Dist. 10, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 10
Articulus I. De eucharistia respectu virtutis transsubstantiantis.
Quaestio I. Utrum aequalis, vel maioris virtutis sit panem in corpus Christi convertere, quam est aliquid de novo creare.
Quantum ergo ad primum quaeritur, utrum aequalis virtutis, vel maioris sit panem in corpus Christi convertere, quam est aliquid de novo creare.
Et quod non sit aequalis virtutis, videtur:
1. Per verbum Ambrosii, quoniam Ambrosius arguit sic: « Si sermo Christi potuit facere quod non erat, non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant »1? quasi dicat: potest; sed ista ratio nihil valeret, nisi illud esset maioris potentiae: ergo potentia creandi est maioris potentiae quam transsubstantiandi.
2. Item, ratione videtur, quia ubi est maior distantia, ibi maior virtus reducens; sed inter ens et non-ens est maior distantia, quam inter ens et ens: ergo maior est virtus in creatione, in qua de non-ente fit ens2.
3. Item, maior est virtus, quae agit paucioribus mediis et auxiliis; sed virtus, quae producit ex nihilo, sibi sola sufficit, quae vero ex aliquo, aliam rationem3 praesupponit: ergo etc.
Contra: 1. « Maius est de impio facere pium quam creare caelum et terram »4; sed transsubstantiatio panis in corpus Christi multo maior est quam impium iustificare: ergo illud maioris virtutis est quam creare.
2. Item, illud est impossibilius, quod mens bene disposita difficilius iudicat; sed omnis mens facilius credit, aliquid de novo fieri, quam aliquid in aliud transmutari sine illius augmento et aliqua mutatione5: ergo illud difficilius.
3. Item, ubicumque est finita distantia inter extrema, aliquid manet commune; sed in transsubstantiatione nihil commune manet6: ergo inter extrema est distantia infinita; et si hoc, transsubstantiatio talis est a virtute infinita, et sic non est maioris potentiae illud quam istud.
4. Item, maioris potentiae est facere, quod unum sit in pluribus locis, quam quod unum sit; sed haec virtus, quae facit, corpus Christi esse in altari, facit, ipsum in pluribus locis esse7: ergo istud est maioris virtutis.
Conclusio. Maius est quoad effectum creare quam transsubstantiare; sed quatenus corpus Christi superexcellit omnem creaturam, prout est cum anima et Divinitate, effectus transsubstantiationis excellit omnem rei alterius creationem.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod si loquamur de virtute creante et transsubstantiante, quae maior sit quantum ad se, non est differentia, quia una est, nec intensa nec remissa8. — Si autem quantum ad effectum, quis sit indicativus maioris potentiae, sive magis declarativus potentiae divinae; dicendum, quod in qualibet harum operationum est considerare tria consideranda: principium initiale, distantiam mediam et terminum finalem. Quantum ad principium initiale maioris virtutis est attestativum creare quam transsubstantiare, quia ibi ex nihilo, hic operatur in aliquid9. — Quantum vero ad distantiam mediam, est aequalis virtutis, quia utrobique nihil commune reperitur, nec manet secundum genus subiectum, licet secundum genus praedicabile in altero10.
— Quantum vero ad terminum finalem, quia ibi in creatione fit, ut quod non erat sit, in transsubstantiatione fit, ut quod erat alicubi sine sui mutatione sit alibi, illud quidem est maius, sed hoc rarius11; et illud maius est, sed istud maius videtur. Quantum ergo ad terminum finalem maius est creare, sed maius videtur transsubstantiare.
Rationes igitur primae verae sunt, quia maior effectus est creare et quantum ad terminum finalem et quantum ad principium initiale. In hoc tamen, quod corpus Christi superexcellit omnem creaturam, prout est cum anima et Divinitate; et transsubstantiatio facit, ut illud corpus sit in altari, non de alio: ideo excellit omnem alterius rei creationem, non tamen sui formationem, sicut videbitur12.
Ad argumenta:
1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod maius est de impio facere pium etc.; dicendum, quod illud dicitur maius, salvo libero arbitrio, quia hic ex parte liberi arbitrii est resistentia, ibi13 nulla; non sic in proposito.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de iudicio mentis dispositae, dicendum, quod faciliora iudicat usitatiora et quae magis apparent, quamvis maiora sint; unde non valet.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de distantia, dicendum, quod hoc concedendum est quantum ad hoc, quod nihil commune remanet, sed non quantum ad distantiam in ratione generis praedicabilis14.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod maius est facere, quod in pluribus locis etc.; dicendum, quod cum aliquid non-ens fit, aut est in potentia, ut sit, aut nullo modo. Si aliquo modo est in potentia, ut sit; tunc bene concedendum est, quod maius est facere, quod in pluribus locis sit, quam quod sit, quia est in potentia ad esse, non ad plura loca simul. Sed quando nullo modo est in potentia, ut sit, et congruitatem habet ad hoc, ut in pluribus locis sit, primum est maius; et sic in proposito, quia illud quod creatur, nullam habet potentiam nec ordinationem ad hoc, ut sit. Sed corpus Christi iam conditum et perfectum idoneitatem habet ad hoc, ut sit in pluribus locis sub Sacramento.
