← Back to Distinction 12

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

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 12

Textus Latinus
p. 283

Articulus III. De fractione specierum.

Consequenter quantum ad tertium articulum quaeritur de fractione illarum specierum. Et circa hoc tria principaliter quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur, utrum vera fractio sit in corpore Christi. Secundo, utrum sit in speciebus. Tertio quaeritur, quid partes significent.

Quaestio I. Utrum corpus Christi verum in eucharistia frangatur.

Et quod corpus Christi verum frangatur, videtur:

1. Augustinus1 dicere: « Norunt, inquit, fideles: quando manducant carnem Christi, unusquisque accipit partem suam »; quod si verum est: ergo dividitur.

2. Item, ostenditur ex confessione Berengarii2, quae acceptata fuit a Nicolao Papa; confessus est enim, « corpus Christi verum sacerdotis manibus attrectari et frangi »: ergo si ista confessio ut fidelis acceptata est, patet etc.

3. Item, ratione3 videtur: quia corpus Christi verum manducatur4; sed quod manducatur atteritur, et quod atteritur frangitur: ergo etc.

4. Item, hoc Sacramentum est memoriale passionis, et ita memoriale, quod hic non tantum est signum, sed etiam veritas; sed in passione vere fuit corpus Christi fractum et divisum: ergo in hoc Sacramento vere frangitur5.

5. Si dicas, quod est incorruptibile, ideo non potest frangi; hoc nihil est, quia corpus Christi, quod natum est esse6 in uno loco, est in pluribus per miraculum: ergo similiter per miraculum potest incorruptibile frangi.

Sed contra: 1. Corpus animatum, quod dividitur, corrumpitur: ergo cum corpus Christi sit animatum7, si frangitur et dividitur, corrumpitur; et si corrumpitur, non manet verum Sacramentum: ergo etc.

2. Item, si potest frangi et masticari, ergo eadem ratione et digeri: ergo et eadem ratione et in secessum emitti; quod nefas est dicere8.

3. Item, de manna, quod fuit figura huius Sacramenti, nec qui plus colligebat habuit plus, nec qui minus habuit minus9: si ergo fuit vera figura, corpus Christi tantum est in parva parte hostiae quantum in utraque, vel in magno pane: ergo non dividitur.

Conclusio. Corpus Christi verum in eucharistia non frangitur.

Respondeo: Quidam dixerunt, quos tangit Magister in littera10, quod corpus Christi verum frangitur in Sacramento, et tamen non corrumpitur; et hoc quidem fit per virtutem supra naturam, sicut factum est, quod corpus Christi passibile datum est discipulis, et tamen non est ab eorundem dentibus passum. Et in assertionem suae positionis habere voluerunt confessionem Berengarii. — Sed haec positio non potest stare: quia, si est incorruptibile, non dividitur; si frangitur, dividitur: ergo simul dividitur et non dividitur: tunc ergo Deus faceret, duo contradictorie opposita simul esse vera; quod numquam faciet.

p. 284

Propter hoc dicendum, quod corpus Christi verum non frangitur, immo in quotcumque partes dividitur hostia, est totum et integrum11.

1. 2. Quod ergo obiicitur de confessione Berengarii et verbo Augustini, dicendum, quod utrumque dictum est ratione specierum exteriorum, circa quas contingit esse attritionem, fractionem et masticationem. Nec modus iste loquendi est tenendus. Recepit12 tamen Ecclesia confessionem Berengarii et publicavit, quamvis nimis expressam, ad elidendum suum errorem, qui non concedebat, corpus Christi verum ibi esse nisi sicut in signo. Unde propter hoc recepit, ut intelligeretur ibi vere esse, non vere dividi.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod corpus Christi verum manducatur; dicendum, quod in manducatione tria sunt: masticatio, in ventrem traiectio et incorporatio; et haec tria respondent tribus, quae sunt in Sacramento. Nam masticatio est specierum tantum; incorporatio est quantum ad corpus Christi mysticum13; in ventrem traiectio est non solum specierum, sed etiam corporis Christi veri, quod ibi est, quamdiu species panis. Non ergo dicitur corpus Christi verum vere manducari corporaliter, quia corporaliter masticetur; sicut enim non frangitur, sic nec masticatur.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est signum passionis; dicendum, quod non est signum passionis, quae tunc sit, quia tunc semper pateretur Christus; sed passionis, quae semel fuit14. — Et quod obiicit, quod est ibi veritas; dicendum, quod non est ibi veritas passionis, sed veritas eius qui est passus.

5. Ad illud quod dicitur, hoc posse fieri per miraculum; dicendum, quod non est simile de esse in pluribus locis, quia ibi nulla est contradictio, hic autem sic.

Scholion

I. Opinionem hic primo loco positam et manifeste falsam commemorat Magister (hic c. 3.); similiter etiam prima et secunda opinio seq. (2.) quaestionis recte improbatur. — De utraque quaestione concorditer agunt: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 9. a. 1. 2. — Scot., hic q. 1. n. 2-5. seqq.; Report. hic q. 5. n. 18. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. 2; S. III. q. 77. a. 7. — B. Albert., IV. Sent. d. 13. a. 1. 2. 4. 6. 7. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 3.

