Dist. 10, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 10
Articulus II. De eucharistia per comparationem ad virtutem apprehendentem.
Consequenter quaeritur de virtute apprehendente existentiam Christi veram in altari. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, utrum talis existentia sit supra intellectum viatoris. Secundo quaeritur, utrum sit supra sensum comprehensoris.
Quaestio I. Utrum existentia corporis Christi in Sacramento sit supra intellectum viatoris.
Et quod sit supra intellectum viatoris1, ostenditur sic.
1. Omnis cognitio intellectiva secundum naturam convenientem nostro intellectui incipit a sensu — propter quod etiam dicit Philosophus2, quod « nihil est in intellectu, quod prius non fuerit in sensu » — sed corpus Christi esse sub illis speciebus est tale quid, quod numquam fuit in aliquo sensu, nec in se nec in simili: ergo etc.
2. Item, quod est supra experientiam est supra intelligentiam humanam — quoniam cognitio generatur in nobis per experientiam, ut dicit Philosophus3: « Ex multis sensibus fit una memoria » etc. — sed existentia corporis Christi sub Sacramento est supra experientiam, quia « fides non habet meritum, cui humana ratio praebet experimentum »: ergo supra intelligentiam nostram.
3. Item, intellectus noster supponit hoc tamquam principium per se notum, cui non potest contradicere ad interius-rationem, quod omne continens corpus maius est vel aequale illi quod continet; sed species sive hostia nec est maior nec aequalis, sicut dicit fides: ergo si intellectus hoc ponit, ponit ergo contra se.
4. Item, omnis intellectus humanus hoc dicit, quod si aliquid est in aliquo toto et fiat in minori, quod necesse habet contrahi, aut illud excedit4 simpliciter; sed fides nostra dicit, quod in hoc Sacramento corpus Christi est in magna hostia, et iterum in medietate hostiae ita magnum et non contractum: ergo intellectus hoc non potest capere.
Contra:
1. Nullus tenetur ad impossibile5: ergo si hoc est omnino supra posse nostri intellectus, nullus tenetur credere: ergo qui non credit, ibi esse corpus, sicut fides praedicat, non peccat.
2. Item, Augustinus6 dicit: « Quod credimus, debetur auctoritati; quod intelligimus, rationi »; sed nullas rationes habemus ad monstrandum, quod ibi sit verum corpus Christi, et quod, si est verum, est integrum et vivum: ergo videtur, quod intelligamus.
2. Item, quod est supra intellectum est supra verbum et sermonem, quia sermo ortum habet ab intellectu7: ergo non videtur, quod aliquis possit de hoc Sacramento loqui.
Quaeritur etiam iuxta hoc: si totum est fidei quod est in hoc Sacramento; videtur, quod peccat quicumque se intromittit disputare de ipso.
Et iterum, cum alii articuli fidei sint supra intellectum8, propter quid magis dicitur de isto quam de aliis?
Conclusio. Existentia corporis Christi in Sacramento altaris est supra vel contra intellectum, ut est humanus; sed intellectus fidelis sufficit in assentiendo et concordat in ratiocinando, licet non comprehendat.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod aliqui voluerunt hic subtiliari et dicere, quod hoc aliquo modo erat intelligibile. Et quamvis existentia talis sit supra p. 235 naturam corporis humani non glorificati, non est tamen supra naturam corporis glorificati, quia corpus illud habet proprietates lucis et nobilitates lucis9; corpus autem lucis tantae nobilitatis est per naturam, quod in maiori spatio et minori potest esse, ita quod ipsum nec sit maius nec minus. — Exemplum autem dant sic: si lux candelae sive lumen sit in magna domo et postmodum transferatur in parvam, lux candelae tanta est in parva10, quanta in magna, non rarior nec densior; similiter radius, si dirigatur in propinquum et in longinquum. Similiter volunt dicere in corpore glorioso, et maxime in corpore Christi. — Sed ista manuductio ad intelligendum potius intellectum obfuscat, quam aperit: primum, quia exemplum non est conveniens in se; « lumen enim non est corpus nec defluxus corporis11 » nec rarefit nec condensatur. Rursus, non est conveniens ad propositum, quia diffusio luminis, quia arctatur secundum spatium, configuratur secundum illud, in quod diffunditur. Si ergo corpus Christi sic esset in hostia, oporteret, quod figura nasi et aliorum membrorum configuraretur planitiei hostiae. Et iterum, non potest intelligi, quod contrahatur, quin una pars corporis intret sub alia; ac per hoc non manet corporis quantitas et figura, et multa inconvenientia ad hoc sequuntur.
