Dist. 13, Art. 2, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 13
Articulus II. De sumente eucharistiam.
Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de sumente. Et circa hoc duo quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur, utrum corpus Christi traiiciatur in ventrem muris; Secundo quaeritur, utrum descendat in ventrem hominis.
Quaestio I. Utrum corpus Christi traiiciatur in ventrem muris.
Et quod mus traiiciat in ventrem, videtur:
1. Quia qui sumit aliquid sumit et illud quod inseparabiliter est unitum; sed mus sumit species, et in illis speciebus est corpus Christi inseparabiliter: ergo etc.
2. Item, Deus magis refugit peccatum quam creaturam quamlibet; sed corpus Christi traiicitur in ventrem peccatoris1, si peccator sumit: ergo et muris.
3. Item, quaero: quid mus comedit? aut substantiam, aut accidentia. Si substantiam; sed non est ibi nisi substantia corporis Christi: ergo manducat corpus Christi. Si accidentia; sed accidentia non sunt sine subiecto, nisi quamdiu est ibi corpus Christi: ergo si in ventrem muris descendunt accidentia, similiter videtur quod et corpus Christi.
4. Item, quid esset hoc inconveniens, cum videamus, corpus Christi ita esse in vase polluto, sicut in mundo2?
Contra: 1. Magister dicit in littera3, quod non sumit corpus Christi.
2. Item, ratione videtur: quia qui masticando traiicit in ventrem aliquem cibum illum manducat: ergo si mus in ventrem traiicit, manducat; sed non sacramentaliter nec spiritualiter4: ergo nullo modo.
3. Item, si mus baptizetur in nomine Trinitatis, nihil reciperet magis, quam si in aqua simplici lavaretur, quia non est susceptibilis Sacramenti: ergo pari ratione nihil plus sumit, quam si comederet panem simplicem5.
Conclusio. Praefertur opinio, quod casu illo occurrente, corpus Christi non descendit in ventrem muris.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod circa hoc duae fuerunt opiniones.
Quidam enim dicunt, quod corpus Christi continetur in illis speciebus inseparabiliter, quamdiu sunt Sacramentum. Sacramentum autem sunt per naturam panis et per naturam consecrationis verbi; et ideo, cum consecratio non dimittat hostiam, quamdiu salva est forma panis; tamdiu Sacramentum est, quamdiu forma panis salva est. Et ideo, cum Sacramentum sit contentivum veri corporis, secundum quod Sacramentum; tamdiu continet, quamdiu salva est species panis in modica parte. Et isti dicunt, quod ubicumque ponantur species, sive in loco mundo sive immundo, sive in ventre muris sive in loco alio, dicunt, quod ibi est corpus Christi. Et quia videntur corpori Domini derogare et Sacramento; dicunt, quod hoc potius est in laudem utriusque. Nam corpus Christi non patitur iniuriam aliquam, cum sit glorificatum et inquinari nullo modo possit. Sacramentum etiam laudatur, quod adeo est sacrum et rei nobili coniunctum, quod non potest separari vel auferri sibi continentia ex aliquo6, dum salva sit forma. Et quia ubicumque est Sacramentum, et species illae sunt sanctissimorum symbolorum, in quibus est Christus; ubicumque est, nobiliter est. Dicunt etiam, quod nos in hoc reprehendimur, quod loca humilia despicimus et vestimenta mutamus, cum Christus, ubicumque collocetur illa species, esse habeat; cum etiam non relinquat illud operimentum, quousque sit corruptum. — Et si tu obiicias tunc, quod mus manducat; respondent, quod falsum est, quia nec sumere debet dici corpus Christi nec manducare, cum nullo modo ipsum attingat, nec per convenientiam in natura7 nec per cognitionem quantulamcumque nec per dilectionem. — Quantumcumque autem haec opinio muniatur, nunquam tamen adeo munitur, quin aures piae hoc abhorreant audire, quod in ventre muris, vel in cloaca sit corpus Christi, quamdiu species ibi subsistunt.
