CONCERNING CONFECTING AND EATING THE EUCHARIST
ARTICLE ONE
THE POWER OF CONFECTING
QUESTION ONE
WHETHER EVERY PRIEST CAN CONFECT
Concerning the first, we proceed thus:
1. Augustine in the book of the Sentences of Prosper: “Outside the catholic Church there is no place for the true sacrifice.”1 The heretic is outside the catholic Church. Therefore there is no true sacrifice in him, and thus etc.
2. Again, Jerome: “Heretics partake of polluted bread.”2 Since that bread cannot be polluted, therefore they do not partake of this bread.
3. Again, the same, Jerome: “God hates the sacrifices of the heretics, he abhors their stench.”3 Therefore he sends neither himself nor his angels, nor do they consequently send up to heaven. Therefore they do not confect nor do they say Mass, and they deceitfully say, “Go the Mass is ended.”
4. Again, Cyprian: “The sacraments of the heretics are sacrileges.”4 However, that bread is holy; therefore, etc.
5. Again, from the Council of Laodicea: “One should not receive the blessings of heretics. They are more like curses.”5
6. Likewise it stands to reason, because this sacrament is the sacrament of union. Therefore those who are separated from the Church are altogether foreigners to this sacrament. If this is so, they cannot confect.
7. Again, those who are separated and heretics, although they have order, cannot loose and bind.6 If they loose, they accomplish nothing. Therefore by the same token neither can they confect.
8. Again, those who abuse the power granted them deserve to lose the privilege. The heretic and schismatic abuse the power to confect. Therefore just as God gave them the power, so he should also take it away.
9. Again, it belongs to the superior authority to suppress that of the inferior, if authority is ordered. Therefore if the Pope or a bishop forbids a priest to confect, he can no longer confect. You may say that he cannot do this de jure, yet he is able to do it de facto. This is to the contrary: before God, a man can only do what he can do de jure. Since the power to confect is a power that concerns God, therefore, if he cannot do it de jure, he is in no way able.
To the contrary: a. Augustine in Ad Parmenianum, speaking of heretics and schismatics: “Just as Baptism is intact in them, so also their ordination. In their breaking away there was a fault in the unity of peace, which has been corrected. But this fault was not in the sacraments, which, wherever they are, are true.”7
b. Again, Causa 1, quaestion 1, “sacraments, after the manner of light, cannot be contaminated by unclean things.”8
c. Again, a priest confects either because he is good or because he is a priest. However if it is not certain that he is good, then neither is it certain whether he confects. If it is because he is a priest, since he does not cease to be a priest on account of heresy, it is clear, etc.
d. Again, on the part of the one who dispenses the sacrament nothing more is required than order, intention and action. All of these are found in the one who is separated; therefore, etc. If you should say that goodness is required, then our salvation is placed in the hand of someone else.
I respond: Some have wanted to distinguish, and among them seems to have been the Master, that some bad priests are secretly bad within the Church.9 This is at least with respect to number and external appearance, and such are able. Still others are manifestly evil and separated from the Church, and such are not able. This position seems to agree with that of Cyprian, who laid down that heretics do not possess true sacraments. However, this position was adequately refuted by Augustine.10
For in another way it must be said that in the sacrament two things are to be considered. These are namely the truth of the sacrament, which consists in the first res, and the usefulness of the sacrament, consisting of the final res, which is incorporation or union with respect to the Mystical Body.11 If we are speaking of the truth of the sacrament, the truth is preserved when on the part of the minister there is order, intention, and the pronouncing of the word when the required matter is present. If, however, we speak about its usefulness, it must be said that a good priest confects for his own usefulness and that of those who assist, while the secretly bad priest confects to his own ruin. Nevertheless this is still useful for those who assist, hearing the Mass with faith and devotion. However, the one who is separated and heretical confects to his own damnation and that of those who assist. Among the separated and openly heretical the sacrament is deprived of any fruit, even though the true body of Christ is there. Hence the sacred canons and the authority of the saints, out of detestation of their sacrifices, speak of them not by reason of the work accomplished, but by reason of damnation.12
To the objections: 1-5. In this manner are the authorities sorted out, and thus it is to be believed that the Master understood them.13
6. To the objection that the separated cannot confect because it is the sacrament of union, it must be said that it is the sacrament of union by reason of its efficacy, and those separated confect without efficacy or fruit.
7. To the objection that they cannot loose sins, it must be said that there is no similarity. This is because the power of loosing is a power ordered to another, which does not consist only in order, but in jurisdiction, which the heretic does not have.
8. To the objection that the privilege ought to be lost, it must be said that it is worthy of this in itself. However, the bounty of God still does not take away what he impressed as perpetual. Sacerdotal character is perpetual, and for this reason it remains to the glory of the divine bounty, and to the perpetual damnation and ignominy of evildoers, and consequently to the manifestation of God’s justice.
