Dist. 9, Dubia
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 9
## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.
Dub. I.
In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod cultus divinitatis consistit in dilectione et sacrificii exhibitione et reverentia. Quaeritur, qualiter distinguuntur ista tria. Et videtur, quod insufficienter dicat, quia magis videtur consistere in adoratione. Ait enim Rabanus sic: «Caro Christi adoranda est latria, sicut Verbum, sed non omni specie latriae; quoniam non adoramus eam prostrati in terra sic, ut credamus, quod nos creavit ex nihilo»p221-3: ergo videtur, quod potius prostratio in terra pertineat ad cultum Dei quam praedicta. — Item, videtur diminutio, quia non tantum colitur Deus dilectione, sed etiam fide.
(Quaestio.) Quaeritur igitur, qualiter distinguuntur ista tria praedicta?
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut praehabitum est suprap221-4, Deus colitur cultu interiori et exteriori; ut autem Magister exprimeret utrumque cultum, dicit, quod consistit in dilectione, quantum scilicet ad cultum interiorem, ita quod in dilectione intelligimus tres theologicas virtutes, scilicet caritatem et alias duas praeambulas. Ergop221-5 quantum ad cultum exteriorem dicit, quod colitur sacrificio, ita quod sub sacrificio comprehendat omnem reverentiam, quae exterius exhibetur soli Deo. — (Ad quaestionem.) Per hoc autem, quod subdit reverentiam, comprehendit utrumque; et sic patet differentia horum trium, quia dilectio refertur ad cultum interiorem, sacrificium ad exteriorem, reverentia ad utrumque. — (Aliter.) Vel aliter: dilectio refertur ad principium motivum, sacrificium refertur ad actum, reverentia ad formam et modum.
Ad illud quod obiicitur de adoratione et prostratione, dicendum, quod illa potest comprehendi nomine sacrificii; potest etiam dici, quod illam non nominat, quia non est cultus soli Deo debitus. Non tantum enim prosternimur coram Deo, sed etiam coram homine. Unde non est intelligendum, quod Rabanus velit dicere, quod non debemus nos coram humanitate prosternere, sed quod prosternendo nos coram humanitatep221-6, non debemus profiteri, nos esse creatos ratione humanitatis, sed divinitatis. — (Aliter.) Dici etiam posset, quod adoratio comprehenditur sub
hoc quod dicitur reverentia, sicut et fides intelligitur per dilectionem. Et sic patet responsio ad sequensp222-1.
Dub. II.
Item quaeritur de illo verbo Damasceni: Christum adoramus cum Patre et Spiritu sancto una adoratione. Sed contra: Pater et Spiritus sanctus sunt personae distinctae; et cuilibet earum debetur una adoratio per se: ergo si ad multiplicationem obiecti sequitur multiplicatio actusp222-2, videtur, quod illae personae sunt multiplici, non unica adoratione adorandae. — Item, adoratio subsequitur directionem fidei; sed fides distinguit inter personas: ergo et adorans, secundum quod huiusmodi, distinguit inter personas; et si hoc, redit idem quod prius.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod tres personae unica et simplici adoratione sunt adorandae. — (Ratio.) Et ratio huius est, quia illud, secundum quod competit adorari, videlicet summa maiestas, est unicum, nullo modo multiplicatum; et ita, sicut unica dilectione diliguntur, quia in eis est una summa bonitas, sic unica adoratione adorantur.
Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod illae personae distinguuntur; dicendum, quod sip222-3 distinguuntur ratione emanationis et originis, non tamen ratione adorationis; ideo non sequitur, quod respectu harum habeant diversas adorationes, sed quod habeant diversas relationes; et hoc quidem dictat fides sana, quam consequitur adoratio. — Et per hoc patet sequens obiectio. Adoratiop222-4 sequitur fidem, non in quantum distinguit tres personas per relationum pluralitatem, sed in quantum unit per maiestatis unitatem.