Ideo dicendum aliter, quod est supra naturam corporis glorificati, nec possunt proprietates illae convenire alicui per naturam; et si conveniant, hoc solum est per miraculum; et ideo non est quaerendum simile, per quod capiatur.
Si ergo quaeratur ratio, per quam intelligatur, vel utrum sit intelligibile; dicendum, quod est loqui de intellectu nostro, ut est humanus, vel ut est fidelis. Si ut est humanus; sic intelligit conversus ad imaginationem et sensum et iudicat secundum causas intrinsecas et inferiores. Et ideo deficit in assentiendo, quia non assentit nisi secundum manuductionem, quae ortum habet ab imaginatione et sensu. Item, quia iudicat secundum causas intrinsecas et creatas, et ita comparando potentiam continendi12 ipsius hostiae ad potentiam continendi passive ipsius corporis; et quia invenit repugnantiam et improportionabilitatem: ideo contradicit in ratiocinando. Et ita iste articulus dicitur esse supra intellectum et contra intellectum, secundum quod est intellectus humanus. — Si autem loquamur de intellectu, secundum quod est fidelis; dicendum, quod assentit secundum dictamen fidei et secundum regulam veritatis aeternae; ideo sufficit in assentiendo et concordat in ratiocinando. Intellectus enim fidem habens statim credit, ex quo hoc propositum est sibi, scilicet quod Christus esset13 sub speciebus illis, et hoc adiutus lumine fidei. Similiter concordat in ratiocinando, quia aspicit ad causas superiores. Sic enim dicit intellectus: Deus potest facere omne quod est congruum; et fides assumit: congruum est, quod caro Christi exponatur in cibum; et ideo ratio concludit, quod Deus hoc possit ibi facere. Item, intellectus dicit, quod Veritas non potest dicere falsam; et fides assumit: Veritas dixit: Hoc est corpus meum14, et praecepit, ut diceretur: ergo dixit verum.
Cum ergo sit in nobis duplex intellectus, scilicet fidelis et humanus; ideo sentimus in nobis aliquando colluctationes; fidelis tamen intellectus praevalet sibi, ut est humanus, quia elevat ipsum extra animalitatem15; attamen non ita elevat, quod comprehendat, ut meritum fidei integrum maneat. Et hoc patet: quia intellectus humanus dicit, quod impossibile est, quod maius contineatur a minori; et fidelis respondet, quod verum est localiter, et corpus Christi magnum non est ibi localiter, sed sacramentaliter; et quamvis illud sit impossibile16, tamen potest esse Deo possibile. Et quia nescimus, quid Deus possit, mutato modo essendi: ideo, licet intellectus sibi praevaleat, tamen nondum comprehendit.
Et sic patent rationes ad utramque partem. Primae enim procedunt de intellectu, secundum quod humanus, et secundae de intellectu, secundum quod fidelis17.
Ad illud tamen quod quaeritur, quare plus hoc dicitur esse supra intellectum; dicendum, quod in hoc quodam modo communicat nostra imaginatio, cum corpus Christi sit imaginabile; et quoniam illuditur ei, quia, ut est sub Sacramento, subterfugit imaginationem, immo supra ipsam est, ut prae- p. 236 habitum fuit, cum accipiat modum essendi, quem habet spiritus: ideo, cum repugnet imaginatio, magis est contra intellectum18. Sed in articulis aliis, scilicet Divinitatis, omnino deficit et non adeo repugnat.
