Dist. 11, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 11
Quaestio II. Utrum utraque harum specierum sit de integritate Sacramenti.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum utraque harum specierum sit de integritate Sacramenti. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Quia Dominus, cum illud Sacramentum tradidit, in utraque specie confecit1; sed non est Sacramentum completum, nisi secundum quod ipse instituit: ergo etc.
2. Item, forma verbi est de integritate Sacramenti2; sed forma corporis non est nisi super panem, et forma sanguinis non est nisi super vinum: ergo utraque species est de integritate.
3. Item, nullum Sacramentum est iterandum quamdiu manet: ergo nec consecratio supra consecrationem est addenda, cum est perfecta3; sed ad consecrationem panis additur consecratio vini: ergo nondum est perfecta: ergo etc.
4. Item, in hoc Sacramento exprimitur mysterium nostrae redemptionis; sed hoc non fit in solo pane, sive in corpore, sed etiam in sanguine4: et sic etc.
Contra: 1. In hoc Sacramento quantum ad speciem panis totus Christus continetur, nec aliquid amplius in duobus quam in uno, nec aliud, sed omnino idem: ergo videtur, quod non sit de integritate species vini; quia, illa remota, remanet totum completum.
2. Item, fideles integrum et perfectum Sacramentum recipiunt, nec recipiunt nisi in altera specie tantum: ergo etc.
3. Item, quaero: quae necessitas est in hoc Sacramento sanguinem Christi significari? Si quia de integritate; multo magis anima: ergo anima multo magis debet significari. Si dicas, quod in hoc significatur anima, quia « sedes animae est in sanguine », ut dicit Magister5; contra: anima ut perfectio est in toto corpore et in singulis partibus, non ergo in sanguine. Praeterea, quaedam animalia sunt sine sanguine.
4. Item, baptismus est Sacramentum valens ad remedium corporis et animae6; et tamen non est ibi signum nisi unicum: ergo nec hic.
Conclusio. Utraque species est de integritate Sacramenti eucharistiae quoad significantiam, sed non quoad efficaciam.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in Sacramento duo sunt, scilicet efficacia et significantia. Esse igitur de integritate Sacramenti dupliciter est: aut quantum ad efficaciam; et sic neutra species est de integritate, sed in qualibet totum7, quod habet efficaciam; aut quantum ad significationem, et sic sunt de integritate, quia in neutra per se exprimitur res huius Sacramenti, sed in utraque simul. Et hoc patet sic.
Hic significatur Christus cibus perfecte reficiens manducantes sacramentaliter et spiritualiter; perfecta autem refectio non est in pane tantum nec in vino tantum, sed in utroque: ideo non in uno tantum perfecte significatur ut reficiens, sed in utroque8. — Reficit autem hoc Sacramentum non quoscumque, sed manducantes spiritualiter. Manducare
autem spiritualiter est recognoscere et affici circa eius passionem, quae fuit in corporis eius multiplici afflictione et sanguinis effusione; in quo manifestatur immensa Dei caritas, et in hoc anima perfecte reficitur et delectatur9; et ideo utrumque distincte significatur, scilicet corpus et sanguis. — Rursus, delectatio et refectio non est in passione, quia passio, sed quia nostra redemptio; ibi etiam mira nostra utilitas nos delectat, et quia redempti sumus in corpore et anima — ad hoc10 est perfecta redemptio et Christus exposuit corpus et animam — et ideo, ut perfecta esset vel significaretur redemptio, et ex hoc perfecta refectio; debuit significari corpus in pane et anima, cuius sedes est in sanguine, in vino11.
Ratio igitur integritatis est significantia Christi nos perfecte reficientis in meditatione suae amantissimae passionis et nostrae iucundae redemptionis, quae non per alterum horum perfecte significari potuit, sed per utrumque.
