← Back to Distinction 12

Dist. 12, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 12

Textus Latinus
p. 272

Quaestio II. Utrum in Sacramento eucharistiae congruat species esse sine subiecto.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum congruat, quod in hoc Sacramento sint species sine subiecto. Et quod non sit inconveniens, immo conveniens, patet:

1. Quia, si esset ibi subiectum, nequaquam tanta esset dependentia specierum ad contentum, sicut est; et ita nunquam esset signum ita ductivum1.

Contra: 1. Minus inconveniens est, corpus non glorificatum simul esse cum glorificato, quam accidens esse praeter subiectum2: si ergo corpus glorificatum esset simul cum pane, multo minus esset inconveniens, quam accidentia esse praeter subiectum, et magis credibile: ergo magis congruebat, accidentia manere in subiecto quam separari.

2. Item, accidentia illa ducunt ad intelligendum, quod ibi sit substantia panis, quia sunt propria accidentia panis et signa substantiae3: ergo in hoc Sacramento, cum non sit substantia, est aliqua falsitas; sed non decet, in Sacramento veritatis esse falsitatem: ergo etc.

3. Item, opere miraculi non debet fieri praeiudicium naturae rei; sed cum res ponitur in loco, qui suae naturae non convenit, quamvis sit nobilior, tamen fit ei praeiudicium, ut si vermis poneretur in caelo4, vel pes in scapulis: ergo similiter, quando datur ei proprietas, quae naturae suae non convenit. Sed esse sine subiecto est proprietas nullo modo conveniens naturae accidentis: ergo non congruit, hoc per miraculum sibi dari.

4. Item, infirmior est intellectus ad credendum contrarium eius quod sentit, quam sensus ad recipiendum aliquod horribile5 sibi — nam sensus hoc potest sine gratia, sicut patet in eo qui comedit medicinam, sed intellectus non — sed non debet fieri aliquid in solatium minoris infirmitatis, quod fiat in praeiudicium maioris: si ergo velatio accidentium occultat intellectui quod ibi est, nullo modo debuerunt ibi accidentia remanere.

Conclusio. Congruum est, in eucharistia accidentia remanere, et quidem sine subiecto.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod congruit, ibi accidentia remanere; quia sunt, ut dicit Hugo6, in solatium sensus et in fidei meritum. Dum enim velatur verum corpus carnis, et fides magis meretur credendo quod non videt, et sensus libentius recipit.

Congruum autem est, quod sola remaneant sine subiecto: propter efficaciorem significationem, quia efficacius et perfectius ducunt in significatum, cum non habeant ibi stabiliens per naturam. — Propter convenientem cibationem; quia enim iste cibus spiritualis est, ideo oportet, animam sublevari a carnalitate sensus per fidem et carnali delectatione per caritatem7; et ideo non debuit ibi remanere panis materialis. — Propter fidei promotionem; dum enim sublevatur intellectus ad intelligendum quod est supra naturam, scilicet accidentia esse sine subiecto, fit habilior ad credendum quod est supra se ipsum, quod totus Christus sit in tam parva hostia8. — Quarta ratio, propter divinorum operum perfectionem, quae debet in hoc Sacramento reperiri, cum sit perfectissimum. Et attenditur duplex perfectio in hoc Sacramento: prima est in hoc, quod accidentia accipiunt modum nobilissimum essendi, scilicet esse per se9; et in hoc, quod substantia illa, quae suberat, cum esset materialis et corruptibilis, transsubstantiatur in substantiam sive in corpus spirituale et incorruptibile et in corpus Divinitati coniunctum et gloriosum.

p. 273

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod minus est inconveniens; dicendum, quod hoc non est inconveniens isti Sacramento, immo valde conveniens.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de falsitate, dicendum, quod non est consentiendum sensui, sed fidei; et ideo nihil omnino falsitatis est ibi, sed veritatis.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non debet fieri praeiudicium naturae rei; dicendum, quod duplex est ordo rerum, unus scilicet universalis, alius particularis, qui debetur isti rei, vel illi. Dico igitur, quod per miraculum non debet fieri aliquid in praeiudicium ordinis universalis; quia, si pes esset in capite, esset in praeiudicium toti corpori; similiter nec quod sit in praeiudicium totius universi. Sed licet alicuius rei natura melioretur et statum recipiat maioris quam naturae suae competat nobilitatis, dummodo fiat ordinatio conveniens secundum ordinem universi convenienter fit; et sic in proposito, quia haec ordinantur ad hominis utilitatem. — Vel dicendum, quod competit naturae uniuscuiusque rei obedire Creatori, et illud est conveniens suae naturae, quod Creator iusserit, quod, si prius non sit conveniens, postea fit conveniens.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de infirmitate intellectus, dicendum, quod hoc verum esset, nisi aliud daretur medicamentum ipsi; et hoc est gratia fidei, qua fortificatur intellectus ad credendum sine dubio quod non videt.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether in the sacrament of the Eucharist it is fitting that the species exist without a subject.

