Dist. 10, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 10
Quaestio II. Utrum corpus Christi sit in altari secundum suam naturalem quantitatem, an sit ibi a quantitate abstractum.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum corpus Christi sit in altari secundum suam naturalem quantitatem, an sit ibi a quantitate abstractum. Et quod magis abstractum, videtur.
1. Augustinus de Consecratione, distinctione secunda1: «Corpus, in quo resurrexit, uno tantum loco esse oportet; veritas autem eius ubique diffusa est»: ergo in Sacramento est veritas, non tamen est sua corporeitas sive quantitas.
2. Item, videtur ratione: quia in hoc Sacramento solum est Christus ut cibus spiritualis; sed quantitas nihil facit ad esse cibi spiritualis: ergo etc.
3. Item, impossibile et non intelligibile est, duas dimensiones esse simul2: ergo si divina Maiestas contemperat se nostrae infirmitati in hoc Sacramento, ergo non debet facere hoc, scilicet ut corpus Christi sit cum quantitate, cum abstractio sit magis rationabilis et magis intelligibilis, et Deus faciat quod rationabilius est.
4. Item, multo congruentius est, separari substantiam ab accidente quam e converso; sed in hoc separatur accidens a substantia in speciebus3: ergo in re contenta substantia a quantitate.
Contra: 1. Augustinus de verbis Evangelii4: «Totus per partes manducatur in Sacramento, et manet integer totus in caelo»; sed totus et pars dicunt quantitatem: ergo etc.
2. Item, corpus Christi est vivens, et si vivens, organicum, et si organicum, quantum5: ergo si in altari, non abstrahitur a vita, nec a quantitate.
3. Item, corpus Christi sive Christus ibi videt et audit, quamvis non loquatur, ne deprehendatur; sed sensus exteriores praesupponunt quantitatem6: ergo est ibi secundum quantitatem.
4. Item, si non esset ibi quantitas, deponeret quantitatem; sed depositio accidentis absoluti inducit transmutationem secundum formam7: ergo corpus Christi glorificatum transmutatur.
Conclusio.
In Sacramento altaris non tantum est corporis Christi veritas, sed etiam quantitas.
Respondeo: Quidam dixerunt, quod in Sacramento altaris est Christus, non tantum ut significatus, sed etiam contentus; sed tamen non est secundum suam quantitatem nec etiam secundum alia accidentia, quia ista nihil faciunt ad finem huius Sacramenti, qui est cibare. Et rationem huius habent ex hoc, quod ibi est corpus Christi, quia transfertur aliquid in ipsum; sed illud est pure substantia, non accidens, quia alia accidentia manent: et ideo transsubstantiatur in substantiam, ita quod est abstracta ab omnibus accidentibus.
— Sed haec positio, quamvis non sit erronea, sicut praedicta, est tamen errori propinqua, ideo quia, etsi substantia corporea possit intelligi esse sine quantitate et aliis accidentibus, nunquam tamen intelligitur bene esse. Si ergo non habet, tunc male est. Et rursus, quamvis substantia possit abstrahi a quantitate, tamen quod corpus vivat et sit organicum et non sit quantum, hoc nec esse nec intelligi potest; et ideo ex hoc sequitur, corpus Christi nec bene ibi esse nec vivere; quod nefas est dicere.
Propterea dicendum, quod in altari non tantum est corporis Christi veritas, immo etiam quantitas.
Et ad intelligentiam obiectorum notandum, quod etsi in hoc Sacramento fieri debeant miracula, non tamen debent fieri, nisi quae congruant Sacramento. Sacramentum autem illud est mysterium fidei; et ideo verum et occultum. Quia verum, ideo, cum dicitur: Hoc est corpus meum, panis8 transit in corpus Christi, et hoc ubicumque dicatur. Et ex hoc oritur duplex miraculum: primum, quia panis transit in corpus Christi integrum et perfectum; et aliud, quia corpus Christi integrum est, ubicumque fit haec transsubstantiatio, ita totum et perfectum in parvo loco9, et unum in pluribus locis. — Quia vero occultum, ideo debent manere species et omnia sensibilia, ipso non apparente. Et ex hoc est duplex miraculum: unum, quia accidentia sunt sine subiecto; alterum vero, quod est ibi corpus clarissimum et est praesens et non videtur. Ex his patent obiecta.
