Dist. 11, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 11
Quaestio II. Utrum totus panis convertatur in corpus Christi, an aliquid remaneat praeter accidentia.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum totus panis convertatur in corpus Christi, an aliquid remaneat praeter accidentia. Et quod totus non convertatur, videtur:
1. Quia «nihil est in genere, quod non sit in aliqua eius specie1»; sed transsubstantiatio est mutatio, et in omni specie motus aliquid manet: ergo etc.
2. Item, sicut in naturali mutatione est potentia materiae, sic et in hac potentia obedientiae2; sed ex parte transmutati, ubi est potentia materialis, non omnino tollitur, et ideo remanet illud, in quo fundatur: ergo videtur, quod similiter in ista aliquid remaneat, in quo fundatur obedientiae potentia.
3. Item, de ratione mutationis est, quod illud quod mutatur, aliter se habet nunc quam prius3; sed panis mutatur in corpus Christi: ergo aliter se habet nunc quam prius. Sed quod aliter nunc quam prius est, aliquo modo manet: ergo et panis secundum aliquid sui manet.
4. Item, quandocumque aliqua4 duo extrema communicant in aliquo, illud, in quo communicant, manet idem in tota transmutatione; sed panis et corpus Christi communicant in materia: ergo materia manet.
Contra: 1. Virtute verbi fit transsubstantiatio5; sed verbum demonstrat substantiam sub accidentibus, totam, inquam, substantiam panis: ergo totam convertit.
2. Item, convertit in totum corpus Christi: ergo convertit et totum panem: quia, si tantum materiam panis, tunc videretur, quod esset conversio in solam materiam6.
3. Item, si manet aliquid de pane, aut ut commune in transmutatione aut non ut commune. Si ut commune7: ergo corpus Christi haberet aliam materiam, vel aliam formam; quod stultum est. Si non ut commune; tunc videtur, quod remaneat materia sine forma, vel forma sine materia. Sed utraque istarum per se est otiosa; sed in Sacramento nihil omnino est otiosum: ergo neutrum manet.
4. Item, si convertitur secundum partem suae essentiae, quaero: secundum quam? et ostenditur, quod secundum formam, quia illa est magis idonea conversioni8. Et praeterea, Sacramentum est institutum non ratione materiae, quae in omnibus communis est, sed ratione formae: si ergo verba respiciunt magis formam, tunc illam convertunt. Sed contra: tunc remanet materia incompleta9; sed divinae virtutis non est incompleta facere, sed potius incompleta complere: ergo etc.
Conclusio. Totus panis convertitur in corpus Christi, solis accidentibus remanentibus.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod opinio aliquorum fuit — quam tamen Magister non ponit, quia modernorum etiam, quia non multum est probabilis — quod non totus panis secundum substantiam transit, sed aliqua pars essentialis remanet. Constat enim, quod accidentia remanent secundum esse et operationem. Quia videtur, quod remanent secundum esse, fuerunt qui dicerent, quod remanet etiam materia, quae illa sustinet, et transit forma. — Sed hoc nihil est, quia materia non est nata sustinere accidentia nec esse in actu nisi cum forma10.
Alii videntes, quod accidentia habent operationem, et omnis operatio ortum habet a forma substantiali11, dixerunt, quod transit materia et remanet forma. — Sed hoc iterum nihil est, quia forma non operatur nisi in materia.
Propter hoc, quamvis istud Sacramentum sit plenum miraculis, quia tamen non ponuntur esse nisi quae faciunt ad Sacramenti veritatem et eius occultationem; ideo ponunt communiter doctores, quod totum transit in totum, solis accidentibus
remanentibus causa necessaria et utili1b. Et propterea, relicta prima opinione, quae tollit conversionem materiae, relicta alia, quae tollit conversionem formae; magis catholicam tenemus, quod totus panis in corpus Christi convertitur, et optimo modo ista conversio transsubstantiatio dicitur.