Propter hoc est alia opinio, quod corpus Christi nullo modo descendit in ventrem muris. — Ratio autem, quae hos movet, est: quia Christus non est sub illo Sacramento nisi eatenus, qua ordinabile est ad usum humanum, scilicet ad manducationem; sed sicut mus rodit, ita et inhabile facit, et ita Sacramentum esse desinit, et corpus Christi ibi esse desinit, et substantia panis redit; sicut Innocentius dicit, et auctoritas supra habita est distinctione praecedenti8, ubi quaesitum est, utrum accidentia nutriunt. Et haec opinio communior est et certe honestior et rationabilior.
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod inseparabiliter est unitum speciebus; dicendum, quod verum est, quamdiu habent rationem Sacramenti et sunt habiles ad usum humanum; hoc autem non est, cum mus comedit.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod magis detestatur peccatum; dicendum, quod in peccatore est natura et est culpa; et quamvis culpa displiceat, tamen naturam, quam fecit, non odit; immo tantum diligit, quod paratus est remittere culpam, si ipse consentiat9; et ratione habilitatis naturalis idoneus est peccator sumere magis quam mus —
— quamvis mus non sit peccator — quia nunquam peccatum ita vitiat nec corrumpit naturam rationalem, quin sit nobilior quam irrationalis10.
3. Ad illud quod quaeritur: quid comedit? respondetur dupliciter secundum duas opiniones: vel quod comedit accidentia, quae sunt virtute supra naturam possibilia converti in substantiam; vel quod comedit substantiam panis, quae redit, sicut superius11 tactum fuit.
Si quaeras: quid fit de corpore Christi? Numquid evolat? dicendum, quod sicut in panis conversione corpus Christi non descendit localiter nec mutatur aliqua mutatione, sed sola panis conversione incipit esse sub illis speciebus; sic sola panis reversione desinit esse ibi, ita quod nulla fit in eo mutatio, nec localis nec alia. Qui potest capere capiat12, et qui non, credat, et hoc sibi sufficiat.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de vase polluto, dicendum, quod non est simile; quia adhuc pollutio vasis non aufert habilitatem ad usum, ac per hoc non aufert, quin sit Sacramentum, et ita non tollit contentum13.
I. Opinionem 1. hic relatam cum B. Alberto et Scoto defendit S. Thom. (IV. Sent. d. 9. q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3; S. III. q. 80. a. 3. ad 3.), eamque veriorem esse iudicant Alex. Hal., Petr. a Tar. et posteriores communiter, ita ut alia antiqua opinio, quae fuit Magistri, dici possit obsoleta. — De hac 1. quaestione praeter S. Thomam: Alex. Hal., 3. p. IV. q. 11. m. 2. a. 2. § 1. — Scot., Report. IV. Sent. d. 8. q. 3. n. 2. — B. Albert., hic n. 38. et d. 9. a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica a. 6. — Richard. a Med., IV. Sent. d. 9. a. 1. q. 3. — Durand., IV. Sent. d. 9. q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., IV. Sent. d. 9. q. 1.
II. Etiam in seq. (2.) quaestione S. Doctor recedit ab aliis, cum praeferat secundam opinionem ac censeat, primam, quae videtur esse nunc communis, sicut et quartam, esse minus probabilem; non tamen hoc docet cum assertione explorata, sed secundum probabilitatem; immo supra d. 12. p. 1. a. 3. q. 1. ad 3. potius primam opinionem docere videtur. — Tangitur hic etiam alia quaestio, scilicet quo tempore eucharistia producat effectum suum principalem, qui est augmentatio gratiae; de quo variae fuerunt opiniones. Supra d. 12. p. 1. a. 3. q. 1. ad 3. (cfr. d. 9. a. 1. q. 2.) docetur, manducationem non esse completam, nisi postquam fuerit traiectio in stomachum, et cum hac coniungi incorporationem. — De hac (2.) quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 4. § 3. — Aliorum mens patet ex solutione praecedentis quaestionis et ex locis, ubi loquuntur de manducatione corporali eucharistiae (supra d. 9.) et de praesentia Christi sub speciebus, donec hae non sint corruptae.
