Dist. 10, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 5
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 10
Quaestio V. Utrum corpus Christi sit in qualibet parte hostiae.
Quinto quaeritur, utrum corpus Christi sit in qualibet parte hostiae. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Quia ita dicit Hilarius, et habetur de Consecratione1: « Ubi pars est, ibi totum »: ergo cum in qualibet parte hostiae sit aliquid de Christo ponere: ergo in qualibet parte est totum ponere.
2. Item, signemus unam partem aeque magnam: impossibile videtur, quod sit ibi pes, sicut quod sit totum corpus: ergo cum maioris nobilitatis sit totum continere quam partem, et non sit maius impossibile; videtur, quod hoc sit tenendum.
3. Item, constat, quod post fractionem est totus Christus in singulis partibus, in quotcumque fiat partitio; sed per fractionem nihil novum ibi efficitur: ergo ante fractionem erat totum in qualibet parte2. Si dicas, quod hoc est ex consequenti, sicut in speculo; non valet, quia in speculo generatur species in singulis partibus ab obiecto; sed ibi non est aliquid amplius bis faciens corpus Christi de novo venire, quia verba longo tempore sunt ante dicta: ergo semper est ibi tantum.
4. Item, corpus Christi sub Sacramento sublimatur ad excellentiorem modum essendi quam spiritus — spiritus enim tantum in uno loco est, sed corpus Christi praesens est pluribus3 — ergo si spiritus est ita in toto, quod in qualibet parte, multo fortius corpus Christi.
5. Item, in conversione panis est totum homogeneum, ergo quaelibet pars habet rationem totius: ergo cum non sit maior ratio, quare ista pars convertatur in hanc partem quam illa4, qua ratione in unam, et in omnes: ergo si quaelibet pars in totum, patet etc.
6. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur per impossibile. Signemus aliquam partem hostiae5, aut ibi est totum, aut pars. Si totum, habeo propositum; si pars, tunc dividatur hostia; hic aut est pars, aut est totum. Si pars, ergo Christus est divisus; si totum et prius non erat: ergo plus continet haec pars hostiae quam prius: ergo de necessitate aliquid est ibi conversum in partes, quod prius non fuerat; et ulterius, locus est mutatus, quia pars illa cessit aliis partibus, quae de novo esse ibi incipiunt.
7. Item, esto quod fieret consecratio in pane, qui esset maioris quantitatis quam corpus Christi; tunc vel aliqua pars hostiae esset vacua a continentia corporis Christi, aut corpus Christi est ibi maius, quam sit per naturam, aut est in qualibet parte. Sed primum est contra perfectionem Sacramenti6; secundum contra perfectionem corporis Christi: ergo tertium est ponendum.
Sed contra: 1. Si ubi pars, ibi totum7: ergo ubi una pars, ibi quaelibet: ergo pars non est a parte distincta: ergo corpus Christi est ibi confusum.
2. Item, si totum est in qualibet parte: ergo cum possibile sit, hostiam dividi in infinitum, videtur, quod corpus Christi erit ibi infinities.
3. Item, tantundem facit, si est in toto totum, quantum si est in qualibet parte totum: ergo ponere, quod sit in qualibet parte8, est ponere superfluitatem.
4. Item, ad hoc Sacramentum concurrit verbum et elementum et intentio9; sed intentio ministri est, quod sub totali specie totus sit Christus, nec fertur intentio eius super partes, quia partes sunt innumerabiles: ergo in illis non est totus.
Conclusio.
Corpus Christi ita est in toto, ut sit totum in qualibet parte, in qua salvatur species totius.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod duplex est hic positio.
Aliquorum enim positio est, quod sub totali specie sit totum corpus, ita quod sub nulla parte totum ante fractionem, sed post fractionem est in qualibet parte totum: et hoc dicunt venire non a virtute convertendi, quia hoc non est per conversionem, sed per inseparabilem unionem. Sicut enim ubi corpus, ibi anima Christi propter coniunctionem;
sic, cum haec pars hostiae10 contineat aliquam partem corporis et inseparabiliter; rursus, illa pars non possit dividi ab aliis — quia corpus incorruptibile — propter coniunctionem; qui separat partem ab hostia totum trahit secum. — Et ponunt exemplum in speculo: quia imago habet esse spirituale, quod non potest dividi, et in altera parte speculi remanet pars imaginis, similiter et tota. Simile etiam dicunt in anima sensibili11, quae nata est esse in corpore annuloso propter consimilem rationem in partibus et toto; unde quando dividitur pars a toto, remanet in ea tota anima. Sic suo modo in proposito. Unde quia non est ponendum in hoc Sacramento, nisi quod necesse est; et ratio cogit, post fractionem esse in partibus divisis hostiae, ante fractionem autem ponere esse in omnibus partibus non cogit: nolunt amplius ponere.