I. De 1. et 2. quaestione alii Lombardi commentatores breviter et concorditer agunt (in seq. dist.) unica quaestione; sed diffusius Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 4. a. 2. § 6. Cfr. S. Thom., d. 11. q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 3; S. III. q. 75. a. 8. ad 3. — B. Albert., d. 11. a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., d. 11. q. 1. a. 5. — Richard. a Med., d. 11. a. 1. q. 6. — Dionys. Carth., d. 11. q. 2. circa med.
II. In 3. quaestione redeunt eaedem controversiae et eadem principia, de quibus actum est supra d. 1. p. 1. a. 1. q. 3. 4. (cfr. ibi scholion) et d. 5. a. 3. q. 1. Cfr. etiam infra d. 13. a. 1. q. 3. De eadem quaestione hic non agunt explicite nisi Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 6, et B. Albert., hic a. 7. 8.
III. Circa solutionem 4. quaestionis opinio media, quam cum S. Bonav. ut probabiliorem tenuerunt Alex. Hal. et Petr. a Tar., nunc est obsoleta. Communiter enim recepta est sententia S. Thomae, quod quaecumque maxima materia, dummodo sit consecranti moraliter praesens, possit consecrari valide, quamvis non licite. Nam « quantitas materiae huius Sacramenti determinatur per comparationem ad usum fidelium: sed non ad usum fidelium, qui nunc occurrunt... (sed) absolute. Numerus autem fidelium est indeterminatus; unde non potest dici, quod quantitas materiae huius Sacramenti sit determinata » (S. Thom., S. III. q. 74. a. 2; cfr. IV. Sent. d. 11. q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3.). De eadem quaestione praeter S. Thomam: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 6, Consequenter quaeritur. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 7. q. 1. — Durand., IV. Sent. d. 11. q. 6. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 6.
---
Article I. On the Eucharist with respect to the power of transubstantiating.
Question I. Whether it is of equal or greater power to convert bread into the body of Christ than to create something anew.
As regards the first point, then, it is asked whether it is of equal or greater power to convert bread into the body of Christ than to create something anew.
And that it is not of equal power, it seems:
1. By the word of Ambrose, for Ambrose argues thus: "If the word of Christ could make what was not, can it not change the things that are into what they were not?"1 — as if to say: it can; but this argument would have no force unless that were of greater power: therefore the power of creating is of greater power than that of transubstantiating.
2. Likewise, by reason it seems so, because where there is greater distance, there is a greater reducing power; but between being and non-being there is a greater distance than between being and being: therefore the power in creation is greater, in which from non-being being comes to be2.
3. Likewise, that power is greater which acts with fewer means and aids; but the power that produces from nothing suffices by itself alone, whereas the power that produces from something presupposes another ground3: therefore, etc.
On the contrary: 1. "It is greater to make a godly man out of an ungodly one than to create heaven and earth"4; but the transubstantiation of bread into the body of Christ is much greater than to justify the ungodly: therefore that is of greater power than to create.
2. Likewise, that is more impossible which a well-disposed mind judges more difficult; but every mind more readily believes that something comes to be anew than that something is changed into another without any increase of it and without any [observable] change5: therefore that is more difficult.
3. Likewise, wherever there is a finite distance between the extremes, something remains common; but in transubstantiation nothing common remains6: therefore between the extremes the distance is infinite; and if so, such a transubstantiation is from an infinite power, and thus the one is not of greater power than the other.
4. Likewise, it is of greater power to make that one thing be in many places than that it be one; but this power, which makes the body of Christ be on the altar, makes it be in many places7: therefore that is of greater power.
Conclusion. It is greater, as regards the effect, to create than to transubstantiate; but inasmuch as the body of Christ surpasses every creature, as it is with soul and Divinity, the effect of transubstantiation surpasses the creation of any other thing.
