Dist. 11, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 11
Articulus I. De speciebus, in quibus nunc conficit Ecclesia.
Quaestio I. Utrum eucharistia confici debeat in specie panis et vini.
Ad intelligentiam huius partis secundum duo, quae determinat Magister, duo principaliter quaeruntur. Primo ad intelligentiam primi quaeritur de speciebus, in quibus nunc conficit Ecclesia. Secundo quaeritur de modo, quo conficitur Christus. Circa primum quaeruntur breviter quatuor.
Circa primum igitur quaeritur, utrum hoc Sacramentum confici debeat in specie panis et vini.
Et quod istud Sacramentum debeat confici in specie panis et vini, ipsa Domini institutio sive consecratio1 et Ecclesiae catholicae observatio sufficientem praebet auctoritatem et rationem. — Sed quod non, videtur:
1. Quia secundum quod dicit Hugo2, « crescente veritatis cognitione, signa debuerunt esse evidentiora »: ergo cum panis et vinum fuerint Sacramenta legis naturae, nullo modo debent esse Sacramenta legis gratiae, in qua tantum concurrit cognitio veritatis.
2. Item, lex scripta plus cognitionis dabat et habebat quam naturalis: ergo eius signa erant certiora et expressiora: ergo magis lex nova debuit conficere in Sacramentis sive signis traditis tempore legis scriptae quam tempore legis naturae, de quibus sunt species panis et vini.
3. Item hoc ipsum videtur, quia in lege scripta agnus et eius sanguis offerebatur3; sed caro magis exprimit carnem, et sanguis sanguinem: ergo magis in illa specie debet confici Sacramentum eucharistiae quam in ista.
4. Item, species Sacramenti naturaliter habent repraesentare4; sed panis et vinum fiunt artificio: ergo non congruunt Sacramento.
5. Item, hoc specialiter ostenditur de pane, quia in hoc Sacramento specialiter debet significari Christus passus, unde ipse dicit5: Hoc facite in meam commemorationem; sed panis integer non significat passionem: ergo non congruit huic Sacramento.
6. Item, in hoc Sacramento continetur Christus ut cibus parvulorum, qui prius erat cibus Angelorum; sed cibus parvulorum est lac6: ergo in lacte deberet confici.
7. Item, obiicitur de vino: quia hic significatur Christus ut cibus sive potus sanans; sed vinum non datur infirmis: ergo non debet in vino confici hoc Sacramentum, quod est sanativum infirmitatis spiritualis.
8. Item, effectus istius Sacramenti est exstinguere morbum concupiscentiae; sed vini est accendere, Proverbiorum vigesimo7: Luxuriosa res est vinum: ergo etc.
Conclusio. Panis et vinum congrue exprimunt duplicem rem huius Sacramenti.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod istius Sacramenti duplex est res, scilicet corpus Christi verum et mysticum8; et quia signa sunt instituta propter expressionem rei significatae, talia debuerunt esse, quae de sui natura nata essent utrumque exprimere. — Et quoniam corpus mysticum est ex multis aggregatis in unum, talia elementa esse debuerunt, quae ex multis facerent unum; tale autem est panis, quia est ex multis granis puris; tale etiam est vinum, quod est ex multis acinis puris9: ideo recte unionem corporis mystici significant.
Corpus autem Christi verum continetur in hoc Sacramento ut cibus — quia propter hoc institutum est Sacramentum10 — et ut cibus non qualiscumque, sed ut cibus conveniens, cibus efficax, cibus sanans, cibus omnibus communis: ideo debuit institui signum, quod quidem esset cibus habens istas proprietates. Cibus autem magis conveniens est panis de frumento et vinum; et huius signum est, quod naturae non generat ex frequentatione fastidium, quod non convenit de aliquo alio cibo. — Est etiam efficax in confirmando, quia panis confortat, et vinum laetificat11. — Est etiam sanus, sicut dicit Isaac in Dietis12, quod uterque ad sanitatem facit. — Ulterius est cibus communis et usitatus, maxime inter gentes rationabiliter viventes. Unde Damascenus13: « Consuetudo est hominibus panem comedere et bibere vinum; ideo coniugavit eis Dominus Divinitatem et fecit ea corpus et sanguinem suum, ut per haec quae sunt secundum naturam consueta, in quibus vita conservatur, ad ea quae sunt supra naturam, anima transferatur ».