Ad illud quod quaeritur, quare disputatur de hoc Sacramento, cum totum sit fidei; dicendum, quod non ad generandam fidem, sed ad nutriendam, ne propter ignorantiam aliquis concedat repugnans fidei, vel neget consequens ad fidem; et hoc perutilissimum et necessarium est, quia multa ponuntur in hoc Sacramento ab incautis, in quibus est periculum in asserendo. Unde disputamus, non ut melius credamus, sed ut fidem illibatam servemus, dum, ipsa cognita, errores caveamus et cavendo in veritate persistamus19.
I. Inter omnes constat, quod intellectus humanus, dum sensibus alligatus est, non nisi supernaturali lumine illustratus existentiam Christi sub speciebus Sacramenti possit cognoscere. Sed de intellectu separato, praesertim Angelorum, docet contra ceteros antiquos (cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 7. a. 3. § 8.) Scotus cum Nominalibus, quod naturali vi possit cognoscere hanc praesentiam; quam doctrinam nonnulli limitant excludendo modum huius praesentiae. — Attentione digna hic est distinctio duplicis intellectus et modus explicandi, quomodo uterque in hac materia se habeat tum circa assensum, tum circa ratiocinationem. De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., de hac et seq. q. loc. cit. — Scot., hic q. 8. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 4. quaestiunc. 4. 5; de hac et seq. q. S. III. q. 76. a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 6. q. 1. — De hac et seq. q. Durand., hic q. 4, et Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.
---
Article II. On the Eucharist by comparison to the apprehending power.
Next there is inquiry concerning the power that apprehends the true existence of Christ on the altar. And concerning this two things are asked. First it is asked, whether such existence is above the intellect of the wayfarer. Secondly it is asked, whether it is above the sense of the comprehensor.
Question I. Whether the existence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament is above the intellect of the wayfarer.
That it is above the intellect of the wayfarer1 is shown thus.
1. Every intellective cognition, according to the mode connatural to our intellect, begins from sense — on account of which the Philosopher also says2 that "there is nothing in the intellect which was not previously in sense" — but for the body of Christ to be under those species is such a thing as never was in any sense, neither in itself nor in something similar: therefore, etc.
2. Likewise, what is above experience is above human understanding — since cognition is generated in us through experience, as the Philosopher says3: "From many sense-perceptions one memory is made," etc. — but the existence of the body of Christ under the Sacrament is above experience, because "faith has no merit where human reason furnishes proof": therefore it is above our understanding.
3. Likewise, our intellect supposes this as a principle known through itself, which it cannot contradict by interior reasoning, namely that everything containing a body is greater than or equal to that which it contains; but the species or host is neither greater nor equal, as faith declares: therefore if the intellect posits this, it posits against itself.
4. Likewise, every human intellect declares this, that if something is in some whole and comes to be in a smaller, it must necessarily be contracted, or else it exceeds4 [it] simply; but our faith declares that in this Sacrament the body of Christ is in a large host, and again in half the host equally great and not contracted: therefore the intellect cannot grasp this.
On the contrary:
1. No one is bound to the impossible5: therefore if this is altogether above the power of our intellect, no one is bound to believe: therefore one who does not believe the body to be there, as faith proclaims, does not sin.
2. Likewise, Augustine6 says: "What we believe, we owe to authority; what we understand, to reason"; but we have no reasons for demonstrating that there is the true body of Christ, and that, if it is true, it is whole and living: therefore it seems that we do understand.
2. Likewise, what is above the intellect is above word and speech, because speech takes its origin from the intellect7: therefore it does not seem that anyone can speak of this Sacrament.
It is also asked alongside this: if everything that is in this Sacrament is of faith; it seems that whoever undertakes to dispute about it sins.
