Frontmatter

Titlepage

The Ordinatio of Blessed John Duns Scotus

Book 4. Distinctions 8 - 13

Translated by Peter L.P. Simpson

Translator's Preface

This translation of Book IV Distinctions 8 to 13 of the Ordinatio (aka Opus Oxoniense) of Blessed John Duns Scotus is complete. These distinctions fill volume twelve of the Vatican critical edition of the Latin text edited by the Scotus Commission in Rome and published by Quarrachi.

Scotus’ Latin is tight and not seldom elliptical, exploiting to the full the grammatical resources of the language to make his meaning clear (especially the backward references of his pronouns). In English this ellipsis must, for the sake of intelligibility, often be translated with a fuller repetition of words and phrases than Scotus himself gives. The possibility of mistake thus arises if the wrong word or phrase is chosen for repetition. The only check to remove error is to ensure that the resulting English makes the sense intended by Scotus. Whether this sense has always been captured in the translation that follows must be judged by the reader. In addition there are passages where not only the argumentation but the grammar too is obscure, and I cannot vouch for the success of my attempts to penetrate the obscurity. Finally, there may be mistakes (as in particular by inadvertence) of sheer omission, addition, or mistranslation of words. So, for these and the like reasons, comments and notice of errors from readers are most welcome.

Peter L.P. Simpson July, 2019

Contents

Eighth Distinction

                              

Division of the Text and Overview of Questions	Num. 1
Question One: Whether the Eucharist is a Sacrament of the New Law	Num. 15
I. To the Question	Num. 20
A. About the Idea or Definition of the Eucharist	Num. 21
B. Whether Anything Real Subsists under Such an Idea	Num. 22
C. That what Subsists under the Idea of this Name is a Sacrament	Num. 31
II. To the Initial Arguments	Num. 43
Question Two: Whether the Form of the Eucharist is what is set down in the Canon of the Mass	Num. 52
I. To the Question	Num. 59
A. Whether the Eucharist has a Single Form	Num. 60
B. What the Form of the Eucharist is
1. About the Words of Consecration of the Body	Num. 63
2. About the Words of Consecration of the Blood
a. Two Doubts and their Solution	Num. 72
b. Whether all the Words belong to the Consecration of the Blood	Num. 82
α. Opinion of Others and its Rejection	Num. 83
β. Scotus’ own Opinion	Num. 89
C. What the Form of the Eucharist Signifies
1. The Opinion of Peter of Poitiers	Num. 96
2. The Opinion of Richard of Middleton and its Rejection	Num. 100
3. A Possible Solution Consisting of Thirteen Main Conclusions	Num. 104
4. Weighing of the Aforesaid Conclusions	Num. 132
5. Scotus’ own Conclusion	Num. 141
II. To the Initial Arguments	Num. 152
Question Three: Whether the Sacrament of the Eucharist was fittingly Instituted after the Cena, or whether it could be Received by those not Fasting	Num. 156
I. To the Question
A. About the Four Ways of Receiving this Sacrament	Num. 160
B. A Difficulty as to the Third Way and its Solution	Num. 166
II. To the Initial Arguments	Num. 184
Final Note	Num. 187

Ninth Distinction

         

Overview of the Parts	Num. 1
Single Question: Whether Someone in a State of Mortal Sin Sins Mortally in Receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist	Num. 4
I. To the Question
A. About Mortal Sin	Num. 9
1. About him who is Actually in Mortal Sin	Num. 10
2. About him who has not Repented of a Past Mortal Sin	Num. 11
3. About him who has Repented but has not Confessed	Num. 15
B. About Venial Sin	Num. 19
II. To the Initial Arguments	Num. 22

Tenth Distinction

 

