Dist. 11, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 4
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 11
Quaestio IV. Utrum panis convertatur in totum Christum.
Quarto quaeritur, utrum panis convertatur in totum Christum. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Quia ad id se extendit conversio, ad quod id continentia — species enim non continent nisi virtute conversionis — sed ibi continetur totus Christus1: ergo panis convertitur in totum Christum.
2. Item, quod specialiter panis convertatur in Divinitatem2, videtur: quia intentio consecrantis est, ut cibus corporalis convertatur in spiritualem; sed cibus spiritualis est Deus, qui est cibus sanctorum spirituum4: cum ergo conversio elementi sequatur intentionem, videtur, quod conversio sit in Deum.
3. Item, quod in animam3, videtur: quia anima Christi in uno loco est per naturam, sicut corpus: ergo si corpus Christi non fit in multis locis, nisi aliquid convertatur in ipsum5, pari ratione nec anima Christi. Sed anima est sub Sacramento, alioquin corpus esset exanime, quod est inconveniens: ergo etc.
4. Item, quod sanguis sit ibi, videtur: quia aut conversio panis exspectat conversionem vini, aut non. Si non exspectat; ergo ante conversionem vini virtute huius verbi: Hoc est corpus meum, est ibi sanguis. Sed ad id extendit se elementum passive, ad quod verbum operative: ergo elementum panis convertitur in sanguinem. Si exspectat; ergo est ibi successio: ergo non deberet elevari corpus in conspectu populi ante consecrationem vini, quod est contra communem ritum totius Ecclesiae; tunc enim tota Ecclesia facit, quantum in se est, simplices idololatrare, cum nondum sit ibi Christus.
Sed quod in solum corpus convertatur et non in Divinitatem, videtur:
1. Quia, si in Divinitatem, tunc creatura posset fieri creator; quod est inconveniens.
2. Item, Divinitas est ubique6: ergo ex conversione non potest de novo in aliquo loco esse: si ergo conversio facit de novo esse, ubi res convertitur; ergo non convertitur nisi in corpus unitum.
Item, quod non in animam, videtur:
3. Quia Sacramentum habet rationem significandi et efficiendi, et ratio significandi tantum vel amplius se extendit, quantum ratio efficiendi7; sed constat, quod panis non habet similitudinem ad Christi animam: ergo nec habet converti in ipsam. — Praeterea, si in animam converteretur; cum illa pars sit dignior, ab illa deberet denominari8: ergo deberet dici: haec est anima mea.
Item, quod non in sanguinem, videtur:
4. Quia, si panis converteretur in sanguinem, sicut in carnem; frustra ergo sub duabus speciebus fieret hoc Sacramentum9. — Praeterea, istae duae orationes: Hoc est corpus meum, hic est calix sanguinis mei, habent distinctas significationes: ergo et efficacias.
Conclusio. Panis convertitur praecise in corpus Christi, non in Divinitatem nec in animam nec in sanguinem, quae tamen ibi sunt per concomitantiam.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod praecise panis in id convertitur, cum quo habet similitudinem; super hanc enim similitudinem fundatur institutio, et advenit verbi sanctificatio10. Quia ergo panis habet similitudinem tantum ad corpus, ideo est institutum tantum converti in corpus; et verbum sanctificans, scilicet: Hoc est corpus meum, significat converti in corpus; non in Divinitatem nec in animam nec in sanguinem aliquid panis convertitur. — Nec tamen est sub Sacramento corpus sine istis, quia11 non sunt ibi propter conversionem, sed propter inseparabilem coniunctionem sive indivisionem. Sanguis enim est ibi ratione commixtionis, anima ratione coniunctionis, sed Divinitas ratione unionis.
Ad argumenta:
Ad 1. Ex his patent obiecta: quia, etiamsi totus Christus contineatur12, non tamen in totum est conversio; unde falsum est, quod quidquid continetur in Sacramento, est ratione conversionis, immo ratione conversionis vel indivisionis.
