Dist. 10, Part 1, Dubia
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 10
DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.
Dub. I
In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: Sacramentum Ecclesiae duobus constare etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia ex corpore Christi et signo visibili nihil unum fit.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quamvis non fiat
unum per essentiam, fit tamen unum Sacramentum, quia Sacramentum non dicit aliquid absolutum, sed magis ad aliquid1. Unde dicuntur facere unum Sacramentum, non quia fiant unum, sed quia ad unum.
Dub. II
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Sicut persona Christi constat et conficitur ex Deo et homine. Videtur enim improprie loqui, quia persona Christi est simplicissima: ergo non habet compositionem aliquam2. — Item, nulla videtur similitudo, quia est unio in persona et unio omnino sempiterna et inseparabilis; haec autem ad modicum tempus est.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod similitudo attenditur quantum ad duo: et quantum ad ea quae dicuntur componi, et etiam quantum ad modum compositi. Quantum ad ea quae dicuntur componi, quia, sicut est ibi aliquid spirituale et invisibile, ut divina natura, et aliquid corporale et visibile; sic et in proposito. Quantum ad modum compositi3, quia, sicut divina natura et humana dicuntur componi, non quia ex eis constet unum, sed quia uniuntur in uno, scilicet in una persona Christi; sic in proposito dicuntur componi, quia ad unum.
Quod ergo obiicit de compositione, dicendum, quod large dictum est, personam Christi constare et confici duobus4, quia illas duas naturas in se habet. Unde dicitur composita, quia cum alio posita, non ex aliis confecta. — Quod obiicitur de inseparabilitate, dicendum, quod quantum ad hoc non attenditur similitudo5.
Dub. III
Item quaeritur ulterius de hoc quod dicit: Conficitur Sacramentum Ecclesiae duobus, cum illud Sacramentum dicatur constare ex carne et sanguine et ex specie vini et panis, similiter ex specie et vero corpore; quaeritur: quomodo differenter?6 — Item, cum conficitur ex Sacramento et re; quaeritur, quomodo se habeant per modum partium: aut enim sunt partes subiectivae, aut integrales. Non subiectivae, quia ex eis non constaret. Si integrales: sed pars integralis non recipit denominationem totius: ergo Sacramentum non habet confici ex Sacramento et re.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Sacramentum novae legis duo habet, scilicet quod est figura et causa7. Quoniam ergo illud Sacramentum habet rationem significandi a specie exteriori, sed rationem dandi gratiam a carne Christi vera; ideo signanter dicit Augustinus8, quod Sacramentum Ecclesiae duobus conficitur, scilicet Sacramento, id est signo, cui appropriat rationem Sacramenti propter significationem, et re Sacramenti, quae efficit.
Et per hoc patet illud, quod quaeritur: quia aliter sunt partes species duae9, scilicet panis et vinum, quam species cum re, quia solum quantum ad alterum, scilicet quantum ad rationem significandi completam, sicut tactum est supra.
Dub. IV
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Caro carnis et sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis. Videtur enim male dicere, quia nihil idem est signum sui ipsius. Si tu dicas mihi, quod idem sub diversis statibus potest esse signum et signatum, ut caro, prout est sub Sacramento, sit signum sui, prout est in caelo, quod videtur dicere littera sequens10; contra: signum debet esse notius sensibus, quam signatum; sed caro, prout est sub Sacramento, est invisibilis et impalpabilis, in caelo visibilis et palpabilis: ergo non est signum eius. Si tu dicas, sicut dicit Magister11, quod caro accipitur pro signo carnis, scilicet pane; contra: species panis est visibilis et palpabilis; sed Augustinus dicit, quod carne invisibili significatur caro visibilis.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod tropologicus est sermo, nec tantum uno tropo, sed duplici, quia quod est signi attribuitur signato, et quod est signati attribuitur signo. Species enim panis est signum, quoniam est visibilis; sed caro interius contenta est signatum, quia est invisibilis12. Dicere ergo, quod caro invisibilis signat, hoc est dicere, quod species panis, quae est signum carnis invisibilis, signat corpus Christi visibile et palpabile: et illa species panis est caro invisibilis, non quia non videatur, sed
quia contentum eius, quod est caro, est invisibile et intelligibile eatenus, qua ibidem continetur; quasi vellet Augustinus dicere: caro Christi visibilis et palpabilis signatur et continetur a specie panis invisibiliter et intelligibiliter13.
