Dist. 10, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 3
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 10
Quaestio III. Utrum corpus Christi sit sub speciebus definitive.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum corpus Christi sit sub speciebus definitive. Et quod non, videtur:
1. Quia illud loco definitur, quod est in uno loco; sed corpus Christi sub Sacramento est in pluribus locis: ergo etc. Probatio minoris: omne quod est, ubicumque consecratur, si in pluribus locis consecratur1, in pluribus locis est; sed corpus Christi est tale: ergo etc.
2. Item, omne illud, in quod possibile est plura in pluribus locis converti, possibile est in pluribus locis esse; sed corpus Christi est huiusmodi: ergo etc. Sed nullum tale habet esse definitum2: ergo etc.
3. Item, ubicumque se extendit virtus verbi et elementum, se extendit etiam Sacramentum; sed virtus verbi non est determinata ad locum, sicut patet; similiter nec elementum, quod est panis: ergo nec hoc Sacramentum, ergo nec corpus Christi interius contentum.
4. Item, quod est in uno loco et potest sine sui mutatione esse in alio non est ibi definitive; sed corpus Christi est huiusmodi, quia est in caelo et potest sine mutatione sua esse in loco alio, ut in altari: ergo etc.
Ad oppositum:
Contra: 1. Omne individuum est hic et nunc3; sed corpus Christi est individuum: ergo est hic et nunc. Sed quod est hic et nunc est in loco definitive: ergo etc. Si dicas, quod corpus Christi, quamvis sit individuum, tamen est unitum substan-
tiae immensae et ratione illius unionis habet, quod sit in pluribus locis; si ista est sufficiens ratio: ergo ab instanti conceptionis fuit in pluribus locis; quod stultum est dicere. Praeterea, illa unio non aufert ei, quin sit individuum: ergo non aufert esse hic et nunc nec esse definitum4.
2. Item, si Christus in Sacramento potest esse in pluribus locis, esto quod tantum tria loca sint, in illis possibile est esse corpus Christi: ergo possibile est illis esse ubique; sed hoc, cum sit solius Dei, impossibile est alteri convenire5: ergo etc.
3. Item, quod est in aliquo, ita quod movetur ad motum illius, est in illo definitive; sed Christus movetur ad motum totalis speciei: ergo etc. Probatio minoris: cum transfertur species, vere dicitur transferri corpus Christi verum: ergo etc.
Conclusio.
Corpus Christi est sub speciebus sacramentaliter, non proprie definitive.
Respondeo: Sicut dicit Innocentius6, « quemadmodum Dei Filius secundum Divinitatem habet triplicem modum essendi: in omnibus per essentiam, in iustis per gratiam, in Christo per unionem; sic corpus Christi localiter est in caelo, personaliter in Verbo, sacramentaliter in altari ». Hoc tertio modo dicit « ipsum reperiri in pluribus locis », quia plures sunt species continentes. Unde per se loquendo, est in uno loco tantum, in quo definitur, sicut individuum; quia vero multa in ipsum convertuntur, quae sunt in diversis locis; et ipsum per consequens est in diversis locis secundum illum modum, secundum quem multa in ipsum convertuntur, et hoc sub Sacramento.
Unde notandum ad intelligentiam obiectorum, quod corpus Christi est individuum, et individuum, in quod plura convertuntur secundum se. Quia individuum, est in caelo tantum in proprio et definito loco. Quia vero in ipsum plura convertuntur, non habet terminum substantiae limitatum ad unum locum, sed extendit se ad locum conversionis7. Et quia loca conversionis non possunt esse omnia nec unum solum, immo plura; quantum ad hoc nec quod immense est, sicut Deus, nec omnino definitive, sicut aliquod individuum, sed medio modo, sicut Deus secundum modum essendi per gratiam non est in omnibus, sed in pluribus.