Ad 2. 3. Ad aliud patet responsio, quia corpus est cibus ratione unionis cum Divinitate. — Similiter aliud de anima patet, quia corpus est in pluribus locis ratione conversionis, sed anima consequenter ratione unionis sive perfectionis2b.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de sanguine, similiter dicendum, quod illae conversiones non se exspectant, sed utrobique est totum3b. Panis tamen et virtus suae formae ordinatur ad corpus primo, ad cetera sicut ex consequenti; similiter dicendum de conversione vini, sicut et panis.
I. Conclusio huius 4. quaestionis et distinctio illa inter id quod in hoc ss. Sacramento est vi verborum, et quod est ratione concomitantiae, a Concilio Trident. consecratae sunt (cfr. supra d. 10. p. I. q. I. scholion). De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. a. 3. § 3. — S. Thom., IV. Sent. d. 10. q. I. a. 2; S. III. q. 76. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic q. I. — Petr. a Tar., IV. Sent. d. 10. q. I. a. I. quaestiunc. 2. ad 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. 3. — Durand., IV. Sent. d. 10. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., IV. Sent. d. 10. q. I.
II. In conclusione 5. quaestionis omnes doctores tenent, quod transsubstantiatio fiat in instanti, non successive; sed valde laborant et dissentiunt in solutione arg. 4. ad oppos. Desitio enim panis et positio corporis Christi nec possunt dici fieri in unico instanti intrinseco, quia tunc simul essent panis et corpus; nec, si in duobus instantibus fieri dicuntur, evitari posse videtur, quin sint secundum successionem, cum inter quaelibet duo instantia consequenter se habentia sit tempus medium. Eadem difficultas occurrit generatim in desitione et inceptione formarum substantialium. — Primam hic relatam opinionem tenet cum Scoto (Quodl. 12. n. 16.) multisque aliis S. Thom. (S. III. q. 73. a. 7; cfr. hic q. I. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2.), qui distinguit instans intrinsecum, in quo fit introductio novae formae, et extrinsecum, quod est in tempore, deinde ibi concludit: « Et ideo est quidem dare primum instans, in quo est corpus Christi; non est autem dare ultimum instans, in quo sit substantia panis, sed est dare ultimum tempus ». Aliter S. Bonav., cum doceat, dari et primum et ultimum instans in fieri, licet non in facto esse; istos autem motus et incipere et desinere per indivisibilia sive in instanti intrinseco. Concedit quidem, duo indivisibilia in eodem continuo non posse esse immediata, cum inter unum et alterum sit tempus (nam continuum non componitur ex indivisibilibus mathematicis); sed illud negat quoad contigua propriam mensuram intrinsecam habentia, ut accidit in generationibus et corruptionibus. Illa autem duo instantia indivisibilia respiciunt unicum instans extrinsecum sive temporis, cui coexistunt. Exemplum est in duabus semihoris sibi succedentibus cum duobus motibus. Licet motus non fiat in instanti, tamen unusquisque horum habet suum terminum intrinsecum. Si igitur istae duae semihorae conferantur cum una hora temporis continui communis, cui coexistunt; tunc ista duo instantia non coexistunt nisi unico illius continui instanti temporis. Eadem principia S. Doctor docet infra d. 17. p. I. a. 2. q. I. ad 4; d. 49. p. II. art. princip. 2. a. 3. q. I. in corp., nec non I. Sent. d. 19. p. I. a. unic. q. I. ad 2; II. Sent. d. I. p. I. a. I. q. 2. ad 3. I; III. Sent. d. 2. a. 3. q. 2. ad 3. — Cfr. etiam de tempore I. Sent. d. 37. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. ad 3. S. et dub. 3; II. Sent. d. 2. p. I. a. I. q. 2, a. 2. q. I. et d. 7. p. II. a. I. q. 2. ad 3. — De hac 5. quaestione praeter citatos: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 5. a. 3. § 7. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. 4. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. I. circa med.