Si autem quaeras, sub quo genere motus vel mutationis continetur; dicendum, quod haec est mutatio singularis, quae nullum simile plenum habet; assimilatur tamen in aliquo. Quia enim in hac mutatione nihil commune manet; assimilatur creationi. Quia vero principium initiale non est nihil, sed aliquid; ideo dissimilis est creationi et similis generationi2b. Quia vero terminum finalem non habet aliquid de novo factum, sed prius existens; ideo est dissimilis generationi et similis augmento. Quia vero corpus Christi ex hoc non crescit, sed in pluribus locis existit; ideo dissimilis augmento et similis loci mutationi. Quia vero in alio loco existit et a proprio non recedit, sed aliquid in ipsum transit; ideo omni motui et mutationi dissimilis est et est prorsus mutatio singularis. — Corruptioni vero et diminutioni nullo modo assimilatur, quia operationes sunt imperfectae, quae non decent divinam virtutem hic operantem. Rursus, quia in alteratione variantur accidentia sensibilia, et hoc non contingit huic Sacramento propter fidem; nec illi assimilatur.
1. 2. 3. Ex his patet primum et secundum et tertium, quia illud est verum de mutatione, in qua habent aliquid commune termini; sed hic nihil habent.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, quod habent commune; dicendum, quod commune habent secundum naturam praedicationis, sed non secundum naturam mutationis3b. In illa enim mutatione nihil commune possunt habere, quia corpus Christi non potest habere nec novam materiam nec novam formam; et si aliquid maneret, impossibile esset, quod corpus Christi esset idem omnino; cum autem totum transit, nulla omnino innovatio nec formatio fit circa corpus Christi. Unde illud argumentum locum habet in naturali mutatione.
1. Conclusio S. Doctoris a Concilio Tridentino (Sess. 13. c. 4.) approbata est. Hinc prima opinio in corp. relata, quam postea recepit Durandus, est erronea. Obsoletae etiam sunt aliae nonnullae opiniones, quod scilicet remaneat vel subsistentia panis (Godofredus), vel existentia, non essentia eiusdem (Bannez), vel saltem aliquid panis sit in eo, in quod transsubstantiatum fuit; quod videtur docere Henr. Gand. (Quodl. 9. q. 9, et II. q. 4.). Loco cit. ultimo idem, postquam dixit, panem non esse annihilatum, sed conversum, esse ergo aliquid, addit: «Ut videlicet id, in quod conversum est; ut verum sit dicere, quod id quod fuit substantia panis, sit corpus Christi; aut si hoc non concedatur, saltem oportet concedi, quod secundum aliquem modum mirabilem et forte nobis pro hac vita non intelligibilem, verum sit dicere, quod id aliquid, quod est corpus Christi, sive aliquitas [sic] corporis Christi, ut ita liceat loqui, sit aliquid eius, quod fuit substantia panis; et per hoc etiam esse corporis Christi sit secundum eundem modum eius quod erat substantia panis». — Specialis tamen difficultas est de conversione formae substantialis panis, imprimis in doctrina S. Thomae, quod tantum unica cuiuslibet rei sit forma substantialis. Nequit enim dici, quod illa convertatur in animam Christi, ut est perfectio totius. Cfr. S. Thom. hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3. ad 2; S. III. q. 75. a. 6. ad 2, ubi docet, formam panis converti in formam corporis Christi, «secundum quod dat esse corporeum, non autem secundum quod dat esse animatum tali anima». — Aliis autem placet recurrere pro solvenda hac difficultate ad doctrinam de pluralitate formarum substantialium. Ita Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2. ad 2.) dicens: «Quamvis unius sit una forma ultima completiva, tamen multae sunt formae materiales disponentes. Unde quamvis anima sit ultima forma humani corporis, in quam non transit panis; habet tamen formam aliam corporalem complexionis sive mixtionis, et in hanc transit forma panis». Similia docent Richard. a Med. (hic a. 1. q. 2.), Henr. Gand. (Quodl. II. q. 8.) et Scot. (hic q. 3. n. 28. seqq.). S. Bonaventuram quoad principia circa formarum pluralitatem consentire Petro a Tar., dictum est in scholio ad d. 13. a. 2. q. 2.
De hac 2. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 8. a. 3. § 2. — S. Thom., hic loc. cit. quaestiunc. 1. 3; S. loc. cit. a. 2. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. 3. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. 5. — Durand., hic q. 3.