9. To the objection that a superior authority can restrict the inferior, it must be said that he can restrict it with respect to that in which he is superior. However he is not superior with respect to the power to confect, for all priests are equally able to confect.14 With respect to what is owed him and his execution of order, he is superior. Thus, in this respect he does well to restrict it. Hence if one who is separated or excommunicated confects, he does indeed perform what he has the power to do. Yet he does not do it rightfully and in orderly fashion. Indeed he does it to his own damnation.
WHETHER ONLY PRIESTS CAN CONFECT
The second question is whether only priests can confect. And that this is so would appear:
a. Because Hugh says, “For this sacrament, order, intention and act come together.”15 The Master also says this,16 and the custom of the holy Church holds to it.
b. Again, it stands to reason because in the Old Testament, from the time the temple was built, only the priests were permitted to offer sacrifice. Therefore, if the figure was true, and truth ought to correspond to it, it is clear, etc.
c. Again, this sacrament is to be held in great reverence. Therefore its administration ought not be granted to everyone. Thus it was granted to some and hence others do not have the power. Those to whom this power was given we call priests; therefore, etc.
d. Again, the Apostle to the Hebrews in 5:1 says that the high priest is made to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. Therefore whoever is not appointed a priest cannot offer sacrifice.
e. Again, among every people, even among idolaters, among whom a cult is established, the power to offer is especially entrusted to some persons, and these are called priests. Therefore, if the Church is the most ordered of all, it would seem to follow that Christ must give this office to some. The distribution of offices in the Church must be ordered to one. Therefore only those who are ordered to this by way of the princes and pontiffs of the Church can do this. Since these are priests, therefore, etc.17
To the contrary: 1. Although by reason of office only priests are qualified to baptize, still if a lay person baptizes, it is a baptism. Therefore by the same token if one should confect, it is confected.
2. Again, a good lay person is more worthy of ministering to God than a wicked priest is. Therefore, if the Lord should change bread into his body at the invocation of the bad priest’s prayer, so much more would he at the word of a good lay person.
3. Again, just as the Lord said only to the disciples, “Take and eat”18 and “As often as you do it,”19 so also he said, “Teach all nations, baptizing them.”20 Since the power to baptize is granted to all, therefore similarly also the power to confect.
4. Again, blessed Peter in 1 Peter 2:9: “You are a holy race, a royal priesthood.”21 He is speaking to all who are good; therefore, etc.
I respond: It must be said that only priests can confect, and if others do it, they do absolutely nothing. This is what our faith, which we have received from the Apostles—and they from the Lord—teaches us. Hence they ordered the Church according to the institution of God.22 Thus because the Apostles and their successors after them conferred the power of confecting upon special persons whom they named priests, faith holds that to these alone it is permitted.
It stands to reason that because this sacrament, which is to be held in great reverence, has been committed to special persons, and so ought it to have been committed. This was then done either by reason of their holiness or by reason of authority. If by reason of holiness, as the heretics hold, then no one is certain whether he is confecting, and our salvation depends upon someone else’s goodness. If by reason of authority, then authority can be committed both to the good and the bad. This we call the order of priests. It stands therefore that only they are able.
To the objections: 1. To the objection from Baptism, it must be said that there is no similarity. This is because that is the first and necessary sacrament and is not held in such high veneration.
2. To the objection that a good lay person is more worthy, it must be said that worthiness is not considered in the power to confect, but only authority, which is in priests by reason of character.
3. To the objection that only to the Apostles was it said “Take and eat” and likewise, “Go and baptize,” the response is clear. The Apostles in fact set forth that the one was conferred differently than the other. As they established the Church, they permitted Baptism to be administered without distinction, but they conferred a special power and authority on special persons, precisely for confecting this sacrament. This we call Order, and the persons who have this authority are called priests.
4. To the objection that the saints are called priests, it must be said that they are not so called from the sacrifice of the Lord’s body, but because of their own. For each one offers his body as a living sacrifice as in Romans 12:1.
WHETHER THE POWER TO CONSECRATE RESIDES MORE IN THE PRIEST OR IN THE WORD
The third question, since the priestly power concurs with the power of the word to consecrate, arises as to where the power resides: more in the word or in the priest? And that the greater power resides in the minister would appear:
1. Because God communicates power to things according to their suitability. The soul of the minister, since it is spiritual and the image of God, is capable of more power than a sensible word. Therefore the power rests more with him.
2. Again, the priest acts through the word as through an instrument. Since the power of the agent is more noble than that of an instrument, or the power of the agent rests more with the doer than with the instrument, therefore, etc.
3. Again, the word is an effect of the priest. An effect is not of greater power than its cause, because a first cause has more influence than a second cause. Therefore the priest has more influence than the word, since he is the cause of the word.
