Dist. 11, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 11
Quaestio II. Quale corpus Christus in Coena dederit discipulis.
Secundo quaeritur de modo, quo Christus confecit quoad contentum interius; et quaeritur, quale corpus dedit discipulis in Coena. Et quod impassibile et immortale videtur.
1. Matthaei decimo septimo1: Transfiguratus est ante eos; Glossa: « Illud corpus, quod habuit per naturam, dedit discipulis suis in Coena, non mortale, non passibile ».
2. Item, ratione videtur: quia omnis caro passibilis est convertibilis: ergo si corpus passibile dedit, fuit convertibile in manducantes; quod est inconveniens.
3. Item, omni passibili potest inferri passio, et omne illud cui potest inferri passio, laeditur per contactum fortem agentis: si ergo Christus sub forma panis fuit passibilis2, tunc ergo percussione dentium et masticatione poterat laedi.
4. Item, si passibile et mortale — esto quod esset reservatum in triduo; tunc ergo moreretur; et si hoc, non esset ibi anima: ergo nec plenum Sacramentum. Cum ergo hoc non sit ponere, constat, quod non moreretur: ergo etc.
5. Item, esto quod aliquis consecrasset in triduo, constat, quod verba eandem haberent virtutem; sed virtute verborum est ibi modo totus Christus3: ergo totus Christus esset ibi: ergo simul esset vivus et mortuus, vivus sub Sacramento, mortuus extra: ergo pari ratione immortale sub Sacramento, mortale extra.
6. Item, quod illud nullum sit inconveniens, videtur: quia, si aliquod corpus esset in pluribus locis, simul posset moveri et quiescere, et simul moveri et non moveri4: ergo eadem ratione simul pati et non pati, mori et non mori: ergo etc.
Contra: 1. Primae ad Corinthios undecimo5 dicit Glossa: « Solet quaeri, quale corpus discipulis suis dedit Dominus »; et respondet: « Tale, quale erat, quia passibile et mortale ».
2. Item, si dedit impassibile et immortale; cum haberet in se6 passibile et mortale: ergo aliter dedit in signo quam in se: ergo fuit ibi fictio.
3. Item, si immortale — esto quod reservaretur, simul esset vivus et mortuus: ergo simul viveret et non viveret; et si hoc, duo contradictorie opposita essent simul vera de eodem; quod non potest credi nec intelligi7.
4. Item, cum dicitur: Hoc est corpus meum, panis solum convertitur in corpus; sed anima est ibi solum per concomitantiam8: ergo si in triduo fuisset confectum cum anima esset separata: ergo similiter, si esset reservatum: ergo passibile et mortale.
Conclusio. Corpus Christi in Coena discipulis datum erat sub speciebus passibile et mortale, sed ibi erat impassibiliter.
Respondeo: Circa hoc duplex est opinio: una9 magistri Hugonis10 et suorum sequacium, quod Christus corpus suum immortale et impassibile dedit sub Sacramento. Et non est inconveniens, quod sit habens alterum et alterum modum essendi habitu et actu. Habitu quidem erat mortale, sed ex aliqua causa sumsit ad tempus immortalitatem; sicut subtilitatem in nativitate, agilitatem in mari, claritatem in monte11, sic immortalitatem sub Sacramento. Nec est ibi contradictio vera, quia corpus Christi ex hoc, quod in pluribus locis est, oppositas habet proprietates, sicut portare et portari, quiescere et moveri; sic pati et non pati. Quantum enim ad hoc accipit rationem universalis, licet vere sit singulare12. Et secundum opinionem istorum, si reservatum fuisset, non esset mortuum in pyxide. — Sed quia haec opinio simul contradictoria ponit dici de eodem, secundum quod idem; et hoc non est necessarium ponere in hoc Sacramento: ideo minus est rationabilis.
