← Back to Distinction 9

Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 4

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 9

Textus Latinus
p. 205

Quaestio IV. Utrum Christus manducaverit utroque modo.

Quarto quaeritur, utrum Christus manducaverit quolibet supra dictorum modorum. Et quod sacramentaliter, videtur:

1. Levitici octavo1: Cumque de sanguine arietis; Glossa Hesychii2: « Primo sacerdos, deinde filii sanguine intingebantur, quia Christus in Coena prius sanguinem accepit, deinde discipulis dedit ». Et rursus ibidem dicit Glossa: « Bibit et aliis bibere dedit ».

p. 206

2. Item, ratione videtur, quia baptismum accepit in exemplum3: ergo si hoc Sacramentum est magis arduum, ergo de hoc magis exemplum dare debebat.

Item, quod spiritualiter manducaverit, videtur:

1. Quia spiritualiter manducatur per cognitionem et dilectionem4: sed Christus summe se cognoscebat et diligebat: ergo etc.

2. Item, Christus adhuc erat viator, ergo adhuc debebat uti viatico; sed corpus Christi spiritualiter est viaticum5: ergo etc.

Contra, quod non manducaverit spiritualiter, videtur:

3. Quia ubi est spiritualis manducatio, ibi unio6; ubi autem unio, ibi diversitas nonnulla: ergo cum idem non differat a se, patet, quod Christus non comedit spiritualiter, cum fuerit idem sibi.

4. Item, ubi est spiritualis manducatio, Sacramentum habet spiritualem effectum; sed in Christo non habuit talem effectum manducatio: ergo etc.

Item, quod non sacramentaliter manducaverit, videtur:

3. Quia manducare sacramentaliter est manducare sub velamine; sed Christus sub velamine non manducavit: ergo etc. Minor patet, quia aperte totum cognoscebat.

4. Item, si sacramentaliter tantum; cum iste sit modus debitus malis, ipse autem aut sumsit optimo modo, aut nullo modo sumsit; et iste modus non est optimus; ergo non convenit ei.

Conclusio

Christus eucharistiam sacramentaliter, non spiritualiter sumsit.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quidam dicere voluerunt, quod nullo modo sumsit, quia sibi non competebat. Verumtamen nunc communiter dicunt, quod Christus manducavit sacramentaliter, sicut dicit Chrysostomus7, quod primus bibit, ne alii potum sanguinis abhorrerent.

Sed de spirituali quidam dicunt, quod sic; dicunt enim, quod fuit ibi unio per actum amoris, et effectus fuit non in se, sed in membris, ut, sicut Christus non sibi meruit, sed nobis, sic virtute illius manducationis meruit, ut membra corporis sui magis unirentur sibi. — Sed si istud verum esset, tunc haberet effectum in non manducante et etiam8 in dormiente. Amplius, ipso baptizato, non sunt alii baptizati. Postremo, spiritualis manducatio dicit intentionem unionis manducantis ad manducatum actu vel habitu; quorum neutrum fuit in Christo.

Propterea dicendum, quod sicut baptismum tantum sacramentaliter suscepit et non rem; sic et hoc Sacramentum; et hoc quidem in exemplum fecit.

p. 207

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod manducavit spiritualiter, quia fuit in eo cognitio et dilectio; dicendum, quod hoc non sufficit, nisi etiam sit ibi incorporatio, quae non potuit esse in ipso, quia non erat diversus ab eo cui incorporat ista manducatio.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod erat viator; dicendum, quod verum est; sed nihilominus erat comprehensor perfectissimus et nullatenus poterat proficere, nec habitu nec fervoris motu. Unde esto, quod aliquis quantumcumque perfectus — etsi non beatus — recipiat digne Sacramentum; intenditur in eo caritas motu, vel habitu.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non manducavit sacramentaliter, quia non sub velamine; dicendum, quod ad plenam rationem sacramentalis manducationis non oportet quod veniat signum tanquam velans, sed sufficit, ut veniat tanquam significans; quod autem velet, hoc est per accidens, quia oculus videns non est illuminatus plene; unde velando illuminat et illuminando velat9.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod mali tantum comedunt sacramentaliter; dicendum, quod aliquis sacramentaliter tantum recipit, quia non est idoneus ad spiritualem efficaciam. Sed hoc potest esse duplici de causa: aut propter gratiae plenitudinem, et hoc perfectionis est et in solo Christo fuit: aut hoc est propter ipsius ineptitudinem et indignitatem, et sic est in peccatoribus. Et sic patet illud10.