To the contrary: a. The priest is not able except through the power of the word. On account of that, that one is greater than every one of those.23
b. Again, the priest does not recite that word as his own, but as that of Christ. Since the word of Christ can do more than a minister of Christ, therefore it resides more with the word.
c. Again, the word belongs to the sacrament itself. Order is a different sacrament. Therefore Order deals more by accident with the consecration than the word does. If that is so, it is clear, etc.
I respond: There are two responses to this question according to the two opinions regarding the power of the word.
The first position is that the word has a certain power, which is an absolute quality and serves as an efficient cause of consecration. This holds that the power of confecting rests principally in the power of the word, and this word has that power because it is the word of Christ. There is an example of this in the herald or messenger who constrains people through an edict of the king. The power to constrain rests principally in the edict, and it has this power because it comes from the king. This explains the objections to the contrary.
The second position is that the power of the word is not some absolute quality, but only an ordering to such an effect. This ordering happens at the pronunciation of the word, and this is not at its pronunciation by anyone, but by the one who bears the seal of Christ. According to this position it must be said that there is a single power to confect and it consists in the minister and in the word.
An example of this appears in papal documents. If the question is asked, Where is the greater power, in the word that is in the writing, or in the seal? it must be said that it is one power in both. This is because one gives power to the other. For the written word on paper without the seal has no power, and similarly neither does the seal without the writing. Still the reasons for both positions proceed as if they were utterly different powers.24
If you should ask, How is it that one power exists in two? it must be said that it is one ordering and power, and that power exists through ordering to this effect. Nevertheless these three things come together as one ordering, namely order, word and element. Within the element is an ordering after the manner of passive power. Within the word is an ordering after the manner of active power. Likewise with the priest; in the priest there is power in a general and primary way, while there is power in the word in a special and immediate way. For there is power in the priest to confect and absolve. Nevertheless this power is constrained by the word pronounced with intent to the end that it confects. That power places character in the priest, and that is an absolute quality ennobling the soul of the priest. According to this opinion the power in the word places nothing new that is anything absolute, but is for something. Hence if we were to speak with respect to the substratum, it would be possible to say that the priestly power is nobler with respect to that which is in him.
Thus to what is objected to the contrary, that the priest has no power except through the power of the word, it can be said that the word pronounced has both an ordering and the assistance of divine power. By reason of the first, the word pronounced, the ordering is related to the priest as an instrument. However by reason of the second, that is, by the assistance of divine power, the priest becomes as a nobler agent. I concede that through the assisting power of the word the priest becomes more noble. Yet it does not for that reason follow that the word becomes more noble; still it is easy to concede that it becomes more immediate.
Thus the response comes in two modes, following the two opinions mentioned above.25 It is difficult to judge which of these opinions is more true, and it seems still more difficult to reject either of them. For the first, which says that there is divine power in the word, says that this is above nature, as is the immensity of divine power. Who can deny that God is able to do this? If he is able, who would deny that he could give this to the sacraments if he wills it? Besides, many authorities seem to hold this.
Likewise, who would dare to reject the other opinion, which says that there is in the word an effective ordering and would not presume to assert that there is something more there? This is indeed true. Who would dare to argue this, if he is unwilling to assert further, since neither faith requires nor authority compels him to say more? This is especially, as examined thus far, what cannot be satisfactorily explained in this manner without distorting the meaning. Thus because it is more sober and more in tune with the intellect, anyone who pleases can safely adhere comfortably to this position.
WHETHER THE MASS OF A GOOD PRIEST IS BETTER THAN THAT OF A BAD PRIEST
The fourth question is whether the Mass of a good priest is better than that of a bad one. And that it is not would appear:
1. Augustine in the book De corpore Christi: “in the mystery of the body and blood of the Lord, nothing more is accomplished by the good priest, nor anything less by the bad priest.”26
2. Likewise it stands to reason, because one does not baptize better than another, for to no one is given a power of excellence. Therefore by the same token neither does one confect better.
3. Again, nothing that cannot increase or decrease in goodness, is done better by a good person or worse by a bad one. The body of Christ cannot increase or decrease in goodness. Therefore the sacrament is the same whether ministered by someone good or evil.
4. Again, if a Mass is called better when done by one as opposed to another, it would seem, following this, that hope could be placed in a human being, which is unsuitable.
To the contrary: 1. More good things are better than fewer good things. In the Mass of the bad priest God accepts only this: the body of Christ. In the Mass of the good priest he accepts all the prayers and devotions. Therefore the Mass of the good priest is better.
2. Again, that is better which is more fruitful. The Mass of the good priest is more fruitful, because it is better heard and in it people are more moved to devotion. Therefore the Mass of that priest is better.
3. Again, if they are equally good, then the sacred canons do not appropriately prohibit the hearing of a Mass celebrated by heretics and schismatics, those who commit simony, and notorious fornicators.
For this reason the question arises, Why do they prohibit more the Masses of these and of those who are called notorious fornicators?
