The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus :: Ordinatio. Book 4. Distinctions 8 - 13. ::

collapse section

Export a Citation collapse section

collapse section

just this volume

92 occurrences of therefore etc in this volume.
[Clear Hits]

Ordinatio. Book 4. Distinctions 8 - 13.

collapse section

Collapse All | Expand All

collapse section

translator's preface

91

collapse section

book four. distinctions 8 - 13

6

collapse section

eighth distinction

division of the text and overview of questions

1

collapse section

question one. whether the eucharist is a sacrament of the new law

1

collapse section

I. to the question

a. about the idea or definition of the eucharist

1

b. whether anything real subsists under such an idea

C. that what subsists under the idea of this name is a sacrament

II. to the initial arguments

5

collapse section

question two. whether the form of the eucharist is what is set down in the canon of the mass

3

collapse section

I. to the question

a. whether the eucharist has a single form

2

collapse section

b. what the form of the eucharist is

1. about the words for the consecration of the body

2

collapse section

2. about the words of consecration of the blood

2

a. two doubts and their solution

b. whether all the words belong to the form of consecration of the blood

1

collapse section

C. what the form of the eucharist signifies

1. the opinion of peter of poitiers and its rejection

2. the opinion of richard of middleton and its rejection

1

3. a possible solution consisting of thirteen main conclusions

4. weighing of the aforesaid conclusions

5. scotus’ own conclusion

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

question three. whether the sacrament of the eucharist was fittingly instituted after the cena, or whether it could be received by those not fasting

collapse section

I. to the question

a. about the four ways of receiving this sacrament

b. a difficulty as to the third way and its solution

II. to the initial arguments

1

collapse section

ninth distinction

overview of the parts

1

collapse section

single question. whether someone in a state of mortal sin sins mortally in receiving the sacrament of the eucharist

collapse section

I. to the question

collapse section

a. about mortal sin

1. about him who is actually in mortal sin

2. about him who has not repented of a past mortal sin

3. about him who has repented but has not confessed

b. about venial sin

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

tenth distinction

division of the text and overview of questions

8

collapse section

tenth distinction. first part: on the possibility of christ’s body existing in the eucharist

3

collapse section

question one. whether it is possible for christ’s body to be contained really under the species of bread and wine

3

collapse section

I. to the question

1

a. what is to be maintained and by what authority

2

collapse section

b. how what is believed is possible

1. four possibilities, to be explained in turn in what follows

2

collapse section

2. two possibilities to be explained here

2

a. first: about christ’s body beginning to exist on the altar without change of place

b. second: about christ’s body quantum without quantitative mode

II. to the initial reasons

4

collapse section

question two. whether the same body can be located in diverse places at the same time

3

collapse section

I. to the question

collapse section

a. the opinion of many people for the negative conclusion

1. the reasons of henry of ghent

2. other doctors’ reasons

3. further reasons that can be brought forward

3

collapse section

b. the possibility of an affirmative conclusion

1. argument in general

3

collapse section

2. particular reasons, drawn from the statements of henry of ghent

a. first reason

2

b. second reason

c. third reason

1

d. fourth reason

3. what must be said about these four reasons

C. scotus’ own response

collapse section

D. to the arguments adduced for the negative opinion

1. three preliminary propositions

collapse section

2. to the individual reasons

a. to the reasons of henry of ghent

b. to the reasons of the other doctors

c. to the other reasons that were adduced

II. to the initial arguments

1

collapse section

question three. whether the body of christ could be located at the same time in heaven and in the eucharist

collapse section

I. to the question

collapse section

a. opinion of henry of ghent

1. exposition of the opinion

2. refutation of the opinion

b. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the initial arguments

11

collapse section

tenth distinction. second part: on the things that can belong to christ’s body in the eucharist

6

collapse section

question one. whether the same body, existing naturally and existing sacramentally, necessarily has in it the same parts and properties

3

collapse section

I. to the question

a. the supposition being made

3

collapse section

b. the question being asked

2

collapse section

1. whether the natural parts and properties of christ’s body are simply necessarily in the eucharist as well

a. first conclusion

2

b. second conclusion

c. two corollaries that flow from the second conclusion

d. difficulties against the two corollaries and their solution

e. third corollary

1

2. whether the same parts and properties are present by necessity in a certain respect

