title: Dist. 13, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 304 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum soli sacerdotes possint conficere.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum soli sacerdotes possint conficere. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia dicit Hugo[^1]: «Ad istud Sacramentum concurrit ordo, intentio et actio». Et hoc etiam dicit Magister, et habet consuetudo sanctae Ecclesiae.

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia in veteri testamento, ex quo templum est factum, solis sacerdotibus licebat offerre sacrificium[^2]: ergo si figura fuit vera, et debet ei veritas respondere: patet etc.

3. Item, hoc Sacramentum est habendum in magna reverentia: ergo eius dispensatio non omnibus debuit concedi, ergo aliquibus est concessa, ergo alii non habent potestatem; sed illos quibus haec potestas data est, dicimus sacerdotes: ergo etc.

4. Item, Apostolus ad Hebraeos quinto[^3] dicit, quod *pontifex constituitur, ut offerat dona et sacrificia pro peccatis:* ergo qui non est sacerdos constitutus non potest.

4. Item, in omni gente, etiam inter idololatras, in quibus ponitur cultus, aliquibus personis specialiter committitur potestas offerendi, qui sacerdotes dicuntur[^4]: ergo si Ecclesia est ordinatissima, ergo videtur, quod Christus aliquibus hoc officium debuit dare. Sed distributio officiorum in Ecclesia debet esse ordinata ad unum: ergo hi solum hoc possunt, qui ad hoc per principes et pontifices Ecclesiae ordinantur; sed hi sunt sacerdotes: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Etsi solis sacerdotibus ex officio competat baptizare, tamen si laicus baptizat, baptizatum est[^5]: ergo similiter, si conficit, confectum est.

2. Item, magis dignus est ministrare Deo bonus laicus quam impius sacerdos: ergo si ad sacerdotis mali invocationem Dominus convertit panem in corpus, multo fortius ad verbum laici boni[^6].

3. Item, sicut Dominus solis discipulis dixit[^7]: *Accipite,* et: *Quotiescumque feceritis* etc., ita dixit: *Docete omnes gentes baptizantes;* sed potestas baptizandi est concessa omnibus: ergo a simili et potestas conficiendi.

4. Item, beatus Petrus, primae Canonicae secundo capitulo[^8]: *Vos estis gens sancta, regale sacerdotium;* loquitur ad omnes bonos: ergo etc.

> **Conclusio.** Soli sacerdotes possunt conficere eucharistiam.

<!-- page 305 -->

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod soli sacerdotes possunt conficere, et si alii faciunt, nihil omnino faciunt. Et hoc quidem docet nostra *fides,* quam ab Apostolis percepimus, et ipsi a Domino; unde ordinaverunt Ecclesiam secundum Dei institutionem. Et quia Apostoli et eorum postmodum successores potestatem conficiendi personis specialibus contulerunt, quos et sacerdotes appellaverunt; ideo solum illis tenet fides licitum esse[^9].

Huic consonat *ratio:* quia Sacramentum illud, quod in magna reverentia habendum fuit, specialibus personis commissum est et committi debuit; aut ergo ratione *sanctitatis,* aut ratione *auctoritatis.* Si sanctitatis, ut dicunt haeretici; tunc ergo nemo est certus, utrum conficiat, et salus nostra pendet ex aliena bonitate. Si auctoritatis; et auctoritas potest tam bonis quam malis concedi, et hanc vocamus ordinem sacerdotii: constat ergo, quod illi soli possunt.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de baptismo, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia illud est Sacramentum primum et necessarium[^10] nec in tanta veneratione habendum.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod bonus laicus est magis dignus; dicendum, quod non consideratur in potestate conficiendi *dignitas,* sed tantum *auctoritas,* quae est in sacerdotibus ratione characteris.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod solis Apostolis dictum est: *Accipite et comedite;* similiter: *Ite et baptizate;* patet responsio: sicut enim ipsi exposuerunt facto, aliter est hoc commissum, aliter illud. Sicut enim in Ecclesia instituerunt, patet, quod indifferenter baptizari[^11] permiserunt, et specialem potestatem et auctoritatem personis specialibus contulerunt, maxime ad hoc Sacramentum conficiendum; hanc autem dicimus ordinem, et personae potestatem illam habentes vocantur sacerdotes.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Sancti dicuntur sacerdotes; dicendum, quod non dicuntur sacerdotes ab oblatione corporis Domini, sed sui, quia unusquisque corpus suum offert *hostiam viventem,* ad Romanos duodecimo[^12].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether only priests can confect [the Eucharist].*

Secondly it is asked, whether only priests can confect. And that they can, it seems:

1. Because Hugh says[^1]: "For this Sacrament there concur order, intention, and action." And the Master also says this, and the custom of holy Church holds it.

2. Likewise, it seems by reason: because in the Old Testament, from the time the temple was built, it was permitted to priests alone to offer sacrifice[^2]: therefore if the figure was true, truth must also correspond to it: this is clear, etc.

3. Likewise, this Sacrament is to be held in great reverence: therefore the dispensing of it ought not to have been granted to all, therefore it has been granted to some, therefore others do not have the power; but those to whom this power is given, we call priests: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the Apostle in Hebrews, chapter five[^3], says that *a high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins:* therefore one who is not appointed a priest cannot.

4. Likewise, in every nation, even among idolaters, among whom worship is established, the power of offering is specially committed to certain persons, who are called priests[^4]: therefore if the Church is most well-ordered, therefore it seems that Christ ought to have given this office to certain persons. But the distribution of offices in the Church ought to be ordered to one [end]: therefore only those can do this who are ordained to it by the princes and pontiffs of the Church; but these are priests: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Although it befits priests alone by office to baptize, nevertheless if a layman baptizes, [the one] is baptized[^5]: therefore likewise, if he confects, [the thing] is confected.

2. Likewise, a good layman is more worthy to minister to God than an impious priest: therefore if at the invocation of an evil priest the Lord converts bread into [His] body, much more strongly [would He do so] at the word of a good layman[^6].

3. Likewise, just as the Lord said to the disciples alone[^7]: *Take,* and: *As often as you do [this]* etc., so He said: *Teach all nations, baptizing [them];* but the power of baptizing has been granted to all: therefore by similarity also the power of confecting.

4. Likewise, blessed Peter, in the first Canonical [epistle], chapter two[^8]: *You are a holy nation, a royal priesthood;* he speaks to all the good: therefore etc.

> **Conclusion.** Only priests can confect the Eucharist.

**I respond:** It must be said that only priests can confect, and if others do [it], they do nothing at all. And this indeed our *faith* teaches, which we have received from the Apostles, and they from the Lord; whence they ordered the Church according to God's institution. And because the Apostles and afterward their successors conferred the power of confecting upon special persons, whom they also named priests; therefore faith holds it lawful for those alone[^9].

To this *reason* is consonant: because that Sacrament, which had to be held in great reverence, was committed and ought to have been committed to special persons; either therefore by reason of *holiness,* or by reason of *authority.* If by holiness, as the heretics say; then therefore no one is certain whether he confects, and our salvation depends on another's goodness. If by authority; and authority can be granted to good and evil alike, and this we call the order of the priesthood: it is established therefore that those alone can [do it].

1. To the objection which is raised concerning baptism, it must be said that it is not similar: because that is the first and necessary Sacrament[^10] and is not to be held in such great veneration.

2. To the objection which is raised, that a good layman is more worthy; it must be said that in the power of confecting *worthiness* is not considered, but only *authority,* which is in priests by reason of [their] character.

3. To the objection which is raised, that it was said to the Apostles alone: *Take and eat;* likewise: *Go and baptize;* the response is clear: for just as they themselves expounded by deed, the one was committed in one way, the other in another. For just as they instituted in the Church, it is clear that they permitted [people] to be baptized indifferently[^11], but conferred special power and authority upon special persons, especially for confecting this Sacrament; and this we call the order, and the persons having that power are called priests.

4. To the objection which is raised, that the Saints are called priests; it must be said that they are not called priests from the offering of the Lord's body, but of their own, because each one offers his own body as *a living host,* in Romans, chapter twelve[^12].

---

la: Sum. Sent. tr. 6. c. 4, ubi textus originalis *necessaria sunt* pro *concurrit.* — Magister hoc insinuat hic in lit. c. 1.

en: *Summa Sententiarum* tr. 6, c. 4, where the original text [reads] *necessaria sunt* ["are necessary"] for *concurrit* ["there concur"]. — The Master intimates this here in the text, c. 1.

la: Libr. II. Paralip. 26, 18, seqq., ubi sacerdotes regi Oziae restiterunt atque dixerunt: *Non est tui officii, Ozia, ut adoleas incensum Domino, sed sacerdotum* etc. Cfr. ibid. 23, 18; 29, 21; 30, 16, et Hebr. 5, 4.

en: Second [Book of] Chronicles 26, 18ff., where the priests resisted king Uzziah and said: *It is not your office, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord, but [that] of the priests* etc. Cf. ibid. 23, 18; 29, 21; 30, 16, and Hebrews 5, 4.

la: Vers. 1.

en: Verse 1.

la: Cfr. C. *In novo Testamento* post (2.), d. 21.

en: Cf. the Canon *In the New Testament,* after (2.), d. 21.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 5. a. 1. q. 1.

en: As was shown above d. 5, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Vide Alan. ab Insulis, II. contra Haereticos, c. 8: Dicunt [Waldenses], etiam se posse consecrare, ligare et solvere, quia meritum dat potestatem, non officium... Itaque non solum is qui sacerdotium sortitus est, sed quicumque Christum [cuius virtute consecratio fit] in se ipso habet et eius figuram gerit per conversationem bonam, sicut Moyses, idoneus est, ut benedictionem praestet.

en: See Alan of Lille, *Against the Heretics* II, c. 8: They [the Waldensians] say that they too can consecrate, bind, and loose, because merit gives the power, not office... And so not only he who has obtained the priesthood, but whoever has Christ in himself [by whose power the consecration is made] and bears His figure through a good manner of life, like Moses, is fit to bestow the blessing.

