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

Export a Citation collapse section

Print View

hide main text

just this volume

Ordinatio. Book 4. Distinctions 8 - 13.

Collapse All | Expand All

book four. distinctions 8 - 13

eighth distinction

division of the text and overview of questions

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

I. to the question

a. about the idea or definition of the eucharist

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

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

I. to the question

a. whether the eucharist has a single form

b. what the form of the eucharist is

1. about the words for the consecration of the body

2. about the words of consecration of the blood

a. two doubts and their solution

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

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

3. a possible solution consisting of thirteen main conclusions

4. weighing of the aforesaid conclusions

5. scotus’ own conclusion

II. to the initial arguments

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

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

final note

ninth distinction

overview of the parts

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

I. to the question

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

tenth distinction

division of the text and overview of questions

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

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

I. to the question

a. what is to be maintained and by what authority

b. how what is believed is possible

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

2. two possibilities to be explained here

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

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

I. to the question

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

b. the possibility of an affirmative conclusion

1. argument in general

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

3. what must be said about these four reasons

C. scotus’ own response

D. to the arguments adduced for the negative opinion

1. three preliminary propositions

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

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

I. to the question

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

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

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

I. to the question

a. the supposition being made

b. the question being asked

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

a. first conclusion

b. second conclusion

c. two corollaries that flow from the second conclusion

d. difficulties against the two corollaries and their solution

e. third corollary

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

II. to the initial arguments

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

I. to the question

a. three conclusions

b. proof of the conclusions

1. proof of the first conclusion

a. universally

b. specifically

2. proof of the second conclusion

3. proof of the third conclusion

II. to the initial arguments

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

I. to the question

a. preliminary distinctions

b. solution consisting of six conclusions

1. statement of the conclusions

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

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

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

I. to the question

a. about human powers

b. conclusions flowing herefrom

1. first conclusion and its proof

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

II. to the initial arguments

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

I. to the question

a. opinion of thomas aquinas and richard of middleton

b. scotus’ own opinion

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

2. solution consisting of three conclusions

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

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

I. to the question

a. the opinion of others

1. exposition of the opinion

2. refutation of the opinion

b. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the initial arguments

eleventh distinction

division of the text and overview of the parts

eleventh distinction. first part: about conversion or transubstantiation

first article: about the possibility of transubstantiation

question one. whether transubstantiation is possible

I. to the question

a. about the nature or definition of transubstantiation

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

C. what specifically falls under transubstantiation

1. opinion of others

a. exposition of the opinion

b. rejection of the opinion

2. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the initial arguments

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

II. to the question

II. to the initial arguments of the first part

III. to the arguments for the opposite

second article: about the actuality of transubstantiation

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

I. to the question

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

1. three opinions of the ancients

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

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

d. conclusion

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

c. to the fundamental reasons for the first opinion

d. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the initial arguments

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

I. to the question

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

C. scotus’ own opinion

1. nothing of the bread remains after the conversion

2. the bread is not annihilated by this conversion

a. proof

b. objection

c. refutation by others of the objection

d. scotus’ rejection of the objection

e. conclusion

II. to the initial arguments of the first part

III. to the arguments for the opposite

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

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

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

II. three doubts

a. about the first doubt

b. about the second doubt

C. about the third doubt

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

twelfth distinction

division of the text and overview of the parts

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

a. first opinion and its rejection

b. second opinion and its rejection

C. scotus’ own opinion

1. preliminaries

2. three conclusions

3. proof of the conclusions

a. proof of the first conclusion

b. proof of the second conclusion

c. proof of the third conclusion

4. doubts against the third conclusion

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

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

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

I. to the question

a. two extreme opinions

1. first opinion

a. exposition of the opinion

b. rejection of the opinion

2. second opinion

a. exposition of the opinion.

b. rejection of the opinion

b. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the initial arguments

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

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

I. to the question

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

D. three conclusions for the solution of the question

1. first conclusion

2. second conclusion

3. third conclusion

e. doubts against these conclusions

1. first doubt

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

f. solution of the aforesaid doubts

1. to the first doubt

2. to the second doubt

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

a. first objection

b. three other objections

II. to the initial arguments

a. to the first argument

b. to the second argument

1. response to the argument

2. a doubt and its solution

C. to the third argument

D. to the fourth

e. to the fifth

twelfth distinction. third part: about change in the accidents

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

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

I. to the question

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

4. reasons against the second conclusion and their solution

b. rejection of the opinion

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

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

C. scotus’ own opinion

1. about the first change

2. about the second change

3. about the third and fourth change

a. about the third change

b. about the fourth change

II. to the initial arguments

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

I. to the question

a. opinion of thomas aquinas and rejection of it

b. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the initial arguments

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

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

I. to the question

a. first opinion, which is from pope innocent III

1. exposition of the opinion

2. rejection of the opinion

b. second opinion, which is that of thomas aquinas

1. exposition of the opinion

2. rejection of the opinion

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

1. exposition of the opinion

2. rejection of the opinion

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

1. exposition of the opinion

2. rejection of the opinion

e. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the initial arguments

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

division of the questions

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

I. to the question

a. whether the eucharist can be confected by divine action

1. the opinion of others

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

3. to the arguments for the opinion of others

a. to the first argument

b. to the second argument

c. to the third argument

d. to the fourth argument

e. to the fifth argument

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

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

1. a possible opinion

2. scotus’ own opinion

3. to the argument for the possible opinion

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

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

a. exposition of the objection

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

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

I. to the question

a. about the power to confect simply

b. about the power to confect in the way ordained

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

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

endmatter

footnotes

SUBSCRIBER:

past masters commons

Annotation Guide:

All Collections > The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus > Ordinatio. Book 4. Distinctions 8 - 13.

The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus

Ordinatio. Book 4. Distinctions 8 - 13.

hide table of contents

Go to next volume