2

II. to the initial arguments

1

collapse section

question two. whether any immanent action that is in christ existing naturally is the same in him as existing in the eucharist sacramentally

collapse section

I. to the question

a. three conclusions

collapse section

b. proof of the conclusions

collapse section

1. proof of the first conclusion

b. specifically

2. proof of the second conclusion

3. proof of the third conclusion

II. to the initial arguments

4

collapse section

question three. whether any bodily motion could be in christ’s body as it exists in the eucharist

collapse section

I. to the question

a. preliminary distinctions

collapse section

b. solution consisting of six conclusions

1. statement of the conclusions

collapse section

2. proof of the conclusions

a. proof of the first conclusion

b. proof of the second conclusion

c. proof of the third conclusion

d. proof of the foruth conclusion

e. proof of the fifth conclusion

3. synthesis of the statements made

II. to the initial arguments

8

collapse section

tenth distinction. third part: on the action that can belong to christ existing in the eucharist

2

collapse section

question one. whether christ existing in the eucharist could, by some natural virtue, change something other than himself

collapse section

I. to the question

a. about human powers

collapse section

b. conclusions flowing herefrom

1. first conclusion and its proof

collapse section

2. second conclusion and its proof

a. explication of the second conclusion

b. objection to the aforesaid explanation, and rejection of this objection

3. final opinion

1

II. to the initial arguments

4

collapse section

question two. whether any created intellect could naturally see the existence of christ’s body in the eucharist

1

collapse section

I. to the question

a. opinion of thomas aquinas and richard of middleton

1

collapse section

b. scotus’ own opinion

1. on the acceptation of the terms ‘intellect’, ‘to see’, ‘naturally’

1

collapse section

2. solution consisting of three conclusions

1

a. first conclusion

b. second conclusion

c. third conclusion

II. to the initial arguments

III. to the arguments for the opinion of aquinas and richard

2

collapse section

question three. whether any sense could perceive the body of christ as it exists in the eucharist

1

collapse section

I. to the question

1

collapse section

a. the opinion of others

1

1. exposition of the opinion

2. refutation of the opinion

b. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

eleventh distinction

division of the text and overview of the parts

13

collapse section

eleventh distinction. first part: about conversion or transubstantiation

5

collapse section

first article: about the possibility of transubstantiation

2

collapse section

question one. whether transubstantiation is possible

collapse section

I. to the question

a. about the nature or definition of transubstantiation

b. whether there could be anything under the idea of transubstantiation

collapse section

C. what specifically falls under transubstantiation

collapse section

1. opinion of others

a. exposition of the opinion

b. rejection of the opinion

2. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the initial arguments

3

collapse section

question two. whether it is possible for any being to be converted into any being

II. to the question

1

II. to the initial arguments of the first part

1

III. to the arguments for the opposite

8

collapse section

second article: about the actuality of transubstantiation

5

collapse section

question one. whether the bread is converted into the body of christ

3

collapse section

I. to the question

3

collapse section

a. what must be maintained about the conversion of the bread into the body of christ

3

collapse section

1. three opinions of the ancients

3

a. reasons for the first opinion

b. reasons for the second opinion

c. thomas aquinas’ reasons against the first and second opinion

d. rejection of aquinas’ reasons

e. scotus’ own response

f. to the reasons for the first and second opinion

b. the conversion of the bread into the body of christ can be made clear

1

collapse section

I. how transubstantiation into the pre-existing body of christ can be done

a. about the possibility of transubstantiation

b. on the manner of this possibility

c. a doubt and its solution

1

collapse section

2. what is formal in the term ‘to which’ of conversion

a. first opinion, which is from giles of rome and thomas aquinas

b. second opinion, which is from henry of ghent

1

c. to the fundamental reasons for the first opinion

d. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the initial arguments

3

collapse section

question two. whether the bread is annihilated in its conversion into the body of christ

1

collapse section

I. to the question

collapse section

a. opinion of henry of ghent

1. exposition of the opinion

2. rejection of the opinion

b. opinion of giles of rome and its rejection

1

collapse section

C. scotus’ own opinion

1. nothing of the bread remains after the conversion

1

collapse section

2. the bread is not annihilated by this conversion

c. refutation by others of the objection

1

d. scotus’ rejection of the objection

II. to the initial arguments of the first part

III. to the arguments for the opposite

collapse section

question three. by which propositions the conversion of the bread into the body of christ can truly be expressed

I. about the ways it cannot be signified

II. about the ways it can be signified

1

collapse section

eleventh distinction. second part: about the matter suitable for transubstantiation or conversion

1

collapse section

question one. whether wheat bread prepared with elemental water is the appropriate matter for conversion into the body of christ

