Dist. 12, Part 1, Divisio Textus
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 12
COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XII.
Pars I.
De accidentibus et fractione specierum.
Si autem quaeritur de accidentibus, quae remanent etc.
DIVISIO TEXTUS.
Supra egit Magister de confectione sive consecratione. In hac distinctione agit de consequentibus. Et quoniam duo sunt consequentia, scilicet fractio et iteratio sive frequentatio; ideo distinctio ista dividitur in duas partes. In prima agit de fractione, in secunda de huius Sacramenti frequentatione, ibi: Post haec quaeritur, si quod gerit sacerdos.
Et quoniam fractio illa non potest esse nisi circa illud quod remanet post transsubstantiationem; et haec sunt accidentia: ideo primo quaerit, utrum ibi sint accidentia in se ipsis subsistentia. Secundo vero quaerit, utrum ibi sit fractio vera, ibi: Solet etiam quaeri de fractione.
Et illa pars habet tres partes. In prima determinat quaestionem secundum aliorum opinionem. In secunda secundum veritatem et opinionem propriam, ibi: Sed quia corpus Christi incorruptibile est, ostendens, quod fractio illa est vera, et tamen est tantum circa accidentia. In tertia vero ostendit, quid partes illae significent, ibi: Quid autem partes illae significent. Subdivisiones partium manifestae sunt in littera.
TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.
Ad intelligentiam huius partis tria principaliter quaeruntur.
Primo de existentia specierum sive accidentium sine subiecto.
Secundo de actione ipsorum, sive transmutatione.
Tertio de fractione.
ARTICULUS I.
De existentia accidentium sine subiecto.
Circa primum quaeruntur tria.
Primo quaeritur, utrum sit possibile, quod accidens sit sine subiecto, etiam per miraculum.
Secundo, utrum sit congruum.
Tertio, utrum sit verum sive verificetur in hoc Sacramento.
QUAESTIO I.
Utrum accidentia possint esse sine subiecto.
---
COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XII.
Part I.
On the accidents and the breaking of the species.
But if it is asked concerning the accidents which remain, etc.
DIVISION OF THE TEXT.
Above the Master treated of the confecting or consecration. In this distinction he treats of the things consequent [upon it]. And since there are two consequent things, namely the breaking and the repetition or frequenting; therefore this distinction is divided into two parts. In the first he treats of the breaking, in the second of the frequenting of this Sacrament, there: After these things it is asked, whether what the priest performs.
And since that breaking can be only about that which remains after the transubstantiation; and these are the accidents: therefore he first asks, whether there are accidents subsisting in themselves there. Second he asks, whether there is a true breaking there, there: It is also wont to be asked concerning the breaking.
And that part has three parts. In the first he determines the question according to the opinion of others. In the second according to the truth and his own opinion, there: But since the body of Christ is incorruptible, showing that that breaking is true, and yet is only about the accidents. In the third he shows what those parts signify, there: But what those parts signify. The subdivisions of the parts are evident in the text.
TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.
For the understanding of this part three [things] are principally asked.
First, concerning the existence of the species or accidents without a subject.
Second, concerning their action, or transmutation.
Third, concerning the breaking.
ARTICLE I.
On the existence of accidents without a subject.
Concerning the first, three [things] are asked.
First it is asked, whether it is possible that an accident be without a subject, even by a miracle.
Second, whether it is fitting.
Third, whether it is true, or is verified, in this Sacrament.
QUESTION I.
Whether accidents can be without a subject.
---