And again, since the other articles of faith are above the intellect8, on what account is this said more [of this one] than of the others?
Conclusion. The existence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar is above or contrary to the intellect, as it is human; but the faithful intellect suffices in assenting and concords in reasoning, although it does not comprehend.
I respond: It must be said that some wished to be subtle here and to say that this was in some way intelligible. And although such an existence is above p. 235 the nature of the non-glorified human body, it is nevertheless not above the nature of the glorified body, because that body has the properties of light and the nobilities of light9; but a body of light of such great nobility is by nature such that it can be in a greater and a smaller space, in such a way that it is neither greater nor smaller. — They give an example thus: if the light of a candle, or the gleam, is in a great house and afterward is transferred into a small one, the light of the candle is as great in the small10 as in the great, neither rarer nor denser; likewise a ray, whether it is directed near or far. They wish to say the same of the glorious body, and most of all of the body of Christ. — But this leading-by-the-hand toward understanding rather obscures the intellect than opens it: first, because the example is not fitting in itself; for "light is neither a body nor an effluence of a body11," nor is it rarefied nor condensed. Again, it is not fitting to the point at issue, because the diffusion of light, since it is constrained according to space, is configured according to that into which it is diffused. If therefore the body of Christ were thus in the host, it would be necessary that the figure of the nose and of the other members be configured to the flatness of the host. And again, it cannot be understood that it is contracted, without one part of the body entering under another; and through this the body's quantity and figure do not remain, and many incongruities follow upon this.
Therefore it must be said otherwise, that it is above the nature of the glorified body, nor can those properties belong to anything by nature; and if they do belong, this is only through miracle; and therefore one is not to seek a similitude by which it may be grasped.
If therefore a reason is sought by which it may be understood, or whether it is intelligible; it must be said that there is speaking of our intellect as it is human, or as it is faithful. If as it is human; thus it understands by turning to imagination and sense and judges according to intrinsic and lower causes. And therefore it fails in assenting, because it assents only according to a leading-by-the-hand which takes its origin from imagination and sense. Likewise, because it judges according to intrinsic and created causes, and so by comparing the power of containing12 of the host itself to the power of being contained passively of the body itself; and because it finds repugnance and disproportion: therefore it contradicts in reasoning. And so this article is said to be above the intellect and contrary to the intellect, according as it is human intellect. — But if we speak of the intellect according as it is faithful; it must be said that it assents according to the dictate of faith and according to the rule of eternal truth; therefore it suffices in assenting and concords in reasoning. For the intellect having faith straightway believes, once this is proposed to it, namely that Christ is13 under those species, and this aided by the light of faith. Likewise it concords in reasoning, because it looks to higher causes. For thus says the intellect: God can do everything that is fitting; and faith assumes: it is fitting that the flesh of Christ be set forth as food; and therefore reason concludes that God can do this there. Likewise, the intellect says that Truth cannot speak what is false; and faith assumes: Truth said: This is my body14, and commanded that it be said: therefore it said the truth.
Since therefore there is in us a twofold intellect, namely the faithful and the human; therefore we sometimes feel in ourselves conflicts; yet the faithful intellect prevails over itself as it is human, because it elevates it beyond animality15; nevertheless it does not so elevate it that it comprehends, so that the merit of faith may remain whole. And this is clear: for the human intellect says that it is impossible that a greater be contained by a lesser; and the faithful [intellect] responds that this is true locally, and the great body of Christ is not there locally, but sacramentally; and although that be impossible16, yet it can be possible to God. And because we do not know what God can do, the mode of being being changed: therefore, although the intellect prevail over itself, yet it does not yet comprehend.
And thus the reasons on either side are clear. For the first proceed from the intellect according as [it is] human, and the second from the intellect according as [it is] faithful17.
