Bonaventure

ARTICULUS I.

De manducatione eucharistiae in generali.

QUAESTIO I.

De duplici modo manducandi eucharistiam.

Quantum ergo ad primum proceditur sic. Quod duo debeant esse modi manducandi, scilicet « sacramentalis et spiritualis », secundum quod Magister² dicit, ostenditur:

1. Primo auctoritate canonis, Ioannis sexto³: Qui manducat me vivit propter me, hic tangitur modus spiritualis; sed primae ad Corinthios undecimo: Qui manducat indigne iudicium sibi manducat, et hic tangitur alius modus, qui non est spiritualis: ergo manducatio corporis Christi multiplex est.

2. Item, auctoritate Augustini⁴: « Spiritualiter manducat qui in unitate Christi et Ecclesiae, quam Sacramentum significat, manet »: « qui autem discordat a Christo nec carnem Christi manducat nec sanguinem bibit, etiam si tantae rei Sacramentum ad iudicium quotidie accipit ».

3. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione: quia, cum duae sint tantum res huius Sacramenti⁵, et possibile sit, unam accipere sine alia: ergo sunt duo modi distincti.

4. Item, manducatio dicit usum Sacramenti; ergo cum hic sit Sacramentum interius et exterius, patet, quod sunt duae manducationes⁶.

Contra: 1. Videtur, quod non nisi una: quia « ubi unum propter alterum, ibi unum tantum »⁷: ergo si sacramentalis est propter spiritualem, vel ad spiritualem, sicut signum ad signatum: ergo una tantum manducatio.

2. Item, caro Christi vere est cibus⁸, ergo sicut lucis est illuminare, ita carnis illius est cibare: sed non corporaliter, ergo spiritualiter; sed qui recipit sacramentaliter recipit carnem, et sic cibatur spiritualiter: ergo unus tantum est modus manducandi, scilicet spiritualis.

3. Item, ostenditur, quod sint plures modi: quia, sicut dicitur supra distinctione quarta⁹, quidam recipiunt in baptismo rem tantum, quidam Sacramentum tantum, quidam utrumque: ergo tres modi; eadem ergo ratione et hic sunt tres manducationes.

4. Item, triplex est unio¹⁰: in natura, in fide et in caritate; sed unioni fidei respondet manducatio sacramentalis: ergo et unioni caritatis spiritualis: ergo erit tertius modus respondens unioni in natura.

5. Item, triplex est in nobis virtus theologica, et quaelibet suo modo unit: ergo cum aliquis modus manducandi respondeat fidei, aliquis caritati; aliquis respondebit spei.

CONCLUSIO.

Eucharistia duplici modo manducatur, scilicet sacramentaliter et spiritualiter.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod duplex est modus manducandi. Cuius distinctio a triplici oritur principio, videlicet a dispositione sumentium: quia quidam accedunt male dispositi, et hi manducant sacramentaliter; quidam bene, et hi spiritualiter. — Ulterius oritur distinctio secundo a modo sumendi:

quia quidam suscipiunt ore corporis, et hi sacramentaliter; quidam vero ore cordis, et hi spiritualiter: unde secundum duplex os duplex est manducatio¹¹. — Tertio oritur ab ipso Sacramento: quia duplicem habet rem, quarum una potest recipi sine altera; ita sicut duplex est baptismus, scilicet fluminis et flaminis a duplici re¹², sic etiam duplex modus manducandi. — Et hoc ultimum est completum, quia una res potest sumi sine altera.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod ubi unum propter alterum; dicendum, quod hoc verum est, si sit ita unum propter alterum, quod non queat separari; sed cum separatur, iam non remanet unum¹.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod caro semper cibat; dicendum, quod actus ille semper respicit dispositionem suscipientis, sicut illuminare; unde sicut geminatur dispositio, sic et modus manducandi.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tres sunt modi in baptismo, et sic etc.; dicendum, quod ille tertius modus non distinguitur nisi materialiter tantum ab aliis duobus.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de unione naturae, est dicendum, quod manducatio respicit actum personae, ideo secundum naturam non est manducatio, sed praesupponitur.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de spe, dicunt quidam, quod non unit, quia spes proprie est futuri; tamen dicendum, quod istae manducationes non distinguuntur secundum virtutes — quia manducatio spiritualis est secundum fidem et caritatem — sed secundum res Sacramenti. Unde omne Sacramentum, quod quidem habet res duas, potest recipi sacramentaliter et spiritualiter.