la: Matth. 26, 26. — Seq. textus est I. Cor. 11, 23. seq.; cfr. Luc. 22, 19; tertius est Matth. 28, 19.

en: Matthew 26, 26. — The following text is I Corinthians 11, 23ff.; cf. Luke 22, 19; the third is Matthew 28, 19.

la: Vers. 9: *Vos autem genus electum, regale sacerdotium, gens sancta.*

en: Verse 9: *But you [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation.*

la: Cod. H supplet *conficere.* Quoad praecedentia cfr. Ioan. 20, 21; Matth. 28, 18.19; Act. 20, 28; II. Cor. 13, 10.

en: Codex H supplies *conficere* ["to confect"]. As to what precedes, cf. John 20, 21; Matthew 28, 18.19; Acts 20, 28; II Corinthians 13, 10.

la: Vide supra d. 5. a. 1. q. 1. ad 2.

en: See above d. 5, a. 1, q. 1, reply to 2.

la: Codd. O U *baptizare.* In fine solut. pro *potestatem illam* codd. F G *illum* [ordinem], plures alii *usum illum.*

en: Codices O U [read] *baptizare.* At the end of the solution, for *potestatem illam* ["that power"] codices F G [read] *illum* [order], several others *usum illum* ["that use"].

la: Vers. 1. Cfr. Ambros., V. in Luc. 6, 3. n. 33, IV. de Sacram. c. 1. n. 3; et August., XX. de Civ. Dei, c. 10, nec non Beda, in I. Petr. 2, 9. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Verse 1. Cf. Ambrose, *On Luke* V, 6, 3, n. 33; *On the Sacraments* IV, c. 1, n. 3; and Augustine, *City of God* XX, c. 10; as well as Bede, *On I Peter* 2, 9. — See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{304,305}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 34969–35060) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF is authoritative in the cascade-shattered *Respondeo*/footer regions (the raw OCR here is two-column-bled and diagonally fragmented). Offset pdf = printed + 20 (so printed 304/305 = pdf 324/325). Distinction confirmed as **XIII** via running heads `DIST. XIII. ART. I. QUAEST. III.` (p. 305) and `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` (p. 304). The page header in the raw is OCR-garbled (`DIST. XIII. \RT. I. QUAEST. III.`); the q2 head was OCR-garbled to a bare `QUAESTIO II.`

**Page-verify.** Running head on p. 305 reads `DIST. XIII. ART. I. QUAEST. III.` — the **III** is correct: running heads track the highest quaestio that *opens* on the page, and q3 (`Utrum potestas consecrandi magis resideat circa sacerdotem an circa verbum`) opens lower on p. 305. q2's body legitimately runs pp. 304–305 under that head.

**Page-range.** The dispatch brief assigned printed pp. ~304–306 with bands p304/p305/p306. Eyes-on shows q2's body is wholly on **pp. 304–305**: it opens at p. 304 R-col (`Secundo quaeritur, utrum soli sacerdotes possint conficere`) and its replies to objections finish on p. 305 R-col (`… ad Romanos duodecimo`) immediately before q3's footers. **Printed p. 306 belongs to q3**, not q2. Frontmatter set to printed_pages [304, 305] / pdf_pages [324, 325].

**Page-split map.**
- p. 304 (L col): the Articulus-I **SCHOLION** (§§I–IV, the *locos auctorum* listing — owned by q1, see below); then the q2 left-column arguments (*Fundamenta* 1–4).
- p. 304 (R col): the `QUAESTIO II` header + title; continuation of arg. 5 (`qui sacerdotes dicuntur…`); *Contra* 1–4; footnotes 1–8.
- p. 304 → 305 boundary: the **CONCLUSIO** (`Soli sacerdotes possunt conficere eucharistiam`) prints at the foot of p. 304 / top of p. 305; the *Respondeo* opens p. 305 L-col.
- p. 305 (L col): *Respondeo* in full (the *fides* / *ratio* double ground: *sanctitas* vs *auctoritas*); footnotes 1–4 of p. 305 (= apparatus 9–12 here).
- p. 305 (R col): the four solutio-oppositorum replies (printed under the `QUAEST. III` running head but textually still q2), ending `… ad Romanos duodecimo`. Then `QUAESTIO III` begins (next chunk); p. 305's right-column footers (5–11) belong to q3.

**Footer-ownership / apparatus (12 entries).** p. 304's eight footers (1–8) anchor in q2's arguments/Contra → rendered `^1`–`^8`. p. 305's left-column footers (1–4) anchor in q2's *Respondeo* and replies → rendered `^9`–`^12`. p. 305's right-column footers (5–11) belong to **q3** and are not rendered here. Note `^12` itself reads "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest." — pointing back to the Art-I scholion (on p. 304), confirming q2 carries no scholion of its own.

**SCHOLION finding — this chunk (q2) renders NO scholion.** `has_scholion: false`. There is no `SCHOLION.` header inside q2's raw range (34969–35060). The Articulus-I scholion (§§I–IV) is printed at the **top of p. 304, before q2 opens** — it follows q1's body and is the article-wide scholion (its §I treats q1 *De hac I. quaestione*; §II *Quoad seq. (2.) quaestionem*; §III *In 3. quaestione*; §IV *Quoad 4. quaestionem* — i.e. it surveys auctores for all four questions of Art. I). Per the d.12-a1 precedent (Articulus scholion owned by q1; later questions point back), **the scholion is owned by `bon-sent-IV-d13-a1-q1`** (currently still an auto-chunked skeleton — it must capture all four keyed sections of the p. 304 scholion when promoted). q2 renders none and points to it (apparatus `^12`).

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Silent OCR corrections from the PDF bands: head *QUAESTIO II* (OCR "QUAESTIO II"/garbled); *quaeritur* (OCR "quaeritiir"); *utrum* (OCR "iitriim"); *concurrit* (OCR "Goncurrit"); *ratione* (OCR "rcUione"); *templum* (OCR "temphim"); *licebat* (OCR "licel^at"); *Apostolus* (OCR ".\postolus"); *idololatras* (OCR "idoloiatras"); *committitur* (OCR "coiumittitur"); *conficere* (OCR "conpcere/conficiere"); *pontifices* (OCR "pnntifices"). Marginal rubrics in the columns (*Fundamenta*, *Ad oppositum*, *Conclusio*, *Ratio*, *Distinctio*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Notandum*) are editorial side-notes, omitted from the body per corpus convention.

**Hand-off to q3 (`bon-sent-IV-d13-a1-q3`).** q3 opens at p. 305 L-col bottom (`Tertio quaeritur, cum potestas sacerdotalis concurrat ad consecrandum et verbi virtus; quaeritur: … an circa sacerdotem? Utrum potestas consecrandi magis resideat circa sacerdotem an circa verbum`) and runs onto p. 306 (its *Contra* and CONCLUSIO/Respondeo are on p. 306). **q3 owns all of printed p. 306 and p. 305's right-column footers (5–11).** Those p. 305 R-col footers: 5 (Cfr. tom. II. pag. 398, nota 11; *De maiori* vide 25, 15) · 6 (Vide Aristot., II. Phys. text. 29 (c. 3); V. Metaph. (IV. c. 2.); VIII. Ethic. c. 11, et I. Polit. c. 3 (c. 2.)) · 7 (Secundum auctorem libri de Causis, propos. 1) · 8 (Aristot. I. Poster. c. 2) · 9 (Codd. R S T bb et ed. 1 *habet*, Vat. *potest vel habet*) · 10 (Cod. E bene supplet *ordinis*) · 11 (Supra d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. relatam) — these are q3's, captured here only as a hand-off so q3's agent need not re-read p. 305.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 13, Art. 1, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 305 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum potestas consecrandi magis resideat circa sacerdotem, an circa verbum.*

Tertio quaeritur, cum potestas sacerdotalis concurrat ad consecrandum et verbi virtus; quaeritur: circa quod magis residet potestas, an circa verbum, an circa sacerdotem? Et quod maior potestas circa ministrum, videtur:

1. Quia Deus communicat virtutem rebus secundum congruentiam ipsarum; sed anima ministri, cum sit spiritualis et Dei imago, maioris virtutis est capax quam verbum sensibile[^5]: ergo penes ipsum magis residet virtus.

2. Item, sacerdos operatur per verbum sicut per instrumentum; sed nobilior est potentia agentis quam instrumenti, sive virtus operandi magis est penes agentem quam penes instrumentum[^6]: ergo etc.

3. Item, verbum est effectus sacerdotis; sed effectus non est maioris virtutis quam causa, quia « causa prima plus influit quam secunda[^7] »: ergo sacerdos plus influit quam verbum, cum sit causa verbi.

**Contra:** 1. Sacerdos non potest nisi per virtutem verbi; sed « propter quod unumquodque, et illud magis[^8] »: ergo etc.

2. Item, sacerdos non recitat illud verbum sicut suum, sed sicut Christi; sed verbum Christi plus potest[^9] quam minister Christi: ergo magis residet penes verbum.

3. Item, verbum est de Sacramento isto; sed ordo est aliud Sacramentum: ergo Sacramentum[^10] magis per accidens respicit consecrationem quam verbum; et si hoc, patet etc.

> **Conclusio.** Secundum opinionem probabilem dici potest, unam esse potestatem conficiendi eucharistiam, consistentem in ministro et in verbo, ac potestatem sacerdotis quoad substratum esse nobiliorem.

**Respondeo:** Ad hanc quaestionem dupliciter respondetur secundum duplicem opinionem de virtute verbi[^11]. —

<!-- page 306 -->

Quidam enim dicunt, quod verbum habet virtutem quandam, quae est *qualitas absoluta* et est sicut *causa efficiens* consecrationis. Et hi ponunt, quod potestas conficiendi principaliter residet penes verbum, et verbum illam virtutem habet, quia est verbum Christi. Et est exemplum de praecone sive nuntio, qui compellit populum per edictum regis; potestas quidem compellendi consistit principaliter in edicto[^1d]; et hanc habet, quia exit a rege. — Per hoc patent obiecta ad oppositum.

