Dist. 11, Part 2, Dubia
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 11
DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.
Dub. I
In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Magister: Ne abhorreret animus quod cerneret oculus. Videtur enim nulla esse sua ratio: quia non est faciendum aliquid in solatium sensus, quod praeiudicet intellectui; sed sicut horridum est sensui comedere carnes, ita difficile est intellectui credere oppositum eius quod sentit: ergo videtur, quod melius esset, horrorem generari in sensu, ut certa1 veritas manifestaretur in intellectu.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ista non est tota ratio, quare sub specie velatur, quia fit in sensus solatium; sed quia fit in sensus solatium et in fidei meritum, in quo captivatur et illuminatur intellectus2. Si autem occultaretur sensui et intellectui non revelaretur per fidem, tunc aliquod praeiudicium fieret intellectui. Nunc autem non est ita, et ideo non valet3.
Dub. II
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod vinum refertur ad animam etc. Videtur enim male dicere: quia regula est in alia scientia4, quod termino semel posito non est utendum aequivoce: ergo similiter nec signo. Si ergo vinum significat sanguinem Christi, non significat animam Christi; vel si significat animam Christi, non ergo animam nostram.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sicut in signis vocalibus5 duplex attenditur significatio, scilicet propria et allegorica; ita et in hac duplici significatione simul accipitur in theologia. Simile potest esse in signis sacramentalibus, quod unam rem significent proprie, scilicet vel rem, quam continent, vel effectum quem tribuunt; aliam allegorice, scilicet rem, a qua virtutem trahunt, sicut a passione et eius fide6. Et sicut fallit regula sophistarum in primis signis, quia in theologia dictio simul accipitur moraliter et litteraliter et allegorice; sic fallit in his signis, quia unum principaliter et proprie significat et aliud allegorice. — Posset tamen dici, quod unum significat per alterum, ut animam per sanguinem; et sic nullum est inconveniens.
Dub. III
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Ambrosius, quod caro Christi pro salute corporis offertur. Secundum hoc enim videtur, quod istud Sacramentum sanet corporaliter; et hoc etiam videtur Apostolus dicere primae ad Corinthios undecimo7: Ideo inter vos multi infirmi et imbecilles, et dormiunt multi; loquitur de indigne accipientibus. Sed contra: est cibus spiritualis et remedium contra peccatum: ergo non videtur, quod sanitatem corporis tribuat. — Item, si tribuat sanitatem corporalem, ergo videtur, quod, corpore existente sano, non deberent homines recipere nisi sanguinem; quod non est dicendum.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Ambrosius loquitur de salute corporum, non quae est in via, sed quae erit in patria, quae annexa est spirituali; et Apostolus de infirmitate loquitur spirituali. — Si quis autem de corporali velit intelligere, hoc solum referendum et intelligendum est per accidens et valde ex consequenti; non enim8 ad hoc nec propter hoc est institutum.
Dub. IV
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod aqua est admiscenda; utrum sufficiat, si admiscetur in dolio. Et videtur, quod sic, quia ante inceptionem Missae misceri potest et admixta transferri in vinum. Sed contra hoc est, quia talis admixtio nihil faceret ad Sacramentum.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod admixtio aquae cum vino est sacramentalis — unde solius est sacerdotis — et est ad significationem; et ideo tunc debet poni, quando iam inchoantur sacra mysteria; et in Missa solemni poni debet post offertorium, in Missa autem privata in principio, propter periculum oblivionis; et propterea, ut forte diuturno tempore bene commisceatur, securius est ponere statim, cum ponitur vinum in principio Missae9. — Quod ergo obiicit de lymphatione in dolio, dicendum, quod illa non est sacramentalis; et ideo nihil facit ad Sacramentum10.
Dub. V
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Ut mixtio illa non possit separari. Videtur enim, quod possit separari, quia experimentum est probatum, quod quantumcumque aqua misceatur, quod iuncus appositus attrahit aquam et segregat: ergo videtur, quod nunquam ita possit misceri, ut Magister dicit.
