Quaestiuncula 4 Quaestiuncula 4 Ulterius. Videtur quod etiam pueris dandum sit corpus Christi. Quia per baptismum aliquis ascribitur ad corporis Christi sumptionem; unde et baptizato conferendum est, ut Dionysius dicit. Sed pueri baptizati sunt. Ergo et eis corpus Christi debet dari. Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the body of Christ should also be given to children. For by baptism someone is enrolled for the consumption of the body of Christ; hence it should be conferred on one who is baptized, as Dionysius says. But children have been baptized. Therefore, the body of Christ should also be given to them. Praeterea, vita spiritualis sicut est per baptismum, ita est per Eucharistiam: quia dicitur Joan. 6, 58: qui manducat me, vivit propter me. Sed pueris datur baptismus ut habeant spiritualem vitam. Ergo et similiter debet dari eis Eucharistia. Obj. 2: Furthermore, just as by baptism there is spiritual life, so also by the Eucharist: for it says, whoever eats me, lives because of me (John 6:57). But baptism is given to children so that they may have spiritual life. Therefore, in the same way the Eucharist should also be given to them. Sed contra est quod iste cibus est grandium, ut patet per Augustinum. Sed pueri nondum sunt grandes in fide. Ergo non debet eis dari. On the contrary, this food is for the full-grown, as is clear from Augustine. But children are not yet full-grown in faith. Therefore, it should not be given to them. Quaestiuncula 1 Response to Quaestiuncula 1 Respondeo dicendum ad primam quaestionem, quod si sacerdos sciat peccatum alicujus qui Eucharistiam petit, per confessionem vel alio quolibet modo, distinguendum est: quia aut peccatum est occultum, aut manifestum. Si est occultum, aut exigit in occulto, aut in manifesto. Si in occulto, debet ei denegare, et monere ne in publico petat. Si autem in manifesto petit, debet ei dare. Primo, quia pro peccato occulto poenam inferens publicam, revelator est confessionis, aut proditor criminis. Secundo, quia quilibet Christianus habet jus in perceptione Eucharistiae, nisi illud per peccatum mortale amittat. Unde cum in facie ecclesiae non constet istum amisisse jus suum, non debet ei in facie ecclesiae denegari: alias daretur facultas malis sacerdotibus pro suo libito punire maxima poena quos vellent. Tertio propter incertitudinem status sumentis: quia spiritus ubi vult, spirat, Joan. 3, 8, unde subito potest esse compunctus, et divinitus a peccato purgatus, et divina inspiratione ad sacramentum accedere. Quarto, quia esset scandalum, si denegaretur. Si vero peccatum est manifestum, debet ei denegari sive in occulto sive in manifesto petat. To the first question, I answer that if a priest knew the sin of someone who seeks the Eucharist, by confession or by some other way, a distinction must be made: for either the sin is hidden, or it is manifest. If it is hidden, either he demands Communion privately or publicly. But if privately, he should deny him, and warn him against asking in public. But if he asks for holy Communion in public, the priest should give it to him. First, because imposing a public penalty for a secret sin is to reveal what is heard in confession, or to betray a crime. Second, because any Christian has the right to receive the Eucharist, unless he loses it by mortal sin. Hence since it is not established in the sight of the Church that this person has lost his right, one ought not to deny it him in the sight of the Church: otherwise faculty would be given to bad priests to punish at will whomever they want with the greatest punishment. Third, because of uncertainty of the status of the recipient: for the Spirit blows where it will (John 3:8). And from that he can be suddenly contrite and divinely purified of his sin, and have come to the sacrament by divine inspiration. Fourth, because there would be scandal if he were refused. But if the sin is well known, the priest should refuse him whether he asks in secret or in public. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod potius deberet eligere medicus medicinam esse mortiferam infirmo quam sibi, si alterum oporteret. Et similiter sacerdos potius deberet eligere quod peccator assumat ad perditionem suam, quam ipse deneget in perditionem propriam, scandalizando et peccatum occultum revelando. Et praeterea non est certum utrum sit ei mortifera, quia subito homo spiritu Dei mutatur. Et iterum in ipsa petitione peccavit mortaliter in mortale peccatum consentiens. Reply Obj. 1: A doctor should rather choose lethal medicine for the sick person than for himself, if he must choose one or the other. And likewise, the priest should rather choose that a sinner be taken to his perdition than that he should refuse him to his own perdition, by scandalizing and revealing his secret sins. And furthermore, it is not certain whether it would be deadly to him, for by the Spirit of God a man might change in an instant. And again in his very asking the person consenting to a mortal sin has sinned mortally. Ad secundum dicendum, quod non dimittitur tantum propter scandalum, sed propter alias causas quae faciunt; nec esset contra veritatem vitae, si negaret. Dominus ergo non prohibuit simpliciter dare, sed voluntatem dandi, dicens: nolite sanctum dare canibus. Sacerdos autem in casu proposito non dat propria sponte, sed magis coactus. Nec est similis ratio de animalibus brutis, et de projectione in lutum: quia causae praedictae non sunt ibi. Reply Obj. 2: He is not to be sent away only because of scandal, but because of other reasons that make it advisable; nor would it be against the truth of life, if he refused. Therefore, the Lord did not simply prohibit giving it, but the will of giving it, by using the verb nolle to say, do not give what is holy to dogs. But a priest in the case proposed does not give of his own accord, but rather compelled. Nor is there any similarity to the argument about brute animals or throwing in the mud: because none of aforementioned reasons are present there. Ad tertium dicendum, quod secundum Innocentium tertium, cum nemo debeat unum mortale committere ut proximus aliud non committat, eligendum est potius sacerdoti non prodere peccatorem, quam ut ille non peccet; sed peccator debet potius eligere ut abstinendo reddatur suspectus quam communicando manducet indignus. Reply Obj. 3: According to Innocent III, since no one should commit one mortal sin so that his neighbor does not commit another, it should be chosen rather that the priest not expose the sinner, than that he not sin himself; but the sinner should choose to make himself suspect by abstaining, rather than eat unworthily by receiving Communion. Ad quartum dicendum, quod nullo modo debet dari hostia non consecrata pro consecrata: tum quia in sacramento veritatis non debet esse aliqua fictio: tum quia cum manducans adoret quod manducat, ut dicit Augustinus, daret sacerdos ei occasionem idolatrandi. Unde decretalis dicit in casu consimili, quod falsa sunt abjicienda remedia quae sunt veris periculis graviora. Reply Obj. 4: In no way should an unconsecrated host be given in place of a consecrated one: both because in the sacrament of truth there should be no pretense, and because when someone who eats it adores what he eats, as Augustine says, the priest would have given him the occasion of idolatry. Hence the Decretal says that in a case like this, one should reject false remedies, which are more dangerous than true dangers. Rationes quae sunt ad oppositum, procedunt solum quando peccator occultus publice petit. The arguments that are made to the contrary proceed only when a secret sinner requests Communion publicly. Quaestiuncula 2 Response to Quaestiuncula 2 Ad secundam quaestionem dicendum, quod triplex est suspicio. Quaedam violenta, ad cujus contrarium non admittitur probatio; sicut si inveniatur solus cum sola nudus in lecto, loco secreto, et tempore apto ad commixtionem. Alia est probabilis, sicut si inveniatur solus cum sola colloquens in locis suspectis, et frequenter. Tertia est praesumptuosa, quae ex levi conjectura ortum habet. Haec autem ultima deponenda est; in secunda non debet denegari, quia poena non infligitur ubi culpa ignoratur; sed de prima est idem judicium quod de peccato. Unde si sit suspicio procedens ex fama publica, non debet ei dari neque in occulto neque in manifesto; si autem sit singularis ipsius sacerdotis, sic debet dari in publico, sed non in occulto. To the second question, it should be said that there are three kinds of suspicion. One kind is violent, and admits of no evidence to the contrary, as when a man and a woman are found alone, naked in bed, in a hidden place and at a time suited to intercourse. Another is probable, as when a man and woman are found alone often, talking in a suspicious place. The third kind is presumption, which has its origin in a light conjecture. However, this last kind should be laid aside. In the second kind, a person should not be denied, because a penalty is not imposed where guilt is not known; but the first kind is judged the same as the sin. Hence if there is suspicion proceeding from public reputation, the Eucharist should not be given to him in private or in public; but if the suspicion is only in this individual priest, then it should be given to him in public, but not in private. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod quamvis non habeatur in prima suspicione certitudo sensibilis, vel per demonstrationem, tamen habetur talis certitudo quae sufficit ad probationem juris. Non enim in omnibus est similiter certitudo requirenda, ut dicitur 1 Ethic. Reply Obj. 1: Although in the first kind of suspicion there is no sensible certitude, or certainty by demonstration, nevertheless, there is the kind of certitude that suffices for proof in the law. For the same kind of certitude is not required for everything, as it says in the Ethics 1. Ad secundum dicendum, quod decretum illud abrogatum est: quia facere tales probationes est tentare Deum. Vel dicendum, quod intentio illius decreti non est ut talis purgatio fiat, sed ut propter timorem talis purgationis a futuris abstineat. Reply Obj. 2: That decree has been repealed, because tests like that tempt God. Or it could be said that the intention of that decree is not that a purification like that be made, but that out of fear of such a purification, one would abstain in the future. Quaestiuncula 3 Response to Quaestiuncula 3 Ad tertiam quaestionem dicendum, quod de amentibus distinguendum est. Quidam enim dicuntur large amentes, quia debilem mentem habent, sicut dicitur invisibile quod male videtur; et tamen sunt aliquo modo docibiles eorum quae ad fidem et devotionem sacramenti pertineant: et talibus non oportet corpus Christi denegari. Quidam vero sunt omnino carentes judicio rationis; et isti vel fuerunt tales a nativitate, et tunc eis non debet dari, quia non possunt ad devotionem induci quae requiritur ad hoc sacramentum (quamvis quidam contrarium dicant): vel inciderunt in amentiam post fidem et devotionem sacramenti, et tunc debet eis dari, nisi timeatur periculum vel de vomitu vel de exspuitione, aut aliquo hujusmodi. Et hoc patet per hoc quod habetur in Decretis, 26, qu. 6: si is qui infirmitate poenitentiam petit et dum sacerdos invitatus ad eum venit, vertatur in phrenesim, accepto testimonio ab astantibus qui petitionem audierunt, et reconcilietur, et Eucharistia ejus ori infundatur. To the third question, it should be said that a distinction must be made about the mentally disabled. For some of them are called mentally disabled broadly, because they have a weak mind, as something hard to see is called invisible. And nevertheless they can be taught in some way about what would pertain to faith and devotion to the sacrament, and it is not necessary to refuse the body of Christ to such as these. But some are completely lacking in any judgment of reason, and either they were this way from birth, and then it should not be given to them, for they cannot be led to the devotion that is required for this sacrament (although some people say the opposite); or else they fell into mental illness after faith and devotion to the sacrament; and then it should be given to them unless there is a danger of vomiting or spitting out or anything like this. And this is clear from what it says in the Decretals, Cause 26, Question 6: if someone who in his illness seeks penance and while the priest invited to him comes, he reverts to madness, once the testimony is taken from those standing by that they heard his request, let him be both reconciled, and let the Eucharist be placed into his mouth. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod in isto casu praecedens devotio computatur ei ad dignam manducationem. Reply Obj. 1: In this case, the devotion he had before is reckoned to him for a worthy reception. Ad secundum dicendum quod daemoniacis non est deneganda communio, nisi forte certum sit quod pro aliquo crimine a diabolo torqueantur; et de talibus loquitur Dionysius. Vel dicendum, et melius, quod ipse vocat energumenos illos in quibus adhuc viget virtus daemonis propter peccatum originale nondum extirpatum, eo quod nondum baptismi gratiam consecuti sunt, quibus adhibetur exorcismus post catechismum ante baptismum; unde ipse ponit eos secundo loco post catechumenos. Reply Obj. 2: Communion is not to be refused to demoniacs, unless perhaps it is sure that they are being tormented by the devil for some crime; and that is what Dionysius is speaking about. Or it could be said, and better, that he calls possessed those in whom the power of the devil still thrives because original sin has not yet been uprooted, by the fact that the grace of baptism has not yet been obtained, for which the exorcism is employed after the catechesis before baptism. And