1. Ex his patent obiecta. Quod enim obiicit, quod Sacramenta in nova lege sunt evidentiora; dicendum, quod evidentius factum est14 ratione verbi additi: Hoc est corpus meum; sed non oportuit a parte elementi, quia sufficiebat illa evidentia.
2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de signis legis scriptae, dicendum, quod evidentiora signa erant passionis, quia, sicut supra dictum est, ad illam significandam principaliter ordinabantur, sed non evidentiora quantum ad expressionem gratiae sacramentalis; et hoc principaliter significatur in Sacramentis novae legis. — Et per hoc patet de carne, quia non significatur caro ut caro, sed ut reficiens.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sunt ab artificio; dicendum, quod habilitas est a natura, sed perfectio ab opere humano15; sic et Christus a sua origine habuit cibandi habilitatem, sed actu est cibus effectus decoctione in igne passionis et compressione in torculari crucis; sic est in ipso signo, scilicet pane et vino.
5. Et per hoc patet sequens, quod obiicit, quod non significat passionem; dicendum enim, quod falsum est, immo significat per decoctionem, vel etiam compressionem. Posset tamen dici16, quod non exprimitur Christus ut passus principaliter, sed ut cibus.
6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est cibus parvulorum; dicendum, quod est cibus parvulorum et humilium, eorum tamen, qui aliquo modo creverunt, non accedentium ad fidem. Unde Augustinus17: « Cibus sum grandium, cresce, et manducabis me » etc. Et ideo in pane, non in lacte, fuit institutum.
7. Ad illud quod obiicitur de vino, quod non sanet; dicendum, quod vinum datur iam convalescentibus et non actu infirmantibus; in quo significatur, quod istud Sacramentum dari debet iam confidentibus per bonam conscientiam, non iacentibus in lecto peccati18.
8. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod auget luxuriam; dicendum est, quod hoc facit, quando sumitur ad ebrietatem, non quando sumitur ad refectionem et iucunditatem, servata sobrietate.
I. De materia eucharistiae, de qua tractant haec et tres seqq. quaestiones, agit Decretum pro Armenis Eugenii IV. in Bulla Exsultate Deo. — De congruentia utriusque speciei agunt: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 3. a. 2. — Scot., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. 6. et 7. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. 2; S. III. q. 74. a. 1. — B. Albert., IV. Sent. d. 2. a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 4. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. 3.
II. Respectu 2. quaestionis certum nunc est apud omnes (contra nonnullos antiquos), consecrationem utriusque speciei non esse de necessitate ipsius Sacramenti, scilicet ut valide consecretur, esse tamen de necessitate praecepti divini. De 2. quaestione: Alex. Hal. loc. cit. m. 4. a. 1. § 1. — S. Thom. IV. Sent. d. 8. q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1, et hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. ad 4; S. III. q. 78. a. 6. — B. Albert., loc. cit. a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., IV. Sent. d. 8. q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. 3.
III. Quaestionem 3. concorditer solvunt: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 4. a. 1. § 8. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; S. III. q. 74. a. 6. 7. 8. — B. Albert., hic a. 9. 10. 11. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. 2. 4. — Durand., hic q. 5.
IV. Circa 4. quaestionem Catechismus Rom. (de eucharist. n. 13.) docet, quod « nullus panis nisi triticeus apta ad Sacramentum materia putandus est ». Dubitatur autem de quibusdam speciebus frumenti, ut de spelta vel farre, utrum specifice, an tantum accidentaliter a tritico differant, de quibus vide S. Thom., loc. cit. q. 3. ad 2. et casuistas. De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 2. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2; S. loc. cit. a. 3; S. c. Gent. IV. c. 69. — B. Albert., loc. cit. a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. — Durand., hic q. 4. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.
---
Article I. On the species in which the Church now confects.
Question I. Whether the Eucharist ought to be confected in the species of bread and wine.
For the understanding of this part, according to the two things which the Master determines, two matters are principally asked. First, for the understanding of the first, it is asked concerning the species in which the Church now confects. Second, it is asked concerning the manner in which Christ is confected. Concerning the first, four matters are asked briefly.
Concerning the first, then, it is asked whether this Sacrament ought to be confected in the species of bread and wine.
