Dist. 8, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 8
Articulus II. De significatione Sacramenti eucharistiae.
Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de Sacramento eucharistiae quantum ad significationem, et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, quid sit ibi res, et quid Sacramentum. Secundo quaeritur de unitate huius Sacramenti.
Quaestio 1. Quid in eucharistia sit res, et quid Sacramentum.
Circa primum proceditur sic. Magister dicit, quod «aliquid est ibi Sacramentum tantum, ut species visibilis, et aliquid res tantum, ut corpus Christi mysticum, et aliquid res et Sacramentum, ut corpus Christi verum», quod est res primi et Sacramentum tertii. Et videtur primo, quod species visibilis non sit Sacramentum corporis:
1. Quia Sacramentum naturalem debet habere similitudinem ad rem; sed species non habet similitudinem, quia tam corpus Christi verum quam mysticum est totum heterogeneum, sed species homogeneum: ergo etc. — Si dicas, quod species componitur ex pluribus granis; hoc nihil est, quia illa non sunt heterogenea, sed uniformia. Praeterea, species est accidens, ergo non componitur.
2. Item, Sacramentum novae legis efficit; sed species nullam habent omnino operationem respectu contenti: ergo non sunt Sacramentum.
Item, quod corpus Christi verum non sit Sacramentum corporis mystici, videtur:
3. Quia Sacramentum est signum, signum autem est, quod se offert sensibus; sed corpus Christi, ut est sub illis speciebus, non offert se sensibus: ergo etc.
4. Item, si est Sacramentum, ergo signum «ex institutione significans»; sed corpus Christi verum non est institutum ad significandum mysticum, nec debet institui, quia nobilius est, sicut caput toto corpore: ergo non est Sacramentum.
Item, obiicitur de mystico, quod non sit res:
5. Quia res cuiuslibet Sacramenti est aliqua gratia, quia dicitur «Sacramentum invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma»: ergo cum corpus mysticum non sit gratia, non est res huius Sacramenti.
6. Item, res cuiuslibet Sacramenti novae legis est effectus eius; sed corpus Christi mysticum non est effectus huius Sacramenti, quia effectus non praecedit causam; sed corpus mysticum praecedit Sacramentum: ergo etc.
Conclusio. In Sacramento eucharistiae species visibilis est signum corporis Christi veri et mystici; corpus verum est res speciei et signum et causa corporis mystici; hoc autem est res corporis veri et veritas signi sensibilis.
Respondeo: Sicut dicit Magister1, tria sunt in hoc Sacramento: species visibilis, corpus Christi verum et corpus mysticum. Et secundum quod dicit Hugo2, «primum est signum secundi et tertii; secundum est res primi et signum et causa tertii; et tertium est res secundi et veritas primi». Unde reperitur hic ratio efficiendi et significandi, unde est verum Sacramentum novae legis.
Ad 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod debet habere similitudinem; dicendum, quod species comparationem habet ad materiam componentem, sive ex qua constat, quia est ex granis; et comparationem ad effectum consequentem, sive quem dat, qui est cibare. Si ad materiam, sic est ex granis purissimis ad invicem unitis: et sic habet similitudinem cum corpore mystico, quod constat ex fidelibus puris, fide et caritate copulatis3. Et si obiicias, quod est diversarum operationum: non valet, quia uniuntur ut consimiles in unitate fidei et caritatis. — Si autem comparetur ad effectum, qui est cibare, tunc habet similitudinem ad corpus Christi verum, quod est vere cibus.
Potest tamen dici, quod ad utrumque comparetur ratione eorum, ex quibus conficitur, quia corpus Christi verum est «ex purissimis sanguinibus4», et corpus Christi mysticum ex puris fidelibus. Quod autem hic membrorum significetur varietas, hoc est per accidens, scilicet ratione corporis Christi, quod traxit de Virgine, quod est corpus organicum. — Et si obiicias, quod species non componitur nec reficit; dicendum, quod retinent idiomata substantiae, quae prius ibi fuit5, et ratione illius sunt signa convenientia.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de causalitate, dicendum, quod illud quod est Sacramentum tantum, si comparetur ad medium, per se non habet rationem efficiendi aliquam vel causandi, nisi adiuncto verbo, ut patet in aqua respectu characteris: sic in speciebus respectu corporis. Similiter, si comparetur ad tertium, habet rationem efficiendi mediante secundo, ut ablutio exterior cum charactere6; similiter hic species exteriores ratione corporis Christi veri interius contenti, quod unit et incorporat.