Dub. V
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Significatur corpus Christi, quod est visibile et palpabile in sua forma. Videtur enim male dicere, quia Gregorius in homilia paschae14: «Quod palpari potest corrumpi necesse est»: ergo si corpus Christi est incorruptibile, est impalpabile.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Gregorius intelligit de palpabilitate secundum tactum corporis non glorificati, et de palpabilitate, qua aliquid dicitur palpabile15 ex necessitate, non potestate, quo modo est palpabile corpus Christi glorificatum.
DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.
Doubt I
In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that Augustine says: That the Sacrament of the Church consists of two things, etc. For it seems to be said falsely, because out of the body of Christ and a visible sign nothing one comes to be.
I respond: It must be said that, although it does not become
one by essence, it nevertheless becomes one Sacrament, because a Sacrament does not express something absolute, but rather something in relation to something1. Hence they are said to make one Sacrament, not because they become one, but because they are ordered to one.
Doubt II
Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: Just as the person of Christ consists and is constituted of God and man. For it seems to be spoken improperly, because the person of Christ is most simple: therefore it has no composition2. — Likewise, no likeness seems to hold, because there is a union in the person and a union altogether everlasting and inseparable; but this one is for a brief time.
I respond: It must be said that the likeness is regarded as to two things: both as to the things which are said to be composed, and also as to the manner of the composite. As to the things which are said to be composed, because, just as there is there something spiritual and invisible, namely the divine nature, and something corporeal and visible; so also in the matter at hand. As to the manner of the composite3, because, just as the divine nature and the human are said to be composed, not because some one is constituted out of them, but because they are united in one, namely in the one person of Christ; so in the matter at hand they are said to be composed, because they are ordered to one.
What therefore he objects concerning composition must be answered thus: that it is said broadly that the person of Christ consists and is constituted of two things4, because it has those two natures in itself. Hence it is called composite, because placed-with-another, not made-out-of-others. — What is objected concerning inseparability must be answered thus: that as to this the likeness is not regarded5.
Doubt III
Likewise it is asked further about this, that he says: The Sacrament of the Church is constituted of two things, since that Sacrament is said to consist of flesh and blood and of the species of wine and bread, likewise of species and the true body; it is asked: in what way differently?6 — Likewise, since it is constituted of Sacrament and reality; it is asked how they stand to one another by way of parts: for either they are subjective parts, or integral ones. Not subjective, because it would not be constituted of them. If integral: but an integral part does not receive the denomination of the whole: therefore the Sacrament cannot be constituted of Sacrament and reality.
I respond: It must be said that the Sacrament of the new law has two things, namely that it is figure and cause7. Since therefore that Sacrament has the character of signifying from the exterior species, but the character of giving grace from the true flesh of Christ; therefore Augustine pointedly says8 that the Sacrament of the Church is constituted of two things, namely of the Sacrament, that is, the sign, to which he appropriates the character of Sacrament on account of signification, and of the reality of the Sacrament, which effects.
And by this is made clear that which is asked: because in one way the two species are parts9, namely bread and wine, than the species with the reality, because only as to the one, namely as to the complete character of signifying, as was touched on above.
Doubt IV
Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: The flesh is the Sacrament of the flesh, and the blood is the Sacrament of the blood. For it seems to be said falsely, because nothing is the sign of its very self. If you say to me that the same thing under diverse states can be sign and signified, as the flesh, insofar as it is under the Sacrament, may be the sign of itself insofar as it is in heaven, which the following text seems to say10; on the contrary: a sign ought to be better known to the senses than the signified; but the flesh, insofar as it is under the Sacrament, is invisible and impalpable, in heaven visible and palpable: therefore it is not the sign of it. If you say, as the Master says11, that the flesh is taken for the sign of the flesh, namely the bread; on the contrary: the species of bread is visible and palpable; but Augustine says that by the invisible flesh the visible flesh is signified.
I respond: It must be said that the discourse is tropological, and not by a single trope only, but a twofold one, because what belongs to the sign is attributed to the signified, and what belongs to the signified is attributed to the sign. For the species of bread is a sign, since it is visible; but the flesh contained within is the signified, because it is invisible12. To say therefore that the invisible flesh signifies, this is to say that the species of bread, which is the sign of the invisible flesh, signifies the body of Christ visible and palpable: and that species of bread is the invisible flesh, not because it is not seen, but
because its content, which is the flesh, is invisible and intelligible to the extent that it is contained there; as if Augustine wished to say: the flesh of Christ, visible and palpable, is signified and contained by the species of bread invisibly and intelligibly13.