Propterea est alia opinio Magistri13 et Innocentii et sequacium, quod « dedit tale corpus discipulis, quale habuit ». Quamvis enim corpus Christi simul virtute Sacramenti sit in pluribus locis, easdem tamen habet absolutas proprietates, tanquam unum numero. Et propterea ad intelligentiam obiectorum in contrarium dicendum, quod duplex est proprietas, quae convenit corpori Christi: quaedam absoluta, quaedam relata ad locum14. Proprietas absoluta, quae convenit corpori Christi, ut in uno loco est, cum sit una, convenit tamen ut in omnibus. Sed proprietas relata ad locum, cum sit in diversis locis, etsi conveniat ei in uno loco, non tamen oportet, quod in omnibus. Unde non oportet, quod — si corpus Christi sit in multis locis — quodsi movetur in uno, moveatur in altero. Similiter non oportet, quodsi aliquis percutit ipsum in uno loco, quod in alio similiter percutiat, quia talis operatio respicit praesentiam localem agentis. Ita similiter non oportet, quodsi videatur in uno loco, quod in alio videatur, quia hoc respicit praesentiam visibilis.
Concedendum ergo, quod Christus corpus passibile et mortale habebat sub Sacramento, sed tamen non poterat ibi sibi passio inferri, quantumcumque homo percuteret. Unde dicendum, quod sub speciebus illis erat passibilis, sed erat ibi impassibiliter. — Unde loquendo de passione illata, si quaeratur, utrum posset ibi pati; ista distinguenda est: aut enim hoc quod est ibi determinat actum, aut compositionem intellectam circa subiectum. Si determinat actum; falsa est, quia sensus est, quod sub Sacramento poterat ei passio inferri; et hoc est falsum, quia, sicut ibi non poterat sentiri15, ita nec poterat ei passio inferri. Si autem determinat compositionem intellectam circa subiectum; sic locutio est vera, et est sensus: existens ibi poterat pati; quia, si passio in alio loco ei inferatur, etiam ibi passionem sentiret et moreretur. Unde si fuisset reservatum corpus illud, habuisset plagas sub Sacramento, sicut extra; sed tamen non esset illi illata passio sub tali modo existendi. Propter hoc dicunt magistri, quod ibi existens erat passibilis passione illata sibi alibi, tamen erat impassibiliter. — Et si hoc magister Hugo intellexit, habet veritatem; sed tunc illa adaptatio de dotibus non valet. Si enim dotes dicunt qualitates aliquas, non video, quomodo corpus non sit alteratum, saltem ad tempus. Constat autem, quod quando dedit Sacramentum, corpus eius actu et habitu habebat proprietatem passibilitatis: ergo non habebat oppositum; modum tamen existendi in alio alium habebat, qui modus sublimabat ipsum supra habere positionem, ac per hoc supra possibilitatem sentiendi, ut erat ibi, vel contingendi. Unde quamvis esset passibile, tamen nunquam poterat palpari ibi; similiter nec passio ibi inferri.
1. 2. Ex hoc patent obiecta, quia Glossa dicit, quod dedit immortale et impassibile, quia ibi passio ei non poterat inferri vel mors, tamen alibi sic. — Patet similiter sequens, quare ibi non poterat converti, quia non erat ibi passibile.
3. Similiter patet tertium, quia passio poterat ei inferri, sed non secundum omnem statum, ut puta secundum illum, secundum quem est insensibile.
4. 5. 6. Ad illud quod quaeritur, si in triduo fuisset reservatum; dicendum, quod mortuus esset sub speciebus; et similiter, si aliquis conficeret, non esset ibi nisi corpus mortuum. — Quod obiicit, quod tunc imperfectum esset etc.; dicendum, quod Sacramentum esset perfectum ab efficacia, quia corpus erat unitum Divinitati, perfectum a significantia, sed tamen non a continentia. Et ratio huius est, quia imperfectio erat in ipso significato, quia corpus erat mortuum. — Similiter dicendum, quod non anima16 virtute verborum, sed propter coniunctionem. Unde quia in triduo non erat coniuncta, ideo non esset ibi, non propter virtutem verborum, quae modo sit maior, sed propter alium statum corporis; verba autem sacramentalia sunt ordinata ad convertendum in corpus, quale erat secundum statum prolationis verborum.
Sed nunquid poterat Christus facere, si corpus erat mortuum sub Sacramento, quod anima, egrediens de corpore pendente in cruce, intraret corpus sub Sacramento, et ita simul esset vivum et mortuum? Dicendum, quod hoc facere nil aliud esset quam redire, unde exierat; unde hoc esset corpus suum vivificare, quia omnino unum est; et ideo est ibi imaginatio mala, quia imaginatur, corpus Christi unicum esse ut diversa corpora, et quod unum sit et perfectum et vivum, et aliud non. Hoc autem non debet intelligi, quia unum tantum est corpus17.
