Dist. 12, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 12
Quaestio II. Utrum accidentia habeant potentiam convertendi alia in Sacramentum.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum accidentia habeant potentiam convertendi alia in Sacramentum, utpote si vino consecrato apponatur aqua. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Quia aequalis, vel maioris virtutis est consecratio in hoc Sacramento quam benedictio in aqua; sed aqua benedicta iuncta aquae non benedictae facit, totam esse benedictam: vinum ergo non consecratum, iunctum consecrato, fit consecratum: ergo habet potentiam convertendi1.
2. Item, quando apponitur aqua, vel vinum, species illae occupant maiorem locum2: ergo sanguis Christi est sub maiori specie; sed sanguis Christi non est sub maiori loco, nisi quia aliquid in ipsum convertitur: ergo illud quod apponitur, convertitur in ipsum sanguinem: ergo species, quae est Sacramentum, aliud in Sacramentum convertit.
3. Item, hoc ostenditur ratione, quia accidens cum substantia non occupat maiorem locum nec facit maius3, similiter nec corpus glorificatum cum non glorificato; sed in calice non est nisi substantia sanguinis glorificati sive corporis Christi et accidens: ergo si illud quod apponitur, manet in substantia; videtur, quod in eodem loco esse potest, ita quod non occupat maiorem locum; quod est manifeste falsum, ut patet inspicienti. Restat igitur, ut illud quod apponitur, non salvetur in ratione substantiae, sed solum speciei, sicut species, quae est ibi: ergo necessario est ibi conversio.
4. Item, si apponatur alius liquor, ut aqua in magna quantitate, totum converteretur4 in substantiam aquae, ita quod vere est aqua: ergo pari ratione, si ita parum ibi apponatur, quod species praedominetur; videtur, quod convertatur in verum Sacramentum, cum non consecratum non plus possit supra consecratum, quam e converso.
5. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur per impossibile: quia, quando apponitur vinum, vel aqua, fit una superficies: quaero ergo: aut illa superficies est in subiecto, aut sine subiecto? Si in subiecto: ergo
modicum quid apponatur, desinit esse Sacramentum. Si sine subiecto: ergo totum est Sacramentum. Si sine subiecto et in subiecto: ergo duo contradictorie opposita sunt vera de eodem, quod nunquam fit. Si dicas mihi, quod secundum unam partem est in subiecto, secundum aliam extra subiectum; contra: esto quod apponatur aqua, et misceantur usque ad minima; tunc non est assignare diversas partes: ergo necesse est, quod saltem tunc convertatur.
Contra: 1. Nihil convertitur in sanguinem nisi per transsubstantiationem; sed virtus transsubstantiandi non est in elemento, sed in verbo5: ergo quantumcumque addatur elementum aliud speciei, non fit transsubstantiatio: ergo manet substantia cum accidentibus: ergo non convertitur in Sacramentum.
2. Item, si convertitur; aut ergo virtute sanguinis, aut virtute vini. Virtute sanguinis non, quia sanguis ille est glorificatus, ergo non habet potentiam convertendi aliquid in se. Item, non virtute vini, quia vinum, quod convertitur, ratione substantiae, non ratione proprietatum convertitur; et ibi non est substantia vini: ergo nulla vis est, quae possit convertere.
3. Item, aqua non est nata de se converti in sanguinem: ergo si apponatur vino consecrato, non transit in sanguinem: ergo manet substantia eius, et sic etc.
Conclusio. Accidentia non habent virtutem convertendi aliam substantiam admixtam in Sacramentum.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod accidentia non habent virtutem convertendi aliam substantiam in Sacramentum. Et ratio huius est, quia in hoc Sacramento est transsubstantiatio; transsubstantiatio autem non fit sine verbo: ideo, quantumcumque apponatur aliud vinum; scilicet [? sed] in purum accidens non possunt haec accidentia illud appositum convertere, nisi fiat illius transsubstantiatio. Saltem quaeritur, si aqua modica convertitur in vinum a specie vini.
[Ideo,] elementum, nisi adsit verbum, non fit Sacramentum.
Et si tu obiicias, quod aqua benedicitur per aquam, et oleum per oleum benedicitur6; respondetur, quod non est simile: quia consecratio in oleo et benedictio in aqua non ponit nisi accidens aliquod et proprietatem quandam sanctificationis; sed hic consecratio ponit conversionem in veram substantiam et continentiam eiusdem, quae est a sola virtute increata assistente ipsi verbo7.