II. Substantiam panis in transsubstantiatione annihilari, de quo tractat q. 3, docuerunt Nominales, et paulo aliter etiam Durandus (loc. cit.), refragantibus principalibus Scholasticis. Scotus autem videtur esse in hoc ambiguus. De hac quaestione cfr. Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 3. — Scot., hic q. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2; S. loc. cit. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 3.
---
Question II. Whether the whole bread is converted into the body of Christ, or whether something remains besides the accidents.
Secondly it is asked, whether the whole bread is converted into the body of Christ, or whether something remains besides the accidents. And that the whole is not converted seems to be the case:
1. Because «nothing is in a genus that is not in some species of it1»; but transubstantiation is a change, and in every species of motion something remains: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, just as in a natural change there is the potency of matter, so also in this [change] there is a potency of obedience2; but on the part of what is transmuted, where there is a material potency, it is not wholly removed, and therefore that in which it is founded remains: therefore it seems that likewise in this [change] something remains in which the potency of obedience is founded.
3. Likewise, it belongs to the account of a change that what is changed is otherwise now than before3; but the bread is changed into the body of Christ: therefore it is otherwise now than before. But what is otherwise now than before, in some way remains: therefore the bread too remains according to something of itself.
4. Likewise, whenever any4 two extremes share in something, that in which they share remains the same throughout the whole transmutation; but the bread and the body of Christ share in matter: therefore the matter remains.
On the contrary: 1. Transubstantiation comes about by the power of the word5; but the word indicates the substance under the accidents — the whole substance of the bread, I say: therefore it converts the whole.
2. Likewise, it converts into the whole body of Christ: therefore it also converts the whole bread: for if [it converted] only the matter of the bread, then it would seem that the conversion was into matter alone6.
3. Likewise, if something of the bread remains, either [it remains] as common in the transmutation or not as common. If as common7: then the body of Christ would have another matter, or another form; which is foolish. If not as common; then it seems that matter would remain without form, or form without matter. But each of these by itself is idle; but in the Sacrament nothing at all is idle: therefore neither remains.
4. Likewise, if it is converted according to a part of its essence, I ask: according to which? and it is shown that [it is] according to the form, since that is more suited to conversion8. And besides, the Sacrament was instituted not by reason of the matter, which is common in all things, but by reason of the form: if therefore the words regard the form more, then they convert it. But on the contrary: then incomplete matter remains9; but it does not belong to the divine power to make [things] incomplete, but rather to complete the incomplete: therefore etc.
Conclusion. The whole bread is converted into the body of Christ, the accidents alone remaining.
I respond: It must be said that there was an opinion of certain men — which however the Master does not set down, since it is also [the opinion] of the moderns, [and] because it is not very probable — that not the whole bread passes over according to substance, but some essential part remains. For it is established that the accidents remain according to being and operation. Because it seems that they remain according to being, there were those who said that matter too remains, which sustains them, and that the form passes over. — But this is nothing, because matter is not fitted to sustain accidents nor to be in act except with form10.
Others, seeing that the accidents have operation, and that every operation has its origin from substantial form11, said that the matter passes over and the form remains. — But this again is nothing, because form does not operate except in matter.
On account of this, although this Sacrament is full of miracles, yet because there are not posited to be [present] except those things that serve the truth of the Sacrament and its concealment; therefore the doctors commonly hold that the whole passes over into the whole, the accidents alone
remaining for a necessary and useful cause1b. And therefore, having abandoned the first opinion, which takes away the conversion of the matter, [and] having abandoned the other, which takes away the conversion of the form; we hold the more catholic [view], that the whole bread is converted into the body of Christ, and in the best way this conversion is called transubstantiation.
But if you ask, under what genus of motion or change it is contained; it must be said that this is a singular change, which has no full likeness; yet it is likened in something. For because in this change nothing common remains; it is likened to creation. But because the initial principle is not nothing, but something; therefore it is unlike creation and like generation2b. But because the final term is not something newly made, but [something] previously existing; therefore it is unlike generation and like increase. But because the body of Christ does not grow from this, but exists in several places; therefore it is unlike increase and like change of place. But because it exists in another place and does not withdraw from its own, but something passes over into it; therefore it is unlike every motion and change, and is altogether a singular change. — But to corruption and diminution it is in no way likened, because [these are] imperfect operations, which do not befit the divine power operating here. Again, because in alteration the sensible accidents are varied, and this does not happen to this Sacrament on account of faith; nor is it likened to that.