Respondeo: Sicut dicit Philosophus11, « quando praedominatur vinum, solvitur species aquae; et cum soluta est et conversa in vinum, totum est vinum »; et sic converti potest, non enim converti potest nisi panis, vel vinum. — Aliqui tamen volunt dicere, quod aqua non convertitur in Sacramento, sed tenet semper rationem aquae; et est ibi propter significationem solum, sicut si superinfunderetur aqua post transsubstantiationem sive conversionem vini. — Hanc duplicem opinionem ponit Innocentius in decretali quadam de corpore Domini12. Primam tamen magis approbat, et magis videtur approbanda. Vinum enim potest convertere aquam in se in parva quantitate, ut Philosophus dicit in fine primi de Generatione13. Fuerunt etiam aliqui dicentes, aquam converti in alios humores, et vinum in sanguinem. Sed hoc nihil est, cum solum substantia panis et vini possit transsubstantiari; unde si aliquis puram aquam in calicem poneret, omnino nihil conficeret; non sic de vino. — Et ideo prima opinio tanquam probabilior est tenenda. Quod ergo obiicit de iunco, dicendum, quod non separat aquam mixtam, sed per naturam convenientem aquae attrahit partes vini aquosas, totius, inquam, vini; non quia ibi sit aqua, sed partes debiles vini, quae minus habent de virtute.
Dub. VI
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Cyprianus: Nobis ignosci non potest etc.; aut enim hoc dicit, quia tale peccatum est irremediabile14, aut quia culpabile. Si quia irremediabile; hoc falsum est. Si quia culpabile; sed similiter fuit in ignorantibus, quia ignorantia iuris non excusat: ergo etc.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod hoc dicit, non quia peccatum sit in nobis irremediabile, sed quia non habet colorem excusationis, si fiat ex certa scientia; sed qui ex ignorantia faciebant habebant excusationem, quae tamen non excusabat a toto, sed a tanto, quia forte non erat in eis mortale. Nec erat simpliciter ignorantia iuris, immo quodam modo dici poterat ignorantia facti15, quia Dominum fecisse nesciebant, cum non habeatur ex Scriptura, coniicitur tamen ex hoc, quod de latere eius exivit sanguis et aqua16; ubi etiam quodam modo praefigurata sunt Sacramenta.
Dub. VII
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Aqua vero sine vino nullatenus potest offerri. Ponatur ergo, quod aliquis decipiatur credens, aquam esse vinum, et percipiat hoc tempore perceptionis Sacramenti; quid faciendum est ei?
Respondent quidam, quod debet vinum ponere et non debet consecrare, sed panem frangere et mittere in vinum. — Sed ad quid hoc faceret? Si enim vinum non consecratum non est maioris efficaciae quam aqua, sufficit aquam ponere vel positam tenere.
Et ideo dicunt alii, quod debet formam verbi super vinum dicere, ut plenum sit Sacramentum, si percipit hora debita, tum propter significationem, tum etiam, quia credo, quod sanguis aliquo modo addat ad efficaciam. Sed tamen consulendum esset tali, quod prius contereretur et doleret de negligentia17.
Dub. VIII
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod Iudas corpus Christi et sanguinem cum aliis discipulis percepit. Videtur enim male dicere: quia peccator erat et malus; et hoc Dominum non latebat: ergo tantum Sacramentum non debebat ei conferre, cum non debeat dari nisi digne accedentibus et sine peccato. — Item Ioannis decimo tertio18: Cum introisset satanas; Glossa: « Non, ut quidam putant, Iudas tunc recepit corpus Christi ».
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Dominus dedit corpus Iudae, ne eum proderet, ut formam sacerdotibus daret. — Et quod obiicitur de Glossa, dicendum, quod Glossa hoc non negat, sed negat, quod non dedit tunc, quando dedit ei buccellam intinctam.
DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.
Doubt I
In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that the Master says: Lest the soul should shrink from what the eye beholds. For it seems that his reasoning is null: because nothing should be done for the comfort of sense which prejudices the intellect; but just as it is dreadful to sense to eat flesh, so it is difficult for the intellect to believe the opposite of what it perceives: therefore it seems that it would be better for horror to be generated in sense, so that the certain1 truth might be made manifest in the intellect.
I respond: It must be said that this is not the whole reason why it is veiled under a species — that it occurs for the comfort of sense; but rather that it occurs both for the comfort of sense and for the merit of faith, in which the intellect is taken captive and illumined2. But if it were hidden from sense and not revealed to the intellect through faith, then some prejudice would be done to the intellect. But now it is not so, and therefore [the objection] has no force3.
Doubt II
Likewise it is asked about this, that he says the wine is referred to the soul, etc. For it seems to be said badly: because the rule in another science4 is that, once a term has been laid down, it must not be used equivocally: therefore likewise neither [must] a sign [be]. If, then, the wine signifies the blood of Christ, it does not signify the soul of Christ; or if it signifies the soul of Christ, then it does not [signify] our soul.