Ad 3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de corpore vero, dicendum, quod ex se habet naturalem aptitudinem ad repraesentandum. Quod autem repraesentet, hoc non convenit ei secundum se, sed prout subest speciebus visibilibus institutis; et quantum ad hoc est signum visibile et voluntarie institutum in altero, non in se ipso; nec ad significandum est institutum in se, sed ad efficiendum in se tanquam nobilius, ad significandum vero, ut est contentum in altero; et hoc nihil derogat sibi7.
Ad 5. 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur de corpore mystico, quod non est res; dicendum, quod res huius Sacramenti non dicitur corpus mysticum ratione partium, sed ratione unionis; et illa unio est gratia et effectus Sacramenti. — Si obiicias, quod effectus sequitur causam; dicendum, quod unio in corpore mystico potest esse dupliciter: vel ab unitate virtutum compingentium8, vel a gratia sacramentali, secundum quam sumentes magis Christo incorporantur, et sic per consequens magis ad invicem uniuntur. Prima praecedit et non est res; secunda sequitur et est effectus et res huius Sacramenti. Et sic patet illud.
Scholion proprium articuli II; hic redditur tantum sectio quaestioni 1 deputata (n. «1.», de essentia eucharistiae / quid sit res et Sacramentum). Sectio «II.» et apparatus «De hac 2. quaestione», in pag. 197 sequentia, quaestioni 2 deputantur et ad chunk `bon-sent-IV-d8-p2-a2-q2` pertinent.
1. Auctoritate Concilii Tridentini (Sess. XIII. can. 4.) constat, eucharistiam non consistere in solo «usu, dum sumitur; sed ante vel post et in hostiis seu particulis consecratis, quae post communionem reservantur vel supersunt», esse verum corpus Christi. Hinc concludere licet, essentiam eucharistiae consistere in re permanenti, et sumtionem eiusdem nec esse Sacramentum ab illa re permanenti distinctum, nec partem ipsius integralis, sed potius applicationem huius Sacramenti. Variae tamen de essentia huius Sacramenti in scholis exortae sunt sententiae; communius autem non approbatur opinio quorundam, quod
consistat vel in verbis consecrationis, vel in ipsa actione consecrativa (cui secundae opinioni prius favit S. Thom. in Comment., quam reliquit in Summa). S. Bonaventura tenet, species consecratas, prout et connotant et continent corpus et sanguinem Christi, constituere essentialiter Sacramentum eucharistiae; ita ut species illae et corpus Christi completam habeant rationem Sacramenti, et species visibiles significent primario corpus Christi et secundario gratiam sacramentalem (cfr. infra d. 10. p. I. dub. 3. 4.). Idem in re docent Alex. Hal., S. Thom. in Sum., Scot. aliique communius, si praescindimus a quibusdam rebus secundariis.
De hac I. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 3. a. 3. — Scot., hic q. I. circa finem. — S. Thom., hic q. I. a. I. quaestiunc. I; S. III. q. 73. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 12. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. I. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. I. — Durand., hic q. I. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1.
---
Article II. On the signification of the Sacrament of the eucharist.
Consequently, as to the second article, inquiry is made concerning the Sacrament of the eucharist with respect to its signification, and on this point two questions are asked. First it is asked what is there the reality, and what the Sacrament. Secondly inquiry is made concerning the unity of this Sacrament.
Question 1. What in the eucharist is the reality, and what the Sacrament.
It is approached thus concerning the first point. The Master says that «something is there Sacrament only, namely the visible species; and something is reality only, namely the mystical body of Christ; and something is reality-and-Sacrament, namely the true body of Christ», which is the reality of the first and the Sacrament of the third. And it seems first that the visible species is not the Sacrament of the body:
1. Because a Sacrament ought to have a natural likeness to the reality; but the species has no likeness, since both the true body of Christ and the mystical are wholly heterogeneous, whereas the species is homogeneous: therefore etc. — If you say that the species is composed of many grains, this is nothing, because those grains are not heterogeneous but uniform. Moreover, the species is an accident, therefore it is not composed.
2. Likewise, a Sacrament of the new law produces an effect; but the species has no operation whatsoever with respect to what is contained: therefore they are not a Sacrament.
