Sub alia autem specie tribus de causis carnem et sanguinem tradidit Christus. Hic ostendit qualiter species remaneant substantiali conversione facta; et dividitur in partes duas: in prima ostendit quare sub alia specie corpus Christi verum in sacramento exhibeatur; in secunda determinat de usu sive distributione dictarum specierum, ibi: colligitur etiam ex praedictis, quod Christus vinum aqua mixtum dedit discipulis, corpus vero tale dedit quale tunc habuit. Christ gave his body and blood under another species for three reasons. Here he shows how the species remain when the substantial conversion has happened; and this is divided into two parts. In the first he shows why the true body of Christ is displayed in this sacrament under a different appearance; in the second he determines its use, or the distribution of the species mentioned, at: it is gathered from the foregoing that Christ gave to the disciples wine mixed with water. As for the body, he gave such a one as he then had. Circa primum tria facit: primo ostendit quare sub alia specie corpus Christi proponatur in sacramento; secundo quare sub duplici, ibi: sed quare sub duplici specie sumitur? Tertio de admixtione tertii elementi, scilicet aquae, ibi: aqua vero admiscenda est vino. Concerning the first he does three things: first, he shows why the body of Christ is presented in the sacrament under a different appearance; second, why under two different appearances, at: but why is it taken under a double species? Third, about the mixing in of a third element, namely, water, at: but water is to be mixed with the wine. Colligitur etiam ex praedictis, quod Christus vinum aqua mixtum dedit discipulis, etc. Hic determinat de distributione specierum; et primo quomodo Christus distribuerit; secundo quomodo nunc distribuendum sit, ibi: Eucharistia quoque intincta non debet dari populo pro supplemento communionis. It is gathered from the foregoing that Christ gave to the disciples wine mixed with water. As for the body, he gave such a one as he then had, etc. Here he considers the distribution of the species, and first, how Christ distributed it; second, how it should be distributed now, at: and the Eucharist is not to be given by intinction to the people “as a supplement of Communion.” Hic est triplex quaestio. Prima de conversione panis in corpus Christi, et vini in sanguinem. Secunda de materia hujus sacramenti, cujus species post conversionem remanent. Tertia de usu sacramenti istius in prima sui institutione, qua Christus ipsum discipulis dedit. Here there are three questions. First, concerning the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ, and the wine into his blood. Second, the matter of this sacrament, whose appearances remain after the conversion. Third, the use of this sacrament at its first institution, when Christ gave it to his disciples. Quaestio 1 Question 1 De transubstantione Transubstantiation Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor: Concerning the first, there are four things to be asked: primo, utrum post consecrationem remaneat ibi panis; first, whether the bread remains there after the consecration; secundo, utrum annihiletur; second, whether it is annihilated; tertio, utrum convertatur in corpus Christi; third, whether it is converted into the body of Christ; quarto, de locutionibus quae in hac materia concedendae sunt. fourth, the statements that should be granted in this matter. Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum post consecrationem remaneat ibi panis Whether the bread remains there after the consecration Quaestiuncula 1 Quaestiuncula 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod substantia panis remaneat post consecrationem, ut dicit tertia opinio. Damascenus enim dicit: quia consuetudo est hominibus comedere panem et vinum, conjugavit eis divinitatem, et fecit ea corpus et sanguinem suum. Sed conjunctio requirit utrumque conjunctorum existere actu. Ergo panis remanet cum corpore Christi. Obj. 1: To the first we proceed thus. It seems that the bread’s substance remains after the consecration, as the third opinion says. For Damascene says, since it is the custom for men to eat bread and wine, he has joined them to divinity, and made those things his own body and blood. But a joining requires that both of the things joined actually exist. Therefore, the bread remains with the body of Christ. Praeterea, illud quod de pane remanet in hoc sacramento post consecrationem, cum sit sacramentum tantum, debet verum corpus Christi, et etiam mysticum, significare. Sed significatio talis non competit pani nisi ratione substantiae suae secundum quam ex diversis granis conficitur, secundum quam etiam reficere et nutrire habet. Ergo oportet quod remaneat in substantia panis. Obj. 2: Furthermore, what remains of the bread in this sacrament after the consecration, since it is sacrament alone, must signify the true body of Christ, and also the mystical body. But this signification does not belong to bread except by reason of its substance, according to which it is made out of many grains, and according as it is able to restore and nourish. Therefore, it must remain in the substance of bread. Praeterea, illud ad quod pauciora difficilia sequuntur, est magis eligendum. Sed ad hanc positionem sequuntur pauciora difficilia, cum nihil aliud sequatur, nisi quod duo corpora sint in eodem loco; quod non est inconveniens de corpore glorioso ratione suae subtilitatis. Ergo haec opinio est alii praeeligenda. Obj. 3: Furthermore, what leads to fewer difficulties is rather to be chosen. But this position leads to fewer difficulties, since nothing follows other than that two bodies are together in the same place, which is not unfitting to the glorified body by reason of its subtlety. Therefore, this opinion is to be preferred to