Alia est etiam ratio: quia aqua benedicta tota attingitur, et secundum totum, quod habet in se, commiscetur aquae supervenienti, et oleum benedictum oleo; sed sanguis contentus nulli humori ibi commiscetur, pro eo quod non est ibi diffusus, sed est sanguis glorificatus, intra venas contentus, et ideo a nullo liquore attingitur; et ideo nihil per commixtionem vel contactum potest in ipsum converti. Si ergo aliquid convertatur, necesse est, quod per transsubstantiationem et novam consecrationem convertatur.
Concedendum est ergo, quod species vini iuncta alii liquori non convertit in Sacramentum.
1. Et patet responsio ad primum obiectum, quod non est simile tum ratione eius, quod est hic conversio in substantiam, tum quia non est mixtio talis nec tanta, sicut in aqua benedicta.
Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod aqua modica convertitur a specie vini; respondetur dupliciter secundum diversos8: uno modo, quod non convertitur, ita quod solvatur forma substantialis aquae, sed converti ibi est solum alterari, quia mutatur sapor et color et odor, et participat proprietates vini; et ideo quantum ad sensum nostrum conversa est. Et talis conversio disponit ad conversionem in Sacramentum, si adesset verbum; sed cum non adsit, non convertitur, sed manet substantia habens proprietatem vini per actum et virtutem illius speciei. — Alius modus dicendi est, quod aqua convertitur in vinum, et hoc virtute illarum specierum; non, inquam, in vinum, quod sit vinum secundum speciem, sed est vinum solum secundum materiam, sicut caro secundum speciem convertit in carnem secundum materiam9. — Et si tu obiicias, quod «nihil dat quod non habet»; verum est secundum substantiam, vel secundum virtutem; at species illae quamvis non habeant substantiam vini, habent tamen virtutem et operationem: et ideo, sicut verum vinum solveret speciem aquae modicae et converteret secundum veritatem, ita intelligendum est in proposito. — Uterque modus dicendi est probabilis satis, et quocumque horum modorum dicatur, non sequitur, quod aqua iuncta vino fiat Sacramentum et consecretur.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod corpus Christi est sub maiori specie; dicendum, quod non est sub maiori specie, quia aliquid sit appositum speciei, ita quod sit in illo; sed quia species illa magis est diffusa; sicut si species vini, quae est in calice profundo, ponatur in calice latiori, magis dilatatur species. Sic intelligendum in proposito: quia, cum miscetur alius liquor, partes illius speciei magis diffunduntur, maxime si liquor ille penetrat et dividit et separat partes speciei ab invicem.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod accidens non occupat maiorem locum cum substantia; dicendum, quod istud verum est de accidente secundum existentiam naturalem; tale enim accidens in subiecto est et non ponit in numerum cum illo. Sed sicut dimensio in illis speciebus locum habet naturalem, pro eo quod non tantum est ibi mathematica, immo etiam naturalis dimensio, licet sit supra naturam praeter subiectum; sicut locum occupat, ita cum alia dimensione occupat maiorem locum quam per se solam, non per naturam substantiae, sed dimensionis naturalis.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod alius liquor potest facere quod non sit Sacramentum; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia «facilius est destruere quam construere». Mus enim et quodlibet aliud manducans potest facere, quod desinat Sacramentum; sed nullus potest facere, quod illud sit, nisi adsit verbum et sacerdotale ministerium.
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod fit una superficies; dicendum, quod liquor additus, quamvis non
faciat unam substantiam, tamen dimensio continuatur dimensioni, et ita fit dimensio una et quantitas una.
Si ergo quaeras, utrum sit in subiecto, vel praeter subiectum; respondeo: Non dividis sufficienter, quia partim est in subiecto, partim extra subiectum; et illud non est inconveniens: sicut una pars superficiei potest esse nigra, et alia alba; sic in proposito intelligendum, quod pars speciei consecrata est sine subiecto, reliqua vero in subiecto. — Et si obiicias: ponatur, quod perfecte misceatur, cum mixtio sit usque ad minima; tunc sequitur inconveniens, quod idem sit in subiecto et praeter subiectum; dicendum, quod mixtio liquoris cum liquore non est usque ad minima secundum quantitatem, sed intelligitur secundum virtutem, quia ita est in aliis mixtionibus10; et ipse obiicit, quod sit usque ad minima secundum quantitatem. — Si autem talis sit mixtio, quod fiat in speciebus universalis alteratio, vel etiam quod species illae vini transfunderentur in liquorem consimilem, sed praedominantem, ita quod nulla esset distinctio, quod hic esset species consecrata, et ibi non consecrata, nec secundum naturam, nec secundum virtutem, sicut est in mixtione naturali; tunc dico, quod desineret esse Sacramentum, sicut desinit per aliam transmutationem, et totum esset unum corpus et esset una superficies secundum partes et totum existens in unico subiecto. Quando autem hoc fiat, difficile est discernere.