this is why he includes these in second place after the catechumens. Quaestiuncula 4 Response to Quaestiuncula 4 Ad quartam quaestionem dicendum, quod pueris carentibus usu rationis, qui non possunt distinguere inter cibum spiritualem et corporalem, non debet Eucharistia dari; quamvis quidam Graeci contrarium teneant, irrationabiliter autem: quia ad Eucharistiae sumptionem exigitur actualis devotio, quam tales pueri habere non possunt. Pueris autem jam incipientibus habere discretionem, etiam ante perfectam aetatem, puta cum sint decem vel undecim annorum, aut circa hoc, potest dari, si in eis signa discretionis appareant et devotionis. To the fourth question, it should be said that to children lacking the use of reason, who cannot distinguish between spiritual and bodily food, the Eucharist should not be given, although some of the Byzantines maintain the opposite, though irrationally: because actual devotion is required for the consumption of the Eucharist, which children of that age cannot have. However, once children have begun to have discretion, even before the age of maturity, for example when they are ten or eleven years old, or around then, it can be given to them, if signs of discretion and devotion appear in them. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod pueri baptizati acquirunt jus percipiendi corpus Christi, non tamen statim, sed tempore competenti; sicut et jus percipiendae hereditatis habent, quamvis eam statim non possideant. Dionysius autem assignat ritum baptismi quoad adultos, ut patet inspicienti verba ejus. Reply Obj. 1: Baptized infants acquire the right to receive the body of Christ, not right away though, but at the fitting time; just as they have the right of receiving their inheritance, although they do not possess it immediately. However, Dionysius describes the rite of baptism for adults, as is clear to anyone who studies his words. Ad secundum dicendum, quod per baptismum datur primus actus vitae spiritualis, unde est de necessitate salutis; et ideo pueris baptismus dandus est: sed per Eucharistiam datur complementum spiritualis vitae; et ideo illis qui perfectionis secundae, quae est per actualem devotionem, possunt esse capaces, debet dari, prout habetur de Consecr., distinct. 4, cap. in ecclesia, ubi dicitur: non cogitent vitam habere posse qui sunt expertes corporis et sanguinis Domini; et loquitur de pueris. Intelligendum est autem quantum ad rem sacramenti, quae est unitas ecclesiae, extra quam non est salus nec vita, et non quantum ad sacramentalem manducationem. Reply Obj. 2: By baptism the first act of the spiritual life is given, which is why it is necessary for salvation; and so baptism must be given to children. But by the Eucharist is given the completion of the spiritual life, and so it should be given to those who can be capable of the second perfection, which is by actual devotion, as it says in the Decretals: let them not think that those who have no share in the Lord’s body and blood can have life; and it is speaking of children. This is to be understood, however, not as to receiving the sacrament, but as to the reality behind the sacrament, which is the unity of the Church, outside of which there is no salvation, nor life. Expositio textus Exposition of the Text Crede, et manducasti. Intelligendum est de manducatione spirituali, et fide formata. Ideo autem potius fidem commemorat, quia ipsa est quae maxime in sacramentis operatur. “Believe, and you will have eaten.” This is to be understood of spiritual eating and formed faith. However, he commemorates faith rather because it is what is most at work in the sacraments. Nos corpus Christi facti sumus. Ergo spiritualiter manducamus nosipsos. Et dicendum, quod nos non sumus corpus ipsius nisi ratione unionis, quam manducando spiritualiter acquirimus. “We too have been made the body [of Christ].” Thus, we eat ourselves spiritually. And it should be said that we are not his body except by reason of the union, which we acquire by eating spiritually. Ecce factum est malum. Contrarium dicit supra eodem capite: indigne quis sumens corpus Christi, non efficit ut malum sit quod accipit. Et dicendum, quod non sit malum in se, sed sit malum, idest nocivum, isti. “For you see, wickedness is done.” He says the opposite below in the same chapter: “one who receives the body of the Lord unworthily, does not thereby make that which he receives evil.” And it should be said that it is not evil in itself, but it is evil, that is, harmful, to him. Ita spiritualiter sumamus. Contra: quia in patria nullus usus sacramenti erit; ergo nec spiritualis