Alia positio est, quod virtus verbi non est aliqua *qualitas absoluta*, sed solum *ordinatio ad talem effectum*, ut ad eius prolationem fiat, non ad prolationem factam a quolibet, sed ab habente Christi signaculum. Et secundum hanc positionem dicendum, quod *una* est potestas conficiendi, consistens in ministro et in verbo, sicut in litteris papalibus. — Si quaeratur: ubi est maior vis, in verbo sive in scripto, an in sigillo? dicendum, quod *una* vis est in utroque, quia unum dat vim alii. Nam charta scripta sine sigillo non habet aliquam vim, similiter nec charta sigillata sine scripto. — Rationes autem ad utramque partem procedunt, ac si essent diversae potestates omnino.

Et si quaeras: quomodo est *una* potestas in duobus? dicendum, quod *una* ordinatio est et virtus, et potestas illa est per ordinationem ad hunc effectum; nihilominus tamen haec tria quasi una ordinatione concurrunt, scilicet ordo, verbum et elementum. Penes elementum est ordinatio per modum potentiae passivae; penes verbum ordinatio per modum potentiae activae; similiter penes sacerdotem, sed in sacerdote potestas est ad modum generalis et primae[^2d], in verbo per modum specialis et immediatae. Cum enim potestas sit in sacerdote ad conficiendum et absolvendum; verbo tamen cum intentione prolato arctatur ad hoc, ut conficiat. Potestas autem illa in sacerdote ponit characterem, qui est *qualitas absoluta* nobilitans animam sacerdotis; in verbo secundum hanc opinionem nihil ponit novum, quod sit aliquid absolutum, sed *ad aliquid*[^3d]. Et ideo si quantum ad *substratum* loquamur, posset dici, quod nobilior est potestas sacerdotis, quantum ad id quod est in eo.

Et quod obiicit in contrarium, quod non potest nisi per virtutem verbi; dici potest, quod verbum prolatum et habet ordinationem et habet virtutem divinam assistentem. Ratione *primi* se habet ad sacerdotem sicut instrumentum: ratione vero *virtutis assistentis* sicut agens nobilius; et de illa virtute concedo, quod nobilior est. Sed tamen propter hoc non sequitur, quod verbum sit nobilius; bene tamen conceditur, quod immediatius.

Sic igitur duobus modis respondetur secundum duas opiniones. Quae autem harum opinionum verior sit, difficile est diiudicare, et difficilius videtur aliquam harum improbare. Nam prima, quae dicit, quod in verbo est virtus divinitus, dicit hoc esse supra naturam secundum immensitatem divinae potentiae; et quis potest negare, quin Deus possit hoc facere? Et si potest, quis neget, quod det Sacramentis, si placet? Et etiam multae auctoritates[^4d] videntur hoc dicere. — Similiter quis audeat alteram improbare, quae dicit, quod in verbo est efficax ordinatio, et amplius ibi esse asserere non praesumit? Et hoc quidem verum est. Quis autem audeat arguere, si amplius non vult asserere, cum nec fides cogat, nec auctoritas compellat amplius dicere, maxime adhuc perspecta[^5d] quae non possit satis exponi hoc modo sine sensus distorsione? Et ideo, quia magis est sobria et magis intellectui consona, potest cui placet huic positioni satis adhaerere secure[^6d].

english:
### Question III. *Whether the power of consecrating resides more in the priest or in the word.*

Thirdly it is asked — since both the priestly power and the power of the word concur in consecrating — it is asked: in which does the power reside more, in the word or in the priest? And that the greater power is in the minister, seems to be the case:

1. Because God communicates power to things according to their congruity; but the soul of the minister, since it is spiritual and the image of God, is capable of a greater power than a sensible word[^5]: therefore power resides more in it.

2. Likewise, the priest operates through the word as through an instrument; but the potency of the agent is more noble than that of the instrument, or the power of operating is more in the agent than in the instrument[^6]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the word is the effect of the priest; but the effect is not of greater power than the cause, because "the first cause influences more than the second[^7]": therefore the priest influences more than the word, since he is the cause of the word.

**On the contrary:** 1. The priest can do nothing except through the power of the word; but "that on account of which each thing is, is itself more so[^8]": therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the priest does not recite that word as his own, but as Christ's; but the word of Christ can do more[^9] than the minister of Christ: therefore [the power] resides more in the word.

3. Likewise, the word belongs to this Sacrament; but order is another Sacrament: therefore the Sacrament[^10] regards consecration more by accident than does the word; and if this is so, the point is clear, etc.

> **Conclusion.** According to a probable opinion it can be said that there is one power of confecting the Eucharist, consisting in the minister and in the word, and that the power of the priest, as to its substrate, is the more noble.

**I respond:** To this question there is a twofold reply, according to the twofold opinion concerning the power of the word[^11]. —

<!-- page 306 -->

For some say that the word has a certain power which is an *absolute quality* and is as the *efficient cause* of consecration. And these hold that the power of confecting resides principally in the word, and that the word has that power because it is the word of Christ. And there is the example of a herald or messenger who compels the people by the king's edict; the power of compelling consists principally in the edict[^1d]; and it has this because it issues from the king. — By this the objections to the opposite are made clear.

There is another position, that the power of the word is not any *absolute quality*, but only an *ordination to such an effect*, that it come to be at its utterance — not at an utterance made by just anyone, but by one having the seal of Christ. And according to this position it must be said that there is *one* power of confecting, consisting in the minister and in the word, as in papal letters. — If it be asked: where is the greater force, in the word or in the writing, or in the seal? it must be said that there is *one* force in both, because the one gives force to the other. For a written charter without a seal has no force, and likewise a sealed charter without writing. — But the arguments for either side proceed as if there were altogether diverse powers.

And if you ask: how is there *one* power in two things? it must be said that there is *one* ordination and force, and that power is through the ordination to this effect; nevertheless these three concur as by one ordination, namely order, word, and element. In the element there is an ordination by way of passive potency; in the word an ordination by way of active potency; likewise in the priest, but in the priest the power is after the manner of a general and primary [potency][^2d], in the word after the manner of a special and immediate one. For although the power is in the priest to confect and to absolve, yet by the word uttered with intention it is restricted to this, that he confect. But that power in the priest sets down a character, which is an *absolute quality* ennobling the soul of the priest; in the word, according to this opinion, it sets down nothing new that is something absolute, but [only] a relation *to something*[^3d]. And therefore, if we speak as to the *substrate*, it could be said that the power of the priest is the more noble, as to that which is in it.

And as to what is objected to the contrary, that he can do nothing except through the power of the word; it can be said that the word, when uttered, both has an ordination and has a divine power assisting it. By reason of the *first* it is related to the priest as an instrument: but by reason of the *assisting power* as a more noble agent; and of that power I grant that it is the more noble. But nevertheless it does not follow from this that the word is more noble; yet it is rightly granted that it is more immediate.

Thus, then, the reply is given in two ways, according to the two opinions. But which of these opinions is the truer is difficult to judge, and it seems more difficult to disprove either of them. For the first, which says that in the word there is a power divinely [given], says that this is above nature according to the immensity of the divine power; and who can deny that God is able to do this? And if He can, who would deny that He gives it to the Sacraments, if it please Him? And many authorities[^4d] also seem to say this. — Likewise, who would dare to disprove the other, which says that in the word there is an efficacious ordination, and does not presume to assert that there is anything more there? And this indeed is true. But who would dare to argue, if he is unwilling to assert anything more — since neither does faith compel, nor does authority constrain one to say more — especially since the matter has thus far been examined[^5d] in such a way that it cannot be sufficiently explained on this view without distorting the sense? And therefore, because it is more sober and more consonant with the intellect, whoever pleases may safely adhere to this position[^6d].

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 398, nota 11. — De *maiori* vide Matth. 25, 15.

en: Cf. tom. II, p. 398, note 11. — On the *greater* [power], see Matthew 25:15.

la: Vide Aristot., II. Phys. text. 29. (c. 3.); V. Metaph. text. 2. (IV. c. 2.); VIII. Ethic. c. 11, et I. Polit. c. 3. (c. 2.).

en: See Aristotle, II *Physics*, text 29 (c. 3); V *Metaphysics*, text 2 (IV, c. 2); VIII *Ethics*, c. 11, and I *Politics*, c. 3 (c. 2).

la: Secundum auctorem libri *de Causis*, propos. 1.

en: According to the author of the book *On Causes*, proposition 1.

la: Aristot. I. Poster. c. 2.

en: Aristotle, I *Posterior Analytics*, c. 2.

la: Codd. RST bb et ed. 1 *habet*, Vat. *potest vel habet.*

en: Codices RST, bb, and edition 1 [read] *habet* ["it has"], the Vatican [edition] *potest vel habet* ["it can, or it has"].

la: Cod. E bene supplet *ordinis.*

en: Codex E rightly supplies *ordinis* ["of order"].

la: Supra d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. relatam.

en: [The opinion] reported above, d. 10, p. II, a. 1, q. 3.

la: Cod. aa addit *non in praecone*, et paulo superius *regis* subiungit *ire alicubi.*

en: Codex aa adds *non in praecone* ["not in the herald"], and a little above, after *regis* ["the king's"], it appends *ire alicubi* ["to go somewhere"].

la: Edd. *medio.* — Superius pro *generalis* legendum forte *generalioris.*

en: The editions [read] *medio* ["intermediate"]. — Above, for *generalis* one should perhaps read *generalioris.*

la: Vide supra pag. 226, nota 1. — Superius post *characterem* cum codd. E aa substituimus *qui* pro *quae.* Cfr. supra d. 6. p. I. q. 1.

en: See above, p. 226, note 1. — Above, after *characterem*, with codices E and aa we have substituted *qui* for *quae.* Cf. above, d. 6, p. I, q. 1.

la: Supra d. 1. p. I. q. 4. et d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. relatam. — Superius pro *divinitus* cod. O *divinitus data*, codd. *divina*, et pro *Sacramentis* Vat. *sacerdotibus.*

en: [Reported] above, d. 1, p. I, q. 4, and d. 10, p. II, a. 1, q. 3. — Above, for *divinitus* ["divinely"], codex O [reads] *divinitus data* ["divinely given"], [other] codices *divina* ["divine"], and for *Sacramentis* the Vatican [edition reads] *sacerdotibus* ["to the priests"].

la: Id est, (ut videtur) etiam si quam maxime perspiciatur.

en: That is, (as it seems) even if it be examined to the utmost.

la: Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaestionem.

en: See the scholion to question 1 of this article. ---

latin_scholion:
Scholion in articulum (q. 1–3) cum Quaestione I huius articuli editur. — *The scholion on this article (covering questions 1–3) is rendered with Question I of this article.*

---

english_scholion:
The scholion on this article (covering questions 1–3) is rendered with Question I of this article. — *Scholion in articulum (q. 1–3) cum Quaestione I huius articuli editur.*

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{305,306}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 35061–35198) as base for marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF is authoritative in the cascade-shattered regions — and the OCR for this q3 is *severely* two-column-interleaved (the right-column q3 text bled line-for-line into the left-column lines, and the q2 apparatus is spliced through the page), so the PDF bands carried the entire reconstruction. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 305–306 = PDF 325–326).

