Ad tertium dicendum, quod si in conceptione unio includatur, quae simul cum ipsa facta est, major difficultas fuit in conceptione quam in transubstantiatione: quia illa unio est terminata ad esse divinae personae: haec autem transubstantiatio ad corpus Christi, quia panis non convertitur nisi in corpus Christi. Si autem conceptionis opus includat tantum conversionem sanguinum purissimorum Virginis in corpus Christi, sic major difficultas est in hac conversione quam in illa; unde potuit etiam alicui creaturae conferre quod in illa conceptione sibi cooperaretur; quamvis non fuisset conveniens propter dignitatem Christi servandam, quod tunc fiebat simpliciter, prius non existens: quod hic non accidit; et ideo nihil deperit dignitati corporis Christi, si aliqua creatura accipiat instrumentalem virtutem operandi in id quod in corpus Christi transubstantiatur. Reply Obj. 3: If the union is included in the conception, which happened at the same time with it, then there was a greater difficulty in the conception than in transubstantiation: for that union has its terminus in a divine person’s being, while transubstantiation has its terminus in the body of Christ, for bread is not converted into anything but the body of Christ. However, if the work of conception includes only the conversion of the most pure blood of the Virgin into the body of Christ, then the greater difficulty is in this conversion rather than in that one; hence he could have also conferred on a certain creature that it cooperate with him in that conception, although for the sake of preserving the dignity of Christ it would not have been fitting, since [the body of Christ] was being made simply at that time, not existing before, which does not happen here; and therefore nothing is taken away from Christ’s dignity, if some creature should receive instrumental power of working upon what is transubstantiated into the body of Christ. Ad quartum dicendum, quod nulla creatura potest agere ea quae sunt supra naturam quasi principale agens; potest tamen agere quasi agens instrumentale a virtute increata motum: quia sicut creaturae inest obedientiae potentia, ut in ea fiat quidquid Creator disposuerit, ita ut ea mediante fiat, quod est ratio instrumenti. Reply Obj. 4: No creature can do those things that are above nature as principal agent; however, it can cause a motion by uncreated power as instrumental agent: for as there is an obediential potency in creation, so that whatever the Creator has disposed happens in it, thus also so that it happens by means of it, which is the definition of an instrument. Ad quintum dicendum, quod virtus agentis principalis respicit principaliter terminum ad quem; sed virtus causae instrumentalis non attingit ad terminum ad quem, sed habet operationem suam in his quae sunt circa terminum; sicut qualitates activae elementares non attingunt ad animae rationalis introductionem. Et similiter hic contingit: quia virtus illa instrumentalis quae inest verbis, habet operationem supra substantiam panis, quia verbum ad elementum accedit, secundum Augustinum, non est autem aliquo modo causa eorum quae in termino ad quem sunt, sicut quod sint accidentia sine subjecto, vel alicujus hujusmodi; et ideo objectio cessat. Reply Obj. 5: The power of the principal agent regards principally the ending terminus, but the power of an instrumental cause does not reach to the ending terminus, but has its own operation in those things that surround the terminus, just as active elementary qualities do not attain to introducing the rational soul. And this happens similarly, because that instrumental power that is in the words has its operation upon the substance of the bread, for the word is combined with the element according to Augustine. However, it is not in any way a cause of those things that are in the ending terminus, as that accidents exist without a subject, or something like that; and so the objection ceases. Ad sextum dicendum, quod virtus haec conversiva quae est in his verbis, cum sit sacramentalis, sequitur significationem, ut dictum est; significatio autem existentis conversionis, cum importet ordinem unius ad alterum, non potest fieri per dictionem, sed oportet quod per orationem fiat; cujus partes quamvis successive proferantur, tamen significatio est tota simul, quod tunc complet ultima orationis particula ad modum differentiae ultimae in definitionibus; et hac significatione existente, in ultimo prolationis instanti fit transubstantiatio. Reply Obj. 6: Since this power of converting which is in these words is sacramental, it follows the signification, as was said. However, the signification of a conversion of something existing, since it conveys an order of one thing to another, cannot be brought about through a word or phrase but must be brought about through a complete statement, whose signification is whole and simultaneous even if its parts are uttered successively, because the last particle of the statement completes the signification at that moment, in the manner of the final difference in definitions. And once this signification exists, the transubstantiation happens in the last instant of the utterance. Ad septimum