Dist. 13, Art. 2, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 13
Quaestio II. Utrum corpus Christi descendat in ventrem hominis.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum corpus Christi descendat in ventrem hominis. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Auctoritate: de Consecratione, distinctione secunda1: « Qui residua corporis dominici, quae in sacrario relicta sunt, consumunt, non statim ad percipiendos communes cibos conveniant, ne putentur sacrae participationi commisceri »; sed hoc non diceret, nisi descenderet in ventrem: ergo etc.
2. Item, Beda ibidem2: « Si quis per voracitatem vel edacitatem eucharistiam vomuerit, quadraginta diebus poeniteat »; sed non vomitur, nisi quod traiicitur: ergo etc.
3. Item, corpus Christi coniunctum est illis speciebus, quamdiu manent sub formis suis; sed non statim transmutantur, immo descendunt in ventrem sub suis proprietatibus: ergo et corpus Christi cum eis.
4. Item, corpus Christi aut vadit in ventrem, aut in mentem; non in mentem, quia solus Deus illabitur3: ergo in ventrem.
5. Item, pro quanto dicitur corpus Christi manducari sacramentaliter? Si propter masticationem tantum: ergo si quis masticaret species et spueret, diceretur sacramentaliter manducasse; quod falsum est: ergo oportet, quod non tantum fiat masticatio, sed etiam incorporatio. Sed species sine contento si transmittuntur in ventrem, desinunt habere Sacramenti rationem: ergo propter hoc non erit manducatio sacramentalis: necesse est ergo, quod manducet corpus verum4.
6. Item, quod inconveniens est, si descendat in ventrem? Videmus enim, corpus lucis per omnia transire incoinquinatum nec aliqua refugit, nec munda nec immunda:
ergo similiter, immo multo fortius, Christi corpus gloriosum5.
Contra: 1. Matthaei decimo quinto6: Omne quod in os intrat, in ventrem vadit et in secessum emittitur; sed corpus Christi non emittitur in secessum: ergo constat, quod ab ore non vadit in ventrem.
2. Item, Ambrosius7: « Non est iste panis, qui vadit in corpus, sed panis vitae aeternae, qui animae substantiam fulcit ».
3. Item, ratione videtur: quia constat, quod corpus Christi non est cibus ventris, sed mentis8: ergo non transit in ventrem, sed in mentem.
4. Item, si transit in ventrem, vadit ad officia ventris, quae sunt digerere et distribuere et ad singulas partes transmittere, vel emittere in secessum; sed hoc falsum: ergo etc.
Conclusio. Relatis quatuor opinionibus, securior declaratur ea quae asserit, quod corpus Christi manet in stomacho sub speciebus, quamdiu hae sunt sub propria forma et habent rationem reficiendi.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in ventrem ire est dupliciter: aut quantum ad substantiam, aut quantum ad cibandi efficaciam9. Primo modo descendit aliquod corpus in ventrem, etiam si non sit cibus; secundo modo non nisi cibus. — Similiter in mentem ire est dupliciter: aut quantum ad substantiam, et sic vadit illud quod illabitur animae, et hic est solus Deus; aut quantum ad efficaciam, et sic dicitur ire in mentem quod ipsam reficit. — Si ergo loquamur quantum ad cibandi efficaciam; sic certum est, quod corpus Christi non vadit in ventrem, sed in mentem, quia caro Christi non reficit ventrem, sed mentem, sicut ostendunt quatuor rationes ultimae. — Si autem loquamur quantum ad substantiam; sic certum est, quod non vadit in mentem. Sed utrum vadat in ventrem, dubium est propter diversitatem opinionum. Unde notandum, quod quatuor fuerunt hic opiniones.
Aliqui enim dixerunt, quod non solum in ventrem, sed etiam vadit quocumque illae species deferuntur, salva illarum natura, sive in ventrem muris sive in locum immundum10. Aliqui dixerunt, quod non solum in ventrem hominis vadit, sed ibi manet, quamdiu species illae sunt ordinabiles ad refectionem. Unde dixerunt, quod in ventrem vadit et moratur, quousque refectionis operatio compleatur. Aliqui dixerunt, quod ad ventrem pervenit, quousque sint in sumtum esse11, et amplius non moratur. Aliqui dixerunt, quod solum est cum illis speciebus, quamdiu sunt cum aliquo sensu ut visu, vel gustu. Et hoc dicunt quod sensit Hugo12, qui dicit: « In visu, tactu et sapore tecum est; quamdiu sensus corporalis afficitur, praesentia corporis non aufertur; postquam autem sensus corporalis percipiendo deficit, deinceps corporalis praesentia quaerenda non est, sed spiritualis retinenda: dispensatio completa, perfectum est Sacramentum, virtus manet, Christus de ore transit ad cor; melius est, ut eat in mentem tuam quam in ventrem ».
