← Back to Distinction 10

Dist. 10, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 4

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 10

Textus Latinus
p. 232

Quaestio IV. Utrum virtus verborum possit convertere quantamcumque materiam.

Quarto quaeritur de virtute transsubstantiante1 per comparationem ad elementum2, et quaeritur, utrum virtus verborum possit convertere quantamcumque materiam. Et quod sic, videtur3:

1. Quia4 aeque difficile7 est convertere unam hostiam5, sicut duas, et ita duas, ut tres, et sic procedendo6: ergo pari ratione aeque facile8 est convertere magnam et parvam quantitatem.

p. 233

2. Item, conversio illa est a virtute immensa; sed illa virtus potest super quantamcumque materiam: ergo etc.

3. Item, unus sacerdos toti mundo posset conficere; eadem ratione, si duplo plures essent, et sic ascendendo: ergo etc.

4. Item, panis est totum homogeneum, ergo eiusdem naturae est in toto et in partibus; et si secundum hanc partem convenit ad conversionem, et secundum omnem: ergo si adsit verbum et elementum, cum ista faciant Sacramentum, patet etc.

5. Item, sicut medium11 corrumpitur per superfluum, ita per diminutum; sed in quantacumque parva quantitate potest verbum convertere: ergo in quantacumque magna.

Contra: 1. Omnia creavit Deus in numero, pondere et mensura, sicut dicitur Sapientiae undecimo12: ergo in hoc Sacramento concernitur determinata mensura: non ergo potest in quantamcumque materiam.

2. Item, baptizans, si intenderet verbo consecrare totum mare, non tamen consecraret nisi eam partem, quae venit in usum13: ergo videtur similiter, quod nec hic totum panem.

3. Item, virtute Sacramenti non debet fieri aliquid, quod sit in contumeliam Sacramenti; sed si virtute verbi hoc fieret, posset stultus sacerdos conficere totum panem de foro, et sic hoc Sacramentum veniret in contumeliam: ergo etc.

4. Item, «natura nihil facit frustra14», ergo multo minus nec Deus; sed si in quantalibet quantitate fieret consecratio, esset frustra: ergo etc.

Conclusio

Probabile esse videtur, quod virtus verborum non se extendat nisi ad tantam materiam, quanta congruit sumi in usum fidelium.

Respondeo: Ad hoc voluerunt aliqui dicere, quod nedum15 panem de foro, immo etiam, nisi servetur ritus ab Ecclesia institutus, non conficit sacerdos; quia, sicut non potest conficere nisi sacerdos, sic nec ipse sacerdos conficit, nisi modum sacerdotum et ritum servet in conficiendo. Et hoc dicunt fuisse revelatum9. Qui autem aliter facit, non sacerdos, sed Sacramenti temerator secundum iudicium eorum reputatur10. — Sed haec positio est nimis arcta, quia, sicut dicit Augustinus, et habetur distinctione octava16, forma verborum, in quibus consistit vis conficiendi, valde modica est; et constat addita esse huiusmodi ad solemnitatem.

Alia positio est, quod si adsit intentio et verbum et elementum, est Sacramentum in quantacumque materia. Unde si sacerdos totum panem de foro intenderet conficere, confectum esset, et similiter totum vinum de cellario. — Sed haec positio nimis ampla est; et dum nimis tribuit verbo et ministro, infert contumeliam Sacramento. Nec credendum est, quod Christus hoc daret, cum nec sapiens homo dictaret, hoc esse dandum; et ipse sapientissime omnia fecit17 et maxime sapienter hoc instituit Sacramentum.

Et propterea dicendum sine praeiudicio, quod non fit virtute verborum conversio, nisi adsit intentio et intentio concors institutioni et intentioni Ecclesiae; quia, sicut dicit Hugo18, «omne Sacramentum irritum reputatur, si contra institutionem celebratur». Intentio autem Ecclesiae et instituentis est convertere ad usum fidelium. Unde cum virtus verborum secundum intentionem reguletur, ad tantam materiam se extendit, ad quantam potest sacerdos conficere, quod debeat et congruat sumi in usum fidelium.