Division of the Text and Overview of the Parts

Num. 1

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	Num. 8
I. To the Question	Num. 14
A. What is to be Maintained and by What Authority	Num. 15
B. How What is Believed is Possible
1. Four Possibilities, to be Explained in Turn in what Follows	Num. 24
2. Two Possibilities to be Explained here	Num. 28
a. First: About Christ’s Body Beginning to Exist on the Altar without Change of Place
α. Opinion of Others and its Rejection Num. 29
β. Scotus’ own Opinion	Num. 42
b. Second: About Christ’s Body Quantum without Quantitative Mode
α. First Opinion and its Rejection	Num. 56
β. Second Opinion and its Rejection	Num. 59
γ. Scotus’ own Opinion	Num. 61
II. To the Initial Reasons	Num. 71
Question Two: Whether the Same Body can be Located in Diverse Places at the Same Time	Num. 74
I. To the Question
A. The Opinion of many People for the Negative Conclusion Num. 80
1. The Reasons of Henry of Ghent	Num. 81
2. Other Doctors’ Reasons	Num. 85
3. Further Reasons that can be Brought Forward	Num. 89
B. The Possibility of an Affirmative Conclusion
1. Argument in General	Num. 94
2. Particular Reasons, drawn from the Statements of Henry of Ghent	Num. 95
a. First Reason	Num. 96
b. Second Reason	Num. 105
c. Third Reason	Num. 113
d. Fourth Reason	Num. 117
3. What Must be Said about these Four Reasons	Num. 119
C. Scotus’ own Response	Num. 121
D. To the Arguments Adduced for the Negative Opinion	Num. 128
1. Three Preliminary Propositions	Num. 129
2. To the Individual Reasons	Num. 132
a. To the Reasons of Henry of Ghent	Num. 133
b. To the Reasons of the Other Doctors	Num. 145
c. To the Other Reasons that were Adduced	Num. 159
II. To the Initial Arguments	Num. 172
Question Three: Whether the Body of Christ could be Located at the Same Time in Heaven and in the Eucharist	Num. 181
I. To the Question	Num. 187
A. Opinion of Henry of Ghent
1. Exposition of the Opinion	Num. 188
2. Refutation of the Opinion	Num. 189
B. Scotus’ own Opinion	Num. 194
II. To the Initial Arguments	Num. 197

Second Part: On the Things that can Belong to Christ’s Body in the Eucharist Num. 202

                                   

Question One: Whether the Same Body, Existing Naturally and Existing Sacramentally, Necessarily has in it the Same Parts and Properties	Num. 203
I. To the Question	Num. 208
A. The Supposition being Made	Num. 209
B. The Question being Asked	Num. 218
1. Whether the Natural Parts and Properties of Christ’s Body are Simply Necessarily in the Eucharist as well
a. First Conclusion	Num. 222
b. Second Conclusion	Num. 223
c. Two Corollaries that flow from the Second Conclusion	Num. 231
d. Difficulties against the Two Corollaries and their Solution	Num. 236
e. Third Corollary	Num. 244
2. Whether the Same Parts and Properties are Present by Necessity in a Certain Respect	Num. 246
II. To the Initial Arguments	Num. 253
Question Two: Whether any Immanent Action that is in Christ Existing Naturally is the Same in Him as Existing in the Eucharist Sacramentally	Num. 268
I. To the Question
A. Three Conclusions	Num. 275
B. Proof of the Conclusions
1. Proof of the First Conclusion
a. Universally	Num. 279
b. Specifically	Num. 286
2. Proof of the Second Conclusion	Num. 290
3. Proof of the Third Conclusion	Num. 291
II. To the Initial Arguments	Num. 294
Question Three: Whether any Bodily Motion could be in Christ’s Body as it Exists in the Eucharist	Num. 298
I. To the Question
A. Preliminary Distinctions	Num. 303
B. Solution Consisting of Six Conclusions
1. Statement of the Conclusions	Num. 307
2. Proof of the Conclusions
a. Proof of the First Conclusion	Num. 313
b. Proof of the Second Conclusion	Num.314
c. Proof of the Third Conclusion	Num. 315
d. Proof of the Fourth Conclusion	Num. 317
e. Proof of the Fifth Conclusion	Num. 326
3. Synthesis of the Statements Made	Num. 338
II. To the Initial Arguments	Num. 341

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	Num. 348
I. To the Question
A. About Human Powers	Num. 354
B. Conclusions flowing Therefrom	Num. 356
1. First Conclusion and its Proof	Num. 357
2. Second Conclusion and its Proof	Num. 359
a. Explication of the Second Conclusion	Num. 361
b. Objection to the Aforesaid Conclusion, and Rejection of this Objection	Num. 365
c. Final Opinion	Num. 368
II. To the Initial Arguments	Num. 372
Question Two: Whether any Created Intellect could Naturally See the Existence of Christ’s Body in the Eucharist	Num. 376
I. To the Question
A. Opinion of Thomas Aquinas and Richard of Middleton	Num. 385
B. Scotus’ own Opinion
1. On the Acceptation of the Terms ‘Intellect’, ‘To see’, ‘Naturally’	Num. 389
2. Solution Consisting of Three Conclusions
a. First Conclusion	Num. 396
b. Second Conclusion	Num. 398
c. Third Conclusion	Num. 408
II. To the Initial Arguments	Num. 411
III. To the Arguments for the Opinion of Aquinas and Richard	Num. 420
Question Three: Whether any Sense could Perceive the Body of Christ as it exists in the Eucharist	Num. 423
I. To the Question
A. The Opinion of Others
1. Exposition of the Opinion	Num. 426
2. Refutation of the Opinion	Num. 432
B. Scotus’ own Opinion	Num. 440
II. To the Initial Arguments	Num. 443