La. Pro hac quaestione scholion proprium non habetur; vide scholion ad praecedentem quaestionem (a. 2, q. 1), ad quod ipse textus remittit: « Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest. »
En. This question has no scholion of its own; see the scholion to the preceding question (a. 2, q. 1), to which the text itself refers: "See the scholion to the preceding question."
---
Question II. What kind of body Christ gave to the disciples in the Supper.
Secondly, it is asked concerning the manner in which Christ consecrated as regards the inward content; and it is asked what kind of body he gave to the disciples in the Supper. And it seems [to be] impassible and immortal.
1. Matthew the seventeenth1: He was transfigured before them; the Gloss: "That body which he had by nature he gave to his disciples in the Supper, not mortal, not passible."
2. Likewise, by reason it seems so: because all passible flesh is convertible: therefore if he gave a passible body, it was convertible into those eating; which is unfitting.
3. Likewise, to every passible thing a passion can be inflicted, and everything to which a passion can be inflicted is harmed by the strong contact of an agent: if therefore Christ under the form of bread was passible2, then he could be harmed by the striking of the teeth and by chewing.
4. Likewise, if [it was] passible and mortal — suppose it were reserved during the three days; then it would die; and if so, the soul would not be there: therefore not even a complete Sacrament. Since, then, this is not to be posited, it is clear that it would not die: therefore, etc.
5. Likewise, suppose someone had consecrated during the three days, it is clear that the words would have the same power; but by the power of the words the whole Christ is there in that mode3: therefore the whole Christ would be there: therefore he would be at once living and dead, living under the Sacrament, dead outside [it]: therefore by parity of reasoning [he would be] immortal under the Sacrament, mortal outside.
6. Likewise, that this is no unfitting thing, it seems: because, if some body were in many places, it could be at once moved and at rest, and at once moved and not moved4: therefore by the same reasoning [it could] at once suffer and not suffer, die and not die: therefore, etc.
On the contrary: 1. On the First [Epistle] to the Corinthians, the eleventh [chapter]5, the Gloss says: "It is wont to be asked, what kind of body the Lord gave to his disciples"; and it answers: "Such as it was, because passible and mortal."
2. Likewise, if he gave [a body] impassible and immortal; whereas he had in himself6 [a body] passible and mortal: therefore he gave [it] otherwise in the sign than in himself: therefore there was a fiction there.
3. Likewise, if [it was] immortal — suppose it were reserved, it would be at once living and dead: therefore it would at once live and not live; and if so, two contradictorily opposite things would be at once true of the same thing; which can neither be believed nor understood7.
4. Likewise, when it is said: This is my body, the bread only is converted into the body; but the soul is there only by concomitance8: therefore if during the three days it had been consecrated when the soul was separated [from the body]: therefore likewise, if it were reserved: therefore [it is] passible and mortal.
Conclusion. The body of Christ given to the disciples in the Supper was, under the species, passible and mortal, but it was there impassibly.
I respond: Concerning this there is a twofold opinion: one9 of master Hugh10 and of his followers, that Christ gave his body immortal and impassible under the Sacrament. And it is not unfitting that it should have the one and the other mode of being in habit and in act. In habit indeed it was mortal, but from some cause it took on immortality for a time; just as [it took on] subtlety in his nativity, agility on the sea, clarity on the mountain11, so [it took on] immortality under the Sacrament. Nor is there a true contradiction there, because the body of Christ, from the fact that it is in many places, has opposite properties, such as to carry and to be carried, to be at rest and to be moved; so to suffer and not to suffer. For in this respect it takes on the character of a universal, although it is truly a singular12. And according to the opinion of these [men], if it had been reserved, it would not have died in the pyx. — But because this opinion posits that contradictories are said at once of the same thing, insofar as it is the same; and this is not necessary to posit in this Sacrament: therefore it is less reasonable.
