Dist. 11, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 6
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 11
Quaestio VI. Quibus verbis illa conversio debeat exprimi.
Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, quibus verbis debeat exprimi ista conversio. Et ostenditur, quod per verbum substantivum, ut dicatur: Panis erit corpus Christi; et quod fuit panis etc.; et hoc auctoritate et ratione.
1. Auctoritate: quia Ambrosius1 dicit: « Quod erat panis ante consecrationem est corpus Christi post consecrationem ».
2. Item, ratione videtur: quia ubi totum transit in totum, fit maior unio, quam ubi pars in partem; sed ubi pars in partem, vera est2, ut puta secundum accidens album erit nigrum, et secundum
substantiam, ut quod fuit sub forma ignis modo est sub forma aeris: ergo multo fortius hic, ubi totum transit in totum.
Item, quod in verbo mutandi, videtur.
3. Damascenus3: « Panem et vinum fecit ea corpus et sanguinem suum ».
4. Item, ratione videtur: quia quod mutatur, et non annihilatur, non fit nihil, sed aliquid4; sed panis mutatur, et non annihilatur nec fit aliud quam corpus: ergo etc.
Item, quod cum verbo possendi:
5. Ambrosius5: « Quod est panis potest esse corpus consecratione, quae fit Christi sermone ».
6. Item, ratione videtur: quia omne quod mutatur in aliquid, habet posse ad illud, quia omnem actum antecedit potentia aliqua6; sed panis mutatur in corpus Christi: ergo etc.
Item, quod cum praepositione:
7. Ambrosius, de Sacramentis7: « Ubi accessit consecratio, de pane fit corpus Christi ».
8. Item, ratione videtur: quia hic est transsubstantiatio; aut ergo de aliquo, aut de nihilo. Non de nihilo: ergo de aliquo: ergo de pane, cum non sit dare de alio.
Contra: 1. Hoc verbum est notat identitatem8; sed panis ad corpus non est identitas nec in forma nec in materia: ergo talis locutio, scilicet cum verbo substantivo, quod notat identitatem, est falsa.
2. Item, omne fieri terminatur ad factum esse9; sed in hoc Sacramento nihil factum est, quia corpus non est nunc factum ibi: ergo nec fieri est: ergo sunt falsae cum verbo fiendi.
3. Item, omnis potentia aut est activa, aut passiva10; in pane non est activa nec etiam passiva, quia tunc esset ad actum: ergo cum hoc verbo potest est falsa locutio.
4. Item, haec praepositio de et ex dicit causalitatem, aut ordinem, ut de mane fit meridies11. Hoc non potest stare, secundum quod dicit causalitatem, nec secundum quod dicit ordinem, quia tunc est sensus: post panem est corpus; pari ratione posset dici de verbo: corpus post verbum.
si dicatur: panis potest esse corpus. Sed si dicatur ordinatio secundum causas superiores; tunc est in locutione veritas, ut si dicatur: panis potest converti a Deo. — Et sic dicit Ambrosius, et ratio concludit, quia actus ille est a potentia superiori.
Conclusio. Illa tantum propositio est vera et propria, in qua verbum significat non identitatem neque innovationem neque ordinationem naturalem, sed solum conversionem cum praepositione importante transitum, non causam.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ista conversio est singularis, quia totum in totum transit, et hoc virtute supra naturam12; ideo panis ad corpus non est identitas, non est causalitas, in Christi corpore nulla est innovatio, in pane nulla est secundum causas inferiores ordinatio. Ex his eliciuntur quatuor regulae.
Prima est, quod omnia verba significantia identitatem panis ad corpus Christi faciunt sermonem falsum. Unde omnes tales locutiones impropriae sunt et exponendae: panis erit corpus Christi, vel, quod fuit panis est corpus Christi, id est, conversum est in corpus13; simpliciter non sunt recipiendae cum relativo et verbo substantivo. — Et ideo non valet ratio, quam adducit. Quia enim totum in totum transit, non est maior identitas, immo minor, immo nulla.