Scholion in articulum II (q. 1–3) cum Quaestione I huius articuli editur. — The scholion on this article (covering questions 1–3) is rendered with Question I of this article.
---
Question II. Whether the accidents have the power of converting other [things] into the Sacrament.
Secondly it is asked whether the accidents have the power of converting other [things] into the Sacrament, as for example if water is added to consecrated wine. And that they do, seems to be the case:
1. Because the consecration in this Sacrament is of equal, or greater, power than the blessing in [holy] water; but blessed water joined to unblessed water makes the whole to be blessed: therefore unconsecrated wine, joined to consecrated [wine], becomes consecrated: therefore it has the power of converting1.
2. Likewise, when water or wine is added, those species occupy a greater place2: therefore the blood of Christ is under a greater species; but the blood of Christ is not under a greater place, except because something is converted into it: therefore that which is added is converted into the blood itself: therefore the species, which is the Sacrament, converts another [thing] into the Sacrament.
3. Likewise, this is shown by reason, because an accident together with a substance does not occupy a greater place nor make [it] greater3, just as neither does a glorified body together with a non-glorified one; but in the chalice there is nothing except the substance of the glorified blood or of the body of Christ and the accident: therefore if that which is added remains in [its] substance; it seems that it can be in the same place, so that it does not occupy a greater place; which is manifestly false, as is clear to one who looks. It remains, therefore, that that which is added is not preserved in the character of a substance, but only of a species, like the species which is there: therefore necessarily there is a conversion there.
4. Likewise, if another liquid is added, such as water in a great quantity, the whole would be converted4 into the substance of water, so that it truly is water: therefore by parity of reasoning, if so little is added there that the species predominates; it seems that it is converted into the true Sacrament, since the unconsecrated cannot prevail over the consecrated any more than the converse.
5. Likewise, this very thing is shown through the impossible: because, when wine or water is added, one surface comes to be: I ask therefore: is that surface in a subject, or without a subject? If in a subject: therefore
if some little [quantity] is added, it ceases to be the Sacrament. If without a subject: therefore the whole is the Sacrament. If without a subject and in a subject: therefore two contradictorily opposed [things] are true of the same [thing], which never happens. If you say to me that according to one part it is in a subject, according to another outside a subject; on the contrary: suppose that water is added, and they are mixed down to the smallest [parts]; then one cannot assign distinct parts: therefore it is necessary that at least then it be converted.
On the contrary: 1. Nothing is converted into blood except through transubstantiation; but the power of transubstantiating is not in the element, but in the word5: therefore however much another element be added to the species, transubstantiation does not occur: therefore the substance remains together with the accidents: therefore it is not converted into the Sacrament.
2. Likewise, if it is converted; then either by the power of the blood, or by the power of the wine. Not by the power of the blood, because that blood is glorified, therefore it does not have the power of converting anything into itself. Likewise, not by the power of the wine, because wine, which is converted, is converted by reason of its substance, not by reason of its properties; and there the substance of wine is not present: therefore there is no force which could convert.
3. Likewise, water is not of its nature [able] to be converted into blood: therefore if it is added to consecrated wine, it does not pass over into blood: therefore its substance remains, and so etc.
Conclusion. The accidents do not have the power of converting another substance, when added, into the Sacrament.
I respond: It must be said that the accidents do not have the power of converting another substance into the Sacrament. And the reason for this is that in this Sacrament there is transubstantiation; but transubstantiation does not occur without the word: therefore however much other wine be added; namely [? but] into a pure accident these accidents cannot convert that added [thing], unless its transubstantiation occurs. At least it is asked whether a little water is converted into wine by the species of wine.
[Therefore,] the element, unless the word be present, does not become the Sacrament.
And if you object that water is blessed by water, and oil is blessed by oil6; it is answered that it is not similar: because consecration in oil and blessing in water posits only some accident and a certain property of sanctification; but here consecration posits a conversion into the true substance and the containment of the same, which is from the uncreated power alone assisting the word itself7.
There is also another reason: because blessed water is wholly reached, and according to the whole that it has in itself, is commingled with the supervening water, and blessed oil with [unblessed] oil; but the contained blood is commingled with no liquid there, because it is not diffused there, but is glorified blood, contained within the veins, and therefore is reached by no liquid; and therefore nothing can be converted into it through commixture or contact. If therefore anything is converted, it is necessary that it be converted through transubstantiation and a new consecration.