---

English Translation

Question IV. Whether Christ ate in both modes.

Fourthly it is asked, whether Christ ate by any whatever of the modes mentioned above. And that he did so sacramentally, it seems:

1. Leviticus, chapter eight1: And when [Moses dipped his finger] in the blood of the ram; the Gloss of Hesychius2: « First the priest, then the sons were dipped in the blood, because Christ in the Supper first took the blood, then gave it to the disciples ». And again in the same place the Gloss says: « He drank and gave to others to drink ».

2. Likewise, it seems by reason, because he received baptism as an example3: therefore if this Sacrament is more arduous, then concerning this he ought rather to give an example.

Likewise, that he ate spiritually, it seems:

1. Because one eats spiritually through knowledge and love4: but Christ knew and loved himself in the highest degree: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Christ was still a wayfarer, therefore he still ought to use the viaticum; but the body of Christ is spiritually the viaticum5: therefore etc.

On the contrary, that he did not eat spiritually, it seems:

3. Because where there is spiritual eating, there is union6; but where there is union, there is some diversity: therefore since the same does not differ from itself, it is plain that Christ did not eat spiritually, since he was the same as himself.

4. Likewise, where there is spiritual eating, the Sacrament has a spiritual effect; but in Christ the eating did not have such an effect: therefore etc.

Likewise, that he did not eat sacramentally, it seems:

3. Because to eat sacramentally is to eat under a veil; but Christ did not eat under a veil: therefore etc. The minor is plain, because he knew the whole thing openly.

4. Likewise, if [he ate] only sacramentally; since this is the mode owed to the wicked, but he either took in the best mode, or took in no mode; and this mode is not the best; therefore it does not befit him.

Conclusion

Christ took the Eucharist sacramentally, not spiritually.

I respond: It must be said that some have wished to say that he took it in no mode, because it did not befit him. Yet now they commonly say that Christ ate sacramentally, as Chrysostom says7, that he drank first, lest the others should shrink from the drink of the blood.

But concerning the spiritual [eating] some say that he did so; for they say that there was there a union through an act of love, and the effect was not in himself, but in the members, so that, just as Christ did not merit for himself, but for us, so by the power of that eating he merited that the members of his body should be more united to himself. — But if this were true, then it would have its effect in one not eating and even8 in one sleeping. Furthermore, when he is baptized, others are not baptized. Finally, spiritual eating implies the intention of the union of the one eating with the one eaten, in act or in habit; neither of which was in Christ.

Therefore it must be said that, just as he received baptism only sacramentally and not the reality; so also this Sacrament; and this indeed he did as an example.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that he ate spiritually, because there was in him knowledge and love; it must be said that this does not suffice, unless there also be there incorporation, which could not be in him, because he was not diverse from that into which this eating incorporates.

2. To that which is objected, that he was a wayfarer; it must be said that it is true; but nonetheless he was the most perfect comprehensor and could in no way advance, neither in habit nor in motion of fervor. Hence granted that someone however perfect — even if not blessed — receives the Sacrament worthily; charity is intensified in him in motion, or in habit.

3. To that which is objected, that he did not eat sacramentally, because not under a veil; it must be said that for the full account of sacramental eating it is not required that the sign come as veiling, but it suffices that it come as signifying; that it veil, however, is per accidens, because the seeing eye is not fully illumined; whence by veiling it illumines and by illumining it veils9.