I respond: It must be said that, just as in vocal signs5 a twofold signification is observed, namely the proper and the allegorical; so too in this twofold signification it is taken together in theology. The like can occur in sacramental signs, that they signify one thing properly — namely either the thing they contain, or the effect they confer — and another allegorically, namely the thing from which they draw their power, as from the Passion and faith in it6. And just as the rule of the sophists fails in the first signs, because in theology a word is taken at once morally and literally and allegorically; so it fails in these signs, because one thing it signifies principally and properly, and another allegorically. — Yet it could be said that one is signified through the other, as the soul through the blood; and thus there is no inconvenience.
Doubt III
Likewise it is asked about this, that Ambrose says the flesh of Christ is offered for the health of the body. For according to this it seems that this Sacrament heals corporeally; and this too the Apostle seems to say in First Corinthians, chapter eleven7: Therefore among you many are weak and feeble, and many sleep; he speaks of those receiving unworthily. But on the contrary: it is a spiritual food and a remedy against sin: therefore it does not seem that it confers health of the body. — Likewise, if it confers bodily health, then it seems that, the body being healthy, men ought not to receive [anything] but the blood; which is not to be said.
I respond: It must be said that Ambrose speaks of the health of the body, not that which is on the way, but that which will be in the homeland, which is annexed to the spiritual [health]; and the Apostle speaks of spiritual infirmity. — But if anyone should wish to understand it of the corporeal, this is to be referred and understood only incidentally and very consequentially; for it was not instituted for this nor on account of this8.
Doubt IV
Likewise it is asked about this, that he says the water is to be mingled; whether it suffices if it is mingled in the cask. And it seems that it does, because before the beginning of the Mass it can be mingled and, once mingled, transferred into the wine. But against this is that such a mingling would do nothing toward the Sacrament.
I respond: It must be said that the mingling of water with wine is sacramental — whence it belongs to the priest alone — and it is for signification; and therefore it ought to be put in when the sacred mysteries are now being begun; and in a solemn Mass it ought to be put in after the offertory, but in a private Mass at the beginning, on account of the danger of forgetfulness; and therefore, so that perhaps over a long time it may be well commingled, it is safer to put it in at once, when the wine is put in at the beginning of the Mass9. — As for what he objects concerning the watering in the cask, it must be said that that is not sacramental; and therefore it does nothing toward the Sacrament10.
Doubt V
Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: That that mingling cannot be separated. For it seems that it can be separated, because the experiment has been proven that, however much the water is mingled, an applied rush draws off the water and separates it: therefore it seems that it can never be so mingled as the Master says.
I respond: As the Philosopher says11, « when the wine predominates, the species of the water is dissolved; and when it is dissolved and converted into wine, the whole is wine »; and thus it can be converted, for nothing can be converted except bread or wine. — Yet some wish to say that the water is not converted in the Sacrament, but always keeps the character of water; and it is there for signification only, just as if water were poured over after the transubstantiation or conversion of the wine. — This twofold opinion Innocent lays down in a certain decretal on the body of the Lord12. Yet he approves the first more, and it seems more to be approved. For the wine can convert the water into itself in a small quantity, as the Philosopher says at the end of the first [book] of On Generation13. There were also some saying that the water is converted into other humors, and the wine into blood. But this is nothing, since only the substance of bread and wine can be transubstantiated; whence if anyone were to put pure water into the chalice, he would confect nothing at all; not so of the wine. — And therefore the first opinion is to be held as the more probable. As for what he objects concerning the rush, it must be said that it does not separate the mingled water, but by a nature suited to water draws off the watery parts of the wine, of the whole, I say, of the wine; not because there is water there, but [draws off] the weak parts of the wine, which have less of strength.
Doubt VI
Likewise it is asked about this, that Cyprian says: It cannot be pardoned us etc.; for either he says this because such a sin is irremediable14, or because it is culpable. If because irremediable; this is false. If because culpable; but it was likewise so in those who were ignorant, since ignorance of the law does not excuse: therefore etc.
I respond: It must be said that he says this, not because the sin is irremediable in us, but because it has no color of excuse, if it is done from certain knowledge; but those who acted from ignorance had an excuse, which however did not excuse altogether, but [only] so far, because perhaps it was not mortal in them. Nor was it simply ignorance of the law, but rather in a certain way it could be called ignorance of fact15, because they did not know that the Lord had done it, since it is not had from Scripture, yet it is gathered from this, that from his side flowed blood and water16; where also in a certain way the Sacraments were prefigured.
