Dist. 8, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 8
Articulus I. De forma verbi in Sacramento eucharistiae.
Quaestio I. De forma verbi super panem.
Quantum ergo ad formam panis, quae est: Hoc est corpus meum, quaeritur primo quantum ad subiectum, scilicet quoad pronomen.
1. Cum enim hoc sit pronomen et non relativum, est demonstrativum, quia aliter esset casuale1, ut dicit Priscianus2: si igitur demonstrat, aut ad intellectum, aut ad sensum. Si ad intellectum, tunc quaero: quid? Non potest dici nisi corpus Christi verum: ergo sensus est: corpus meum est corpus meum; hoc nihil videtur, quia nullam rationem
operandi dicit. Si ad sensum: ergo sensus est: panis est corpus meum; sed hoc simpliciter falsum: ergo neutro modo potest accipi.
2. Item, pronomen importat demonstrationem, hoc non ut conceptam3, sed ut exercitam; sed demonstratio non exercetur nisi circa illud quod actu est tempore prolationis: ergo si, cum profertur pronomen, non est ibi nisi panis; demonstratur ergo panis: ergo idem quod prius.
3. Item, «regula est, quod terminus supponens verbo de praesenti, non habenti vim ampliandi, supponit pro eo quod actu est»4; sed actu non est ibi nisi panis: ergo supponit pro pane. Sed illi non convenit praedicatum: ergo locutio falsa.
Quaeritur etiam de compositione5, scilicet de hoc verbo est.
4. Et cum ista forma sit forma operativa, videtur, quod deberet ibi poni verbum operativum; sed hoc verbum est verbum apracticon, id est extra operationem: ergo nullo modo deberet ibi poni.
5. Item, hoc verbo Christus confecit, et sacerdos intendit conficere, sicut Deus Verbo increato creavit: ergo si ad prolationem huius verbi statim fit, verbum illud est imperiosum: ergo videtur potius utendum verbo imperativo, ut diceretur sic: fiat corpus meum, sicut in creatione non dicitur fit, sed fiat lux6.
6. Item, subiectum et praedicatum7 dicunt formas incompossibiles; sed verbum substantivum praesentis temporis dicit simultatem formarum praedicati et subiecti: ergo non debet dici de praesenti hoc est, sed hoc erit.
Quaeritur etiam de hoc praedicato corpus meum.
7. Videtur enim, quod deberet magis dici caro, quia caro magis est conveniens cibationi, unde Ioannis sexto8: Caro mea vere est cibus.
8. Item, si ista verba proferuntur a conficiente, cum conficiens loquatur de Christo ut de tertia persona, non debet dici meum, sed Christi. — Si dicas, quod Christus vim dedit his verbis, sicut vim dedit in nomine suo daemonia expellere, cum dixit: In nomine meo daemonia eicient Marci ultimo9; et tamen eicientes dicebant: In nomine Christi.
9. Item, cum de forma aliorum Sacramentorum sint actus pertinentes ad intentionem et usum sive ad consecrantem10: ergo videtur, quod illud quod antecedit: Accipite et comedite, et hoc quod sequitur: In mei memoriam facietis, sit de forma.
Quaeritur ergo, quae sit forma praecise; et quare non ponatur in verbo exprimente actum ministri.
Conclusio
Conveniens est forma, qua consecratur panis.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod circa hoc multiplex fuit opinio.
Quidam enim dicunt, quod verba illa dicit sacerdos non ut sua, sed ut Christi, unde materialiter tenentur11; nec tunc est quaerere, quid ibi demonstretur per pronomen, vel quid copuletur per verbum12. — Sed hoc non sufficit dicere: primo quidem, quia, etsi verba in persona alterius proferantur, non propter hoc omnino materialiter tenentur, sed significative, cum recitentur in eo sensu, in quo ille dixit. Praeterea, similiter possumus quaerere, secundum quod a Christo prolata sunt13.
Alii dicunt, quod verba tenentur significative; sed oratio non habet veritatem pro tempore, in quo
profertur, sed pro tempore, in quo prolata est, ut haec oratio: ego bibo, non est vera pro tempore prolationis, sed pro tempore sibi coniuncto. — Sed hic sermo illud non solvit: quia aut demonstratur ibi panis, aut corpus Christi. Si panis, nullo tempore est oratio vera; si Christi corpus, est omni tempore vera14.
Alii dicunt, quod tenetur significative oratio, et vera est etiam pro tempore, in quo profertur; sed non demonstratur ibi aliquid ad sensum, sed ad intellectum, ad intellectum, inquam, non sicut simile in simili, ut cum dicitur: haec herba crescit in horto meo, sed sicut signatum in signo, ut sit sensus: Hoc, id est signatum per hoc15, est corpus meum. Et haec significatio orationis vera est, etiam si nihil fieret; sed rursus, quia significationi verae addita est ex institutione divina virtus efficacissima, ulterius oratio illa et ex Domini institutione et ex sacerdotis intentione est conversiva, ut sit sensus: significatum per hoc quod est convertendum16 in corpus meum, est corpus meum. — Et haec opinio probabilior est praedictis; adhuc tamen illud non plene satisfacit. Si enim, ut dicit Augustinus17, verbum debet accedere ad elementum, ut fiat Sacramentum; elementum non est ibi significatum, sed magis illud quod in corpus convertitur: non demonstratur ergo corpus Christi, sed substantia panis sub accidentibus, quae possunt oculis conspici. Et hoc quidem verum est, maxime cum intentio conficientis super panem feratur, ut convertatur in corpus, et illud demonstrat, super quod fertur sua intentio.