I. the response is affirmative

1

collapse section

II. three doubts

a. about the first doubt

b. about the second doubt

1

collapse section

C. about the third doubt

1

1. opinion of the greeks

2. refutation of the opinion

3. scotus’ own opinion

question two. whether only wine pressed from the grape is fitting matter for conversion into the blood

collapse section

twelfth distinction

division of the text and overview of the parts

10

collapse section

twelfth distinction. first part: about the being of the accidents in the eucharist

4

collapse section

question one. whether there is in the eucharist any accident without a subject

2

collapse section

I. to the question

1

a. first opinion and its rejection

b. second opinion and its rejection

1

collapse section

C. scotus’ own opinion

1. preliminaries

2. three conclusions

1

collapse section

3. proof of the conclusions

1

a. proof of the first conclusion

b. proof of the second conclusion

c. proof of the third conclusion

4. doubts against the third conclusion

collapse section

5. solution of the doubts

a. solution of the first doubt

b. solution of the second doubt

c. solution of the third doubt

d. solution of the fourth doubt

collapse section

II. to the initial arguments

a. to the first initial argument

b. to the second initial argument

C. to the third and fourth initial arguments

6

collapse section

question two. whether in the eucharist any accident whatever remaining is without a subject

3

collapse section

I. to the question

3

collapse section

a. two extreme opinions

2

collapse section

1. first opinion

1

a. exposition of the opinion

1

b. rejection of the opinion

1

collapse section

2. second opinion

a. exposition of the opinion.

1

b. rejection of the opinion

b. scotus’ own opinion

1

collapse section

II. to the initial arguments

a. to the first

1

b. to the second

C. to the third

D. to the fourth

11

collapse section

twelfth distinction. second part: about the action of the accidents in the eucharist

11

collapse section

single question. whether accidents in the eucharist can have any action they were able to have in their subject

6

collapse section

I. to the question

collapse section

a. the opinion of thomas aquinas

1. exposition of the opinion

2. rejection of the opinion

b. scotus’ own opinion

C. response to the arguments for thomas’ opinion

2

collapse section

D. three conclusions for the solution of the question

1. first conclusion

1

2. second conclusion

1

3. third conclusion

collapse section

e. doubts against these conclusions

collapse section

a. first, because a quality does not act through choice - therefore, as to how much is from itself, it acts uniformly; therefore, as to how much is from itself, its input into any passive object is the same, and consequently it puts a similar form into the senses and into a passive object, and consequently the action, as to how much is from the side of the agent, is not different.

b. second, because where the active principle is the same, the action is the same (the proof of this is from the commentator, on the heaven 3 com.72: “if the nature is one, the action too is one”); but the formal principle and the proximate formal principle of acting both on the senses and on the intellect are the same; therefore, the action is the same.

2. second doubt

4

collapse section

f. solution of the aforesaid doubts

1. to the first doubt

2. to the second doubt

4

collapse section

3. objections against the solution of the second doubt and their solution

2

a. first objection

2

b. three other objections

1

collapse section

II. to the initial arguments

a. to the first argument

1

collapse section

b. to the second argument

1. response to the argument

1

2. a doubt and its solution

C. to the third argument

D. to the fourth

e. to the fifth

14

collapse section

twelfth distinction. third part: about change in the accidents

10

collapse section

first article: about possible change of the accidents while the eucharist remains

4

collapse section

question one. whether every change that could be caused by a created agent in the accidents in the persisting eucharist necessarily requires the persistence of the same quantity

4

collapse section

I. to the question

1

collapse section

a. opinion of godfrey of fontaines

1. exposition of the opinion expressed in two conclusions

2. two reasons for the first conclusion

3. three reasons for the second conclusion

1

4. reasons against the second conclusion and their solution

1

collapse section

b. rejection of the opinion

1

collapse section

1. about the first conclusion

a. the falsity of it in itself is shown

b. again, from the statements of him who holds the opinion

c. about the two reasons adduced for the first conclusion

a. about the first contrary reason and its solution

1

b. about the second contrary reason and its solution

c. about the third contrary reason and its solution

d. about the three reasons adduced for the second conclusion

e. about the statement added in exposition of the second conclusion

2

collapse section

C. scotus’ own opinion

1. about the first change

2. about the second change

2

collapse section

3. about the third and fourth change

2

a. about the third change

b. about the fourth change

II. to the initial arguments

6

collapse section

question two. whether change corruptive of the accidents is possible in the eucharist

2

collapse section

I. to the question

1

a. opinion of thomas aquinas and rejection of it

1

b. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the initial arguments

4

collapse section

second article: about change with which the eucharist does not remain

4

collapse section

single question. whether in any change that is made in the eucharist some substance must return by divine action