Doubt VII
Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: But water without wine can in no way be offered. Suppose, then, that someone is deceived, believing that water is wine, and receives [it] at the time of the reception of the Sacrament; what is to be done by him?
Some respond that he ought to put in wine and ought not to consecrate, but to break the bread and put it into the wine. — But to what end would he do this? For if unconsecrated wine is of no greater efficacy than water, it suffices to put in the water or to hold the water already put in.
And therefore others say that he ought to say the form of the word over the wine, so that the Sacrament may be complete, if he receives at the due hour, both on account of the signification, and also because, I believe, the blood adds in some way to the efficacy. But nevertheless such a one ought to be counseled to be first contrite and to grieve for his negligence17.
Doubt VIII
Likewise it is asked about this, that he says that Judas received the body of Christ and the blood with the other disciples. For it seems to be said badly: because he was a sinner and wicked; and this was not hidden from the Lord: therefore he ought not to confer so great a Sacrament upon him, since it ought not to be given except to those approaching worthily and without sin. — Likewise John, chapter thirteen18: When Satan had entered; the Gloss: « Not, as some think, did Judas then receive the body of Christ ».
I respond: It must be said that the Lord gave the body to Judas, lest he should betray him, [and] that he might give a model to priests. — And as for what is objected concerning the Gloss, it must be said that the Gloss does not deny this, but denies that he did not give [it] then, when he gave him the dipped morsel.
- 1Edd. et ibi. Mox pro in intellectu cod. M intellectui.The editions [read] et ibi ("and there"). Just after, for in intellectu ("in the intellect") codex M [reads] intellectui ("to the intellect").
- 2Respicit II. Cor. 10, 5: In captivitatem redigentes omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3, et infra d. 12. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. in corp. — Inferius pro et intellectui, quod habent codd. F G P, in aliis et intellectus. In fine responsionis codd. F G addunt illud.It refers to 2 Corinthians 10:5: Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3, and below, d. 12, p. I, a. 1, q. 2, in the body. — Below, for et intellectui ("and to the intellect"), which codices F G P have, in others [it reads] et intellectus ("and of the intellect"). At the end of the response codices F G add illud ("that").
- 3Idem dub. solvit B. Albert. d. 12. a. 1.The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, d. 12, a. 1.
- 4Edd. in philosophica scientia. — Aristot., Rhetor. ad Alexandrum, c. 24. (c. 25.), monet, quod in ambiguis « nominibus semper id complectamur, quod proprium est significatum », et VI. Topic. c. 5. (c. 10.), agens de aequivocis, dicit, « quod nominatione quidem oportet uti, quae tradita est, et quae se[quitur, et non dimovere quae talia sunt] ».The editions [read] in philosophica scientia ("in the philosophic science"). — Aristotle, Rhetoric to Alexander, c. 24 (c. 25), advises that in ambiguous matters « we should always embrace that of the names which is the proper signification », and Topics VI, c. 5 (c. 10), treating of equivocals, says « that one ought indeed to use the nomenclature which has been handed down, and which follows, and not to remove things that are such ».
- 5Ita codd. F G U (E I Q a secunda manu), cod. O moralibus, cod. bb a secunda manu materialibus, alii codd. et edd. male vitalibus. Subinde pro Simile cod. aa Similiter.Thus codices F G U (E I Q by a second hand); codex O [reads] moralibus ("vocal/moral"), codex bb by a second hand materialibus ("material"), the other codices and editions wrongly vitalibus ("vital"). Thereafter, for Simile ("the like") codex aa [reads] Similiter ("likewise").
- 6Cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2. ad 4, d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. in corp., et III. Sent. d. 20. q. 4. in fine corp. — Paulo inferius vox sophista sumitur sensu largiori, scil. pro erudito in logica. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 380, nota 8.Cf. above, d. 1, p. I, q. 2, ad 4; d. 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 3, in the body; and III Sentences, d. 20, q. 4, at the end of the body. — A little below, the word sophista ("sophist") is taken in a broader sense, namely for one learned in logic. Cf. vol. I, p. 380, note 8.
- 7Vers. 30.Verse 30.
- 8Pro non enim edd. quia nec. — Idem dub. solvit S. Thom., hic circa lit.For non enim ("for not") the editions [read] quia nec ("because neither"). — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, here on the text.