Dub. III.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Ego dominicam carnem in Christo ideo adoro, quod a divinitate suscepta est. Si enim in Christo adoratur divinitas et humanitas, et in aliis personis divinitas; videtur, quod magis sit adorandus Christus quam aliae personae. — Item, plus tenemur gratias Christo agere post incarnationem quam ante: ergo magis debemus ipsump222-5 adorare et venerari: ergo si hoc, magis tenemur adorare Filium incarnatum quam non incarnatum; et si hoc, magis Filium quam Patrem vel Spiritum sanctum. Si tu dicas, quod magis debemus adorare Verbum non intensive, sed extensive; contra: «plura bona paucioribus bonis magis sunt appetendap222-6»: ergo plura honorabilia magis sunt veneranda et honoranda.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod non magis adorandusp222-7 est Christus quam Pater vel Spiritus sanctus; nec Verbum incarnatum plus debet adorari post incarnationem quam ante. — (Ratio.) Et huius ratio est, quia adoratio respicit maiestatem et dignitatem; et quoniam Verbo nulla crevitp222-8 dignitas ex humanae naturae assumtione, ideo non debet adorari maiori adoratione. — Nec valet quod obiicit, quod plura bona paucioribus sunt praeeligenda; hoc autem habet multiplicem instantiam. (Instantia 1.) Una est, «quando unum propter alterum, ibi tantum unump222-9». Unde sicut tenere equum et frenum non est plus tenere quam equum; sic adorare Deum et carnem non est plus quam adorare Deum. — (Instantia 2.) Alia instantia est, quando unum illorum bonorum est improportionabile ad aliud; tunc enim non addit, ut faciat ipsum maius, sicut nec punctus addit ad lineam, ut faciat eam maioremp222-10; et hoc modo creatura habet se ad Creatorem.
Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tenemur ad maiorem gratiarum actionem; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia gratiarum actio non tantum respicit excellentiam dantis, sed etiam excellentiam muneris; non sic autem est de adorationep222-11.
Dub. IV.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Nemo carnem eius manducat, nisi prius adoret. Sed contra: Ioannis sextop222-12: Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro non prodest quidquam: ergo si non prodest, non est manducanda nec adoranda. — Item, caro Christi vere est sub Sacramento, ergo vere manducatur, cum sub Sacramento suscipitur; sed absque adoratione praeambula potest esse Sacramenti susceptio: ergo et vera manducatio.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod verbum illud intelligitur de manducatione spirituali, quae dicitur manducatio vera, quia veram habet efficaciam. Unde manducare veraciter, hoc est manducare efficaciter; et hoc modo nemo bene manducat, nisi qui adorat, quia non manducat efficaciter, nisi manducet reverenter. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad ultimum: obiicit enim de manducatione sacramentali, et illud intelligitur de manducatione spirituali.
(Notandum.) Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod caro non prodest quidquam; dicendum, quod caro dicitur carnalis intelligentia, sicut dicit Augustinusp223-1: «Caro non prodest quidquam per se, si a spiritu separetur; sed prodest, in quantum est unita Verbo et deificata». Et hoc modo est adoranda adoratione latriae, non duliae. De hoc autem plenius habetur in quarto librop223-2.
---
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.
Doubt I.
In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first it is asked about this which he says, that the worship of the divinity consists in love and in the offering of sacrifice and in reverence. It is asked how these three are distinguished. And it seems that he speaks insufficiently, because it seems rather to consist in adoration. For Rabanus says thus: «The flesh of Christ is to be adored with latria, as the Word is, yet not with every species of latria; since we do not adore it prostrate on the ground in such a way that we believe that it created us from nothing»p221-3: therefore it seems that prostration on the ground pertains to the worship of God rather than the aforesaid things. — Likewise, it seems a diminution, because God is worshiped not only by love, but also by faith.
(Question.) It is asked, then, how these three aforesaid things are distinguished?