III. De 6. quaestione sive de locutionibus variis, quibus hoc mysterium exprimi potest, diffuse disputat Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 6. a. 1-3. Cfr. Scot., hic q. 5. — S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 4; S. III. q. 73. a. 8. — B. Albert., hic a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 6. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.
---
Question IV. Whether the bread is converted into the whole Christ.
Fourthly it is asked whether the bread is converted into the whole Christ. And that it is so, it seems:
1. Because conversion extends itself to that to which containment extends — for the species do not contain except by virtue of the conversion — but there the whole Christ is contained1: therefore the bread is converted into the whole Christ.
2. Likewise, that the bread is converted specially into the Divinity2, it seems: because the intention of the one consecrating is that the bodily food be converted into spiritual food; but spiritual food is God, who is the food of the holy spirits4: since therefore the conversion of the element follows the intention, it seems that the conversion is into God.
3. Likewise, that it is into the soul3, it seems: because the soul of Christ is in one place by nature, just as the body is: therefore if the body of Christ does not come to be in many places unless something be converted into it5, by parity of reasoning neither does the soul of Christ. But the soul is under the Sacrament, otherwise the body would be without soul, which is unfitting: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, that the blood is there, it seems: because either the conversion of the bread awaits the conversion of the wine, or not. If it does not await it; then before the conversion of the wine, by virtue of this word: This is my body, the blood is there. But the element extends itself passively to that to which the word [extends] operatively: therefore the element of bread is converted into blood. If it awaits it; then there is a succession there: therefore the body ought not to be elevated in the sight of the people before the consecration of the wine, which is against the common rite of the whole Church; for then the whole Church, as far as in it lies, makes the simple folk commit idolatry, since Christ is not yet there.
But that it is converted into the body alone and not into the Divinity, it seems:
1. Because, if into the Divinity, then a creature could become a creator; which is unfitting.
2. Likewise, the Divinity is everywhere6: therefore by conversion it cannot anew be in some place: if therefore the conversion makes there to be anew, where the thing is converted; therefore it is not converted except into the united body.
Likewise, that it is not into the soul, it seems:
3. Because the Sacrament has the character of signifying and of effecting, and the character of signifying extends itself as far as, or further than, the character of effecting7; but it is established that the bread does not have a likeness to the soul of Christ: therefore neither can it be converted into it. — Moreover, if it were converted into the soul; since that part is more worthy, it ought to be denominated from it8: therefore it ought to be said: this is my soul.
Likewise, that it is not into the blood, it seems:
4. Because, if the bread were converted into the blood, as into the flesh; then this Sacrament would be made under two species in vain9. — Moreover, these two utterances: This is my body, this is the chalice of my blood, have distinct significations: therefore also distinct efficacies.
Conclusion. The bread is converted precisely into the body of Christ, not into the Divinity nor into the soul nor into the blood, which nevertheless are there by concomitance.
I respond: It must be said that the bread is converted precisely into that with which it has a likeness; for upon this likeness the institution is founded, and the sanctification of the word supervenes10. Since therefore the bread has a likeness only to the body, for that reason it was instituted to be converted only into the body; and the sanctifying word, namely: This is my body, signifies a conversion into the body; nothing of the bread is converted into the Divinity nor into the soul nor into the blood. — Nor yet is the body under the Sacrament without these, because11 they are not there on account of the conversion, but on account of the inseparable conjunction or indivision. For the blood is there by reason of commixture, the soul by reason of conjunction, but the Divinity by reason of union.
To the arguments:
To 1. From these the objections are clear: because, even though the whole Christ is contained12, yet the conversion is not into the whole; whence it is false that whatever is contained in the Sacrament is there by reason of the conversion — rather, by reason of the conversion or of the indivision.