And that this Sacrament ought to be confected in the species of bread and wine, the Lord's own institution or consecration1 and the observance of the Catholic Church furnish sufficient authority and ground. — But that [it ought] not, it seems:
1. Because, according to what Hugh says2, "as the knowledge of truth increases, the signs ought to have become more evident": therefore, since bread and wine were Sacraments of the law of nature, in no way ought they to be Sacraments of the law of grace, in which so great a knowledge of truth concurs.
2. Likewise, the written law gave and had more knowledge than the natural [law]: therefore its signs were more certain and more expressive: therefore the new law ought rather to confect in the Sacraments or signs handed down in the time of the written law than in the time of the law of nature, of which are the species of bread and wine.
3. Likewise, this same thing seems so, because in the written law the lamb and its blood were offered3; but flesh more expresses flesh, and blood blood: therefore the Sacrament of the Eucharist ought rather to be confected in that species than in this.
4. Likewise, the species of a Sacrament have naturally to represent4; but bread and wine come about by artifice: therefore they are not fitting for a Sacrament.
5. Likewise, this is shown especially of bread, because in this Sacrament Christ suffering ought especially to be signified, whence he himself says5: Do this in remembrance of me; but whole bread does not signify the passion: therefore it is not fitting for this Sacrament.
6. Likewise, in this Sacrament Christ is contained as the food of little ones, who was before the food of Angels; but the food of little ones is milk6: therefore it ought to be confected in milk.
7. Likewise, it is objected concerning wine: because here Christ is signified as healing food or drink; but wine is not given to the sick: therefore this Sacrament, which is curative of spiritual infirmity, ought not to be confected in wine.
8. Likewise, the effect of this Sacrament is to extinguish the disease of concupiscence; but it is of the nature of wine to inflame, Proverbs the twentieth7: Wine is a luxurious thing: therefore etc.
Conclusion. Bread and wine fittingly express the twofold reality of this Sacrament.
I respond: It must be said that of this Sacrament there is a twofold reality, namely the true and the mystical body of Christ8; and since signs are instituted for the sake of expressing the thing signified, such things ought to have been [chosen] as by their nature were apt to express both. — And since the mystical body is from many things aggregated into one, such elements ought to have been [chosen] as would make one out of many; and such is bread, because it is from many pure grains; such also is wine, which is from many pure berries9: therefore they rightly signify the union of the mystical body.
Now the true body of Christ is contained in this Sacrament as food — because for this the Sacrament was instituted10 — and as food not of any kind whatever, but as fitting food, efficacious food, healing food, food common to all: therefore a sign ought to have been instituted which would indeed be food having these properties. Now the more fitting food is bread of wheat and wine; and a sign of this is that nature does not breed disgust from its frequent use, which is not the case with any other food. — It is also efficacious in strengthening, because bread fortifies, and wine gladdens11. — It is also healthful, as Isaac says in the Diets12, that each makes for health. — Further, it is common and customary food, especially among peoples living rationally. Whence Damascene13: "It is the custom for men to eat bread and to drink wine; therefore the Lord joined Divinity to these and made them his body and blood, so that through these things which are according to nature customary, in which life is preserved, the soul might be carried over to those things which are above nature."
1. From these things the objections are clear. For as to what it objects, that the Sacraments in the new law are more evident; it must be said that it was made more evident14 by reason of the word added: This is my body; but it was not necessary on the part of the element, because that evidence sufficed.
2. 3. To that which is objected concerning the signs of the written law, it must be said that the signs of the passion were more evident, because, as was said above, they were principally ordained to signifying it, but [they were] not more evident as regards the expression of sacramental grace; and this is principally signified in the Sacraments of the new law. — And by this it is clear concerning the flesh, because the flesh is not signified as flesh, but as refreshing.
4. To that which is objected, that they are from artifice; it must be said that the aptitude is from nature, but the perfection from human work15; thus also Christ from his origin had the aptitude of feeding, but was made food in act by the cooking in the fire of the passion and the pressing in the winepress of the cross; so it is in the sign itself, namely bread and wine.
5. And by this is clear what follows, which it objects, that it does not signify the passion; for it must be said that this is false, rather it does signify [it] through the cooking, or also the pressing. It could nevertheless be said16 that Christ is not expressed as suffering principally, but as food.
6. To that which is objected, that it is the food of little ones; it must be said that it is the food of little ones and of the humble, yet of those who have in some way grown, not of those coming to the faith. Whence Augustine17: "I am the food of the grown; grow, and you shall eat me," etc. And therefore it was instituted in bread, not in milk.