Ratio autem diversitatis harum opinionum haec est: omnes enim in hoc consentiunt, quod tamdiu est corpus Christi in illis speciebus, quamdiu est ratio Sacramenti. Dicunt igitur primi, quod species panis consecrati tamdiu est Sacramentum, quamdiu est species panis, cum virtus consecrationis ipsam respiciat, secundum quod est panis; ideo nunquam desinit, illa proprietate salva. Et ex hoc oritur positio prima. — Alii vero dicunt, quod ratio Sacramenti tantum salvatur, quamdiu species habilis est ad refectionem humanam; ideo enim instituta est et ad hoc ordinatur, et hoc habet, quando est extra et in stomacho, quia reficit. Et ex hoc oritur secunda positio. — Tertii dicunt, quod tamdiu salvatur, quousque recipiatur in usum manducationis; et quando manducatio completa est, iam Sacramentum non est, sed fuit. Et ex hoc habet ortum tertia positio. — Alii dicunt, quod quia Sacramentum est signum, et signum est quod se offert sensibus, quod tamdiu species est Sacramentum, quamdiu nata est sentiri ab aliquo sensu; et ideo, cum deficit perceptio sensuum, deficit ratio Sacramenti et praesentia corporalis.
Quid autem in tanta diversitate tenendum est, difficile est iudicare. Videtur tamen prima opinio,
quae dicit, quod defertur, quocumque species deferantur, nimis ampla; quia tunc et mus in ventrem traiiceret, et in cloacam descenderet; quod aures piae abhorrent; et si diceremus, haeretici et infideles deriderent nos et irriderent. — Similiter quarta opinio, quae dicit, quod deficit, deficiente sensu illarum specierum, videtur esse nimis arcta. Nunquam enim secundum hoc posset dici, corpus Christi sumi vere, cum non dicatur sumtus esse cibus, qui non percipitur nec pervenit usque ad stomachum. Unde nec verbum Hugonis intelligendum est quantum ad actum sentiendi, sed quantum ad idoneitatem. Et praeterea, sensus non tantum est gustu linguae, sed etiam sentit homo descensum cibi, quousque quiescat in stomacho.
De duabus positionibus mediis, quae sit verior, non est facile iudicare, cum utraque multum sit probabilis. Probabile enim est, quod sumtione completa et manducatione, cum iam Sacramentum habuit finem suum, propter quem erat, desinit esse Sacramentum: et hoc dicit Hugo de sancto Victore videtur hoc sensisse. Dicit enim sic: « Postquam manducasti corporalem praesentiam Christi quaeris, in caelo quaere, ibi est ad dexteram Patris »; et hoc videtur satis probabile. Quamdiu enim Christus est sub speciebus illis, est adorandus; sed stultus esset qui adoraret Christum in ventre manducantis.
Nihilominus tamen alia videtur securior et auctoritatibus magis concordare, quod corpus Christi cum illis speciebus descendit ad stomachum et sub illis est, quamdiu illae sunt sub propria forma et habent rationem reficiendi, quia secundum ordinationem ad refectionem humanam Sacramentum erant; unde concedunt, quod corpus Domini est in stomacho, quia ibi sunt species ut cibus; et ideo, si evomuntur species, evomitur eucharistia, et si species possit ab aliis discerni, sumenda esset. Si autem species illae transeant stomachum indigestae per aliquam infirmitatem, tunc sunt extra proprietatem refectionis; et ideo, si vadunt in secessum, non est ibi corpus Domini. — Utrum autem hoc sit verum, nescio; tamen securum mihi videtur, quod si quis evomat species perceptibiles, magna reverentia est exhibenda; et magna diligentia adhibenda, ne quis evomat; et periculum est ei dare, de quo praesumeretur, quod non possit tenere.
Secundum hanc positionem satis patet responsio ad obiecta, exceptis his quae de commixtione et vomitu obiiciuntur, ad quae potest responderi: primum, quia decretum non dicit, quod commisceantur, sed commisceri putentur. Secundo vero, quod dicit Beda, quod aliquis vomit, hoc dictum est et poena imposita, non nisi quia species illae fuerunt contentivae dominici corporis; et ideo in magna reverentia sunt habendae, maxime quia fuerunt sanctissimis symbolis consecratae; et ideo comburuntur, et cinis debita reverentia reservatur. Ille autem, qui vomit, graviter punitur, quia, quantum in se est, vomit corpus Christi; et sic de illo dicendum esset, qui proiiceret in cloacam. Poena autem imponenda evomentibus determinatur in Consecratione, distinctione secunda.