Eleventh Distinction

 

Division of the Text and Overview of the Parts

Num. 1

Eleventh Distinction. First Part: About Conversion or Transubstantiation

First Article: About the Possibility of Transubstantiation

                                                                      

Num. 8
Question One: Whether Transubstantiation is Possible	Num. 9
I. To the Question	Num. 13
A. About the Nature or Definition of Transubstantiation	Num. 14
B. Whether there could be Anything under the Idea of Transubstantiation	Num. 24
C. What Specifically falls under Transubstantiation
1. Opinion of Others
a. Exposition of the Opinion	Num. 30
b. Rejection of the Opinion	Num. 32
2. Scotus’ own Opinion	Num. 45
II. To the Initial Arguments	Num. 48
Question Two: Whether it is Possible for any Being to be Converted into Any Being	Num. 51
I. To the Question	Num. 58
II. To the Initial Arguments of the First Part	Num. 62
III. To the Arguments for the Opposite	Num. 72
Second Article: About the Actuality of Transubstantiation Num. 88
Question One: Whether the Bread is Converted into the Body of Christ	Num. 89
I. To the Question
A. What Must be Maintained about the Conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ	Num. 97
1. Three Opinions of the Ancients	Num. 98
a. Reasons for the First Opinion	Num. 100
b. Reasons for the Second Opinion	Num. 108
c. Thomas Aquinas’ Reasons against the First and Second Opinion	Num. 109
d. Rejection of Aquinas’ Reasons	Num. 116
e. Scotus’ own Response	Num. 133
f. To the Reasons for the First and Second Opinion	Num. 138
B. The Conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ can be Made Clear	Num. 143
1. How Transubstantiation into the Pre-existing Body of Christ can be Done
a. About the Possibility of Transubstantiation	Num. 144
b. On the Manner of this Possibility
α. Opinion of Giles of Rome and its Rejection	Num. 148
β. Scotus’ own Opinion	Num. 161
c. A Doubt and its Solution	Num. 162
d. Conclusion	Num. 174
2. What is Formal in the Term ‘To Which’ of Conversion	Num. 180
a. First Opinion, which is from Giles of Rome and Thomas Aquinas
α. Fundamental Reasons for the Opinion	Num. 181
β. Applications to the Issue at Hand and Rejection of them	Num. 187
γ. Insufficiency of Both Solutions	Num. 197
b. Second Opinion, which is from Henry of Ghent
α. Exposition of the Opinion	Num. 207
β. Rejection of the Opinion	Num. 221
γ. To the Reasons for the Opinion	Num. 231
c. To the Fundamental Reasons for the First Opinion	Num. 249
α. To the First Reason	Num. 250
β. To the Second Reason	Num. 263
γ. To the Third Reason	Num. 273
δ. To the Fourth Reason	Num. 278
d. Scotus’ own Opinion	Num. 285
II. To the Initial Arguments	Num. 288
Question Two: Whether the Bread is Annihilated in its Conversion into the Body of Christ	Num. 293
I. To the Question
A. Opinion of Henry of Ghent
1. Exposition of the Opinion	Num. 300
2. Rejection of the Opinion	Num. 301
B. Opinion of Giles of Rome and its Rejection	Num. 306
C. Scotus’ own Opinion	Num. 310
1. Nothing of the Bread Remains after the Conversion Num. 311
2. The Bread is not Annihilated by this Conversion
a. Proof	Num. 312
b. Objection	Num. 313
d. Scotus’ Rejection of the Objection
α. Reasons Proving that the Bread is not Simply Annihilated	Num. 318
β. On the Possibility of Evading these Reasons	Num. 328
e. Conclusion	Num. 333
II. To the Initial Arguments of the First Part	Num. 340
III. To the Arguments for the Opposite	Num. 347
Question Three: By which Propositions the Conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ can be Truly Expressed	Num. 350
I. About the Ways it cannot be Signified	Num. 351
II. About the Ways it can be Signified	Num. 355