It must therefore be conceded that the species of wine joined to another liquid does not convert [it] into the Sacrament.
1. And the response to the first objection is clear, that it is not similar both by reason of the fact that here there is a conversion into a substance, and because the mixture is not such nor so great as in blessed water.
To the objection that a little water is converted by the species of wine; it is answered in a twofold way according to various [authors]8: in one way, that it is not converted, so that the substantial form of the water is dissolved, but to be converted there is only to be altered, because the taste and color and smell are changed, and it participates in the properties of wine; and therefore as far as our senses [are concerned] it is converted. And such a conversion disposes toward conversion into the Sacrament, if the word were present; but since it is not present, it is not converted, but the substance remains, having the property of wine through the act and power of that species. — The other way of speaking is that the water is converted into wine, and this by the power of those species; not, I say, into wine which is wine according to species, but it is wine only according to matter, just as flesh according to species converts [it] into flesh according to matter9. — And if you object that «nothing gives what it does not have»; this is true according to substance, or according to power; but those species, although they do not have the substance of wine, nevertheless have its power and operation: and therefore, just as true wine would dissolve the species of a little water and convert it according to truth, so it must be understood in the matter at hand. — Each way of speaking is sufficiently probable, and in whichever of these ways it be stated, it does not follow that water joined to wine becomes the Sacrament and is consecrated.
2. To the objection that the body of Christ is under a greater species; it must be said that it is not under a greater species because something is added to the species, so that it be in it; but because that species is more diffused; just as if the species of wine, which is in a deep chalice, were put in a wider chalice, the species is more dilated. So it must be understood in the matter at hand: because, when another liquid is mixed in, the parts of that species are more diffused, especially if that liquid penetrates and divides and separates the parts of the species from one another.
3. To the objection that an accident does not occupy a greater place together with a substance; it must be said that this is true of an accident according to its natural existence; for such an accident is in a subject and does not add to the number together with it. But just as a dimension in those species has a natural place, because there is there not only a mathematical but also a natural dimension, although it be above nature apart from a subject; just as it occupies a place, so together with another dimension it occupies a greater place than by itself alone, not through the nature of the substance, but of the natural dimension.
4. To the objection that another liquid can bring it about that it is not the Sacrament; it must be said that it is not similar, because «it is easier to destroy than to construct». For a mouse and anything else eating [it] can bring it about that the Sacrament ceases; but no one can bring it about that it exists, unless the word and the priestly ministry be present.
5. To the objection that one surface comes to be; it must be said that the added liquid, although it does not
make one substance, nevertheless the dimension is continuous with the [other] dimension, and so there comes to be one dimension and one quantity.
If therefore you ask whether it is in a subject, or apart from a subject; I respond: You do not divide sufficiently, because partly it is in a subject, partly outside a subject; and that is not unfitting: just as one part of a surface can be black, and another white; so it must be understood in the matter at hand, that the consecrated part of the species is without a subject, but the remaining [part] is in a subject. — And if you object: suppose that it is perfectly mixed, since the mixture is down to the smallest [parts]; then there follows the unfitting [consequence] that the same is in a subject and apart from a subject; it must be said that the mixture of liquid with liquid is not down to the smallest [parts] according to quantity, but is understood according to power, because so it is in other mixtures10; and he objects that it is down to the smallest [parts] according to quantity. — But if the mixture were such that there occurred in the species a universal alteration, or even that those species of wine were transfused into a similar but predominating liquid, so that there were no distinction such that here there were a consecrated species, and there a non-consecrated one, neither according to nature, nor according to power, as is the case in a natural mixture; then I say that it would cease to be the Sacrament, just as it ceases through another transmutation, and the whole would be one body and would be one surface according to its parts, and the whole existing in a single subject. But when this occurs, it is difficult to discern.
The scholion on this article (covering questions 1–3) is rendered with Question I of this article. — Scholion in articulum II (q. 1–3) cum Quaestione I huius articuli editur.