dicendum, quod significatio orationis, quamvis relata ad partes quibus fit significatio, videatur composita, tamen relata ad rem significatam simplex est, inquantum significat unum quid, scilicet compositionem hujus cum hoc; sicut etiam Philosophus dicit in 5 Metaphysica, quod substantia senaria non est bis tria, sed semel sex quam ibi qualitatem nominat. Unde sicut ad hanc qualitatem senarii se habent partes ejus ut dispositiones materiales, non ut qualitates partium, sicut partes unius qualitatis totius; ita significationes partium sunt dispositiones ad significationem totius orationis, quae consurgit ex significatione ultimae partis in ordine ad omnes praecedentes: quia virtus conversiva sequitur significationem, ut dictum est; et ideo in ipso complemento significationis datur illa virtus orationi toti, ita quod partes singulae se habent materialiter tantum ad illam virtutem. Reply Obj. 7: Although in relation to the parts that bring about its signification the signification of the statement seems composite, yet relative to the reality signified it is simple, inasmuch as it signifies one thing, namely the composition of this with that; just as the Philosopher also says in the Metaphysics 5, that the substance of six is not three twice, but six once, which names the quality there. Hence just as for this quality of six its parts are related to it as material dispositions, not as qualities of parts, like the parts of one entire quality, so also the significations of the parts are dispositions to the signification of the whole utterance, which arises from the signification of the last part, taken in an order to all those preceding it: for the power to convert follows the signification, as was said; and so in what completes the signification that power is given to the whole utterance, so that the individual parts are related only materially to that power. Ad octavum dicendum, quod valde conveniens est quod omne quod est propter aliquid, esse desinat perfecto hoc propter quod erat; et quia virtus illa non erat ad perfectionem ejus cui dabatur, sed magis ad faciendum conversionem de qua loquimur, cum sit tantum instrumentalis virtus, ut dictum est; ideo non est inconveniens, si statim conversione facta, et verba et virtus verborum esse desinant. Reply Obj. 8: It is extremely fitting that everything that is for the sake of something stop existing once this thing is complete that it was for the sake of; and since that power was not for the perfection of what it was given to, but rather for making the conversion of which we speak, since it is only an instrumental power, as was said, for this reason it is not unfitting if, once the conversion is done, both the words and the power of the words immediately cease to be. Ad nonum dicendum, quod quando aliquod opus perficitur pluribus instrumentis, virtus instrumentalis non est complete in uno, sed incomplete in utroque, sicut manu et penna scribitur; et similiter contingit in proposito: quia virtus instrumentalis ad faciendam praedictam conversionem non tantum est in verbo sed in sacerdote, sed in utroque incomplete: quia nec sacerdos sine verbo, nec verbum sine sacerdote conficere potest. Et quia sacerdos est similior principali agenti quam verbum, quia gerit ejus figuram; ideo, simpliciter loquendo, sua virtus instrumentalis est major et dignior (unde etiam permanet, et ad multos hujusmodi effectus se habet): virtus autem verbi transit, et ad semel tantum est: sed secundum quid est potentior virtus verbi, inquantum effectui propinquior, quasi signum ipsius; sicut etiam penna est scripturae propinquior, sed manus scribenti. Reply Obj. 9: When some work is completed by several instruments, the instrumental power is not completely in one but incompletely in each, as one writes with a pen and the hand; and it happens the same way in this case: for an instrumental power for making the conversion mentioned is not only in the word but also in the priest, yet in each incompletely: for neither the priest without the word nor the word without the priest can consecrate. And since a priest is more like the principal agent than a word, since he bears his figure, for this reason, simply speaking, his instrumental power is greater and more worthy (for which reason also it remains, and is related to many effects like this). However, the power of the word is transient, and only exists for one time; but in a certain respect, the power of the word is greater, as closer to the effect, like a sign of it; just as also a pen is closer to the writing, but a hand is closer to the writer. Articulus 4 Article 4 De comparatione unius ad aliam A comparison of the two consecrations Quaestiuncula 1 Quaestiuncula 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod formae expectent se in operando. Sicut enim se habet res ad rem, ita se habet forma ad formam. Sed res corporis non est sine re sanguinis: quia non consecratur corpus Christi sine sanguine. Ergo nec forma corporis operatur sine forma sanguinis. Obj. 1: To the fourth we proceed thus. It seems that the forms depend on each other in working. For just as one reality is related to another reality, so also is a form related to