Et propterea notandum, quod ista oratio singularis est inter omnes orationes; aliae enim sunt indicativae veritatis sive existentiae, haec autem id ipsum quod figurat18 facit. Unde est verbum operativum, et operativum non operatione successiva, sed instantanea; et operativum non alicuius rei novae vel non existentis, sed terminus eius est ens actu completum et non mutatum; et ad illud quidem terminatur, ut est alterius signum, id est corporis Christi mystici; et hoc totum facit virtute Verbi increati, adiuncta ministro circa materiam nihil agenti.
Ex his sex conditionibus patet ratio omnium dictorum in hac forma, si quis inspiciat. Quia enim sermo conversivus et transitivus sive ad transsubstantiationem19 ordinatus est operativus; et operatio est circa substantiam panis: ideo pronomen demonstrat panis substantiam sub accidentibus, quae oculis conspici possunt, et tangitur illud quod convertitur, per subiectum, sicut illud in quod, per praedicatum. — Quia vero terminus operationis est actu ens, non innovatum: ideo debet poni ibi verbum essendi, non fiendi, ut significetur conversio esse sine mutatione termini, scilicet in eo quod est. — Quia subito, ideo simul est fieri et factum esse, ideo praesens verbum instantaneum et non futurum; et tale est praesens huius verbi est20, ideo melius dicitur est quam erit. — Quia vero operatio terminatur ad corpus Christi verum ut signum mystici21, in quo est diversitas operationum: ideo dicitur corpus, non caro, quia corpus commune est ad totum heterogeneum et homogeneum, caro autem dicit homogeneum. — Quia vero hoc operatur virtute Verbi increati coniuncta et ut coniuncta, ideo dicit meum; loquitur enim sacerdos in persona Christi: ideo pro Christo dicit meum. — Quia vero minister nihil operatur circa materiam nec immutat: ideo nihil plus est de forma; etenim, si minister non tangat nec frangat, dum tamen intendat et verba dicat, confectum est; non sic est in baptismo.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ex his patent omnia obiecta, hoc solo excepto, scilicet de veritate locutionis. Quomodo enim est locutio vera, si demonstratur substantia panis, cum haec sit semper falsa: panis est corpus Christi, cum sint formae incompossibiles? Et si tu dicas, quod hoc verbum est non dicit ibi inhaerentiam, sed potius conversionem; tunc ergo secundum hoc potius competeret verbum imperativum.
Et propterea notandum, quod sicut in Verbo aeterno, Filio Dei, Domino nostro Iesu Christo, est
veritas et omnipotentia; sic in verbo suo, ab ipso ore Christi prolato, est veritas et efficacia, ut tale verbum Sacramentis novae legis competat; ideo debuit ita dicere verbum enuntiativum veritatis, sicut est ipsa veritas, ac per hoc indicativum. Et quia non esset verum simplici enuntiatione; ut non esset falsus22, iunxit verbo efficaciam ore suo. — Et quia mandavit aliis facere et dicere; et ipse non iubet, aliquem esse falsum: ideo in ore eorum, quibus dedit mandatum, dedit verbo efficaciam. Et ideo hoc verbum est in hac oratione non identitatem nec simultatem significat, sed hoc esse corpus, hoc est, ad huius verbi prolationem hoc totum transire in corpus. Unde oratio ista in ore alterius quam in ore sacerdotis falsa est, quia non convertit neque transsubstantiat hoc in illud; nec vera est per identitatem. — Et hic sensus, quamvis sit huic orationi proprius, et similiter formae sanguinis; tamen non est alienus a ratione, pensatis conditionibus superius assignatis.
Ex quibus alia obiecta patent. Nec videatur inconveniens dicere, quod hoc verbum est non identitatem dicit, sed potius conversionem in hac oratione, quae non tantum est significativa, sed etiam operativa. Magis tamen debuit poni verbum essendi quam operandi, quia magis competebat formae, ut simul esset efficacia cum veritatis enuntiatione, simul etiam notaretur termini immutabilitas cum conversione.
I. Circa hunc articulum iuvat tria praenotare.
1. Consecrationem panis fieri quatuor verbis formae in Missali positae (exclusa particula enim), omnino post Concil. II. Florent. tenendum est, cum etiam Concil. Trident. (Sess. XIII. c. 3.) doceat, corpus Christi sub specie panis et sanguinem sub specie vini existere «vi verborum», scilicet sub specie panis vi verborum: Hoc est corpus meum. Reiiciendus igitur est (propter varias novatorum saec. XVI. assertiones) etiam error, inter Graecos schismaticos propagatus, quod oratio post consecrationem, quam vocant Ἐπίκλησιν, vel sola, vel simul cum praedicta forma vim habeat consecratoriam. Nec a plerisque probabilis esse censetur opinio Scoti (hic q. 2. n. 1. s.), quod fortasse (nam hoc non asserit determinate) verba: Qui pridie quam pateretur etc., ad validam consecrationem requirantur, non quidem ut consecratoria, sed propter hanc rationem, ut sacerdos apte loqui possit in persona Christi, sicut requiritur intentio. — De verbis formae in Scriptura relatis cfr. hic dub. 1. 2.