To that, however, which is asked, why this is said more to be above the intellect; it must be said that in this our imagination in some way shares, since the body of Christ is imaginable; and because it is deluded in this, that, as it is under the Sacrament, [the body] eludes the imagination, nay rather is above it, as has been p. 236 held before, since it takes on the mode of being which a spirit has: therefore, since the imagination resists, it is more contrary to the intellect18. But in the other articles, namely of the Divinity, [the intellect] altogether fails and does not so resist.
To that which is asked, why there is disputation about this Sacrament, since the whole is of faith; it must be said that [it is] not for generating faith, but for nourishing it, lest through ignorance anyone concede what is repugnant to faith, or deny what is consequent upon faith; and this is most useful and necessary, because many things are posited in this Sacrament by the incautious, in which there is danger in asserting. Hence we dispute, not that we may believe better, but that we may keep our faith unimpaired, while, it being known, we may guard against errors and by guarding may persist in the truth19.
I. Among all it is agreed that the human intellect, while it is bound to the senses, can cognize the existence of Christ under the species of the Sacrament only when illumined by a supernatural light. But concerning the separated intellect, especially of the Angels, Scotus together with the Nominalists teaches, against the other ancients (cf. Alex. of Hales, Summa, p. IV, q. 10, m. 7, a. 3, § 8), that it can cognize this presence by natural power; which doctrine some limit by excluding the mode of this presence. — Worthy of attention here is the distinction of the twofold intellect and the manner of explaining how each behaves in this matter, both as regards assent and as regards reasoning. On the same question: Alex. of Hales, on this and the following q. loc. cit. — Scotus, here q. 8. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 4, quaestiunc. 4–5; on this and the following q., Summa III, q. 76, a. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 6, q. 1. — On this and the following q. Durandus, here q. 4, and Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.
---
- 1Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.See the scholion to question 1 of this article.
- 2Vide tom. II. pag. 904, nota 2.See vol. II, p. 904, note 2.
- 3Libr. II. Poster. c. 18. (c. 15.), et I. Metaph. c. 1; cfr. III. Sent. d. 14. a. 3. q. 2. arg. 3. ad oppos. — Seq. testimonium est Gregor., II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 20. n. 1.Book II of the Posterior [Analytics], c. 18 (c. 15), and I Metaphysics c. 1; cf. III Sent., d. 14, a. 3, q. 2, arg. 3 against the opposite. — The following testimony is from Gregory, II Homilies on the Gospels, homily 20, n. 1.
- 4Hac formula utitur Aristot., I. Poster. c. 8. (c. 10.): Πρὸς τὸν ἔξω λόγον. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 155, nota 10, et tom. III. pag. 250, nota 7. — Edd. ad minus ratione. — Superius pro excedit codd. E F G I L excedet.Aristotle uses this formula, I Posterior [Analytics] c. 8 (c. 10): Pros ton exō logon ["toward the outward reasoning"]. Cf. vol. I, p. 155, note 10, and vol. III, p. 250, note 7. — The editions [read] ad minus ratione. — Above, for excedit codices E F G I L [read] excedet.
- 5Sive, ut dicit Regula iuris 6. in VI: Nemo potest ad impossibile obligari. — Inferius post corpus ex codd. F G I L supplevimus Christi.Or, as Rule of Law 6 in [the Liber] VI says: No one can be obliged to the impossible. — Below, after corpus, we have supplied Christi from codices F G I L.
- 6De Utilitate credendi, c. 11. n. 25. — Inferius pro vivum edd. unum.On the Profit of Believing, c. 11, n. 25. — Below, for vivum the editions [read] unum.
