Dist. 8, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 8
Quaestio II. De unitate Sacramenti eucharistiae.
Secundo quaeritur de unitate huius Sacramenti. Et quod sit unum Sacramentum, probatur:
1. Quia Ambrosius1 dicit, quod simplex est Sacramentum; sed hoc est Sacramentum: ergo simplex, ergo unum.
2. Item, ratione videtur: quia hoc Sacramentum unius effectus est causa et ad unum ordinatur: ergo est unum, et non plura.
3. Item, tantum septem sunt Sacramenta; sed si hoc non esset unum, essent Sacramenta plura septem2: ergo etc.
Contra:
1. In Collecta3: « Purificent nos, quaesumus Domine, Sacramenta, quae sumsimus », et in multis aliis locis: ergo etc.
2. Item, significata in hoc Sacramento sunt plura, scilicet corpus Christi verum et corpus Christi mysticum4, quae omnino habent differentem unitatem — nam corpus Christi verum est unum unitate integritatis, sed corpus mysticum est unum unitate formae aggregationis — ergo etc. — Si dicas, quod sunt ad invicem ordinata, ita quod unum per alterum5; obiicitur, quia plura sunt significata immediate et ex aequo, ut corpus et sanguis. — Si dicas, quod sunt annexa; hoc non solvit, quia secundum veritatem Sacramenti non sunt ut annexa.
3. Item, Sacramentum est signum essentialiter6; sed plurificato superiori, plurificatur inferius; sed in eucharistia sunt plura signa: ergo et plura Sacramenta. Si dicas, quod plura sunt signa ratione specierum, sed unum significatum, et ideo unum Sacramentum; contra: in nomine est vox et significatum, sicut in Sacramento; sed Marcus et Tullius, etsi idem significent, tamen diversa sunt nomina: ergo et in Sacramento isto, etsi idem sit res, plura tamen debent dici Sacramenta.
4. Item, ista duo constituunt Sacramentum: verbum et elementum, et elementum in ratione materialis, verbum in ratione formalis7: ergo ubi plura verba et elementa, ibi plura Sacramenta; sed sic est in proposito. — Si dicas, quod ordinata sunt ad unum, et ideo sunt unum; contra: causa universalis et particularis ad unum effectum ordinantur, nec tamen sunt unum, sed plures causae8: ergo etc.
Conclusio.
Eucharistiae Sacramentum non est unum unitate simplicitatis, sed integritatis et in comparatione, quia signum ordinatur ad unum ratione naturae et institutionis.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod unitas Sacramenti non est unitas simplicitatis — constat enim ex verbo et elemento — sed integritatis; nec integritatis absolutae, sed in comparatione, quia non uniuntur in tertio tanquam in forma, sed tanquam in signo. Quoniam igitur hoc Sacramentum, quamvis duo signa contineat et duo verba, quia tamen
ex his perfectum resultat signum et ordinatum ad unum, scilicet ad unionem corporis mystici; ideo est unum Sacramentum9.
Ratio autem talis integritatis et ordinationis unius dispositive venit a natura — quia nec panis est per se plene reficiens nec vinum, sed utrumque; una enim plena refectio in natura venit ex utroque, et ita disposita sunt ad unam refectionem significandam — sed completive venit ab institutione divina, quae una institutione haec duo signa ordinavit ad significandam unam perfectam refectionem; et ideo unum est Sacramentum ratione naturae et institutionis divinae. Unde quia ex pluribus integratur, ideo Gregorius10 materialiter loquendo, dicit Sacramenta; quia vero una ordinatione ordinatur, ideo statim dicit: « et praesta, ut hoc tuum Sacramentum » etc.
Solutio oppositorum:
1. Et sic patet illud Gregorii.
2. Ad illud quod primo obiicitur, quod plura sunt significata; dicendum, quod unum est propter alterum et per alterum, quia verum11 significat mysticum. — Ad illud autem quod obiicitur de sanguine, dicendum, quod annexa sunt. Unde sicut oblatio agni et eius sanguinis non sunt duae oblationes vel sacrificia12; sic in proposito intelligendum. — Et si non sufficit, dicendum, quod ordinantur ad unum significatum ultimum13.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sunt plura signa; dicendum, quod integraliter loquendo et materialiter, verum est, quia plures species; sed tamen unum signum integrum, sicut ostensum est. Non sic diversae voces sunt unum nomen, immo diversas rationes habent innotescendi et diversas institutiones, ideo plura nomina14: si autem unam haberent institutionem, unum esset nomen, sicut hoc nomen Bonaventura vel hoc nomen Bonushomo.