---
Article II. On him who receives the Eucharist.
Consequently, as regards the second article, inquiry is made concerning the one who receives. And concerning this, two things are asked. First, it is asked whether the body of Christ passes into the belly of a mouse; Second, it is asked whether it descends into the belly of a man.
Question I. Whether the body of Christ passes into the belly of a mouse.
And that a mouse passes [it] into its belly, it seems:
1. Because he who receives anything receives also that which is inseparably united [to it]; but a mouse receives the species, and in those species the body of Christ is inseparably [present]: therefore, etc.
2. Likewise, God shrinks from sin more than from any creature whatever; but the body of Christ passes into the belly of a sinner1, if the sinner receives [it]: therefore also into [the belly] of a mouse.
3. Likewise, I ask: what does the mouse eat? Either the substance, or the accidents. If the substance; but there is nothing there except the substance of the body of Christ: therefore it eats the body of Christ. If the accidents; but the accidents are not without a subject, except so long as the body of Christ is there: therefore if the accidents descend into the belly of the mouse, it likewise seems that the body of Christ does too.
4. Likewise, what would be unfitting about this, since we see that the body of Christ is in a polluted vessel just as in a clean one2?
On the contrary: 1. The Master says in the text3 that it does not receive the body of Christ.
2. Likewise, by reason it seems so: because he who by chewing passes some food into the belly eats it: therefore if a mouse passes [it] into its belly, it eats [it]; but not sacramentally nor spiritually4: therefore in no way [does it eat the body of Christ].
3. Likewise, if a mouse were baptized in the name of the Trinity, it would receive nothing more than if it were washed in plain water, because it is not capable of the Sacrament: therefore by parity of reasoning it receives nothing more than if it had eaten plain bread5.
Conclusion. The opinion is preferred that, when that case occurs, the body of Christ does not descend into the belly of a mouse.
Respondeo: It must be said that concerning this there were two opinions.
For some say that the body of Christ is contained in those species inseparably, so long as they are the Sacrament. Now they are the Sacrament by the nature of the bread and by the nature of the consecration of the Word; and therefore, since the consecration does not release the host so long as the form of the bread is intact; so long it is the Sacrament, as long as the form of the bread is intact. And therefore, since the Sacrament is containing of the true body insofar as it is the Sacrament; so long does it contain [it], as long as the species of bread is intact in a small part. And these [people] say that wherever the species are placed, whether in a clean place or an unclean one, whether in the belly of a mouse or in any other place, they say that the body of Christ is there. And because they seem to detract from the body of the Lord and from the Sacrament, they say that this is rather to the praise of both. For the body of Christ suffers no injury, since it is glorified and can in no way be defiled. The Sacrament too is praised, in that it is so sacred and joined to so noble a thing that its containing power cannot be separated or taken away from it by anything6, so long as the form is intact. And because wherever the Sacrament is, those species also are of the most holy symbols, in which Christ is; wherever it is, it is nobly. They say also that we are rebuked in this, that we despise lowly places and change our garments, whereas Christ, wherever that species is placed, has His being [there]; since also He does not leave that covering until it is corrupted. — And if you then object that the mouse eats; they respond that this is false, because it ought not be said to receive the body of Christ nor to eat [it], since it in no way attains it, neither by affinity in nature7 nor by any cognition however small nor by love. — But however much this opinion is fortified, never is it so fortified but that pious ears shudder to hear this, that in the belly of a mouse, or in a sewer, the body of Christ should be, so long as the species subsist there.