sumptio. Et dicendum, quod dicitur sumptio consecutio rei sacramenti, quam sacramentum statim non efficit, sed tantum significat, scilicet fruitio divinitatis, quam etiam significat sacramentalis manducatio. So we may receive it spiritually. To the contrary: for in heaven there will be no use of the sacrament; therefore neither will there be spiritual reception. And it should be said that what is called reception is obtaining the reality behind the sacrament, which the sacrament does not cause immediately, but only signifies, namely, the enjoyment of the divinity, which sacramental eating also signifies. Distinctio 10 Distinction 10 De corpore Christi in Eucharistiae The body of Christ in the Eucharist Postquam Magister determinavit quod in hoc sacramento tria inveniuntur, aliquid quod est sacramentum tantum, et aliquid quod est res et sacramentum, et aliquid quod est res tantum; et secundum hoc diversimode diversi manducant: in parte ista incipit prosequi de singulis dictorum trium in speciali; unde dividitur in partes tres: in prima determinat de ipso vero corpore Christi, quod est sacramentum, et res contenta in sacramento; in secunda de speciebus panis et vini, quae sunt in sacramentum tantum; 12 dist., ibi: si autem quaeritur de accidentibus quae remanent . . . in quo subjecto fundentur, potius mihi videtur fatendum existere sine subjecto quam esse in subjecto; in tertia determinat de effectu sacramenti, qui est res tantum, in fine dist., ibi: institutum est hoc sacramentum duabus de causis. After the Master has determined that three things are found in this sacrament, something that is sacrament alone, something that is reality-and-sacrament, and something that is reality alone, and according to this difference people eat of it in different ways, in this part he begins to describe individually these three things in particular. For this reason it is divided into three parts: in the first, he considers the true body of Christ itself, which is the sacrament, and the reality contained in the sacrament; in the second, the species of bread and wine, which are the sacrament alone, at Distinction 12: but if it is asked about the accidents which remain . . . in what subject they inhere, it seems to me to be better to profess that they exist without a subject than that they are in a subject; in the third, he considers the effect of the sacrament, which is the reality alone, at the end of the distinction: and this sacrament was instituted for two causes. Prima in duas: in prima ostendit verum corpus Christi in altari contineri sub sacramento; in secunda determinat de transubstantiatione, per quam fit ut ibi sit verum corpus Christi, dist. 11: si autem quaeritur, qualis sit illa conversio . . . definire non sufficio. The first is in two parts: in the first, he shows that the true body of Christ is contained under the sacrament on the altar; in the second, he considers transubstantiation, by which it comes about that the true body of Christ is there, Distinction 11: but if it is asked what is the nature of that change . . . I am not up to the task of defining it. Prima in tres: in prima ponit errorem quorumdam negantium veritatem quam asserere intendit, et probationes eorum; in secunda solvit probationes ipsorum, ibi: quae ex eadem ratione omnia accipienda sunt; in tertia inducit auctoritates ad veritatem probandam, ibi: haec et his similia objiciunt, etc. The first is in three: in the first, he sets down the error of some people who deny the truth that he intends to assert, and their evidence; in the second, he unravels their arguments, at: all of these statements are to be taken according to the same line of reasoning; in the third, he cites authorities for the truth to be proved, at: they make objection by these and similar texts, etc. Secunda pars dividitur in partes tres: in prima exponit auctoritates quas illi errantes pro se inducunt, et expositionem sanctorum praedictam confirmat; in secunda ostendit dubitationem esse de quadam auctoritate Augustini inducta pro se, ibi: deinde addit quod magis movet; in tertia exponit eam, ibi: attende his diligenter. The second part is divided into three parts: in the first, he explains the authorities that those men cite for their error, and confirms the exposition mentioned of the saints; in the second, he shows that there is a doubt about a certain text of Augustine cited for it, at: he then adds what troubles the reader more; in the third, he explains it, at: attend to these words with diligence. Quaestio 1 Question 1 De corpore Christi in Eucharistiae The body of Christ in the Eucharist