After the previous statements it remains to show that the qualities remaining in the sacrament of the altar after consecration are not subjectively in a quantity, as if in a subject sustaining them. And, indeed, this conclusion is to be confirmed by the testimony of the venerable Doctors. Whence, the illustrious Doctor, the Master of the Sentences, says in Book IV., Distinction XII., in the beginning of the Chapter, ‘Damnamus.’ Whose doctrine a general council, in the margin of the De Summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica, ‘Damnamus,’ also approved. “If a question is raised,” he says, “concerning the accidents which remain; namely, concerning the species, taste and heaviness, in what subject they may be found; it seems clear to me that they exist without a subject rather than that they are in a subject.”
From which it is obvious that it is in accordance with the intention of that Doctor, that such qualities, taste, heaviness, and similar qualities, remaining in the sacrament of the altar, are not subjectively in something and consequently are not in a quantity as if in a subject; because then they would not be without a subject but in a subject. Nor is it sufficient to say that he does not intend that those qualities are outside of the whole subject; but that they may not be in some substance as if in a subject; whence, assigning a reason why those qualities are without a fundament, he adds, that there is no substance there, except that of the body and blood of the Lord, which is not affected by those accidents.
This response, I say, does not suffice because it never follows, that any accident is without a subject as long as it subsists in its primary and immediate subject. But if the qualities remaining after consecration could be in a quantity as in a subject, a quantity would be the immediate subject of them and consequently, as long as they would subsist in a quantity, they would not be without a subject.
Again, any accident can never be said to be existing per se, so long as it subsists in its immediate subject. But according to the same Doctor the qualities remaining in the sacrament of the altar are subsisting per se; for when he speaks of the qualities of which he spoke before, that they are without a subject, he says: “Those accidents, by which the body of Christ having its form and nature is concealed, remain subsisting per se at the celebration of the mystery, for the tasting and assent of faith.” Therefore, it is apparent that it is in accordance with the intention of that Doctor that taste and weight and the like, the qualities remaining in the sacrament of the altar, are subsisting per se and without any subject. From which it follows that they do not exist in a quantity, as in a subject.
Whence, the aforesaid Doctor adds in the same place: “Do not be surprised or scoff,” he says, “if the accidents there may appear to be broken, since they may be there without a subject.” From this it is more wonderful that the accidents exist without a subject than that they may be broken.
Again, there is no stronger reason that one quality may be in a quantity as in a subject, than for another quality; but any quality remaining in the sacrament of the altar is not in a quantity but in a subject. Therefore, there is nothing there in a quantity, as if in a subject. But it is obvious that some quality may remain after the consecration which may not be in a quantity as if in a subject. For heaviness is a quality; for according to it something is called ‘quale’; and yet the heaviness remaining in the sacrament of the altar is not in a quantity as in a subject. For, if heaviness were in something as in a subject, that subject would truly and really be heavy, as the whole subject, in which there is whiteness, is white; and the whole subject, in which there is heat, is warm. But nothing remaining in the sacrament of the altar after consecration is heavy by that heaviness which remains in the same sacrament; which a certain gloss on the De Consecratione, Distinction II., above that chapter, ‘Si per negligentiam,’ clearly asserts. Whence, objecting to this that he said that accidents fall to the earth, he says thus: “But it is likewise objected, since the accidents alone remain there, and accidents do not have weight, for body alone has weight; how, therefore, are accidents said to fall, since they may not have weight.” And solving this objection he says: “Say that heaviness still remains with other accidents and yet nothing heavy is there.” From this gloss it is obvious in part that, although heaviness may remain with the other accidents after consecration, yet it is not in some subject which may be able to be called heavy from that heaviness. And for the same reason there is not something white there, but whiteness only is there, and there is nothing white there as heaviness is there, and nothing is heavy there.
And in the same manner, although taste may be there, yet there is not there a subject sustaining taste deriving its name from taste. From which it plainly follows that quantity is not a subject informed by those qualities nor deriving its name from them. For if it were under those qualities, it would truly be heavy, warm or cold, white, sweet or bitter, which is plainly contrary to the aforesaid gloss.
Another point can also be drawn from the preceding gloss; namely, that in the sacrament of the altar there is not some body having weight. From this it follows that there is not there a quantity having weight, since every permanent and continuous quality may be a line or a surface or a body. Therefore, if a quantity having weight were there, then it would be necessary that there should be there either a line having weight, or a surface having weight, or a body having weight. But it cannot be said that a line or a surface has weight, and not a body; for the previously mentioned gloss says that body alone has weight. From this it follows that, if there were there some quantity having weight, there would be there a body having weight, which is denied; therefore, there is there no quantity having weight. From this it is, furthermore, proper to infer that no quantity there is the subject of that heaviness, and by virtue of that it is necessary to say that no quantity there is the subject of those qualities; but all those qualities there are subsisting per se by divine virtue.