- 9Loquitur S. Doctor secundum ritum suo tempore et nunc in quibusdam tantum particularibus liturgiis usitatum. — Superius post privata ex codd. F G supplevimus in principio, pro quo codd. H bb habent potest poni prius [bb primo]; edd. utrumque omittunt.The holy Doctor speaks according to the rite customary in his time and now only in certain particular liturgies. — Above, after privata ("private") we have supplied from codices F G the words in principio ("at the beginning"), for which codices H bb have potest poni prius ("can be put in first") [bb: primo]; the editions omit both.
- 10Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 3. a. 1. § 6; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 4; Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 6.The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV, q. 10, m. 3, a. 1, § 6; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 4; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 6.
- 11Lib. I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 88. (c. 10.): Activorum autem et passivorum quaecumque sunt facile divisibilia, multa quidem paucis et magna parvis composita non faciunt mixtionem, sed augmentationem dominantis; mutatur enim alterum in dominans: ideo gutta vini decem millibus congiis aquae non miscetur; solvitur enim forma et mutatur in universam aquam. — Inferius pro volunt codd. F G voluerunt.On Generation and Corruption, book I, text 88 (c. 10): But of active and passive things, whatever are easily divisible, when many are compounded with few and great with small, they do not make a mixture but an augmentation of the dominant; for the one is changed into the dominant: therefore a drop of wine is not mixed with ten thousand gallons of water; for its form is dissolved and changed into the whole [mass of] water. — Below, for volunt ("they wish") codices F G [read] voluerunt ("they wished").
- 12Cap. Cum Marthae X. (lib. tit. 41. c. 6.), de Celebrat. Missarum. Cfr. IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 29. et 31.The chapter Cum Marthae, [Decretals] book X (lib., tit. 41, c. 6), On the Celebration of Masses. Cf. On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar IV, c. 29 and 31.
- 13Text. 88. (c. 10.). Vide supra 3. notam.Text 88 (c. 10). See the third note above.
- 14De hoc dubio cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. m. 2. a. 1. § 4; B. Albert., hic d. 12. a. 11; S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 4. quaestiunc. 2. ad 2; Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 3.On this doubt cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV, m. 2, a. 1, § 4; Blessed Albert, here d. 12, a. 11; St. Thomas, here on the text; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 4, little-question 2, ad 2; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 3.
- 15Codd. G H hic et in seqq. irremissibile.Codices G H here and in what follows [read] irremissibile ("unforgivable").
- 16Cfr. supra pag. 86, nota 7, et II. Sent. d. 22. a. 2. q. 3. — Ioann. 19, 34. Vide supra Prooemium, in fine. — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. m. 4. a. 1. § 6. ad 1; S. Thom., hic circa lit.Cf. above, p. 86, note 7, and II Sentences, d. 22, a. 2, q. 3. — John 19:34. See above, the Prooemium, at the end. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV, m. 4, a. 1, § 6, ad 1; St. Thomas, here on the text.
- 17Cod. R addit propter hoc. Inferius pro contereretur et doleret codd. F H conteratur et doleat. — Solutio huius dubii est secundum Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 24, ubi iudicat, hanc secundam sententiam tanquam tutiorem esse praeferendam. — Idem dub. solvit S. Thom., hic circa lit.Codex R adds propter hoc ("on account of this"). Below, for contereretur et doleret ("should be contrite and grieve") codices F H [read] conteratur et doleat ("let him be contrite and grieve"). — The solution of this doubt is according to Innocent III, On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar IV, c. 24, where he judges that this second opinion is to be preferred as the safer. — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, here on the text.
- 18Ioann. 13. vers. 27: Et post buccellam introivit in eum satanas. — Glossa, quae est ordinaria, exhibetur a Strabo et Lyrano ut ordinaria in v. 26. Strabus, loc. cit., ex Beda Glossam sic refert: Non, ut quidam putant, nunc Iudas corpus Christi accepit. Sciendum est enim, quod omnibus Dominus distribuerat Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis, inter quos et Iudas fuit; deinde per buccellam intinctam exprimitur ipse traditor etc. Cfr. Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 13.John 13, verse 27: And after the morsel Satan entered into him. — The Gloss, which is the ordinary one, is presented by Strabo and Lyra as ordinaria at v. 26. Strabo, in the place cited, reports the Gloss thus from Bede: Not, as some think, did Judas now receive the body of Christ. For it must be known that the Lord had distributed the Sacrament of the body and blood to all, among whom was also Judas; then by the dipped morsel the betrayer himself is signified, etc. Cf. Innocent III, On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar IV, c. 13.