4. To that which is objected, that only the wicked eat sacramentally; it must be said that someone receives only sacramentally because he is not fit for spiritual efficacy. But this can be from a twofold cause: either on account of the fullness of grace, and this belongs to perfection and was in Christ alone: or this is on account of his own ineptitude and unworthiness, and thus it is in sinners. And so that [text] is plain10.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Levit. 8. Vide vers. 23 seqq. — De anchora cfr. infra lit. Magistri.
    Leviticus 8. See verses 23ff. — On the anchoring see below in the text of the Master.
  2. 2
    Vers. 24. — Verba Hesychii sunt: Primus sacerdos sanguine et post eum filii eius secundum Legem ungebantur; quia et ipse Dominus primus in Coena mystica intelligibilem [cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. X. c. I.] accepit sanguinem, atque deinde calicem Apostolis dedit. — Ibid. etiam seq. Glossa habetur super haec verba: De sanguine reliquum fudit super altare per circuitum. Quod et Christum fecisse invenimus; bibens enim ipse et Apostolis bibere dans, tunc intelligibilem sanguinem super altare, videlicet suum corpus, effudit. Corpus autem Christi Ecclesia est etc.
    Verse 24. — The words of Hesychius are: First the priest with the blood and after him his sons were anointed according to the Law; because the Lord himself also first in the mystical Supper took the intelligible blood [cf. below in the text of the Master, d. X, c. I], and then gave the chalice to the Apostles. — Likewise in the same place the following Gloss is found on these words: Of the blood he poured the rest upon the altar round about. This too we find that Christ did; for in drinking himself and giving the Apostles to drink, he then poured out the intelligible blood upon the altar, namely his own body. But the body of Christ is the Church, etc.
  3. 3
    Cfr. supra q. 2.
    Cf. above, q. 2.
  4. 4
    Vide supra d. 8. p. I. dub. 3.
    See above, d. 8, p. I, dubium 3.
  5. 5
    Cfr. supra q. 1. — Cod. aa addit: sed Christus, cum esset Deo unitus in summo, non poterat uniri: ergo non comedit spiritualiter. Subinde pro nonnulla: ergo cod. A uniformiter sed, et pro ergo cum codd. B S T cum tamen. — Hoc arg. ducitur ex Petr. Pictav., V. Sent. c. 13.
    Cf. above, q. 1. — Codex aa adds: but Christ, since he was united to God in the highest degree, could not be united: therefore he did not eat spiritually. Then for some diversity: therefore codex A has uniformly but, and for therefore, with codices B S T, nonetheless. — This argument is drawn from Peter of Poitiers, V Sent. c. 13.
  6. 6
    Cfr. supra q. 1.
    Cf. above, q. 1.
  7. 7
    In Matth. 26, 20. seqq. homil. 82. (alias 83.) n. 1: Et ipse quoque ex illo bibit. Ne enim haec audientes dicerent: Quid ergo? sanguinemne bibimus et carnem manducamus? — ne turbarentur; nam cum hac de re verba faceret, de ipsis verbis multi offensi sunt; ne itaque tunc turbarentur, primus ipse hoc facit, ut illos ad mysteriorum participationem tranquillo animo subeundam induceret. Ideo ergo suum ipse sanguinem bibit. — Edd. cum pluribus codd. Hesychius, cuius verba iam attulimus. — Petr. Pictav., V. Sent. c. 13: Dicimus ergo, quod numquam sacramentaliter accepit [Christus] etc.
    On Matthew 26:20ff, homily 82 (elsewhere 83), n. 1: And he himself also drank of it. For lest those who heard these things should say: What then? do we drink blood and eat flesh? — that they might not be troubled; for when he spoke about this matter, many were offended at the very words; lest therefore they be troubled then, he himself does this first, that he might lead them to undergo participation in the mysteries with a calm mind. Therefore he himself drank his own blood. — The editions with several codices [read] Hesychius, whose words we have already adduced. — Peter of Poitiers, V Sent. c. 13: We say therefore that Christ never received it sacramentally, etc.
  8. 8
    Ex codd. E F G H V supplevimus etiam. — De praedicta opinione cfr. Guliel. Antissiodor., S. p. IV. tr. 5. c. 3.
    From codices E F G H V we have supplied even. — On the aforesaid opinion cf. William of Auxerre, Summa, p. IV, tract 5, c. 3.
  9. 9
    Val. supplet caritatis. Eadem Val. seq. proposit. sic exhibet: Unde est, quod quis quantumcumque perfectus, dum tamen non sit beatus, si recipiat etc.
    The Vatican edition supplies of charity. The same Vatican edition presents the following proposition thus: Whence it is that anyone however perfect, provided nonetheless that he is not blessed, if he receive, etc.
  10. 10
    Cfr. supra pag. 69, nota 1. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 11. m. 2. a. 4. § 1: Dicendum, quod licet omnia mirabilia huius Sacramenti, quae alios latent, Christus aperte videbat, nihilominus corpus suum sumebat sub velamine, scil. speciei panis etc.
    Cf. above, p. 69, note 1. Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV, q. 11, m. 2, a. 4, § 1: It must be said that, although Christ openly saw all the marvels of this Sacrament which are hidden from others, nonetheless he took his body under a veil, namely under the species of bread, etc. ---
Cited by

1 further reference addresses the article or printed page this question belongs to, rather than the question itself.

← Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 3Dist. 9, Art. 2, Q. 1→