Dist. 10, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 10
Quaestio II. Utrum virtus transsubstantiandi sit nobilior virtute concipiendi Christum.
Secundo quaeritur de virtute transsubstantiandi per comparationem ad virtutem concipiendi. Et quod virtus transsubstantiandi sit nobilior, ostenditur sic.
1. Nobilitas et magnitudo virtutis per actum dignoscitur, et actus per terminum; sed virtus conceptionis in Virgine terminata est ad corpus Christi passibile et mortale, transsubstantiatio autem ad corpus impassibile et immortale, et hoc, prout est in perfecta aetate et substantia et quantitate1: ergo etc.
2. Item, quanto illud, ex quo incipit actio, minorem habet dispositionem ad terminum actionis,
tanto virtus reducens est excellentior et virtuosior; sed panis minorem habet dispositionem ad carnem Christi quam caro beatae Virginis: cum igitur virtute transsubstantiationis panis transeat in carnem et virtute conceptionis caro beatae Virginis facta sit caro Christi; videtur, quod virtus transsubstantians sit dignior et excellentior.
3. Item, quanto virtus magis se diffundit et communicat, tanto potentior et melior, quia « bonum est communicativum sui2 »: sed virtus transsubstantiandi est communis toti mundo et Christi carnem facit esse, ubicumque fideles sunt; virtus autem concipiendi solum fuit in Virgine et Christum solum in uno loco fecit esse: ergo haec virtus, scilicet transsubstantiandi, est nobilior et excellentior.
Contra: 1. Illa virtus est dignior, quae subiectum suum facit dignius et excellentius; sed virtus concipiendi data Virgini Mariae fecit eam multo digniorem, quam virtus sive potestas consecrandi data sacerdoti vel verbo3: ergo virtus concipiendi est excellentior.
2. Item, opus illud est maius et excellentius, de quo tenetur quis secundum rectam rationem plus laudare Deum et ei regratiari; sed magis tenemur laudare Deum de conceptione gloriosae Virginis, quam de consecratione, quam facit sacerdos in altari: ergo etc.
3. Item, illa virtus est potentior et maior, quae potest in plus; sed beata Virgo unica conceptione concepit illud idem et tantum, quantum omnes sacerdotes omnibus consecrationibus conficiunt a principio mundi usque ad finem; et praeterea, novum aliquid, quod non erat, nobis concepit; sed sacerdos non conficit nisi quod erat: ergo virtus conceptionis ad maiorem effectum sive terminum se extendit: ergo nobilior.
Conclusio.
Virtus concipiendi Christi nobilior est virtute transsubstantiandi tum quoad manifestationem divinae potentiae, qua laudatur divina Maiestas, tum quatenus consideratur communicata beatae Virgini.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod dupliciter est loqui de utraque harum virtutum: aut prout sunt in suo fonte et primo principio, ut dicatur virtus concipiendi, quae operata est conceptionem et principaliter et propria auctoritate, et similiter virtus transsubstantiandi; et sic non est comparatio secundum maius et minus in se4; sed si comparentur ad manifestationem factam per effectus, iudicandum est, quod se habent sicut excedentia et excessa. Licet enim utrumque sit nobilissimum et ostendat, Dei potentiam esse summam; in illo tamen magis laudatur Maiestas divina, et in hoc captivatur magis ratio nostra5.
Alio modo possumus loqui de hac duplici virtute, prout dicitur communicari creaturae, secundum quod dicitur, quod Virgini data est potestas concipiendi et sacerdoti per verbum potestas conficiendi; et sic loquendo simpliciter virtus concipiendi est dignior et excellentior, quia subiectum6 magis nobilitat — maius enim est esse matrem Dei quam esse sacerdotem — quia etiam actio singularior et praeclarior — maius enim est concipere quam conficere — quia terminus actionis plus accipit a concipiente Matre quam a conficiente sacerdote. Accepit enim a Matre humanitatem et esse, non tantum esse hic vel esse ibi; in consecratione vero, sicut melius patebit7, corpus Christi non incipit esse.