To 2 and 3. To the other [objection] the response is clear, because the body is food by reason of its union with the Divinity. — Likewise the other concerning the soul is clear, because the body is in several places by reason of the conversion, but the soul consequently by reason of the union or perfection2b.
To 4. To that which is objected concerning the blood, it must likewise be said that those conversions do not await one another, but in both there is the whole3b. The bread, however, and the power of its form is ordered to the body primarily, to the rest as it were consequently; likewise it must be said of the conversion of the wine, as also of the bread.
I. The conclusion of this 4th question, and that distinction between what in this most holy Sacrament is present by force of the words and what is present by reason of concomitance, were consecrated [as dogma] by the Council of Trent (cf. above, d. 10, p. I, q. I, scholion). On the same question: Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV, q. 10, a. 3, § 3. — St. Thomas, IV Sent. d. 10, q. I, a. 2; Summa III, q. 76, a. 1. — Bl. Albert, here, q. I. — Peter of Tarentaise, IV Sent. d. 10, q. I, a. I, little-question 2, ad 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here, a. I, q. 3. — Durandus, IV Sent. d. 10, q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, IV Sent. d. 10, q. I.
II. On the conclusion of the 5th question all the doctors hold that the transsubstantiation comes about in an instant, not successively; but they labor greatly and disagree in the solution of the 4th argument to the contrary. For the ceasing-to-be of the bread and the positing of the body of Christ can neither be said to come about in a single intrinsic instant, since then the bread and the body would be at once; nor, if they are said to come about in two instants, does it seem that it can be avoided that they be according to succession, since between any two instants successively related to one another there is an intermediate time. The same difficulty occurs in general in the ceasing-to-be and the beginning-to-be of substantial forms. — The first opinion related here St. Thomas holds, together with Scotus (Quodl. 12, n. 16) and many others (Summa III, q. 73, a. 7; cf. here, q. I, a. 3, little-question 2), who distinguishes the intrinsic instant, in which the introduction of the new form takes place, and the extrinsic, which is in time, and then concludes there: "And therefore it is indeed possible to assign a first instant in which the body of Christ is present; but it is not possible to assign a last instant in which the substance of the bread is, but it is possible to assign a last time." St. Bonaventure [holds] otherwise, since he teaches that both a first and a last instant are to be assigned in the becoming, though not in the being-accomplished; and that these motions both begin and end through indivisibles, that is, in an intrinsic instant. He grants indeed that two indivisibles in the same continuum cannot be immediate, since between the one and the other there is time (for a continuum is not composed of mathematical indivisibles); but he denies this with respect to contiguous things having their own intrinsic measure, as happens in generations and corruptions. Those two indivisible instants, however, regard a single extrinsic instant, that is, of time, to which they coexist. The example is in two half-hours succeeding one another with two motions. Although the motion does not come about in an instant, yet each of these [motions] has its own intrinsic terminus. If therefore these two half-hours are compared with one hour of the common continuous time, to which they coexist; then those two instants do not coexist except at the single instant of time of that continuum. The same principles the Holy Doctor teaches below, d. 17, p. I, a. 2, q. I, ad 4; d. 49, p. II, principal art. 2, a. 3, q. I, in the body, and also I Sent. d. 19, p. I, a. unic., q. I, ad 2; II Sent. d. I, p. I, a. I, q. 2, ad 3, I; III Sent. d. 2, a. 3, q. 2, ad 3. — Cf. also concerning time, I Sent. d. 37, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, ad 3, S. and dub. 3; II Sent. d. 2, p. I, a. I, q. 2, a. 2, q. I, and d. 7, p. II, a. I, q. 2, ad 3. — On this 5th question, besides those cited: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 5, a. 3, § 7. — Bl. Albert, here, a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. I, a. 4. — Richard of Mediavilla, here, a. I, q. 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. I, near the middle.
