Quaestiuncula 2 Quaestiuncula 2 Ulterius. Videtur quod manducatio corporis Christi sit de necessitate salutis. Sicut enim dicitur de baptismo, Joan. 3, 5: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest intrare in regnum caelorum; ita dictum est Joan. 6, 54: nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, et biberitis ejus sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Sed propter verba praedicta dicitur baptismus sacramentum necessitatis. Ergo eadem ratione manducatio corporis Christi est de necessitate salutis. Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that eating the body of Christ is necessary to salvation. For as it is said of baptism, unless you are born again of water and the Holy Spirit, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3:5); so also it is said, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you will not have life in you (John 6:54). But because of the words mentioned baptism is called a sacrament of necessity. Therefore, by the same reasoning eating the body of Christ is necessary to salvation. Praeterea, Innocentius III dicit, quod manducandus est agnus, ut a vastante angelo protegamur. Sed protegi a vastante angelo est de necessitate salutis. Ergo et praedicta manducatio. Obj. 2: Furthermore, Innocent III says that the lamb must be eaten, so that we may be protected from the destroying angel. But to be protected from a ravaging angel is necessary to salvation. Therefore, so is this eating. Praeterea, per istam manducationem Christo incorporamur. Sed hoc est de necessitate salutis, sicut et a peccato mundari. Ergo praedicta manducatio est de necessitate salutis, sicut et poenitentia et baptismus, quibus a peccatis mundamur. Obj. 3: Furthermore, we are incorporated into Christ by this eating. But this is necessary to salvation, as is also being cleansed from sin. Therefore, eating this is necessary to salvation, just as also penance and baptism, by which we are cleansed from sin. Sed contra, pueri baptizati salutem consequuntur, cum gratia in baptismo detur. Sed eis non datur corpus Christi manducandum. Ergo manducatio praedicta non est de necessitate salutis. On the contrary (1), baptized infants obtain salvation, since grace is given in baptism. But they are not given the body of Christ to eat. Therefore, this eating is not necessary to salvation. Praeterea, baptismi ministerium propter hoc quod est de necessitate salutis, omnibus est concessum in casu necessitatis. Sed hoc sacramentum per solos sacerdotes perfici potest. Ergo non est sacramentum necessitatis. Furthermore (2), it is granted to anyone to administer baptism in case of necessity, because of the fact that it is necessary for salvation. But this sacrament can be accomplished by priests alone. Therefore, it is not a sacrament of necessity. Quaestiuncula 3 Quaestiuncula 3 Ulterius. Videtur quod male distinguantur duo modi manducationis in littera. Corpus enim Christi est cibus spiritualis. Sed cibi corporalis manducatio semper est corporalis. Ergo et hujus cibi manducatio semper est spiritualis; et ita non sunt duo modi manducationis. Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the two modes of eating are poorly distinguished in the text. For the body of Christ is spiritual food. But eating bodily food is always bodily. Therefore, eating this food is also always spiritual, and so there are not two modes of eating it. Praeterea, in aliis sacramentis non attenditur aliqua distinctio nisi ex parte recipientis tantum, sicut quod quidam accedunt ficti, quidam non. Sed haec distinctio videtur esse ex parte ipsius sacramenti. Ergo inconvenienter ponitur. Obj. 2: Furthermore, in the other sacraments no distinction is found except on the part of the receiver alone, like the fact that some people receive them under false pretenses, while others do not. But this distinction seems to be on the part of the sacrament itself. Therefore, it is unfittingly set down. Praeterea, ubi unum propter alterum, ibi unum tantum. Sed manducatio sacramentalis est propter spiritualem. Ergo una non debet contra alteram distingui. Obj. 3: Furthermore, where one thing exists for the sake of another, there is only one thing. But sacramental eating is for the sake of the spiritual. Therefore, one kind of eating should not be distinguished from the other. Sed contra, videtur quod sint plures modi. Quia usus hujus sacramenti dicitur manducatio. Sed in hoc sacramento sunt tria; scilicet id quod est sacramentum tantum, et id quod est res et sacramentum, et id quod est res tantum. Ergo debent esse tres modi manducationis. On the contrary (4), it seems that there are more modes. For the use of this sacrament is said to be eating. But in this sacrament there are three things, namely, what is sacrament alone, and what is reality-and-sacrament, and what is reality alone. Therefore, there should be three kinds of eating. Praeterea, in baptismo etiam fit trimembris divisio suscipientium: quidam enim