I respond: It must be said concerning the Mass that one can speak of the substantial matter found there, and this is the confection of the body and blood of the Lord. With respect to this there is equality in all of them, because one and the same happens in them all. There are also within the Mass some surrounding things, such as petitions, prayers, supplications as well as a devout manner and affection. With respect to these, the Mass of the good priest is worth more, because it moves one more toward devotion. If someone is more willing to hear the Mass of the more devout priest, I believe he does well, so long as he believes that he does not excel over the sinner in substance.27 Otherwise he would dangerously err. The reasons proceed in the opposite conclusions following these two aforementioned views.
To the question then, Why is it prohibited to hear the Masses of certain ones? it must be said that this is as a punishment for their sins because they are not worthy to confect. Moreover, if they confect they are not worthy to be heard. Another reason is so that those perplexed by their guilt would return to grace. A third reason is so that others might be restrained from imitating them. Thus this is a work of justice, of mercy, and of foresight.
To the question, Why especially those four types of sinners? it must be said that this is because they are directly opposed to this sacrament. For in this sacrament there is the secret of faith, so heretics are rejected. There is the bond of charity,28 so schismatics are rejected. There is a vessel of grace, from which Eucharist gets its name; hence practitioners of simony, who buy and sell grace, are rejected. There is the elevation of persons to a spiritual state, hence notorious fornicators are rejected, for they are absolutely carnal.
They are called notorious fornicators not on account of suspicion or probable signs, but on account of the fact that they were condemned for such a crime within the rule of law, that they have freely confessed in a trial, that they were canonically convicted, or because of evidence of the deed or crime. I call it evidence when the fact is so notorious that there is no need of witnesses, which is when it cannot be hidden by any evasion. This is stated in some Decretals, De cohabitatione clericorum et mulierum, chapter 7, Vestra and following: “Without doubt you ought to hold that the divine mysteries are licitly heard and so are other ecclesiastical sacraments received from fornicating clerics and priests, so long as they are tolerated and give no evidence of the deed.”29 From this it is clear that all such, when they confect, commit sin. Likewise those, who hear them without necessity, sin because they act against the laws of the Church.
QUESTION ONE
WHETHER THE BODY OF CHRIST IS PASSED INTO THE STOMACH OF A MOUSE
And that a mouse passes it into its stomach would appear:
1. Because whoever eats something eats also that which is inseparably united to it. A mouse eats the species, and in those species the body of Christ is inseparably united; therefore, etc.
2. God shuns sin more than he shuns any creature whatsoever. The body of Christ passes into the stomach of a sinner if the sinner eats of it—therefore into that of a mouse.
3. Again, I ask, “What did the mouse eat?” The mouse ate either the substance or the accidents. If the substance, then there is nothing there except the substance of the body of Christ. Therefore, he eats the body of Christ. If the accidents, then the accidents are not without their subject, except as long as the body of Christ is there. Therefore, if the accident passes into the stomach of a mouse, it would seem likewise that the body of Christ does also.
4. Again, why would this be unfitting, since we see the body of Christ to exist thus in a filthy container just as in a clean one?
To the contrary: a. The Master says in a note that the mouse does not consume the body of Christ.30
b. Again, it stands to reason, because someone who, by chewing, swallows some food into the stomach, eats it. Therefore if a mouse passes it into its stomach, he eats it. But this is neither sacramentally nor spiritually, therefore in no way.
c. Again, if a mouse were baptized in the name of the Trinity it would receive nothing more than if it were washed in plain water, because it is not capable of receiving the sacrament. Therefore by the same token it receives nothing more than if it were to eat plain bread.
I respond: Regarding this question there were two opinions. The first opinion is that the body of Christ is inseparably contained in those species so long as they are the sacrament. They are the sacrament by the nature of bread and by the nature of the word of consecration. Therefore, since the consecration does not leave the host as long as the form of bread is preserved, the sacrament lasts as long as the form of bread is preserved. Hence, since the sacrament contains the true body in a sacramental manner, it contains it as long as the species of bread is preserved in the least part. They say that wherever the species are placed, whether in a clean or unclean place, there is the body of Christ. Because they seem to demean the body of the Lord and the sacrament, they say that this is rather to the praise of both, for the body of Christ undergoes no injury, since it is glorified and can in no way be stained. The sacrament too is praised in that it is so sacred and conjoined to something so noble, which cannot be separated or taken away from its content by anything so long as the form is preserved. Thus, wherever the sacrament is, and whose species are of the most holy symbols in which Christ is present, wherever it is, it is nobly present. They also say we are censured in that we despise humble places and we change clothes, while Christ has his existence wherever that species is placed. He also does not abandon that covering, however corrupt it might be.
And if you object that a mouse eats it by saying the mouse should not be said to receive the body of Christ nor to eat it, because in no way does the mouse come into contact with it, either by way of fittingness in nature, or by way of the most minimal cognition, or by way of desire, they respond that this is false. Still no matter how much this first opinion is defended, it is still never so defended without pious ears being outraged to hear that the body of Christ should be in the stomach of a mouse or in a sewer so long as the species subsist there.