Ad 1. et 2. Primum enim, quod dicit Augustinus, quod veritas ubique etc., non distinguit veritatem contra quantitatem, quae est de veritate corporis, sed contra apparitionem sensibilem, quia tantum in uno loco apparet. — Patet etiam sequens, quia quantitas facit ad Sacramenti veritatem et perfectionem, ut corpus contentum sit habens omnem perfectionem.
Ad 3. Ad aliud dicendum, quod Divinitas nostrae infirmitati se contemperat, salvata integritate Sacramenti. Et praeterea sic se contemperat, ut intellectum excedat, et fides locum et meritum habeat.
Ad 4. Ad ultimum dicendum, quod etsi Deus utrumque faciat10, tamen nulla esset utilitas nec quantum ad veritatem nec quantum ad celationem, si corporis Christi veritas a quantitate abstraheretur; et propterea non valet, quia non debet hic fieri, nisi quod congruit Sacramento11.
De 2. quaestione. Quoad 2. quaestionem notandum est, fide constare (cfr. Concil. Trident. loc. cit. can. 2.), sub utraque specie non tantum corpus Christi, sed totum Christum, scilicet corpus anima vivificatum et Divinitati hypostatice unitum, realiter et substantialiter in hoc ss. Sacramento contineri; item, esse «corpus quidem sub specie panis, et sanguinem sub vini specie ex vi verborum; ipsum autem corpus sub specie vini, et sanguinem sub specie panis, animamque sub utraque vi naturalis illius connexionis et concomitantiae, qua partes Christi Domini se copulantur» etc. (ibid. c. 3; cfr. Bonav., infra d. 11. p. 1. q. 4; S. Thom., S. III. q. 76. a. 1.). Hinc concludit S. Thom., quod tota quantitas dimensiva est in hoc Sacramento vere, sed non vi Sacramenti, sed vi realis concomitantiae, et «non secundum proprium modum [ut scilicet sit tota in toto, et singulae partes in singulis partibus], sed per modum substantiae, cuius natura est tota in toto et tota in qualibet parte» (ibid. a. 1.). Reprobatur autem communiter tanquam erronea opinio Durandi (hic q. 2.), qui cum prima opinione in corp. relata impugnat conclusionem, hoc falso principio innixus, quod primarius quantitatis effectus sit extensio in loco. Plures etiam Nominales, sed alio fundamento et explicatione usi, praedictae falsae opinioni favent. Praeter locos cit.: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. n. 13. seqq. — S. Thom., hic a. 2. quaestiunc. 4; S. c. Gent. IV. c. 34. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2.
---
Question II. Whether the body of Christ is on the altar according to its natural quantity, or whether it is there abstracted from quantity.
Secondly it is asked, whether the body of Christ is on the altar according to its natural quantity, or whether it is there abstracted from quantity. And that it is rather abstracted, it seems.
1. Augustine, On the Consecration, distinction two1: «The body, in which He rose, must be in one place only; but His truth is everywhere diffused»: therefore in the Sacrament there is truth, yet not His corporeity or quantity.
2. Likewise, it seems by reason: because in this Sacrament Christ is present only as spiritual food; but quantity contributes nothing to the being of spiritual food: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, it is impossible and unintelligible that two dimensions be at once2: therefore if the divine Majesty accommodates itself to our weakness in this Sacrament, then it ought not to do this, namely that the body of Christ be there with quantity, since abstraction is more rational and more intelligible, and God does what is more rational.
4. Likewise, it is much more fitting that substance be separated from accident than the reverse; but in this case accident is separated from substance in the species3: therefore in the thing contained substance is separated from quantity.
On the contrary: 1. Augustine, On the words of the Gospel4: «He is wholly eaten part by part in the Sacrament, and remains whole and entire in heaven»; but "whole" and "part" denote quantity: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, the body of Christ is living, and if living, organic, and if organic, quantitative5: therefore if it is on the altar, it is not abstracted from life, nor from quantity.
3. Likewise, the body of Christ, that is, Christ, there sees and hears, although He does not speak, lest He be detected; but the exterior senses presuppose quantity6: therefore He is there according to quantity.
4. Likewise, if quantity were not there, He would have laid quantity aside; but the laying aside of an absolute accident induces a transmutation according to form7: therefore the glorified body of Christ would be transmuted.