Secunda regula est, quod omnia verba significantia innovationem circa corpus Christi sunt falso dicta; quae autem significant conversionem et transitum vere dicuntur. Et quia generari dicit innovationem, fieri potest dicere transitum, ut cum dicitur: hoc fit illud; ideo cum verbo fiendi potest concedi, non cum verbo generandi. Et concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc. — Ratio ad oppositum non valet, quia obiicit de fieri, prout dicit alicuius generationem; sed non sic accipitur hic. Unde haec est magis propria: panis fit corpus, quam14: de pane fit corpus; et haec simpliciter est impropria: corpus Christi fit, sed conceditur: fit hic.
Tertia regula est: quia non est ordinatio panis ad corpus Christi secundum causas inferiores15, ideo verba hoc significantia, sicut hoc verbum potest, absolute dictum, faciunt locutionem falsam, ut si dicatur: panis potest esse corpus. Sed si dicatur ordinatio secundum causas superiores; tunc est in locutione veritas, ut si dicatur: panis potest converti a Deo. — Et sic dicit Ambrosius, et ratio concludit, quia actus ille est a potentia superiori.
Quarta regula est: quia nulla est causalitas, sed solum transitus panis in corpus Christi; quod omnes praepositiones causalitatem importantes reddunt locutionem impropriam. Unde impropriae sunt cum hac praepositione de vel ex, secundum quod dicunt causalitatem; sed cum est aliqua acceptio ordinis, sustineri potest, nec tamen secundum illam omnino propria. — Et dicendum, quod illa est conclusio vera et propria, in qua verbum significans non identitatem nec innovationem nec ordinationem naturalem, sed solum conversionem cum praepositione importante transitum, non causam. Unde haec est propria: panis convertitur in corpus Christi.
(Nullum scholion ad hanc quaestionem; vide scholion ad quaest. IV huius articuli, ubi articuli scholion sequentes quaestiones complectitur — cf. apparatum, notam 5.)
---
Question VI. By what words that conversion ought to be expressed.
Sixth and last it is asked, by what words this conversion ought to be expressed. And it is shown that [it is to be expressed] through a substantive verb, so that one says: The bread will be the body of Christ; and: what was bread, etc.; and this both by authority and by reason.
1. By authority: because Ambrose1 says: « What was bread before the consecration is the body of Christ after the consecration ».
2. Likewise, it seems by reason: because where a whole passes into a whole, a greater union comes about than where a part [passes] into a part; but where a part [passes] into a part, it is true2, as for instance with respect to an accident the white will be black, and with respect to
substance, as what was under the form of fire is now under the form of air: therefore much more strongly here, where a whole passes into a whole.
Likewise, it seems [it should be] with the verb of changing.
3. Damascene3: « He made the bread and the wine to be his body and blood ».
4. Likewise, it seems by reason: because what is changed, and is not annihilated, does not become nothing, but something4; but the bread is changed, and is not annihilated nor does it become anything other than the body: therefore, etc.
Likewise, [it should be] with the verb of being able:
5. Ambrose5: « What is bread is able to be the body by the consecration, which comes about by the word of Christ ».
6. Likewise, it seems by reason: because everything that is changed into something has a power toward it, since some potency precedes every act6; but the bread is changed into the body of Christ: therefore, etc.
Likewise, [it should be] with a preposition:
7. Ambrose, On the Sacraments7: « When the consecration has come, from bread the body of Christ comes about ».
8. Likewise, it seems by reason: because here there is transubstantiation; therefore [it is] either from something or from nothing. Not from nothing: therefore from something: therefore from the bread, since there is nothing else to point to.
On the contrary: 1. This verb is denotes identity8; but between bread and the body there is no identity, neither in form nor in matter: therefore such a locution, namely with the substantive verb, which denotes identity, is false.
2. Likewise, every becoming is terminated at a having-been-made-to-be9; but in this Sacrament nothing has been made, because the body is not now made there: therefore neither is there a becoming: therefore [the locutions] are false with the verb of becoming.