2. Etiam opinio plurium auctorum, ut Innocentii III. et Praepositivi (cfr. pag. 190, nota 11.), quod sacerdos proferat formam tantum recitative (materialiter), non assertive (significative), cum Ss. Bonav., Thoma Scotoque nunc communiter non probatur (est opinio 1. in corp. relata), sed tenetur, verba proferenda esse recitative simul et assertive sive significative. Et sic vera sunt in rigore sermonis et omnimode congruentia, quamvis corpus Christi non sit sub speciebus nisi in ultimo instanti prolationis.
3. De modo autem probandi, locutionem esse veram et optime congruentem, et speciatim de significatione pronominis hoc, ortae sunt diversae sententiae hic allatae. Res non spectat ad fidem, in qua omnes illae opiniones conveniunt, sed potius, ut etiam observat Scotus, ad logicam et grammaticam. Quia autem, ut bene hic dicit S. Doctor, «ista oratio singularis est inter omnes orationes», et regulae communes plene ad eam explicandum non sufficiunt; non est mirum, quod diversae viae ad eundem finem tentatae sint et probabiliter iniri possint. Tamen opiniones 1. et 2. hic relatae etiam a S. Thoma aliisque posterioribus communiter reiiciuntur. Tertiam opinionem S. Thomas accuratius explicat et approbat. Vult enim, pronomen hoc, substantive sumtum, demonstrare nec substantiam panis nec corpus Christi nec speciem panis, sed indeterminate et in generali substantiam contentam sub illis speciebus. — S. Bonaventura non negat, hanc opinionem esse probabilem, sed putat, aliam opinionem, quam ingeniose explicat, magis satisfacere; etiam Richard. a Med. et Thom. ab Argentina pluribus argumentis praedictam opinionem S. Thomae evertere conantur.
II. Ut perspiciatur via ac ratio S. Bonaventurae ad hanc difficultatem solvendam, quae valde probabilis est, licet sit a pluribus male intellecta, plura supponenda et observanda sunt.
1. In hoc differt propositio speculativa a practica, quod illa supponit existentiam rei significatae, haec vero, cum ordinata sit ad aliquid efficiendum, significando facit vel indicat quod fit: unde, ut talis locutio sit vera, sufficit, ut sit vera in consignificato ultimo instanti prolationis.
2. Locutio consecrationis est practica et operativa virtute divina, ita ut non solum significet, sed etiam efficiat quod significat; unde verba a sacerdote in persona Christi prolata continent simul summam veritatem et summam efficaciam. Hinc arguitur, quod cum verba illa simul habeant rationem causae, ipsa significatio sub hac ratione praecedere debet saltem natura prius terminum productum.
3. Cum transsubstantiatio fiat in instanti, ideo simul tempore est ibi fieri et factum esse; unde ista propositio, cum vere indicet et efficaciter transsubstantiando panem in corpus Christi, operetur, significat, hoc fieri simul et esse in instanti, quo producit suum effectum.
4. Operatio transsubstantiationis versatur circa substantiam panis. Quatenus igitur illa locutio est operativa et conversiva respicit substantiam panis. Unde concludit S. Bonaventura, pronomen hoc (sive subiectum) indicare et demonstrare substantiam panis sub accidentibus sive speciebus sensibilibus, sed ut convertendam in id quod praedicatum dicit. Cum autem locutio sit non tantum significativa, sed etiam operativa, et cum operetur in ultimo instanti prolationis, in quo simul est fieri et factum esse; enuntiatio veritatem dicit operando quod exprimit, et exprimendo quod operatur. Hinc coincidunt in hac singulari locutione veritas et operatio, ita ut veritas in significando dependeat ab eiusdem efficacia, et efficacia in operando a veritate in significando. — Ita S. Bonaventura suo modo explicat antiquam opinionem multorum Scholasticorum, quod demonstrativum hoc dicatur partim ad sensum, partim ad intellectum, quia scilicet, per sensibile signum, quod est panis convertendus in signatum est intelligibilis demonstratio signati.
Eandem sententiam antiquam recipiunt etiam Alex. Hal., B. Albert., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med. Sed Richard. alio modo eam explicat, dum alii praedicti satis faveant expositioni S. Bonaventurae. Contra Richardum a Med. arguit Scot. (hic q. 2. n. 12. seq.), qui tandem, multis recensitis solutionibus, in re principali convenit cum S. Thoma; in hoc autem concordat cum S. Bonav., quod verba consecrationis vim habeant operativam et conversivam, praecise quatenus significativa, non quatenus vera, licet sint vera in fine prolationis; sive aliis verbis, quod sint causa conversionis ratione significationis, non vero ratione veritatis, cum natura prius intelligatur conversio, quam intelligatur oratio veritatem habere.
