Dist. 11, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 4
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 11
Quaestio IV. Utrum Sacramentum eucharistiae possit confici in omni pane et vino.
Quarto quaeritur, utrum hoc Sacramentum possit confici in omni pane et vino. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Quia est cibus communis: ergo debet fieri in materia communi, sicut baptismus, propter excusationem pauperum1: ergo in omni pane et in omni vino, quae habent rationem reficiendi et potandi.
2. Item ostenditur, quod possit confici in pane et vino corrupto, quia dicit Innocentius2: « Etsi diligenti studio vinum optimum sit quaerendum, vitium tamen vini non maculat munditiam Sacramenti »; eadem ratione nec panis: ergo etc.
3. Item ostenditur, quod in pane et vino mixto: quia, sicut vino commiscetur aqua, ita granis frumenti commisceri possunt alia grana; sed in vino mixto aqua fit et debet fieri Sacramentum3: ergo similiter in frumento potest.
4. Item, quod in omni aqua, videtur: quia omnis aqua potest converti in vinum4, et conversa potest converti in sanguinem: ergo etc.
Contra: 1. Quia, sicut Dominus baptizando dedit vim regenerativam aquis5, ita consecrando instituit huius Sacramenti materiam; sed consecravit in pane de frumento, quia ille est solum cibus paschalis, et in vino vitis: ergo etc.
2. Item, quod nec in vino nec in pane corrupto, videtur: quia vinum corruptum non est vinum, sicut homo mortuus non est homo — unde « acetum, ut dicit Philosophus in octavo Metaphysicae6 nec est vinum nec potest esse » — similiter de pane: ergo etc.
3. Item, quod nec de mixto, videtur: quia « mixtio est miscibilium alteratorum unio7 », unde in mixtione transmutantur formae mixtorum, et resultat tertium: ergo vinum mixtum non est vinum, et similiter panis: ergo etc.
4. Item, quod non in aqua non naturali, videtur: quia baptismus, qui est Sacramentum necessitatis, non potest8: ergo nec illud, quod debet fieri solemnius.
Conclusio. Eucharistiae Sacramentum non potest confici nisi in alio pane quam de tritico, nec in alio vino quam de vite.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod materia congrua huic Sacramento de natura sua est panis de frumento et vinum de vite; propter hoc quod iste cibus inter omnes cibos, et potus ille inter omnes potus est convenientior, efficacior, sanior et communior. Et ideo Dominus se grano frumenti comparavit, Ioannis duodecimo9; et ligno vitis, Ioannis decimo quinto; et ex hac causa in his duabus speciebus confecit et conficiendo instituit. Ideo in alio pane quam de frumento, vel in alio vino quam de vite non potest confici; et hoc determinavit Concilium Carthaginense10. In omni autem pane de frumento, sicut in omni vino de vite, sive ibi sit differentia accidentalis, sive specifica, ut dicunt quidam, potest confici, salvata specie illius panis et illius vini.
Ad argumenta:
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de omni pane propter communitatem; dicendum, quod non tantum communitas, sed etiam congruitas est hic consideranda. Praeterea, baptismus est Sacramentum necessitatis, sed illud non; ideo non est simile. Praeterea, « omnis aqua naturaliter omni aquae est eadem specie11 », non sic omne bladum.
2. Ad illud quod quaeritur de corruptione, dicendum, quod est quaedam corruptio a statu optimo, non tamen ab esse simpliciter, ut puta quando vinum turbatur vel acescit; quaedam est corruptio ab esse simpliciter, ut quando simpliciter desinit habere formam panis et vini, ut quando perfecte conversum est in acetum. Prima corruptio non tollit potentiam conficiendi, sed secunda tollit. Haec autem corruptio poterit discerni per gustum ab illis qui noscunt naturas rerum.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de mixtione, dicendum, quod mixtio dicitur dupliciter, scilicet communiter et proprie: communiter, quando miscetur aliquid alicui alterius naturae, quod tamen non habet proportionem, sed illud tanquam praedominans solvit speciem et convertit in se; et tunc non est mixtio proprie, et talis potest esse in hoc Sacramento. Et de hac dicitur in fine primi de Generatione12, quod si « gutta aquae misceatur amphorae vini, non est mixtio, quia solvitur species ». — Est secunda alia mixtio, proprie dicta « miscibilium alteratorum unio »; et haec repugnat. Unde tot grana possunt commisceri granis frumenti, et tantum de aqua vino, quod alterant13 a suis naturalibus saporibus; et haec mixtio tollit potentiam conficiendi. Et ideo frumenti grana diligenter sunt secernenda, et valde parum de aqua est apponendum, maxime quando vinum est debile.