Secondly it is asked, whether it is fitting that in this Sacrament there be species without a subject. And that it is not unfitting, but rather fitting, is clear:

1. Because, if there were a subject there, in no way would there be so great a dependence of the species on what is contained, as there is; and so it would never be a sign so leading [to the thing signified]1.

On the contrary: 1. It is less unfitting that a non-glorified body be at the same time with a glorified one, than that an accident be without a subject2: if therefore a glorified body were at the same time with the bread, it would be much less unfitting than that the accidents be without a subject, and more credible: therefore it was more fitting that the accidents remain in a subject than be separated.

2. Likewise, those accidents lead to the understanding that there is the substance of bread there, since they are the proper accidents of bread and signs of the substance3: therefore in this Sacrament, since there is no substance, there is some falsity; but it is not seemly that there be falsity in the Sacrament of truth: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, by the work of a miracle prejudice ought not to be done to the nature of a thing; but when a thing is placed in a location which does not befit its nature, although it be nobler, nevertheless prejudice is done to it, as if a worm were placed in heaven4, or a foot on the shoulders: therefore likewise, when a property is given to it which does not befit its nature. But to be without a subject is a property in no way befitting the nature of an accident: therefore it is not fitting that this be given to it by a miracle.

4. Likewise, the intellect is weaker for believing the contrary of what it perceives, than the sense is for receiving something horrible5 to it — for the sense can do this without grace, as is clear in one who takes medicine, but the intellect cannot — but nothing ought to be done as a comfort to the lesser weakness, which is done to the prejudice of the greater: if therefore the veiling of the accidents conceals from the intellect what is there, in no way ought the accidents to have remained there.

Conclusion. It is fitting that in the Eucharist the accidents remain, and indeed without a subject.

I respond: It must be said that it is fitting that the accidents remain there; because they are, as Hugh says6, for the comfort of sense and for the merit of faith. For while the true body of flesh is veiled, both faith merits more by believing what it does not see, and the sense more willingly receives.

But it is fitting that they alone remain without a subject: on account of a more efficacious signification, because they lead more efficaciously and more perfectly into what is signified, since they do not have there anything stabilizing them by nature. — On account of fitting nourishment; for since this food is spiritual, therefore the soul must be lifted up from the carnality of sense through faith, and from carnal delight through charity7; and therefore material bread ought not to have remained there. — On account of the promotion of faith; for while the intellect is lifted up to understand what is above nature, namely that the accidents are without a subject, it becomes more apt to believe what is above itself, that the whole Christ is in so small a host8. — The fourth reason, on account of the perfection of the divine works, which ought to be found in this Sacrament, since it is most perfect. And a twofold perfection is observed in this Sacrament: the first is in this, that the accidents receive a most noble mode of being, namely to be through themselves9; and in this, that that substance which was underneath, since it was material and corruptible, is transubstantiated into a substance, that is, into a body spiritual and incorruptible and into a body joined to the Divinity and glorious.

p. 273

1. To the objection therefore which is raised, that it is less unfitting; it must be said that this is not unfitting to this Sacrament, but rather very fitting.

2. To the objection which is raised concerning falsity, it must be said that one must not assent to sense, but to faith; and therefore there is nothing at all of falsity there, but of truth.

3. To the objection which is raised, that prejudice ought not to be done to the nature of a thing; it must be said that there is a twofold order of things, one namely universal, the other particular, which is owed to this thing or that. I say therefore that by a miracle nothing ought to be done to the prejudice of the universal order; for if the foot were in the head, it would be to the prejudice of the whole body; likewise neither [ought there be done] anything that would be to the prejudice of the whole universe. But although the nature of some thing be bettered and receive a state of greater nobility than befits its nature, provided that a fitting ordering be made, it comes about fittingly according to the order of the universe; and so in the case at hand, because these things are ordered to the utility of man. — Or it must be said that it befits the nature of each thing to obey the Creator, and that is befitting to its nature which the Creator has commanded, [a thing] which, if it is not befitting before, afterward becomes befitting.