Ad argumenta:
1. 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur primo ad oppositum, patet12, quia, etsi totum in utraque specie contineatur, non tamen per alterum perfecte significatur. Et ideo fideles perfectum Sacramentum recipiunt, quia ad efficaciam recipiunt; sed quantum ad significantiam sufficit, quod Ecclesia faciat in eorum praesentia; nec oportet, quod ipsi recipiant, propter periculum effusionis et propter periculum erroris, quia non crederent simplices, in altera specie totum Christum recipere. — Exemplum patet de eo cui exivit sanguis ab hostia, quia non credebat, quod esset sanguis in specie corporis.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur tertio: quae necessitas est, quare oporteat, sanguinem significari; dicendum, quod hoc est tum propter passionem, tum propter animae redemptionem. Anima enim cum sit spiritualis, non potuit in se significari, sed in annexo, ut puta in sanguine, in quo est sedes animae, non quia in solo sanguine, sed quia anima rationalis unitur mediante potentia sentiendi, et illa mediante potentia vegetandi, et illa, cum habeat tres virtutes13, prima, fundamentum omnium, est nutritiva et nutrimentum sanguinis, vel aliquid loco eius: ideo etc.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de baptismo, dicendum, quod baptismus principaliter significat mortem et sepulturam, sed hoc Sacramentum significat Christum passum; et quoniam passus est in anima et in carne, passus corporis afflictione et sanguinis effusione: ideo utrumque hic significari debet. Unde non est simile; tamen ista non est tota causa nec principalis, sed principalis est significatio refectionis perfectae secundum statum viae. — Causae autem congruentiae multae sunt et accipiuntur tum ex propria significatione, quam efficit Sacramentum, et haec est nostra refectio; tum rei, quam significat allegorice, et haec est Christi passio. — Refectio autem potest significari ut perfecta; et sic significatur per haec duo quantum ad modum duplicem, quia alii suaviter, alii cum maiori labore reficiuntur; prima significatur per sanguinem et speciem vini, secunda per speciem panis. Vel quantum ad effectus: quia confortat, et hoc per speciem panis; et laetificat sive delectat, et hoc per vinum. — Quantum ad significationem allegoricam debet significari corpus et anima, quia Christus utramque assumsit et in utraque passus est et utramque redemit. — Et haec omnia ad congruitatem faciunt; et institutio, quae praeexigit congruitatem, superveniens inducit necessitatem14.
Articuli I scholion (sectiones I–IV, quaestiones 1–4 complectens) cum Quaestione I exhibetur; vide `bon-sent-IV-d11-p2-a1-q1`.
---
Question II. Whether each of these species belongs to the integrity of the sacrament.
Secondly it is asked whether each of these species belongs to the integrity of the sacrament. And that it does, it seems:
1. Because the Lord, when he handed down that Sacrament, consecrated in each species1; but the Sacrament is not complete except according to what he himself instituted: therefore, etc.
2. Likewise, the form of the word belongs to the integrity of the Sacrament2; but the form of the body is only over bread, and the form of the blood is only over wine: therefore each species belongs to the integrity.
3. Likewise, no Sacrament is to be repeated as long as it remains: therefore neither is a consecration to be added upon a consecration, when it is complete3; but to the consecration of the bread the consecration of the wine is added: therefore it is not yet complete: therefore, etc.
4. Likewise, in this Sacrament the mystery of our redemption is expressed; but this does not come about in the bread alone, that is, in the body, but also in the blood4: and so, etc.
On the contrary: 1. In this Sacrament, as regards the species of bread, the whole Christ is contained, nor anything more in the two than in the one, nor anything other, but altogether the same: therefore it seems that the species of wine does not belong to the integrity; because, that being removed, the whole remains complete.
2. Likewise, the faithful receive the whole and perfect Sacrament, and they receive it only in the other species: therefore, etc.