1. Et per hoc patet, quod sacerdos volens conficere totum panem de foro, nihil facit.

2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod illa virtus potest super quantamcumque materiam; dicendum, quod verum est; sed hoc19 non venit ex impotentia verbi, sed ex defectu intentionis. — Similiter patet sequens: quia, si tot essent fideles, quibus necesse esset habere tantum de hostiis, quantum de pane in foro, tunc ordinata intentione posset conficere.

4. 5. Ad aliud dicendum, quod non est defectus ex parte materiae, sed intentionis ordinatae, ut dictum est, non, inquam, ad finem, quia talis ordinatio non facit ad hoc, quod fiat conversio, vel non. Si enim aliquis conficit intentione lueri20, nihilominus conficit; sed si aliquis conficeret non ad usum, sed ut proiiceret in latrinam, dicitur ab aliquibus, quod nihil faceret. Quidquid sit de hoc, tamen illud verum est, quod oportet, quod habilitas sit ad usum secundum probabilitatis iudicium;

p. 234

et ideo non potest confici in quantacumque quantitate, propter hoc quod quantitatis nimietas aufert utendi idoneitatem ex parte materiae. — Sed quantumcumque sit parva quantitas, sine indecentia potest venire ad usum; et ideo quantitas parva non impedit, quia quantumcumque modica potest venire in usum21.

---

English Translation

Question IV. Whether the power of the words can convert any quantity of matter whatsoever.

Fourthly, inquiry is made concerning the transubstantiating power1 in relation to the element2, and it is asked whether the power of the words can convert any quantity of matter whatsoever. And that it can, seems3 [to be the case]:

1. Because4 it is equally difficult7 to convert one host5 as two, and so two as three, and so proceeding6: therefore by parity of reasoning it is equally easy8 to convert a large and a small quantity.

2. Likewise, that conversion is from an immense power; but that power can [act] upon any quantity of matter whatsoever: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, one priest could consecrate for the whole world; by the same reasoning, if there were twice as many, and so ascending: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, bread is something wholly homogeneous, therefore it is of the same nature in the whole and in the parts; and if it is suited to conversion according to this part, then also according to every part: therefore if the word and the element be present, since these make the Sacrament, it is evident etc.

5. Likewise, just as a mean11 is corrupted by excess, so too by defect; but in however small a quantity the word can convert: therefore [it can] in however large a quantity.

On the contrary: 1. God created all things in number, weight, and measure, as is said in the eleventh chapter of Wisdom12: therefore in this Sacrament a determinate measure is involved: therefore it cannot [be] in any quantity of matter whatsoever.

2. Likewise, one baptizing, if he intended by the word to consecrate the whole sea, would nevertheless consecrate only that part which comes into use13: therefore it seems likewise, that here too [he would] not [consecrate] the whole [quantity of] bread.

3. Likewise, by the power of the Sacrament nothing ought to be done which would be to the contempt of the Sacrament; but if this were done by the power of the word, a foolish priest could consecrate all the bread in the market, and thus this Sacrament would come into contempt: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, «nature does nothing in vain14», therefore much less does God; but if consecration were brought about in any quantity whatsoever, it would be in vain: therefore etc.

Conclusion

It seems probable that the power of the words does not extend itself except to as much matter as is fitting to be taken into the use of the faithful.

I respond: It must be said that to this some have wished to say that not only15 [does the priest] not [consecrate] bread from the market, but indeed also, unless the rite instituted by the Church be observed, the priest does not consecrate; because, just as none but a priest can consecrate, so neither does the priest himself consecrate unless he observe the manner of priests and the rite in consecrating. And they say this was revealed9. But whoever does otherwise is not a priest, but a violator of the Sacrament, according to their judgment10. — But this position is too narrow, because, as Augustine says, and as is found in the eighth distinction16, the form of the words, in which the power of consecrating consists, is very small; and it is agreed that things of this kind were added for the sake of solemnity.

Another position is that if intention and word and element be present, there is a Sacrament in any quantity of matter whatsoever. Hence if a priest were to intend to consecrate all the bread in the market, it would be consecrated, and likewise all the wine in the cellar. — But this position is too broad; and while it attributes too much to the word and the minister, it brings contempt upon the Sacrament. Nor is it to be believed that Christ would grant this, since not even a wise man would dictate that this be granted; and He Himself made all things most wisely17 and most wisely instituted this Sacrament.