suscipiunt rem et sacramentum; quidam sacramentum et non rem; quidam rem, et non sacramentum. Sed susceptio hujus sacramenti dicitur manducatio. Ergo hic etiam debet distingui triplex modus manducandi. Furthermore (5), those who receive baptism also fall into three categories of recipients: for some receive the reality-and-sacrament; some receive the sacrament and not the ality; and some receive the reality, but not the sacrament. But the reception of this sacrament is called eating. Therefore, this too should be distinguished into three kinds of eating. Quaestiuncula 1 Response to Quaestiuncula 1 Respondeo dicendum ad primam quaestionem, quod, sicut supra dictum est, ad perfectionem sacramentorum novae legis exigitur quod sit sacramentum aliquod in quo Christus nobis realiter conjungatur et uniatur, non solum per participationem virtutis ejus, sicut est in aliis sacramentis; et quia sacramentum est sensibile signum, ideo oportet quod alicui sensui usus sacramenti approprietur. In sensibilibus autem est triplex differentia. Quaedam enim sentientibus neque conjunguntur neque uniuntur, sicut ea quae sentiuntur per medium extrinsecum, ut in visu praecipue accidit et auditu et olfactu, sed solum similitudines sensibilium ad sensum referuntur. Quaedam autem sensibilia conjunguntur quidem, sed non uniuntur realiter, sed secundum assimilationem qualitatis tantum, sicut accidit in tactu: quia qualitates tangibilium immutant tactum; nec tamen ex tangente et tacto fit unum nisi secundum quid. Quaedam autem et conjunguntur et uniuntur, sicut accidit in cibis et potibus. Et ideo sumptio hujus sacramenti congrue per modum manducationis fit. Alia vero sacramenta novae legis, quibus per virtutem eis inditam Christo similamur, fiunt in tangendo tantum, ut baptismus. Figurae autem veteris testamenti quae solam similitudinem Christi venturi habebant, significabant per modum visionis. Competit etiam manducatio passioni Christi in hoc sacramento repraesentatae, per quam corpus Christi vulneratum fuit; convenit etiam effectui, qui est robur animae. To the first question, I answer that, as was said above, for the completion of sacraments of the New Law it is required that there be a certain sacrament in which Christ is really joined and united to us, not only by participation in his power, as it is in the other sacraments; and since a sacrament is a sensible sign, therefore the use of the sacrament must be adapted to a certain sense. However, there are three differences among sensible things. For some things are neither joined nor united to the senses, like those that are sensed through an external medium, as happens in sight especially, as well as hearing and smell, where only likenesses of the sensible objects are brought to the senses. However, certain sensible objects are indeed joined, but not united in reality, but only according to the likeness of a certain quality, as happens in touch: for the qualities of tangible things change what is touched; nor, however, are the toucher and the touched made one except under a certain aspect. But some things are both joined and united, as happens in food and drink. And so the reception of this sacrament happens fittingly by way of eating. But the other sacraments of the New Law, by which we are likened to Christ through the power he bestowed on them, happen only by touching, like baptism. However, the figures of the Old Testament that had only a resemblance to the Christ who was to come were represented by the mode of vision. Eating also befits this sacrament in its representation of Christ’s Passion, by which the body of Christ was wounded; and it also suits the effect, which is the fortification of the soul. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod ratio illa procedit de cibo qui ordinatur ad refectionem corporis quem oportet digeri, et sic impuro separato in membra converti; sed cibus iste ordinatur ad refectionem mentis: et propter hoc ratio non sequitur. Reply Obj. 1: That argument proceeds from the food that is ordered to the renewal of the body, which must be digested so it may be converted into the members once the impure has been separated from it; but this food is ordered to the renewal of the mind, and because of this the argument does not follow. Ad secundum dicendum, quod de ratione manducationis est quod aliquid per os introrsum sumatur; sed esse in aliter in spiritualibus, et aliter in corporalibus sumitur: quia in corporalibus quod est in, continetur sicut locatum in loco; in spiritualibus autem quod est in continet sicut anima corpus. Et ideo convenienter cibus corporis trahitur ad corpus, ut contentum ad continens: cibus autem mentis trahit ad se mentem, ut continens contentum: propter quod Augustinus dicit sibi dictum: non tu me mutabis in te, sicut cibum carnis tuae; sed tu mutaberis in me. Reply Obj. 2: The nature of eating is that something is consumed internally through the mouth, but ‘being in’ is taken one way in spiritual things, and