Dist. 10, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 4
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 10
Quaestio IV. Utrum corpus Christi sit dimensive sive circumscriptive sub illis speciebus.
Quarto quaeritur, utrum corpus Christi sit dimensive sub illis speciebus sive circumscriptive. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Quia omne quod habet extensionem sive dimensionem et ab illa non abstrahitur, si est alicubi, est ibi dimensive1; sed corpus Christi sub Sacramento non abstrahitur a dimensione, cum sit organicum ibi et habeat partem extra partem: ergo est ibi dimensive sive circumscriptive.
2. Item, corpus Christi non abstrahitur a suis proprietatibus; sed sicut dicit philosophus in Sex principiis2: « Proprium est positionis primo loco adhaerere substantiae », ergo si non abstrahitur ab aliis proprietatibus magis remotis, nec a positione. Sed positio est ordinatio partium in loco: ergo etc.
3. Item, omne corpus, quod est alicubi localiter, est ibi circumscriptive; sed corpus Christi in Sacramento est localiter, quia dicit Innocentius3, quod « in pluribus locis existit »; sed hoc non est nisi sub Sacramento: ergo etc.
4. Item, omne corpus, quod est alicubi, ita quod nec excedit nec exceditur ab eo, in quo est, non est tantum localiter sed etiam4 circumscriptive, et dimensive; sed corpus Christi taliter est sub Sacramento: ergo etc.
Contra: 1. Esse definitive est superius ad esse circumscriptive; sed corpus Christi non est definitive sub Sacramento, ut probatum est5: ergo etc.
2. Item, omne quod est dimensive alicubi, aequatur illi, in quo est: ergo si dimensive est, aequatur hostiae; scindatur ergo hostia, et tunc similiter aequabitur parti: ergo unum et idem est aequale parti et toti; quod quidem Deus non potest facere, quia tunc idem esset maius et minus se ipso, et duo contradictorie opposita simul vera, et bicubitum aequale monocubito6.
3. Item, omne quod est in aliquo conterminative; si sit dimensive, necesse est esse configurative; hoc patet: ergo cum corpus Christi sit ibi conterminative, quia nec excedit nec exceditur; si est dimensive, est eiusdem figurae: ergo orbicularis et subtilis.
4. Item, omne quod est alicubi inseparabiliter, si est ibi dimensive, movetur ad motum eius, in quo est, sive transferatur, sive transvertatur; sed corpus Christi est in hostia inseparabiliter: ergo si est ibi dimensive, sicut hostia vertitur, ita et corpus, et ita habebit aliquando caput superius, aliquando pedes. — Si ad haec omnia respondeas per miraculum, quia illud esset verum, si esset per naturam; hoc non solvit: quia per miraculum numquam separatur definitio a definito; sed istae rationes procedunt non secundum accidentales proprietates, sed per proprias rationes sive definitiones.
### Conclusio. Corpus Christi, habens suam propriam dimensionem, non dimensionem hostiae, non est in ea dimensive.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod illud dicitur esse dimensive alicubi, quod ita est in illo, quod totum in toto et pars in parte secundum commensurationem; et huiusmodi non debuit esse corpus Christi sub Sacramento, quia tunc necessarium esset illi aequari et configurari, sicut probant rationes praedictae. Sed hoc non congruebat veritati Sacramenti, quia, sicut supra7 probatum est, ad veritatem Sacramenti requiritur, quod sit ibi in quantitate sua; et si aequaretur hostiae, non esset ibi in sua quantitate, sed conformaretur non in sua figura; et ideo hoc non debuit fieri, sed debuit fieri, ut corpus habens suam perfectionem esset in illa hostia; et ita habens suam dimensionem, non esset ibi dimensive. — Concedendae ergo sunt rationes ad hoc inductae.