La. Pro hac quaestione scholion proprium non habetur; vide scholion ad praecedentem quaestionem (a. 2, q. 1), in quo Art. II totus pertractatur. Scholion enim in pag. 309 impressum (« Opinionem 1. hic relatam… ») de hac quoque quaestione secunda agit, sed quaestioni primae adscribitur.
En. This question has no scholion of its own; see the scholion to the preceding question (a. 2, q. 1), in which the whole of Article II is treated. For the scholion printed on p. 309 ("Opinionem 1, here related…") also treats of this second question, but is assigned to the first question.
---
Question II. Whether the body of Christ descends into the belly of a man.
Secondly, it is asked whether the body of Christ descends into the belly of a man. And that it does, it seems:
1. By authority: in On the Consecration, distinction two1: "Let those who consume the remains of the Lord's body, which are left in the sacristy, not at once come together to receive common foods, lest they be thought to be mingled with the sacred participation"; but he would not say this unless it descended into the belly: therefore, etc.
2. Likewise, Bede in the same place2: "If anyone through gluttony or greed vomit up the Eucharist, let him do penance forty days"; but nothing is vomited unless it is swallowed down: therefore, etc.
3. Likewise, the body of Christ is conjoined to those species, as long as they remain under their forms; but they are not transmuted at once, rather they descend into the belly under their own properties: therefore the body of Christ also [descends] with them.
4. Likewise, the body of Christ either goes into the belly, or into the mind; not into the mind, because God alone enters in3: therefore into the belly.
5. Likewise, in what sense is the body of Christ said to be eaten sacramentally? If on account of mastication only: then if anyone should chew the species and spit them out, he would be said to have eaten sacramentally; which is false: therefore it is necessary that not only mastication take place, but also incorporation. But if the species without their content are passed into the belly, they cease to have the character of the Sacrament: therefore on this account there will be no sacramental eating: it is necessary, therefore, that one eat the true body4.
6. Likewise, what unfitting [thing] is there, if it should descend into the belly? For we see that the body of light passes through all things unstained, and shrinks from nothing, neither clean nor unclean:
therefore likewise, indeed much more strongly, the glorious body of Christ5.
On the contrary: 1. Matthew the fifteenth6: Everything that enters the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the privy; but the body of Christ is not cast out into the privy: therefore it is established that from the mouth it does not go into the belly.
2. Likewise, Ambrose7: "This bread is not that which goes into the body, but the bread of eternal life, which sustains the substance of the soul."
3. Likewise, by reason it seems so: because it is established that the body of Christ is not the food of the belly, but of the mind8: therefore it does not pass into the belly, but into the mind.
4. Likewise, if it passes into the belly, it goes to the offices of the belly, which are to digest and distribute and to transmit to the several parts, or to cast out into the privy; but this is false: therefore, etc.
Conclusion. Of the four opinions related, the safer one is declared to be that which asserts that the body of Christ remains in the stomach under the species, as long as these are under their own form and have the character of refreshing.
I respond: It must be said that to go into the belly is twofold: either as to substance, or as to the efficacy of feeding9. In the first way some body descends into the belly, even if it is not food; in the second way only food [does]. — Likewise to go into the mind is twofold: either as to substance, and thus there goes that which enters into the soul, and this is God alone; or as to efficacy, and thus that is said to go into the mind which refreshes it. — If therefore we speak as to the efficacy of feeding; thus it is certain that the body of Christ does not go into the belly, but into the mind, because the flesh of Christ does not refresh the belly, but the mind, as the last four reasons show. — But if we speak as to substance; thus it is certain that it does not go into the mind. But whether it goes into the belly is doubtful on account of the diversity of opinions. Whence it is to be noted that there were four opinions here.