7. To that which is objected concerning wine, that it does not heal; it must be said that wine is given to those already convalescing and not to those actually being made sick; in which is signified that this Sacrament ought to be given to those already confident through a good conscience, not to those lying in the bed of sin18.
8. To that which is objected, that it increases lust; it must be said that it does this when it is taken to drunkenness, not when it is taken for refreshment and gladness, with sobriety preserved.
I. Concerning the matter of the Eucharist, of which these and the three following questions treat, the Decree for the Armenians of Eugenius IV in the Bull Exsultate Deo treats. — Concerning the fittingness of each species treat: Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV. q. 10. m. 3. a. 2. — Scotus, on this and the following questions, here q. 6 and 7. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 1. subquestion 1. 2; Summa III. q. 74. a. 1. — Bl. Albert, IV Sent. d. 2. a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following questions, here q. 3.
II. With respect to the 2nd question, it is now certain among all (against certain ancients) that the consecration of both species is not of the necessity of the Sacrament itself, namely [necessary] for it to be validly consecrated, yet that it is of the necessity of a divine precept. Concerning the 2nd question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 4. a. 1. § 1. — St. Thomas, IV Sent. d. 8. q. 2. a. 1. subquestion 1, and here q. 2. a. 1. subquestion 1. ad 4; Summa III. q. 78. a. 6. — Bl. Albert, loc. cit. a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, IV Sent. d. 8. q. 3. a. 1. subquestion 1. 3.
III. The 3rd question they solve concordantly: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 4. a. 1. § 8. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 1; Summa III. q. 74. a. 6. 7. 8. — Bl. Albert, here a. 9. 10. 11. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 4. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3. q. 1. 2. 4. — Durandus, here q. 5.
IV. Concerning the 4th question, the Roman Catechism (on the Eucharist, n. 13) teaches that "no bread except wheaten is to be reckoned matter apt for the Sacrament." But it is doubted concerning certain kinds of grain, such as spelt or emmer, whether they differ from wheat specifically or only accidentally, concerning which see St. Thomas, loc. cit. q. 3. ad 2, and the casuists. Concerning this same question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 2. 4. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 2; Summa loc. cit. a. 3; Summa contra Gentiles IV. c. 69. — Bl. Albert, loc. cit. a. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 2. — Durandus, here q. 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3.
---
- 1Cfr. Matth. 26, 26. seqq. Vide etiam supra pag. 194, nota 1.Cf. Matthew 26, 26 ff. See also above p. 194, note 1.
- 2Libr. I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 6. Verba vide supra d. 2. a. 1. q. 2. fundam. 1. — Quod panis et vinum fuerint Sacramenta legis naturae, insinuatur supra d. 8. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. In fine arg. pro concurrit codd. EFG L crevit.Book I On the Sacraments p. IX. c. 6. For the words see above d. 2. a. 1. q. 2. fundamentum 1. — That bread and wine were Sacraments of the law of nature is suggested above d. 8. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. At the end of the argument, for concurrit codices EFG L [read] crevit.
- 3Cfr. supra d. 8. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.Cf. above d. 8. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.
- 4Ut ostensum est supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2.As was shown above d. 1. p. I. q. 2.
- 5Luc. 22, 19.Luke 22, 19.
- 6Epist. I. Cor. 3, 1. seq.: Tanquam parvulis in Christo lac vobis potum dedi, non escam. — In maiori, quae est secundum August., Enarrat. in Ps. 33. enarrat. 1. n. 6, post parvulorum Vat. addit et humilium.I Corinthians 3, 1 f.: As to little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not solid food. — In the major [premise], which is according to Augustine, Enarrations on the Psalms on Ps. 33, enarration 1, n. 6, after of little ones the Vatican [edition] adds and of the humble.
- 7Vers. 1.Verse 1.
- 8Cfr. supra d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.Cf. above d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.
- 9Superius pro facerent unum, quod habent codd. PQ, codd. E L aa essent unum [codd. E aa in unum], alii codd. tantum in unum, edd. aggregantur in unum.Above, for facerent unum, which codices PQ have, codices E L aa [read] essent unum [codices E aa in unum], other codices only in unum, the editions aggregantur in unum.
- 10Cfr. Ioan. 6, 27. seqq. — Immediate post cod. aa addit ut sit cibus.Cf. John 6, 27 ff. — Immediately after, codex aa adds that it may be food.
