"The words of the Lord have been understood by the Church properly, and therefore they must be verified properly. I say, moreover, by the Church: because it does not appear from the Gospel itself that there is any compulsion to understand these words properly. From the words the Lord adds, namely “which shall be given up for you … for the remission of sins”, it cannot be clearly concluded that the foregoing words are to be understood properly. For the word which (quod) does not refer to the conjunction of predicate with subject, but refers back to the predicate itself, namely my body. With the truth of that relation, the prior statement may still be true only in a metaphorical sense, as is clear from the example: “The rock was Christ.” For if the Apostle had added: “who was crucified, rose again, and ascended into heaven,” in saying “the rock was Christ who was crucified, rose again, and ascended into heaven”, nonetheless the prior proposition “the rock was Christ” would not for that reason have to be understood properly but only metaphorically. Likewise, therefore, in the case proposed: the Lord’s words “This is my body, which shall be given up for you”, from that addition “which shall be given up for you” the first proposition is not thereby constrained to the proper sense; rather, it would still be true even if uttered only in the metaphorical sense."
Thomas de Vio Cajetan, Commentaria in Summam Theologicum, Tertia Pars, Q. 75, art. 1; as found in the Leonine edition of Aquinas' works, vol. 12 [Rome, 1906], pg. 157.
No comments:
Post a Comment