Dist. 11, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 11
Articulus Unicus. De transsubstantiatione.
Quaestio I. Utrum in Sacramento eucharistiae sit vera conversio panis in corpus Christi.
Circa primum sic proceditur, et quod sit ibi vera conversio panis in corpus Christi, videtur:
1. Primo per ipsam formam: quia, cum dicitur: Hoc est corpus meum1, aut falsum dicit Veritas, aut panem convertit in corpus; sed non dixit falsum: ergo etc.
2. Item, hoc ipsum probatur auctoritate Doctorum, auctoritate Ambrosii scilicet et Eusebii et Augustini et Damasceni2: panis et vinum supernaturaliter in corpus et sanguinem transit.
3. Item, ratione videtur, quia constat et verum est, quod corpus Christi secundum veritatem est in altari; et prius non fuit: ergo secundum aliquam mutationem sui, vel alterius. Non sui, quia est immutabile. Non alterius nisi panis3: ergo etc. Si dicas, quod corpus Christi est mutabile secundum locum, quia haec est mutatio entis completi, et haec est in corpore Christi; contra: omne quod mutatur secundum locum, si accedit ad unum, recedit ab altero; ergo secundum hoc Christus recedit a caelo. Praeterea, nihil quod mutatur secundum locum, simul tendit ad differentias diversas positionum; sed simul consecratur corpus Christi Romae et Parisius: ergo si corpus Christi movetur Romam, non ergo Parisius: ergo etc.
Contra: 1. Gregorius dicit, et habetur in littera4: «Quis fidelium habere dubium possit, in hora immolationis caelos aperiri, summa et ima sociari»: sed haec non fierent, si aliquid in corpus Christi converteretur, immo videtur secundum Gregorium, quod descendat: ergo ibi non est conversio.
2. Item, Damascenus1b: «Quia consuetudo est hominibus comedere panem et bibere vinum, coniugavit eis Divinitatem et fecit ea Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis sui». Si coniugavit illis Divinitatem, ergo salvantur in sua natura: non ergo convertuntur in aliud.
3. Item, ratione videtur: quia, si aliquid convertitur in corpus Christi; aut quod est, aut quod non est2b. Si quod non est, ergo corpus de novo fit: ergo plura corpora simul. Si quod est; sed quandocumque aliquid convertitur in id quod est, augetur: ergo corpus Christi consecratione sive conversione fit maius.
4. Item, nullo alio Sacramento elementum convertitur in id quod significat, sed sufficit illud adesse: ergo videtur, quod similiter debeat esse in hoc Sacramento.
5. Item, miracula non sunt ponenda, ubi aeque bene potest fieri sine miraculo: sed corpus Christi cum sit gloriosum, simul cum pane potest esse, et idem faciet, ac si panis converteretur; quod non potest esse sine miraculo: ergo etc.
6. Item, in nullum corpus convertitur cibus, nisi quod indiget refectione; sed corpus Christi non est tale: ergo etc. Si dicas, quod non absorbet ut terra, sed ut radius aquam, scilicet non indigentia, sed potentia3b; contra: radius non convertit aquam in se: ergo nec Christus panem in corpus suum.
Conclusio. In Sacramento eucharistiae est conversio panis in corpus Christi, non in partem, sed in totum.
Respondeo: Sicut dicit Magister4b, quorundam opinio fuit positio, quod non est ibi aliqua conversio, sed ad invocationem verborum sine conversione fit divina virtute, ut corpus Christi sit ibi. — Sed haec positio contraria est Sanctorum auctoritati et rationi. Rationi quidem, quia aufert Sacramenti veritatem, congruitatem et utilitatem: veritatem, quia ponit ex hoc falsitatem in forma; ponit etiam mutationem circa Christi substantiam, sicut probatum est in opponendo. Congruitatem tollit, quia, cum manet ibi panis, non est ideo ductivum in alterum, sicut cum manent sola accidentia, quae dependent et per se stare non possunt. Utilitatem etiam, quia, dum possibilitatem et rationem quaerit, minuit meritum fidei.