Again, the Holy Mother Church when celebrating the sacrament of the body of Christ reads thus: “The accidents exist without a subject in the same that faith may have a place, while the invisible concealed by another species is visibly received, and the senses, which judge of accidents known to them, are rendered immune from deception.”
From the preceding authorities and very many others it clearly obtains that not only one accident may exist without a subject in the sacrament of the altar, but that accidents exist without a subject, say, all the qualities of which the senses judge; which would be true if all the qualities were in a quantity as in a subject.
Whence, since this may be the opinion of many revered Doctors; namely, the Master of the Sentences, Hostiensis, Ganfridus, and of many other glossators upon the decrees and decretals, it seems consistent with the Catholic faith to say that all the qualities remaining in the sacrament of the altar after consecration may not be in something, neither in a quantity nor in anything as in a subject. And it appears that this may be the opinion of the Doctors; for Hostiensis at the top of the title of the De Celebratione Missarum, and Ganfridus in the same title, and the gloss in the margin of the De Celebratione Missarum, ‘Cum Marthæ,’ and the gloss on the De Consecratione, Distinction II., Chapter, ‘In sacramentorum’, and the Master of the Sentences in Book IX., Distinction XI., cite three opinions concerning the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ. “One,” as they say, “asserts that that substance, which was bread at first, is afterwards the flesh and the blood of Christ. The second opinion holds that the substance of the bread and of the wine may cease to be there and the accidents only remain; namely, taste, color, weight, and similar accidents; and by those accidents the body of Christ begins to be there. The third opinion holds that the substance of the bread and of the wine remains there and that the body of Christ is in the same place and under the same species.” The second opinion is approved by all the previous authorities.
From all these it is obvious that the ancient and authorized Doctors have posited that only the qualities remain per se without a subject; and, indeed, they have not posited that qualities were subjectively in something.
These, and many, who posit that the qualities remaining in the sacrament of the altar are in a quantity as if in a subject, adduce many passages of the authorized Doctors to prove that accidents; namely, qualities, are without a subject; but they can not, indeed, adduce one passage of any authorized Doctor to prove that the qualities in the sacrament of the altar are in a quantity as in a subject.
Whence, although I have diligently read the entire tract of the Master of the Sentences concerning the Eucharist and the entire tract, which is found in the canonical law concerning the same matter, along with the glosses, and other Doctors, as Hostiensis, Innocent and others, yet I have not found that they mention quantity even by denying it, except in three places; namely, once in the De Consecratione, Distinction II., ‘Quia corpus’; where, when speaking to the man receiving the body of Christ, he says thus: “Continuing in thy visible stature thou hast invisibly become greater than thyself without increase of quantity, although you yourself would also be the same.”
Again, the gloss over that chapter of the De Consecratione, Distinction II., ‘Dupliciter’: “It can be understood, either, according to that form and quantity which he had on the cross or according to the quantity of the glorified body which seems spiritual; for it is subject to no sense.”
Again, before, in Chapter ‘Ubi,’ Hilary says: “A visible quantity is not to be considered in this mystery; but the spiritual virtue of the sacrament”; where the gloss says: “The quantity must not be so estimated that the body of Christ may be less under a smaller quantity and greater in a larger quantity; for, wherever there is a part whether of species or of body, that is, the foot or the hand, the whole body is.”
I do not remember that I have read in very many places that the Saints or the authorized Doctors, who discussed the sacrament of the Eucharist, touch upon any thing about quantity.
But it is mainfest that from the preceding places that it can neither directly nor indirectly be gathered that qualities may be in a quantity as if in a subject. But they expressly say of qualities that they remain and that they themselves are broken and are used up.
Whence, the gloss above that Chapter of the De Consecratione, Distinction II., ‘Ego Berengarius,’ says: “I not only confess that weight and the other qualities of the sacrament are perceived by the bodily senses; but I confess that under those broken species and very much wasted parts the whole and unbroken body of Christ is, that the whole is eaten, and that the whole is consumed.” Notice that he calls the species, qualities, which species, he says, are broken and worn. Therefore, needlessly would there be posited any quantity, which would be the subject of them.
← Chapter XX That the Quantity Remaining Is Not Subjectively in One Quality and · Contents · Chapter XXII That a Quantity Really Distinct From a Substance May Not Be a →