a form. But the reality of the body does not exist without the reality of the blood: for the body of Christ is not consecrated without the blood. Therefore, neither does the form of consecrating the body work without the form of consecrating the blood. Praeterea, hoc sacramentum est unum. Sed propter unitatem sacramenti species duae, scilicet panis et vini, se habent in ratione unius signi, ut dictum est. Ergo similiter duae formae se habent in ratione unius formae. Sed in una forma partes se expectant invicem ad agendum, ut dictum est. Ergo et forma corporis expectat formam sanguinis. Obj. 2: Furthermore, this sacrament is one. But because of the unity of the sacrament the two species, namely, bread and wine, are interrelated in the notion of one sign, as has been said. Therefore, in the same way, the two forms are interrelated in the notion of one form. But in one form the parts are dependent on each other in order to act, as has been said. Therefore, the form of consecrating the body also depends on the form of the blood. Praeterea, in baptismo tres immersiones se expectant in agendo. Ergo et similiter hae duae prolationes verborum. Obj. 3: Furthermore, in baptism three immersions depend on each other in acting. Therefore, also these two utterances of words do in the same way. Sed contra, si statim verbis prolatis, quando est orationis significatio, non esset ibi verum corpus Christi, haec esset falsa: hoc est corpus meum. Sed in sacramento veritatis non contingit aliquid esse falsum. Ergo forma prima non expectat secundam in operando. On the contrary (1), if once the words are uttered, when there is the signification of the prayer, the true body of Christ were not there immediately, then this would be false: this is my body. But in the sacrament of truth nothing can happen that is false. Therefore, the first form does not depend on the second one to work. Praeterea, hostia non est adoranda ante consecrationem. Sed secundum communem morem ecclesiae, statim dictis primis verbis formae super panem, ante formam sanguinis elevatur hostia a populo adoranda. Ergo ante formam sanguinis hostia est consecrata. Furthermore (2), the host should not be adored before its consecration. But according to the common custom of the Church, immediately once these first words of the form are said over the bread, before the form of the blood, the host is raised for the people to adore. Therefore, before the form of the blood the host is consecrated. Quaestiuncula 2 Quaestiuncula 2 Ulterius. Videtur quod deficiente sacerdote post corporis Christi consecrationem non debet alius procedere ad consecrationem sanguinis. Quia unius sacramenti unus debet esset minister. Sed consecratio utraque ad unum sacerdotem pertinet. Ergo ab uno ministro fieri debet. Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that if the priest fails after the consecration of the body of Christ, another should not proceed to the consecration of the blood. For one person should be the minister for one sacrament. But both consecrations belong to one priest. Therefore, they should be done by one minister. Praeterea, sacerdos consecrans gerit figuram Christi, ex cujus persona verba proferuntur. Sed Christus non est divisus, ut dicitur 1 Corinth. 1. Ergo nec verba dividi debent ut a diversis proferantur. Obj. 2: Furthermore, the consecrating priest bears the figure of Christ, in whose person the words are uttered. But Christ is not divided, as it says in 1 Corinthians 1:13. Therefore, neither should the words be divided by being uttered by different people. Sed contra, ad perfectionem hujus sacramenti utraque consecratio requiritur. Si ergo consecrato corpore non consecratur sanguis, sacramentum remanet imperfectum, quod est inconveniens. On the contrary, for the completion of this sacrament both consecrations are required. If, therefore, when the body is consecrated, the blood is not consecrated, the sacrament remains incomplete, which is unfitting. Quaestiuncula 3 Quaestiuncula 3 Ulterius. Videtur quod haec verba sine aliis quae in canone Missae dicuntur, non habeant vim conficiendi. Quia in hoc sacramento requiritur intentio faciendi quod facit ecclesia; et sic intentio debet esse secundum statuta ecclesiae regulata. Sed proferens haec verba tantum, non servat ecclesiae statuta. Ergo non conficit. Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that these words, without the others that are said in the canon of the Mass, would not have the power of consecrating. For in this sacrament the intention of doing what the Church does is required, and so the intention should be according to the statutes of the Church. But uttering these words alone does not preserve the statutes of the Church. Therefore, it does not consecrate. Praeterea, verba quibus fit consecratio, per se prolata, ad personam dicentis referuntur. Sed conversio panis et vini non fit in corpus et sanguinem dicentis, sed in corpus et sanguinem Christi. Ergo sine verbis praemissis, quibus verba formae determinantur ad personam Christi, scilicet: qui pridie quam pateretur, etc., non potest fieri conversio. Obj. 2: Furthermore, the words by which the consecration happens, uttered by