Accordingly, there is second opinion. In no way does the body of Christ go down into the stomach of the mouse. The reason that prompts this opinion is that Christ is not sub sacramento except to the extent that he is ordered to human use, namely for eating. As the mouse gnaws he thus renders it unfit. Thus the sacrament ceases to exist, and the body of Christ ceases to be present there. The substance of bread returns, as Innocent says, and authority has held.31 This is, as in the preceding distinction, where the question was asked whether the accidents provide nourishment.32 And this second opinion is more common and certainly more respectable and more reasonable.
To the objections: 1. To the objection, then, that it is inseparably joined to the species, it must be said that this is true, so long as they retain the nature of the sacrament and are capable of human use. However, this is not the case when a mouse eats them.
2. To the objection that God detests the sin more, it must be said that in the sinner there is his nature and his guilt. Although the guilt displeases him, still he does not hate the nature that he has made. Even more he loves it so much that he is prepared to dismiss the guilt, if the person should consent. Thus by reason of his natural capability, the sinner is more worthy to receive than the mouse, although the mouse is not a sinner, because sin never so vitiates or corrupts a rational nature to the extent that it is no longer more noble than the irrational.
3. To the objection that asks, What does the mouse eat? there are two answers that follow the two opinions: either that it eats the accidents, which by reason of a force beyond nature are possible to be converted into a substance, or that it eats the substance of bread, which substance returns, as was mentioned above.33
If you should ask, What happens to the body of Christ? Does it fly away? It must be said that in the conversion of the bread the body of Christ does not locally descend; nor is it changed by any alteration. It is only by the conversion of the bread that it begins to subsist beneath those species. Therefore, only by the return of the bread, he ceases to exist there in such a way that there is no change in him either locally or any other change. Let him accept this teaching who can, and whoever cannot, let him believe, and that will be enough for him.
4. To the objection concerning the filthy container, it must be said that there is no similarity. This is because even the filthiness of a container does not take away its capability for use, and in this way it does not take away that it be a sacrament. Thus a filthy container does not remove its content.
WHETHER THE BODY OF CHRIST DESCENDS INTO THE HUMAN STOMACH
The second question is whether the body of Christ descends into the human stomach. And that it does would appear:
a. From authority: De consecratione, dist. II: “The one who consumes the remains of the Lord’s body which have been left in the sacrarium should not immediately partake of common foods, lest they be considered to mingle with the sacred partaking.”34 It would not say this unless it descended into the stomach; therefore, etc.
b. Likewise, Bede in the same passage: “If anyone should vomit the Eucharist through immoderation or gluttony he should do penance for forty days.”35 What is not swallowed cannot be vomited; therefore, etc.
c. Again, the body of Christ is conjoined to those species as long as they remain with their forms. They are not immediately transformed,; rather they descend into the stomach with their own properties—therefore the body of Christ with them as well.
d. Again, the body of Christ either proceeds into the stomach or into the mind. Not into the mind, because only God can penetrate it. Therefore it proceeds into the stomach.
e. Again, what does it take for Christ to be said to be eaten sacramentally? If on account of chewing only, then if someone were to chew the species and spit it out, he would be said to have eaten sacramentally. Now that is false. Therefore, it is necessary that there be chewing as well as swallowing. If the species are transferred to the stomach without their content they cease to have the reason of sacrament. Therefore, for this reason, that would not be sacramental eating. It is required, then, that he eat the true body.
f. Again, why is it unfitting that the body of Christ should descend into the stomach? For we see that a body of light travels unstained through anything; nor does it avoid anything, whether clean or unclean. Therefore in like fashion, and even much more strongly, the glorified body of Christ.
To the contrary: 1. Matthew 15:17: “Everything that enters the mouth passes into the stomach and is discharged into the latrine.” However, the body of Christ is not discharged into the latrine. It is clear then that from the mouth it does not proceed into the stomach.
2. Again, Ambrose: “It is not that bread which enters into the body, but the bread of eternal life which supports the substance of the soul.”36
3. Again, it stands to reason, because it is true that the body of Christ is not food for the stomach, but for the mind. Therefore, it does not pass into the stomach, but into the mind.
4. Again, if it passes into the stomach, it partakes in the functions of the stomach. These are to digest and to distribute, to transfer to the individual parts, and to discharge into the latrine. Such is false; therefore, etc.
I respond: It must be said that to proceed into the stomach is understood in two ways: either with respect to its substance, or with respect to the effectiveness of eating. In the first understanding some body descends into the stomach, even if it is not food. In the second, nothing descends into the stomach except as it is food. Similarly to enter the mind is understood in two ways: either with respect to the substance—thus proceeds that which penetrates the soul, and this is God alone. Or it is with respect to its efficacy, and in this manner that is said to enter the mind, which refreshes it.