Therefore there is another opinion of the Master13 and of Innocent and their followers, that "he gave such a body to the disciples as he had." For although the body of Christ be at once, by the power of the Sacrament, in many places, nevertheless it has the same absolute properties, as one in number. And therefore, for the understanding of the objections to the contrary, it must be said that the property which belongs to the body of Christ is twofold: a certain one absolute, a certain one related to place14. The absolute property, which belongs to the body of Christ as it is in one place, since it is one, nevertheless belongs [to it] as in all [places]. But the property related to place, since it is in diverse places, even if it belongs to it in one place, it need not [belong to it] in all. Hence it need not [be the case] — if the body of Christ be in many places — that if it is moved in one, it be moved in another. Likewise it need not [be the case] that, if someone strikes it in one place, that he likewise strikes [it] in another, because such an operation regards the local presence of the agent. So likewise it need not [be the case] that, if it is seen in one place, it be seen in another, because this regards the presence of the visible thing.
It is to be granted, therefore, that Christ had a passible and mortal body under the Sacrament, but nevertheless a passion could not be inflicted on it there, however much a man might strike. Hence it must be said that under those species it was passible, but it was there impassibly. — Hence, speaking of the passion inflicted, if it be asked whether it could suffer there; this is to be distinguished: for either this [word] there determines the act, or the composition understood with respect to the subject. If it determines the act; it is false, because the sense is that under the Sacrament a passion could be inflicted on it; and this is false, because, just as it could not be perceived there15, so neither could a passion be inflicted on it. But if it determines the composition understood with respect to the subject; thus the statement is true, and the sense is: the thing existing there could suffer; because, if a passion be inflicted on it in another place, it would feel the passion even there and would die. Hence if that body had been reserved, it would have had wounds under the Sacrament, just as outside [it]; but nevertheless a passion would not be inflicted on it under such a mode of existing. On account of this the masters say that the thing existing there was passible with a passion inflicted on it elsewhere, yet it was [so] impassibly. — And if Hugh the master understood this, he has the truth; but then that application concerning the endowments [of the glorified body] is not valid. For if the endowments mean certain qualities, I do not see how the body would not be altered, at least for a time. But it is clear that, when he gave the Sacrament, his body had in act and in habit the property of passibility: therefore it did not have the opposite; nevertheless it had another mode of existing in another [place], which mode raised it above having position, and through this above the possibility of being perceived, as it was there, or of being touched. Hence although it was passible, nevertheless it could never be felt there; likewise neither could a passion be inflicted there.
1. 2. From this the objections are clear, because the Gloss says that he gave [a body] immortal and impassible, because there a passion or death could not be inflicted on it, yet elsewhere [it] thus [could]. — Likewise the next [objection] is clear, why it could not be converted there, because the passible [body] was not there.
3. Likewise the third is clear, because a passion could be inflicted on it, but not according to every state, as for instance according to that [state] according to which it is insensible.
4. 5. 6. To that which is asked, if it had been reserved during the three days; it must be said that it would be dead under the species; and likewise, if someone were to consecrate, there would be there only a dead body. — As to what is objected, that then it would be imperfect, etc.; it must be said that the Sacrament would be perfect in efficacy, because the body was united to the Divinity, perfect in signification, but nevertheless not in containment. And the reason of this is that the imperfection was in the thing signified itself, because the body was dead. — Likewise it must be said that not the soul16 [is there] by the power of the words, but on account of the conjunction. Hence because during the three days it was not conjoined, therefore it would not be there, not on account of the power of the words, which would now be greater, but on account of another state of the body; but the sacramental words are ordered to converting into a body such as it was according to the state at the utterance of the words.
But could Christ have brought it about, if the body was dead under the Sacrament, that the soul, going out from the body hanging on the cross, should enter the body under the Sacrament, and thus it be at once living and dead? It must be said that to do this would be nothing other than to return whence it had gone out; whence this would be to vivify his [own] body, because it is altogether one; and therefore there is there a bad imagination, because one imagines the body of Christ to be unique [in the way that] diverse bodies [are distinct], and that one be both perfect and living, and the other not. But this ought not to be understood [so], because there is only one body17.
La. Pro hac quaestione scholion proprium non habetur; vide scholion ad praecedentem quaestionem (a. 2, q. 1), ad quod ipse textus remittit: « Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest. »
En. This question has no scholion of its own; see the scholion to the preceding question (a. 2, q. 1), to which the text itself refers: "See the scholion to the preceding question."