1. 2. 3. From these things the first, second, and third [objections] are clear, because that is true of a change in which the terms have something common; but here they have nothing.
4. To the objection raised last, that they have something common; it must be said that they have something common according to the nature of predication, but not according to the nature of change3b. For in that change they can have nothing common, because the body of Christ can have neither new matter nor new form; and if anything remained, it would be impossible that the body of Christ should be wholly the same; whereas, since the whole passes over, no innovation at all nor formation comes about concerning the body of Christ. Whence that argument has its place in a natural change.
1. The conclusion of the Holy Doctor was approved by the Council of Trent (Session 13, c. 4). Hence the first opinion related in the body, which Durandus afterwards received, is erroneous. Obsolete also are certain other opinions, namely that there remains either the subsistence of the bread (Godofredus), or the existence, not the essence, of the same (Bannez), or at least that something of the bread is in that into which it was transubstantiated; which Henry of Ghent seems to teach (Quodlibet 9, q. 9, and II q. 4). In the last cited place the same [author], after he had said that the bread is not annihilated but converted, and is therefore something, adds: «Namely, that into which it has been converted; so that it is true to say that what was the substance of the bread is the body of Christ; or if this is not granted, at least it must be granted that, according to some wonderful mode, and perhaps for this life not intelligible to us, it is true to say that that something which is the body of Christ, or the somewhat-ness [sic] of the body of Christ, so to speak, is something of that which was the substance of the bread; and through this also the being of the body of Christ is according to the same mode as that of what was the substance of the bread». — Yet there is a special difficulty concerning the conversion of the substantial form of the bread, especially in the doctrine of St. Thomas, that there is only a single substantial form of any thing. For it cannot be said that it is converted into the soul of Christ, as [the soul] is the perfection of the whole. Cf. St. Thomas, here q. 1 a. 1 quaestiuncula 3 ad 2; S. III q. 75 a. 6 ad 2, where he teaches that the form of the bread is converted into the form of the body of Christ, «according as it gives corporeal being, but not according as it gives animated being by such a soul». — But others prefer, for solving this difficulty, to have recourse to the doctrine of the plurality of substantial forms. So Petr. a Tar. (here q. 1 a. 1 quaestiuncula 2 ad 2) saying: «Although there is one ultimate completive form of [a thing that is] one, yet there are many disposing material forms. Whence, although the soul is the ultimate form of the human body, into which the bread does not pass; yet [the body] has another corporeal form of complexion or mixture, and into this the form of the bread passes». Richard of Middleton (here a. 1 q. 2), Henry of Ghent (Quodlibet II q. 8), and Scotus (here q. 3 n. 28 ff.) teach similar things. That St. Bonaventure agrees with Petr. a Tar. as to the principles concerning the plurality of forms has been said in the scholion to d. 13 a. 2 q. 2.
On this 2nd question: Alex. of Hales, S. p. IV q. 10 m. 8 a. 3 § 2. — S. Thomas, here at the place cited, quaestiuncula 1, 3; S. at the place cited a. 2, 6. — B. Albert, here a. 2, 3, 8. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 1 a. 1 quaestiuncula 1, 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1 q. 2, 5. — Durandus, here q. 3.
II. That the substance of the bread is annihilated in transubstantiation, of which q. 3 treats, the Nominalists taught, and a little differently also Durandus (loc. cit.), with the principal Scholastics opposing. Scotus, however, seems to be ambiguous on this. On this question cf. Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. § 3. — Scotus, here q. 4. — S. Thomas, here q. 1 a. 2; S. at the place cited a. 3. — B. Albert, here a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 1 a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1 q. 3.