Conclusion.
On the altar of the Sacrament there is not only the truth of the body of Christ, but also its quantity.
I respond: Some have said that on the altar of the Sacrament Christ is present, not only as signified, but also as contained; yet that He is not present according to His quantity nor even according to the other accidents, because these contribute nothing to the end of this Sacrament, which is to feed. And they hold the reason for this from the fact that the body of Christ is there because something is transferred into it; but that is purely substance, not accident, since the other accidents remain: and therefore it is transubstantiated into substance, in such wise that it is abstracted from all accidents.
— But this position, although it is not erroneous, like the aforesaid one, is nonetheless close to error, for this reason: that although corporeal substance can be understood to be without quantity and the other accidents, yet it is never understood to be well. If therefore it does not have them, then it is in a bad state. And again, although substance can be abstracted from quantity, nevertheless that a body should live and be organic and not be quantitative — this can neither be nor be understood; and therefore from this it follows that the body of Christ would neither be well there nor live; which it is impious to say.
Therefore it must be said that on the altar there is not only the truth of the body of Christ, but even its quantity.
And for the understanding of the objections it must be noted that, although miracles ought to be wrought in this Sacrament, nevertheless they ought not to be wrought except such as are fitting to the Sacrament. Now that Sacrament is the mystery of faith; and therefore it is true and hidden. Because it is true, therefore, when it is said: This is my body, the bread8 passes into the body of Christ, and this wherever it is said. And from this a twofold miracle arises: first, that the bread passes into the body of Christ whole and perfect; and another, that the body of Christ is whole, wherever this transubstantiation takes place, so that it is whole and perfect in a small place9, and one in many places. — But because it is hidden, therefore the species and all sensible things ought to remain, while He Himself does not appear. And from this there is a twofold miracle: one, that the accidents are without a subject; the other, that there is present there a most resplendent body, and it is present and is not seen. From these things the objections are made plain.
To 1 and 2. For the first, which Augustine says, that the truth is everywhere etc., does not distinguish truth against quantity, which belongs to the truth of the body, but against sensible appearance, because it appears only in one place. — The following too is plain, because quantity contributes to the truth and perfection of the Sacrament, so that the contained body should be one having every perfection.
To 3. To the other it must be said that the Divinity accommodates itself to our weakness, the integrity of the Sacrament being preserved. And furthermore it so accommodates itself that it surpasses the intellect, and faith has place and merit.
To 4. To the last it must be said that, although God could do both10, yet there would be no usefulness either as to the truth or as to the concealment, if the truth of the body of Christ were abstracted from quantity; and therefore it is of no avail, because it ought not to be done here except what is fitting to the Sacrament11.
On the 2nd question. As to the 2nd question it must be noted that it is established by faith (cf. Council of Trent, loc. cit. can. 2) that under each species there is contained, really and substantially in this holy Sacrament, not only the body of Christ, but the whole Christ, namely the body vivified by the soul and hypostatically united to the Divinity; likewise, that there is «the body indeed under the species of bread, and the blood under the species of wine by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under each, by the force of that natural connection and concomitance whereby the parts of Christ the Lord are joined together» etc. (ibid. c. 3; cf. Bonaventure, below d. 11, p. 1, q. 4; St. Thomas, Summa III, q. 76, a. 1). Hence St. Thomas concludes that the whole dimensive quantity is in this Sacrament truly, yet not by force of the Sacrament, but by force of real concomitance, and «not according to its proper mode [namely that it should be whole in the whole, and the single parts in the single parts], but after the manner of substance, whose nature is to be whole in the whole and whole in each part» (ibid. a. 1). But the opinion of Durandus (here q. 2) is commonly rejected as erroneous, who together with the first opinion reported in the body attacks the conclusion, relying on this false principle, that the primary effect of quantity is extension in place. Many Nominalists too, but using another foundation and explanation, favor the aforesaid false opinion. Besides the places cited: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. n. 13 seqq. — St. Thomas, here a. 2, quaestiuncula 4; Summa contra Gentiles IV, c. 34. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. quaestiuncula 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 2.
---
- 1Can. Prima quidem (44.). § 1. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Non pauci codd. omittunt eius.Canon Prima quidem (44.), § 1. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1. — Not a few codices omit eius ("its").