3. Likewise, I ask: what necessity is there in this Sacrament that the blood of Christ be signified? If [it be said] because [it belongs] to the integrity, much more does the soul: therefore the soul much more ought to be signified. If you say that in this [the blood] the soul is signified, because "the seat of the soul is in the blood," as the Master says5; on the contrary: the soul as a perfection is in the whole body and in its individual parts, therefore not [merely] in the blood. Moreover, certain animals are without blood.
4. Likewise, baptism is a Sacrament availing for the remedy of body and soul6; and yet there is there but a single sign: therefore neither [should there be two signs] here.
Conclusion. Each species belongs to the integrity of the sacrament of the Eucharist as regards signification, but not as regards efficacy.
Respondeo: It must be said that in the Sacrament there are two things, namely efficacy and signification. To belong to the integrity of the Sacrament is therefore twofold: either as regards efficacy — and thus neither species belongs to the integrity, but in each is the whole7, which has the efficacy; or as regards signification — and thus they do belong to the integrity, because in neither one by itself is the reality of this Sacrament expressed, but in both together. And this is shown thus.
Here is signified Christ the food perfectly refreshing those who eat sacramentally and spiritually; but perfect refreshment is not in bread alone nor in wine alone, but in both: therefore it is not in one alone that he is perfectly signified as refreshing, but in both8. — But this Sacrament refreshes not just anyone, but those who eat spiritually. To eat
spiritually, however, is to recognize and to be affected concerning his passion, which was in the manifold affliction of his body and the shedding of his blood; in which is manifested the immense charity of God, and in this the soul is perfectly refreshed and delighted9; and therefore each is distinctly signified, namely the body and the blood. — Again, the delight and refreshment is not in the passion, because [it is] a passion, but because [it is] our redemption; there too our wondrous benefit delights us, and because we have been redeemed in body and soul — for this10 there is perfect redemption and Christ exposed body and soul — and therefore, so that the redemption might be perfect or might be signified, and from this the refreshment perfect; the body had to be signified in the bread, and the soul, whose seat is in the blood, in the wine11.
The ground, then, of the integrity is the signification of Christ perfectly refreshing us in the meditation of his most loving passion and of our joyful redemption, which could not be perfectly signified by either one of these, but by both.
To the arguments:
1. 2. To that which is objected first to the contrary, it is clear12 that, although the whole is contained in each species, nevertheless it is not perfectly signified by either one. And therefore the faithful receive the perfect Sacrament, because they receive it as to efficacy; but as regards signification it suffices that the Church do it in their presence; nor is it necessary that they themselves receive [both], on account of the danger of spilling and on account of the danger of error, because the simple would not believe that under the other species they receive the whole Christ. — The example is clear from the man from whom blood came forth from the host, because he did not believe that there was blood under the species of the body.
3. To that which is objected thirdly: what necessity is there that the blood ought to be signified; it must be said that this is both on account of the passion and on account of the redemption of the soul. For the soul, since it is spiritual, could not be signified in itself, but in something annexed, as for instance in the blood, in which is the seat of the soul — not because [it is] in the blood alone, but because the rational soul is united by means of the power of sensing, and that by means of the power of vegetating, and that, since it has three powers13, the first, the foundation of all, is the nutritive power and the nourishment of the blood, or something in its place: therefore, etc.
4. To that which is objected concerning baptism, it must be said that baptism principally signifies death and burial, but this Sacrament signifies Christ as having suffered; and since he suffered in soul and in flesh, suffered by the affliction of the body and the shedding of the blood: therefore both ought here to be signified. Hence the case is not alike; yet this is not the whole cause nor the principal one, but the principal one is the signification of the perfect refreshment according to the state of the wayfarer. — Now the causes of fittingness are many and are taken both from the proper signification which the Sacrament effects, and this is our refreshment; and from the reality which it signifies allegorically, and this is Christ's passion. — Now refreshment can be signified as perfect; and thus it is signified by these two as to a twofold mode, because some are refreshed gently, others with greater labor; the first is signified by the blood and the species of wine, the second by the species of bread. Or as to effects: because it strengthens, and this by the species of bread; and it gladdens or delights, and this by the wine. — As to the allegorical signification, body and soul ought to be signified, because Christ assumed both and in both suffered and both he redeemed. — And all these things make for fittingness; and the institution, which presupposes fittingness, supervening induces necessity14.