Aliorum opinio est, quod corpus Christi ita est in toto, quod in qualibet parte, in qua salvatur species totius12. Et hoc quidem ponunt non propter necessitatem, sed propter rationem inducentem et in conversione et in fractione. In conversione, quia, cum totum sit homogeneum, non est maior ratio, quare magis una pars in unam partem quam in totum convertatur; ex quo non requiritur determinata pars. Unde Innocentius13: « Ego sane concesserim, quod totalis panis in totale corpus convertitur, ita tamen, quod nulla pars panis in aliquam partem corporis transit ». — In fractione similiter videmus, quod qua ratione post in qualibet parte totus, eadem ratione similiter et ante. Unde Innocentius: « Reor, salva fide Maiestatis, quod ubi est panis consecratus, totum in singulis partibus continetur14; quod inde coniicio, quoniam in quotcumque partes species dividantur, in singulis est totus Christus ».
Et haec positio est probabilior, et huic magis consentio, quia facit ad veritatem Sacramenti et utilitatem fidei: ad veritatem15, quia Christus ibi continetur ut signatum in signo, et quia ratio signandi uniformiter est in partibus et in toto; ad veritatem Sacramenti spectat, quod uniformiter sit in partibus et in toto. — Ad utilitatem fidei facit, quia phantastica imaginatio multum impedit nos ab elevatione ad contemplandum credenda. Sed si corpus Christi ponatur ibi, ita quod pars in parte, et totum in toto; non est omnimoda abstractio ab imaginatione. Sed quando ita ponitur, quod totus sub qualibet parte, hoc nullatenus cadit sub imaginatione. Unde multum sublevatur homo ad puritatem intelligentiae.
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod ibi est confusio; dicendum, quod non est: quia, etsi partes non distinguantur secundum positionem in loco, distinguuntur tamen secundum positionem in toto; et ideo non est ibi confusio, quia est ibi positio, quae est ordinatio partium in toto.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod infinities esset; dicendum, quod quamvis anima sit in qualibet parte corporis, tamen semel est, quia unum est corpus; similiter in una hostia, quamvis in omnibus partibus, est ibi tamen semel; nec hostia est divisibilis in partes infinitas, ita quod ratio totius, scilicet panis, vel proprietatis consequentis salvetur, quia in divisione continui est status naturalis, quantum ad partes secundum formam.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de superfluitate, patet responsio ex iam dictis. Quod enim corpus Christi sit in singulis partibus, hoc facit ad Sacramenti veritatem et facit ad fidei utilitatem in promovendo ipsum intellectum, et ideo non superfluit.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de intentione, dicendum, quod non oportet, quod specialiter et discrete feratur intentio ministri super omnes partes, sed quia omnes partes habent rationem totius, sufficit, quod super totum; et sic in qualibet parte quod in toto.
---
Question V. Whether the body of Christ is in every part of the host.
Fifthly it is asked whether the body of Christ is in every part of the host. And that it is so, seems the case:
1. For so says Hilary, and it is found in On Consecration1: "Where the part is, there is the whole": therefore, since in every part of the host there is something of Christ to be placed: therefore in every part the whole is to be placed.
2. Likewise, let us mark out one part equally great: it seems impossible that a foot should be there, just as that the whole body should be there: therefore, since it is of greater nobility to contain the whole than a part, and it is no greater impossibility, it seems that this is to be held.
3. Likewise, it is agreed that after the breaking the whole Christ is in the individual parts, into however many the division is made; but by the breaking nothing new is effected there: therefore before the breaking the whole was in every part2. If you should say that this is by consequence, as in a mirror; this does not hold, because in a mirror a species is generated in the individual parts from the object; but here there is not anything more twice making the body of Christ come anew, because the words were spoken long before: therefore the whole is always there.
4. Likewise, the body of Christ under the Sacrament is exalted to a more excellent mode of being than a spirit — for a spirit is only in one place, but the body of Christ is present to many3 — therefore if a spirit is in the whole in such a way that it is in every part, much more so the body of Christ.
5. Likewise, in the conversion of the bread the whole is homogeneous, therefore every part has the character of the whole: therefore, since there is no greater reason why this part should be converted into this part rather than that one4, by the same reasoning that it is into one, so also into all: therefore if every part into the whole, it is clear, etc.
6. Likewise, this same thing is shown through the impossible. Let us mark out some part of the host5: either the whole is there, or a part. If the whole, I have what was proposed; if a part, then let the host be divided; here either there is a part or a whole. If a part, then Christ is divided; if a whole and previously it was not: then this part of the host contains more than before: therefore of necessity something has been converted there into parts which was not there before; and further, the place has been changed, because that part has yielded to other parts which begin to be there anew.