3. Likewise, every potency is either active or passive10; in the bread there is neither active nor even passive [potency], because then it would be ordered toward act: therefore with this verb is able the locution is false.
4. Likewise, this preposition from (de) and out of (ex) denotes causality or order, as from morning noon comes about11. This cannot stand, neither according as it denotes causality, nor according as it denotes order, because then the sense is: after the bread is the body; by the same reasoning it could be said of the word: the body [is] after the word
if it be said: the bread is able to be the body. But if order according to higher causes be meant, then there is truth in the locution, as if it be said: the bread is able to be converted by God. — And thus Ambrose says, and the reasoning concludes, because that act is from a higher power.
Conclusion. That proposition alone is true and proper in which the verb signifies neither identity nor innovation nor natural ordination, but only conversion with a preposition importing transit, not cause.
I respond: It must be said that this conversion is singular, because a whole passes into a whole, and this by a power above nature12; therefore between bread and the body there is no identity, there is no causality, in the body of Christ there is no innovation, in the bread there is no ordination according to lower causes. From these four rules are drawn.
The first is, that all words signifying identity of the bread to the body of Christ make the statement false. Hence all such locutions are improper and must be expounded: the bread will be the body of Christ, or, what was bread is the body of Christ, that is, it has been converted into the body13; absolutely they are not to be admitted with a relative and a substantive verb. — And therefore the reasoning he adduces is invalid. For because a whole passes into a whole, there is not a greater identity, but rather less, indeed none.
The second rule is, that all words signifying innovation concerning the body of Christ are falsely said; but those which signify conversion and transit are truly said. And because to be generated states innovation, to become can state transit, as when it is said: this becomes that; therefore with the verb of becoming it can be conceded, not with the verb of generating. And the reasonings to this effect are to be conceded. — The reasoning to the opposite is invalid, because it objects from becoming insofar as it states a generation of something; but it is not so taken here. Hence this is more proper: the bread becomes the body, than14: from bread the body comes about; and this is absolutely improper: the body of Christ comes about, but it is conceded: it comes about here.
The third rule is: because there is no ordination of the bread to the body of Christ according to lower causes15, therefore words signifying this, such as this verb is able, said absolutely, make the locution false, as if it be said: the bread is able to be the body. But if order according to higher causes be meant, then there is truth in the locution, as if it be said: the bread is able to be converted by God. — And thus Ambrose says, and the reasoning concludes, because that act is from a higher power.
The fourth rule is: because there is no causality, but only transit of the bread into the body of Christ; [so] that all prepositions importing causality render the locution improper. Hence locutions with this preposition from (de) or out of (ex) are improper, according as they state causality; but when there is some sense of order, it can be sustained, yet not according to that sense altogether proper. — And it must be said that that is the true and proper conclusion in which the verb signifies neither identity nor innovation nor natural ordination, but only conversion with a preposition importing transit, not cause. Hence this is proper: the bread is converted into the body of Christ.
(There is no scholion to this question; see the scholion to question IV of this article, where the article's scholion embraces the following questions — cf. apparatus, note 5.)
---
- 1Libr. IV. de Sacram. c. 4. n. 16. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.Bk. IV, On the Sacraments, c. 4, n. 16. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2.
- 2Supple: propositio.Supply: proposition.
- 3Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 13. — Pro mutandi Vat. cum aliquot codd. fiendi.Bk. IV, On the Orthodox Faith, c. 13. — For of changing (mutandi) the Vatican edition with several codices reads of becoming (fiendi).
- 4Cfr. Aristot., V. Phys. text. 7. (c. 1.). — De minori, in qua codd. ut panis pro sed panis, vide supra q. 3.Cf. Aristotle, Physics V, text 7 (c. 1). — On the minor, in which the codices read as bread (ut panis) for but bread (sed panis), see above, q. 3.
- 5Libr. IV. de Sacram. c. 4. n. 14. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.Bk. IV, On the Sacraments, c. 4, n. 14. See here the text of the Master, c. 2.