De hac 1. quaestione praeter locos citt.: Alex. Hal., S. P. IV. q. 10. m. 4. a. 2. § 1. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3. 4; S. III. q. 78. a. 1. 2. 5. — B. Albert., a. 6. Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.
[Pars III scholii — «In 2. quaestione agitur de forma consecrationis calicis» — ad quaestionem sequentem (a1-q2) pertinet, ibique redditur.]
---
Article I. On the form of the word in the Sacrament of the eucharist.
Question I. On the form of the word over the bread.
As regards, then, the form over the bread, which is: This is my body, the first inquiry concerns the subject, namely the pronoun.
1. For since this is a pronoun and not a relative, it is demonstrative, because otherwise it would be a casual word1, as Priscian says2: if therefore it demonstrates, it does so either to the intellect or to the sense. If to the intellect, then I ask: what? Nothing can be said except the true body of Christ: therefore the sense is, "my body is my body"; but this seems to be nothing, because it states no account
of operating. If to the sense: then the sense is, "the bread is my body"; but this is simply false: therefore it can be taken in neither way.
2. Likewise, a pronoun conveys a demonstration, this not as conceived3 but as exercised; but a demonstration is not exercised except concerning that which actually is at the time of utterance: therefore if, when the pronoun is uttered, there is nothing there but bread; bread therefore is demonstrated: therefore the same as before.
3. Likewise, «the rule is that a term suppositing with a present-tense verb that has no power of ampliation supposits for that which actually is»4; but actually there is nothing there but bread: therefore it supposits for bread. But the predicate does not belong to it: therefore the locution is false.
There is also an inquiry concerning the composition5, namely concerning this verb is.
4. And since that form is an operative form, it seems that an operative verb ought to be placed there; but this verb is a non-practical verb (apracticon), that is, outside operation: therefore it ought in no way to be placed there.
5. Likewise, by this word Christ confected, and the priest intends to confect, just as God created by the uncreated Word: therefore if at the utterance of this word it is done at once, that word is imperious: therefore it seems that an imperative verb should rather be used, so that it would be said thus, "let my body come to be," just as in creation it is not said it is made, but let there be light6.
6. Likewise, subject and predicate7 state incompossible forms; but the substantive verb of present tense states a simultaneity of the forms of predicate and subject: therefore it ought not to be said in the present this is, but this will be.
There is also an inquiry concerning this predicate, my body.
7. For it seems that it ought rather to be said flesh, because flesh is more fitting to feeding, whence in the sixth chapter of John8: My flesh is truly food.
8. Likewise, if those words are uttered by the one confecting, since the one confecting speaks of Christ as of a third person, it ought not to be said my (meum), but Christ's. — Should you say that Christ gave power to these words, just as he gave power in his name to expel demons, when he said: In my name they shall cast out demons, in the last chapter of Mark9; and yet those casting them out said: In the name of Christ.
9. Likewise, since concerning the form of the other Sacraments there are acts pertaining to the intention and use, or to the one consecrating10: therefore it seems that what precedes, Take and eat, and what follows, Do this in remembrance of me, belongs to the form.
It is asked, therefore, what precisely the form is; and why it is not placed in a word expressing the act of the minister.
Conclusion
Fitting is the form by which the bread is consecrated.
I respond: It must be said that concerning this there has been a manifold opinion.
For some say that the priest speaks those words not as his own but as Christ's, whence they are held materially11; nor then is there any need to ask what is demonstrated there by the pronoun, or what is copulated by the verb12. — But it is not enough to say this: first indeed, because, even though the words are uttered in the person of another, not on that account are they held wholly materially, but significatively, since they are recited in that sense in which he spoke. Moreover, we can likewise inquire according as they were uttered by Christ13.
Others say that the words are held significatively; but the locution does not have truth for the time in which
it is uttered, but for the time in which it was uttered, as this locution: I drink, is not true for the time of utterance, but for the time conjoined to it. — But this discourse does not solve it: because either bread is demonstrated there, or the body of Christ. If bread, the locution is true at no time; if the body of Christ, it is true at every time14.
Others say that the locution is held significatively, and is true even for the time in which it is uttered; but nothing is demonstrated there to the sense, but to the intellect — to the intellect, I say, not as like in like, as when it is said, this herb grows in my garden, but as the signified in the sign, so that the sense is: This, that is, what is signified through this15, is my body. And this signification of the locution is true, even if nothing were to come about; but again, because to the true signification there has been added by divine institution a most efficacious power, further that locution, both from the Lord's institution and from the priest's intention, is conversive, so that the sense is: what is signified through that which is to be converted16 into my body is my body. — And this opinion is more probable than the foregoing; yet still it does not fully satisfy. For if, as Augustine says17, the word must come to the element so that the Sacrament may be made; the element is not signified there, but rather that which is converted into the body: the body of Christ therefore is not demonstrated, but the substance of bread under the accidents, which can be beheld by the eyes. And this indeed is true, especially since the intention of the one confecting is borne upon the bread, that it may be converted into the body, and demonstrates that upon which his intention is borne.