I respond: It must be said that, as was treated abovep221-4, God is worshiped with an interior and an exterior worship; but that the Master might express both kinds of worship, he says that it consists in love, namely as regards the interior worship, in such a way that under love we understand the three theological virtues, namely charity and the other two that are preliminary to it. Thereforep221-5 as regards the exterior worship he says that he is worshiped by sacrifice, so that under sacrifice he may comprehend all the reverence which is shown outwardly to God alone. — (To the question.) But by the fact that he adds reverence, he comprehends both; and thus the difference of these three is clear, because love refers to the interior worship, sacrifice to the exterior, reverence to both. — (Otherwise.) Or otherwise: love refers to the motive principle, sacrifice refers to the act, reverence to the form and the manner.
To that which is objected concerning adoration and prostration, it must be said that this can be comprehended under the name of sacrifice; it can also be said that he does not name it, because it is not a worship owed to God alone. For we are prostrated not only before God, but also before man. Hence it is not to be understood that Rabanus means to say that we ought not prostrate ourselves before the humanity, but that, in prostrating ourselves before the humanityp221-6, we ought not profess that we were created by reason of the humanity, but of the divinity. — (Otherwise.) It could also be said that adoration is comprehended under
this which is called reverence, just as faith too is understood through love. And thus the response to what follows is clearp222-1.
Doubt II.
Likewise it is asked concerning that saying of the Damascene: We adore Christ with the Father and the Holy Spirit by one adoration. But on the contrary: the Father and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons; and to each of them one adoration is owed of itself: therefore if to the multiplication of the object there follows a multiplication of the actp222-2, it seems that those persons are to be adored by a multiple, not by a single adoration. — Likewise, adoration follows upon the directing of faith; but faith distinguishes between the persons: therefore the one adoring also, as such, distinguishes between the persons; and if this is so, the same thing returns as before.
I respond: It must be said that the three persons are to be adored by one and simple adoration. — (The ground.) And the ground of this is that that according to which it belongs to be adored, namely the supreme majesty, is one, in no way multiplied; and so, just as they are loved by one love, because in them there is one supreme goodness, so they are adored by one adoration.
To that which is objected, that those persons are distinguished; it must be said that ifp222-3 they are distinguished by reason of emanation and origin, yet they are not distinguished by reason of adoration; therefore it does not follow that with respect to these they have diverse adorations, but that they have diverse relations; and this indeed sound faith dictates, upon which adoration follows. — And by this the following objection is clear. Adorationp222-4 follows upon faith, not insofar as it distinguishes the three persons by the plurality of the relations, but insofar as it unites them by the unity of the majesty.
Doubt III.
Likewise it is asked concerning this which he says: I adore the Lord's flesh in Christ for this reason, that it was assumed by the divinity. For if in Christ both the divinity and the humanity are adored, and in the other persons the divinity, it seems that Christ is to be adored more than the other persons. — Likewise, we are bound to give thanks to Christ more after the incarnation than before: therefore we ought to adore and venerate himp222-5 more: therefore if this is so, we are bound to adore the incarnate Son more than the non-incarnate; and if this is so, the Son more than the Father or the Holy Spirit. If you say that we ought to adore the Word more not intensively, but extensively; on the contrary: «more goods are more to be sought than fewer goodsp222-6»: therefore more honorable things are more to be venerated and honored.
I respond: It must be said that Christ is not to be adoredp222-7 more than the Father or the Holy Spirit; nor ought the incarnate Word to be adored more after the incarnation than before. — (The ground.) And the ground of this is that adoration regards majesty and dignity; and since no dignity accruedp222-8 to the Word from the assumption of the human nature, therefore he ought not be adored by a greater adoration. — Nor does it avail what he objects, that more goods are to be preferred to fewer; this, however, admits of many counter-instances. (Counter-instance 1.) One is, «when one thing is for the sake of another, there is only one thing therep222-9». Hence just as to hold a horse and the bridle is not to hold more than the horse; so to adore God and the flesh is not more than to adore God. — (Counter-instance 2.) Another counter-instance is, when one of those goods is incommensurable with the other; for then it does not add anything so as to make it greater, just as a point does not add to a line so as to make it greaterp222-10; and in this way the creature stands toward the Creator.
