← Back to Distinction 10

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

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 10

Textus Latinus
p. 236

Quaestio II. Utrum existentia Christi sub Sacramento sit supra sensum comprehensoris.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum existentia Christi sub Sacramento sit supra sensum comprehensoris. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Quia Magister dicit in sequenti distinctione, quod haec est ratio, quare sub alia specie traditur corpus Christi, « ut fides habeat meritum »; sed in Beatis fides non habet locum: ergo videtur, quod debeat eis apparere in propria specie.

2. Item, quamvis status gratiae sustineat aliquod velamen et compatiatur, tamen statui gloriae omne velamen revelatur: ergo si corpus Christi velatur sensui nostro propter1 speciem, videtur, quod Beatis sit revelatum.

3. Item, sensus decipiuntur propter hoc, quod ibi latet Christus sensus nostros; sed in Beatis nulla cadit deceptio: ergo nullo modo potest latere sensum Beatorum.

4. Item, claritas corporis non gloriosi non potest latere visum non gloriosum2, ergo nec claritas corporis gloriosi visum gloriosum; sed corpus Christi est clarissimum: ergo etc.

Contra: 1. Existentia illa et modus existendi est supra intellectum3; sed nunquam sensus elevatur supra intellectum: ergo est supra omnem sensum quantumcumque glorificatum.

2. Item, corpus Christi sub Sacramento habet modum existendi elevatum ultra modum existendi spiritus creati, pro eo quod est in qualibet parte totum, et pro eo quod in pluribus locis simul4; sed nunquam oculus gloriosus videt spiritum: ergo nec corpus Christi, prout ibi existit.

3. Item, sensus gustus est in Beatis, ut dicit Augustinus de Quinque Responsionibus5, et infra patebit; sed esto, quod Beatus sumeret Christi corpus, constat, quod gustus non sentiret saporem carnis: ergo pari ratione nec visus percipit, ut est ibi.

4. Item, regula est in perspectiva, quod quando duae magnitudines videntur in aequali spatio, maior

p. 237

magnitudo videtur sub angulo maiori — videre enim est secundum triangularem directionem radiorum, ita quod basis est res visa, et angulus intelligitur fieri circa pupillam — ergo cum corpus Christi maius sit ista specie, si videt6 intra speciem maiorem magnitudinem, maior angulus est infra minorem.

Sed hoc non potest esse nisi per miraculum: ergo impossibile est, quod per naturam corporis glorificati videat, immo videre ita est miraculum, sicut existere.

Conclusio.

Visus quantumcumque gloriosus ad hoc non attingit, ut videat corpus Christi sub Sacramento altaris, sicuti est, etiam si praesens est.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod existentia corporis Christi sub Sacramento est sublimata supra modum essendi et omnis corporis et omnis rei corporalis et dimensivae. Unde cum visus non abstrahat a quantitate, quia est commune sensatum7 et percipere habeat corpus secundum modum existendi corporalem; dicendum est, quod nullo modo visus quantumcumque gloriosus ad hoc attingit, ut videat ibi Christum, sicuti est, etiam si praesens sit. — Et si alicui miraculose ostensum est, nunquam tamen ostensum fuit in forma, quam ibi habet, ut communiter dicitur; quia ostensum fuit in forma parvuli, et ipse est ibi secundum eandem quantitatem, quam habet in caelo, et sic est in qualibet parte8; et iste modus existendi abstrahit ab omni sensu. Unde concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc.

1. 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de merito fidei, et de velatione, dicendum, quod quamvis sensus non percipiat, tamen intellectus hoc clare novit. Ulterius, etsi visus non videat, hoc non est, quia velatur illa specie, sed quia est ibi per modum alium, quam sit corpus, ut est sensibile. — Credo tamen, quod aliquibus certis indiciis cognosceret quodam modo sensus, ibi esse corpus Christi, id est intellectus conversus ad sensum; sicut ponit Augustinus exemplum in ultimo de Civitate Dei9 de visu glorioso, utrum videat Deum; ubi dicit, quod intellectus per sensum comprehendit, quod « Deus est omnia in omnibus »; sicut ego per visum cognoscere dicor, quod aliquis sit vivus et habeat animam, quando video eum loqui.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de deceptione, dicendum, quod in hoc Sacramento nullus sensus decipitur nec aliquid, quia est Sacramentum veritatis1013. Sed quod dicuntur sensus decipi, hoc dicitur, quia sunt via, ut opinio in nobis fallatur, quae iudicaret, ibi esse subiecta specierum, nisi intellectus fidelis purgaret errorem; multo magis in Beatis purgat et praevenit, ut non decipiantur.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de claritate corporis glorificati, dicendum, quod neutra latet sensum, dum tamen corpus habeat modum existendi debitum corpori; quemadmodum corpus Christi passibile subdatum fuit impassibiliter Sacramento, quamvis secundum veritatem esset passibile ante passionem1114; per hunc modum ei visibile et sensibile est insensibiliter ratione modi essendi ibi. In hoc autem nolo praeiudicare sensui Beatorum, sed opus Dei in hoc Sacramento mirificum praedicare1215.

