c. Third Argument

292. The argument can also be made here that was made before [n.288], that sacramental words have their being in time and so they precisely have their action in time. But the disposition for the Eucharist [nn.285, 279], if it is imagined to exist, cannot be posited as caused in time, because of proofs like those mentioned above in the second argument [n.291].

293. In the matter at issue, then, there is a special reason that the words of consecration of the Eucharist cannot do anything with respect to transubstantiation, or the disposition necessary for transubstantiation, because they do not act on the passive subject until they mention it, according to them and to Aristotle (Physics 7.2.244a17-18 about the simultaneity of agent and patient). But as it is, at the instant when the speaking is complete, the species of the words are not mentioning the species of bread, because the multiplying of words only takes place in time, according to the Philosopher (On Sense and Sensible 6.446b5-9, the penultimate objection). Therefore during the time after the last instant of the complete speaking of the words, transubstantiation and the disposition preceding it have not yet happened. Therefore the bread remains throughout the whole time - which is contrary to the common opinion about the Eucharist.