4. Ad aliud similiter patet responsio: quia, quamvis sint duo verba et elementa, unum tamen sunt Sacramentum, quia verbum et elementum non conveniunt ad unum Sacramentum nisi ratione institutionis ordinantis ad unum15; quia ergo hic est institutio illa, plura ad unum ordinans: ideo unum Sacramentum. — Per hoc patet, quod non est simile de causa universali; quia non tantum ad unum effectum causae particularis ordinatur universalis, sed ad multos alios; sed haec duo ad unum perfectum Sacramentum ordinantur, perfectum, inquam, dico quantum ad significationem, quia in neutro salvatur ratio perfectae refectionis naturalis per se, sed in utroque simul, ut tactum est16.
---
Question II. On the unity of the Sacrament of the eucharist.
Second, it is asked about the unity of this Sacrament. And that it is one Sacrament is proved:
1. Because Ambrose1 says that the Sacrament is simple; but this is a Sacrament: therefore it is simple, therefore one.
2. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because this Sacrament is the cause of one effect and is ordered to one thing: therefore it is one, and not many.
3. Likewise, there are only seven Sacraments; but if this were not one, there would be more than seven Sacraments2: therefore etc.
On the contrary:
1. In the Collect3: « May the Sacraments which we have received purify us, we beseech thee, O Lord », and in many other places: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, the things signified in this Sacrament are several, namely the true body of Christ and the mystical body of Christ4, which have an entirely different unity — for the true body of Christ is one by the unity of integrity, but the mystical body is one by the unity of the form of aggregation — therefore etc. — If you say that they are ordered to one another, so that the one is through the other5; it is objected that the things signified are several immediately and equally, as the body and the blood. — If you say that they are annexed; this does not solve it, because according to the truth of the Sacrament they are not as annexed.
3. Likewise, a Sacrament is essentially a sign6; but when the superior is multiplied, the inferior is multiplied; but in the eucharist there are several signs: therefore also several Sacraments. If you say that there are several signs by reason of the species, but one thing signified, and therefore one Sacrament; on the contrary: in a name there is the utterance and the thing signified, just as in a Sacrament; but Marcus and Tullius, even though they signify the same thing, are nonetheless different names: therefore also in this Sacrament, even though the reality be the same, they ought nonetheless to be called several Sacraments.
4. Likewise, these two constitute the Sacrament: the word and the element, and the element in the character of the material, the word in the character of the formal7: therefore where there are several words and elements, there are several Sacraments; but so it is in the case at hand. — If you say that they are ordered to one thing, and therefore are one; on the contrary: a universal cause and a particular cause are ordered to one effect, and yet they are not one, but several causes8: therefore etc.
Conclusion.
The Sacrament of the eucharist is not one by the unity of simplicity, but of integrity and in comparison, because a sign is ordered to one thing by reason of nature and institution.
I respond: It must be said that the unity of the Sacrament is not the unity of simplicity — for it is constituted of word and element — but of integrity; and not of absolute integrity, but in comparison, because they are not united in a third thing as in a form, but as in a sign. Therefore, since this Sacrament, although it contain two signs and two words, yet because
from these there results a perfect sign ordered to one thing, namely to the union of the mystical body; therefore it is one Sacrament9.
Now the ground of such integrity and ordination to one thing comes dispositively from nature — because neither bread by itself fully refreshes nor wine, but both together; for one full refreshment in nature comes from both, and so they are disposed to signify one refreshment — but it comes completively from the divine institution, which by one institution ordered these two signs to signify one perfect refreshment; and therefore it is one Sacrament by reason of nature and divine institution. Hence, because it is integrated out of several things, therefore Gregory10, speaking materially, says Sacraments; but because it is ordered by one ordination, therefore he straightway says: « and grant that this thy Sacrament » etc.
Solution of the objections:
1. And thus that saying of Gregory is clear.
2. To that which is objected first, that the things signified are several; it must be said that the one is on account of the other and through the other, because the true body11 signifies the mystical. — And to that which is objected concerning the blood, it must be said that they are annexed. Hence just as the offering of the lamb and of its blood are not two offerings or sacrifices12; so it is to be understood in the case at hand. — And if that does not suffice, it must be said that they are ordered to one ultimate thing signified13.
3. To that which is objected, that there are several signs; it must be said that, speaking integrally and materially, it is true, because there are several species; but nonetheless there is one integral sign, as has been shown. It is not so that diverse utterances are one name; rather they have diverse grounds of becoming known and diverse institutions, therefore several names14: but if they had one institution, there would be one name, as this name Bonaventura or this name Bonushomo.