---

English Translation
p. 236

Question II. Whether the existence of Christ under the Sacrament is above the sense of the comprehensor.

Secondly it is asked whether the existence of Christ under the Sacrament is above the sense of the comprehensor. And that it is not seems to be the case:

1. Because the Master says in the following distinction that this is the reason why the body of Christ is delivered under another species, "that faith may have merit"; but in the Blessed faith has no place: therefore it seems that it ought to appear to them in its proper species.

2. Likewise, although the state of grace supports and tolerates some veil, nevertheless to the state of glory every veil is unveiled: therefore if the body of Christ is veiled to our sense by1 the species, it seems that to the Blessed it would be unveiled.

3. Likewise, the senses are deceived for this reason, that Christ there lies hidden from our senses; but in the Blessed no deception occurs: therefore in no way can it lie hidden from the sense of the Blessed.

4. Likewise, the brightness of a non-glorified body cannot lie hidden from non-glorified sight2, therefore neither can the brightness of a glorified body from glorified sight; but the body of Christ is most bright: therefore etc.

On the contrary: 1. That existence and mode of existing is above the intellect3; but the sense is never elevated above the intellect: therefore it is above every sense however glorified.

2. Likewise, the body of Christ under the Sacrament has a mode of existing elevated beyond the mode of existing of a created spirit, in that it is whole in every part, and in that it is in several places at once4; but a glorified eye never sees a spirit: therefore neither the body of Christ, as it exists there.

3. Likewise, the sense of taste is in the Blessed, as Augustine says in the Five Responses5, and will be shown below; but suppose that a Blessed one were to receive the body of Christ, it is established that the taste would not perceive the savor of flesh: therefore by parity of reasoning neither does sight perceive it, as it is there.

4. Likewise, there is a rule in perspective, that when two magnitudes are seen in an equal space, the greater

p. 237

magnitude is seen under a greater angle — for seeing is according to the triangular direction of rays, such that the base is the thing seen, and the angle is understood to be formed about the pupil — therefore since the body of Christ is greater than this species, if it sees6 within the smaller species the greater magnitude, the greater angle is within the smaller.

But this cannot be except by a miracle: therefore it is impossible that it should see by the nature of a glorified body; rather, to see is as much a miracle as to exist.

Conclusion.

Sight, however glorified, does not attain to this, that it should see the body of Christ under the Sacrament of the altar as it is, even if it is present.

I respond: It must be said that the existence of the body of Christ under the Sacrament is exalted above the mode of being both of every body and of every corporeal and dimensive thing. Hence, since sight does not abstract from quantity, because it is a common sensible7, and must perceive a body according to its corporeal mode of existing; it must be said that in no way does sight, however glorified, attain to this, that it should see Christ there as he is, even if he is present. — And if to someone it has been shown miraculously, nevertheless it was never shown in the form which he has there, as is commonly said; because it was shown in the form of a little child, and he is there according to the same quantity which he has in heaven, and thus he is in every part8; and this mode of existing abstracts from every sense. Hence the arguments to this effect are to be conceded.

1. 2. To that, then, which is objected concerning the merit of faith and concerning the veiling, it must be said that although sense does not perceive, nevertheless the intellect clearly knows this. Further, even if sight does not see, this is not because it is veiled by that species, but because it is there in another mode than as the body is, as it is sensible. — Yet I believe that by certain definite indications the sense would in some way know that the body of Christ is there, that is, the intellect turned toward the sense; as Augustine sets forth an example in the last [book] of the City of God9 concerning glorified sight, whether it sees God; where he says that the intellect through the sense comprehends that "God is all in all"; just as I am said to know through sight that someone is alive and has a soul, when I see him speak.

3. To that which is objected concerning deception, it must be said that in this Sacrament no sense is deceived, nor is anything, because it is the Sacrament of truth1013. But that the senses are said to be deceived, this is said because they are a way by which opinion in us is led astray, which would judge that the subjects of the species are there, unless the faithful intellect purged the error; much more in the Blessed does it purge and forestall, so that they are not deceived.