Propter hoc igitur haec positio est reprobanda et neminem habet ex doctoribus defensorem; immo communiter tenet Ecclesia, quod est ibi conversio panis in corpus Christi, non, inquam, in partem corporis, sed in totum.
1. 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur primo de verbo Gregorii, dicendum, quod sermo ille est tropicus, et dicuntur caeli aperiri, quia divina bonitas large nobis tunc tribuit panem caelestem. Summa etiam et ima dicit sociari propter corporis Christi praesentiam. Et rursus, per manus Angelorum dicitur deferri quantum ad devotionem offerentis, qui mittit sacrificium et orationem in caelum, quam ad Angelos spectat Domino praesentare; sed hoc in litteralibus patebit5b. — Quod autem dicit Damascenus intelligendum est quantum ad continentiam specierum visibilium, vel in ratione conversionis substantiae panis: quia panis convertitur in corpus Divinitati unitum, et species post conversionem continent illud, et sic Divinitas utrisque dicitur coniugari.
3. Ad aliud patet responsio: quia totum in totum convertitur, ideo nec fit novum nec fit maius; illud autem intelligitur, si in parte converteretur6b.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de aliis Sacramentis, patet similiter responsio, quod non est simile: quia
hoc est maius quantum ad rem contentam1c. Praeterea, in aliis res est gratia, quae creatur; sed corpus Christi non creatur tunc in Sacramento.
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de miraculo, patet similiter: quia miraculum ponitur hic propter veritatem Sacramenti et congruitatem et etiam utilitatem, sicut visum est.
6. Ad ultimum quod obiicitur de cibo et cibabili, dicendum, quod panis non convertitur in corpus Christi, sicut cibus in cibabile; nec corpus Christi convertitur in se, sed Deus convertit2c, ut ubi erat panis, qui est cibus corporalis, sit corpus Christi, non per transmutationem in corpore factam, sed in pane in ipsum prius existens transeunte.
I. Scholion huius articuli cum Quaestione II. exhibetur.
---
Article Unique. On transubstantiation.
Question I. Whether in the sacrament of the Eucharist there is a true conversion of bread into the body of Christ.
Concerning the first [point], one proceeds thus, and that there is a true conversion of bread into the body of Christ seems to be the case:
1. First, by the form itself: because, when it is said: This is my body1, either the Truth speaks falsely, or he converts the bread into [his] body; but he did not speak falsely: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, this same thing is proved by the authority of the Doctors, namely by the authority of Ambrose and Eusebius and Augustine and Damascene2: the bread and wine pass supernaturally into [his] body and blood.
3. Likewise, it seems so by reason, because it is established and true that the body of Christ is according to truth on the altar; and before it was not: therefore by some change either of itself or of another. Not of itself, since it is immutable. Not of another except the bread3: therefore etc. If you say that the body of Christ is changeable with respect to place, since this is a change of a complete being, and this [change] is in the body of Christ; on the contrary: everything that is changed with respect to place, if it approaches one [place], departs from another; therefore accordingly Christ departs from heaven. Moreover, nothing that is changed with respect to place tends at the same time to diverse differences of position; but the body of Christ is consecrated at the same time at Rome and at Paris: therefore if the body of Christ is moved to Rome, then not to Paris: therefore etc.
On the contrary: 1. Gregory says, and it is found in the text4: «Who of the faithful could have doubt that, in the hour of the immolation, the heavens are opened, and the highest things are joined with the lowest?»: but these things would not happen if anything were converted into the body of Christ, nay rather it seems, according to Gregory, that [the body] descends: therefore there is no conversion there.
2. Likewise, Damascene1b: «Because it is the custom for men to eat bread and drink wine, he joined the Divinity to them and made them the Sacrament of his body and blood». If he joined the Divinity to them, then they are preserved in their own nature: therefore they are not converted into another thing.
3. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because, if anything is converted into the body of Christ, it is either what is, or what is not2b. If [it is converted] from what is not, then the body comes to be anew: therefore several bodies at the same time. If from what is; but whenever something is converted into what is, it is increased: therefore the body of Christ by consecration or conversion becomes greater.
4. Likewise, in no other Sacrament is the element converted into that which it signifies, but it suffices for it to be present: therefore it seems that it ought to be similarly in this Sacrament.
5. Likewise, miracles are not to be posited where it can equally well be done without a miracle: but the body of Christ, since it is glorious, can be together with the bread, and it will do the same as if the bread were converted; which cannot be without a miracle: therefore etc.
6. Likewise, food is converted into no body except one that needs refreshment; but the body of Christ is not such: therefore etc. If you say that it does not absorb [the bread] as earth [absorbs water], but as a ray [absorbs] water, namely not by need, but by power3b; on the contrary: a ray does not convert water into itself: therefore neither [does] Christ [convert] bread into his body.
Conclusion. In the Sacrament of the Eucharist there is a conversion of bread into the body of Christ, not into a part, but into the whole.
I respond: As the Master says4b, the position of certain men was the opinion that there is no conversion there, but that at the invocation of the words, without conversion, it comes about by divine power that the body of Christ is there. — But this position is contrary to the authority of the Saints and to reason. To reason indeed, because it takes away the truth, the congruity, and the usefulness of the Sacrament: the truth, because it thereby posits a falsehood in the form; it also posits a change with respect to the substance of Christ, as was proved in the objection. It takes away congruity, because, when the bread remains there, it is not on that account leading into another thing, as [it is] when the accidents alone remain, which depend [on something] and cannot stand by themselves. [It takes away] the usefulness also, because, while it seeks possibility and reason, it diminishes the merit of faith.
On account of this, therefore, this position is to be rejected and has no defender among the doctors; nay, the Church commonly holds that there is there a conversion of bread into the body of Christ, not, I say, into a part of the body, but into the whole.
1. 2. To that, therefore, which is objected first concerning the word of Gregory, it must be said that that saying is figurative, and the heavens are said to be opened because the divine goodness then bestows on us abundantly the heavenly bread. And the highest and lowest things are said to be joined on account of the presence of the body of Christ. And again, it is said to be carried down by the hands of the Angels with respect to the devotion of the one offering, who sends his sacrifice and prayer into heaven, which it pertains to the Angels to present to the Lord; but this will be made clear in the literal [comments]5b. — But what Damascene says must be understood with respect to the containing of the visible species, or in the account of the conversion of the substance of the bread: because the bread is converted into the body united to the Divinity, and the species after the conversion contain it, and so the Divinity is said to be joined to both.
3. To the other [objection] the response is clear: because the whole is converted into the whole, therefore it neither becomes new nor becomes greater; but that [objection] would hold if it were converted in part6b.
4. To that which is objected concerning the other Sacraments, the response is likewise clear, that it is not similar: because
this is greater with respect to the thing contained1c. Moreover, in the others the thing [signified] is grace, which is created; but the body of Christ is not created then in the Sacrament.
5. To that which is objected concerning a miracle, [the response] is likewise clear: because the miracle is posited here on account of the truth of the Sacrament and its congruity and also its usefulness, as has been seen.
6. To the last [objection] which is raised concerning food and the thing fed, it must be said that the bread is not converted into the body of Christ as food into the thing fed; nor is the body of Christ converted into itself, but God converts2c [it], so that where there was bread, which is bodily food, there is the body of Christ, not by a transmutation made in the body, but by [the bread], previously existing, passing into it in the bread.
I. The scholion on this article is presented with Question II.
---
- 1Codd. A H R S T efficientem. — Matth. 26, 26; Marc. 14, 22; Luc. 22, 19.Codices A H R S T [read] efficientem. — Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19.