- 7Cfr. Aristot., I. Periherm. c. 1. (c. 1.) quo supra pag. 67, nota 6. et pag. 68, nota 1. quaedam attulimus) et Boeth. in hunc Aristotelis locum, nec non Damasc., II. de Fide orthod. c. 21, ubi verbum nominatur « cogitationis animi nuntius » (ἄγγελος νοήματος), de quo vide tom. III. pag. 844, nota 7. In libro de Causis, propos. 6. dicitur: Narratio non fit nisi per loquelam, et loquela per intelligentiam, et intelligentia per cogitationem, et cogitatio per meditationem, et meditatio per sensum.Cf. Aristotle, I On Interpretation c. 1 (c. 1), on which above, p. 67, note 6, and p. 68, note 1, we adduced certain things) and Boethius on this passage of Aristotle, as well as Damascene, II On the Orthodox Faith c. 21, where the word is named "the messenger of the mind's thought" (angelos noēmatos), on which see vol. III, p. 844, note 7. In the book On Causes, prop. 6, it is said: Narration comes about only through speech, and speech through understanding, and understanding through thought, and thought through meditation, and meditation through sense.
- 8Vide infra d. 49. p. II. art. princ. I. a. 2. q. 1. et a. 2. princip. a. 2. q. 1. seq.See below, d. 49, p. II, principal art. I, a. 2, q. 1, and a. 2, principal a. 2, q. 1 following.
- 9Cfr. supra p. I. q. 5. — Superius pro excedit codd. E F G I L excedet.Cf. above, p. I, q. 5. — Above, for excedit codices E F G I L [read] excedet.
- 10Cod. H supplet domo.Codex H supplies domo ["house"].
- 11Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 69. (c. 7.). Cfr. II. Sent. d. 13. a. 3. q. 1. seq. — Mox pro rarefit codd. F G I L (bb a secunda manu) rarescit. Inferius pro quia arctatur cod. F quae arctatur, et pro in quod codd. G H aa in quo.Aristotle, II On the Soul, text 69 (c. 7). Cf. II Sent., d. 13, a. 3, q. 1 following. — Presently, for rarefit codices F G I L (bb in a second hand) [read] rarescit. Below, for quia arctatur codex F [reads] quae arctatur, and for in quod codices G H aa [read] in quo.
- 12Vat. addit active, et verbis ipsius corporis praemittit Christi, ed. I cum permultis codd. et (plures horum codd. subinde ante quia omittunt et). Superius pro assentiendo et assentit codd. L W aa ascendendo et ascendit. Inferius pro improportionabilitatem codd. F G H I improportionem.The Vatican [edition] adds active, and prefixes Christi to the words ipsius corporis; ed. I with very many codices [reads] et (several of these codices thereupon omit et before quia). Above, for assentiendo et assentit codices L W aa [read] ascendendo et ascendit. Below, for improportionabilitatem codices F G H I [read] improportionem.
- 13Vat. cum nonnullis codd. est.The Vatican [edition] with some codices [reads] est.
- 14Matth. 26, 26; Marc. 14, 22.Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22.
- 15Epist. I. Cor. 2, 14: Animalis autem homo non percipit ea quae sunt Spiritus Dei etc. — Pro praevalet sibi, ut Vat. quidem planius, sed modo loquendi a S. Bonav. usitato minus conformiter (cfr. paulo inferius) praevalet ei, qui.Epistle, I Cor. 2:14: But the animal man does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God, etc. — For praevalet sibi, ut, the Vatican [edition] indeed [reads] more plainly, but less in conformity with the manner of speaking used by St. Bonaventure (cf. a little below), praevalet ei, qui.
- 16Cfr. II. Sent. d. 24. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. in corp., et III. Sent. d. 23. a. 1. q. 1. ad 4.Cf. II Sent., d. 24, p. II, a. 1, q. 1 in the body, and III Sent., d. 23, a. 1, q. 1 ad 4.
- 17Supple: secundum causas inferiores, sive, ut Vat. addit, per naturam.Supply: according to lower causes, or, as the Vatican [edition] adds, by nature.
- 18Vide supra p. I. q. I. et q. 5.See above, p. I, q. I and q. 5.
- 19Cfr. I. Sent. Prooem. q. 2.Cf. I Sent., Prologue, q. 2.