Solutio oppositorum: 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod habet dimensionem est dimensive; dicendum, quod hoc verum est, si sit ibi sicut locatum in loco; sed non est ibi sic, sed tanquam significatum contentum in signo8; et quia eodem modo significatur in parva hostia ut in magna, eodem modo continetur.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non abstrahitur a proprietatibus; dicendum, quod proprietates corporis Christi sunt duplices: quaedam absolutae, ut esse bicubitum et talis figurae; quaedam relatae, ut videri et tangi et tantum locum occupare. Ab absolutis non abstrahitur, sed a comparatis abstrahitur, tum propter veritatem Sacramenti, qua oportet, ut magnum corpus sit in parva specie, tum propter utilitatem fidei, qua oportet occultari9. Secundum hoc sciendum, quod positio est ordinatio partium in toto, et ab hac non abstrahitur — de hac loquitur philosophus — et partium in loco, et ab hac abstrahitur propter Sacramenti veritatem.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est ibi localiter; dicendum, quod aliquid dicitur esse localiter aut quia secundum corporalem praesentiam est aut quia secundum commensurationem corpori debitam. Primo modo est ibi localiter, secundo modo non, immo tantum in caelo; unde Innocentius10 distinguit esse localiter contra esse sacramentaliter.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod conterminative est ibi; dicendum, quod esse conterminative dicitur dupliciter: uno modo privative, quia nec excedit nec exceditur; et sic ex hoc non sequitur esse dimensive; alio modo positive, quia primum respondet primo, et postremum postremo, et medium medio, et quod sic est, est ibi dimensive. Sed sic non est ibi corpus Christi; et ideo non est ibi dimensive sive circumscriptive, quamvis nec excedat nec excedatur, quia medium medio non respondet11.
---
Question IV. Whether the body of Christ is under those species dimensively or circumscriptively.
Fourthly it is asked whether the body of Christ is under those species dimensively or circumscriptively. And that it is so, seems [to be the case]:
1. Because everything that has extension or dimension and is not abstracted from it, if it is somewhere, is there dimensively1; but the body of Christ under the Sacrament is not abstracted from dimension, since it is organic there and has part outside of part: therefore it is there dimensively or circumscriptively.
2. Likewise, the body of Christ is not abstracted from its properties; but as the Philosopher says in the Six Principles2: "It is proper to position first of all to adhere to substance"; therefore if it is not abstracted from the more remote properties, neither [is it abstracted] from position. But position is the ordering of parts in place: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, every body that is somewhere locally is there circumscriptively; but the body of Christ in the Sacrament is locally [present], because Innocent3 says that "it exists in several places"; but this is so only under the Sacrament: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, every body that is somewhere, such that it neither exceeds nor is exceeded by that in which it is, is not only locally but also4 circumscriptively, and dimensively; but the body of Christ is under the Sacrament in such a manner: therefore etc.
On the contrary: 1. To be definitively is superior to being circumscriptively; but the body of Christ is not definitively under the Sacrament, as has been proved5: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, everything that is dimensively somewhere is made equal to that in which it is: therefore if it is dimensively [present], it is made equal to the host; let the host therefore be split, and then likewise it will be made equal to the part: therefore one and the same thing is equal to the part and to the whole; which indeed God cannot bring about, because then the same thing would be greater and less than itself, and two contradictorily opposed things would be true at once, and the two-cubit equal to the one-cubit6.
3. Likewise, everything that is in something conterminately; if it be dimensively [there], it must be configuratively [there]; this is plain: therefore since the body of Christ is there conterminately, because it neither exceeds nor is exceeded; if it is dimensively [there], it is of the same figure: therefore round and thin.
4. Likewise, everything that is somewhere inseparably, if it is there dimensively, is moved at its motion in which it is, whether it be carried or turned over; but the body of Christ is inseparably in the host: therefore if it is there dimensively, just as the host is turned, so also the body, and thus it will have at one time its head above, at another its feet. — If to all these you should respond by miracle, [saying] that that would be true if it were by nature; this does not solve [the difficulty]: because by a miracle the definition is never separated from the defined; but these arguments proceed not according to accidental properties, but through proper accounts or definitions.
### Conclusion. The body of Christ, having its own proper dimension, not the dimension of the host, is not in it dimensively.
I respond: It must be said that that is called to be dimensively somewhere which is so in it, that the whole [is] in the whole and the part in the part according to commensuration; and a thing of this kind ought not to have been the case for the body of Christ under the Sacrament, because then it would be necessary for it to be made equal and configured [to the host], as the aforesaid arguments prove. But this was not fitting to the truth of the Sacrament, because, as has been proved above7, for the truth of the Sacrament it is required that it be there in its own quantity; and if it were made equal to the host, it would not be there in its own quantity, but would be conformed not in its own figure; and therefore this ought not to have been done, but it ought to have been done that the body, having its own perfection, be in that host; and so, having its own dimension, it would not be there dimensively. — The arguments adduced for this are therefore to be granted.
Solution of the opposing [arguments]: 1. To that which is objected, that what has dimension is [there] dimensively; it must be said that this is true if it be there as a thing located in a place; but it is not there in that way, but as the thing signified contained in the sign8; and because it is signified in the same way in a small host as in a large one, it is contained in the same way.