If we should speak then about the effectiveness of eating, it is thus certain that the body of Christ does not proceed into the stomach but into the mind, because the flesh of Christ does not refresh the stomach, but the mind, as the four final reasons to the contrary demonstrate.
But if we were to speak about the substance, then it is certain that it does not proceed to the mind. However whether it proceeds into the stomach is in doubt because of a diversity of opinions. Hence it should be noted that there are four opinions about this.
The first opinion is that it proceeds not only into the stomach, but also wherever those species are carried, provided their nature is respected. This is true whether they go into the stomach of a mouse or into some filthy place.
The second opinion is that it proceeds not only into the human stomach, but remains there as long as those species are able to provide nourishment. Hence they say that it proceeds into the stomach and stays there until the act of nourishment is complete.
The third is that it arrives in the stomach as long as the species are being consumed, and does not remain any longer.
The fourth is that it is with those species as long as they are able to be perceived with the senses, such as sight or taste. They say this is what Hugh meant when he said, “It is with you in sight, touch and taste. As long as a bodily sense is affected, the presence of the body is not removed. But after a bodily sense ceases perceiving, from then on a bodily presence is not to be sought. Rather the spiritual is to be retained. The sacrament is complete when the administering is completed; its force remains: Christ passes from the mouth into the heart. It is better when it proceeds into your mind than into your stomach.”37
Now the reason for the diversity of these opinions is this: they all agree that the notion of the sacrament lasts so long as the body of Christ is in those species. Then the first opinion says that the species of consecrated bread is a sacrament as long as the species of bread remains, since the power of consecration pertains to it inasmuch as it is bread. Hence, it never ceases as long as that property is preserved. From this the first position arises.
But others say that the notion of sacrament is preserved as long as the species is fit for human nourishment; for this was it instituted and it is ordered to this, and it possesses this when it is outside and within the stomach, because it nourishes. From this arises the second position.
A third group says that it is preserved up to the moment it is received for eating purposes; and when the eating is complete, then the sacrament is not, but was. From this the third position takes its origin.
A fourth opinion says that, because the sacrament is a sign, and the sign is what presents itself to the senses, the species is a sacrament so long as it springs forth to be sensed by one of the senses. Hence, when the perception of the senses is lacking, the notion of sacrament and the bodily presence cease.
Now what ought to be held amid such diversity is difficult to decide. Still the first opinion, which says that the presence is carried wherever the species are borne, seems too broad. This is because in this case even a mouse would cast it into its stomach and it would fall into the sewer. That is disgusting to pious ears. If we should say it, heretics and the unfaithful would deride us and laugh us to scorn.
Likewise the fourth opinion, which says that the presence is lacking when there is no sensation of the species, appears to be too narrow. For according to this position never could it be said that the body of Christ is truly consumed, since a food that is not perceived and does not arrive in the stomach cannot be said to be eaten. Thus the word of Hugo is to be understood not as referring to an act of the senses, but rather to its fittingness. And besides, sensing consists not only in the taste of the tongue, but a person senses the descent of food until it comes to rest in the stomach.
Between the two middle positions it is not easy to decide, since each of them is very probable. For, as in the third opinion, it is probable that when the consuming and eating are complete, the sacrament has achieved the end for which it existed, and it ceases to be a sacrament. Hugh of St. Victor says this and seems to have meant this. For he speaks thus, “After you have eaten, if you search for the presence of Christ, search in heaven, for he is there at the right hand of the Father”38 This seems probable enough. For as long as Christ is sub speciebus, he is to be adored. However, one would be foolish to adore Christ in the stomach of someone eating.
According to this position the response to the objections is clear enough, except for those who object over the admixture and the vomit, to which the response could be the following. The first is because the decree does not say that they be mixed together, but that they should be considered to be mixed. To the second then that Bede says that someone vomits, this is said and the punishment imposed only because those species were the container of the Lord’s body. Hence they are to be held in great reverence, especially because they were consecrated with the holiest of symbols. Hence they are burned, and due reverence is maintained for the ashes. Still the one who vomits is gravely punished, because, insofar as it is in him, he vomits the body of Christ. The same is to be said of anyone who should throw it into the sewer. In this way this opinion can be held with sufficient probability.
Nevertheless the second opinion seems safer and more agreeable to authorities, that the body of Christ descends into the stomach along with those species, and remains beneath them as long as these remain under their proper form and retain their function of refreshing. This is because they were the sacrament by virtue of their ordination and human nourishment. Hence they concede that the body of the Lord is in the stomach, because the species are there as food. Therefore, if the species are vomited out, the Eucharist is vomited. Additionally, if the species can be distinguished from the rest of the vomit, it should be separated out. Moreover, if those species should pass through the stomach undigested because of some illness, they are then beyond the property of nourishment. Hence if they pass into the sewer, the body of the Lord is not there.