II. Explicatio mystici sensus huius fractionis in 3. quaestione excerpta est ex Alex. Hal. (loc. cit. a. 4.), quam approbat S. Thom. in Comment. loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3. — De eadem 3. quaestione: B. Albert., IV. Sent. d. 13. a. 14. 15. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 6. q. 2.

---

English Translation

Article III. On the breaking of the species.

Consequently, as to the third article, it is asked concerning the breaking of those species. And concerning this, three matters are principally asked. First it is asked whether there is a true breaking in the body of Christ. Second, whether there is [a true breaking] in the species. Third it is asked what the parts signify.

Question I. Whether the true body of Christ is broken in the Eucharist.

And that the true body of Christ is broken, it seems:

1. Augustine1 [seems] to say: "The faithful know, he says: when they eat the flesh of Christ, each one receives his own part"; and if this is true: therefore it is divided.

2. Likewise, it is shown from the confession of Berengarius2, which was accepted by Pope Nicholas; for he confessed "that the true body of Christ is handled and broken by the hands of the priest": therefore, if that confession was accepted as faithful, it is clear, etc.

3. Likewise, it seems so by reason3: because the true body of Christ is eaten4; but what is eaten is worn down, and what is worn down is broken: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, this Sacrament is a memorial of the passion, and a memorial in such a way that here there is not only a sign, but also the reality; but in the passion the body of Christ was truly broken and divided: therefore in this Sacrament it is truly broken5.

5. Should you say that it is incorruptible, and therefore cannot be broken; this is nothing, because the body of Christ, which is by nature [meant] to be6 in one place, is in many places by a miracle: therefore likewise by a miracle the incorruptible can be broken.

On the contrary: 1. An animate body which is divided is corrupted: therefore, since the body of Christ is animate7, if it is broken and divided, it is corrupted; and if it is corrupted, the true Sacrament does not remain: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, if it can be broken and chewed, then by the same reasoning [it can] also be digested: therefore also by the same reasoning [it can] be voided in excrement; which it is wicked to say8.

3. Likewise, concerning the manna, which was a figure of this Sacrament, neither did he who gathered more have more, nor did he who [gathered] less have less9: if then it was a true figure, the body of Christ is just as much in a small part of the host as in the whole, or in a great bread: therefore it is not divided.

Conclusion. The true body of Christ is not broken in the Eucharist.

I respond: Some have said — whom the Master touches upon in his text10 — that the true body of Christ is broken in the Sacrament, and yet is not corrupted; and this indeed comes about by a power above nature, just as it came about that the passible body of Christ was given to the disciples, and yet was not suffered by their teeth. And in support of their position they wished to have the confession of Berengarius. — But this position cannot stand: because, if it is incorruptible, it is not divided; if it is broken, it is divided: therefore it is at once divided and not divided: then therefore God would bring it about that two contradictory opposites be at once true; which he will never do.

p. 284

On account of this it must be said that the true body of Christ is not broken; rather, into however many parts the host is divided, it is whole and entire11.

1. 2. As to what is objected concerning the confession of Berengarius and the saying of Augustine, it must be said that each was said by reason of the exterior species, about which there occurs wearing-down, breaking, and chewing. Nor is this manner of speaking to be held. The Church nevertheless accepted12 and published the confession of Berengarius, although too explicitly expressed, in order to strike down his error, which did not concede that the true body of Christ was there except as in a sign. Whence on account of this it accepted [it], so that it might be understood that [Christ] is truly there, not truly divided.

3. To that which is objected, that the true body of Christ is eaten; it must be said that in eating there are three things: chewing, passing into the belly, and incorporation; and these three correspond to the three things which are in the Sacrament. For chewing is of the species only; incorporation is as regards the mystical body of Christ13; the passing into the belly is not only of the species, but also of the true body of Christ, which is there, as long as the species of bread [remain]. Therefore the true body of Christ is not said to be truly eaten bodily, because it is bodily chewed; for just as it is not broken, so neither is it chewed.

4. To that which is objected, that it is a sign of the passion; it must be said that it is not a sign of a passion which is then [happening], because then Christ would always be suffering; but [a sign] of the passion which happened once14. — And as to what it objects, that the reality is there; it must be said that the reality of the passion is not there, but the reality of him who suffered.

5. To that which is said, that this can come about by a miracle; it must be said that it is not similar to being in many places, because there [is] no contradiction, but here there is.

Scholion

I. The opinion here placed in the first position and manifestly false the Master mentions (here c. 3.); likewise also the first and second opinion of the following (2nd) question is rightly disproved. — Concerning each question these treat concordantly: Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV. q. 10. m. 9. a. 1. 2. — Scotus, here q. 1. n. 2-5. ff.; Reportata here q. 5. n. 18. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 3. subquestion 1. 2; Summa III. q. 77. a. 7. — Bl. Albert, IV Sent. d. 13. a. 1. 2. 4. 6. 7. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question, here q. 3.