And therefore it must be noted that this locution is singular among all locutions; for others are indicative of truth or existence, but this one does the very thing that it figures18. Hence it is an operative word, and operative not by a successive operation, but by an instantaneous one; and operative not of some new or non-existent thing, but its term is a being actually complete and not changed; and it is indeed terminated at it as it is the sign of another, that is, of the mystical body of Christ; and it does all this by the power of the uncreated Word, with the minister joined to it, doing nothing about the matter.
From these six conditions the reason of all that is said in this form is evident, if one looks closely. For because the discourse, conversive and transitive or ordered to transubstantiation19, is operative; and the operation is about the substance of bread: therefore the pronoun demonstrates the substance of bread under the accidents, which can be beheld by the eyes, and that which is converted is touched, through the subject, as that into which, through the predicate. — But because the term of the operation is an actual being, not innovated: therefore the verb of being, not of coming-to-be, must be placed there, so that it may be signified that the conversion is without change of the term, namely in that which is. — Because it is sudden, therefore the coming-to-be and the having-been-made are simultaneous, therefore the present verb is instantaneous and not future; and such is the present of this verb is20, therefore it is better said is than will be. — But because the operation is terminated at the true body of Christ as the sign of the mystical21, in which there is a diversity of operations: therefore body is said, not flesh, because "body" is common to the whole heterogeneous and homogeneous, whereas "flesh" states the homogeneous. — But because this is operated by the power of the uncreated Word as joined and inasmuch as joined, therefore it says my; for the priest speaks in the person of Christ: therefore for Christ he says my. — But because the minister operates nothing about the matter nor changes it: therefore there is nothing more belonging to the form; for indeed, if the minister neither touch nor break, provided that he intend and say the words, it is confected; it is not so in baptism.
To 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. From these all the objections are evident, with this one exception only, namely concerning the truth of the locution. For how is the locution true, if the substance of bread is demonstrated, since this is always false: "the bread is the body of Christ," since they are incompossible forms? And if you should say that this verb is does not there state inherence, but rather conversion; then therefore according to this an imperative verb would rather be fitting.
And therefore it must be noted that just as in the eternal Word, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, there is
truth and omnipotence; so in his word, uttered from the very mouth of Christ, there is truth and efficacy, so that such a word may befit the Sacraments of the new law; therefore he had to speak thus a word enunciative of truth, just as he is truth itself, and through this indicative. And because it would not be true by a simple enunciation; lest he be false22, he joined efficacy to the word by his own mouth. — And because he commanded others to do and to say; and he himself does not bid anyone to be false: therefore in the mouth of those to whom he gave the command, he gave efficacy to the word. And so this verb is in this locution signifies not identity nor simultaneity, but this to be the body — that is, at the utterance of this word this whole to pass over into the body. Hence that locution in the mouth of another than in the mouth of the priest is false, because it neither converts nor transubstantiates this into that; nor is it true by identity. — And this sense, although it is proper to this locution, and likewise to the form of the blood, nevertheless is not alien from reason, the conditions assigned above being weighed.
From these the other objections are evident. Nor let it seem unfitting to say that this verb is does not state identity, but rather conversion in this locution, which is not only significative but also operative. Yet the verb of being had rather to be placed than that of operating, because it was more fitting to the form, so that there might be efficacy together with the enunciation of truth, and at the same time the immutability of the term might be noted together with the conversion.
I. Concerning this article it is helpful to note three things beforehand.
1. That the consecration of the bread is effected by the four words of the form placed in the Missal (the particle enim being excluded) is wholly to be held after the Second Council of Florence, since also the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII. c. 3) teaches that the body of Christ exists under the species of bread and the blood under the species of wine «by force of the words», namely under the species of bread by force of the words: This is my body. There is therefore to be rejected (on account of the various assertions of the innovators of the sixteenth century) also the error, propagated among the schismatic Greeks, that the prayer after the consecration, which they call the Epiclesis, either alone, or together with the aforesaid form, has consecratory power. Nor is the opinion of Scotus (here q. 2. n. 1. s.) reckoned probable by most, that perhaps (for he does not assert this determinately) the words Who the day before he suffered, etc., are required for valid consecration, not indeed as consecratory, but for this reason, that the priest may be able fittingly to speak in the person of Christ, just as intention is required. — On the words of the form as related in Scripture see here dub. 1. 2.
2. Also the opinion of several authors, such as Innocent III and Praepositivus (cf. p. 190, note 11), that the priest utters the form only recitatively (materially), not assertively (significatively), is now commonly not approved together with Saints Bonaventure, Thomas, and Scotus (it is opinion 1 reported in the body), but it is held that the words must be uttered recitatively and at the same time assertively or significatively. And thus they are true in the rigor of speech and in every way congruent, although the body of Christ is not under the species except in the last instant of utterance.