For some said that [it goes] not only into the belly, but also wherever those species are carried, their nature being preserved, whether into the belly of a mouse or into an unclean place10. Some said that it not only goes into the belly of a man, but remains there, as long as those species are ordainable to refreshment. Whence they said that it goes into the belly and tarries until the operation of refreshment be completed. Some said that it reaches the belly, as long as they are in the state of being consumed11, and tarries no longer. Some said that it is with those species only as long as they are [perceptible] with some sense, as sight, or taste. And they say that Hugh held this12, who says: "In sight, touch, and savor it is with you; as long as the bodily sense is affected, the presence of the body is not taken away; but after the bodily sense fails in perceiving, thenceforth the bodily presence is not to be sought, but the spiritual [presence] to be retained: the dispensation completed, the Sacrament is perfect, the power remains, Christ passes from the mouth to the heart; it is better that he go into your mind than into your belly."
Now the reason for the diversity of these opinions is this: for all agree in this, that the body of Christ is in those species as long as there is the character of the Sacrament. The first, therefore, say that the species of the consecrated bread is the Sacrament as long as it is the species of bread, since the power of the consecration regards it inasmuch as it is bread; therefore it never ceases, that property being preserved. And from this arises the first position. — But others say that the character of the Sacrament is preserved only as long as the species is fit for human refreshment; for it was instituted and ordained to this, and has this when it is outside and in the stomach, because it refreshes. And from this arises the second position. — The third say that it is preserved as long as it is received into the use of eating; and when the eating is completed, now it is not the Sacrament, but was. And from this the third position has its origin. — Others say that because the Sacrament is a sign, and a sign is what offers itself to the senses, the species is the Sacrament as long as it is of a nature to be perceived by some sense; and therefore, when the perception of the senses fails, the character of the Sacrament and the bodily presence fail.
But what is to be held amid so great a diversity is difficult to judge. Nevertheless the first opinion,
which says that it is carried wherever the species are carried, seems too broad; because then it would also pass into the belly of a mouse, and descend into the sewer; which pious ears abhor; and if we should say [so], heretics and unbelievers would deride and mock us. — Likewise the fourth opinion, which says that it fails when the sense-perception of those species fails, seems to be too narrow. For according to this it could never be said that the body of Christ is truly received, since that food is not said to be received which is not perceived nor reaches the stomach. Whence neither is the saying of Hugh to be understood as to the act of perceiving, but as to fitness. And besides, sense is not only by the taste of the tongue, but a man also perceives the descent of food, until it comes to rest in the stomach.
Of the two middle positions, which is the truer, it is not easy to judge, since each is very probable. For it is probable that, the receiving and eating being completed, when now the Sacrament has had its end, for which it was, it ceases to be the Sacrament: and this Hugh of St. Victor seems to have held. For he says thus: "After you have eaten, [if] you seek the bodily presence of Christ, seek it in heaven, there it is at the right hand of the Father"; and this seems probable enough. For as long as Christ is under those species, he is to be adored; but he would be foolish who should adore Christ in the belly of the one eating.
Nevertheless another [position] seems safer and to agree more with the authorities, [namely] that the body of Christ with those species descends to the stomach and is under them, as long as they are under their own form and have the character of refreshing, because according to their ordination to human refreshment they were the Sacrament; whence they grant that the body of the Lord is in the stomach, because there the species are as food; and therefore, if the species are vomited up, the Eucharist is vomited up, and if the species could be discerned by others, they would have to be received. But if those species pass through the stomach undigested through some infirmity, then they are outside the property of refreshment; and therefore, if they go into the privy, the body of the Lord is not there. — But whether this be true, I know not; nevertheless it seems safe to me that if anyone should vomit up perceptible species, great reverence is to be shown; and great diligence employed, lest anyone vomit; and it is dangerous to give [it] to one of whom it is presumed that he cannot keep [it down].
According to this position the response to the objections is plain enough, except for those which are objected concerning the mingling and the vomiting, to which it can be answered: to the first, that the decree does not say that they are mingled, but are thought to be mingled. But to the second, that what Bede says, that someone vomits, this is said and the penalty imposed only because those species were containers of the Lord's body; and therefore they are to be held in great reverence, especially because they were consecrated with the most holy symbols; and therefore they are burned, and the ash is reserved with due reverence. But he who vomits is gravely punished, because, as far as in him lies, he vomits the body of Christ; and so it would have to be said of him who should cast [it] into the sewer. The penalty to be imposed on those who vomit is determined in On the Consecration, distinction two.
La. Pro hac quaestione scholion proprium non habetur; vide scholion ad praecedentem quaestionem (a. 2, q. 1), in quo Art. II totus pertractatur. Scholion enim in pag. 309 impressum (« Opinionem 1. hic relatam… ») de hac quoque quaestione secunda agit, sed quaestioni primae adscribitur.