Likewise, that the true body of Christ is not the Sacrament of the mystical body, it seems:
3. Because a Sacrament is a sign, and a sign is what offers itself to the senses; but the body of Christ, as it is under those species, does not offer itself to the senses: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, if it is a Sacrament, then it is a sign «signifying by institution»; but the true body of Christ is not instituted to signify the mystical, nor ought it to be instituted to do so, because it is more noble, as the head is to the whole body: therefore it is not a Sacrament.
Likewise, it is objected concerning the mystical body, that it is not the reality:
5. Because the reality of any Sacrament is some grace, since it is said «a Sacrament is the visible form of invisible grace»: therefore, since the mystical body is not grace, it is not the reality of this Sacrament.
6. Likewise, the reality of any Sacrament of the new law is its effect; but the mystical body of Christ is not the effect of this Sacrament, because an effect does not precede its cause; but the mystical body precedes the Sacrament: therefore etc.
Conclusion. In the Sacrament of the eucharist the visible species is the sign of the true and mystical body of Christ; the true body is the reality of the species and the sign and cause of the mystical body; and this last is the reality of the true body and the truth of the sensible sign.
I respond: As the Master says1, there are three things in this Sacrament: the visible species, the true body of Christ, and the mystical body. And according to what Hugh says2, «the first is the sign of the second and the third; the second is the reality of the first and the sign and cause of the third; and the third is the reality of the second and the truth of the first». Hence there is found here a relation of effecting and of signifying, whence it is a true Sacrament of the new law.
To the first. To that which is objected, that it ought to have a likeness; it must be said that the species has a comparison to the constituting matter, that is, that out of which it consists, since it is from grains; and a comparison to the effect that follows, that is, what it gives, which is to nourish. If to the matter, then it is from purest grains united to one another: and thus it has a likeness with the mystical body, which consists of pure faithful, joined together by faith and charity3. And if you object that it is of diverse operations: it does not hold, because they are united as alike in the unity of faith and charity. — But if it be compared to the effect, which is to nourish, then it has a likeness to the true body of Christ, which is truly food.
It can nevertheless be said that it is compared to both by reason of those things out of which it is made, since the true body of Christ is «from purest blood4», and the mystical body of Christ is from pure faithful. But that a variety of members is here signified, this is incidental, namely by reason of the body of Christ which he drew from the Virgin, which is an organic body. — And if you object that the species is not composed nor nourishes; it must be said that they retain the properties of the substance which was previously there5, and by reason of that they are fitting signs.
To the second. To that which is objected concerning causality, it must be said that that which is Sacrament only, if it be compared to the medium, of itself has no relation of effecting or causing anything, except when a word is joined to it, as is evident in water with respect to the character: so in the species with respect to the body. Likewise, if it be compared to the third, it has a relation of effecting by means of the second, as the outward washing with the character6; likewise here the outward species by reason of the true body of Christ inwardly contained, which unites and incorporates.
To the third and fourth. To that which is objected concerning the true body, it must be said that of itself it has a natural aptitude for representing. But that it represents, this does not belong to it of itself, but as it underlies the visible species that are instituted; and as to this it is a visible sign, voluntarily instituted in another, not in itself; nor is it instituted for signifying in itself, but for effecting in itself as the more noble, and for signifying indeed as it is contained in another; and this in no way derogates from it7.
To the fifth and sixth. To that which is objected concerning the mystical body, that it is not the reality; it must be said that the reality of this Sacrament is not called the mystical body by reason of its parts, but by reason of the union; and that union is the grace and effect of the Sacrament. — If you object that the effect follows the cause; it must be said that union in the mystical body can be twofold: either from the unity of the binding virtues8, or from sacramental grace, according to which those who receive are more incorporated into Christ, and thus consequently are more united to one another. The first precedes and is not the reality; the second follows and is the effect and reality of this Sacrament. And so this is clear.
Article-level scholion; only the section keyed to Question 1 is rendered here (n. «1.,» on the essence of the eucharist / what is the reality and what the Sacrament). The section «II.» and the «On this second question» reference list, which follow on p.197, are keyed to Question 2 and belong to the chunk `bon-sent-IV-d8-p2-a2-q2`.