themselves, are referred to the person of the speaker. But the conversion of bread and wine does not happen into the body and blood of the speaker, but into the body and blood of Christ. Therefore, without the foregoing words, namely, who the day before he suffered, etc., by which the form’s words are determined to the person of Christ, this conversion cannot happen. Praeterea, si verbis praedictis tantum posset fieri consecratio, tunc aliquis in periculo mortis existens, posset licite sine verbis praecedentibus conficere, sicut aliquis in necessitate potest baptizare omissis illis quae sunt ad decorem sacramenti. Sed hoc nunquam licet. Ergo sine verbis aliis ista non habent vim convertendi. Obj. 3: Furthermore, if the consecration could happen by the words in question alone, then someone in danger of death could licitly consecrate without the prefatory words, just as someone can baptize in necessity while omitting those things that are for the embellishment of the sacrament. But this is never permitted. Therefore, without the other words, these words do not have the force of conversion. Sed contra est quod Ambrosius dicit: sacramentum istud quod accipis, sermone Domini conficitur; et loquitur de verbis praedictis. Ergo sine aliis ista prolata habent vim conficiendi. On the contrary (1), Ambrose says: this sacrament which you receive is confected by the word of the Lord; and he is speaking of the words discussed. Therefore, without any others, those have the force of consecrating once uttered. Praeterea, virtus conversiva sequitur significationem verborum, ut dictum est. Sed verba formae absque praecedentibus sufficienter significant hoc quod in sacramento hoc faciendum est. Ergo sine aliis habent vim conversivam. Furthermore (2), the conversive power follows the signification of the words, as was said. But the words of the form without any preface sufficiently signify what is being done in this sacrament. Therefore, without any others they have the force to convert. Quaestiuncula 1 Response to Quaestiuncula 1 Respondeo dicendum ad primam quaestionem, quod quidam dixerunt, quod prima forma non habet effectum suum nisi prolata forma secunda; nec secunda haberet effectum, nisi prima prius prolata: nec tamen periculose adoratur hostia ante consecrationem sanguinis, quia non adoratur quod est, sed quod erit. Sed illud non potest stare: quia forma materiae proportionari debet; unde sicut materiae distinctae sunt nec ad invicem commixtae, ita formae divisim operantur; quod patet ex hoc quod utraque per se completam significationem habet. Et ideo dicendum cum aliis, quod formae praedictae non expectant se mutuo in operando. To the first question, I answer that certain people say that the first form does not have its effect unless the second form is uttered; nor would the second have effect unless the first had been uttered before; nor is it dangerous to adore the host before the consecration of the blood, for it is not adored as what it is, but as what it will be. But this cannot stand: for the form must be proportionate to the matter, and therefore just as there are distinct matters which are not mixed with each other, so the forms work separately, which is evident from the fact that both have complete signification in themselves. And so it should be said, with other people, that the forms in question do not mutually depend upon each other to work. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod in hoc sacramento dupliciter aliquid continetur; scilicet ex vi sacramenti, et ex naturali concomitantia; et quia sacramentum est institutum in usum fidelium, ideo ex vi sacramenti continetur in hoc sacramento quod in usum fidelium venit. Et quia in pane consecrato non continetur sanguis Christi secundum quod est in usum potus fidelium, ideo non continetur ibi ex vi sacramenti, sed ex naturali concomitantia, qua convenit ut corpus Christi non sit sine sanguine; et e contrario est de vino consecrato. Unde panis non convertitur per vim primorum verborum in corpus exsangue, sed in corpus sine sanguine veniente in usum potus fidelium. Causa autem quare divisim sanguis a corpore consecratur, cum nunc non sit divisus, potest sumi ex usu ad quem est sacramentum, quia manducatio in cibo et potu consistit; et ex eo quod per sacramentum repraesentatur, quia in passione sanguis Christi a corpore divisus fuit. Reply Obj. 1: In this sacrament something is contained in two ways: namely, by the force of the sacrament, and by a natural concomitance. And since the sacrament is instituted for the use of the faithful, for this reason what is contained in this sacrament by the force of the sacrament is there for the use of the faithful. And since in the consecrated bread the blood of Christ is not contained as a drink available to the faithful, it is therefore not contained there by the force of the sacrament, but by natural concomitance, by which it is fitting that the body of Christ not be without its blood; and the same is true of the consecrated wine. Hence by the force of the first words the bread is not converted into bloodless body, but into the body without the blood coming into use as a drink for the faithful. However, the