- 2Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 13, ubi ostendit, corpus Christi constitui in eucharistia non adductione, «sed quia panis ipse et vinum in corpus et sanguinem Dei transmutantur». Verba Ambrosii, Eusebii et Augustini vide supra lit. Magistri.Book IV, On the Orthodox Faith, c. 13, where he shows that the body of Christ is constituted in the Eucharist not by adduction, «but because the bread itself and the wine are transmuted into the body and blood of God». For the words of Ambrose, Eusebius, and Augustine, see above in the text of the Master.
- 3Cfr. supra d. 10. p. I. q. 1. arg. 1. ad oppos. eiusque solut. — Seq. obiectio fundatur in doctrina Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 57. (c. 7.), ubi ad ostendendum motum localem ceteris motibus esse priorem, etiam hoc arg. affert, quod «latio [i. e. motus localis] iam perfectorum motus est». De duplici responsione ad hanc obiect. cfr. loci Aristot. tom. II. pag. 321, nota 5. allegati. — In fine arg. pro Romam edd. Romae.Cf. above d. 10, p. I, q. 1, arg. 1 against the opposed [view] and its solution. — The following objection is founded on the doctrine of Aristotle, Physics VIII, text 57 (c. 7), where, to show that local motion is prior to the other motions, he also brings forward this argument, that «locomotion [i.e. local motion] is the motion of things already perfect». On the twofold response to this objection, cf. the passages of Aristotle cited in tom. II, p. 321, note 5. — At the end of the argument, for to Rome the editions [read] at Rome.
- 4Hic c. 2.Here, c. 2.
- 1bLibr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 13. Pro et bibere vinum textus originalis aquam et vinum bibere.Book IV, On the Orthodox Faith, c. 13. For and drink wine the original text [has] to drink water and wine.
- 2bAlex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 3. n. 3. § 1: aut in quod est, aut in quod non est. Si in quod non est... si in quod est etc. Edd. aut convertitur corpus Christi, quod est, aut non est. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV q. 10 m. 3 n. 3 § 1: either into what is, or into what is not. If into what is not... if into what is etc. The editions [read] either the body of Christ, which is, is converted, or what is not. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1.
- 3bAugust., Epist. 102. (alias 49.) q. 1. n. 6: Aliter enim absorbet terra aquam sitiens, aliter solis radius candens; illa indigentia, iste potentia. — Permulti codd. ut ed. 1 omittunt aquam.Augustine, Letter 102 (otherwise 49), q. 1, n. 6: For the thirsting earth absorbs water in one way, the glowing ray of the sun in another; the former by need, the latter by power. — Very many codices, as ed. 1, omit water.
- 4bHic in lit. c. 2, ubi etiam haec positio auctoritate Ambrosii et Gregorii improbatur.Here in the text, c. 2, where this position too is disproved by the authority of Ambrose and Gregory.
- 5bScilicet in fundam. 3. — Cfr. de his rationibus supra d. 10. p. I. q. 1. et infra d. 12. p. I. a. I. q. 2. — Paulo superius ante utilitatem edd. et non pauci codd., sed refragantibus codd. G H I S Y, addunt miraculi. Inferius pro potestatem; quod habent edd. et plures codd., ex cod. Y substituimus possibilitatem.Namely in fundamentum 3. — Cf. on these reasons above d. 10, p. I, q. 1, and below d. 12, p. I, a. I, q. 2. — A little above, before usefulness, the editions and not a few codices, but against codices G H I S Y, add of the miracle. Below, for power, which the editions and several codices have, from codex Y we have substituted possibility.
- 6bCfr. infra q. 4.Cf. below q. 4.
- 1cVide supra d. 7. dub. 3. et d. 8. p. I. dub. 2. — De seq. ratione cfr. supra d. 8. p. II. a. I. q. I. in corp.See above d. 7, dub. 3, and d. 8, p. I, dub. 2. — On the following reason, cf. above d. 8, p. II, a. I, q. I, in the body.
- 2cCfr. supra d. 10. p. II. a. I. q. 3. — Inferius post in corpore Vat. supplet Christi.Cf. above d. 10, p. II, a. I, q. 3. — Below, after in the body the Vatican [edition] supplies of Christ. ---