4. Ad illud quod ultimo quaeritur de aqua, dicendum, quod non aqua rosacea, nec artificialis, sed solum naturalis, quae dicitur aqua viva, est apponenda; et si apponatur alia aqua, ut transeat in vinum, fit Sacramentum; sed ille qui apponit, peccat, sicut ille qui omittit ponere aquam. Quod enim aqua significat populum14, hoc est ratione multitudinis; et talis est aqua non artificialis, sed naturalis.
Vide scholion ad q. 1 huius articuli (bon-sent-IV-d11-p2-a1-q1), ubi articuli scholion (de quaestionibus I–IV) integre redditur.
---
Question IV. Whether the sacrament of the Eucharist can be confected in every bread and wine.
Fourthly it is asked whether this sacrament can be confected in every bread and wine. And that it can, it seems:
1. Because it is a common food: therefore it ought to be made in a common matter, like baptism, for the relief of the poor1: therefore in every bread and in every wine, which have the character of refreshing and of being drunk.
2. Likewise it is shown that it can be confected in corrupt bread and wine, because Innocent says2: "Although the best wine is to be sought with diligent care, yet a defect of the wine does not stain the cleanness of the Sacrament"; by the same reasoning neither does [a defect of] the bread: therefore, etc.
3. Likewise it is shown [that it can be made] in mixed bread and wine: because, just as water is mingled with wine, so other grains can be mingled with grains of wheat; but in mixed wine the Sacrament is made and ought to be made3: therefore likewise it can [be made] in wheat.
4. Likewise, that [it can be made] in every water, it seems: because every water can be converted into wine4, and when converted it can be converted into blood: therefore, etc.
On the contrary: 1. Because, just as the Lord by baptizing gave a regenerative power to the waters5, so by consecrating he instituted the matter of this Sacrament; but he consecrated in bread of wheat, because that alone is the paschal food, and in wine of the vine: therefore, etc.
2. Likewise, that [it can] not [be made] either in wine or in corrupt bread, it seems: because corrupt wine is not wine, just as a dead man is not a man — whence "vinegar," as the Philosopher says in the eighth book of the Metaphysics6, "is neither wine nor can it be" — similarly of bread: therefore, etc.
3. Likewise, that [it can] not [be made] of a mixture, it seems: because "a mixture is the union of mixable things that have been altered7," whence in a mixture the forms of the mixed things are transmuted, and a third thing results: therefore mixed wine is not wine, and similarly [mixed] bread [is not bread]: therefore, etc.
4. Likewise, that [it can] not [be made] in non-natural water, it seems: because baptism, which is a Sacrament of necessity, cannot [be made in it]8: therefore neither can that which ought to be made more solemnly.
Conclusion. The Sacrament of the Eucharist cannot be confected except in no other bread than of wheat, nor in any other wine than of the vine.
Respondeo: It must be said that the matter suited to this Sacrament is by its nature bread of wheat and wine of the vine; on account of this, that this food among all foods, and that drink among all drinks, is the more fitting, more efficacious, more wholesome, and more common. And therefore the Lord compared himself to a grain of wheat, in John 129; and to the wood of the vine, in John 15; and for this reason he confected, and in confecting instituted, [the Sacrament] in these two species. Therefore in another bread than of wheat, or in another wine than of the vine, it cannot be confected; and this the Council of Carthage determined10. But in every bread of wheat, just as in every wine of the vine, whether there be there an accidental difference, or a specific one, as some say, it can be confected, the species of that bread and that wine being preserved.
To the arguments:
1. To that, then, which is objected concerning every bread on account of [its] commonness; it must be said that not only commonness, but also suitability, is here to be considered. Moreover, baptism is a Sacrament of necessity, but this [Sacrament] is not; therefore it is not alike. Moreover, "every water is naturally of the same species as every [other] water11," not so every grain.
2. To that which is asked concerning corruption, it must be said that there is a certain corruption from the best state, yet not from being absolutely, as for instance when wine becomes turbid or sour; [and] there is a certain corruption from being absolutely, as when it absolutely ceases to have the form of bread and wine, as when it is perfectly turned into vinegar. The first corruption does not take away the power of confecting, but the second does take it away. Now this corruption can be discerned by taste by those who know the natures of things.