To that which is objected, that we are bound to a greater giving of thanks; it must be said that it is not similar, because the giving of thanks regards not only the excellence of the giver, but also the excellence of the gift; but it is not so concerning adorationp222-11.
Doubt IV.
Likewise it is asked concerning this which he says: No one eats his flesh unless he first adore. But on the contrary: in the sixth chapter of Johnp222-12: It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing: therefore if it profits nothing, it is not to be eaten nor adored. — Likewise, the flesh of Christ is truly under the Sacrament, therefore it is truly eaten, since it is received under the Sacrament; but the reception of the Sacrament can occur without a preceding adoration: therefore so too can true eating.
I respond: It must be said that that word is understood of spiritual eating, which is called true eating, because it has a true efficacy. Hence to eat truly is to eat efficaciously; and in this way no one eats well unless he adores, because he does not eat efficaciously unless he eats reverently. — And by this the response to the last [objection] is clear: for he objects concerning sacramental eating, and that is understood of spiritual eating.
(To be noted.) To that which is objected, that the flesh profits nothing; it must be said that flesh means a carnal understanding, as Augustine saysp223-1: «The flesh profits nothing of itself, if it be separated from the spirit; but it profits insofar as it is united to the Word and deified». And in this way it is to be adored with the adoration of latria, not of dulia. But concerning this more fully is treated in the fourth bookp223-2.
---
- Hoc testimonium, quod etiam ab aliis Scholasticis Rabano adscribitur, sententialiter habetur in eius V. Enarrat. in Epist. ad Rom. 9, 5, ubi sic legitur: Sed quid mirum, si in hoc loco Christum Deum super omnia aperta voce loqueretur, de quo alia in Epistola hunc sensum tali sermone firmavit dicens: Ut in nomine Iesu omne genu flectatur caelestium, terrestrium et infernorum (Phil. 2, 10.). Haec sunt omnia, super quae Deus Christus est. Neque enim, exceptis his, sunt aliqua, ut non super omnia Deus Christus sit, nec potest genu flecti omni creaturae [in Comment. in Epist. ad Rom. olim Ambrosio tributo, ex quo Rabanus hunc loc. delibavit, legitur: nec potest genu flectere omnis creatura] nisi Deo etc. — Paulo inferius pro prostratio in terra edd. cum pluribus codd. prostratio in terram.This testimony, which is also ascribed to Rabanus by other Scholastics, is found in substance in his V. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 9, 5, where it is read thus: But what wonder, if in this place he were to speak with open voice of Christ as God over all things, concerning whom in another Epistle he confirmed this sense with such a saying, saying: That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth (Phil. 2, 10.). These are all things over which Christ is God. For, these excepted, there are none such that Christ as God is not over all things, nor can a knee be bent to any creature [in the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans formerly attributed to Ambrose, from which Rabanus drew this passage, it reads: nor can every creature bend the knee] except to God, etc. — A little below, for prostratio in terra the editions, with several codices, read prostratio in terram.
- Hic a. 2. q. 3.Here, article 2, question 3.
- Codd. A G bb omittunt Ergo. Paulo superius pro intelligimus codd. U bb intelligamus; paulo inferius pro comprehendat codd. A G N T X Z comprehendit.Codices A, G, bb omit Ergo. A little above, for intelligimus codices U, bb read intelligamus; a little below, for comprehendat codices A, G, N, T, X, Z read comprehendit.
- Cod. G subdit Christi.Codex G adds Christi.
- Cfr. de hoc dub. S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.; Ægid. R., hic dub. lit. 1.Cf. on this doubt S. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here concerning the text; Giles of Rome, here, doubt on the text 1.
- Pro sequitur multiplicatio actus codd. G N multiplicatur actus. Pro obiecti codd. I L aa subiecti.For sequitur multiplicatio actus codices G, N read multiplicatur actus. For obiecti codices I, L, aa read subiecti.
- Edd. etsi.The editions read etsi.
