2. Whether the Same Parts and Properties are Present by Necessity in a Certain Respect

246. About the second member of the distinction, namely about necessity taken in a certain respect, that is, about the existence of the subject of the consequent [nn.220-221], the conclusion is this, that it is thus necessary for the same properties and parts to be in the body of Christ in this mode of being and in that.

247. Proof: because no absolute thing ceases to be in anything when a new respect comes to it precisely from outside; the properties and parts in the body are truly absolutes; but their presence in the Eucharist is only an extrinsic respect coming to them;     therefore etc     .

248. This can be argued also in accord with what was said in question two of this distinction [nn.30-41, 129-131,], that an absolute thing does not vary because of a variation in relations of ‘where’ and the like; therefore, nothing absolute in a body varies because of its ‘where’ in heaven and because of the presence of it in the Eucharist that is assimilated to a relation ‘where’.

249. Proof of the major of the first reason [n.247]:

Because there is no formal repugnance in such relation to a preexisting ‘where’, nor even is there a virtual repugnance, in the way that a contrary property is repugnant to a subject (as cold is repugnant to fire); because the opposite of this relation [sc. ‘where’] does not arise from the principles of the absolute thing, for then this relation would not be inherent in it contingently nor would it come to it from outside.

Secondly as follows: an absolute is naturally first present in what it is present in before a relation is present that is founded on that absolute, and especially a relation that is extrinsic and comes to the thing contingently. Therefore in that prior moment, before the body is understood to have a new relation in the Eucharist, either its quantity and everything else absolute is present in it, and I have the conclusion proposed, or these are not present and it follows that the contradictories are simply true,That is, the contradictories of asserting and denying of the same subject (Christ’s body) the same quantity and properties. For these properties, being absolute, would belong or not belong to Christ’s body regardless of differences in the extrinsic relation of ‘where’. ¹⁴ for affirmation and negation cannot be said to hold according to diverse features (namely according to this and that ‘where’, or to this or that presence), because just as affirmation is not of a nature to hold because of ‘where’, so neither is negation.

250. This could also be plainly argued as follows: contradictories are not simply true of the same thing in the same respect; nor should one add to ‘the same’ the addition of ‘when the predicate is absolute; a body, if it does not have the absolute here and does have it there, is here the same and at the same time and in the same respect’.

251. The two first conditions are plain [sc. ‘same thing’ and ‘in the same respect’].

252. Proof of the third [one should not add ‘when the predicate is absolute...’], because nothing else is here and there save ‘where’ and ‘where’; but neither absolute affirmation nor absolute negation hold according to ‘where’. This is plain in what is posited here, because a body can well be moved in place here and there, not insofar as these are in it according to different ‘wheres’. And so there is a fallacy of the consequent in arguing thus: ‘it is not moved here, therefore it is not moved’, although it may commonly hold due to the matter [sc. because bodies are commonly in one place; but Christ’s body can be in more than one place]. And likewise, if the same thing had two surfaces, it could well be white according to one and black according to the other; nor would there be contrariety or contradiction, because they would not hold of it according to the same sense. But as to absolute affirmation and the negation of it (provided they do not amount to the same, and provided there is no difference there save that of relations), it is manifest that they will hold according to the same sense, because the relations could not be the reason for which the affirmation and negation would hold [sc. true together], because this reason is naturally posterior to what is absolute.