On account of this there is another opinion, that the body of Christ in no way descends into the belly of a mouse. — Now the reason that moves these [people] is this: that Christ is not under that Sacrament except insofar as it is orderable to human use, namely to eating; but as a mouse gnaws, so also it renders [it] unfit, and thus it ceases to be the Sacrament, and the body of Christ ceases to be there, and the substance of bread returns; as Innocent says, and the authority was set forth above in the preceding distinction8, where it was asked whether the accidents nourish. And this opinion is more common and certainly more honorable and more reasonable.
1. To that, therefore, which is objected, that it is inseparably united to the species; it must be said that this is true so long as they have the character of the Sacrament and are fit for human use; but this is not [the case] when a mouse eats [them].
2. To that which is objected, that [God] detests sin more; it must be said that in a sinner there is nature and there is fault; and although the fault displeases, yet He does not hate the nature, which He made; nay, He so loves [it] that He is ready to remit the fault, if [the sinner] himself consents9; and by reason of natural fitness the sinner is more suited to receive than the mouse —
— although the mouse is not a sinner — because sin never so vitiates nor corrupts the rational nature but that it is nobler than the irrational10.
3. To that which is asked: what does it eat? the answer is twofold according to the two opinions: either that it eats the accidents, which are by a power above nature able to be converted into a substance; or that it eats the substance of the bread, which returns, as was touched on above11.
If you ask: what becomes of the body of Christ? Does it fly away? it must be said that, just as in the conversion of the bread the body of Christ does not descend locally nor is changed by any change, but by the conversion of the bread alone begins to be under those species; so by the reversion of the bread alone it ceases to be there, in such a way that no change is made in it, neither local nor any other. Let him who can grasp [it] grasp [it]12, and let him who cannot, believe, and let this suffice for him.
4. To that which is objected concerning the polluted vessel, it must be said that it is not similar; because the pollution of the vessel does not yet take away the fitness for use, and through this it does not take away its being the Sacrament, and thus it does not remove what is contained13.
I. The first opinion, here reported, St. Thomas defends together with Bl. Albert and Scotus (IV Sent. d. 9. q. 1. a. 2. subquestion 3; Summa III. q. 80. a. 3. ad 3), and Alexander of Hales, Peter of Tarentaise, and later writers commonly judge it to be the truer [opinion], so that the other ancient opinion, which was the Master's, may be said to be obsolete. — Concerning this 1st question, besides St. Thomas: Alexander of Hales, 3. p. IV. q. 11. m. 2. a. 2. § 1. — Scotus, Reportata IV Sent. d. 8. q. 3. n. 2. — Bl. Albert, here n. 38, and d. 9. a. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. unica a. 6. — Richard of Mediavilla, IV Sent. d. 9. a. 1. q. 3. — Durandus, IV Sent. d. 9. q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, IV Sent. d. 9. q. 1.
II. Also in the following (2nd) question the holy Doctor departs from the others, since he prefers the second opinion and judges the first, which seems to be now common, as also the fourth, to be less probable; yet he does not teach this with settled assertion, but according to probability; nay, above at d. 12. p. 1. a. 3. q. 1. ad 3. he rather seems to teach the first opinion. — Here too another question is touched on, namely at what time the Eucharist produces its principal effect, which is the increase of grace; concerning which there were various opinions. Above at d. 12. p. 1. a. 3. q. 1. ad 3. (cf. d. 9. a. 1. q. 2.) it is taught that eating is not complete except after the passage into the stomach has occurred, and that incorporation is joined with this. — Concerning this (2nd) question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. a. 4. § 3. — The mind of the others is clear from the solution of the preceding question and from the places where they speak of the bodily eating of the Eucharist (above d. 9.) and of the presence of Christ under the species, until these are corrupted.