---
- 1Ex cod. N aa supplevimus ultimam conclusionem arg. — Sola Vat. hic subiungit alterum arg., quod sumtum est ex Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. m. 7. a. 2. § 3, excepta ultima propos., quae ideo ab ipsa videtur esse addita, ut arg. correspondeat responsioni in solut. ad 1. contentae. Arg. est hoc: Item accidentia in hoc Sacramento habent eandem virtutem, quam haberent in esse proprio et naturali; unde Innocentius [IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 37. sententialiter; verbotenus Hug. a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 12.]: «In quo similitudo deficeret, in eo Sacramentum non esset»; scilicet [? sed] in esse proprio et naturali haberent potestatem convertendi in sui naturam; cum ergo conversio naturaliter fiat, videtur, quod appositum debet converti potius in simile convertenti, quam in...From codex N aa we have supplied the last conclusion of the argument. — The Vatican [edition] alone here subjoins another argument, which is taken from Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV m. 7 a. 2 § 3, except the last proposition, which therefore seems to have been added by it [the Vatican edition], so that the argument might correspond to the response contained in the solution to [objection] 1. The argument is this: Likewise, the accidents in this Sacrament have the same power that they would have in their proper and natural being; whence Innocent [IV, On the Mystery of the Holy Altar, c. 37, in substance; verbatim Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments II, p. VIII, c. 12]: «In that in which the likeness should fail, in it the Sacrament would not be»; namely [? but] in their proper and natural being they would have the power of converting [it] into their own nature; since therefore conversion occurs naturally, it seems that the added [thing] ought rather to be converted into what is like the converter than into...
- 2In cod. aa adiicitur: quia diffusio fit specierum per calicem. Inferius pro sub maiori loco edd. in maiori loco.In codex aa there is added: because a diffusion of the species occurs through the chalice. Below, for under a greater place the editions [read] in a greater place.
- 3Per quantitatem enim substantia constituitur in loco et accipit extensionem. — Inferius pro sed plurimi codd. et ed. perperam ergo, nisi adiungatur cum. Subinde post in eodem loco esse potest [plurimi codd. incongrue possunt, edd. possint] codd. III Y prosequuntur et ita non occupat etc.For through quantity a substance is constituted in a place and receives extension. — Below, for but most codices and the edition wrongly [read] therefore, unless cum be added. Then after can be in the same place [most codices incongruously possunt, the editions possint] codices III Y continue and thus it does not occupy etc.
- 4Codd. aa bb converteretur.Codices aa bb [read] converteretur («would be converted»).
- 5Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. VIII. c. 4.Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. VIII, c. 4.
- 6Ita cod. O; recole arg. 1. ad oppos.; plurimi codd. per verbum pro per aquam, et omittunt per oleum; cod. X et similiter oleum benedicitur; codd. hic addunt et tamen, si non benedictum proportionaliter apponatur, efficitur benedictum.Thus codex O; recall argument 1 ad oppositum; most codices [read] by the word for by water, and omit by oil; codex X likewise oil is blessed; codices here add and yet, if what is not blessed be added proportionally, it becomes blessed.
- 7Cfr. supra d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. — Aliquanto inferius post venas Vat. supplet Christi, quae etiam in fine corp. cum ed. 1 perperam substituit convertitur pro convertit.Cf. above, d. 10, p. II, a. 1, q. 3. — Somewhat below, after veins the Vatican [edition] supplies of Christ, which also at the end of the body, together with edition 1, wrongly substitutes convertitur for convertit.
- 8Vide supra d. 11. p. II. a. 1. q. 4. ad 3. et dub. 5.See above, d. 11, p. II, a. 1, q. 4, ad 3, and dubium 5.
- 9Cfr. Aristot., 1. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 85. seq. (c. 10.). — Cfr. II. Sent. d. 30. a. 3. q. 2, ubi haec distinctio carnis explicatur. — Axioma: Nihil dat quod non habet, insinuatur ab Aristot., II. Elench. c. 3. (c. 22.). — Codd. F O convertitur in carnem secundum materiam, edd. convertit carnem secundum materiam. Superius pro illarum specierum multi codd. aliarum specierum.Cf. Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption I, text 85 f. (c. 10). — Cf. Sentences II, d. 30, a. 3, q. 2, where this distinction of flesh is explained. — The axiom Nothing gives what it does not have is insinuated by Aristotle, Sophistical Refutations II, c. 3 (c. 22). — Codices F O [read] convertitur in carnem secundum materiam, the editions convertit carnem secundum materiam. Above, for of those species many codices [read] of other species.
- 10Cfr. Aristot., I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 85. seqq. (c. 10.), ubi improbat opinionem, secundum quam mixtio ex minimorum quantitatem (sive quoad sensum nostrum, sive quoad naturam) coniunctione [fit]; non enim esset vera mixtio, sed compositio. — Superius pro cum mixtio sit edd. cum mixto, sic.Cf. Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption I, text 85 ff. (c. 10), where he refutes the opinion according to which a mixture [arises] from a conjunction of the quantity of the smallest [parts] (whether as regards our senses, or as regards nature); for it would not be a true mixture, but a composition. — Above, for cum mixtio sit the editions [read] cum mixto, sic. ---