2. To that which is objected, that it is not abstracted from its properties; it must be said that the properties of the body of Christ are twofold: some absolute, as being two-cubit and of such a figure; some relative, as to be seen and touched and to occupy so much place. From the absolute ones it is not abstracted, but from the relative ones it is abstracted, both for the truth of the Sacrament, by which it is required that a great body be in a small species, and for the benefit of faith, by which it is required to be hidden9. According to this it must be known that position is the ordering of parts in the whole, and from this it is not abstracted — of this the Philosopher speaks — and [the ordering] of parts in place, and from this it is abstracted for the truth of the Sacrament.
3. To that which is objected, that it is there locally; it must be said that something is said to be locally [present] either because it is according to bodily presence, or because [it is] according to commensuration owed to a body. In the first way it is there locally, in the second way it is not, but rather only in heaven; whence Innocent10 distinguishes being locally [present] against being sacramentally [present].
4. To that which is objected, that it is there conterminately; it must be said that to be conterminately is said in two ways: in one way privatively, because it neither exceeds nor is exceeded; and in this way it does not follow from this that it is dimensively [present]; in another way positively, because the first corresponds to the first, and the last to the last, and the middle to the middle, and what is so is there dimensively. But the body of Christ is not there in this way; and therefore it is not there dimensively or circumscriptively, although it neither exceeds nor is exceeded, because the middle does not correspond to the middle11.
---
- 1Cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Quanto. — Minor ostensa est supra q. 2.Cf. Aristotle, Categories, c. on Quantity. — The minor [premise] was shown above in q. 2.
- 2Scil. Gilbert. Porret., qui in libro de Sex principiis, c. 6, ait: Magis autem proprium videtur esse positionis, substantiae proxime assistere, omnibus quidem aliis formis suppositis.Namely Gilbert of Poitiers, who in the book On the Six Principles, c. 6, says: "It seems rather to be proper to position to be most closely present to substance, all the other forms indeed being presupposed."
- 3Vide supra pag. 221, nota 3. — De maiori cfr. Gilbert. Porret., loc. cit. c. 5. de Ubi.See above, p. 221, note 3. — Concerning the major [premise] cf. Gilbert of Poitiers, loc. cit., c. 5, on Where.
- 4Vat. addit conterminative, et per consequens. Cfr. Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 33. seqq. (c. 4.).The Vatican edition adds "conterminately, and consequently." Cf. Aristotle, Physics IV, text 33 ff. (c. 4).
- 5Quaest. praeced. — Cfr. Petr. Pictaviensis, V. Sent. c. 12. — Pro non est codd. II K P Q non potest esse.The preceding question. — Cf. Peter of Poitiers, V Sentences, c. 12. — For "is not" the codices II K P Q [read] "cannot be."
- 6Sive illi quod est unius [μόνος] cubiti. — Cfr. I. Sent. d. 42. q. 3, ubi de potentia Dei respectu impossibilium.Or [equal] to that which is of a single (μόνος) cubit. — Cf. I Sentences, d. 42, q. 3, where [it treats] of the power of God with respect to impossibilities.
- 7Quaest. 2.Question 2.
- 8Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. VIII. c. 7, et Comment. p. 1. a. 2. q. 1.Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. VIII, c. 7, and the Commentary, p. 1, a. 2, q. 1.
- 9Vide supra q. 1. et infra d. 12. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2. — Gilbert. Porret., qui hic philosophus vocatur, in libro de Sex principiis, c. 6, positionem ita definit: Positio est quaedam partium situs et generationis ordinatio, secundum quam dicuntur stantia vel sedentia, vel aspera vel lenia, vel quomodolibet aliter disposita; sedere autem et iacere positiones non sunt, sed denominative ab his dicta sunt. Cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Quanto. — Inferius post positio est codd. H L bene addunt duplex, scilicet.See above, q. 1, and below, d. 12, p. 1, a. 1, q. 2. — Gilbert of Poitiers, who is here called "the Philosopher," in the book On the Six Principles, c. 6, defines position thus: "Position is a certain ordering of the situation and generation of parts, according to which things are said to be standing or sitting, or rough or smooth, or disposed in any other way whatever; but to sit and to lie are not positions, but are named denominatively from these." Cf. Aristotle, Categories, c. on Quantity. — Below, after "position is," the codices H L rightly add "twofold, namely."
- 10Vide supra pag. 221, nota 3.See above, p. 221, note 3.
- 11Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion to the preceding question.