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de nobilitate corporis Christi, iam patet responsio. Nam corpus Christi in consecratione non fit; quod si fieret, tunc utique bene concederem rationem, sed certe tunc non fit eius humanitas, quia facta est in conceptione; non fit gloria corporis, quia facta est in resurrectione; non fit perfecta aetas, quia triginta annorum spatio est perfecta. Unde argumentum deficit, quia arguit, ac si faceret8. Sed per consecrationem nihil novum fit, sed hoc solum fit, ut quod erat in caelo perfectum et gloriosum virtute transsubstantiandi idem sine mutatione sit in altari.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod minor est dispositio; dicendum, quod ex utraque parte erat potentia obedientiae. Verumtamen esto, quod minor sit dispositio, tamen virtus data verbo vel sacerdoti non efficit vel reducit ad actum, sicut virtus conceptionis data Virgini9; et hoc melius patebit in tertio problemate.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de communicatione, quod nobilior est virtus, quae se magis communicat; dicendum, quod hoc verum est, ceteris aliis paribus; sed non sic in proposito. Nam beatissima Virgo Maria tantam habuit divinitus sibi collatam virtutem, quod recte Mater Domini dicitur et est verissime10; sacerdos autem — nec verbum — nec pater nec mater Christi potest dici, quamvis ad eius ministerium convertatur panis in beatissimum corpus Christi11.
De 2. quaestione. Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaestionem; ibi enim de utraque hac virtute, transsubstantiandi scilicet et concipiendi, simul agitur.
---
Question II. Whether the power of transubstantiating is nobler than the power of conceiving Christ.
Secondly it is asked about the power of transubstantiating by comparison to the power of conceiving. And that the power of transubstantiating is nobler is shown thus.
1. The nobility and magnitude of a power is known through its act, and the act through its term; but the power of conceiving in the Virgin was terminated at the body of Christ as passible and mortal, whereas transubstantiation is terminated at a body impassible and immortal, and this insofar as it is in perfect age and substance and quantity1: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, the less the disposition toward the term of the action possessed by that from which the action begins,
the more excellent and more powerful is the reducing power; but bread has a lesser disposition toward the flesh of Christ than the flesh of the Blessed Virgin: since therefore by the power of transubstantiation bread passes into flesh, and by the power of conception the flesh of the Blessed Virgin was made the flesh of Christ; it seems that the transubstantiating power is more worthy and more excellent.
3. Likewise, the more a power diffuses and communicates itself, the more potent and the better it is, because "the good is self-communicative2": but the power of transubstantiating is common to the whole world and makes the flesh of Christ to be wherever the faithful are; whereas the power of conceiving was only in the Virgin and made Christ to be in one place only: therefore this power, namely of transubstantiating, is nobler and more excellent.
On the contrary: 1. That power is more worthy which makes its subject more worthy and more excellent; but the power of conceiving given to the Virgin Mary made her much more worthy than the power or potestas of consecrating given to a priest or to the word3: therefore the power of conceiving is more excellent.
2. Likewise, that work is greater and more excellent for which, according to right reason, one is held to praise God and give thanks to Him more; but we are more held to praise God for the conception of the glorious Virgin than for the consecration which the priest performs at the altar: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, that power is more potent and greater which can do more; but the Blessed Virgin by a single conception conceived that same thing and as much as all priests by all consecrations confect from the beginning of the world to the end; and moreover, she conceived for us something new which was not before; but the priest confects only what already was: therefore the power of conception extends to a greater effect or term: therefore it is nobler.
Conclusion.
The power of conceiving Christ is nobler than the power of transubstantiating, both as regards the manifestation of the divine power, by which the divine Majesty is praised, and inasmuch as it is considered as communicated to the Blessed Virgin.
I respond: It must be said that there are two ways of speaking of each of these powers: either insofar as they are in their source and first principle, so that there is spoken of the power of conceiving, which effected the conception both principally and by its own authority, and likewise the power of transubstantiating; and in this way there is no comparison according to greater and lesser in itself4; but if they are compared as to the manifestation made through effects, it must be judged that they stand as exceeding and exceeded. For although each is most noble and shows that God's power is supreme; yet in the one the divine Majesty is more praised, and in the other our reason is more taken captive5.