En. This question has no scholion of its own; see the scholion to the preceding question (a. 2, q. 1), in which the whole of Article II is treated. For the scholion printed on p. 309 ("Opinionem 1, here related…") also treats of this second question, but is assigned to the first question.
---
- 1Can. Qui bene (94.), de Consecrat. d. 2, ex cuius negligentia Sacramentum a mure comeditur, poenitentia 40 dierum indicitur.The canon Qui bene (94.), On the Consecration d. 2, from whose negligence the Sacrament is eaten by a mouse, a penance of 40 days is enjoined.
- 2Can. Si per ebrietatem vel voracitatem eucharistiam (28.). Habetur in libro de Remediis peccatorum (inter opera dubia Bedae), c. de Ebrietate.The canon Si per ebrietatem vel voracitatem eucharistiam (28.). It is found in the book On the Remedies of Sins (among the doubtful works of Bede), chapter On Drunkenness.
- 3Vide supra pag. 273, nota 7.See above p. 273, note 7.
- 4Vide supra pag. 287, nota 4, et tom. III. pag. 643, nota 4. — De maiori cfr. supra pag. 275, nota 7. — Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. supplet menti.See above p. 287, note 4, and tome III, p. 643, note 4. — On the major [premise] cf. above p. 275, note 7. — The Vatican [edition] with one or two codices supplies menti.
- 5Cfr. supra d. 9. a. 1. q. 3. — Edd. manducetur corpus Christi verum.Cf. above d. 9, a. 1, q. 3. — The editions [read] manducetur corpus Christi verum ("let the true body of Christ be eaten").
- 6Vers. 17.Verse 17. [Matt. 15:17.]
- 7Libr. V. de Sacram. c. 4. n. 24. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XII. c. 4.Book V On the Sacraments c. 4, n. 24. Cf. above [in] the text of the Master, d. XII. c. 4.
- 8Similitudine lucis utitur etiam respectu huius Sacramenti Augustinus, in Ioan. Evang. tr. 5. n. 15.Augustine too uses the likeness of light with respect to this Sacrament, On the Gospel of John, tractate 5, n. 15.
- 9Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. IX. c. 2. verba Gregorio tributa. — Vide quaest. praeced. — Inferius post sed edd. supplent etiam.Cf. above [in] the text of the Master, d. IX. c. 2, the words attributed to Gregory. — See the preceding question. — Below, after sed, the editions supply etiam.
- 10Scilicet quousque species sumtae (manducatae) sint, sive ut Vat. (secuta Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. II. m. 2. a. 1. § 3.) legit quousque sumtio compleatur; cfr. inferius iudicium Bonav. de hac opinione. Ed. I quousque incipiant consumi. Eadem ed. I cum non paucis codd. perveniunt pro pervenit (corpus Christi), et mox cum fere omnibus codd. morantur pro moratur. Alex. Hal., loc. cit., habet: Aliqui dixerunt, quod ad ventrem pervenit et manet ibi, usquequo sumtio completa sit, et amplius non moratur.That is, as long as the species are received (eaten), or, as the Vatican [edition] (following Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV, q. II, m. 2, a. 1, § 3) reads, quousque sumtio compleatur ("until the receiving be completed"); cf. below Bonaventure's judgment on this opinion. Edition I [reads] quousque incipiant consumi ("until they begin to be consumed"). The same edition I, with not a few codices, [reads] perveniunt for pervenit (the body of Christ), and presently, with almost all the codices, morantur for moratur.
- 11Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 13: In visu, in tactu, in sapore corporaliter tecum est. Quamdiu sensus corporaliter afficitur... sensus corporalis in percipiendo... Melius est tibi, ut eat etc. — Cod. O deficit, plurimi codd. deserit. Inferius pro tantum edd. tamdiu. — Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 3. verba Augustini.Book II On the Sacraments p. VIII, c. 13: "In sight, in touch, in savor it is bodily with you. As long as sense is bodily affected... the bodily sense in perceiving... It is better for you that it go," etc. — Codex O [reads] deficit, very many codices deserit. Below, for tantum the editions [read] tamdiu. — See above [in] the text of the Master, d. I. c. 3, the words of Augustine.
- 12Hugo de S. Victore, Libr. II. de Sacram. (eadem locus quo supra). Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. IX. c. 1, et infra in solutione huius quaestionis ubi idem Hugo iterum allegatur.Hugh of St. Victor, Book II On the Sacraments (the same place as above). Cf. above [in] the text of the Master, d. IX. c. 1, and below in the solution of this question where the same Hugh is again cited.