The work of Thomas Aquinas, although somewhat insignificant in his day, is undoubtedly one of the most studied, discussed, and revered to emerge from the medieval period. As Plantinga, Thompson and Lundberg argue, "of all theologians, it is undoubtedly the shadow of Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-74) that looms greatest over the Latin theology of the Middle Ages".[1] Only one capable theologian among many in the Middle Ages, Thomist works have since garnered copious esteem, valued as the perfect manifestation of reason used to defend the faith within a systematized theology. This dynamic between faith and reason is what underpins Aquinas' entire theology; absolute priority is given to faith, while reason merely acts as an instrument for expounding the truths of faith graciously bestowed upon us through revelation. Theology is faith seeking understanding, but the instrument of reason used to achieve that understanding should never be used so arrogantly as to undermine the truths of faith. In this essay I aim to further examine Aquinas's position on the correct relationship between faith and reason and, subsequently, to evaluate how this understanding is mapped into Thomistic theology of the sacraments and, specifically, the Eucharist. Aquinas's Eucharistic work is perhaps one of his most enduring contributions to theology; indeed, as Davies writes, 'he is often considered the eucharistic theologian par excellence of the Catholic Church...'[2] I will attempt to support the line of argument according to which Thomas Aquinas's eucharistic theology acts as a microcosmic manifestation of his theological method; faith and tradition provide the theological truths that Aquinas subsequently expounds using reasoned argument - not to demonstrate or give credence to his faith beliefs - but simply to defend and understand them on a level beyond simple acceptance and ascent to certain propositions .Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Throughout his career, Thomas Aquinas, like most prominent academic theologians, was involved in the debate over the proper use of philosophy, particularly Aristotle, in the university. It is because of his desire to reject the adoption of radical Aristotelianism that Aquinas offers a systematic account of the relationship between faith and reason, ultimately granting the latter the position of handmaiden to the former. The term "handmaid" however has connotations of subordination, which seems contrary to Aquinas' understanding of the two disciplines; as Sigmund writes, "for Thomas... the belief that faith and reason were both valid and God-legitimate sources of human knowledge meant that neither should be considered dominant over the other."[3] Both divinely inspired, it is impossible that Aquinas the disciplines of reason and faith should contradict each other and, therefore, one cannot exist as subordinate to the other, simply equal and complementary. As Thomas Aquinas writes, what human reason is naturally endowed with is clearly very true; to such an extent that it is impossible for us to think of such truths as false. Nor is it permissible to believe what we hold by faith to be false, since this is confirmed so clearly divine. Therefore, since only the false is opposed to the true, as clearly emerges from the examination of their definitions, it is impossible for the truth of faith to be opposed to those principles that human reason naturally knows.[4] Having said this, however, reason cannot, according to Aquinas, function alone in determining the highest theological truth. The highest truths about God can be revealedonly by God Himself and cannot be discerned through reason and deduction from nature; as Plantinga, Thompson, and Lundberg write, 'truths such as the triune nature of God or creation ex nihilo could be known only through the dependence of faith on grace... reason is capable of much, but must be supplemented by faith.'[ 5] Niederbacher offers a precise formula for what Aquinas would consider propositions of faith or 'credible' propositions, those which 'belong to the object of faith which is believed on the authority of God.' p is a credible proposition if and only if i) p is true ii) p is revealed by God; iii) p is agreed because p is revealed by God; iv) p presents truths about God and created things as necessary e sufficient to orient the life of the human being towards its ultimate goal. '[7] These propositions can, evidently, be accepted because they are revealed, and not because we reason about them can be demonstrated by humans, they can be defended using reasoned argument,' so, Aquinas argues, that one should be able to demonstrate that these principles of faith are not impossible, that they do not contradict what is evident or demonstrable, that victors can be defeated, that conclusions can be drawn from principles deductively.'