And therefore it must be said, without prejudice, that conversion does not come about by the power of the words unless intention be present, and an intention in accord with the institution and intention of the Church; because, as Hugh says18, «every Sacrament is reckoned void if it is celebrated against the institution». But the intention of the Church and of the One instituting is to convert [it] to the use of the faithful. Hence since the power of the words is regulated according to the intention, it extends itself to as much matter as a priest can consecrate, which ought to and is fitting to be taken into the use of the faithful.

1. And through this it is evident that a priest wishing to consecrate all the bread in the market does nothing.

2. 3. To that which is objected, that this power can [act] upon any quantity of matter whatsoever; it must be said that it is true; but this19 does not come from an impotence of the word, but from a defect of intention. — Likewise the following is evident: because, if there were so many faithful that it were necessary for them to have as much in hosts as [there is] of bread in the market, then with an ordered intention he could consecrate.

4. 5. To the other [it must be said] that there is no defect on the part of the matter, but of the ordered intention, as has been said — not, I say, [a defect ordered] to the end, because such an ordering does not bring it about whether the conversion takes place or not. For if someone consecrates with the intention of profit20, he nonetheless consecrates; but if someone were to consecrate not for use, but in order to cast [it] into a latrine, it is said by some that he would do nothing. Whatever may be of this, nevertheless it is true that it is necessary that there be a fitness for use according to a judgment of probability;