The scholion of Articulus I (sections I–IV, covering questions 1–4) is rendered with Question I; see `bon-sent-IV-d11-p2-a1-q1`.
---
- 1Vide Matth. 26, 26. seqq. — Superius voci Sacramenti codd. R S bb praemittunt huius.See Matthew 26:26 ff. — Above, to the word Sacramenti codices R S bb prefix huius.
- 2Ut habetur supra in lit. Magistri, d. III. c. 1, et Comment. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.As is held above in the text of the Master, d. III. c. 1, and Commentary p. I. a. 1. q. 2.
- 3Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. circa finem.Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4, near the end.
- 4Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4, in quo etiam 1. arg. ad oppos. insinuatur.See here the text of the Master, c. 4, in which the 1st argument to the contrary is also suggested.
- 5Hic c. 4. — Quod anima sit tota in toto corpore et in qualibet parte eiusdem, ostensum est I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 3. — Post significatur anima cod. L addit ratione vini significantis sanguinem.Here c. 4. — That the soul is whole in the whole body and in each part of the same, was shown in I Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 3. — After significatur anima codex L adds ratione vini significantis sanguinem (by reason of the wine signifying the blood).
- 6Hilar., Comment. in Matth. c. 10. n. 24, dicit, quod baptismi lavacro simus « anima et corpore innovati ». Cfr. supra d. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. ad 2.Hilary, Commentary on Matthew c. 10. n. 24, says that by the laver of baptism we are "renewed in soul and body." Cf. above d. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. ad 2.
- 7Scil. totus Christus. — Pro in qualibet cod. W et edd. quaelibet (edd. addunt est).That is, the whole Christ. — For in qualibet codex W and the editions [read] quaelibet (the editions add est).
- 8Cfr. supra d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 2, et Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 3.Cf. above d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 2, and Innocent III, IV On the sacred mystery of the Altar, c. 3.
- 9Ut ostensum est supra d. 9. a. 1. q. 2.As was shown above d. 9. a. 1. q. 2.
- 10Ita edd. et plurimi codd., cod. II ad hoc enim etiam, cod. X et hoc, cod. O hoc. — Post Rursus fortasse excidit quia.Thus the editions and very many codices; codex II [reads] ad hoc enim etiam, codex X et hoc, codex O hoc. — After Rursus perhaps quia has fallen out.
- 11Haec ratio affertur etiam ab Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 21. — Inferius voci reficientis cod. Z praemittit redimentis et. Subinde pro amantissimae codd. M O S X amarissimae.This reason is brought forward also by Innocent III, IV On the sacred mystery of the Altar, c. 21. — Below, to the word reficientis codex Z prefixes redimentis et. Thereupon for amantissimae codices M O S X [read] amarissimae.
- 12Edd. supplent responsio, et paulo inferius post perfectum Sacramentum addunt sub una specie.The editions supply responsio, and a little below after perfectum Sacramentum add sub una specie.
- 13In edd. subiungitur glossa scilicet generativam, augmentativam et nutritivam. Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 27. seqq. (c. 3.).In the editions there is subjoined the gloss namely the generative, augmentative, and nutritive [powers]. Cf. Aristotle, On the Soul II, text 27 ff. (c. 3.).
- 14Cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. ad 4, et a. 2. q. 1. seq. — Mox ex codd. E F substituimus Christum pro eum (cod. aa tantum).Cf. above d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. ad 4, and a. 2. q. 1 f. — Presently from codices E F we have substituted Christum for eum (codex aa [reads] tantum).