7. Likewise, suppose the consecration were done over bread that was of greater quantity than the body of Christ; then either some part of the host would be empty of the containment of the body of Christ, or the body of Christ is there greater than it is by nature, or it is in every part. But the first is against the perfection of the Sacrament6; the second against the perfection of the body of Christ: therefore the third is to be posited.
On the contrary: 1. If where the part is, there is the whole7: therefore where one part is, there is every part: therefore the part is not distinct from the part: therefore the body of Christ is there confused.
2. Likewise, if the whole is in every part: therefore, since it is possible for the host to be divided to infinity, it seems that the body of Christ will be there infinitely many times.
3. Likewise, it accomplishes just as much if the whole is in the whole as if the whole is in every part: therefore to posit that it is in every part8 is to posit a superfluity.
4. Likewise, for this Sacrament there concur the word and the element and the intention9; but the intention of the minister is that under the total species the whole Christ should be, nor is his intention borne upon the parts, because the parts are innumerable: therefore in them he is not whole.
Conclusion.
The body of Christ is in the whole in such a way that it is whole in every part in which the species of the whole is preserved.
I respond: It must be said that there is here a twofold position.
For the position of some is that under the total species there is the whole body, in such a way that under no part is the whole before the breaking, but after the breaking the whole is in every part: and this they say comes not from the power of converting, because this is not through the conversion, but through an inseparable union. For just as where the body is, there is the soul of Christ by reason of the conjunction;
so, since this part of the host10 contains some part of the body and inseparably; again, since that part cannot be divided from the others — because the body is incorruptible — by reason of the conjunction; whoever separates a part from the host draws the whole with it. — And they offer the example in a mirror: because the image has spiritual being, which cannot be divided, and in the other part of the mirror there remains a part of the image, and likewise the whole. They say something similar also of the sensitive soul11, which is born to be in a ringed body by reason of a like character in the parts and the whole; whence, when a part is divided from the whole, the whole soul remains in it. So in its own way in the matter at hand. Whence, because nothing is to be posited in this Sacrament except what is necessary; and reason compels that after the breaking it is in the divided parts of the host, but it does not compel us to posit that before the breaking it is in all the parts: they are unwilling to posit more.
The opinion of others is that the body of Christ is in the whole in such a way that it is in every part in which the species of the whole is preserved12. And this indeed they posit not on account of necessity, but on account of an inducing reason both in the conversion and in the breaking. In the conversion, because, since the whole is homogeneous, there is no greater reason why one part should be converted into one part rather than into the whole; from which no determinate part is required. Whence Innocent13: "I would indeed grant that the total bread is converted into the total body, yet in such a way that no part of the bread passes into any part of the body." — In the breaking likewise we see that by whatever reason He is afterward whole in every part, by the same reason likewise also before. Whence Innocent: "I think, the faith of the Majesty being safe, that where there is consecrated bread, the whole is contained in the individual parts14; which I conjecture from this, that into however many parts the species is divided, in the individual parts is the whole Christ."
And this position is the more probable, and to this I more consent, because it makes for the truth of the Sacrament and the usefulness of faith: for the truth15, because Christ is there contained as the thing signified in the sign, and because the character of signifying is uniformly in the parts and in the whole; it pertains to the truth of the Sacrament that it be uniformly in the parts and in the whole. — It makes for the usefulness of faith, because a fanciful imagination greatly impedes us from elevation to contemplating the things to be believed. But if the body of Christ be posited there, in such a way that part is in part, and whole in whole; there is not a complete abstraction from the imagination. But when it is posited in such a way that the whole is under every part, this in no way falls under the imagination. Whence man is greatly lifted up to purity of understanding.
1. To that, then, which is objected to the contrary, that there is confusion there; it must be said that there is not: because, although the parts are not distinguished according to position in place, they are nevertheless distinguished according to position in the whole; and therefore there is no confusion there, because there is there position, which is the ordering of parts in the whole.
2. To that which is objected, that it would be there infinitely many times; it must be said that, although the soul is in every part of the body, yet it is there once, because there is one body; similarly in one host, although in all the parts, it is there nevertheless once; nor is the host divisible into infinite parts in such a way that the character of the whole, namely of bread, or of the consequent property, is preserved, because in the division of a continuum there is a natural limit, with respect to the parts according to form.
3. To that which is objected concerning superfluity, the response is clear from what has already been said. For that the body of Christ is in the individual parts, this makes for the truth of the Sacrament and makes for the usefulness of faith in advancing the understanding itself, and therefore it is not superfluous.
