← Back to Distinction 12

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

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 12

Textus Latinus
p. 284

Quaestio II. Utrum in speciebus sit vera fractio.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum in speciebus sit vera fractio. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Quia quod vere fit in signo significatur fieri in signato; sed in signato non est fractio, ut probatum est5: ergo nec in signo.

2. Item, omnis actio terminatur ad hoc aliquid6; sed non est ibi aliqua substantia nisi substantia corporis Christi: ergo non frangitur ibi aliquid. Et videtur frangi: ergo est ibi tantum fractio apparens.

3. Item, licet videantur ibi esse accidentia in subiecto, tamen in nullo subiecto sunt; nec est ibi falsitas aliqua7: ergo videtur similiter, quod quamvis videatur ibi esse fractio, si non sit, non est ibi falsitas.

Contra: 1. Dicitur in Evangeliis Matthaei, Marci et Lucae8, quod benedixit et fregit; sed ibi fuit vera benedictio: ergo et vera fractio; alioquin ipsa Veritas in Sacramento veritatis et Evangelium veritatis narrat quod apparet verum, et est falsum.

2. Item, species illa panis alba est vere et vere potest denigrari: ergo eadem ratione vere potest dividi.

3. Item, divisio sequitur quantitatem9: ergo si est ibi vera quantitas, ergo et vera divisio et fractio: non ergo tantum apparens.

p. 285

4. Item, si tantum apparens: ergo non oportet, aliquam violentiam digitis fieri nec aliquo actu corporis uti, sed solus actus animae sufficeret: cum ergo oporteat, violentiam digitis inferri, patet, quod est ibi vera divisio.

Conclusio. In fractione eucharistiae est vera divisio, et quidem in speciebus.

Respondeo: Quorundam opinio fuit, quod ibi non est vera divisio, sed tantum apparens; nec tamen est ibi falsitas vel deceptio, quia non fit ad fallendum, sed ad instruendum; sicut etiam Dominus alio modo apparuit, quam esset, discipulis euntibus in Emmaus1, nec ulla fuit ibi falsitas. — Sed ista opinio stare non potest: quia, si non est ibi vera fractio, ergo nec vere masticantur species, et ita totum videtur esse fictio.

Propter hoc fuit alia opinio, quae dixit, quod homo frangit, quia actus est a parte hominis; sed tamen nihil ibi frangitur, quia accidentia frangi per se non possunt. — Haec etiam positio non potest stare: quia actio, si completur, infert passionem necessario.

Et propterea est alia positio rationabilis, quod divisio est ibi vera et in speciebus2, quia manet vera quantitas et vera soliditas; et quia divisio consequitur quantitatem per se; sicut est ibi vera quantitas, ita et vera fractio.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod non est fractio in signato; dicendum, quod fractio illa non significat fractionem corporis Christi ibi contenti, sed significat passionem, quae praeteriit3.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod actio terminatur ad substantiam; dicendum, quod verum est per naturam; sed si accidens posset per se stare, utique susceptivum esset actionis, nunc autem miraculo stat; et ideo accidens est actionis susceptivum4.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sicut accidentia apparent etc.; dicendum, quod illud est ex consequenti, sed divisio primo apparet. Unde accidentia apparent et per consequens ducunt in cognitionem subiecti, et antequam veniatur ad hoc, potest fides obviare. Sed ibi prima fronte apparet divisio, et ideo necesse esset, ibi esse deceptionem sine aliqua veritate, ex alia parte veritatem5b esse sine deceptione6b.

Scholion

Scholion in articulum tertium (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.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether in the species there is a true breaking.

Secondly it is asked whether in the species there is a true breaking. And that there is not, seems to be the case:

1. Because what truly comes to be in a sign is signified to come to be in the thing signified; but in the thing signified there is no breaking, as was proven5: therefore neither in the sign.

2. Likewise, every action is terminated at some this-something6; but there is no substance there except the substance of the body of Christ: therefore nothing is broken there. And it seems to be broken: therefore there is there only an apparent breaking.

3. Likewise, although accidents seem to be there in a subject, nevertheless they are in no subject; nor is there any falsity there7: therefore it seems likewise that, although a breaking seems to be there, if it is not, there is no falsity there.

On the contrary: 1. It is said in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke8 that He blessed and broke; but there was there a true blessing: therefore also a true breaking; otherwise the Truth itself, in the Sacrament of truth, and the Gospel of truth, recounts as true what appears, and it is false.

2. Likewise, that white species of bread truly is, and can truly be blackened: therefore by the same reasoning it can truly be divided.

3. Likewise, division follows upon quantity9: therefore if there is true quantity there, then also a true division and breaking: therefore not only apparent.

p. 285

4. Likewise, if it is only apparent: therefore it is not necessary that any violence be done by the fingers, nor that any bodily act be used, but the act of the soul alone would suffice: since therefore it is necessary that violence be applied by the fingers, it is clear that there is a true division there.