another way in bodily things: for in bodily things, what is ‘in’ is contained, like something in a place; but in spiritual things what is ‘in’ contains, as the soul contains the body. And so food is properly drawn into a body, as something contained into the container: but the food of the mind draws the mind into itself, as a container draws its contents: because of which Augustine speaks this as said to himself: you will not change me into you, like the food of your flesh, but you will be changed into me. Ad tertium dicendum, quod res visa beatificans per essentiam suam videnti conjungetur in patria; quod quidem non accidit in visione corporali. Et quia oportebat hanc conjunctionem significari per aliquod sensibile signum, oportuit illud sensibile ad hoc assumi quod realiter conjungatur et uniatur. In patria autem signis sacramentalibus opus non erit; nihilominus propter similitudinem ad ea quae nunc geruntur, frequenter illa beata visio nobis per figuram manducationis in Scriptura exprimitur. Reply Obj. 3: The reality that, once seen, beatifies by its very essence is joined to the one seeing in the fatherland; which certainly does not happen in physical vision. And since this union had to be signified by some sensible sign, that sensible object had to be assumed in such a way that it is joined and united in reality. In the fatherland, however, sacramental signs will not be needed; nevertheless, because of a resemblance to those the activities we carry on in this life, that beatific vision is often expressed to us in Scripture by the figure of eating. Quaestiuncula 2 Response to Quaestiuncula 2 Ad secundam quaestionem dicendum, quod gratia est sufficiens causa gloriae; unde omne illud sine quo potest haberi gratia, non est de necessitate salutis. Hoc autem sacramentum gratiam praesupponit, quia praesupponit baptismum, in quo gratia datur: nec debet peccato praeveniri, quod gratiam privet; et ideo quantum est de se, non est de necessitate salutis. Sed de ordinatione ecclesiae homines obligantur secundum ecclesiae statutum corpus Christi semel in anno sumere. To the second question, it should be said that grace is a sufficient cause of glory; hence anything that grace can be had without is not necessary to salvation. But this sacrament presupposes grace, for it presupposes baptism, in which grace is given, nor should it be preceded by sin, which deprives us of grace; and so in itself it is not necessary to salvation. But by the Church’s ordination, people are obliged to receive the body of Christ once per year by Church law. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Dominus loquitur de manducatione spirituali sine qua non potest esse salus. Reply Obj. 1: The Lord speaks of spiritual eating, without which there can be no salvation. Ad secundum dicendum, quod Innocentius loquitur quantum ad instructionem ecclesiae, vel etiam quantum ad manducationem spiritualem. Reply Obj. 2: Innocent speaks as to the Church’s instruction, or as to spiritual eating. Ad tertium dicendum, quod incorporatio spiritualis ad Christum potest esse sine manducatione sacramentali; et ideo non oportet quod sit sacramenti susceptio de necessitate salutis. Reply Obj. 3: Spiritual incorporation in Christ can take place without sacramental eating; and so the reception of this sacrament need not be necessary to salvation. Quaestiuncula 3 Response to Quaestiuncula 3 Ad tertiam quaestionem dicendum, quod divisio formalis alicujus sumitur penes id quod competit ei per se, et non per accidens. Usus autem alicujus rei per se et non per accidens, est quando utitur quis re aliqua ad hoc ad quod instituta est. Unde cum manducatio dicat usum hujus sacramenti, quod quidem ad hoc institutum est ut quis re sacramenti potiatur; distinguetur manducatio secundum duas res hujus sacramenti: ut manducatio sacramentalis respondeat ei quod est res et sacramentum; manducatio vero spiritualis ei quod est res tantum. To the third question, it should be said that the formal division of a thing is taken according to what applies to it per se, and not per accidens. But the use of any thing per se and not per accidens is when someone uses the thing for that for which it was instituted. Since eating is called the use of this sacrament, which was certainly instituted so that a person might possess the reality behind the sacrament, therefore eating may be distinguished according to the two realities of this sacrament. And so sacramental eating corresponds to what is the reality-and-sacrament, but spiritual eating to what is the reality alone. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod manducatio cibi corporalis non praesupponit aliam manducationem quae sit ejus causa sicut manducatio spiritualis praesupponit sacramentalem quasi causam. Unde in his qui sacramentaliter manducant, potest ex defectu manducantium impediri effectus sacramenti, qui est spiritualis manducatio; et ideo possunt haec manducationes ab invicem separari, et propter hoc oportet eas distinguere. Reply Obj. 1: Eating physical food does not presuppose any other eating that is its cause, as spiritual eating presupposes sacramental eating as its cause. For this reason, among those who eat sacramentally, the effect of the sacrament, which is spiritual eating, can be impeded by a defect in the ones eating. And so these two kinds of eating can be separated from each other, and because of this it is necessary to distinguish them. Ad secundum dicendum, quod perfectio aliorum sacramentorum in ipso usu consistit; et ideo eorum distinctio non potest nisi ex parte recipientium sumi: sed perfectio hujus sacramenti in ipsa materiae consecratione consistit; et ideo potest esse hic distinctio ex parte ipsius sacramenti. Reply Obj. 2: The completion of the other sacraments consists in their very use, and so no distinction between them can be made except on the part of the recipients, but the completion of this sacrament consists in the matter’s consecration itself, and so there can be a distinction here on the part of the sacrament itself. Ad tertium dicendum, quod verbum illud intelligitur in his quae hoc modo ad se invicem ordinantur quod ab invicem separari non possunt; sicut quando talis effectus nunquam potest esse sine tali causa, nec e converso; et tunc etiam non excluditur diversitas rerum inter causam et causatum, sed ponitur necessitas ordinis. Reply Obj. 3: That word is understood in those things that are ordered toward each other in such a way that they cannot be separated from each other, like when a certain effect can never exist without a certain cause, nor vice versa; and even in that case the real difference between cause and caused is not excluded, but it is placed in a necessary order. Ad quartum dicendum, quod id quod est hic res et sacramentum, nunquam separatur ab eo quod est sacramentum tantum; et si separaretur usus ejus quod est sacramentum tantum, esset accidentalis usus; et ideo penes hoc non debet sumi aliquis modus manducationis specialis. Reply Obj. 4: What is reality-and-sacrament here is never separated from what is sacrament alone; and if the use of what is sacrament alone were separated, it would be an accidental use. And so no special mode of eating pertaining to such use need be established. Ad quintum dicendum, quod hic etiam posset fieri talis distinctio. Quibusdam enim conjunguntur duae manducationes, et hi suscipiunt rem et sacramentum; et in quibusdam separantur, et hi suscipiunt vel rem tantum, vel sacramentum tantum. Sed quia haec divisio magis se tenet ex parte suscipientium quam ex parte sacramenti; ideo non est propria huic sacramento sicut baptismo. Reply Obj. 5: Here, too, a distinction like that could be made. For some people, the two kinds of eating are joined, and these people receive the reality and the sacrament; and in some people, they are separated, and these receive either the reality alone or the sacrament alone. But because this division has more to do with the ones receiving than with the sacrament, for this reason it is not proper to this sacrament as it is for baptism. Articulus 2 Article 2 Qui possint manducare Who may eat of the body of Christ Quaestiuncula 1 Quaestiuncula 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccator non manducet corpus Christi sacramentaliter. Quia, ut dicitur Sap. 1, 4, in malevolam animam non introibit sapientia, nec habitabit in corpore subdito peccatis. Sed Christus, qui est res contenta in hoc sacramento, est Dei sapientia, ut habetur 1 Corinth. 1. Ergo a peccatore sumi non potest. Obj. 1: To the second we proceed thus. It seems that a sinner may not eat the body of Christ sacramentally. For, as it says, wisdom will not enter a deceitful soul, nor dwell in a body enslaved to sin (Wis 1:4). But Christ, who is the reality contained in this sacrament, is the wisdom of God, as is maintained by 1 Corinthians 1:24. Therefore he cannot be received by a sinner. Praeterea, cibus iste non vadit in ventrem, sed in mentem. Non autem vadit in mentem peccatoris. Ergo nullo modo corpus Christi sumit. Obj. 2: Furthermore, this food does not enter the stomach but the mind. However, it does not enter the mind of a sinner. Therefore, in no way does he receive the body of Christ. Praeterea, nihil indecens debet fieri a sapiente. Sed hoc est valde indecens quod corpus tam pretiosum in immundo corpore ponatur. Ergo cum corpus peccatoris sit immundum, non recipiet verum corpus Christi. Obj. 3: Furthermore, nothing indecent should be done by a wise man. But it is extremely indecent that a body so precious should be placed in a body so unclean. Therefore, since the body of a sinner is unclean, he will not receive the true body of Christ. Sed contra, majus videtur consecrare corpus Christi quam sumere. Sed peccator potest consecrare. Ergo et sumere. On the contrary (1), it is a greater thing to consecrate the body of Christ than to consume it. But a sinner can consecrate. Therefore, he also can receive it.