In another way we can speak of this twofold power, insofar as it is said to be communicated to a creature, according to which it is said that to the Virgin was given the power of conceiving and to the priest, through the word, the power of confecting; and speaking in this way, absolutely the power of conceiving is more worthy and more excellent, because it ennobles its subject6 more — for it is greater to be the Mother of God than to be a priest — because also its action is more singular and more illustrious — for it is greater to conceive than to confect — because the term of the action receives more from the conceiving Mother than from the confecting priest. For it received from the Mother humanity and being, not only being here or being there; whereas in consecration, as will better appear7, the body of Christ does not begin to be.
1. To that, therefore, which is objected concerning the nobility of the body of Christ, the response is already plain. For the body of Christ in consecration is not made; and if it were made, then indeed I would readily grant the argument, but certainly even then its humanity would not be made, since that was made in the conception; nor would the glory of the body be made, since that was made in the resurrection; nor would perfect age be made, since it is made perfect by the span of thirty years. Hence the argument fails, because it argues as if it made [it]8. But through consecration nothing new is made; rather, this alone is made, that what was in heaven perfect and glorious by the power of transubstantiating should, the same, without change, be on the altar.
2. To that which is objected, that the disposition is lesser; it must be said that on either side there was a potency of obedience. Nevertheless, granting that the disposition is lesser, still the power given to the word or to the priest does not effect or reduce to act, as does the power of conceiving given to the Virgin9; and this will better appear in the third problem.
3. To that which is objected concerning communication, that the power which communicates itself more is nobler; it must be said that this is true, all other things being equal; but it is not so in the matter at hand. For the most blessed Virgin Mary had so great a power divinely conferred upon her that she is rightly called, and most truly is, the Mother of the Lord10; but the priest — nor the word — can be called neither father nor mother of Christ, although for his ministry the bread is converted into the most blessed body of Christ11.
On the 2nd question. See the scholion to the preceding question; for there both of these powers, namely of transubstantiating and of conceiving, are treated together.
---
- 1Cfr. supra p. 1. q. 1. seq.Cf. above, part 1, q. 1 and following.
- 2Secundum Dionys.; cfr. supra pag. 188, nota 1.According to Dionysius; cf. above, p. 188, note 1.
- 3Vide quaest. seq.See the following question.
- 4Quia scilicet utraque est ipsa virtus Dei infinita.Namely, because each is the very infinite power of God.
- 5Respicitur II. Cor. 10, 5: In captivitatem redigentes omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi. Edd. captivat.Reference is to 2 Cor. 10:5: Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ. The editions read captivat (captivates).
- 6Cod. Z (Ea secunda manu) addit suum, plures alii secundum. Inferius post actio edd. subiungunt Virginis est gloriosior, et subinde pro accipit substituunt accepit.Codex Z (Ea, by a second hand) adds suum (its own), several others secundum. Below, after actio the editions add Virginis est gloriosior (is more glorious in the Virgin), and thereupon for accipit (receives) substitute accepit (received).
- 7In solut. ad 1. et d. 11. p. 1. q. 1. seqq.In the solution to the first [objection], and in d. 11, part 1, q. 1 and following.
- 8Supple: consecratio praedicta. — Edd. planius fieret. Inferius post sine [codd. R S T omittunt sine] mutatione cod. O addit sui.Supply: the aforesaid consecration. — The editions read more plainly fieret (it would be made). Below, after sine [codices R S T omit sine] mutatione, codex O adds sui.
- 9Cfr. III. Sent. d. 4. a. 3. q. 1. seq. — De potentia obedientiae cfr. II. Sent. d. 18. a. 1. q. 2.Cf. III Sent., d. 4, a. 3, q. 1 and following. — On the potency of obedience cf. II Sent., d. 18, a. 1, q. 2.
- 10Ut ostensum est III. Sent. d. 4. a. 3. q. 3.As was shown in III Sent., d. 4, a. 3, q. 3.
- 11Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion to the preceding question.