Conclusion. In the breaking of the Eucharist there is a true division, and indeed in the species.

I respond: The opinion of certain men was that there is no true division there, but only an apparent one; and yet there is no falsity or deception there, because it is not done to deceive, but to instruct; just as the Lord also appeared otherwise than He was to the disciples going to Emmaus1, and there was no falsity there. — But this opinion cannot stand: because, if there is no true breaking there, then neither are the species truly masticated, and thus the whole seems to be a fiction.

On account of this there was another opinion, which said that a man breaks, since the act is on the part of the man; but yet nothing is broken there, because accidents cannot be broken of themselves. — This position too cannot stand: because an action, if it is completed, necessarily entails a being-acted-upon.

And therefore there is another reasonable position, that the division is true there and in the species2, because true quantity and true solidity remain; and because division follows quantity of itself; as there is true quantity there, so also true breaking.

1. To the objection therefore that there is no breaking in the thing signified; it must be said that that breaking does not signify the breaking of the body of Christ contained there, but signifies the suffering which has passed by3.

2. To the objection that an action is terminated at a substance; it must be said that this is true by nature; but if an accident could subsist of itself, it would surely be receptive of action; now, however, it stands by miracle; and therefore the accident is receptive of action4.

3. To the objection that just as accidents appear etc.; it must be said that this is by consequence, but the division appears first. Hence the accidents appear and by consequence lead to a knowledge of the subject, and before one comes to this, faith can intervene. But there the division appears at first glance, and therefore it would be necessary that there be deception there without any truth, [whereas] on the other side there is truth5b without deception6b.

Scholion

The scholion on this article (covering questions 1–3) is rendered with Question I of this article. — Scholion in articulum tertium (q. 1–3) cum Quaestione I huius articuli editur.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 5
    Quaest. praeced.
    The preceding question.
  2. 6
    Sive ad substantiam singularem. Vide tom. II. pag. 197, nota 3. Cfr. etiam supra pag. 273, nota 3. — Cod. aa addit ex Gilbert. Porret., de Sex Principiis, c. 2, quia est actio, secundum quam in id quod subiicitur, agere dicimur, et paulo inferius post Christi subiungit quae non frangitur.
    Or [terminated] at a singular substance. See tom. II, p. 197, note 3. Cf. also above, p. 273, note 3. — Codex aa adds, from Gilbert de la Porrée, On the Six Principles, c. 2, because it is an action, according to which we are said to act upon that which is subjected, and a little below, after Christ, subjoins which is not broken.
  3. 7
    Ut dictum est supra n. 1. q. 2. ad 2.
    As was said above, n. 1, q. 2, ad 2.
  4. 8
    Matth. 26, 26; Marc. 14, 22; Luc. 22, 19.
    Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19.
  5. 9
    Aristot. VI. Phys. text. 37. (c. 4.) dicit, quod divisio est «quantitatis quidem secundum se, qualitatis autem secundum accidens». Cfr. V. Metaph. text. 18. (IV. c. 13.).
    Aristotle, Physics VI, text 37 (c. 4), says that division is «of quantity indeed in itself, but of quality by accident». Cf. Metaphysics V, text 18 (IV, c. 13).
  6. 1
    Luc. 24, 15. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2, ubi haec et seq. opinio proponitur.
    Luke 24:15. See here the text of the Master, c. 2, where this and the following opinion are set forth.
  7. 2
    Gilbert. Porret., de Sex Principiis, c. 2: Naturalis vero actionis proprietas est passionem ex se in id quod subiicitur, inferre; omnis enim actio passionis est effectiva, et omne passionem inferens actio est. Cfr. Aristot., III. Phys. text. 18. seqq. (c. 3.). — Inferius edd. omittunt et in speciebus, quia manet.
    Gilbert de la Porrée, On the Six Principles, c. 2: But it is the property of a natural action to inflict, of itself, a being-acted-upon upon that which is subjected; for every action is productive of a being-acted-upon, and everything inflicting a being-acted-upon is an action. Cf. Aristotle, Physics III, text 18 ff. (c. 3). — Below, the editions omit and in the species, because it remains.
  8. 3
    Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. seq. et quaest. seq.
    See here the text of the Master, c. 4 ff., and the following question.
  9. 4
    Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 3.
    Cf. above, a. 2, q. 3.
  10. 5b
    Permulti codd. incongrue veritas, nisi pro esse ponatur cod. aa veritas esset. Cfr. Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 9. seq.
    Very many codices, incongruously, [read] veritas [truth, nom.], unless for esse codex aa puts veritas esset. Cf. Innocent III, On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar IV, c. 9 ff.
  11. 6b
    Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    See the scholion to the preceding question. ---
← Dist. 12, Part 1, Art. 3, Q. 1Dist. 12, Part 1, Art. 3, Q. 3→