1. By the authority of the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, can. 4) it is established that the eucharist does not consist in its use alone, «while it is being received; but before or after, and in the hosts or consecrated particles which after communion are reserved or remain over», it is the true body of Christ. From this it is permissible to conclude that the essence of the eucharist consists in an abiding reality, and that the receiving of the same is neither a Sacrament distinct from that abiding reality, nor an integral part of it, but rather an application of this Sacrament. Various opinions, however, have arisen in the schools concerning the essence of this Sacrament; but the opinion of some is not more commonly approved, namely that
it consists either in the words of consecration, or in the consecrating action itself (to which second opinion S. Thomas earlier inclined in the Commentary, which he abandoned in the Summa). S. Bonaventure holds that the consecrated species, inasmuch as they both connote and contain the body and blood of Christ, essentially constitute the Sacrament of the eucharist; so that those species and the body of Christ have the complete account of a Sacrament, and the visible species signify primarily the body of Christ and secondarily sacramental grace (cf. below d. 10, p. I, dub. 3, 4). The same in substance is taught by Alexander of Hales, S. Thomas in the Summa, Scotus, and others more commonly, if we set aside certain secondary matters.
On this first question: Alexander of Hales, Summa pt. IV, q. 10, m. 3, a. 3. — Scotus, here q. I, near the end. — S. Thomas, here q. I, a. I, quaestiuncula I; Summa III, q. 73, a. 1. — B. Albert, here a. 12. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. I, a. I. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. I, q. I. — Durandus, here q. I. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question, here q. 1.
---
- 1Hic in lit. c. 7.Here in the text [of the Master], ch. 7.
- 2Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 8: Et sic quidem, cum tria in uno ibi sint, in primo quidem signum invenitur secundi, in secundo autem causa tertii, in tertio vero virtus secundi et veritas primi; et haec tria in uno sunt et unum Sacramentum. — Hoc testimonium iisdem verbis (incipiendo a in primo) exhibetur a cod. aa textui nostro adiunctum. Cfr. Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro altaris Mysterio, c. 36.Bk. II, On the Sacraments, pt. VIII, ch. 8: And so indeed, since three are there in one, in the first is found the sign of the second, in the second the cause of the third, and in the third the power of the second and the truth of the first; and these three are in one and are one Sacrament. — This testimony is set forth in the same words (beginning at in the first) by cod. aa, adjoined to our text. Cf. Innocent III, On the Mystery of the Altar, bk. IV, ch. 36.
- 3Cfr. hic in lit. Magistri, c. 7, verba Augustini. — De seq. obiectione vide Rom. 13, 4. seq., et I. Cor. 12, 12. seqq.Cf. here in the text of the Master, ch. 7, the words of Augustine. — On the following objection see Rom. 13:4 f. and 1 Cor. 12:12 ff.
- 4Damasc., III. de Fide orthod. c. 2. et IV. c. 14. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 86, nota 5, et hic lit. Magistri, c. 7. in fine. — Cod. aa ex quibus conficitur, scilicet ratione materiae, quia. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7.Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, bk. III, ch. 2, and bk. IV, ch. 14. Cf. vol. III, p. 86, note 5, and here in the text of the Master, ch. 7, at the end. — Cod. aa: from which it is made, namely by reason of matter, because. Cf. here the text of the Master, ch. 7.
- 5Sive ut hic in lit. Magistri, c. 6, dicitur: Tenent species vocabula rerum, quae ante fuerunt, scilicet panis et vini.Or, as is said here in the text of the Master, ch. 6: The species keep the names of the things which were there before, namely of the bread and wine.
- 6Cfr. supra d. 3. p. I. a. I. q. I. — In fine solut. cod. aa addit: in corpus mysticum, sunt quasi causa ad ipsum.Cf. above d. 3, p. I, a. I, q. I. — At the end of the solution cod. aa adds: into the mystical body, they are as it were a cause toward it.
- 7Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 7, et infra d. 10. p. I. dub. 2. — Cod. aa praemissa sic exhibet: et quantum ad hoc est signum visibile, sicut de charactere dictum est [d. 6. p. I. q. 2. ad I. arg.], qui est visibilis respectu exterioris [elementi]. Vel potest dici, quod illa definitio datur de signo, quod est signum tantum et quod non continet rem.See here the text of the Master, ch. 7, and below d. 10, p. I, dub. 2. — Cod. aa presents the foregoing thus: and as to this it is a visible sign, as was said of the character [d. 6, p. I, q. 2, to the first argument], which is visible with respect to the outward [element]. Or it can be said that that definition is given of a sign which is a sign only and which does not contain the reality.
- 8Cod. M coniungentium, edd. perperam contingentium. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7.Cod. M coniungentium (joining together); the editions wrongly contingentium (touching). Cf. here the text of the Master, ch. 7. ---