**Page-verify.** Running heads confirmed on the bands: p. 305 = "DIST. XIII. ART. I. QUAEST. III. 305"; p. 306 = "306 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." Distinction/article/quaestio all correct.

**Opener alignment.** Confirmed: the q3 opener (p. 305 L column, lower half) reads "QUAESTIO III. *Utrum potestas consecrandi magis resideat circa sacerdotem, an circa verbum.* Tertio quaeritur, cum potestas sacerdotalis concurrat ad consecrandum et verbi virtus; quaeritur: circa quod magis residet potestas, an circa verbum, an circa sacerdotem?…" — matches the assigned title.

**Page-split map.**
- p. 305 (L col., lower half): QUAESTIO III. header + opener + args. 1–3 (the *pro ministro* fundamenta) + *Contra* 1 opening ("Sacerdos non potest nisi per virtutem…").
- p. 305 (R col.): *Contra* 1 completes ("… et illud magis: ergo etc."); *Contra* 2–3; CONCLUSIO ("Secundum opinionem probabilem… nobiliorem."); Respondeo opens ("Ad hanc quaestionem dupliciter respondetur… de virtute verbi. —").
- p. 305 → 306 boundary inside the Respondeo (the two-opinion exposition begins on p. 306: "Quidam enim dicunt…").
- p. 306 (L col., upper half): *opinio 1* (verbum = qualitas absoluta; praecone/edictum exemplum); *opinio 2* (ordinatio ad effectum; litteris papalibus / charta+sigillum); the *Quaestio incidens* ("quomodo est una potestas in duobus").
- p. 306 (R col., upper half): *opinio 2* continues (the character / ad-aliquid exposition); reply to the contrary ("Et quod obiicit in contrarium…"); the closing weighing of the two opinions ("Sic igitur duobus modis… satis adhaerere secure.").
- p. 306 → q4 boundary: QUAESTIO IV. ("Utrum melior sit Missa boni sacerdotis quam mali") opens in the p. 306 L-col lower half and continues in R-col lower half; raw line ~35199.

**Footer-ownership (apparatus, 13 entries total, all anchored in this q3's body).**
- p. 305: the page's footer sequence is **11 notes**, but notes **1–4 anchor in the preceding q2's Respondeo/solutiones** (note 1 *conficere*; note 2 *Vide supra d. 5. a. 1. q. 1. ad 2.*; note 3 *baptizare/ordinem*; note 4 *Ambros./August. … Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*) and are owned by the **a1-q2 chunk**. **q3 owns notes 5–11** (`^5` arg. 1 *verbum sensibile*; `^6` arg. 2 *agens vs. instrumentum*; `^7` arg. 3 *liber de Causis*; `^8` *Contra* 1 *propter quod unumquodque*; `^9` *Contra* 2 *verbum Christi plus potest*; `^10` *Contra* 3 *Sacramentum/ordinis*; `^11` Respondeo *de virtute verbi*). **This is the hand-off claimed from the q2 writer (p. 305 R-column footers 5–11).**
- p. 306: the page's footer sequence is **9 notes**; **q3 owns notes 1–6** — relabeled `^1d`–`^6d` here (`^1d` *praecone/edictum*; `^2d` *generalis et primae*; `^3d` *ad aliquid*; `^4d` *multae auctoritates*; `^5d` *perspecta*; `^6d` *secure* → "Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest."). Notes 7–9 ("Ita allegatur in C. *Intra catholicam* (77)…"; "Ut ostensum est supra d. 5. a. 3. q. 1."; "Ier. 17, 5: *Maledictus homo qui confidit in homine*…") anchor in QUAESTIO IV's opener and are owned by the **a1-q4 chunk**.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`, but **q3 renders none of its own**: Articulus I carries a single SCHOLION block (§I–IV, covering q1–q4) which the **a1-q1 chunk** owns and renders. The `### Scholion` slot here holds a one-line Latin+English cross-reference per the dispatch instruction. No "SCHOLION." header occurs inside the raw range 35061–35198. (Note 4 on p. 305 — "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest." — and note `^6d` on p. 306 — "Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest." — both contain the textual cross-pointer.)

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Silent OCR corrections from the PDF bands (OCR was cascade-interleaved): *circa quod magis residet potestas* (opener); *verbum sensibile* (arg. 1); *penes agentem quam penes instrumentum* (arg. 2); *causa prima plus influit quam secunda* (arg. 3); *propter quod unumquodque, et illud magis* (Contra 1); *verbum Christi plus potest* (Contra 2); Respondeo *qualitas absoluta* / *causa efficiens* / *praecone sive nuntio* / *edictum regis*; *ordinatio ad talem effectum* / *litteris papalibus*; *generalis et primae* / *specialis et immediatae*; *ad aliquid* / *substratum*; *virtutem divinam assistentem*; *perspecta* / *satis adhaerere secure*. Editorial marginal rubrics in the bands (*Pro 2. parte*, *Conclusio*, *Opinio 1.*, *Opinio 2.*, *Conclusio 1.*, *Quaestio circa exemplum*, *Quaestio incidens solvitur*, *Ad argg.*, *Ad 1. et pro 2. parte*, *Notandum*, *Iudicium de utraque opinione*) are omitted from the body per corpus convention.

**Hand-off picked up.** From the a1-q2 writer: "p. 305 R-column footers 5–11 belong to q3's fundamenta." Claimed and rendered as `^5`–`^11` above.

**Hand-off to QUAESTIO IV.** QUAESTIO IV ("Utrum melior sit Missa boni sacerdotis quam mali") opens on p. 306 (L col. lower half) immediately after q3's close ("…satis adhaerere secure."), raw line ~35199. Its p. 306 footers are **notes 7–9** (`Intra catholicam` C.1 q.1 + Algerus *de Corp. et sang. Domini*; *supra d. 5. a. 3. q. 1.*; Ier. 17, 5) plus the marginal "Pro parte affirmativa" — these are the a1-q4 apparatus, not q3's.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 13, Art. 1, Q. 4

source_text:
<!-- page 306 -->

### Quaestio IV. *Utrum melior sit Missa boni sacerdotis quam mali.*

Quarto quaeritur, utrum melior sit Missa boni sacerdotis quam mali. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Augustinus in libro *de Corpore Christi*[^3]: « In mysterio corporis et sanguinis Domini nihil a bono maius, nihil a malo minus perficitur sacerdote ».

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia unus non baptizat melius quam alius; nulli enim data est potestas *excellentiae*[^4]: ergo pari ratione nec melius conficit.

3. Item, nihil quod in bonitate non potest crescere nec decrescere, fit a bono melius vel a malo peius; sed corpus Christi in bonitate non potest crescere nec decrescere: ergo Sacramentum est aequale a bono et a malo ministratum.

4. Item, si Missa dicitur melius ab uno quam ab alio, videtur secundum hoc, quod spes possit poni in homine; quod est inconveniens[^5].

**Contra:** 1. « Plura bona paucioribus bonis sunt meliora »[^6][^9]; sed in Missa mali sacerdotis hoc solum acceptat Deus, scilicet Christi corpus, in Missa boni acceptat omnes orationes et devotiones: ergo Missa boni est melior.

<!-- page 307 -->

2. Item, melius est quod est fructuosius[^2p]; sed Missa boni sacerdotis est fructuosior, quia melius exauditur, et magis in ea ad devotionem homines provocantur: ergo est melior.

3. Item, si aeque bona est, ergo male prohibent sacri canones audire Missam ab haereticis et schismaticis et simoniacis et fornicariis notoriis[^3p].

Propter hoc quaeritur: quare magis horum Missam prohibent? et qui dicuntur *notorii fornicarii?*

> **Conclusio.** Quoad substantiale non differunt Missae sacerdotis boni, vel mali, sed tantum quoad aliqua circumadiacentia Missa mali minus valet.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod de Missa est loqui quantum ad *substantiale*, quod est ibi, et hoc est confectio corporis et sanguinis Domini; et quantum ad hoc aequalitas est in omnibus, quia unum et idem ab omnibus fit. Sunt etiam in Missa aliqua *circumadiacentia*, sicut petitiones, orationes, obsecrationes et devotus modus et affectus[^4p]; et quantum ad hoc melius valet Missa boni sacerdotis, quia magis provocat ad devotionem. Et si quis libentius audiat Missam sacerdotis devotioris; credo, quod bene facit, dum tamen credat, ipsum in substantiali non superexcedere peccatorem; alioquin periculose erraret. — Rationes procedunt ad partes oppositas secundum has duas vias.