---
- 1Aristot., III. Topic. c. 2. et 1, ubi docet, utilius esse melius sive magis eligendum. Cfr. Aristot., loc. cit., c. 1.Aristotle, III Topics c. 2 and 1, where he teaches that the more useful is the better, or the more to be chosen. Cf. Aristotle, loc. cit., c. 1. [p. 308, n. 1]
- 2Vide C. Nullus Missam (3.) et C. Praeter hoc (6.), ubi de schismaticis et simoniacis agitur C. 24. q. 1. — De haereticis d. 32. et C. 24. q. 1.See the canon Nullus Missam (3) and the canon Praeter hoc (6), where treatment of schismatics and simoniacs is made, C. 24. q. 1. — On heretics, dist. 32, and C. 24. q. 1. [p. 308, n. 2]
- 3Edd. motus. Inferius pro devotioris ed. 1 cum codd. R S bb devoli. Subinde pro peccatorem edd. peccatoris Missam.The editions [read] motus. Below, for devotioris edition 1 with codices R S bb [read] devoli. Then for peccatorem the editions [read] peccatoris Missam. [p. 308, n. 3]
- 4Secunda et tertia ratio insinuatur a Gratiano in C. Praeter hoc (6.), § 2. d. 32: Attamen decessores nostri Nicolaus et Gregorius a Missis sacerdotum, quos tales revera esse consideret, fideles abstinere decreverunt, ut et peccandi licentiam ceteris auferrent et huiusmodi ad dignae poenitentiae lamenta revocarent. — Pro providentiae codd. E M prudentiae.The second and third arguments are hinted at by Gratian in the canon Praeter hoc (6), § 2. dist. 32: Nevertheless our predecessors Nicholas and Gregory decreed that the faithful should abstain from the Masses of priests whom one knows truly to be such, that they might both take away from others the license of sinning and recall such men to the laments of worthy penance. — For providentiae codices E M [read] prudentiae. [p. 308, n. 4]
- 5Cfr. supra d. 8. p. I. dub. 2.Cf. above d. 8. p. I. dub. 2. [p. 308, n. 5]
- 6Cap. Vestra duxit devotio (1.), X. lib. III. tit. 2, ubi textus originalis, quem edd. sequuntur, voci fornicariis praemittit quamquam.The chapter Vestra duxit devotio (1), in the Decretals book III. tit. 2, where the original text, which the editions follow, prefixes quamquam ("although") to the word fornicariis. [p. 308, n. 6]
- 7Cfr. supra q. I. in fine corp. — Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.Cf. above q. I, at the end of the body [of the article]. — See the scholion on the 1st question of this article. [p. 308, n. 7]
- 8Cfr. supra d. 9. a. I. q. 3. in corp.Cf. above d. 9. a. 1. q. 3, in the body. [p. 308, n. 8]
- 9Edd. ab aliquo. Mox pro dum cod. K (a secunda manu) dummodo.The editions [read] ab aliquo. Soon, for dum codex K (by a second hand) [reads] dummodo. [p. 308, n. 9]
- 10August., de Quantit. animae, c. 34. n. 78: Et si quando est aliquid horum [quae Deus creavit] melius [anima humana], hoc peccato eius fit, non natura. Quo tamen non usque adeo fit deterior, ut ei pecoris anima praeferenda aut conferenda sit.Augustine, On the Greatness of the Soul, c. 34. n. 78: And if ever any of these things [which God created] is better [than the human soul], this comes about by its sin, not by its nature. Yet not so far does it become worse that the soul of a beast should be preferred or compared to it. [p. 309, n. 1]
- 11Hic in corp. et supra d. 12. p. 1. a. 2. q. 1. ad 1.Here in the body, and above d. 12. p. 1. a. 2. q. 1. ad 1. [p. 309, n. 2]
- 12Matth. 19, 12.Matt. 19:12. [p. 309, n. 3]
- 13Can. Qui bene (94.), de Consecr. d. 2. illi, ex cuius negligentia Sacramentum a mure comeditur, poenitentia 40 dierum infligitur.The canon Qui bene (94), On Consecration dist. 2: to him by whose negligence the Sacrament is eaten by a mouse, a penance of 40 days is imposed. [p. 309, n. 4]