4. To that which is objected concerning the intention, it must be said that it is not necessary that the intention of the minister be borne specifically and distinctly upon all the parts, but, because all the parts have the character of the whole, it suffices that it be upon the whole; and thus in every part is what is in the whole.
---
- 1Can. Ubi pars est corporis, est et totum (78.), d. 2. Auctor huius canonis est Hilarius papa (461–467.). Edd. addunt corporis post pars, nec non et post ibi.Canon Where there is a part of the body, there is also the whole (78.), dist. 2. The author of this canon is Pope Hilary (461–467). The editions add of the body after part, and likewise after there.
- 2Cfr. Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro altaris Mysterio, c. 8, ubi etiam impugnat exemplum de speculo. Exemplum ipsum ab Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 7. a. 3. § 5, et a S. Thom., hic a. 3. quaestiunc. 3, attribuitur Augustino, qui ipse, ut notat S. Thom., utitur « in quodam sermone de verbis Evangelii »; forsan in illo, de quo supra pag. 219, nota 1, et qui in operibus Augustini non invenitur. — Mox post sicut cod. X addit species. Inferius pro bis codd. M Q vis, Vat. his. In fine arg. post tantum (intellige: semper, i. e. ante fractionem, quantum post fractionem), pro quo edd. totum, cod. O addit semel.Cf. Innocent III, IV On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar, c. 8, where he also attacks the example of the mirror. The example itself is attributed by Alexander of Hales, Summa pt. IV, q. 10, memb. 7, a. 3, § 5, and by St. Thomas, here a. 3, little-question 3, to Augustine, who himself, as St. Thomas notes, uses it "in a certain sermon on the words of the Gospel"; perhaps in the one mentioned above on p. 219, note 1, and which is not found among Augustine's works. — Soon after just as cod. X adds species. Below, for twice codd. M Q read force, the Vatican ed. these. At the end of the argument, after only (understand: always, i.e. as much before the breaking as after the breaking), for which the editions read whole, cod. O adds once.
- 3Vide supra q. 3. — Quod anima sit ita in toto corpore, quod in qualibet parte, ostensum est 1. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 3, et de Angelis II. Sent. d. 2. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.See above, q. 3. — That the soul is in the whole body in such a way that it is in every part, was shown in I Sent. d. 8, pt. II, q. 3, and concerning the angels in II Sent. d. 2, pt. II, a. 2, q. 1.
- 4Ita plurimi codd.; edd. etiam recte quam in illam.So most of the codices; the editions also correctly read than into that one.
- 5Plurimi codd. partem esse ibi. — Inferius respicitur 1. Cor. 1, 13: Divisus est Christus?Most of the codices read that a part is there. — Below there is reference to 1 Cor. 1:13: Is Christ divided?
- 6Vide supra q. 1. et infra d. 11. p. 1. q. 1. seq.See above, q. 1, and below, d. 11, pt. 1, q. 1 and following.
- 7Respiciuntur verba Hilarii in 1. fundam. posita.Reference is made to the words of Hilary set down in the first fundament.
- 8Cod. L supplet totum.Cod. L supplies whole.
- 9Vide supra d. 6. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.See above, d. 6, pt. II, a. 2, q. 1.
- 10Vide supra q. 3.See above, q. 3.
- 11Cod. aa subiungit quia imaginationem turbare posset, uno quaerendo, ubi pes, ubi manus etc.Cod. aa adds because it could disturb the imagination, when one asks where the foot is, where the hand is, etc.
- 12Cfr. quaest. praeced. ad 2.Cf. the preceding question, reply to objection 2.
- 13Codd. L P Q supplent sit.Codd. L P Q supply is.
- 14Aliis verbis: quia licet continuum mathematice sive secundum meram quantitatem acceptum sit divisibile in infinitum (cfr. I. Sent. d. 43. q. 3. arg. 6. ad oppos.), tamen in quantum corpus naturale i. e. constans ex materia et forma, non est divisibile in infinitum, quia forma naturalis requirit determinatam quantitatem, qua destructa, et ipsa destruitur. Cfr. Aristot., I. Phys. text. 36. seqq. (c. 4.); VI. text. 91. (c. 10.), II. de Anima, text. 41. (c. 4.).In other words: because, although a continuum taken mathematically or according to mere quantity is divisible to infinity (cf. I Sent. d. 43, q. 3, arg. 6, reply to objections), nevertheless insofar as it is a natural body, i.e. composed of matter and form, it is not divisible to infinity, because a natural form requires a determinate quantity, which being destroyed, the form itself too is destroyed. Cf. Aristotle, Physics I, text 36 ff. (c. 4); VI, text 91 (c. 10); On the Soul II, text 41 (c. 4).
- 15Cod. aa subiungit est.Cod. aa adds is. ---