SCHOLION.

I. S. Augustini distinctio duplicis modi manducandi hoc augustissimum Sacramentum, de qua agitur in his 4 quaestionibus, communiter recepta est tanquam divisio adaequata. Non tamen unus modus excludit alterum, immo de iure cum sacramentali manducatione, quae fit ore corporis, coniuncta esse deberet spiritualis, quae fit ore cordis. In usu autem ab invicem separari possunt et separantur. Non tamen manducatio, quae fit solo ore corporali, semper est sacramentalis ex parte manducantis, quando scilicet utilur speciebus, non qualenus sunt Sacramentum, sed pure materialiter; ita qui nescit, species esse consecratas, Sacramentum non sumit sacramentaliter, quia non nisi per accidens illud sumit (cfr. infra q. 3.). — Etiam spiritualis manducatio variis modis fieri potest. Hinc S. Thom. (S. III. q. 80. n. 1. ad 3.) docet, illud spiritualiter manducari non tantum ob desiderium sumendi hoc Sacramentum iam institutum, sed etiam « propter figuram [eiusdem], sicut dicit Apostolus I. Cor. 10, 3. 4, quod antiqui Patres... spiritualem escam, manducaverunt et spiritualem potum biberunt ». Idem tamen in Comment. (hic q. 1. n. 2. quaestiunc. 1.) distinguit inter manducare spiritualiter Christum et manducare spiritualiter hoc Sacramentum; quo supposito, dicit (ad 2.), « quod antiqui Patres non manducaverunt spiritualiter hoc Sacramentum, quia nondum erat institutum... manducaverunt tamen spiritualiter Christum ». Idem docent Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 11. m. 2. n. 2. § 1, et B. Albert., hic a. 5. Agitur autem in his magis de nomine quam de re. — Scot. (IV. Sent. d. 8. q. 3. n. 2.) dicit, quadruplici modo percipi posse hoc Sacramentum, scilicet nec sacramentaliter nec spiritualiter [nempe pure materialiter]; vel sacramentaliter, sed non spiritualiter; vel sacramentaliter et spiritualiter; vel tantum spiritualiter et non sacramentaliter.

De hac 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 1. a. 1. n. 1. 2. — Scot., in utroque Scripto quaest. cit. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3; S. art. cit. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 3. — De hac et seqq. qq. Durand., hic q. 1; Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

ARTICLE I.

On the eating of the eucharist in general.

QUESTION I.

On the twofold mode of eating the eucharist.

As regards the first, then, one proceeds thus. That there ought to be two modes of eating, namely "the sacramental and the spiritual," as the Master says², is shown:

1. First by the authority of the canon, John 6³: He who eats me lives because of me, here the spiritual mode is touched upon; but 1 Corinthians 11: He who eats unworthily eats judgment to himself, and here another mode is touched upon, which is not spiritual: therefore the eating of the body of Christ is manifold.

2. Likewise, by the authority of Augustine⁴: "He eats spiritually who abides in the unity of Christ and the Church, which the Sacrament signifies": "but he who is at variance with Christ neither eats the flesh of Christ nor drinks the blood, even if to his judgment he daily receives the Sacrament of so great a reality."

3. Likewise, this same thing is shown by reason: for, since there are only two realities of this Sacrament⁵, and it is possible to receive one without the other: therefore there are two distinct modes.

4. Likewise, eating bespeaks the use of the Sacrament; therefore, since here there is a Sacrament inward and outward, it is plain that there are two eatings⁶.

On the contrary: 1. It seems that there is but one: for "where one is for the sake of another, there is but one thing"⁷: therefore if the sacramental is for the sake of the spiritual, or toward the spiritual, as a sign toward what is signified: therefore there is but one eating.

2. Likewise, the flesh of Christ is truly food,⁸ therefore just as it belongs to light to illumine, so it belongs to that flesh to feed: but not corporeally, therefore spiritually; but he who receives sacramentally receives the flesh, and so is fed spiritually: therefore there is but one mode of eating, namely the spiritual.