3. But concerning the manner of proving that the locution is true and most congruent, and especially concerning the signification of the pronoun this, diverse opinions have arisen, here adduced. The matter does not pertain to faith, in which all those opinions agree, but rather, as Scotus also observes, to logic and grammar. But since, as the Holy Doctor well says here, «this locution is singular among all locutions», and the common rules do not suffice fully to explain it; it is no wonder that diverse ways toward the same end have been attempted and can probably be entered upon. Yet opinions 1 and 2 here reported are commonly rejected also by Thomas and others later. The third opinion Thomas explains more accurately and approves. For he holds that the pronoun this, taken substantively, demonstrates neither the substance of bread nor the body of Christ nor the species of bread, but indeterminately and in general the substance contained under those species. — Bonaventure does not deny that this opinion is probable, but thinks that another opinion, which he ingeniously explains, satisfies more; Richard of Middleton too and Thomas of Strasbourg endeavor by several arguments to overturn the aforesaid opinion of Thomas.
II. That the way and reasoning of Bonaventure for solving this difficulty may be clearly seen — which is very probable, although misunderstood by many — several things must be supposed and observed.
1. In this a speculative proposition differs from a practical one, that the former supposes the existence of the thing signified, whereas the latter, since it is ordered to effecting something, by signifying makes or indicates what comes to be: whence, that such a locution be true, it suffices that it be true in the consignified at the last instant of utterance.
2. The locution of consecration is practical and operative by divine power, in such a way that it not only signifies but also effects what it signifies; whence the words uttered by the priest in the person of Christ contain at once the highest truth and the highest efficacy. Hence it is argued that, since those words at once have the character of a cause, the signification itself under this character must precede, at least by priority of nature, the term produced.
3. Since transubstantiation comes about in an instant, therefore the coming-to-be and the having-been-made are there at once in time; whence this proposition, since it truly indicates and effectively, by transubstantiating the bread into the body of Christ, operates, signifies that this comes to be and is at once in the instant in which it produces its effect.
4. The operation of transubstantiation is concerned with the substance of bread. Inasmuch, therefore, as that locution is operative and conversive it regards the substance of bread. Whence Bonaventure concludes that the pronoun this (or the subject) indicates and demonstrates the substance of bread under the accidents or sensible species, but as to be converted into that which the predicate states. But since the locution is not only significative but also operative, and since it operates in the last instant of utterance, in which the coming-to-be and the having-been-made are at once; the enunciation states truth by operating what it expresses, and by expressing what it operates. Hence in this singular locution truth and operation coincide, in such a way that truth in signifying depends upon its efficacy, and efficacy in operating upon truth in signifying. — Thus Bonaventure in his own way explains the ancient opinion of many Scholastics, that the demonstrative this is said partly to the sense, partly to the intellect, because, namely, through the sensible sign, which is the bread to be converted into the signified, there is an intelligible demonstration of the signified.
The same ancient opinion is received also by Alexander of Hales, Blessed Albert, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton. But Richard explains it in another way, while the others aforesaid sufficiently favor the exposition of Bonaventure. Against Richard of Middleton, Scotus argues (here q. 2. n. 12. seq.), who at length, after many solutions have been reviewed, agrees in the principal matter with Thomas; but in this he concurs with Bonaventure, that the words of consecration have operative and conversive power precisely inasmuch as they are significative, not inasmuch as they are true, though they are true at the end of utterance; or in other words, that they are the cause of conversion by reason of signification, but not by reason of truth, since by nature the conversion is understood prior to the locution's being understood to have truth.
On this first question, besides the places cited: Alexander of Hales, S. P. IV. q. 10. m. 4. a. 2. § 1. 3. — Thomas, here q. 2. a. 1. little-question 3. 4; S. III. q. 78. a. 1. 2. 5. — Blessed Albert, a. 6. Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3. a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 3. q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 5.
[Part III of the scholion — «In the second question there is treatment of the form of the consecration of the chalice» — pertains to the following question (a1-q2), and is rendered there.]
---
- 1Edd. cum paucis codd. convenientia. Utraque lectio defendi potest. Inferius post forma cod. B addit: et de eius virtute sive efficacia, et sic secundo tangitur ratio institutionis quantum ad tempus quae duplex est: prima est cessatio legalium Sacramentorum; secunda, impressio illius memoriae discipulorum; tertio removetur incidens, ibi: Sed non exinde.The editions, with a few codices, read convenientia. Either reading can be defended. Below, after form, codex B adds: and concerning its power or efficacy, and thus secondly the reason of the institution as regards time is touched, which is twofold: the first is the cessation of the legal Sacraments; the second, the impressing of that memory upon the disciples; thirdly the incidental matter is removed, at: But not thenceforth.
- 2Libr. XII. Grammatic. c. 1; XVII. c. 9. seqq. et de XII versibus Aeneidos principal. c. 10. — Idem XVII. c. 9. ait: Quoties vero ille vel hic non ostendendum ante oculos aliquid referunt, oportet intelligere, quod eorum demonstratio ad intellectum refertur. Itaque quaedam sunt oculorum demonstrativa, ut ego et tu, quaedam et oculorum et intellectus oculorum, ut hic vir, hic est tibi quem promitti saepius audis; intellectus, ut, hic pietatis honos? sic nos in sceptra reponis? — Grammat. speculat. c. 22. et 24. etc. Cfr. Scot., Inferius post ad sensum cod. aa addit:* quia ibi quoad sensum non est nisi panis, vinum vel species visibilis.Book XII of the Grammar, c. 1; XVII, c. 9 ff., and On the twelve verses of the Aeneid, principal c. 10. — Likewise XVII, c. 9, he says: But whenever "ille" or "hic" do not point to something to be shown before the eyes, it must be understood that their demonstration is referred to the intellect. And so some things are demonstratives of the eyes, as "I" and "thou"; some are both of the eyes and of the intellect of the eyes, as "this man", "this is for thee whom thou hearest often promised"; of the intellect, as, "is this the honor of piety? thus dost thou set us in the scepter?" — Speculative Grammar c. 22 and 24, etc. Cf. Scotus. Below, after to the sense, codex aa adds: because there, as regards sense, there is nothing but bread, wine, or the visible species.