---
- 1Secundum Aristot., de quo vide supra pag. 136, nota 3. — Ita quae de mutatione (motu) eiusque speciebus tum in argg. tum in corp. huius quaest. ponuntur, Aristoteles insinuat in lib. de Praedicam. c. de Motu; I. Phys. text. 82. (c. 9.), V. text. 7. seqq. (c. 1. seqq.); I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 11. seqq. (c. 3. seqq.), et XI. Metaph. c. 10. (X. c. 11.). — Inferius post mutatio in cod. aa additur ergo est in aliqua specie motus.According to Aristotle, on whom see above p. 136, note 3. — Thus what is set down concerning change (motion) and its species, both in the arguments and in the body of this question, Aristotle suggests in the book Categories, c. on Motion; Physics I, text 82 (c. 9), V, text 7 ff. (c. 1 ff.); On Generation and Corruption I, text 11 ff. (c. 3 ff.), and Metaphysics XI, c. 10 (X, c. 11). — Below, after change, in codex aa is added therefore it is in some species of motion.
- 2Vide supra d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. ad 2.See above d. 10, p. II, a. 1, q. 2, ad 2.
- 3Non pauci codd. addunt est.Not a few codices add est.
- 4Ex codd. A G H K V aa supplevimus aliqua. Minori cod. aa subiungit rationem; quia omnium corporalium eadem est materia. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 93, nota 8. et pag. 97, nota 2. necnon pag. 302, nota 9.From codices A G H K V aa we have supplied aliqua. Codex aa adds in the lower margin the reason: because the matter of all corporeal things is the same. Cf. tom. II, p. 93, note 8, and p. 97, note 2, as well as p. 302, note 9.
- 5Vide supra d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 3.See above d. 10, p. II, a. 1, q. 3.
- 6Supple: corporis Christi. — De maiori, in qua verbo convertit edd. cum aliquot codd. praemittunt si, cfr. infra q. 4.Supply: of the body of Christ. — On the major [premise], in which before the word converts the editions with several codices prefix si [if], cf. below q. 4.
- 7Sive, ut supra ars. 1. ad oppos. dicitur, quod «manet idem in tota transmutatione». — Inferius pro tunc videtur quod edd. tunc quaeritur, utrum (cod. O an, codd. R S T U X quid).Or, as is said above in art. 1 to the contrary, that «the same thing remains in the whole transmutation». — Below, for then it seems that the editions [read] then it is asked, whether (codex O an; codices R S T U X quid).
- 8Sicut ipsa [corporalis] etiam naturaliter magis idonea est generationi et corruptioni. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 7. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.Just as it [the corporeal form] is also naturally more suited to generation and corruption. Cf. II Sent. d. 7, p. II, a. 2, q. 1.
- 9Vide II. Sent. d. 12. a. 1. q. 1.See II Sent. d. 12, a. 1, q. 1.
- 10Cfr. tom. II. pag. 96, nota 8. — Aliquanto superius plures codd. substituunt Quia vero [codd. F et I a secunda manu omittunt vero] pro Quia videtur, quod. Subinde pro quod remanet etiam materia codd. N aa quod remanet panis secundum materiam.Cf. tom. II, p. 96, note 8. — Somewhat above, several codices substitute Quia vero [codices F and I, by a second hand, omit vero] for Quia videtur, quod. Thereupon, for quod remanet etiam materia codices N aa [read] quod remanet panis secundum materiam.
- 11Vide tom. II. pag. 300, nota 1.See tom. II, p. 300, note 1.
- 1bUt ostenditur infra d. 12. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. Cfr. Hugo a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 9. — Inferius pro tenemus codd. F G I L bb teneamus. Subinde verbis in corpus cod. aa interserit totum.As is shown below d. 12, p. I, a. 1, q. 2. Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments II, p. VIII, c. 9. — Below, for we hold codices F G I L bb [read] let us hold. Thereupon, into the words into the body codex aa inserts whole.
- 2bCfr. supra d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. — Aliquanto superius pro quae nullum simile plenum habet cod. aa quae nullam similitudinem plenam habet cum speciebus motus, et post in aliquo Vat. supplet aliis.Cf. above d. 10, p. II, a. 1, q. 1. — Somewhat above, for which has no full likeness codex aa [reads] which has no full likeness with the species of motion, and after in something the Vatican [edition] supplies to others.
- 3bVide supra pag. 228, nota 10.See above p. 228, note 10. ---