---
- 1Vers. 2. — Glossa est ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum.Verse 2. — The Gloss is the ordinary [gloss] in Strabo and Lyra.
- 2Ex codd. BFGRZ bb supplevimus passibilis [codd. BZ omittunt tunc].From codices BFGRZ bb we have supplied passibilis [codices BZ omit tunc].
- 3Cfr. supra p. I. q. 4. — Superius post virtutem in cod. X additur sicut modo.Cf. above p. I. q. 4. — Above, after virtutem, in codex X is added sicut modo.
- 4Vide supra d. 10. p. I. q. 3. ad 3.See above d. 10. p. I. q. 3. ad 3.
- 5Vers. 24. — Glossam exhibet Petr. Lombard. in hunc locum, quam sumsit ex Hugonis loco infra nota 9. cit. — Edd. ante Tale addunt Dicimus; textus originalis habet Dicemus, et pro quia substituit id est.Verse 24. — Peter Lombard gives the Gloss on this passage, which he took from the passage of Hugh cited below at note 9. — The editions before Tale add Dicimus; the original text has Dicemus, and for quia it substitutes id est.
- 6Cod. Y hic et paulo inferius in re.Codex Y here and a little below [reads] in re.
- 7Cfr. Aristot., IV. Metaph. text. 9. seqq. (III. c. 3. seqq.).Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics IV. text 9 ff. (III. c. 3 ff.).
- 8Ut dictum est supra p. I. q. 4.As was said above p. I. q. 4.
- 9Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 3.Book II On the Sacraments p. VIII. c. 3.
- 10Respiciuntur dotes corporis glorificati, de quibus infra d. 49. p. II. a. 1. princip. a. 2. q. 1. Cfr. Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 12.Reference is made to the endowments of the glorified body, concerning which [see] below d. 49. p. II. a. 1. princip. a. 2. q. 1. Cf. Innocent III, IV On the sacred mystery of the Altar, c. 12.
- 11Vide supra pag. 220, nota 9. Cfr. d. 9. a. I. q. 3. ad 4. et d. 10. p. I. q. 3. ad 3. — Pro portare et portari cod. G portari et non portari.See above p. 220, note 9. Cf. d. 9. a. I. q. 3. ad 4. and d. 10. p. I. q. 3. ad 3. — For portare and portari codex G [reads] portari and non portari.
- 12Hic in lit. c. 6; Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 12.Here in the text [of the Master] c. 6; Innocent III, IV On the sacred mystery of the Altar, c. 12.
- 13Cfr. supra d. 10. p. I. q. 4. ad 2. — Inferius post ut in omnibus cod. aa addit locis, sicut esse talis quantitatis, et post in diversis locis subiungit et etiam ratione diversorum locorum.Cf. above d. 10. p. I. q. 4. ad 2. — Below, after ut in omnibus, codex aa adds locis, sicut esse talis quantitatis, and after in diversis locis subjoins et etiam ratione diversorum locorum.
- 14Vide supra d. 10. p. I. q. 2. in fine corp.See above d. 10. p. I. q. 2. at the end of the body [of the article].
- 15Ut probare vult Alex. Hal., loc. in scholio cit. — Pro sentiri cod. A potentiam, Vat. passionem, ed. I legit supra hanc passionem, cod. H supra hanc, per hoc etc. Paulo ante post in alio cod. aa addit sicut sub Sacramento. In fine corp. verbo inferri cod. V praemittit ei.As Alexander of Hales seeks to prove, at the place cited in the scholion. — For sentiri codex A [reads] potentiam, the Vatican [edition] passionem, edition I reads supra hanc passionem, codex H supra hanc, per hoc etc. A little before, after in alio, codex aa adds sicut sub Sacramento. At the end of the body, before the word inferri, codex V prefixes ei.
- 16Cod. Y passibiliter. — Edd. confecisset. Cod. F G H L U aa quod non esset ibi tunc anima, edd. quod non est esse ibi animam.Codex Y [reads] passibiliter. — The editions [read] confecisset. Codices F G H L U aa [read] quod non esset ibi tunc anima, the editions quod non est esse ibi animam.
- 17Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion to the preceding question.