Dist. 11, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 3
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 11
Quaestio III. Utrum ista conversio sit annihilatio.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum ista conversio sit annihilatio. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Quia omne illud quod sic mutatur, quod nihil de ipso remanet, annihilatur; sed taliter est de substantia panis in proposito: ergo est annihilatio.
2. Item, succedens generatio non aufert corruptionem praecedentem1: ergo succedens conversio non aufert corruptionem praecedentem; sed hic corrumpitur materia et forma, et ita totum: ergo quidquid succedat, nihilominus est annihilatus panis.
3. Item, esto quod pari virtute converteretur totum universum in corpus Christi, ipsum esset annihilatum. Probatio: toto universo cedente in nihil, solo Christo manente, nil minus remanet, quam si converteretur totum in Christum, quia tantum Christus est: ergo si ibi esset annihilatio, et hic.
4. Item, argumentum hoc est necessarium: A non est B nec pars B nec aliquid eius nec aliquid aliud; et fuit: ergo est annihilatum. Sed panis non est Christus nec pars Christi nec aliquid aliud: ergo etc.
Contra: 1. Nihil quod convertitur in rem digniorem se, annihilatur; sed panis convertitur in rem multo digniorem se: ergo etc.
2. Item, actio penes terminum denominatur; ergo cum annihilatio denominetur ab hoc quod est nihil, et annihilatione nihil fit; sed nihil non habet aliquid de bono: ergo nec annihilatio. Sed nulla actio est a summo Bono nisi bona2: ergo etc.
3. Item, a summo Bono nunquam id quod est bonum, fit malum: ergo a simili nunquam id quod est ens, fit non-ens sive nihil3.
4. Item, Augustinus4: «Conditor naturae nihil facit contra naturam»; sed omnis natura appetit esse, sicut dicit Philosophus: «Naturam, inquimus, desiderare quod melius est, et melius est esse quam non esse».
5. Item, in Sacramento debet salvari ratio signi sive conveniens significatio5; sed hoc Sacramentum non est corruptivum, sed conservativum et meliorativum: ergo in ipso non debet esse annihilatio.
Conclusio. Transsubstantiatio non est annihilatio, sed in meliorem substantiam commutatio.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sicut tangit Magister in littera6, quorundam positio fuit, quod esset annihilatio panis, cum nihil de eo remaneat, vel quia videbatur indignum dicere, quod aliquid extraneum in corpus Christi transiret; ideo rationabilius videbatur eis, quod panis corpori Christi cederet, non mutando locum, sed desinendo esse, et Christi corpus superveniret. — Sed haec positio stare non potest, cum hoc non deceat Deum facere, qui est tota causa in hac conversione, nec deceat Sacramentum opus tam vile.
Ideo communiter ponunt omnes, quod non est annihilatio panis, immo in meliorem substantiam commutatio; et ideo transsubstantiatio, non annihilatio, talis conversio est et sic appellari debet7. Amplius, si panis non converteretur in corpus Christi, non esset intelligere, quomodo corpus Christi inciperet esse in altari sine sui mutatione, sicut prius8 ostensum fuit; propter quod conversio panis, non annihilatio dicenda est.
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur: Nihil remanet de pane, ergo annihilatur; dicendum, quod istud non sequitur, quia annihilatio est non tantum nihil de re remanere, sed illud in nihilum cedere; sed hic non cedit in nihil, immo in aliquid melius.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod posterior generatio non tollit priorem corruptionem etc.; dicendum, quod verum est, quia forma corrumpitur, quae non cedit in formam contrariam9; sed si forma illa converteretur in contrariam, non diceretur omnino corrumpi, sed in aliud transire.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de universo, dicendum quod propter hoc non annihilatur omnino. — Quod obiicit: Non plures res remanent, quam si nihil10; verum est non plures res, sed tamen Christus fit in pluribus locis et sub omnibus speciebus et locum omnium substantiarum supplet, et illa accidentia ex praesentia dominici corporis habent operationem, quam haberet substantia, sicut patebit infra11. Et cum destruitur aliqua operatio conveniens speciei, eodem miraculo redit forma panis et eius materia, sicut melius patebit infra; ideo nil perit propter hoc in natura, sed quodam modo ad tempus cessat.
4. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, dicendum,
quod illa divisio est insufficiens, quia non sequitur, quod sit annihilatum, si non est hoc nec aliud; quia haec habet duas causas veritatis1d: non est hoc nec aliud: aut quia cessit in nihil, aut quia transit in aliud; et ratione huius est vera, et hoc non est annihilari2d.
Scholion in articulum unicum (q. 1–3) cum Quaestione II huius articuli editur. — The scholion on this article (covering questions 1–3) is rendered with Question II of this article.
---
Question III. Whether this conversion is an annihilation.
Thirdly it is asked whether this conversion is an annihilation. And that it is, seems to be the case:
1. Because everything that is so changed that nothing of it remains is annihilated; but it is so with the substance of the bread in the matter at hand: therefore it is an annihilation.
2. Likewise, a succeeding generation does not take away the preceding corruption1: therefore a succeeding conversion does not take away the preceding corruption; but here the matter and the form are corrupted, and so the whole: therefore whatever succeeds, the bread is nonetheless annihilated.
3. Likewise, suppose that by an equal power the whole universe were converted into the body of Christ, it would be annihilated. Proof: with the whole universe ceasing into nothing, Christ alone remaining, no less remains than if the whole were converted into Christ, since Christ alone exists: therefore if there were annihilation there, [there is] also here.
4. Likewise, this argument is necessary: A is not B, nor a part of B, nor anything of it, nor anything else; and it existed: therefore it is annihilated. But the bread is not Christ, nor a part of Christ, nor anything else: therefore etc.
On the contrary: 1. Nothing that is converted into a thing more worthy than itself is annihilated; but the bread is converted into a thing much more worthy than itself: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, an action is named from its term; therefore, since annihilation is named from this, that it is nothing, also by annihilation nothing comes to be; but nothing has nothing of good: therefore neither does annihilation. But no action is from the highest Good except a good one2: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, from the highest Good never does that which is good become evil: therefore by a similar [reasoning] never does that which is being become non-being or nothing3.
4. Likewise, Augustine4: «The Founder of nature does nothing against nature»; but every nature desires to be, as the Philosopher says: «We say that nature desires what is better, and to be is better than not to be».
5. Likewise, in the Sacrament the character of a sign or a fitting signification ought to be preserved5; but this Sacrament is not corruptive, but conservative and meliorative: therefore in it there ought not to be annihilation.
Conclusion. Transubstantiation is not annihilation, but a change into a better substance.
I respond: It must be said that, as the Master touches upon in the text6, the position of certain men was that there is an annihilation of the bread, since nothing of it remains, or because it seemed unworthy to say that something foreign should pass over into the body of Christ; hence it seemed more reasonable to them that the bread should yield to the body of Christ, not by changing place, but by ceasing to be, and that Christ's body should supervene. — But this position cannot stand, since this does not befit God to do, who is the whole cause in this conversion, nor does so vile a work befit the Sacrament.
Therefore all commonly hold that it is not an annihilation of the bread, but rather a change into a better substance; and therefore such a conversion is transubstantiation, not annihilation, and ought to be so called7. Furthermore, if the bread were not converted into the body of Christ, it would not be [possible] to understand how the body of Christ could begin to be on the altar without a change of itself, as was shown before8; on account of which it is to be called a conversion of the bread, not an annihilation.
1. To the objection therefore: Nothing remains of the bread, therefore it is annihilated; it must be said that this does not follow, because annihilation is not only that nothing of a thing remains, but that it ceases into nothing; but here it does not cease into nothing, but rather into something better.
2. To the objection that a posterior generation does not take away the prior corruption, etc.; it must be said that this is true, because the form is corrupted which does not yield into a contrary form9; but if that form were converted into a contrary one, it would not be said to be corrupted altogether, but to pass into another thing.
3. To the objection from the universe, it must be said that on this account it is not annihilated altogether. — As to what it objects: No more things remain than if [there were] nothing10; it is true that no more things [remain], but nevertheless Christ comes to be in several places and under all the species and supplies the place of all the substances, and those accidents, from the presence of the Lord's body, have the operation which the substance would have, as will be made clear below11. And when some operation fitting to the species is destroyed, by the same miracle the form of the bread and its matter return, as will be made clearer below; therefore nothing perishes on this account in nature, but in a certain way ceases for a time.