Doubt V
Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: The body of Christ is signified, which is visible and palpable in its own form. For it seems to be said falsely, because Gregory in the Easter homily14 [says]: «What can be touched must of necessity be corruptible»: therefore if the body of Christ is incorruptible, it is impalpable.
I respond: It must be said that Gregory understands it of palpability according to the touch of a body not glorified, and of the palpability by which something is said to be palpable15 by necessity, not by power — in which way the glorified body of Christ is palpable.
- 1Verbis ad aliquid (πρός τι) utitur Aristot., de Praedicam. c. De his quae ad aliquid, et V. Metaph. text. 20. (IV. c. 15.), ad designanda relativa. — Cfr. de hoc dub. supra d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 2; S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.Aristotle uses the phrase ad aliquid (πρός τι, "in relation to something") in the Categories, chapter "On things which are in relation to something," and Metaphysics V, text 20 (IV, c. 15), to designate relatives. — Cf. on this doubt above, d. 8, p. II, a. 2, q. 2; St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.
- 2Vide III. Sent. d. 6. a. 1. q. 2. — Ibid. a. 2. q. 1. seqq. insinuatur ratio seq. — Mox post quia codd. F H I addunt ibi.See III Sent., d. 6, a. 1, q. 2. — Ibid., a. 2, q. 1 and following, the following reason is intimated. — Just after quia, codices F, H, I add ibi.
- 3Codd. omittunt compositi.The codices omit compositi ("of the composite").
- 4Ex cod. H supplevimus duobus.From codex H we have supplied duobus ("two").
- 5De eodem dubio Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.On the same doubt, Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.
- 6Ut habetur hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1. — De partibus subiectivis etc. cfr. tom. II. pag. 898, nota 9. — Paulo superius pro differenter edd. differunt, pauci codd. differentur.As it is found here in the text of the Master, c. 1. — On subjective parts etc. cf. tom. II, p. 898, note 9. — A little above, for differenter ("differently") the editions read differunt, a few codices differentur.
- 7Nam, ut supra lit. Magistri, d. IV. c. 1, ex August. dicitur, «Sacramenta... efficiunt quod figurant». Cfr. etiam supra d. 1. p. I. q. 1. seq. — Edd. quod est signum et res.For, as above in the text of the Master, d. IV, c. 1, it is said from Augustine, «The Sacraments... effect what they figure». Cf. also above, d. 1, p. I, q. 1 and following. — The editions read quod est signum et res ("which is sign and reality").
- 8Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1, ex quo textus huius dubii sumtus est, ubi pro Sacramentum habetur sacrificium. — Inferius pro et re edd. cum pluribus codd. et rem.Here in the text of the Master, c. 1, from which the text of this doubt is taken, where for Sacramentum it reads sacrificium ("sacrifice"). — Below, for et re the editions with several codices read et rem.
- 9Pro duae edd. sine re. — Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic a. 4.For duae ("two") the editions read sine re ("without the reality"). — Blessed Albert resolves the same doubt, here a. 4.
- 10Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1. in verbis Augustino attributis: Carne et sanguine, utroque invisibili... significatur corpus Christi visibile et palpabile, plenum gratia et divina Maiestate. — De seq. propos. cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 3. et d. VIII. c. 6.Here in the text of the Master, c. 1, in the words attributed to Augustine: By the flesh and blood, both invisible... is signified the body of Christ, visible and palpable, full of grace and divine Majesty. — On the following proposition cf. above, the text of the Master, d. I, c. 3, and d. VIII, c. 6.
- 11Hic in lit. c. 1. in fine. — Verba August. vide in nota praeced.Here in the text, c. 1, at the end. — For Augustine's words see the preceding note.
- 12MM. addunt gratiae, omisso subinde dicere.The manuscripts add gratiae ("of grace"), thereupon omitting dicere ("to say").
- 13Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.Blessed Albert resolves the same doubt, here a. 5; St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.
- 14Libr. II. homil. in Evang. homil. 26. n. 1: Nam et corrumpi necesse est quod palpatur, et palpari non potest quod non corrumpitur.Book II of the homilies on the Gospels, homily 26, n. 1: For what is touched must also of necessity be corruptible, and what is not corruptible cannot be touched.
- 15Ita codd. G H, edd. palpari, plures codd. palpare. — Cfr. de hoc dubio infra d. 49. p. II. art. princ. 2. a. 3. q. 2; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.Thus codices G, H; the editions read palpari, several codices palpare. — Cf. on this doubt below, d. 49, p. II, principal article 2, a. 3, q. 2; Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.