Respondeo: It must be said that, if we speak of the creating and transubstantiating power, as to which is greater in itself, there is no difference, because it is one, neither intensified nor diminished8. — But if [we speak] as regards the effect, [namely] which is indicative of greater power, or rather more declarative of the divine power; it must be said that in each of these operations there are three things to consider: the initial principle, the intermediate distance, and the final term. As regards the initial principle, it is attestative of greater power to create than to transubstantiate, because there [it acts] from nothing, here it acts upon something9. — But as regards the intermediate distance, it is of equal power, because in both cases nothing common is found, nor does anything remain according to the subject genus, although [it does] according to the predicable genus in the one [case]10.
— But as regards the final term, since there in creation it comes about that what was not is, [while] in transubstantiation it comes about that what was somewhere, without its own change, is elsewhere, the former is indeed greater, but the latter rarer11; and the former is greater, but the latter seems greater. As regards the final term, therefore, to create is greater, but to transubstantiate seems greater.
The first reasons, then, are true, because the greater effect is to create, both as regards the final term and as regards the initial principle. In this, however, that the body of Christ surpasses every creature, as it is with soul and Divinity; and transubstantiation brings it about that that body be on the altar, not from another: therefore it surpasses the creation of any other thing, yet not its own formation, as will be seen12.
To the arguments:
1. To that which is objected, that it is greater to make a godly man out of an ungodly one, etc.; it must be said that it is called greater, with free will preserved, because here on the part of free will there is resistance, there13 none; not so in the case at hand.
2. To that which is objected concerning the judgment of a disposed mind, it must be said that it judges the more customary and the more apparent things to be easier, although they are greater; hence it is not valid.
3. To that which is objected concerning distance, it must be said that this is to be granted as regards this, that nothing common remains, but not as regards a distance in respect of the predicable genus14.
4. To that which is objected, that it is greater to make that [something] be in many places, etc.; it must be said that when a non-being comes to be, either it is in potency, that it may be, or in no way. If it is in some way in potency, that it may be; then it is indeed to be granted that it is greater to make it be in many places than that it be, because it is in potency to being, not to many places at once. But when it is in no way in potency, that it may be, and has a fittingness for this, that it be in many places, the first is greater; and so in the case at hand, because that which is created has no potency nor ordination to this, that it may be. But the body of Christ, already constituted and perfected, has a suitability for this, that it be in many places under the Sacrament.
I. Concerning the 1st and 2nd questions, the other commentators on the Lombard treat briefly and concordantly (in the following distinction) in a single question; but more fully Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV. q. 10. m. 4. a. 2. § 6. Cf. St. Thomas, d. 11. q. 1. a. 3. subquestion 3; Summa III. q. 75. a. 8. ad 3. — Bl. Albert, d. 11. a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, d. 11. q. 1. a. 5. — Richard of Mediavilla, d. 11. a. 1. q. 6. — Dionysius the Carthusian, d. 11. q. 2. about the middle.
II. In the 3rd question the same controversies and the same principles recur, which were treated above at d. 1. p. 1. a. 1. q. 3. 4. (cf. the scholion there) and d. 5. a. 3. q. 1. Cf. also below d. 13. a. 1. q. 3. Concerning this question none treat it explicitly here except Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 6, and Bl. Albert, here a. 7. 8.
III. Concerning the solution of the 4th question, the middle opinion, which along with St. Bonaventure Alexander of Hales and Peter of Tarentaise held as more probable, is now obsolete. For commonly the opinion of St. Thomas is received, that whatever maximum quantity of matter, provided it be morally present to the one consecrating, can be consecrated validly, though not licitly. For "the quantity of the matter of this Sacrament is determined by comparison to the use of the faithful: but not to the use of the faithful who are now present... (but) absolutely. Now the number of the faithful is indeterminate; whence it cannot be said that the quantity of the matter of this Sacrament is determined" (St. Thomas, Summa III. q. 74. a. 2; cf. IV Sent. d. 11. q. 2. a. 1. subquestion 3.). Concerning this question, besides St. Thomas: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 6, Consequenter quaeritur. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4. a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 7. q. 1. — Durandus, IV Sent. d. 11. q. 6. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 6.
---
- 1De Mysteriis, c. 9. n. 52. Cfr. IV. de Sacram. c. 4. n. 15. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Superius pro quantae est cod. h quam est.On the Mysteries, c. 9, n. 52. Cf. IV On the Sacraments c. 4, n. 15. See here the text of the Master, c. 2. — Above, for quantae est codex h [reads] quam est.
- 2Cfr. tom. I. pag. 767, nota 2.Cf. vol. I, p. 767, note 2.
- 3Codd. II A Y causam, scil. materiam, Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 4. a. 2. § 6: aliquam [quod habent etiam codd. II aa] rem praesupponit; unde indiget aliquo: ergo etc.Codices II A Y [read] causam, that is, matter; Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV. q. 10. m. 4. a. 2. § 6: some thing it presupposes; whence it needs something: therefore etc.