4. To the objection which is raised concerning the weakness of the intellect, it must be said that this would be true, unless another medicine were given to it; and this is the grace of faith, by which the intellect is strengthened to believe without doubt what it does not see.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 3. — Codd. N aa subnectunt ad cognitionem alterius, cod. bb a secunda manu in suum signatam, sicut est.
    Cf. above the text of the Master, d. I, c. 3. — Codices N aa append for the knowledge of another; codex bb, by a second hand, [reads it] as marked into its own [text], as it is.
  2. 2
    Vide infra d. 49. p. II. art. 2. princip. a. 3. q. I. — In fine arg. pro separari plurimi codd. separata, cod. R separata esse.
    See below d. 49, p. II, art. 2, principal a. 3, q. I. — At the end of the argument, for separari very many codices [read] separata; codex R separata esse.
  3. 3
    Aristot., I. de Anima, text. 11. (c. 1.): Accidentia conferunt secundum magnam partem ad cognoscendum ipsum quid est.
    Aristotle, On the Soul I, text 11 (c. 1): The accidents contribute in great part to knowing the very [essence], what it is.
  4. 4
    Cod. E ut manus, si poneretur in oculo; sed cfr. tom. I. pag. 787, nota 1. verba August. de vermiculo.
    Codex E [reads] as a hand, if it were placed in the eye; but cf. tom. I, p. 787, note 1, the words of Augustine concerning the little worm.
  5. 5
    Codd. L bb terribile, plures codd. cum ed. 1 occurribile, Vat. occurribile nocibile.
    Codices L bb [read] terribile; several codices with the first edition occurribile; the Vatican [edition] occurribile nocibile.
  6. 6
    Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 8: Sic sumendam proposuit, ut sensus in uno foveretur, et fides in altero aedificaretur. Fovetur enim sensus in uno, dum solita tantum et consueta percipit; aedificatur autem fides in altero, dum in eo quod videt, quale sit illud quod non videt, agnoscit. Cfr. Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 34. — Inferius pro corpus carnis codd. B H Q corpus Christi [cod. B addit et sanguis]. Aliquanto post pro Congruum autem est cod. O Congruum tunc est, cod. M Congruum etiam est, codd. R S Congruum est.
    [Hugh of St. Victor,] On the Sacraments II, p. VIII, c. 8: He proposed that it be taken in such a way that the sense might be cherished in the one and faith built up in the other. For the sense is cherished in the one, while it perceives only the customary and accustomed; but faith is built up in the other, while in that which it sees it recognizes what kind of thing that is which it does not see. Cf. Innocent III, On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar IV, c. 34. — Below, for body of flesh codices B H Q [read] body of Christ [codex B adds and blood]. Somewhat after, for But it is fitting codex O [reads] Then it is fitting, codex M It is also fitting, codices R S It is fitting.
  7. 7
    Ita codd. H I K, alii codd. cum edd. dilectione (propter scripturam abbreviatam plures codd. sunt dubiae lectionis).
    So codices H I K; other codices with the editions [read] dilectione [love] (on account of the abbreviated writing several codices are of doubtful reading).
  8. 8
    Cfr. supra d. 10. p. I. q. 1. et 5. nec non p. II. a. 2. q. I.
    Cf. above d. 10, p. I, q. 1 and 5, as well as p. II, a. 2, q. I.
  9. 9
    Vide quaest. praeced. — Inferius pro corruptibilis codd. A F G H I K corporalis.
    See the preceding question. — Below, for corruptibilis codices A F G H I K [read] corporalis. ---
Cited by

6 places in the Opera Omnia citethis question. Derived from Quaracchi’s own apparatus, never tagged by hand.

Whether the inducing of true forms is from an evil spirit.
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 7
IV. Sent. d. 12. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.
On the containing power of the Sacraments
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 1
infra d. 12. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.
Whether the body of Christ is on the altar according to its natural quantity, or whether it is there abstracted from quantity
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 10
infra d. 12. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2.
Whether the body of Christ is under those species dimensively or circumscriptively
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 10
infra d. 12. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2.
Whether the whole bread is converted, or whether something remains besides the accidents
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 11
infra d. 12. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.
Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Dist. XI, Part II)
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 11
infra d. 12. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.

6 further references address the article or printed page this question belongs to, rather than the question itself.

← Dist. 12, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 1Dist. 12, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 3→