However, whether this is true, I do not know. Still it seems certain to me that if someone vomits up discernible species, great reverence is to be shown to them, and great diligence is to be exercised that one does not vomit. Thus, it is dangerous to give it to someone about whom it might be presumed that he is unable to retain it. According to this position, sufficiently clear responses to the objections are at hand. And the punishment to be imposed on those who vomit it up is sufficiently determined in De consecratione, dist 2.7.39
_______________
1 Prosper of Aquitaine, Sententiarum, n. 15 (PL 51, 430): …quia veri sacrificii extra catholicam Ecclesiam locus non est.
2 Jerome, Commentariorum in Osee prophetem, c. 9, v. 3 (PL 25, 892A): Sacrifia (sic) haereticorum panis luctus est et lacrymarum: omnia enim quae faciunt vertentur in fletum.
3 Jerome, In Amos, c. 5, v. 22 (PL 25, 1053CD): Quae oratio Judae proditori versa est in peccatum: non enim habet bonum odorem; sed opere loquebatur: Putruerunt, et corruptae sunt cicatrices meae, a facie insipientiae meae. Quae omnia et de haereticis dicere possumus, qui dum fugiunt leonem, incurrunt in ursum, et ingressi domum, quam putant Ecclesiam Dei, innituntur parietibus, quos ipsi fecerunt, et a serpente mordentur, quorum lucem et diem tenebrae eripiunt et caligo, ita ut palpabiles tenebrae sint, et interficiantur primitiva eorum. Horum Deus odit sacrificia, et a se projicit, et quotiescumque sub nomine Domini fuerint congregati, detestatur foetorem eorum, et claudit nares suas.
4 Cyprian, Epistola ad Magnum de baptizandis Novatianis, n. 1 (PL 3, 1139): Si autem qui Ecclesiam contemnunt ethnici et publicani habentur, multo magis utique rebelles et hostes falsa altaria et illicita sacerdotia et sacrificia sacrilega et nomina adulterata fingentes inter ethnicos et publicanos necesse est computentur, quando minora peccantes et tantum Ecclesiae contemptores ethnici et publicani sententia Domini judicentur. Bonaventure here seems to be summarizing this statement by Cyprian.
5 Ap. Gratian, Decretum, II, c. 1, q. 1, c. 66 (I, 381): Non oportet hereticorum benedictiones accipere quoniam maledictiones majus sunt quam benedictiones.
6 Matt 18:18.
7 Augustine, Contra Epistolam Parmeniani, II, c. 13, n. 28 (PL 43, 70): Sed sicut Baptismus in eis, ita Ordinatio mansit integra: quia in praecisione fuerat vitium, quod unitatis pace correctum est; non in Sacramentis, quae ubicumque sunt, ipsa sunt.
8 Gratian, Decreti Secunda Pars, c. 1, q. 39 (I, 374): Si ergo sacramenta in modum lucis ab immundis conquinari non possunt, si in morem puri fluuii per lapideos canales ad fertiles areolas perueniunt, patet quod symoniaci sacramentum unctionis sibi quidem inutiliter et perniciose habent, aliis autem utiliter et salubriter eandem unctionem administrant. Sicut ergo sunt uera sacramenta hereticorum quantum ad formam, ita sunt vera et non inania quantum ad effectum.
9 Cf. Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 13, c. 1.2, 311: Unde Augustinus: “Intra catholicam ecclesiam, in mysterio corporis et sanguinis Domini, nihil a bono maius, nihil a malo minus perficitur sacerdote; quia non in merito consecrantis, sed in verbo perficitur Creatoris, et virtute Spiritus Sancti.” Lombard attributes this quote to Augustine, but it actually comes from De Corpore et Sanguine Domini by Paschasius Radbertus. See footnote.26, p. 327.
10 Cf. Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 6, c. 2, 268-9. Here, Lombard cites Augustine to support this point.
11 Here Bonaventure identifies the res et sacramentum and the res tantum as the primum res and the ultimus res. The prima res, or “first res,” pertains to the truth of the sacrament, while the ultima res, or “final res,” pertains to the usefulness or utility of the sacrament, which is incorporation into the Mystical Body.
12 This explains Cyprian’s argument.
13 Cf. above, this question, “I respond.”
14 Latin: …omnes enim sacerdotes aequaliter possunt conficere. Bonaventure’s statement includes bishops and even the Pope. The Pope cannot take away the power to confect, but he can remove its effectiveness.
15 Pseudo-Hugo, Summa sententiarum, tr. 6, c. 4 (PL 176, 141A): Haec autem tria ad istud sacramentum necessaria sunt. Ordo, actio, intentio. Ordo, ut sit sacerdos; actio, ut verba illa proferat; intentio, ut proferat ad istud.
16 Cf. Lombard, Sententiae, d. 13, c. 1.7, 313: In hujus autem mysterii expletione, sicut formam servari, ita ordinem haberi, scilicet, ut sit sacerdos, et intentionem adhiberi oportet, ut illud facere intendat.