3. Likewise, it is shown that there are several modes: for, as is said above in distinction four⁹, some receive in baptism the reality only, some the Sacrament only, some both: therefore three modes; for the same reason then here too there are three eatings.

4. Likewise, union is threefold¹⁰: in nature, in faith, and in charity; but to the union of faith there corresponds the sacramental eating: therefore also to the union of charity the spiritual: therefore there will be a third mode corresponding to the union in nature.

5. Likewise, the theological virtue is threefold in us, and each in its own way unites: therefore since one mode of eating corresponds to faith, another to charity; another will correspond to hope.

CONCLUSION.

The eucharist is eaten in a twofold mode, namely sacramentally and spiritually.

I respond: It must be said that the mode of eating is twofold. The distinction of this arises from a threefold source, namely from the disposition of those receiving: for some approach ill-disposed, and these eat sacramentally; some well, and these spiritually. — Further the distinction arises secondly from the mode of receiving:

for some receive with the mouth of the body, and these sacramentally; but some with the mouth of the heart, and these spiritually: hence according to the twofold mouth the eating is twofold¹¹. — Thirdly it arises from the Sacrament itself: for it has a twofold reality, of which one can be received without the other; thus just as baptism is twofold, namely of water and of the Spirit, from a twofold reality¹², so too the mode of eating is twofold. — And this last is the complete one, since one reality can be received without the other.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that where one is for the sake of another; it must be said that this is true, if the one is so for the sake of the other that it cannot be separated; but when it is separated, then it no longer remains one¹.

2. To that which is objected, that the flesh always feeds; it must be said that that act always regards the disposition of the one receiving, like illumining; hence as the disposition is doubled, so too the mode of eating.

3. To that which is objected, that there are three modes in baptism, and so forth; it must be said that that third mode is distinguished only materially from the other two.

4. To that which is objected concerning the union of nature, it must be said that eating regards the act of the person, and so according to nature there is no eating, but it is presupposed.

5. To that which is objected concerning hope, some say that it does not unite, because hope properly is of the future; yet it must be said that these eatings are not distinguished according to the virtues — for spiritual eating is according to faith and charity — but according to the realities of the Sacrament. Hence every Sacrament which indeed has two realities can be received sacramentally and spiritually.

SCHOLION.

I. Augustine's distinction of the twofold mode of eating this most august Sacrament, which is treated in these 4 questions, is commonly received as an adequate division. Yet the one mode does not exclude the other; rather, by right, with the sacramental eating, which is done with the mouth of the body, the spiritual, which is done with the mouth of the heart, ought to be joined. In use, however, they can be and are separated from one another. Yet the eating which is done with the bodily mouth alone is not always sacramental on the part of the one eating, namely when he uses the species not insofar as they are the Sacrament, but purely materially; thus he who does not know that the species are consecrated does not receive the Sacrament sacramentally, since he receives it only accidentally (cf. below q. 3.). — Spiritual eating too can take place in various modes. Hence S. Thom. (S. III. q. 80. n. 1. ad 3.) teaches that it is spiritually eaten not only out of desire of receiving this Sacrament already instituted, but also "on account of [its] figure, as the Apostle says 1 Cor. 10, 3. 4, that the ancient Fathers... ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink." Yet the same author in his Commentary (here q. 1. n. 2. little-question 1.) distinguishes between eating Christ spiritually and eating this Sacrament spiritually; and on this supposition he says (ad 2.) "that the ancient Fathers did not eat this Sacrament spiritually, since it was not yet instituted... yet they ate Christ spiritually." The same is taught by Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 11. m. 2. n. 2. § 1, and B. Albert., here a. 5. But in these things the dispute is more about the name than about the reality. — Scot. (IV. Sent. d. 8. q. 3. n. 2.) says that this Sacrament can be received in a fourfold mode, namely neither sacramentally nor spiritually [that is, purely materially]; or sacramentally, but not spiritually; or sacramentally and spiritually; or only spiritually and not sacramentally.

On this 1st question: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 1. a. 1. n. 1. 2. — Scot., in both Writings the cited question. — S. Thom., here q. 1. a. 1. little-question 3; the cited Summa article. — B. Albert., here a. 1. 3. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 1. a. 2. little-question 1. — Richard. a Med., here a. 1. q. 3. — On this and the following questions Durand., here q. 1; Dionys. Carth., here q. 1.