- 3Si enim importaret demonstrationem ut conceptam, tunc pronomen hoc sumeretur «ut res quaedam et non ut habens ordinem ad rem aliam, ut si diceretur: hoc pronomen hoc » (S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1). Cfr. I. Sent. d. 1. dub. 1. — Post hoc pronomen codd. H I P Q supplent hoc*.For if it conveyed a demonstration as conceived, then the pronoun "this" would be taken «as a certain thing and not as having an ordering to another thing, as if it were said: this pronoun "this" » (Thomas, here q. 2. a. 1, little-question 1). Cf. I Sent. d. 1, dub. 1. — After this pronoun codices H I P Q supply this*.
- 4Haec regula colligitur ex illa, quam Petr. Hispan., Summul. tr. de Ampliatione, dat: De ampliatione autem, quae fit ratione temporis, talis datur regula: Terminus communis supponens vel apponens [i. e. positus in subiecto vel positus in praedicato] verbo habenti vim ampliandi quoad tempus supponit pro his quae sunt, quae erunt vel fuerunt, ut homo necessario est animal; ibi tam homo quam animal tenetur pro his quae sunt et erunt. Cfr. ibid. tr. de Restrictione. — Post ampliandi cod. Z addit non ex se, non ex alio. Cod. aa hic pro sequitur: sed iste terminus hoc supponit hoc verbo est non habenti vim ampliandi: ergo supponit pro his quae sunt in actu sed actu non est ibi nisi panis etc. Idem cod. aa inferius post praedicatum supplet scilicet corpus Christi.This rule is gathered from the one which Peter of Spain, Summulae, tract on Ampliation, gives: Concerning the ampliation that occurs by reason of time, this rule is given: A common term suppositing or apposing [i.e. placed in the subject or placed in the predicate] with a verb having the power of ampliating as to time supposits for those things which are, which will be or were, as "man is necessarily an animal"; there both "man" and "animal" are taken for those things which are and will be. Cf. ibid., tract on Restriction. — After ampliating codex Z adds not of itself, not from another. Codex aa here reads instead of what follows: but that term "this" supposits with this verb "is," which has no power of ampliating: therefore it supposits for those things which are in act, but in act there is nothing there but bread, etc. The same codex aa below, after predicate, supplies namely the body of Christ.
- 5Scilicet quatenus est medium sive copula coniungens composita. Cfr. Aristot., I. Periherm. c. 3, ubi dicit, quod verbum [est] «consignificat compositionem quandam, quam sine compositis non est intelligere». — Inferius pro apracticon codd. scribunt vel epracticon (Vat. expracticon), vel perperam empracticon (ἔμπρακτον i. e. operativum sive efficax), ed. I pro hac haereticum (cfr. tom. I. pag. 739, nota 8.). Priscian., VIII. Grammat. c. 10. refert, quod Graeci verbum sum vocant ὑπαρκτικόν «quod nos possumus substantivum [cfr. infra arg. 6.] nominare; id enim omnium semper est perfectissimum cui nihil deest».Namely inasmuch as it is the middle or copula joining the composed terms. Cf. Aristotle, On Interpretation I, c. 3, where he says that the verb [is] «consignifies a certain composition, which cannot be understood apart from the things composed». — Below, for apracticon the codices write either epracticon (the Vatican, expracticon), or wrongly empracticon (ἔμπρακτον, i.e. operative or efficacious); edition I reads instead of this haereticum (cf. tom. I, p. 739, note 8). Priscian, Grammar VIII, c. 10, relates that the Greeks call the verb am ὑπαρκτικόν, «which we can name substantive [cf. below, arg. 6]; for it is always the most perfect of all, to which nothing is lacking».
- 6Gen. 1, 3. — De maiori cfr. supra p. I. a. 2. q. 3, d. 3. p. 1. a. 1. q. Pro fit plures codd. sit, cod. A sit vel est, edd. est. Edd. superius post statim fit supplent transsubstantiatio.Gen. 1:3. — On the major, cf. above p. I, a. 2, q. 3; d. 3, p. 1, a. 1, q. For it is made several codices read let it be, codex A let it be or is, the editions is. The editions above, after at once it is made, supply transubstantiation.
- 7Scil. panis et corpus Christi.Namely the bread and the body of Christ.
- 8Vers. 56. — Pro magis est conveniens codd. dicit [cod. aa dicitur] magis conveniens.Verse 56. — For is more fitting the codices read says [codex aa is said] more fitting.
- 9Vers. 17.Verse 17.