17 This is an argument ex natura, from the practices of even pagan cults.
18 Matt 26:26.
19 1 Cor 11:26.
20 Matt 28:19.
21 The Vulgate reads: …vos autem genus electum regale sacerdotium gens sancta. The English reads: chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation.
22 Latin: Unde ordinaverunt Ecclesiam secundum Dei institutionem. Thus, in “they ordered the Church,” Bonaventure refers directly to the nature of the Church, not simply to the priesthood itself, which is the instrument of this ordering.
23 The Latin text is here confusing: Sacerdos non potest nisi per virtutem verbi; sed propter quod unumquodque, et illud magis: ergo, etc.
24 Bonaventure uses the example of a papal document, which has effect only if it contains both written words and a seal.
25 These two opinions are that the word has an absolute power or that the word has power only inasmuch as it is ordered to an effect. Bonaventure does not choose between these two, but he does reject the idea that the power to consecrate resides in the priest alone.
26 In fact, this is not a reference to Augustine’s work but to De corpore et sanguine Domini by Paschasius Radbertus. Parts of Paschasius’ book had been attributed to Augustine because they were included in a florilegia of Augustine’s writings concerning the Eucharist. Cf. Paschasius Radbertus, De corpore et sanguine Domini, c. 12, n. 1 (PL 120, 1310B; Cum appendice Epistola ad Fredungardum. Ed. Bede Paulus. CCCM 16 Turnholt: Brepols, 1969, 76-77): Vere credere et indubitanter scire debemus infra catholicam ecclesiam, ubi catholica fide hoc mysterium celebratur, nihil a bono majus, nihilque a malo minus percipitur sacerdote, nihilque aliud quam caro Christi et sanguis, dum catholice consecratur, quia non in merito consecrantis, sed in verbo efficitur creatoris et virtute Spiritus sancti, ut caro Christi et sanguis, non alia quam quae de Spiritu sancto creata est, vera fide credatur, et spiritali intelligentia degustetur.
27 This is to say, as long as one does not believe that a good priest confects a “better” body of Christ.
28 Latin: …vinculum caritatis.
29 Ap. Gratian, Decretum, III, t. 2, c. 7 (II, 456): Sine dubitatione itaque teneatis quod a clericis et presbyteris, quanquam fornicariis, quamdiu ab ecclesia tolerantur, nec habent operis evidentiam, licite divina mysteria audiantur, et alia recipiantur sacramenta ecclesiastica.
30 Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 13, c. 1.8-9, 314: Illud etiam sane potest dici, quod a brutis animalibus corpus Christi non sumitur, etsi videatur. Quid ergo sumit mus? quid manducat? Deus novit. De hoc caelesti mysterio aliqua perstrinximus, Catholicis fideliter tenenda. Qui enim his contradicit, haereticus judicatur.
31 Cf. Innocent III, De sacro altaris mysterio, IV, c. 11 (PL 217, 863AB): Respondetur quod, sicut miraculose substantia panis convertitur, cum corpus Dominicum incipit esse sub sacramento, sic quodammodo miraculose revertitur, cum ipsum ibi desinit esse, non quod illa panis substantia revertatur quod transivit in carnem, sed quod ejus loco miraculose creatus, quamvis hujus accidentia sine subjecto possunt sic corrodi, sicut edi.
32 Cf. above, d. 12, p. 1, a. 2, q. 1, ad. 1.
33 Cf. immediately above, “I respond.”
34 Ap. Gratian, Decretum, III, d. 2, c. 23 (I, 1321): Qui autem residua corporis Domini, que in sacrario relicta sunt, consumunt, non statim ad accipienda communes cibos conveniant, ne putent sanctae portioni miscere cibum.
35 Ap. Gratian, Decretum, III, d. 2, c. 28 (I, 1323): Si quis per ebrietatem vel voracitatem eucharistiam evomuerit, XL diebus peniteat.
36 Ambrose, De sacramentis, V, c. 4, n. 24 (PL 16, 471B): Non iste panis est, qui vadit in corpus: sed ille panis vitae aeternae, qui animae nostrae substantiam fulcit.
37 Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis, II, p. 8, c. 13 (PL 176, 471A; Corpus Victorinum, 410): Denique in visu, in tactu, in sapore, corporealiter tecum est. Quamdiu sensus corporealiter afficitur, praesentia corporealis non aufertur. Postquam autem sensus corporealis in percipiendo deficit, deinceps corporealis praesentia quaerenda non est, sed spiritualis retinenda, dispensatio completa est, perfectum sacramentum virtus manet; Christus de ore ad cor transit. Melius est tibi ut eat in mentem tuam, quam in ventrem tuum.
38 Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis, II, p. 8, c. 13 (PL 176, 471C; Corpus Victorinum, 411): Post haec ergo si corporealem praesentiam Christi quaeris, in coelo quaere.
39 Cf. Decretals’ citation on Bede’s direction to 40 days of penance.