and therefore it cannot be consecrated in any quantity whatsoever, on account of this, that an excess of quantity takes away the suitability for use on the part of the matter. — But however small the quantity be, it can come into use without indecency; and therefore a small quantity is no impediment, because however small it can come into use21.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    August., II. de Moribus Manichaeor. c. 6. n. 8. seq. Damasc., Dialectica, c. 61, et III. de Fide orthod. c. 28; Aristot., I. Phys. text. 82. (c. 9.), V. text. 7. seq. (c. I.); I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 20. (c. 3.), et I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 17. (c. 3.). — Inferius pro cedat codd. V G et ed. 1 cedit, codd. A E Iv L V Z aa secedit.
    Augustine, II. On the Morals of the Manichaeans c. 6, n. 8 ff. Damascene, Dialectic, c. 61, and III. On the Orthodox Faith c. 28; Aristotle, I. Physics text 82 (c. 9), V. text 7 ff. (c. 1); I. On the Heaven and the World, text 20 (c. 3), and I. On Generation and Corruption, text 17 (c. 3). — Below, for cedat codices V G and ed. 1 [read] cedit, codices A E Iv L V Z aa secedit.
  2. 2
    Part. I. quaest. I. Cfr. d. 3. p. II. a. I. q. 2. et infra d. 13. a. I. q. 3. — Inferius pro non enim cod. H (bb a secunda manu) non autem.
    Part I, question I. Cf. d. 3, p. II, a. I, q. 2, and below d. 13, a. I, q. 3. — Below, for non enim codex H (bb by a second hand) [reads] non autem.
  3. 3
    Ut Avicenna; cfr. supra pag. 42, nota 4. — Verbis mei dator edd. praemittunt Deus.
    As Avicenna; cf. above p. 42, note 4. — Before the words mei dator the editions prefix Deus.
  4. 4
    Codd. praecipuas. Inferius post patent codd. B M Q (bb a secunda manu) addunt primo, cod. H ergo. Subinde post quia ex codd. B H L Q (E bb a secunda manu) interseruimus concedo [codd. L Q concedunt], quod. Post pauca pro creati, quod habent codd. H L N V (bb a secunda manu), edd. prolati.
    The principal codices. Below, after patent, codices B M Q (bb by a second hand) add primo, codex H ergo. Then after quia, from codices B H L Q (E bb by a second hand) we have inserted concedo [codices L Q concedunt], quod. After a little, for creati, codices H L N V (bb by a second hand) have quod, the editions prolati.
  5. 5
    Dist. I. p. I. q. 4. in fine. Cfr. etiam d. 3. p. II. a. I. q. 2. — Pro dolent codd. E K O R S T W Z tenent, quae lectio respondet supra propositis d. I. p. I. q. 3.
    Dist. I, p. I, q. 4, at the end. Cf. also d. 3, p. II, a. I, q. 2. — For dolent codices E K O R S T W Z [read] tenent, which reading corresponds to what was proposed above at d. I, p. I, q. 3.
  6. 6
    De quo vide supra d. I. p. I. q. 5. in fine.
    On which see above d. I, p. I, q. 5, at the end.
  7. 7
    Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.
    See the scholion on question I of this article.
  8. 8
    Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. facile.
    The Vatican edition, with one or another codex, [reads] facile.
  9. 9
    Cfr. supra q. I. seq.
    Cf. above q. I ff.
  10. 10
    Secundum August., supra lit. Magistri, d. III. c. I. allegatum. — De propos. praecedentibus cfr. supra p. I. q. 3.
    According to Augustine, cited above in the text of the Master, d. III, c. I. — On the preceding propositions cf. above p. I, q. 3.
  11. 11
    Nam, ut insinuat Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 6, medium est aequale inter excessum et defectum sive aeque distat ab utroque extremo. Cfr. etiam IV. de Caelo et mundo, text. 34. (c. I.)
    For, as Aristotle suggests, II. Ethics c. 6, a mean is equal between excess and defect, or is equally distant from both extremes. Cf. also IV. On the Heaven and the World, text 34 (c. 1).
  12. 12
    Vers. 21: Omnia in mensura et numero et pondere disposuisti.
    Verse 21: Thou hast ordered all things in measure and number and weight.
  13. 13
    Vide supra d. 3. p. I. a. I. q. 1. ad 2. — In cod. bb secunda manus addidit baptismi. Pro venit cod. E veniret. In fine arg. cod. F subiungit de foro.
    See above d. 3, p. I, a. I, q. 1, ad 2. — In codex bb a second hand added baptismi. For venit codex E [reads] veniret. At the end of the argument codex F appends de foro.
  14. 14
    Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 32. (c. I.), et III. de Anima, text. 43. (c. 9.).
    Aristotle, I. On the Heaven and the World, text 32 (c. 1), and III. On the Soul, text 43 (c. 9).
  15. 15
    In edd. additur non totum.
    In the editions there is added non totum.
  16. 16
    Cap. 4, ubi dicit, quod in verbis Christi conficiatur, reliqua omnia nihil sint quam laudes etc.
    Chapter 4, where he says that consecration is effected in the words of Christ, [and that] all the rest are nothing but praises etc.
  17. 17
    Psalm. 103, 24: Domine, omnia in sapientia fecisti. — Pro omnia codd. H L cetera.
    Psalm 103:24: Lord, Thou hast made all things in wisdom. — For omnia codices H L [read] cetera.
  18. 18
    Sum. Sent. tr. 6. c. I. Vide supra pag. 168, nota 3.
    Summa Sententiarum tr. 6, c. I. See above p. 168, note 3.
  19. 19
    Scil., quod non conficiatur. — Infra post intentionis cod. U addit ordinatae.
    That is, that it not be consecrated. — Below, after intentionis, codex U adds ordinatae.
  20. 20
    Cfr. supra d. 6. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. in corp.
    Cf. above d. 6, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, in the body.
  21. 21
    [?] Brevis nota apparatus huic loco (p. 234) apposita; eius textus in tabula notarum p. 234 — quae integra ad ARTICULUM II. spectat — non distincte legitur. Cfr. supra de usu fidelium.
    [?] A short apparatus note attached to this place (p. 234); its text in the footer block of p. 234 — which otherwise belongs wholly to ARTICULUS II — is not distinctly legible. Cf. the standing cross-references above on the use of the faithful.
Cited by

1 place in the Opera Omnia citesthis question. Derived from Quaracchi’s own apparatus, never tagged by hand.

Whether, against the will of one's own priest, it is permitted to a penitent to confess to another more discreet priest, or whether he is bound to confess to his own priest
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 17
supra pag. 233, nota 6

7 further references address the article or printed page this question belongs to, rather than the question itself.

← Dist. 10, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 3Dist. 10, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1→