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	Num. 362
II. Three Doubts	Num. 368
A. About the First Doubt	Num. 369
B. About the Second Doubt	Num. 373
C. About the Third Doubt
1. Opinion of the Greeks	Num. 375
2. Refutation of the Opinion	Num. 378
3. Scotus’ own Opinion	Num. 382
Question Two: Whether only Wine Pressed from the Grape is Fitting Matter for Conversion into the Blood	Num. 385

Twelfth Distinction

 

Division of the Text and Overview of the Parts

Num. 1

                                       

First Part: About the Being of the Accidents in the Eucharist	Num. 7
Question One: Whether there is in the Eucharist Any Accident without a Subject	Num. 8
I. To the Question
A. First Opinion and its Rejection	Num. 16
B. Second Opinion and its Rejection	Num. 21
C. Scotus’ own Opinion
1. Preliminaries	Num. 25
2. Three Conclusions	Num. 28
3. Proof of the Conclusions
a. Proof of the First Conclusion	Num. 31
b. Proof of the Second Conclusion	Num. 36
c. Proof of the Third Conclusion	Num. 39
4. Doubts against the Third Conclusion	Num. 46
5. Solution of the Doubts
a. Solution of the First Doubt	Num. 53
b. Solution of the Second Doubt	Num. 64
c. Solution of the Third Doubt	Num. 70
d. Solution of the Fourth Doubt	Num. 77
II. To the Initial Arguments
A. To the First Initial Argument	Num. 83
B. To the Second Initial Argument	Num. 92
C. To the Third and Fourth Arguments	Num. 98
Question Two: Whether in the Eucharist any Accident at all Remaining is without a Subject	Num.104
I. To the Question
A. Two Extreme Opinions
1. First Opinion
a. Exposition of the Opinion	Num. 115
b. Rejection of the Opinion
α. Against the Reasons for the Opinion	Num. 120
β. Against the Conclusion of the Opinion	Num. 126
2. Second Opinion
a. Exposition of the Opinion	Num. 141
b. Rejection of the Opinion	Num. 143
B. Scotus’ own Solution	Num. 146
II. To the Initial Arguments
A. To the First	Num. 153
B. To the Second	Num. 155
C. To the Third	Num. 162
D. To the Fourth	Num. 164

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	Num. 173
I. To the Question
A. The Opinion of Thomas Aquinas
1. Exposition of the Opinion	Num. 186
2. Rejection of the Opinion	Num. 188
B. Scotus’ own Opinion	Num. 194
C. Response to the Arguments for Thomas’ Opinion	Num. 196
D. Three Conclusions for the Solution of the Question
1. First Conclusion	Num. 201
2. Second Conclusion	Num. 212
3. Third Conclusion	Num. 224
E. Doubts Against these Conclusions
1. First Doubt	Num. 230
2. Second Doubt	Num. 232
F. Solution of the Aforesaid Doubts
1. To the First Doubt	Num. 233
2. To the Second Doubt	Num. 237
3. Objections against the Solution of the Second Doubt and their Solution
a. First Objection	Num. 239
b. Three Other Objections
α. Exposition of the Objections	Num. 248
β. Solution to the First Objection	Num. 251
γ. Solution to the Second Objection	Num. 252
δ. Solution to the Third Objection	Num. 268
II. To the Initial Arguments
A. To the First	Num. 274
B. To the Second Argument
1. Response to the Argument	Num. 283
2. A Doubt and its Solution	Num. 291
C. To the Third Argument	Num. 299
D. To the Fourth	Num. 303
E. To the Fifth	Num. 310