III. On the 6th question, that is, concerning the various manners of speaking by which this mystery can be expressed, Alexander of Hales disputes at length, loc. cit. m. 6, a. 1-3. Cf. Scotus, here, q. 5. — St. Thomas, here, q. I, a. 4; Summa III, q. 73, a. 8. — Bl. Albert, here, a. 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. I, a. 6. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 2.
---
- 1Cfr. tom. III. pag. 232, nota 7. — Inferius verbo transit cod. Y praemittit omnino.Cf. vol. III, p. 232, note 7. — Below, before the word transit ("passes over"), codex Y prefixes omnino ("altogether").
- 2Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion on the preceding question.
- 3Vide supra d. 10. p. 1. q. 2. fundam. 1.See above, d. 10, p. 1, q. 2, foundation 1.
- 4Psalm. 77, 25: Panem Angelorum manducavit homo. Cfr. C. Sicut verus est (84.), § 1. de Consecrat. d. 2; hic lit. Magistri, c. 2, et supra pag. 187, nota 6.Psalm 77:25 [78:25]: Man ate the bread of Angels. Cf. the canon Sicut verus est (84), § 1, de Consecratione d. 2; here the text of the Master, c. 2, and above, p. 187, note 6.
- 5Vide supra d. 10, p. 1. q. 3. in corp.See above, d. 10, p. 1, q. 3, in the body.
- 6Cfr. 1. Sent. d. 37. p. 1. a. 1. et 2. — In fine arg. pro unitum, scil. Divinitati, quod certo habent codd. A E X, edd. unicum, plures codd. dubiae sunt lectionis.Cf. I Sent. d. 37, p. 1, a. 1 and 2. — At the end of the argument, for unitum ("united"), namely to the Divinity, which codices A E X and the editions certainly have as unicum ("single"), several codices are of doubtful reading.
- 7Vide supra d. 1. p. 1. q. 2. et 4. seq.See above, d. 1, p. 1, q. 2 and 4, following.
- 8Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 49. (c. 4.): A fine appellare omnia iustum est.Aristotle, On the Soul II, text 49 (c. 4): "It is just to name all things from their end."
- 9Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. et infra p. II. a. 1. q. 2. — De seq. ratione, in qua codd. omittunt mei, vide supra d. 8. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seq.Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4, and below, p. II, a. 1, q. 2. — On the following argument, in which the codices omit mei ("my"), see above, d. 8, p. II, a. 1, q. 1, following.
- 10Respiciuntur verba Hug. a S. Vict. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2. ad o. relata. — Inferius verbis non in Divinitatem Vat. praemittit ideo.Reference is made to the words of Hugh of St. Victor, related above at d. 1, p. I, q. 2, ad o. — Below, before the words non in Divinitatem ("not into the Divinity"), the Vatican edition prefixes ideo ("therefore").
- 11Intellige: quia, etsi non sunt... sunt tamen propter inseparabilem coniunctionem etc.Understand: because, although they are not [there on account of the conversion]... they are nevertheless there on account of the inseparable conjunction, etc.
- 12Ex his patent obiecta: quia, etiamsi totus Christus contineatur. (p. 248, nota 1) Cod. N supplet sub Sacramento.(p. 248, note 1) Codex N supplies sub Sacramento ("under the Sacrament").
- 2b(p. 248, nota 2) Sive in quantum anima est corporis forma (ἐντελέχεια, i. e. forma, actus, perfectio). Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. ... seqq. (c. 1.). — De praeced. solut. vide supra d. 10. p. 1. q. ...(p. 248, note 2) Or in so far as the soul is the form of the body (entelecheia, i.e. form, act, perfection). Cf. Aristotle, On the Soul II, text ... ff. (c. 1). — On the preceding solution see above, d. 10, p. 1, q. ...
- 3b(p. 248, nota 3) In Vat. additur sive totus Christus.(p. 248, note 3) In the Vatican edition there is added sive totus Christus ("or the whole Christ").