- 11Respicitur Ps. 103, 14. seq.: Ut educas panem de terra, et vinum laetificet cor hominis... et panis cor hominis confirmet.Reference is made to Ps. 103, 14 f.: That you may bring forth bread from the earth, and that wine may gladden the heart of man... and that bread may strengthen the heart of man.
- 12Florentiae in bibliotheca Laurentiana habetur opus huius auctoris in cod. (Plut. LXXIII. n. XLII. membr. in fol. parv. saec. XIV. ineunt.), qui fol. 1. exhibet librum Dietarum universalium, cuius initium est: Quoniam imprimis coegit antiquos disputare de naturis. In dicto cod. fol. 14. v. haec leguntur: « Cibaria subtilia sunt triplicia... aut in passione et substantia subtilia, sicut panis de grano bene coctus et carnes perdicum... propterea quia actioni naturae obedientia, et laudabilissimus sanguis est, quem generant... ideoque hoc cibarium utilissimum in sanitate sanis custodienda et infirmis reddenda » etc. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 4. a. 1. § 7. inter alias rationes pro congruentia vini de vite ad Sacramentum hanc affert, « quae habetur ab Isaac in Dietis particularibus: vinum bonum dat nutrimentum corpori, sanitatem reddit et custodit, si accipiatur, secundum quod oportet ». Cfr. cod. Vat. Reg. 1304 (Romae) fol. 79. et fol. 105-108. Praedicta duo opera Isaaci (Ishak), filii Salomonis, arabico idiomate scripta, in Latinum transtulit Constantinus Africanus (XI. saeculo), et impressa sunt Lugduni 1515.At Florence in the Laurentian library there is found a work of this author in a codex (Plut. LXXIII. n. XLII, parchment in small folio, early 14th cent.), which at fol. 1 exhibits the book of Universal Diets, whose beginning is: Since first of all it compelled the ancients to dispute about natures. In the said codex at fol. 14v these things are read: "Subtle foods are of three kinds... or subtle in passion and substance, like bread of grain well cooked and the flesh of partridges... because [they are] obedient to the action of nature, and most praiseworthy is the blood which they generate... and therefore this food [is] most useful for preserving the healthy in health and for restoring the sick" etc. Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV. q. 10. m. 4. a. 1. § 7, among other reasons for the fittingness of wine of the vine to the Sacrament, brings forward this one, "which is had from Isaac in the Particular Diets: good wine gives nourishment to the body, restores and preserves health, if it be taken as it ought." Cf. codex Vat. Reg. 1304 (Rome) fol. 79 and fol. 105-108. The aforesaid two works of Isaac (Ishak), son of Solomon, written in the Arabic tongue, Constantine the African (11th cent.) translated into Latin, and they were printed at Lyons in 1515.
- 13Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 13, ubi textus originalis aquam et vinum pro vinum substituit, et verba in quibus vita conservatur omittit.Book IV On the Orthodox Faith c. 13, where the original text substitutes water and wine for wine, and omits the words in which life is preserved.
- 14Codd. N aa evidentiora facta sunt, quibus verbis cod. aa addit in lege gratiae.Codices N aa [read] they were made more evident, to which words codex aa adds in the law of grace.
- 15Dist. 1. p. 1. q. 5; d. 2. a. 1. q. 2. ad 3. et dub. 2; d. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 1. in corp. et d. 8. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. ad 1.D. 1. p. 1. q. 5; d. 2. a. 1. q. 2. ad 3 and dub. 2; d. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 1. in the body, and d. 8. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. ad 1.
- 16Cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2. ad 5. — De seq. propos. vide supra pag. 204, nota 1; Tertull., IV. Contra Marcion. c. 40, et hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.Cf. above d. 1. p. I. q. 2. ad 5. — On the following proposition see above p. 204, note 1; Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. c. 40, and here the text of the Master, c. 2.
- 17Libr. VII. Confess. c. 10. n. 16. Verba vide supra pag. 187, nota 6. — Pro creverunt codd. R S crediderunt.Book VII Confessions c. 10. n. 16. For the words see above p. 187, note 6. — For creverunt codices R S [read] crediderunt.
- 18Cfr. supra d. 9. a. 2. q. 2. ad 2. et infra d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. seq.Cf. above d. 9. a. 2. q. 2. ad 2, and below d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 2 f.