3. To that which is objected concerning mixture, it must be said that mixture is spoken of in two ways, namely commonly and properly: commonly, when something is mingled with something else of another nature, which however does not have a proportion [to it], but the latter, as predominant, dissolves the species and converts it into itself; and then it is not mixture properly, and such [mixture] can be in this Sacrament. And of this it is said at the end of the first book On Generation12, that if "a drop of water be mingled with an amphora of wine, it is not a mixture, because the species is dissolved." — There is a second, other mixture, properly so called, "the union of mixable things that have been altered"; and this is incompatible [with the Sacrament]. Whence so many grains can be mingled with grains of wheat, and so much water with wine, that they alter13 [them] from their natural flavors; and this mixture takes away the power of confecting. And therefore the grains of wheat are to be diligently separated out, and very little water is to be added, especially when the wine is weak.
4. To that which is asked lastly concerning water, it must be said that not rose-water, nor artificial [water], but only natural [water], which is called living water, is to be added; and if another water be added, [such] that it pass into the wine, the Sacrament is made; but he who adds it sins, just as he who omits to put in water. For that water signifies the people14, this is by reason of multitude; and such is the water that is not artificial, but natural.
See the scholion at q. 1 of this article (bon-sent-IV-d11-p2-a1-q1), where the article's scholion (on questions I–IV) is rendered in full.
---
- 1Hanc rationem tangit Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 29. — Superius post fluxit simul codd. O X supplent aqua.Innocent III touches on this reasoning, IV On the sacred mystery of the Altar, c. 29. — Above, after flowed together codices O X supply water.
- 2Libr. IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 29.Book IV On the sacred mystery of the Altar, c. 29.
- 3Cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. in fine corp. et hic q. 1.Cf. above d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. at the end of the body, and here q. 1.
- 4Codd. L Y Est etiam alia ratio, quia vinum [conversum in Christi sanguinem, cuius effusione redempti sumus; cfr. Eph. 1, 7, et I. Petr. 1, 19.]. — Pro durius edd. durior.Codices L Y [read] There is also another reason, because wine [converted into the blood of Christ, by whose shedding we are redeemed; cf. Eph. 1:7, and 1 Pet. 1:19]. — For more harshly the editions [read] more harsh.
- 5Cfr. Liturgiae tum Iacobi sive Hierosolymitana, tum Marci sive Alexandrina. Vide etiam supra pag. 194, nota 1. — Inferius respicitur Ioan. 20, 30. et 21, 25. — Paulo superius pro biberit non pauci codd. biberet.Cf. the Liturgies both of James, or the Jerusalem [Liturgy], and of Mark, or the Alexandrian. See also above p. 194, note 1. — Lower down reference is made to John 20:30 and 21:25. — A little above, for has drunk not a few codices [read] would drink.
- 6Ioan. 19, 34.John 19:34.
- 7Vide infra dub. 6. — De ipsa quaestione vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.See below dub. 6. — Concerning this question itself see the scholion at q. 1 of this article.
- 8Cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. dub. 2.Cf. above d. 3. p. II. dub. 2.
- 9Vers. 24. — Seq. loc. est Ioan. 15, 1. Cfr. supra q. 1.Verse 24. — The following passage is John 15:1. Cf. above q. 1.
- 10Carthag. III. (a. 397) c. 24. Cfr. C. In Sacramento (5.), de Consecrat. d. 2.Carthage III (a.d. 397) c. 24. Cf. the canon In Sacramento (5), On Consecration d. 2.
- 11Aristot., I. Topic. c. 6. (c. 5.). — Edd. naturalis pro naturaliter.Aristotle, Topics I. c. 6. (c. 5.). — The editions [read] natural for naturally.
- 12Text. 88. (c. 10.). Vide infra dub. 5. — Superius post proportionem edd. addunt in quanto.Text 88. (c. 10.). See below dub. 5. — Above, after proportion the editions add in quantity.
- 13Ita edd. et plurimi codd.; supple: ea. Cod. II alteratur, codd. X aa melius alterantur, alius Oxoniensis alteratur in.Thus the editions and very many codices; supply: them. Codex II [reads] is altered, codices X aa better are altered, another Oxford [codex reads] is altered into.
- 14Cfr. supra q. 3, et hic lit. Magistri, c. 5. — Paulo ante pro ut transeat cod. aa si transeat.Cf. above q. 3, and here the text of the Master, c. 5. — A little before, for that it pass codex aa [reads] if it pass.