3

collapse section

I. to the question

collapse section

a. first opinion, which is from pope innocent III

1. exposition of the opinion

2. rejection of the opinion

collapse section

b. second opinion, which is that of thomas aquinas

1. exposition of the opinion

2. rejection of the opinion

1

collapse section

C. third opinion, which is that of giles of rome and henry of ghent

1. exposition of the opinion

1

2. rejection of the opinion

collapse section

D. fourth opinion, which is that of richard of middleton

1. exposition of the opinion

2. rejection of the opinion

2

e. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the initial arguments

8

collapse section

thirteenth distinction. on the efficient cause of the consecration of the eucharist

division of the questions

7

collapse section

question one. whether the body of christ is confected only by divine act

6

collapse section

I. to the question

2

collapse section

a. whether the eucharist can be confected by divine action

1

1. the opinion of others

collapse section

2. scotus’ own opinion

a. action is not anything absolute

b. action cannot be posited to be an absolute form contemporaneous with that in which it is

c. action is an extrinsic respect added to a thing

d. five meanings of ‘action’

e. what must be said if the category of action is transferred to divine reality

f. what sort of action is to be posited in god in the case of transubstantiation

1

collapse section

3. to the arguments for the opinion of others

a. to the first argument

b. to the second argument

c. to the third argument

1

d. to the fourth argument

e. to the fifth argument

4. to statements made about god’s extrinsic and intrinsic action

2

collapse section

b. whether the eucharist can be confected by the action of a created agent as the principal agent

2

1. a possible opinion

2. scotus’ own opinion

3. to the argument for the possible opinion

2

collapse section

C. whether the eucharist can be confected by the action of a creature as instrumental agent

2

collapse section

1. first principal objection, or the opinion of thomas against this third article

a. exposition of the objection

2

b. objections or rejection of the opinion

2. second principal objection of thomas to the third article and its rejection

3. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the initial arguments

1

collapse section

question two. whether any priest who pronounces the words of consecration with due intention and over fitting matter can confect the eucharist

collapse section

I. to the question

a. about the power to confect simply

collapse section

b. about the power to confect in the way ordained

collapse section

1. about the things required on the part of the minister

a. about the removal of impediments

b. about the applying of things fitting

c. about penalties against ministers who behave otherwise

collapse section

2. about the things required on the part of the place

a. about place properly speaking

b. about movable place or vessels

3. about penalties for him who celebrates without these requirements

4. about the things required on the part of the time

C. about the necessity of having a respondent in the celebration of the mass

II. to the initial arguments

1

collapse section

1

SUBSCRIBER:

past masters commons

Annotation Guide:

All Collections > The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus > Ordinatio. Book 4. Distinctions 8 - 13. > book four. distinctions 8 - 13 > twelfth distinction. first part: about the being of the accidents in the eucharist > question one. whether there is in the eucharist any accident without a subject > i. to the question > b. second opinion and its rejection

cover

The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus

Ordinatio. Book 4. Distinctions 8 - 13.

Book Four. Distinctions 8 - 13

Twelfth Distinction. First Part: About the Being of the Accidents in the Eucharist

Question One. Whether there is in the Eucharist Any Accident without a Subject

I. To the Question

B. Second Opinion and its Rejection

hide table of contents

B. Second Opinion and its Rejection

21. It is said in another way [Henry of Ghent] that when accident is separated from subject God gives it a certain supernatural virtue, by which virtue it is able to exist per se, though it could not do so without it.

22. Argument is made against this second view just as against the preceding one [n.16], at least as regards the two last arguments [nn.19-20]. For this virtue that comes from outside is the term of some change; I ask, of what change? It will also belong to some genus [of change]; I ask, to which genus? And the argument would proceed as before [nn.19-20].

23. Again, even though some supernatural virtue be given to something, yet after the virtue is present in it, it is natural to what has it or can have that for which it is the virtue (as a blind man, even though he be supernaturally given sight, yet when he has sight he sees naturally); therefore, although there be in the first instant a miracle in the conserving of these accidents without a subject, yet because the virtue is then conferred on the accident, it will afterwards by that virtue exist naturally without a subject.

24. Again, it is impossible for a substance to receive any virtue by which it should depend on something else as inhering in that something; therefore it is impossible for an accident to receive a virtue by which it should be a per se being, released from all inherence in another. The proof of the consequence is that ‘to exist per se’ and ‘to inhere’ are equally proper to them, namely to substance and accident, the latter to the latter and the former to the former.

B. Second Opinion and its Rejection