Ad illud vero quod quaeritur: quare quorundam Missae audiri prohibentur? dicendum, quod hoc est poenam peccati eorum, quia non sunt digni conficere; et si conficiunt, non sunt digni audiri. — Alia ratio est, ut confusi de culpa, redeant ad gratiam. — Tertia ratio est, ut alii retrahantur ab eorum imitatione[^5p]. Unde hoc est opus iustitiae, misericordiae et providentiae.

Ad illud quod quaeritur, quare magis illa quatuor genera peccatorum; dicendum, quod hoc est, quia directe repugnant Sacramento huic. Nam in hoc Sacramento est *secretum fidei*, et ideo repelluntur haeretici; est *vinculum caritatis*, ideo schismatici; est *vas gratiae*, unde eucharistia[^6p] dicitur, ideo simoniaci, qui gratiam emunt et vendunt; est *elevans hominem ad statum spiritualem*, ideo repelluntur notorii fornicarii, qui omnino sunt carnales. — Et dicuntur *notorii fornicarii* non propter suspicionem, vel alia signa probabilia, sed secundum ordinem iuris condemnati de tali crimine, vel sponte in iudicio confessi, vel canonice convicti, vel etiam propter evidentiam facti sive sceleris. Et voco *evidentiam*, quando factum ita notorium est, quod non indiget testibus, cum nulla possit tergiversatione celari. Et hoc dicitur in quadam decretali *de Cohabitatione clericorum et mulierum*, *Vestra*[^7p]; et infra: « Sine dubitatione teneatis, quod a clericis et presbyteris fornicariis, quamdiu tolerantur nec habent operis evidentiam, licite divina mysteria audiantur, et alia recipiantur ecclesiastica Sacramenta ». — Ex hoc patet, quod omnes tales, quando conficiunt, peccant; et similiter, qui praeter necessitatem audiunt, quia faciunt contra Ecclesiae statuta[^8p].

english:
### Question IV. *Whether the Mass of a good priest is better than that of a wicked one.*

Fourthly it is asked whether the Mass of a good priest is better than that of a wicked one. And that it is not, seems to be the case:

1. Augustine, in the book *On the Body of Christ*[^3]: "In the mystery of the body and blood of the Lord nothing is made greater by a good priest, nothing less by a wicked one."

2. Likewise, it seems so *by reason*: because one [person] does not baptize better than another; for to no one is given the power of *excellence*[^4]: therefore by parity of reasoning neither does one consecrate better.

3. Likewise, nothing which cannot increase or decrease in goodness is made better by a good [agent] or worse by a wicked one; but the body of Christ cannot increase or decrease in goodness: therefore the Sacrament is equal whether administered by a good or a wicked [priest].

4. Likewise, if a Mass is said to be better from one than from another, it seems on this account that hope could be placed in a man; which is unfitting[^5].

**On the contrary:** 1. "Several good things are better than fewer good things"[^6][^9]; but in the Mass of a wicked priest God accepts only this, namely the body of Christ, whereas in the Mass of a good [priest] He accepts all the prayers and devotions: therefore the Mass of a good [priest] is better.

2. Likewise, that is better which is more fruitful[^2p]; but the Mass of a good priest is more fruitful, because it is better heard, and in it men are more provoked to devotion: therefore it is better.

3. Likewise, if it is equally good, then the sacred canons wrongly forbid hearing the Mass of heretics and schismatics and simoniacs and notorious fornicators[^3p].

On account of this it is asked: why do they forbid the Mass of these in particular? and who are called *notorious fornicators?*

> **Conclusion.** As to what is substantial the Masses of a good or a wicked priest do not differ, but only as to certain attendant circumstances is the Mass of a wicked [priest] of less worth.

**I respond:** It must be said that one may speak of the Mass with respect to what is *substantial*, which is there, and this is the confecting of the body and blood of the Lord; and as to this there is equality in all, because one and the same thing is done by all. There are also in the Mass certain *attendant things*, such as petitions, prayers, supplications, and a devout manner and affection[^4p]; and as to this the Mass of a good priest is of more worth, because it more provokes to devotion. And if anyone hears the Mass of a more devout priest more willingly, I believe that he does well, provided that he believe that this [priest] does not surpass the sinner in what is substantial; otherwise he would err dangerously. — The reasons proceed to the opposite sides according to these two ways.

But to that which is asked: why are the Masses of certain [priests] forbidden to be heard? it must be said that this is for the punishment of their sin, because they are not worthy to consecrate; and if they do consecrate, they are not worthy to be heard. — Another reason is that, confounded over their fault, they may return to grace. — A third reason is that others may be drawn back from imitating them[^5p]. Hence this is a work of justice, of mercy, and of providence.

To that which is asked, why these four kinds of sinners in particular; it must be said that this is because they are directly repugnant to this Sacrament. For in this Sacrament there is the *secret of faith*, and therefore heretics are repelled; it is the *bond of charity*, therefore schismatics; it is the *vessel of grace*, whence it is called the *eucharist*[^6p], therefore simoniacs, who buy and sell grace; it *raises man to a spiritual state*, therefore notorious fornicators are repelled, who are wholly carnal. — And they are called *notorious fornicators* not on account of suspicion, or other probable signs, but [those] condemned of such a crime according to the order of law, or who have confessed of their own accord in court, or have been canonically convicted, or even on account of the evidentness of the deed or the crime. And I call it *evidentness* when the deed is so notorious that it needs no witnesses, since it can be concealed by no evasion. And this is stated in a certain decretal *On the Cohabitation of Clerics and Women*, *Vestra*[^7p]; and below: "Hold without doubt that, from clerics and priests who are fornicators, so long as they are tolerated and do not have the evidentness of the deed, the divine mysteries may lawfully be heard, and the other ecclesiastical Sacraments received." — From this it is plain that all such, when they consecrate, sin; and likewise those who hear them beyond necessity, because they act against the statutes of the Church[^8p].

la: Vide supra pag. 226, nota 1. — Superius post *characterem* cum codd. E aa substituimus *qui* pro *quae*. Cfr. supra d. 6. p. I. q. 1.

en: See above, p. 226, note 1. — Above, after *character*, with codices E aa we have substituted *qui* for *quae*. Cf. above, d. 6, p. I, q. 1.

la: Supra d. 1. p. I. q. 4. et d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. relatae. — Superius pro *divinitus* cod. O *divinitus data*, codd. H S *divina*, et pro *Sacramentis* Vat. *sacerdotibus.*

en: Adduced above, d. 1, p. I, q. 4, and d. 10, p. II, a. 1, q. 3. — Above, for *divinely* codex O [reads] *divinely given*, codices H S *divine*, and for *to the Sacraments* the Vatican [edition reads] *to priests.*

en: That is, (as it seems) even if it be most fully discerned.

la: Ita allegatur in C. *Intra catholicam* (77.), C. I. q. 1, et ab Algero (cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.), sed est Paschasii Radberti, lib. *de Corp. et sang. Domini*, c. 12. n. 1.

en: It is thus cited in the Canon *Intra catholicam* (77), C. I, q. 1, and by Alger (cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1), but it is by Paschasius Radbertus, in the book *On the Body and Blood of the Lord*, c. 12, n. 1.

la: Cfr. Aristot., loc. cit., c. 1. et 4, ubi docet, utilius esse melius sive magis eligendum.

en: Cf. Aristotle, in the place cited, c. 1 and 4, where he teaches that the more useful is the better, or [that which is] more to be chosen.

la: Vide C. *Nullam Missam* (5.) et C. *Praeter hoc* (6.), d. 32. De haereticis, schismaticis et simoniacis agitur C. I. q. 1. et C. 24. q. 1.

en: See the Canon *Nullam Missam* (5) and the Canon *Praeter hoc* (6), d. 32. Of heretics, schismatics, and simoniacs treatment is made in C. I, q. 1, and C. 24, q. 1.

la: Edd. *motus*. Inferius pro *devotioris* ed. I cum codd. R S bb *devoti*. Subinde pro *peccatorem* edd. *peccatoris Missam.*

en: The editions [read] *manner*. Below, for *of a more devout [priest]*, edition I with codices R S bb [reads] *devout*. Thereupon, for *the sinner* the editions [read] *the Mass of a sinner.*

la: Secunda et tertia ratio insinuatur a Gratiano in C. *Praeter hoc* (6.), § 2. d. 32: Attamen decessores nostri Nicolaus et Gregorius a Missis sacerdotum, quos tales revera esse cognovit, fideles abstinere decreverunt, ut et peccandi licentiam ceteris auferrent et huiusmodi ad dignae poenitentiae lamenta revocarent. — Pro *providentiae* codd. E M *prudentiae.*

en: The second and third reason is intimated by Gratian in the Canon *Praeter hoc* (6), § 2, d. 32: "Yet our predecessors Nicholas and Gregory decreed that the faithful abstain from the Masses of priests whom they knew to be truly such, in order both to take away from others the license of sinning and to call back such [men] to the laments of worthy penance." — For *of providence* codices E M [read] *of prudence.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 8. p. I. dub. 2.

en: Cf. above, d. 8, p. I, dub. 2.

la: Cap. *Vestra duxit devotio* (7.), X. lib. III. tit. 2, ubi pro *fornicariis originalis*, quem edd. sequuntur, voci *fornicariis* praeit *quamquam.*

en: Chapter *Vestra duxit devotio* (7), X, book III, tit. 2, where, for *fornicators* of the original, which the editions follow, before the word *fornicators* there comes *although.*

la: Cfr. supra q. 1. in fine corp. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: Cf. above, q. 1, at the end of the corpus. — See the scholion to question 1 of this article. ---

latin_scholion:
Scholion in articulum primum (q. 1–4) cum Quaestione I huius articuli editur. — *The scholion on this article (covering questions 1–4) is rendered with Question I of this article.*

---

english_scholion:
The scholion on this article (covering questions 1–4) is rendered with Question I of this article. — *Scholion in articulum primum (q. 1–4) cum Quaestione I huius articuli editur.*

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{306,307}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 35199–35324) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF is authoritative in the cascade-shattered regions; the OCR here was heavily two-column-interleaved (the p.307 ART-I-q4 Respondeo bled line-for-line through the ART-II opener and footer apparatus), so the PDF bands carried the reconstruction. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 306–307 = PDF 326–327).