reason why the blood is consecrated separately from the body (although now it is not divided) can be taken from the use to which the sacrament is directed, because eating consists in food and drink, and from that which is represented by the sacrament, since the blood of Christ was divided from the body in the Passion. Ad secundum dicendum, quod duae formae in hoc sacramento non pertinent ad unum sacramentum quasi unam formam constituant, sicut ex diversis dictionibus constituitur una forma; sed pertinent ad unum sacramentum mediantibus diversis partibus hujus sacramenti; et ideo utraque habet seorsum effectum suum supra partem ad quam ordinatur. Reply Obj. 2: The two forms in this sacrament do not pertain to the one sacrament as though constituting one form, as one form is instituted from many different words. Rather they pertain to the one sacrament via the different parts of this sacrament, and so each has its own separate effect upon the part that it is ordered to. Ad tertium dicendum, quod tres immersiones referuntur ad unum characterem, qui est res et sacramentum in baptismo; sed diversae formae referuntur ad diversa, quae sunt res et sacramentum hic; et ideo non est simile. Reply Obj. 3: The three immersions are referred to one character, which is the reality-and-sacrament in baptism, but the diverse forms are referred to diverse things, which are the reality-and-sacrament here; and so it is not the same. Quaestiuncula 2 Response to Quaestiuncula 2 Ad secundam quaestionem dicendum, quod secundum statutum Concilii Toletani, si sacerdos impeditur ut coeptum Missarum officium explere non possit, alius sacerdos debet explere quod ille inchoavit, ita quod incipiat sequens sacerdos ubi primus dimisit, si sciatur: si autem nesciatur, debet a capite incipere: non enim dicitur iteratum quod nescitur esse factum. Nec aliquid per hoc derogatur unitati sacramenti: quia omnes unum sumus in Christo propter fidei unitatem. Secundum tamen Innocentium tertium consultius est ut illa hostia jam consecrata seorsum posita, super aliam deinceps totum officium iteretur. To the second question, it should be said that according to the Council of Toledo, if a priest is prevented so that having begun the office of the Mass he cannot complete it, another priest must complete what he has begun, so that the following priest begins where the first left off, if it is known. If it is not known, however, he should begin from the top: for what is not known to have been done is not said to have been repeated. Nor is anything detracted from the unity of the sacrament by this, for we all are one in Christ because of the unity of faith. Nevertheless, according to Innocent III, it is more advised that that host that was already consecrated be set apart, and the entire office be repeated with another one afterward. Et per hoc patet solutio ad objecta. And by this the answers to the objections are evident. Quaestiuncula 3 Response to Quaestiuncula 3 Ad tertiam quaestionem dicendum, quod quidam dixerunt quod verba ista, in quibus forma consistit, ut dictum est, si per se dicantur sine aliis, non faciunt conversionem, ad minus sine illis quae sunt in canone Missae. Sed hoc non videtur probabile: quia secundum Augustinum, accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum. Verbum autem quo accedente ad elementum fit sacramentum, a sanctis dicitur esse verbum salvatoris; unde alia sunt de solemnitate sacramenti, non de necessitate. Et ideo cum aliis dicendum est quod in his verbis sine aliis potest confici corpus Christi, quamvis graviter peccaret qui hoc faceret. Et quod haec opinio sit verior, patet ex hoc quod non sit idem canon Missae apud omnes, et secundum diversa tempora, diversa sunt in canone Missae superaddita. To the third question, it should be said that certain people have said, as has been said, that if those words that the form consists in are said by themselves without the others, at least without those that are in the canon of the Mass, then they do not cause the conversion. But this does not seem probable, for according to Augustine, the word is combined with the element and the sacrament occurs. However, the word that combined with the element makes the sacrament is said by the saints to be the word of the Savior. This is why the other things are of the solemnity of the sacrament, not necessary to it. And so it should be said with other people that in these words without any others the body of Christ can be confected, although one would gravely sin who did this. And that this opinion is truer is clear from the fact that the canon of the Mass is not the same for everyone, and in different ages different things are added to the canon of the Mass. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod ad sacramentum requiritur intentio faciendi quod facit ecclesia in essentialibus sacramento, non autem in his quae pertinent ad decorem vel solemnitatem sacramenti, sicut in baptismo patet. Reply Obj. 1: The intention of doing what the Church does is required for a sacrament in those things essential to it, but not in those things that pertain to the sacrament’s beauty or solemnity, as is evident in baptism.