- 2Secundum Aristot., III. Metaph. text. 9. (II. c. 2.). Cfr. tom. II. pag. 324, nota 9, ubi allegavimus locos, in quibus Aristot. docet, quod impossibile sit, duo corpora esse simul in eodem loco. — Inferius pro cum quantitate cod. O in quantitate ibi, immo cum abstractione, cod. H cum quantitate in Sacramento. Subinde pro et Deus faciat cod. A et ideo videtur, quod facit Deus.According to Aristotle, Metaphysics III, text 9 (bk. II, c. 2). Cf. tome II, p. 324, note 9, where we cited the passages in which Aristotle teaches that it is impossible for two bodies to be at once in the same place. — Below, for cum quantitate ("with quantity") codex O reads in quantitate ibi, immo cum abstractione, codex H cum quantitate in Sacramento. Then for et Deus faciat ("and God does") codex A reads et ideo videtur, quod facit Deus ("and therefore it seems that God does").
- 3De quo cfr. infra d. 12. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2. seq. — De maiori vide Aristot., I. Phys. text. 39. (c. 4.), et VII. Metaph. text. 3. (VI. c. 1.). — Post in hoc Vat. supplet Sacramento.On which cf. below d. 12, p. 1, a. 1, q. 2 and following. — On the major premise see Aristotle, Physics I, text 39 (c. 4), and Metaphysics VII, text 3 (bk. VI, c. 1). — After in hoc ("in this") the Vatican edition supplies Sacramento ("Sacrament").
- 4Ita allegatur in C. Invitat Dominus (70.), de Consecrat. d. 2; et secundum Ivon. Carnot. incipit: Veritas, quae est Christus, dum in C. Qui manducant (38.) citatur sermo 2. de Verbis Apostoli [in ed. Maur. serm. 131. de verbis Evang. Ioan. 6. n. 1.], et in C. Qui manducat (75.) dicitur: «Augustinus ex sermone de Verbis Domini». Habetur etiam in Glossa ordinaria super I. Cor. 10, 16, sumta ex Beda in hunc loc. [ed. Migne hunc Comment. attribuit Floro Diacono, et citatur Sermo de pers. Evang.]. Cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. XII. c. 3.It is thus cited in the canon Invitat Dominus (70.), On the Consecration d. 2; and according to Ivo of Chartres it begins: Veritas, quae est Christus ("The truth, which is Christ"), while in the canon Qui manducant (38.) sermon 2 On the Words of the Apostle is cited [in the Maurist edition serm. 131 on the words of the Gospel of John 6, n. 1], and in the canon Qui manducat (75.) it is said: «Augustine from the sermon on the Words of the Lord». It is found also in the Ordinary Gloss on 1 Cor. 10:16, taken from Bede on this passage [the Migne edition attributes this Commentary to Florus the Deacon, and the Sermo de personis Evangelii is cited]. Cf. below the text of the Master, d. XII, c. 3.
- 5Vide Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 3. seqq. (c. 1.).See Aristotle, On the Soul II, text 3 and following (c. 1).
- 6Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 7. (c. 1.): Sensitivum enim non sine corpore est.Aristotle, On the Soul III, text 7 (c. 1): «For the sensitive [power] is not without a body».
- 7Cfr. Aristot., V. Phys. text. 18. seq. (c. 2.), et I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 23. seqq. (c. 4.), ubi agit de mutatione secundum quantitatem et qualitatem (accidentium absolutorum).Cf. Aristotle, Physics V, text 18 and following (c. 2), and On Generation and Corruption I, text 23 and following (c. 4), where he treats of change according to quantity and quality (of absolute accidents).
- 8Edd. cum aliquot codd. corpus panis. Mox post Christi cod. O prosequitur integram et perfectum, et hoc ubicumque etc.; pro et hoc Vat. et hic.The editions, with some codices, read corpus panis. Soon after Christi codex O continues integrum et perfectum, et hoc ubicumque etc.; for et hoc the Vatican edition has et hic.
- 9In codd. IX secunda manus addidit sicut in magno.In nine codices a second hand has added sicut in magno ("as in a great [place]").
- 10Sola Vat. faceret.The Vatican edition alone reads faceret ("would do").
- 11Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion on the preceding question.