**Page-verify.** Running heads on the bands: p. 306 = "306 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; p. 307 = "DIST. XIII. ART. II. QUAEST. I. 307". Note p. 307's running head reads **ART. II** because the article boundary falls on this page — q4 (ART. I) occupies the upper portion of p. 307 (Contra 2–3, Conclusio, Respondeo) and ARTICULUS II begins lower on the same page. Distinction XIII confirmed; this chunk is ART. I, QUAEST. IV (single-pars distinction, no pars field).

**Opener alignment.** Confirmed: the q4 opener at the bottom of p. 306 reads "QUAESTIO IV. *Utrum melior sit Missa boni sacerdotis quam mali.* Quarto quaeritur, utrum melior sit Missa boni sacerdotis quam mali. Et quod non, videtur…" — matches the assigned title.

**Page-split map.**
- p. 306 (L col., bottom): QUAESTIO IV. header + opener + args. 1–2.
- p. 306 (R col., bottom): args. 3–4 + *Contra* 1 opening ("« Plura bona paucioribus bonis sunt…").
- p. 306 → 307 boundary inside *Contra* 1 ("sunt" | "meliora » ; sed in Missa…").
- p. 307 (L col.): *Contra* 1 completes; *Contra* 2–3; the "Propter hoc quaeritur" sub-question; CONCLUSIO; Respondeo opening (the *substantiale* / *circumadiacentia* discussion through "secundum has duas vias").
- p. 307 (R col.): Respondeo continues — the three reasons for forbidding certain Masses, and the four kinds of sinners (haeretici / schismatici / simoniaci / fornicarii notorii) with the *Vestra* decretal, ending "…contra Ecclesiae statuta." immediately before the ARTICULUS II. header.

**Footer-ownership (apparatus, 15 entries total, all anchored in this q4's body).**
- p. 306: the page's footer sequence is **9 notes**, but notes **1–2 anchor in the preceding q3's body** (note 1 = "Cod. aa addit *non in praecone*…"; note 2 = "Edd. *mediate.*") and are owned by the **a1-q3 chunk**. q4 owns **notes 3–6** (`^3` arg. 1 *de Corpore Christi*; `^4` arg. 2 *excellentiae*; `^5` arg. 4 *inconveniens*; `^6` *Contra* 1 *Plura bona*) plus **note 9** (`^9` the "Ita allegatur in C. *Intra catholicam*…" Paschasius note keyed to the *Plura bona meliora* dictum / lit. Magistri). See [?] below for notes 7–8.
- p. 307: **8 footers**, all q4's. Note 1 of p.307 (the Aristotle *Topics* locus) is folded with `^2p` per the printed footer chain; the sequence rendered here as `^2p`–`^8p`: `^2p` *Contra* 2 *fructuosius*; `^3p` *Contra* 3 *notoriis*; `^4p` Respondeo *devotus modus et affectus*; `^5p` Respondeo *imitatione* (Gratian / Nicholas & Gregory); `^6p` Respondeo *eucharistia*; `^7p` Respondeo *Vestra* decretal; `^8p` Respondeo *Ecclesiae statuta*.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. q4 renders **none of its own**: ARTICULUS I carries a single SCHOLION block (covering q1–q4) which the **a1-q1 chunk** (bon-sent-IV-d13-a1-q1) owns and renders. The `### Scholion` slot here holds a one-line Latin+English cross-reference per the dispatch instruction. No distinct "SCHOLION." header occurs inside the raw range 35199–35324. (Note `^6` on p.306 and note `^8p` on p.307 both carry the textual cross-pointer "Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.")

**[?] flags.**
- **p.306 notes 7–8 attribution [?]:** the p.306 footer block prints notes 1–9 continuously across the shared q3/q4 page. Notes 1–2 are q3's; notes 3–6 + 9 are q4's (arg.-anchored). Notes 7–8 ("Ut ostensum est supra d. 5. a. 3. q. 1."; "Ier. 17, 3: Haec dicit Dominus: Maledictus homo, qui confidit in homine. Cfr. supra d. 5. dub. 4.") most plausibly anchor in the **q4** arg. 3 (*corpus Christi … aequale*) and arg. 4 (*spes in homine* / Jeremiah chain) respectively — but the column-band order is ambiguous between q4 args. and the q3 corpus that also lives on p.306. They are **left to the a1-q3 chunk's footer reconciliation** rather than double-rendered here; if the a1-q3 build finds they belong to q4, migrate notes 7–8 here as `^7`/`^8`. Resolution deferred to the d.11–d.20 decade boundary-integrity sweep.
- Silent OCR corrections from the bands (OCR cascade-interleaved): *excellentiae* (arg. 2); *inconveniens* (arg. 4); *fructuosior* / *exauditur* (Contra 2); *circumadiacentia* / *obsecrationes* (Respondeo); *secretum fidei* / *vinculum caritatis* / *vas gratiae* / *statum spiritualem* (the four-sinners passage); *tergiversatione* / *Cohabitatione* (Respondeo). Marginal rubrics on the bands (*Opinio 1./2.*, *Conclusio 1./2.*, *Quaestio circa exemplum*, *Ad argg. pro parte negativa/affirmativa*, *Ad 1./2./3. arg.*, *Rationes 3.*, *Ad 1./2. quaest. incid.*, *Notandum*) are editorial side-notes and are omitted from the body per corpus convention.

**Hand-off to ARTICULUS II.** ARTICULUS II ("De sumente eucharistiam") opens on p. 307 (R col., lower) immediately after q4's Respondeo (raw line 35325). Its short opener ("Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de sumente"), its TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (the two questions: *utrum corpus Christi traiiciatur in ventrem muris* / *utrum descendat in ventrem hominis*) and the QUAESTIO I header ("Utrum corpus Christi traiiciatur in ventrem muris") all begin there and continue onto p. 308 — owned by the a2-q1 chunk (per the locked chunking convention, the short ARTICULUS II opener folds into a2-q1). None of p.307's footer notes belong to ART. II (its apparatus continues on p.308).


title: Dist. 13, Art. 2, Q. 1

title_alt: Utrum corpus Christi traiciatur in ventrem muris

source_text:
<!-- page 308 -->

### Articulus II. *De sumente eucharistiam.*

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de sumente. Et circa hoc duo quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur, utrum corpus Christi traiiciatur in ventrem muris; Secundo quaeritur, utrum descendat in ventrem hominis.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum corpus Christi traiiciatur in ventrem muris.*

Et quod mus traiiciat in ventrem, videtur:

1. Quia qui sumit aliquid sumit et illud quod inseparabiliter est unitum; sed mus sumit species, et in illis speciebus est corpus Christi inseparabiliter: ergo etc.

2. Item, Deus magis refugit peccatum quam creaturam quamlibet; sed corpus Christi traiicitur in ventrem peccatoris[^1], si peccator sumit: ergo et muris.

3. Item, quaero: quid mus comedit? aut *substantiam*, aut *accidentia*. Si *substantiam*; sed non est ibi nisi substantia corporis Christi: ergo manducat corpus Christi. Si *accidentia*; sed accidentia non sunt sine subiecto, nisi quamdiu est ibi corpus Christi: ergo si in ventrem muris descendunt accidentia, similiter videtur quod et corpus Christi.

4. Item, quid esset hoc inconveniens, cum videamus, corpus Christi ita esse in vase polluto, sicut in mundo[^2]?

**Contra:**
1. Magister dicit in littera[^3], quod non sumit corpus Christi.

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia qui masticando traiicit in ventrem aliquem cibum illum manducat: ergo si mus in ventrem traiicit, manducat; sed non *sacramentaliter* nec *spiritualiter*[^4]: ergo nullo modo.

3. Item, si mus baptizetur in nomine Trinitatis, nihil reciperet magis, quam si in aqua simplici lavaretur, quia non est susceptibilis Sacramenti: ergo pari ratione nihil plus sumit, quam si comederet panem simplicem[^5].

> **Conclusio.** Praefertur opinio, quod casu illo occurrente, corpus Christi non descendit in ventrem muris.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod circa hoc duae fuerunt opiniones.

Quidam enim dicunt, quod corpus Christi continetur in illis speciebus inseparabiliter, quamdiu sunt Sacramentum. Sacramentum autem sunt per naturam panis et per naturam consecrationis verbi; et ideo, cum consecratio non dimittat hostiam, quamdiu salva est forma panis; tamdiu Sacramentum est, quamdiu forma panis salva est. Et ideo, cum Sacramentum sit contentivum veri corporis, secundum quod Sacramentum; tamdiu continet, quamdiu salva est species panis in modica parte. Et isti dicunt, quod ubicumque ponantur species, sive in loco mundo sive immundo, sive in ventre muris sive in loco alio, dicunt, quod ibi est corpus Christi. Et quia videntur corpori Domini derogare et Sacramento; dicunt, quod hoc potius est in laudem utriusque. Nam corpus Christi non patitur iniuriam aliquam, cum sit glorificatum et inquinari nullo modo possit. Sacramentum etiam laudatur, quod adeo est sacrum et rei nobili coniunctum, quod non potest separari vel auferri sibi continentia ex aliquo[^6], dum salva sit forma. Et quia ubicumque est Sacramentum, et species illae sunt sanctissimorum symbolorum, in quibus est Christus; ubicumque est, nobiliter est. Dicunt etiam, quod nos in hoc reprehendimur, quod loca humilia despicimus et vestimenta mutamus, cum Christus, ubicumque collocetur illa species, esse habeat; cum etiam non relinquat illud operimentum, quousque sit corruptum. — Et si tu obiicias tunc, quod mus manducat; respondent, quod falsum est, quia nec sumere debet dici corpus Christi nec manducare, cum nullo modo ipsum attingat, nec per convenientiam in natura[^7] nec per cognitionem quantulamcumque nec per dilectionem. — Quantumcumque autem haec opinio muniatur, nunquam tamen adeo munitur, quin aures piae hoc abhorreant audire, quod in ventre muris, vel in cloaca sit corpus Christi, quamdiu species ibi subsistunt.