4. To the last objection, it must be said
that that division is insufficient, because it does not follow that it is annihilated if it is neither this nor that; because this [proposition] has two grounds of truth1d: it is neither this nor that — either because it ceased into nothing, or because it passes into another thing; and by reason of this it is true, and this is not to be annihilated2d.
The scholion on this article (covering questions 1–3) is rendered with Question II of this article. — Scholion in articulum unicum (q. 1–3) cum Quaestione II huius articuli editur.
---
- 1Codd. X aa subiungunt immo corruptio manet, sicut quando fit mutatio aeris in ignem, non ideo remanet, quin forma aeris corrumpatur.Codices X aa add rather, the corruption remains; just as, when a change of air into fire occurs, [the corruption] does not therefore remain, but the form of air is corrupted.
- 2Vide tom. II. pag. 113, nota 7, verba Dionysii. — De maiori cfr. Aristot., V. Phys. text. 7. et 48. (c. 1. et 5.).See tom. II, p. 113, note 7, the words of Dionysius. — On the major [premise] cf. Aristotle, Physics V, text 7 and 48 (c. 1 and 5).
- 3August., 83 Qq. q. 21: Esse autem et in nullo deficere bonum est; et malum est deficere. At ille, ad quem non-esse non pertinet, non est causa deficiendi, id est tendendi ad non-esse; quia, ut ita dicam, essendi causa est. Boni igitur tantummodo causa est etc.Augustine, Eighty-three Questions q. 21: But to be and to fail in nothing is good; and to fail is evil. But he to whom non-being does not pertain is not the cause of failing, that is, of tending toward non-being; because, so to speak, he is the cause of being. He is therefore the cause only of good etc.
- 4Libr. XXVI. contra Faustum, c. 3: Deus autem, creator et conditor omnium naturarum, nihil contra naturam facit. — Verba Aristot. habentur in II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 39. (c. 10.); in ipsis, originali textu concordante, ex codd. F G H supplevimus alterum melius est.Book XXVI Against Faustus, c. 3: But God, the creator and founder of all natures, does nothing against nature. — The words of Aristotle are found in II On Generation and Corruption, text 39 (c. 10); in them, with the original text agreeing, from codices F G H we have supplied the second to be is better.
- 5Ut ostensum est supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2.As was shown above, d. 1, p. I, q. 2.
- 6Hic c. 2; secundam rationem, scil. vel [edd. omittunt vel] quia videbatur etc., tangit hic in lit. c. 1. — Aliquanto inferius post superveniret Vat. ex Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 3. a. 3. n. 6. addit quam quod panis in ipsum [Alex. Hal. in corpus Christi] converteretur.Here c. 2; the second reason, namely vel [the editions omit vel] because it seemed etc., he touches upon here in the text, c. 1. — Somewhat below, after should supervene, the Vatican [edition], from Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV q. 10 m. 3 a. 3 n. 6, adds than that the bread should be converted into him [Alex. Hal.: into the body of Christ].
- 7Cfr. Hugo a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 9.Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments II, p. VIII, c. 9.
- 8Quaest. 1. fundam. 3. — Pro intelligere cod. Z substituit intelligibile.Question 1, fundamentum 3. — For to understand codex Z substitutes intelligible.
- 9Vide Aristot., V. Phys. text. 7. (c. 1.), et I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 11. seqq. (c. 3.).See Aristotle, Physics V, text 7 (c. 1), and On Generation and Corruption I, text 11 ff. (c. 3).
- 10Vat. quam si in nihil vel nullum cederet.The Vatican [edition reads] than if it ceased into nothing or naught.
- 11Dist. 12. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. ad 1, ubi etiam de seq. propositione. Cfr. ibid. q. 3. — Post pauca ex cod. H (E a secunda manu) substituimus destruitur pro dicitur, et pro cedit ex cod. L redit (cfr. d. 12. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. ad 1.).Dist. 12, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, ad 1, where also concerning the following proposition. Cf. ibid. q. 3. — A little later, from codex H (E by a second hand), we have substituted is destroyed for is said, and for yields from codex L returns (cf. d. 12, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, ad 1).
- 1dCfr. tom. III. pag. 252, nota 7. — Inferius verbo transit cod. Y praemittit omnino.Cf. tom. III, p. 252, note 7. — Below, to the word passes codex Y prefixes altogether.
- 2dVide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion to the preceding question. ---