4. To the other the answer is likewise clear: because, although there be two words and elements, yet they are one Sacrament, because the word and the element do not come together into one Sacrament except by reason of the institution ordering them to one thing15; therefore since here is that institution, ordering several things to one, therefore it is one Sacrament. — Through this it is clear that the case is not the same as that of the universal cause; because the universal cause is ordered not only to the one effect of the particular cause, but to many others; whereas these two are ordered to one perfect Sacrament — perfect, I say, with respect to signification, because in neither is the character of a perfect natural refreshment preserved by itself, but in both together, as has been touched upon16.
---
- 1Vide supra pag. 75, nota 6.See above, p. 75, note 6.
- 2Vat. quam septem.The Vatican edition reads than seven.
- 3In Missal. Roman. inter Orationes diversas, scil. Oratio pro vivis et defunctis, quae etiam ponitur in IV. feria Cinerum. — Aliam Collectam vide infra lit. Magistri, d. IX. c. 3. Cfr. etiam Postcommunio in Missa pro S. Nicomede M. (15. Sept.), in IV. feria Cinerum et feriae IV. in hebdomada 4. Quadrages., quae a Gregorio in lib. Sacrament. exhibentur. — Post loquendo edd. addunt in Collecta.In the Roman Missal among the various Orations, namely the Oration for the living and the dead, which is also placed on the Wednesday of Ash Wednesday. — For another Collect see below in the text of the Master, d. IX, c. 3. Compare also the Postcommunion in the Mass for St. Nicomedes M. (Sept. 15), on Ash Wednesday and on the Wednesday of the 4th week of Lent, which are set forth by Gregory in the book of the Sacramentary. — After loquendo the editions add in Collecta.
- 4Ut ostensum est quaest. praeced.As was shown in the preceding question.
- 5Respicitur illud Aristot., III. Topic. c. 2: Ubi unum propter alterum, ibi tantum unum. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 639, nota 2. — Cod. S ad alterum, cod. bb post alterum.Reference is made to that saying of Aristotle, Topics III, c. 2: Where one thing is on account of another, there is only one. Compare vol. II, p. 639, note 2. — Codex S reads toward the other, codex bb after the other.
- 6Cfr. supra d. 1. p. 1. q. 2. — Minor colligitur ex dicto Aristot., supra pag. 110, nota 5. — In fine arg. edd. isto et sint res pro sit res.Compare above, d. 1, p. 1, q. 2. — The minor is gathered from the saying of Aristotle, above p. 110, note 5. — At the end of the argument the editions read this and they be realities for the reality be.
- 7Vide supra d. 1. p. I. dub. 11. et d. 3. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2.See above, d. 1, p. I, dub. 11, and d. 3, p. 1, a. 1, q. 2.
- 8Exemplum continetur illis verbis Aristot., II. Phys. text. 26. (c. 2.): Homo [causa particularis] enim hominem generat et sol [causa universalis]. Cfr. 1. Sent. d. 45. n. 2. q. 2. in corp. — Pro sint enim edd. sunt cum causa.The example is contained in those words of Aristotle, Physics II, text 26 (c. 2): For man [the particular cause] generates man, and the sun [the universal cause]. Compare 1 Sent., d. 45, n. 2, q. 2, in the body. — For be the editions read are with a cause.
- 9Cfr. Boeth., de Unitate et uno, ubi etiam divisiones unitatis exhibentur. Vide tom. III. pag. 896, nota 2. — Pro unionem cod. H unitatem. Inferius post una ex eodem cod. H supplevimus enim, pro quo cod. aa inde.Compare Boethius, On Unity and the One, where the divisions of unity are also set forth. See vol. III, p. 896, note 2. — For union codex H reads unity. Further below, after una we have supplied for from the same codex H, for which codex aa reads thence.
- 10Vide supra pag. 197, nota 3. Cfr. Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro altaris Mysterio, c. 38, ubi diversae opiniones de hac quaestione recensentur.See above, p. 197, note 3. Compare Innocent III, On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar IV, c. 38, where the diverse opinions on this question are reviewed.
- 11Codd. O U supplent corpus.Codices O and U supply body.
- 12Anselm., ad Waleranni querelas responsio (de Sacram. diversitate), c. 2: Sicut unus est Christus, qui se ipsum obtulit pro nobis, ita una est oblatio et una hostia in pane et vino, quam offerimus.Anselm, Reply to the complaints of Waleran (on the diversity of the Sacrament), c. 2: Just as Christ is one, who offered himself for us, so there is one offering and one victim in the bread and wine, which we offer.
- 13Scilicet unam perfectam refectionem.Namely, one perfect refreshment.
- 14Cfr. supra pag. 74, nota 5. — Inferius pro vel edd. et.Compare above, p. 74, note 5. — Further below, for or the editions read and.
- 15Vide supra d. 6. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. in corp.See above, d. 6, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, in the body.
- 16Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion on the preceding question. ---