- 6Cfr. Aristot., IX. Metaph. text. 13. seqq. (VIII. c. 8.).Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics IX, text 13 ff. (VIII, c. 8).
- 7Libr. IV. de Sacram. c. 4. n. 14. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.Bk. IV, On the Sacraments, c. 4, n. 14. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2.
- 8Cfr. supra pag. 190, nota 3.Cf. above, p. 190, note 3.
- 9Vide Aristot., VI. Phys. text. 59. (c. 6.). — Minor ostensa d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. ad 1.See Aristotle, Physics VI, text 59 (c. 6). — The minor is shown at d. 10, p. II, a. 1, q. 2, ad 1.
- 10Ut docet Aristot., V. Metaph. text. 17. (IV. c. 12.) et IX. text. 2. (VIII. c. 1.). — Inferius post tunc esset cod. aa supplet ordinatio.As Aristotle teaches, Metaphysics V, text 17 (IV, c. 12) and IX, text 2 (VIII, c. 1). — Below, after then it would be (tunc esset), codex aa supplies ordination.
- 11Aristot., I. de Generat. animal. c. 18, recensens modos quibus aliquid ex alio fit, ait: Alio enim modo, cum ex die noctem fieri dicimus, aut ex puero virum, quoniam hoc post hoc [sive dicit: ordinem], alio cum ex aere statuam, aut ex ligno lectum, et quaecumque ex materia [sive causa materiali] fieri dicimus, ut ex aliquo, quod insit et formetur, totum sit etc. Cfr. Metaph. text. 7. (I. brevior, c. 2.), V. text. 29. (IV. c. 24.) et VIII. text. 11. (VII. c. 4.). Vide etiam I. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XXXVI. c. 5. — In fine arg. codd. N aa addunt quia panis et verbum sunt de integritate.Aristotle, On the Generation of Animals I, c. 18, reviewing the modes by which something comes to be from another, says: For in one mode, when we say night comes to be from day, or a man from a boy, since this after this [i.e. he states order]; in another, when [we say] a statue [comes to be] from bronze, or a bed from wood, and whatever we say comes to be from matter [i.e. from a material cause], as from something that is present and is given form, so that the whole is, etc. Cf. Metaphysics text 7 (I, shorter, c. 2), V, text 29 (IV, c. 24) and VIII, text 11 (VII, c. 4). See also I Sent., the text of the Master, d. XXXVI, c. 5. — At the end of the argument codices N aa add because the bread and the word belong to the integrity [of the form].
- 12Cfr. supra q. 1. seqq. et d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. — Post pauca Vat., verbis innovatio et causalitas transpositis et interpunctione mutata, legit: non est innovatio in Christi corpore, nulla est causalitas in pane, nulla etc.Cf. above, q. 1 ff. and d. 10, p. II, a. 1, q. 1. — Shortly after, the Vatican edition, with the words innovation and causality transposed and the punctuation changed, reads: there is no innovation in the body of Christ, there is no causality in the bread, none, etc.
- 13In Vat. desideratur id est, conversum est in corpus. Immediate post voci simpliciter, cui Vat. cum paucis codd. praemittit et, codd. H P Q subiungunt etiam, cod. M tamen.In the Vatican edition that is, it has been converted into the body is lacking. Immediately after the word absolutely (simpliciter), to which the Vatican edition with a few codices prefixes and, codices H P Q subjoin also, codex M however [reads] yet.
- 14Codd. US supplent haec. Iidem codd. cum cod. T superius pro ideo cum substituunt aeque cum.Codices US supply this. The same codices, with codex T, above substitute equally with (aeque cum) for therefore with (ideo cum).
- 15Cfr. I. Sent. d. 42. q. 4. — [Tertia regula.] In Vat. Et dicendum etc. legitur, omisso ideo; vide notam pag. seq.Cf. I Sent., d. 42, q. 4. — [Third rule.] In the Vatican edition And it must be said, etc., is read, therefore (ideo) being omitted; see the note on the following page.