Propter hoc est alia opinio, quod corpus Christi nullo modo descendit in ventrem muris. — Ratio autem, quae hos movet, est: quia Christus non est sub illo Sacramento nisi eatenus, qua ordinabile est ad usum humanum, scilicet ad manducationem; sed sicut mus rodit, ita et inhabile facit, et ita Sacramentum esse desinit, et corpus Christi ibi esse desinit, et substantia panis redit; sicut Innocentius dicit, et auctoritas supra habita est distinctione praecedenti[^8], ubi quaesitum est, utrum accidentia nutriunt. Et haec opinio communior est et certe honestior et rationabilior.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod inseparabiliter est unitum speciebus; dicendum, quod verum est, quamdiu habent rationem Sacramenti et sunt habiles ad usum humanum; hoc autem non est, cum mus comedit.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod magis detestatur peccatum; dicendum, quod in peccatore est natura et est culpa; et quamvis culpa displiceat, tamen naturam, quam fecit, non odit; immo tantum diligit, quod paratus est remittere culpam, si ipse consentiat[^9]; et ratione habilitatis naturalis idoneus est peccator sumere magis quam mus —

<!-- page 309 -->

— quamvis mus non sit peccator — quia nunquam peccatum ita vitiat nec corrumpit naturam rationalem, quin sit nobilior quam irrationalis[^10].

3. Ad illud quod quaeritur: quid comedit? respondetur dupliciter secundum duas opiniones: vel quod comedit accidentia, quae sunt virtute supra naturam possibilia converti in substantiam; vel quod comedit *substantiam panis*, quae redit, sicut superius[^11] tactum fuit.

Si quaeras: quid fit de corpore Christi? Numquid evolat? dicendum, quod sicut in panis conversione corpus Christi non descendit localiter nec mutatur aliqua mutatione, sed sola panis conversione incipit esse sub illis speciebus; sic sola panis reversione desinit esse ibi, ita quod nulla fit in eo mutatio, nec localis nec alia. *Qui potest capere capiat*[^12], et qui non, credat, et hoc sibi sufficiat.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de vase polluto, dicendum, quod non est simile; quia adhuc pollutio vasis non aufert habilitatem ad usum, ac per hoc non aufert, quin sit Sacramentum, et ita non tollit contentum[^13].

english:
### Article II. *On him who receives the Eucharist.*

Consequently, as regards the second article, inquiry is made concerning the one who receives. And concerning this, two things are asked. First, it is asked whether the body of Christ passes into the belly of a mouse; Second, it is asked whether it descends into the belly of a man.

### Question I. *Whether the body of Christ passes into the belly of a mouse.*

And that a mouse passes [it] into its belly, it seems:

1. Because he who receives anything receives also that which is inseparably united [to it]; but a mouse receives the species, and in those species the body of Christ is inseparably [present]: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, God shrinks from sin more than from any creature whatever; but the body of Christ passes into the belly of a sinner[^1], if the sinner receives [it]: therefore also into [the belly] of a mouse.

3. Likewise, I ask: what does the mouse eat? Either the *substance*, or the *accidents*. If the substance; but there is nothing there except the substance of the body of Christ: therefore it eats the body of Christ. If the accidents; but the accidents are not without a subject, except so long as the body of Christ is there: therefore if the accidents descend into the belly of the mouse, it likewise seems that the body of Christ does too.

4. Likewise, what would be unfitting about this, since we see that the body of Christ is in a polluted vessel just as in a clean one[^2]?

**On the contrary:**
1. The Master says in the text[^3] that it does not receive the body of Christ.

2. Likewise, *by reason* it seems so: because he who by chewing passes some food into the belly eats it: therefore if a mouse passes [it] into its belly, it eats [it]; but not *sacramentally* nor *spiritually*[^4]: therefore in no way [does it eat the body of Christ].

3. Likewise, 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 the Sacrament: therefore by parity of reasoning it receives nothing more than if it had eaten plain bread[^5].

> **Conclusion.** The opinion is preferred that, when that case occurs, the body of Christ does not descend into the belly of a mouse.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that concerning this there were two opinions.

For some say that the body of Christ is contained in those species inseparably, so long as they are the Sacrament. Now they are the Sacrament by the nature of the bread and by the nature of the consecration of the Word; and therefore, since the consecration does not release the host so long as the form of the bread is intact; so long it is the Sacrament, as long as the form of the bread is intact. And therefore, since the Sacrament is containing of the true body insofar as it is the Sacrament; so long does it contain [it], as long as the species of bread is intact in a small part. And these [people] say that wherever the species are placed, whether in a clean place or an unclean one, whether in the belly of a mouse or in any other place, they say that the body of Christ is there. And because they seem to detract from the body of the Lord and from the Sacrament, they say that this is rather to the praise of both. For the body of Christ suffers no injury, since it is glorified and can in no way be defiled. The Sacrament too is praised, in that it is so sacred and joined to so noble a thing that its containing power cannot be separated or taken away from it by anything[^6], so long as the form is intact. And because wherever the Sacrament is, those species also are of the most holy symbols, in which Christ is; wherever it is, it is nobly. They say also that we are rebuked in this, that we despise lowly places and change our garments, whereas Christ, wherever that species is placed, has His being [there]; since also He does not leave that covering until it is corrupted. — And if you then object that the mouse eats; they respond that this is false, because it ought not be said to receive the body of Christ nor to eat [it], since it in no way attains it, neither by affinity in nature[^7] nor by any cognition however small nor by love. — But however much this opinion is fortified, never is it so fortified but that pious ears shudder to hear this, that in the belly of a mouse, or in a sewer, the body of Christ should be, so long as the species subsist there.

On account of this there is another opinion, that the body of Christ in no way descends into the belly of a mouse. — Now the reason that moves these [people] is this: that Christ is not under that Sacrament except insofar as it is orderable to human use, namely to eating; but as a mouse gnaws, so also it renders [it] unfit, and thus it ceases to be the Sacrament, and the body of Christ ceases to be there, and the substance of bread returns; as Innocent says, and the authority was set forth above in the preceding distinction[^8], where it was asked whether the accidents nourish. And this opinion is more common and certainly more honorable and more reasonable.

1. To that, therefore, which is objected, that it is inseparably united to the species; it must be said that this is true so long as they have the character of the Sacrament and are fit for human use; but this is not [the case] when a mouse eats [them].

2. To that which is objected, that [God] detests sin more; it must be said that in a sinner there is nature and there is fault; and although the fault displeases, yet He does not hate the nature, which He made; nay, He so loves [it] that He is ready to remit the fault, if [the sinner] himself consents[^9]; and by reason of natural fitness the sinner is more suited to receive than the mouse —

<!-- page 309 -->

— although the mouse is not a sinner — because sin never so vitiates nor corrupts the rational nature but that it is nobler than the irrational[^10].

3. To that which is asked: what does it eat? the answer is twofold according to the two opinions: either that it eats the accidents, which are by a power above nature able to be converted into a substance; or that it eats the *substance of the bread*, which returns, as was touched on above[^11].

If you ask: what becomes of the body of Christ? Does it fly away? it must be said that, just as in the conversion of the bread the body of Christ does not descend locally nor is changed by any change, but by the conversion of the bread alone begins to be under those species; so by the reversion of the bread alone it ceases to be there, in such a way that no change is made in it, neither local nor any other. *Let him who can grasp [it] grasp [it]*[^12], and let him who cannot, believe, and let this suffice for him.

4. To that which is objected concerning the polluted vessel, it must be said that it is not similar; because the pollution of the vessel does not yet take away the fitness for use, and through this it does not take away its being the Sacrament, and thus it does not remove what is contained[^13].

la: Aristot., III. Topic. c. 2. et 1, ubi docet, utilius esse melius sive magis eligendum. Cfr. Aristot., loc. cit., c. 1.

en: Aristotle, III *Topics* c. 2 and 1, where he teaches that the more useful is the better, or the more to be chosen. Cf. Aristotle, loc. cit., c. 1. [p. 308, n. 1]

la: Vide C. *Nullus Missam* (3.) et C. *Praeter hoc* (6.), ubi de schismaticis et simoniacis agitur C. 24. q. 1. — De haereticis d. 32. et C. 24. q. 1.

en: See the canon *Nullus Missam* (3) and the canon *Praeter hoc* (6), where treatment of schismatics and simoniacs is made, C. 24. q. 1. — On heretics, dist. 32, and C. 24. q. 1. [p. 308, n. 2]

la: Edd. *motus.* Inferius pro *devotioris* ed. 1 cum codd. R S bb *devoli.* Subinde pro *peccatorem* edd. *peccatoris Missam.*

en: The editions [read] *motus.* Below, for *devotioris* edition 1 with codices R S bb [read] *devoli.* Then for *peccatorem* the editions [read] *peccatoris Missam.* [p. 308, n. 3]

la: Secunda et tertia ratio insinuatur a Gratiano in C. *Praeter hoc* (6.), § 2. d. 32: *Attamen decessores nostri Nicolaus et Gregorius a Missis sacerdotum, quos tales revera esse consideret, fideles abstinere decreverunt, ut et peccandi licentiam ceteris auferrent et huiusmodi ad dignae poenitentiae lamenta revocarent.* — Pro *providentiae* codd. E M *prudentiae.*

en: The second and third arguments are hinted at by Gratian in the canon *Praeter hoc* (6), § 2. dist. 32: *Nevertheless our predecessors Nicholas and Gregory decreed that the faithful should abstain from the Masses of priests whom one knows truly to be such, that they might both take away from others the license of sinning and recall such men to the laments of worthy penance.* — For *providentiae* codices E M [read] *prudentiae.* [p. 308, n. 4]

la: Cap. *Vestra duxit devotio* (1.), X. lib. III. tit. 2, ubi textus originalis, quem edd. sequuntur, voci *fornicariis* praemittit *quamquam.*

en: The chapter *Vestra duxit devotio* (1), in the Decretals book III. tit. 2, where the original text, which the editions follow, prefixes *quamquam* ("although") to the word *fornicariis.* [p. 308, n. 6]

la: Cfr. supra q. I. in fine corp. — Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.