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	Num. 322
I. To the Question
A. Opinion of Godfrey of Fontaines
1. Exposition of the Opinion Expressed in Two Conclusions	Num. 328
2. Two Reasons for the First Conclusion	Num. 332
3. Three Reasons for the Second Conclusion	Num. 338
B. Rejection of the Opinion
1. About the First Conclusion
a. The Falsity of it in Itself is Shown	Num. 349
b. Again, from the Statements of Him who Holds the Opinion	Num. 356
c. About the Two Reasons Adduced for the First Conclusion
α. About the First Reason	Num. 358
β. About the Second Reason	Num. 362
2. About the Second Conclusion	Num. 366
a. About the First Contrary Reason and its Solution	Num. 367
b. About the Second Contrary Reason and its Solution	Num. 376
c. About the Third Contrary Reason and its Solution	Num. 379
d. About the Three Reasons Adduced for the Second Conclusion	Num. 380
e. About the Statement Added in Exposition of the Second Conclusion	Num. 383
C. Scotus’ own Opinion	Num. 384
1. About the First Change	Num. 385
2. About the Second Change	Num. 386
3. About the Third and Fourth Change	Num. 390
a. About the Third	Num. 391
b. About the Fourth Change	Num. 410
II. To the Initial Arguments	Num. 418
Question Two: Whether Change Corruptive of the Accidents is Possible in the Eucharist	Num. 421
I. To the Question
A. Opinion of Thomas Aquinas and Rejection of it	Num. 428
B. Scotus’ own Opinion	Num. 432
II. To the Initial Arguments	Num. 440

Second Article: About Change with which the Eucharist does not Remain

                

Single Question: Whether in Any Change Made in the Eucharist Some Subject Must Return by Divine Action	Num. 444
I. To the Question
A. First Opinion, which is from Pope Innocent III
1. Exposition of the Opinion	Num. 451
2. Rejection of the Opinion	Num. 455
B. Second Opinion, which is that of Thomas Aquinas
1. Exposition of the Opinion	Num. 463
2. Rejection of the Opinion	Num. 466
C. Third Opinion, which is that of Giles of Rome and Henry of Ghent
1. Exposition of the Opinion	Num. 473
2. Rejection of the Opinion	Num. 475
D. Fourth Opinion, which is that of Richard of Middleton
1. Exposition of the Opinion	Num. 485
2. Rejection of the Opinion	Num. 487
E. Scotus’ own Opinion	Num. 490
II. To the Initial Arguments	Num. 503

Thirteenth Distinction

On the Efficient Cause of the Consecration of the Eucharist

                                               

Division of the Question	Num. 1
Question One: Whether the body of Christ is confected only by divine act	Num. 6
I. To the Question	Num. 17
A. Whether the Eucharist can be Confected by Divine Action	Num. 18
1. The Opinion of Others	Num. 20
2. Scotus’ own Opinion
a. Action is not anything Absolute	Num. 27
b. Action cannot be posited to be an absolute Form contemporaneous with that in which it is	Num. 36
c. Action is an Extrinsic Respect added to a Thing	Num. 41
d. Five Meanings of ‘Action’	Num. 56
α. On the first four Meanings of ‘Action’	Num. 61
β. On the fifth Meaning	Num. 64
e. What must be said if the Category of Action is transferred to Divine Reality	Num. 72
3. To the Arguments for the Opinion of others
a. To the first Argument	Num. 83
b. To the Second Argument	Num. 89
c. To the Third Argument	Num. 91
d. To the Fourth Argument	Num. 93
e. To the Fifth Argument	Num. 102
4. To the Statements about God’s Extrinsic and Intrinsic Action	Num. 109
B. Whether the Eucharist can be confected by the Action of a Created Agent as the Principal Agent
1. A Possible Opinion	Num. 115
2. Scotus’ own Opinion	Num. 118
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	Num.129
b. Objections or Rejection of the Opinion
α. Against the Responses to the Objections	Num. 134
β. Against the Objection’s and the Opinion’s Conclusion	Num. 138
γ. To the Arguments for the Objection	Num. 142
2. Second Principal Objection of Thomas to the Third Article and its Rejection	Num. 146
3. Scotus’ own Opinion	Num. 149
II. To the Initial Arguments	Num. 152
Question Two: Whether Any Priest who Pronounces the Words of Consecration with Due Intention and over Fitting Matter can Confect the Eucharist	Num. 161
I. To the Question	Num. 169
A. About the Power to Confect Simply	Num. 171
B. About the Power to Confect in the Way Ordained	Num. 183
1. About the Things Required on the Part of the Minister	Num. 185
a. About the Removal of Impediments	Num. 186
b. About the Applying of Things Fitting	Num. 195
c. About Penalties Against Ministers who Behave Otherwise	Num. 197
2. About the Things Required on the Part of the Place	Num. 211
a. About Place Properly Speaking	Num. 212
b. About Movable Place or Vessels	Num. 219
3. About Penalties for Him who Celebrates without these Requirements	Num. 225
C. About the Necessity of Having a Respondent in the Celebration of the Mass	Num. 231
II. To the Initial Arguments	Num. 232