- 4Secundum August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 72. n. 3.According to Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John tr. 72, n. 3.
- 5B. Albert., hic a. 8, hoc probat ex eo, quod philosophi creationem deprehenderunt, non autem transsubstantiationem. Cfr. S. Thom., hic d. 11. q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 3. arg. 1. ad oppos.Bl. Albert, here a. 8, proves this from the fact that the philosophers grasped creation, but not transubstantiation. Cf. St. Thomas, here d. 11. q. 1. a. 3. subquestion 3. arg. 1 to the contrary.
- 6Ut ostenditur infra d. 11. p. 1. q. 2. — Finem arg. cod. L exhibet sic: potentiae hoc [scil. transsubstantiatio] quam illud [creatio] etc., permulti codd. potentiae quam illud. Cod. Z addit et sic etc., cod. bb ergo etc.As is shown below d. 11. p. 1. q. 2. — The end of the argument codex L gives thus: of power this [i.e. transubstantiation] than that [creation] etc.; very many codices [read] of power than that. Codex Z adds and so etc., codex bb therefore etc.
- 7Cfr. supra p. I. q. 1. seqq. — Superius post quam quod unum sit cod. X addit in uno.Cf. above p. I. q. 1 ff. — Above, after than that the one be codex X adds in one.
- 8Quia est divina. — Post una est in cod. II additur numero.Because it is divine. — After it is one in codex II is added in number.
- 9Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 7: Certe maius est creare illud quod non est, quam mutare quod est; ac longe maius, quod non est de nihilo procreare, quam quod est in aliud transmutare. — Edd. subiungunt et ex aliquo.Innocent III, IV On the sacred mystery of the Altar, c. 7: Certainly it is greater to create that which is not, than to change what is; and far greater, to bring forth from nothing what is not, than to change into another what is. — The editions append and from something.
- 10Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 1. a. 2. § 6. hoc declarat his verbis: In hac transmutatione non remanet aliquid commune, quod est sustentans [i. e. materia] ipsam transmutationem... Si dicatur, quod ibi est corpus commune. Hoc verum est eo modo, quo logicus sumit commune, non eo modo, quo actio creaturae requirit commune. Cfr. infra d. 11. p. 1. q. 2. ad 4. et q. 6. et Aristot., XI. Metaph. c. 8. (X. c. 9.) — Pro secundum genus subiectum cod. aa secundum generis substantiam.Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV. q. 10. m. 1. a. 2. § 6, declares this in these words: In this change there does not remain something common, which is the sustaining thing [i.e. matter] of the change itself... If it be said that there a common body is there. This is true in the way in which the logician takes "common," not in the way in which the action of a creature requires something common. Cf. below d. 11. p. 1. q. 2. ad 4 and q. 6, and Aristotle, Metaphysics XI. c. 8. (X. c. 9.) — For according to the subject genus codex aa [reads] according to the substance of the genus.
- 11August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 24. n. 1: Illud [saturatio quinque millium hominum de quinque panibus] mirantur homines, non quia maius est, sed quia rarum est. — Mox post maius est cod. aa addit secundum veritatem, et post videtur subiungit quia rarius quotidie est creatio in rebus, sed non ita consecratio.Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John tr. 24, n. 1: That [the feeding of five thousand men from five loaves] men marvel at, not because it is greater, but because it is rare. — Soon after is greater codex aa adds according to truth, and after seems subjoins because daily creation is rarer in things, yet not so consecration.
- 12In seq. quaest. — Superius edd. omittunt non de alio.In the following question. — Above, the editions omit not from another.
- 13Scil. in creatione caeli et terrae. — Cod. B ibi nullius. Cod. K subinde omittit non, referendo ultima verba solutionis ad ibi nulla.That is, in the creation of heaven and earth. — Codex B [reads] there of none. Codex K thereupon omits not, referring the last words of the solution to there none.
- 14Ita cod. F a secunda manu et edd.; codd. minora. Sensus est: licet transsubstantiatio et creatio in eo conveniant, quod nihil commune in terminis a quo et ad quem inveniatur, tamen in transsubstantiatione habetur quodammodo terminus a quo et in quem (panis convertitur in corpus Christi), ratione cuius dici (praedicari) potest corpus converti in corpus; hoc autem non est in creatione. — Pro praedicabilis plurimi codd. principalis.Thus codex F by a second hand and the editions; the codices [read] lesser things. The sense is: although transubstantiation and creation agree in this, that nothing common is found in the terms from which and to which, nevertheless in transubstantiation there is in a certain way a term from which and into which (bread is converted into the body of Christ), by reason of which it can be said (predicated) that a body is converted into a body; but this is not so in creation. — For predicable very many codices [read] principal.