II. The explanation of the mystical sense of this breaking, in the 3rd question, is excerpted from Alexander of Hales (loc. cit. a. 4.), which St. Thomas approves in his Commentary loc. cit. subquestion 3. — Concerning this same 3rd question: Bl. Albert, IV Sent. d. 13. a. 14. 15. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 6. q. 2.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Augustino tribuuntur haec verba a C. Qui manducant (88.), de Consecrat. d. 2; sed cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3, et supra pag. 219, nota 4. — Pro quando manducant [permulti codd. manducent] textus originalis quemadmodum manducent.
    These words are attributed to Augustine in the canon Qui manducant (88.), On Consecration d. 2; but cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3, and above p. 219, note 4. — For quando manducant [very many codices manducent] the original text [reads] quemadmodum manducent.
  2. 2
    Relata in C. Ego Berengarius (42.), de Consecrat. d. 2. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. — Pro ostenditur codd. A I K Z et ed. 1 hoc consequitur.
    Reported in the canon Ego Berengarius (42.), On Consecration d. 2. See here the text of the Master, c. 3. — For ostenditur codices A I K Z and edition 1 [read] hoc consequitur.
  3. 3
    Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    See the scholion to the preceding question.
  4. 4
    Ioan. 6, 55: Qui manducat meam carnem etc.
    John 6, 55: He who eats my flesh etc.
  5. 5
    Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. — Pro minori communiter allegatur Ioan. 19, 34: Sed unus militum lancea latus eius aperuit.
    See here the text of the Master, c. 4. — For the minor [premise] there is commonly cited John 19, 34: But one of the soldiers opened his side with a lance.
  6. 6
    Ut dicitur hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2. — De propos. seq. cfr. supra d. 10. p. 1. q. 1. seqq. — Pro quod natum est esse non pauci codd. natum esse, codd. R S T animatum, quod potest esse; ed. 1 legit: quia si possibile est corpus Christi animatum esse in uno loco et in pluribus etc. Cod. X post uno loco addit naturaliter.
    As is said here in the text of the Master, c. 2. — On the following proposition cf. above d. 10. p. 1. q. 1. ff. — For quod natum est esse not a few codices [read] natum esse, codices R S T animatum, which can be [a reading]; edition 1 reads: because if it is possible for the body of Christ, [being] animate, to be in one place and in many etc. Codex X after uno loco adds naturaliter.
  7. 7
    Cfr. supra q. 2. ad 3. — Pro mathematicum cod. II metaphysicum.
    Cf. above q. 2. ad 3. — For mathematicum codex II [reads] metaphysicum.
  8. 8
    Cfr. infra d. 13. a. 2. q. 2. fundam. 1. et 4.
    Cf. below d. 13. a. 2. q. 2. fundamenta 1 and 4.
  9. 9
    Exod. 16, 18. — Mox post figura edd. addunt necesse... esse. Post pauca pro magno pane edd. magna parte.
    Exod. 16, 18. — Soon after figura the editions add necesse... esse. A little after, for magno pane the editions [read] magna parte.
  10. 10
    Hic c. 3. — Quod Christus dedit discipulis in Coena corpus passibile quidem in se, sed non quatenus fuit in Sacramento, docet Magister dist. praeced. c. 6. Cfr. ibid. Comment. p. II. a. 2. q. 2.
    Here c. 3. — That Christ gave the disciples at the Supper a body passible indeed in itself, but not insofar as it was in the Sacrament, the Master teaches in the preceding distinction, c. 6. Cf. the Commentary there, p. II. a. 2. q. 2.
  11. 11
    Vide Hug. a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 11.
    See Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments II. p. VIII. c. 11.
  12. 12
    Non pauci codd. Recipit, quod etiam circa finem solut., omisso corpus Christi verum, plures codd. pro ut intelligatur pauci codd. exhibent, substituto subinde ut intelligeretur. Edd. et plurimi codd. minus pro nimis.
    Not a few codices [read] Recipit, which also near the end of the solution, with corpus Christi verum omitted, several codices [exhibit] in place of ut intelligatur, with ut intelligeretur thereupon substituted by a few codices. The editions and very many codices [read] minus for nimis.
  13. 13
    Cfr. supra d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. ad 5; d. 9. a. 1. — De seq. propos. agitur infra d. 13. a. 2. q. 2. — In principio solut., omisso corpus Christi verum, plures codd. pro manducatur perperam substituunt masticatur, et pro in manducatione cum ed. 1 in masticatione.
    Cf. above d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. ad 5; d. 9. a. 1. — Concerning the following proposition treatment is made below d. 13. a. 2. q. 2. — At the beginning of the solution, with corpus Christi verum omitted, several codices in place of manducatur wrongly substitute masticatur, and for in manducatione with edition 1 [read] in masticatione.
  14. 14
    Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. seq.
    See here the text of the Master, c. 4 f.
Cited by

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

Whether this sacrament has efficacy in every just man
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 12
d. 12. p. I. a. 3. q. 1.
Whether the body of Christ passes into the belly of a mouse
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 13
supra d. 12. p. 1. a. 3. q. 1.

1 further reference addresses the article or printed page this question belongs to, rather than the question itself.

← Dist. 12, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 3Dist. 12, Part 1, Art. 3, Q. 2→