the other. Sed contra, hoc pronomen hoc, cum sit demonstrativum ad sensum, demonstrat substantiam sub speciebus immediate latentem. Sed si substantia panis ibi remaneret, ipsa sola immediate accidentibus subesset, quia eis afficeretur. Ergo ad ipsam ferretur demonstratio hujus pronominis hoc, cum dicitur: hoc est corpus meum; et sic locutio esset falsa; quod est inconveniens et haereticum, quia est in doctrina religionis proposita. Ergo et praedicta positio est haeretica. On the contrary (1), this pronoun, this, since it is demonstrative in its sense, indicates the substance hidden directly under the appearances. But if the bread’s substance remained there, it alone would directly underlie the accidents, for it would be affected by them. Therefore, the demonstration of this pronoun this, when it is said, this is my body, would be directed to it, and then it would be a false statement, which is unfitting and heretical, for it is in the teaching proposed by our religion. Therefore, the position described is heretical. Praeterea, si substantia panis ibi remaneret, tunc sumens hoc sacramentum non solum sumeret spiritualem cibum, sed etiam corporalem. Sed corporalis cibi sumptio impedit a sacramento ulterius eadem die percipiendo, ut supra, dist. 8, dictum est. Ergo qui semel sumpsisset corpus Christi, non posset iterato sumere; quod est contra ritum hujus sacramenti. Furthermore (2), if the bread’s substance remained there, then the one receiving this sacrament would not only receive spiritual food, but also physical food. But the consumption of physical food impedes one from receiving the sacrament for the rest of the day, as was said above in Distinction 8. Therefore, anyone who had consumed the body of Christ once would not be able to receive again, which is against the rite of this sacrament. Quaestiuncula 2 Quaestiuncula 2 Ulterius. Videtur quod non debeant species panis remanere. Quia in sacramento veritatis non debet esse aliqua deceptio. Sed cum accidentia ducant in cognitionem ejus quod quid est, secundum Philosophum in 1 de Anima, deceptio videtur, ostendere illius accidentia cujus substantia non manet. Ergo ex quo substantia panis non manet, non deberent accidentia ejus remanere. Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the appearance of the bread must not remain. For in the sacrament of truth there should be no deception. But since accidents lead to the recognition of what something is, according to the Philosopher in On the Soul 1, it seems to be a deception to display the accidents of something whose substance no longer remains. Therefore, since the bread’s substance does not remain, its accidents should not remain. Praeterea, causae in littera assignatae non videntur convenientes. Fides enim quamvis experimentum rationis effugiat, tamen rationis contradictionem non requirit: quia ea quae sunt fidei non sunt contra rationem, sed supra. Sed quod sub alia specie videatur, hoc non solum contra rationem, sed etiam contra sensum apparet. Ergo non deberet sub alia specie apparere propter meritum fidei. Obj. 2: Furthermore, the reasons assigned in the text do not seem fitting. For although faith slips away from the testing of reason, nevertheless it does not require contradicting reason: for those things that are of faith are not against reason, but above it. But what is seen under another appearance is not only against reason, but even appears against the senses. Therefore, it should not have appeared under a different species for the sake of the merit of faith. Praeterea, supposita fide hujus sacramenti, per quam corpus Christi sine sui detrimento manducari creditur, non esset horridum illud sumere in quacumque specie appareret. Sed fides necessaria est ad sumendum. Ergo secunda causa quam assignat, nulla est. Obj. 3: Furthermore, once we assume faith in this sacrament, by which the body of Christ is believed to be eaten without detriment to him, it would not be horrible to consume it in whatever species it should appear. But faith is necessary for receiving it. Therefore, the second reason that he assigns is null. Praeterea, illud quod aliquando fit ad confirmationem fidei, si semper fieret, non esset irrisio, sed major confirmatio. Sed aliquando ad confirmationem fidei alicujus dubitantis de hoc sacramento, ostenditur corpus Christi sub specie carnis, sicut legitur in vita beati Gregorii et in Vitis patrum. Ergo non esset ad irrisionem, si semper in specie propria ostenderetur. Obj. 4: Furthermore, what happens sometimes for the strengthening of faith, if it always happened, would not be mockery, but greater strengthening. But sometimes to strengthen the faith of someone who is doubting about this sacrament, the body of Christ appears under the species of flesh, as is read in the life of blessed Gregory and in the lives of the fathers. Therefore, it would not be derisive if it always appeared in its proper species. Sed contra, sacramentum est sensibile signum, ut 1 distinct. dictum est. Sed panis est corporis Christi veri sacramentum. Ergo debet remanere quantum ad sensibilia accidentia. On the contrary (1), a sacrament is a sensible sign, as was said in Distinction 1. But bread is the sacrament of the true body of Christ. Therefore, it should remain in its sensible accidents. Praeterea, usus hujus sacramenti est manducatio, ut supra, dist. 9, dictum est. Sed manducatio requirit divisionem cibi, quae fit per masticationem. Ergo cum divisio non possit fieri in vero corpore Christi, quod est gloriosum, oportuit quod essent ibi species saltem aliae, quarum fractio esset. Furthermore (2), the use of this sacrament is eating, as was said above in Distinction 9. But eating requires a sundering of food, which happens by chewing. But since this sundering cannot happen to the true body of Christ, which is glorified, there had to be at least other appearances there, which could be broken up. Quaestiuncula 3 Quaestiuncula 3 Ulterius. Videtur quod etiam forma substantialis panis debeat remanere. Operatio enim substantialis non potest fieri sine forma substantiali. Sed nutrire est operatio formae substantialis: quia nutrit inquantum quid cibus, ut dicitur in 2 de Anima. Ergo cum species quae in sacramento remanent, etiam corporaliter nutriant, ut a quibusdam dicitur, videtur quod forma substantialis panis remaneat. Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that also the substantial form of bread should remain. For substantial operation cannot happen without substantial form. But to nourish is the operation of a substantial form, for something nourishes to the extent that it is food, as it says in On the Soul 2. Therefore, since the appearances that remain in the sacrament also nourish physically, as certain people say, it seems that the substantial form of bread remains. Praeterea, illud quod non mutatur in aliquid corporis Christi, oportet quod post consecrationem maneat. Sed forma substantialis panis non convertitur in aliquid corporis Christi: quia si converteretur, oporteret quod converteretur in animam, quae est forma substantialis corporis Christi, in quam non convertitur aliquid, ut ex praecedenti dist. patet. Ergo forma substantialis panis manet sicut et accidentia. Obj. 2: Furthermore, what is not changed into something of the body of Christ must remain after the consecration. But the bread’s substantial form is not converted into anything of the body of Christ: for if it were converted, it would have had to be converted into the soul, which is the substantial form of the body of Christ, into which nothing is converted, as is evident from the previous distinction. Therefore, the substantial form of bread remains, like the accidents. Praeterea, panis est quoddam artificiale. Sed formae artificialium sunt accidentia, ut patet in 2 Physic. Cum ergo accidentia maneant, videtur quod forma panis secundum quam est panis, maneat. Obj. 3: Furthermore, bread is something man-made. But the forms of man-made things are accidents, as is evident in the Physics 2. Therefore, since the accidents remain, it seems that the bread’s form, according to which it is bread, remains. Praeterea, secundum Averroem in Lib. de Substantia orbis, et in 1 Physic., oportet in materia praeintelligere dimensiones ante formas substantiales aliquo modo in generabilibus et corruptibilibus, alias non possent esse diversae formae in diversis partibus materiae, cum divisio non fiat nisi secundum quantitatem. Sed dimensiones manent. Ergo et forma substantialis manet. Obj. 4: Furthermore, according to Averroes in his book On the Substance of the World, and in his commentary on Physics 1, it is necessary in matter to understand dimensions before substantial forms in some way among generable and corruptible things, otherwise there could not be different forms in different parts of the matter, since division only happens according to quantity. But the dimensions remain. Therefore, the substantial form also remains. Sed contra, remotis accidentibus et forma substantiali, nihil manet nisi subjectum commune. Sed illud quod est commune, non potest converti in aliquid. Ergo non posset intelligi aliqua conversio fieri si forma substantialis remaneret. On the contrary (1), once accidents and substantial form are removed, nothing remains except the shared subject. But what is shared cannot be converted into something. Therefore, no conversion can be understood to happen if substantial form remains. Praeterea, species panis et vini sensibiles sunt sacramentum tantum in Eucharistia. Ergo debent ducere in illud cujus sunt sacramentum, scilicet in corpus Christi. Sed si remaneret ibi forma substantialis panis, ducerent in ipsam magis quam in corpus Christi, quia sunt ei propinquiora secundum naturam. Ergo videtur quod non remaneat forma substantialis panis. Furthermore (2), the sensible appearances of bread and wine are sacrament alone in the Eucharist. Therefore, they must lead to that of which they are the sacrament, namely, the body of Christ. But if the bread’s substantial form remained there, the appearances would lead to it rather than to the body of Christ, for they are closer to it according to nature. Therefore it seems that the bread’s substantial form does not remain. Quaestiuncula 1 Response to Quaestiuncula 1 Respondeo dicendum ad primam quaestionem, quod haec positio, quae ponit substantiam panis ibi remanere post consecrationem simul cum vero corpore, incompetens est huic sacramento, et impossibilis, et haeretica. To the first question, I answer that this position, which holds that the bread’s substance remains after the consecration together with the true body, is unbecoming to this sacrament, and impossible, and heretical. Incompetens quidem, quia impediret venerationem debitam huic sacramento: esset enim idolatriae occasio, si hostiae veneratio latriae exhiberetur, substantia panis ibi remanente. Esset etiam contra significationem sacramenti: quia species non ducerent in verum corpus Christi per modum signi, sed magis in substantiam panis. Esset etiam contra usum sacramenti: quia jam cibus iste non esset pure spiritualis sed etiam corporalis. It is unbecoming because it would impede the veneration due to this sacrament, for it would be an occasion of idolatry if the veneration of latria were given to the host while the substance of bread remained there. It would also be against the sacrament’s signification, for the species would not lead to the true body of Christ by the mode of a sign, but rather they would signify the substance of bread. It would also be against the use of the sacrament, for then this food would not be purely spiritual but also physical.