Si ergo quaeratur ratio, quare corpus Christi est in pluribus locis; credo, quod haec sit ratio, quia plura convertuntur in ipsum totum et in pluribus locis. — Si quaeratur, quare plura; dicendum, quod Dominus instituit. Et si quaeratur ratio institutionis; dicendum, quod quia cibus spiritualis est et communis, ideo natum est cibare plures, et ideo plura convertuntur in ipsum; aptitudinem autem cibandi spiritualiter habet ex unione cum Divinitate, actum vero ex existentia sub Sacramento: et ideo institutum est, ut plura in illud corpus convertantur, et hoc sub Sacramento8.
1. Quod obiicitur primo de individuo, patet: quia ultra rationem individui habet, quod plura in ipsum convertantur in diversis locis. Unde sicut individuum, in quod alia possunt converti secundum partem, potest esse in maiori loco; sic illud, in quod alia convertuntur totaliter in diversis locis, potest esse in pluribus locis.
2. Ad aliud patet responsio, quia non in omnibus potest esse conversio, quia sacerdos non haberet locum, ad cuius ministerium fit. Posito autem per impossibile, quod tantum essent tria loca; tunc dicendum, quod esset ubique, sed non sicut Deus, quia Deus est ubique propter sui immensitatem, unde nulli potest abesse; sed corpus Christi esset ubique propter locorum paucitatem.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de motu translationis, dicendum, quod corpus Christi medium tenet inter esse immensum et esse definitum; et ideo quodam modo est immotum, et quodam modo mobile: mobile quidem in uno loco et immotum in alio; et in eadem hostia non movetur ad motum partium, nec per se nec per accidens, nisi transferatur tota hostia. Si ergo simpliciter mutaretur et omnino, bene argueret; sed hoc non habet veritatem.
De hac 3. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 7. a. 3. § 5. — Scot., hic q. 1. n. 13. — S. Thom., hic a. 3. quaestiunc. 3; S. III. q. 76. a. 3. — B. Albert., loc. cit. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 6. q. 1. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.
---
Question III. Whether the body of Christ is under the species definitively.
Thirdly it is asked, whether the body of Christ is under the species definitively. And that it is not, it seems:
1. Because that is defined to a place which is in one place; but the body of Christ under the Sacrament is in many places: therefore etc. Proof of the minor: everything that is, wherever it is consecrated, if it is consecrated in many places1, is in many places; but the body of Christ is such: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, everything into which it is possible for many things to be converted in many places, is able to be in many places; but the body of Christ is of this kind: therefore etc. But no such thing has definite being2: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, wherever the power of the word and the element extend themselves, there the Sacrament also extends itself; but the power of the word is not determined to a place, as is evident; likewise neither is the element, which is bread: therefore neither is this Sacrament, therefore neither is the body of Christ contained within.
4. Likewise, that which is in one place and can without change of itself be in another is not there definitively; but the body of Christ is of this kind, because it is in heaven and can without change of itself be in another place, as on the altar: therefore etc.
To the contrary:
On the contrary: 1. Every individual is here and now3; but the body of Christ is an individual: therefore it is here and now. But what is here and now is in a place definitively: therefore etc. If you say that the body of Christ, although it is an individual, is nevertheless united to an
immense substance, and by reason of that union has it that it is in many places; if this is a sufficient reason: therefore from the instant of its conception it was in many places; which is foolish to say. Furthermore, that union does not take from it that it is an individual: therefore it does not take away its being here and now nor its being definite4.
2. Likewise, if Christ in the Sacrament can be in many places, suppose there be only three places, in them it is possible for the body of Christ to be: therefore it is possible for it to be everywhere in them; but this, since it belongs to God alone, is impossible to befit another5: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, what is in something, so that it is moved at the motion of that thing, is in it definitively; but Christ is moved at the motion of the whole species: therefore etc. Proof of the minor: when the species is transferred, the true body of Christ is truly said to be transferred: therefore etc.
Conclusion.
The body of Christ is under the species sacramentally, not properly definitively.
I respond: As Innocent says6, « just as the Son of God according to his Divinity has a threefold mode of being: in all things by essence, in the just by grace, in Christ by union; so the body of Christ is locally in heaven, personally in the Word, sacramentally on the altar ». In this third mode he says that « it is found in many places », because there are many species containing it. Hence, properly speaking, it is in one place only, in which it is defined, like an individual; but because many things are converted into it, which are in diverse places, and it consequently is in diverse places according to that mode by which many things are converted into it, and this under the Sacrament.
