, but only that under which it sacramentally exists is there according to those laws.

2. Refutation of the Opinion

189. But against this are some of the arguments in the preceding question [nn.30-41], that conversion is not the formal reason for a body’s existing here, whether as present (the point is plain, because when the conversion is over the body remains here) or as past, because then God could not make his body not to be here, just as he cannot make a past conversion not to be past. Nor is that which is called the sacrament, namely the species, the formal reason for the body’s being here, because the species are not formally in the body of Christ, therefore neither can anything through them be formally in the body of Christ.

190. From this the argument is as follows: God can make something in a creature without making what is not the reason for that something’s being, or what does not in any way belong to its essence; conversion, as was shown [n.189], is not the formal reason for Christ’s body being here and neither are the species or the sacrament, and these do not in any way belong to its essence; therefore, God can make the body of Christ to be here without either of them.

191. Again, there is no greater repugnance in Christ’s body being together with the substance of the bread than being together with its quantity, because, as far as such being together is concerned, substance is not more repugnant to substance than quantity is to substance. But while the body of Christ is existent in heaven, God can, in everyone’s view, make the same body to be together with the quantity of the bread. Therefore he can make the same body to be together with the substance quantum of the bread, and do so without any conversion.

This as to the first of the arguments that have been touched on [n.189].

192. Also, if the substance quantum of the bread be set down as the sacrament [n.189], the point is still against them [Henry and his followers]. Because, as was shown [n.113], it is easier to make a body to be somewhere with its natural mode than without it; but God can make his body to be with the substance quantum of the bread in a sacramental, that is, non-natural way; therefore he can also make it present in a natural way. Therefore it would be possible for God to make that body to exist in its natural mode along with the substance quantum in other places besides heaven.

193. And if you say to the first reason [n.190] that the thing cannot be done without the proper term of the sort of relation in question, nor without the foundation; but the proper term of this presence is the sacrament, that is, something perceptible which fills the place and with which and under which the body of Christ non-locally exists; - on the contrary: it is not more impossible, as it seems, for the body of Christ to be with the former than with the latter; therefore it is not more impossible for it to be with the substance of the bread than with its quantity (as was said [n.191]), and so on as to anything at all other than itself. And then further: if it can come to be in a non-natural mode elsewhere than where it is, then also can it do so in a mode natural to it.