[8] Some of the most basic theological truths, such as that of the existence of God, Thomas believes to be rationally demonstrable; when it comes to our assent to the precepts of the Decalogue, for example, he does not refer to divine revelation to explain our knowledge of the content of natural law, but argues that it is therefore evident that since the moral precepts concern matters pertaining to good morals; and since good morality is that which is in accord with reason; and since every judgment of human reason must necessarily derive in some way from natural reason; it necessarily follows that all moral precepts belong to the law of nature[9]. Reason must not be fought against since, as Cross says, 'God's giving reason to human beings is a necessary consequence of his creation of human beings: being rational is part of what it means to be human.'[10 ] It is, however, limited. Aquinas's understanding of sacramental theology in general is not something he reasons towards, but something he inherits as a truth of faith from the Christian tradition. The sacraments derive from the death of Christ on the cross since it is in the flesh that He offers and men receive grace. From the pierced side of Christ flow blood and water, the Eucharist and baptism; Aquinas writes that «on Rm 5,14: "According to the similitude of Adam's transgression", etc., the gloss says: "From the side of Christ asleep on the cross flowed the sacraments which brought salvation to the Church". Consequently, it seems that the sacraments draw their strength from the passion of Christ".[11] Faith, for Aquinas, should have implications for how Christians behave; It is through participation in the sacraments that Christians live a life oriented towards God and a life lived in Christ. They have the dual function of offering sanctification and at the same time acting as a form of worship. It appears, however, that Aquinas's sacramental theology is expounded through the use of reason. For example, he emphasizes the dual nature of the sacraments as signs and causes of grace; as Torrell and Guevin observe, "Thomas's definition of a sacrament... brings together meaning and efficacy in a single formula: "the sign of a sacred reality that acts to sanctify man."[12] The sacraments are signs that represent the sanctification that they achieve, «symbols thatthey make real what they symbolize".[13] Aquinas can also state that the sacraments are causes of grace since the materials used are those that God uses to procure grace, they are "instrumental causes". Aquinas makes a distinction between this type of 'instrumental cause' and what he calls 'principal causes' of grace. He claims that the latter "produces its effect by virtue of its form"; God produces grace in this way as the root cause. The sacraments, however, serve as instrumental causes of grace, producing grace "only by virtue of the impulse imparted to them by the principal agent... it is by divine institution that they are bestowed upon us for the very purpose of provoking grace in and through them." [15] The instrumental parts of the sacraments are multiple; As Jordan notes, “the same instrumental power is found in the very different elements of a sacrament: in its verbal formulas, in its prescribed actions, in its material. Finally, the instrumental effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the effectiveness of Christ's humanity, itself an instrument of his divinity".[16] Aquinas also argues that the sacraments are necessary for human beings; his reasons are three. First, he reasons from the idea that, since "it is proper to divine providence to provide for each being in a way corresponding to his particular way of functioning"[17], to the idea that people are helped by the sacraments in a way that is appropriate to the human way of arriving at knowledge through physical things. His second, related reason holds that human beings, "if confronted with pure and unbound spiritual realities, their minds, absorbed as they are in physical things, would be incapable of accepting them."[18] Finally, he argues that the sacraments make worship easier for us since it involves the continuation of our relationship with the physical; as Davies says, "from Aquinas's point of view, the sacraments are fun."[19] Within his sacramental theology, as a whole, the dynamic between reason and faith that Aquinas established becomes manifest; accepts in faith the necessity and value of the sacraments and accepts the traditional method of administration of the sacraments; he does, however, use reason to explain the mechanism behind the sacraments and to examine the complexities of sacramental theology. It is in his treatment of the Eucharist, however, that we can most clearly see the dialectic between reason and faith. The Eucharist is, as Davies notes, "the crowning sacrament"[20] for Thomas Aquinas (hence his recommendation of communion); it is the sacrament towards which all others tend, the culmination of Christian life, the believer brought into unity with Christ, "all the benefits deriving from the Incarnation... are transferred to the Eucharist".