Hence it must be noted, for the understanding of the objections, that the body of Christ is an individual, and an individual into which many things are converted in their own right. For as an individual, it is in heaven only in its proper and definite place. But because many things are converted into it, it does not have the term of its substance limited to one place, but extends itself to the place of conversion7. And because the places of conversion cannot be all places nor one place only, but rather many; with regard to this it is neither immensely, like God, nor altogether definitively, like some individual, but in a middle way, just as God according to the mode of being by grace is not in all things, but in many.
If therefore the reason be asked, why the body of Christ is in many places; I believe that this is the reason, namely that many things are converted into it whole and in many places. — If it be asked why many; it must be said that the Lord instituted it. And if the reason of the institution be asked; it must be said that, because it is a spiritual and common food, it is therefore fitted to feed many, and therefore many things are converted into it; and it has the aptitude for feeding spiritually from its union with the Divinity, but the act from its existence under the Sacrament: and so it was instituted that many things should be converted into that body, and this under the Sacrament8.
1. To what is objected first about the individual, the answer is evident: because beyond the account of an individual it has this, that many things are converted into it in diverse places. Hence just as an individual into which other things can be converted in part can be in a greater place; so that into which other things are converted totally in diverse places can be in many places.
2. To the other the response is evident, because conversion cannot take place in all places, because the priest would not have a place, for whose ministry it comes about. But supposing per impossibile that there were only three places; then it must be said that it would be everywhere, but not as God, because God is everywhere on account of his immensity, whence he can be absent from none; but the body of Christ would be everywhere on account of the fewness of the places.
3. To what is objected about the motion of translation, it must be said that the body of Christ holds the mean between immense being and definite being; and therefore in a certain way it is immobile, and in a certain way mobile: mobile indeed in one place and immobile in another; and in the same host it is not moved at the motion of the parts, neither in itself nor by accident, unless the whole host is transferred. If therefore it were simply changed and altogether, the argument would hold; but this has no truth.
On this third question: Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV, q. 10, m. 7, a. 3, § 5. — Scotus, here, q. 1, n. 13. — St. Thomas, here, a. 3, sub-question 3; Summa III, q. 76, a. 3. — Bl. Albert, in the place cited. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 2, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here, a. 6, q. 1, 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 3.
---
- 1Ex codd. W Y supplevimus si in pluribus locis consecratur.From codices W Y we have supplied if it is consecrated in many places.
- 2Codd. E T U definitivum.Codices E T U read definitivum.
- 3Secundum Aristot., 1. Poster. c. 24. (c. 31.), ubi etiam docet, universale esse quod semper et ubique est.According to Aristotle, Posterior Analytics I, c. 24 (c. 31), where he also teaches that the universal is that which is always and everywhere.
- 4Plures codd. et Vat. definitivum.Several codices and the Vatican edition read definitivum.
- 5Cfr. I. Sent. d. 37. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. — Cod. F communicari.Cf. I Sentences, d. 37, p. I, a. 2, q. 1. — Codex F reads communicari.
- 6Libr. IV. de Sacro altaris Mysterio, c. 44. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 451, nota 10, ubi allegatur c. 8. et 27.Book IV of On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar, c. 44. Cf. vol. III, p. 451, note 10, where c. 8 and 27 are cited.
- 7Sola Vat. hic addit secundum se, iisdem verbis paulo post omissis, ubi opponuntur locutioni secundum partem (cfr. ad 1.).The Vatican edition alone here adds in itself, the same words being omitted a little later, where they are opposed to the expression in part (cf. to the first reply).
- 8Cfr. supra q. 1. ad 2. — Pro terminum substantiae codd. R aa (A a secunda manu) tantum esse. Inferius post tertium sicut cod. H addit etiam.Cf. above, q. 1, to the second. — For the term of its substance codices R aa (A by a second hand) read only being. Further below, after third just as, codex H adds also.