- Cod. K hic annectit enim. In cod. bb voci adoratio praemittitur quia, in edd. quod scilicet. — De hoc dubio tractant Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 30. m. 1. a. 3. § 1; B. Albert., hic a. 13; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.; Ægid. R., hic q. 3. a. 2. et dub. lit. 2.Codex K here annexes enim. In codex bb the word adoratio is preceded by quia, in the editions by quod scilicet. — This doubt is treated by Alexander of Hales, Summa p. III. q. 30. m. 1. a. 3. § 1; B. Albert, here a. 13; S. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 3. little-question 2; Peter of Tarentaise, here concerning the text; Giles of Rome, here q. 3. a. 2. and doubt on the text 2.
- Edd. hic inserunt honorare.The editions here insert honorare.
- Aristot., III. Topic. c. 2.Aristotle, Topics III. c. 2.
- Codd. G K honorandus.Codices G, K read honorandus.
- Edd. accrevit.The editions read accrevit.
- Aristot., III. Topic. c. 2. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 639, nota 2. — Pro ibi cod. G utrobique. Post ibi Vat. addit enim est. Paulo superius pro praeeligenda multi codd. eligenda, codd. F U magis eligenda. Paulo inferius post et carnem non est plus cod. K repetit adorare.Aristotle, Topics III. c. 2. Cf. tom. II. p. 639, note 2. — For ibi codex G reads utrobique. After ibi the Vatican edition adds enim est. A little above, for praeeligenda many codices read eligenda, codices F, U magis eligenda. A little below, after et carnem non est plus codex K repeats adorare.
- Haec instantia etiam loc. cit. ab Aristot. insinuari videtur docente, aliquando etiam non-bona pluribus bonis eligibiliora esse, pro quo in exemplum adducit felicitatem, quam, etiamsi nondum habeatur, eligibiliorem significat quam iustitiam et fortitudinem. Et merito; nam, ut B. Albert. in III. Topic. tr. 1. c. 4. exponit, «beatitudo praeponderat bonis illorum, et non-bonum beatitudini adiunctum non diminuit bonum ipsius».This counter-instance too seems to be intimated by Aristotle in the cited place, teaching that sometimes even non-goods are more choiceworthy than several goods, for which he adduces as an example happiness, which, even if it be not yet possessed, he signifies to be more choiceworthy than justice and fortitude. And rightly; for, as B. Albert explains in Topics III. tract 1. c. 4., «beatitude outweighs their goods, and a non-good joined to beatitude does not diminish the good of it».
- Vide de hoc dub. Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 30. m. 2. in fine; B. Albert., hic a. 12; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.See on this doubt Alexander of Hales, Summa p. III. q. 30. m. 2. at the end; B. Albert, here a. 12; S. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here concerning the text.
- Vers. 64.Verse 64.
- Tract. 27. in Ioan. Evang. (6, 64.) n. 5: Caro non prodest quidquam, sed sola caro; accedit spiritus ad carnem, quomodo accedit caritas ad scientiam, et prodest plurimum. Nam si caro nihil prodesset, Verbum caro non fieret, ut inhabitaret in nobis. Si per carnem nobis multum profuit Christus, quomodo caro nihil prodest? Cfr. Enarrat. in Ps. 98. n. 9. et supra a. 1. q. 1.Tractate 27 on the Gospel of John (6, 64.) n. 5: The flesh profits nothing, but the flesh alone; the spirit accedes to the flesh, as charity accedes to knowledge, and profits very much. For if the flesh profited nothing, the Word would not have become flesh, that it might dwell in us. If through the flesh Christ profited us much, how does the flesh profit nothing? Cf. Commentary on Psalm 98. n. 9, and above, a. 1. q. 1.
- Dist. 9. a. I. q. I. seqq., ubi de modis manducandi agitur. Edd. allegant dist. 10. — Hoc dubium solvunt etiam S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Ægid. R., hic dub. lit. 3.Distinction 9, article 1, question 1 and following, where the modes of eating are treated. The editions cite dist. 10. — This doubt is also resolved by S. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here concerning the text; Giles of Rome, here doubt on the text 3. ---