[21] Through being recipients of the passion, the Eucharist is also a mechanism through which sins are forgiven. For these things to happen, it is necessary that Christ is truly present in the sacramental bread; Aquinas is emphatic on this point: «Christ is sacramentally contained in the Eucharist»[22], «the true body of Christ and his blood are in this sacrament»[23], «the reality of this sacrament requires that the very body of Christ Christ exists in it".[24] The presence of Christ is present in the most direct and imminent sense, hence the meaning of the Eucharist; as Walsh writes, «from the point of view of those who receive it, the Eucharist gives a bond with Christ himself, in the full reality of his being, while the other sacraments give a transitory and functional contact with Christ. The Christ received in the Eucharist is Christ in the fullness of his priesthood and in the fullness of his glory. discussion, but only through faith. As Davies notes, "faith in the literal or non-symbolic Eucharistic presence of Christ is not,for him, something based on what we might recognize as proof or demonstration. According to him, it is something that implies the Christian faith".[26] In fact, Aquinas states that "the presence of the true body and blood of Christ in this sacrament cannot be detected either by the senses or by the intellect, but by faith alone, which rests on divine authority".[27] The real presence of Christ is implied in Scripture through the correct (i.e. literal, not symbolic) interpretation of the statement "this is my body." For Aquinas, we must take these words as they are written since they are the words of Christ and must, therefore, be true. Although the presence of Christ in the bread is a belief promoted through faith, Thomas Aquinas's famous doctrine of transubstantiation represents his belief in the ability of reason to expound the principles of faith. It affirms transubstantiation as the absolute mechanism through which Christ comes to be present in the sacramental bread and wine; 'take away the transubstantiation,' Kenny writes, '...and take away the presence.'[28] Thomas Aquinas explains transubstantiation as follows: all the substance of the bread is transformed into all the substance of the body of Christ, and all the substance of the wine in all the substance of the blood of Christ. It is therefore not a formal conversion, but a substantial one; nor is it a sort of natural movement: but, with a proper name, it can be called "transubstantiation".[29] Aquinas adopts the Aristotelian language of substance and accidents to explain how the body of Christ is consumed in the Eucharist, but the taste, aroma and sensation of bread remains. Although in traditional philosophy accidents are usually spoken of in terms of a link with a subject, Thomas Aquinas maintains that accidents have a nature suited to existing in a substance'[30] but, in the Eucharist, the accidents of bread and wine are somehow kept independent of their respective substances. Cross argues that Aquinas uses two somewhat inconsistent strategies to defend this view, first arguing that separate accidents "acquire individual esse in the substance of bread and wine"[31] but when separated from this substance, they are kept by God. Kenny offers the helpful analogy of the smell of the onion lingering after the onion is gone or the imprint of a boot in the snow that remains once someone has walked. Similarly, the accidents of the bread are real and endure but, essentially, Christ is present and not the bread. The second strategy that Croce identifies is that «while the substance of the bread and wine remained, the accidents of this kind did not have essences... rather their substance had them through them... after the consecration, the accidents that they remain they have.'[32]Aquinas' doctrine of transubstantiation is argued through a series of arguments; doctrine emerges from his reasoning, from propositions he believes to be true, and he makes deductions from these truths. For example, if it is the body of Christ that is present in the Eucharist (a true affirmation of faith), then it must be true that the bread and wine were transformed into the body of Christ; something can become something else only by being created there (which Christ is not), by moving there from another place (an impossible idea, since this would involve moving Christ from his place at the right hand of God), or by being transformed into that What . He also reasons in favor of rejecting the symbolic understanding of the Eucharist by arguing that this would make Christ a liar by claiming that "this is my body". It would be impossible for Christ to be a liar. Furthermore, Aquinas notes that if the bread and wine remained throughout the sacrament, Christian believers would be guilty of idolatry in taking, 2014), 114