- 10Sive conficientem. Fortasse post et usum exciderunt verba: similiter videtur, quod in hoc Sacramento sint actus pertinentes ad intentionem et usum. Vocibus actus pertinentes secunda manus in cod. V. praemisit verba exprimentia.Or the one confecting. Perhaps after and use the words have fallen out: likewise it seems that in this Sacrament there are acts pertaining to the intention and use. Before the words acts pertaining a second hand in codex V prefixed words expressing.
- 11Cod. aa et edd. in forma [edd. ibi] verbum exprimens.Codex aa and the editions read in the form [the editions, there] a word expressing.
- 12Guliel. Mara, hic q. 1. addit: Sicut si dicam: Petrus dixit de Ioanne: iste cucurrit, ly iste in ore nihil demonstrat. Post pauca pro copuletur edd. completur. In cod. aa subiungitur: quid demonstret hoc pronomen hoc, et quid copulet verbum est.William of Ware, here q. 1, adds: Just as if I say: Peter said of John, "he ran," the "he" in the mouth demonstrates nothing. A little after, for be copulated the editions read be completed. In codex aa there is appended: what this pronoun "this" demonstrates, and what the verb "is" copulates.
- 13Praepositivus, Sum. p. IV, ait: Ad hoc respondemus, quod hoc non accipitur demonstrative, sed repraesentative. Cfr. Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro altaris Mysterio, c. 17.Praepositivus, Summa p. IV, says: To this we answer that "this" is not taken demonstratively, but representatively. Cf. Innocent III, On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar IV, c. 17.
- 14Idem est dictu Hoc est corpus meum, ut ait Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 4. a. 2. § 3, ut corpus meum est corpus meum... sed haec: corpus meum est corpus meum, semper fuit vera etc.It is the same as saying This is my body, as Alexander of Hales says, S. p. IV, q. 10, m. 4, a. 2, § 3, that my body is my body... but this, my body is my body, was always true, etc.
- 15Cod. aa per hoc pronomen hoc, scilicet panis. Idem cod. aa mox post fieret addit: quia panis similitudinem habet ad significandum corpus Christi.Codex aa reads through this pronoun "this," namely of bread. The same codex aa shortly after, following would come about, adds: because the bread has a likeness for signifying the body of Christ.
- 16Cod. aa significatum per hoc pronomen hoc, scilicet panis, qui est convertendus. Superius pro significationi verae Vat. significationi vocis.Codex aa reads what is signified through this pronoun "this," namely the bread, which is to be converted. Above, for to the true signification the Vatican reads to the signification of the word.
- 17In Ioan. Evang. tr. 80. n. 3. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. III. c. 1.On the Gospel of John, tract 80, n. 3. Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. III, c. 1.
- 18Cod. P haec autem oratio conversiva, unde id ipsum quod significat. Pro id ipsum codd. A H V aa et ed. ad id ipsum. Verbo indicativae cod. V praemittit tantum, plures alii codd. duae.Codex P reads but this conversive locution, whence the very thing which it signifies. For the very thing codices A H V aa and the edition read to the very thing. To the word indicative codex V prefixes only, several other codices two.
- 19Ita fere omnes codd., ut A C D E F G H I L P Q Z bb; edd. transitionem, cod. aa translationem. Pro transitivus in cod. bb secunda manus substituit transsubstantivus.So nearly all the codices, as A C D E F G H I L P Q Z bb; the editions read transition, codex aa translation. For transitive in codex bb a second hand substituted transsubstantive.
- 20Cfr. infra d. 11. p. 1. q. 6. — In cod. aa additur quia nunc temporis dicitur. Cfr. Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 80. seqq. (c. 10.) et VIII. text. 11. (c. 1.); August., XI. Confess. c. 14. n. 17. seqq. — Superius pro ideo edd. ideo est, cod. P a secunda manu esse debet.Cf. below d. 11, p. 1, q. 6. — In codex aa there is added because it is said of present time. Cf. Aristotle, Physics IV, text 80 ff. (c. 10) and VIII, text 11 (c. 1); Augustine, Confessions XI, c. 14, n. 17 ff. — Above, for therefore the editions read therefore it is, codex P by a second hand must be.
- 21Vide infra a. 2. q. 1. — De seqq. cfr. I. Cor. 12, 12. seqq.; Aristot., I. de Histor. animal. c. 1, et II. de Partib. animal. c. 1.See below, a. 2, q. 1. — On what follows, cf. 1 Cor. 12:12 ff.; Aristotle, History of Animals I, c. 1, and Parts of Animals II, c. 1.
- 22Teste Forcellini (Lexicon etc.), adiectivum falsus saepe transit in nomen et significat eum qui decipit. Hic refertur ad Christum. — Cod. aa filius mendax. Superius pro ita dicere cod. H ita esse. Subinde voci verum cod. Z praemittit verbum. Mox pro ore suo codd. F G I ore proprio.On the testimony of Forcellini (Lexicon, etc.), the adjective falsus often passes into a noun and signifies one who deceives. Here it is referred to Christ. — Codex aa reads a lying son. Above, for to speak thus codex H reads to be thus. Then before the word true codex Z prefixes word. Shortly, for by his own mouth codices F G I read by his proper mouth. ---