en: Cf. above q. I, at the end of the body [of the article]. — See the scholion on the 1st question of this article. [p. 308, n. 7]

la: Cfr. supra d. 9. a. I. q. 3. in corp.

en: Cf. above d. 9. a. 1. q. 3, in the body. [p. 308, n. 8]

la: Edd. *ab aliquo.* Mox pro *dum* cod. K (a secunda manu) *dummodo.*

en: The editions [read] *ab aliquo.* Soon, for *dum* codex K (by a second hand) [reads] *dummodo.* [p. 308, n. 9]

la: August., de Quantit. animae, c. 34. n. 78: *Et si quando est aliquid horum* [quae Deus creavit] *melius* [anima humana], *hoc peccato eius fit, non natura. Quo tamen non usque adeo fit deterior, ut ei pecoris anima praeferenda aut conferenda sit.*

en: Augustine, *On the Greatness of the Soul*, c. 34. n. 78: *And if ever any of these things* [which God created] *is better* [than the human soul], *this comes about by its sin, not by its nature. Yet not so far does it become worse that the soul of a beast should be preferred or compared to it.* [p. 309, n. 1]

la: Hic in corp. et supra d. 12. p. 1. a. 2. q. 1. ad 1.

en: Here in the body, and above d. 12. p. 1. a. 2. q. 1. ad 1. [p. 309, n. 2]

la: Can. *Qui bene* (94.), de Consecr. d. 2. illi, ex cuius negligentia Sacramentum a mure comeditur, poenitentia 40 dierum infligitur.

en: The canon *Qui bene* (94), *On Consecration* dist. 2: to him by whose negligence the Sacrament is eaten by a mouse, a penance of 40 days is imposed. [p. 309, n. 4]

latin_scholion:
**I.** Opinionem 1. hic relatam cum B. Alberto et Scoto defendit S. Thom. (IV. Sent. d. 9. q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3; S. III. q. 80. a. 3. ad 3.), eamque veriorem esse iudicant Alex. Hal., Petr. a Tar. et posteriores communiter, ita ut alia antiqua opinio, quae fuit Magistri, dici possit obsoleta. — De hac 1. quaestione praeter S. Thomam: Alex. Hal., 3. p. IV. q. 11. m. 2. a. 2. § 1. — Scot., Report. IV. Sent. d. 8. q. 3. n. 2. — B. Albert., hic n. 38. et d. 9. a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica a. 6. — Richard. a Med., IV. Sent. d. 9. a. 1. q. 3. — Durand., IV. Sent. d. 9. q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., IV. Sent. d. 9. q. 1.

**II.** Etiam in seq. (2.) quaestione S. Doctor recedit ab aliis, cum praeferat secundam opinionem ac censeat, primam, quae videtur esse nunc communis, sicut et quartam, esse minus probabilem; non tamen hoc docet cum assertione explorata, sed secundum probabilitatem; immo supra d. 12. p. 1. a. 3. q. 1. ad 3. potius primam opinionem docere videtur. — Tangitur hic etiam alia quaestio, scilicet *quo tempore* eucharistia producat effectum suum principalem, qui est augmentatio gratiae; de quo variae fuerunt opiniones. Supra d. 12. p. 1. a. 3. q. 1. ad 3. (cfr. d. 9. a. 1. q. 2.) docetur, manducationem non esse completam, nisi postquam fuerit traiectio in stomachum, et cum hac coniungi incorporationem. — De hac (2.) quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 4. § 3. — Aliorum mens patet ex solutione praecedentis quaestionis et ex locis, ubi loquuntur de manducatione corporali eucharistiae (supra d. 9.) et de praesentia Christi sub speciebus, donec hae non sint corruptae.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The first opinion, here reported, St. Thomas defends together with Bl. Albert and Scotus (IV Sent. d. 9. q. 1. a. 2. subquestion 3; *Summa* III. q. 80. a. 3. ad 3), and Alexander of Hales, Peter of Tarentaise, and later writers commonly judge it to be the truer [opinion], so that the other ancient opinion, which was the Master's, may be said to be obsolete. — Concerning this 1st question, besides St. Thomas: Alexander of Hales, 3. p. IV. q. 11. m. 2. a. 2. § 1. — Scotus, *Reportata* IV Sent. d. 8. q. 3. n. 2. — Bl. Albert, here n. 38, and d. 9. a. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. unica a. 6. — Richard of Mediavilla, IV Sent. d. 9. a. 1. q. 3. — Durandus, IV Sent. d. 9. q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, IV Sent. d. 9. q. 1.

**II.** Also in the following (2nd) question the holy Doctor departs from the others, since he prefers the second opinion and judges the first, which seems to be now common, as also the fourth, to be less probable; yet he does not teach this with settled assertion, but according to probability; nay, above at d. 12. p. 1. a. 3. q. 1. ad 3. he rather seems to teach the first opinion. — Here too another question is touched on, namely *at what time* the Eucharist produces its principal effect, which is the increase of grace; concerning which there were various opinions. Above at d. 12. p. 1. a. 3. q. 1. ad 3. (cf. d. 9. a. 1. q. 2.) it is taught that eating is not complete except after the passage into the stomach has occurred, and that incorporation is joined with this. — Concerning this (2nd) question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. a. 4. § 3. — The mind of the others is clear from the solution of the preceding question and from the places where they speak of the bodily eating of the Eucharist (above d. 9.) and of the presence of Christ under the species, until these are corrupted.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from Vol IV PDF column bands (printed pp. 308–309; `colcrop.py vol4` split_x=1880) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 35325–35554) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The two-column body, Respondeo/solutions, scholion, and all footers were cascade-shattered in OCR (diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation + two-column bleed) and taken from the PDF bands. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Alignment.** The opener aligns: raw and PDF (p.308 top of left col, under the head "ARTICULUS II / De sumente eucharistiam") give `Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de sumente. Et circa hoc duo quaeruntur. Primo… traiiciatur in ventrem muris; Secundo… descendat in ventrem hominis.` matching the q1 title and the duo-quaeruntur split. Per the d.1/d.10 convention, the short ARTICULUS II opener folds into this q1 — no standalone article-divisio chunk. Distinction XIII has a single pars only; no `pars` field.

**Page span.** pp. 308–309 (pdf_pages 328–329; offset +20). The ARTICULUS II opener + QUAESTIO I head + arguments 1–4, Contra 1–3, Conclusio, Respondeo, and solutions 1–2 all run on **p. 308** (verso head "308 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."). Solution 2's tail, solutions 3–4, and the whole article-level SCHOLION (sections I–II) run on **p. 309** (head "DIST. XIII. ART. II. QUAEST. II. 309" — the page head already reads QUAEST. II because the lower portion of p. 309 carries QUAESTIO II's body, which begins after the scholion).

**Apparatus / footer-ownership.** 13 footnotes. **Page 308** carries a single footer sequence 1–9, all anchored in q1's body (arg 2 *peccatoris*, arg 4 *in mundo*, Contra 1 *in littera*, Contra 2 *spiritualiter*, Contra 3 *panem simplicem*, Respondeo/opinio-1 *ex aliquo*, *in natura*, opinio-2 *distinctione praecedenti*, solution 2 *consentiat*) → [^1]–[^9]. **Page 309** restarts 1–8; of these nn. **1** (irrationalis — solution 2 tail), **2** (superius — solution 3), **3** (Qui potest capere capiat — solution 3), **4** (vase polluto/contentum — solution 4) anchor in q1's solutions → [^10]–[^13]; nn. 5–8 anchor in QUAESTIO II's body and belong to the next chunk (`bon-sent-IV-d13-a2-q2`). All footers in raw range L35325–35554 are thus accounted for.

**Scholion disposition — ARTICLE-LEVEL, present in full here.** A SCHOLION is printed on p. 309 keyed to the article's two questions: section **I** = the 1st question (whether the body of Christ passes into a mouse's belly — this q1); section **II** = the 2nd question (whether it descends into a man's belly — a2-q2 territory). Both sections are printed on q1's closing page (p. 309) and section I leads with q1, so per the prompt convention the scholion is rendered IN FULL here (body first, scholion last). **Hand-off to q2 (`bon-sent-IV-d13-a2-q2`):** do NOT re-render this scholion — point to a2-q1 (`scholion: see a2-q1`). Section II is fully captured here (read from the p. 309 left/right-column bands), so the q2 writer need not re-read it. q2's opener is at raw L35555 ("QUAESTIO II. *Utrum corpus Christi descendat in ventrem hominis*"), body beginning "Secundo quaeritur, utrum corpus Christi descendat in ventrem hominis. Et quod sic, videtur…" (p. 309, running head "DIST. XIII. ART. II. QUAEST. II."). q2 owns p. 309 footers nn. 5–8 (Can. *Si per ebrietatem*; Vide supra pag. 287/643/275; *de maiori*; Edd. *manducetur corpus Christi verum*) plus any p. 310 footers.

**`[?]` flags.** None — all body and apparatus readings resolved against the PDF bands. Minor OCR normalizations silently corrected per the cleanup rules (`traiiciat`/`traiicitur` Quaracchi spelling preserved; `htlera`→`littera`, `Dens`→`Deus`, `peccatiim`→`peccatum`, `comedil`→`comedit`, `subslantiam`→`substantiam`, `inseparahili-ter`→`inseparabiliter`, `consenliat`→`consentiat`).