4. To that which is objected concerning the brightness of a glorified body, it must be said that neither lies hidden from sense, provided that the body has the mode of existing due to a body; just as the passible body of Christ was subjected impassibly to the Sacrament, although in truth it was passible before the Passion1114; in this way it is visible and sensible to it [yet] insensibly, by reason of the mode of being there. In this, however, I do not wish to prejudge the sense of the Blessed, but to proclaim the marvelous work of God in this Sacrament1215.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Vide supra p. 1. q. 1. et q. 5.
    See above, p. 1, q. 1 and q. 5.
  2. 2
    Cfr. 1. Sent. Prooem. q. 2.
    Cf. 1 Sent., Prooem., q. 2.
  3. 3
    Cap. 3. — Minor ostensa est III. Sent. d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. Cfr. etiam supra pag. 69, nota 4.
    Chapter 3. — The minor was shown in III Sent., d. 31, a. 2, q. 1. Cf. also above, p. 69, note 4.
  4. 4
    Vat. cum aliquot codd. per.[?]
    The Vatican edition with some codices reads per [...].[?]
  5. 5
    Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 66. seqq. (c. 7.).
    Cf. Aristotle, On the Soul II, text 66 ff. (c. 7).
  6. 6
    Ut ostensum est quaest. praeced. — De minori cfr. Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 4. seqq. (c. 4.).
    As was shown in the preceding question. — On the minor cf. Aristotle, On the Soul III, text 4 ff. (c. 4).
  7. 7
    Vide supra p. 1. q. 3. et 5.
    See above, p. 1, q. 3 and 5.
  8. 8
    Sive Hypognosticon (inter opera August.), in quo tamen nihil hac de re invenimus; Vat. (secuta Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. [...]).[?]
    Or the Hypognosticon (among Augustine's works), in which, however, we find nothing on this matter; the Vatican edition (following Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV. [...]).[?]
  9. 9
    Supple: oculus. — Inferius pro corporis glorificati edd. corpus glorificatum, cod. X videatur pro videat.
    Supply: the eye. — Below, for corporis glorificati the editions read corpus glorificatum; codex X reads videatur for videat.
  10. 10
    Aristot., de Sens. et sens. c. 8. (c. 7.), hanc propositionem: « Sensibile omne magnitudo est et non est indivisibile sensibile » demonstrat, et II. de Anima, text. 64. (c. 6.) magnitudinem exhibet inter sensibilia communia i. e. obiecta plurium sensuum. — Plures codd. ratione sensatum, quam lectionem mutaverunt edd. in de ratione sensatorum. Plurimi codd., exceptis codd. II P Q, omittunt Unde (pro quo Vat. et[?]).
    Aristotle, On Sense and the Sensible c. 8 (c. 7), demonstrates this proposition: "Every sensible is a magnitude and is not an indivisible sensible," and in On the Soul II, text 64 (c. 6) he presents magnitude among the common sensibles, i.e. the objects of several senses. — Several codices read ratione sensatum, which reading the editions changed to de ratione sensatorum. Most codices, except codices II P Q, omit Unde (for which the Vatican reads et[?]).
  11. 11
    Cfr. supra p. 1. q. 2. et 5. — Paulo inferius pro abstrahit cod. cum pluribus codd. abstrahitur.
    Cf. above, p. 1, q. 2 and 5. — A little below, for abstrahit the codex with several codices reads abstrahitur.
  12. 12
    Cap. 29. n. 6. Cfr. Serm. 277. (alias 102. de Diversis) 13. n. 13. seqq. — Edd. omittunt sensus et id est (pro quo res codd. perperam ibi). In principio solut. pro velatione edd. velamine.
    Chapter 29, n. 6. Cf. Sermon 277 (otherwise 102, On Various Matters) 13, n. 13 ff. — The editions omit sensus and id est (for which some codices wrongly read ibi). At the beginning of the solution, for velatione the editions read velamine.
  13. 13
    Cfr. supra p. 1. q. 4. in corp. — Post nec aliquid in cod. additur aliud. Inferius pro subiecta cod. F substantiam.
    Cf. above, p. 1, q. 4, in the body. — After nec aliquid in the codex is added aliud. Below, for subiecta codex F reads substantiam.
  14. 14
    Vide infra d. 11. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. et d. 49. p. II. a. 2. q. 2.
    See below, d. 11, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, and d. 49, p. II, a. 2, q. 2.
  15. 15
    Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    See the scholion to the preceding question. ---
Cited by

1 further reference addresses the article or printed page this question belongs to, rather than the question itself.

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