title: Dist. 9, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 208 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum peccator, qui est in peccato ex certa scientia, manducet corpus Christi damnabiliter.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum peccator, qui est in peccato ex certa scientia, manducet corpus Christi damnabiliter. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. *Primae ad Corinthios* undecimo: *Iudicium sibi manducat et bibit*, de malis loquitur; et iterum: *Reus est corporis et sanguinis Domini*[^1]: ergo graviter peccat.

<!-- page 209 -->

2. Item, Augustinus[^2]: « Et mala prosunt bonis, ut angelus satanae Paulo; et sancta obsunt malis »: ergo etc.

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia qui proiiceret corpus Domini in sterquilinium gravissime peccaret; sed non est maius sterquilinium quam homo peccator[^3]: ergo etc.

4. Item, in hoc Sacramento Deus offert gratiam homini; sed peccator accipiens in peccato opponit se gratiae; sed qui repellit gratiam Dei peccat: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Sacramentum illud est de bonis nobilissimis; sed « nobilissimis bonis sive maximis, sicut dicit Augustinus *de Libero Arbitrio*[^4], non contingit male uti »: ergo nec hoc Sacramento: ergo peccator non peccat sumendo.

2. Item, *non egent qui sani sunt medico, sed qui male habent*[^5]: ergo cum peccator male habeat, peccator indiget hac medicina; sed qui accedit ad medicinam, qua indiget, non errat; et si non errat, non peccat: ergo etc.

3. Item, nullus faciendo illud, ad quod tenetur, peccat; sed peccator aliquo tempore tenetur manducare[^6]: ergo non peccat. — *Si dicis*, quod peccat, quia non debite facit; *contra*: actus est in praecepto, non modus manducandi: ergo etc.

4. Item, si manducare est peccatum; sed sicut peccator est indignus *manducare*, ita et *videre*: ergo peccat videndo.

### Conclusio.

> *Peccator sumendo corpus Christi committit grave peccatum omissionis et contemptus.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod peccator sumit sibi corpus Christi ad damnationem, non quia ipsum corpus aliquam maculam det animae, sed quia peccator ipsum contemnit, dum se praeparare, quem immundum scit[^7], negligit et Dominum in tam foedum hospitium introducit. Et est ibi peccatum *omissionis* in hoc, quod se non praeparavit tanto hospiti suscipiendo; et peccatum *contemptus*, quia Christo, quantum in se est, contumeliam facit. Ideo dicit Apostolus, quod *reus est corporis et sanguinis Domini*, quia ei contumeliam facit et contemnit.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod hoc Sacramento non contingit male uti; dicendum, quod falsum est, quia non solum Sacramento, sed Deo contingit male uti, cum ipse diligitur propter aliud. Quare autem virtutibus non contingit male uti, patet, quia ipsae sunt *boni usus*, et quibus utitur homo *formaliter*; contingit tamen male uti ut *obiecto*[^8]: sic in proposito intellige.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de medicina, dicendum, quod sicut medicina corporalis nocet *imparato*, sic spiritualis est imparato occasio nocumenti; quia medicina quaerenda est *cum praeparatione*, non tantum corporalis, sed etiam spiritualis, illa scilicet, quae nobilissima est.

3. Ad aliud autem dicendum, quod non peccat ratione actus, sed circumstantiae; sicut si aliquis eleemosynam daret in contemptum Dei, sic et ille peccat, quia bonum malo modo facit[^9]. — Ad illud quod subditur, quod modus non est in praecepto; dicendum, quod etsi non sit expressus aliquo praecepto, maxime tamen est attendendus, sicut patet per Apostolum.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod videre sit peccatum, sicut manducare; dicendum, quod non est simile: primo quidem, quia non est tantae irreverentiae *videre*, sicut *manducare*; secundo vero, quia manducando Sacramentum sumitur et gratia offertur; et quando peccator perseverat in peccato tempore, quo Dominus ipsum visitat personaliter, non tantum vocaliter, auget contemptum: ideo peccat mortaliter.

Unde dicendum, quod est peccatum in *gustu* propter duo, scilicet propter *irreverentiam* et propter *negligentiam*, quia debebat se praeparare ad gratiam; in *visu* quantum ad neutrum est peccatum; in *tactu* vero est medio modo. Nam si est peccatum, hoc est solum propter irreverentiam, quia non est ordinatum Sacramentum, ut tactu det gratiam; sed qui est immundus et foetidus spiritualiter peccat, si tangit, quia tantae rei, quantum in se est, facit iniuriam. Distinguitur tamen in *tactu*: quia aut praevenitur, et necessitas urget, quia corpus Christi in locum immundum caderet, nisi colligeret; et hoc modo si tangit, non peccat, quia non est irreverentia; alias peccat. — *Et si tu obiicias*, quod semper est peccatum, quia Bethsamitae videntes arcam sunt interfecti, primi Regum sexto[^10]; et similiter Oza percussus est, quia arcam tetigit

<!-- page 210 -->

secundi Regum sexto; dicendum, quod hoc non fuit figura videntium et tangentium Christum; sed Bethsamitae figuram gerunt simplicium huius Sacramenti arcana videre volentium, qui propter curiositatem frequenter in fide pereunt et moriuntur; et Oza figuram gerit sacerdotum carnalium, qui in peccatis existentes ad conficiendum accedunt. Nam aliqui dicunt, quod nocte cum uxore iacuit[^11]. — *Litteralis* autem ratio, quare illi interfecti sunt, est, quia contra Domini mandatum fecerunt, quia Dominus praeceperat, quod nullus de plebe videret arcam. Praeceperat etiam, ut sacerdotes eam ferrent[^12]; et quia utrique contra praeceptum Domini fecerunt, ideo percussi sunt.

Nunc autem dicendum est, quod quia *gustus* facit irreverentiam simpliciter, peccat qui gustat. Quia vero in *tactu* est irreverentia, licet non semper nec tanta, ideo non tantum peccat, et potest esse, quod sine peccato faciat. Quia in *visu* irreverentia non est, ideo nulla est culpa, nisi aliqua conditio superaddita faciat culpam ex sua deformitate[^13].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether a sinner who is knowingly in sin eats the body of Christ damnably.*

Secondly it is asked, whether a sinner who is knowingly in sin eats the body of Christ damnably. And it seems that he does.

1. *First to the Corinthians*, chapter eleven: *He eats and drinks judgment to himself*, speaks of the wicked; and again: *He is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord*[^1]: therefore he sins gravely.

2. Likewise, Augustine[^2]: « Even evils profit the good, as the angel of Satan profited Paul; and holy things harm the wicked »: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, it seems by *reason*: because one who would throw the body of the Lord into a dunghill would sin most gravely; but there is no greater dunghill than a sinful man[^3]: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, in this Sacrament God offers grace to man; but a sinner receiving while in sin sets himself against grace; but one who repels the grace of God sins: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. That Sacrament is among the most noble goods; but « of the most noble or greatest goods, as Augustine says *On Free Choice*[^4], one cannot make ill use »: therefore neither of this Sacrament: therefore the sinner does not sin in receiving.

2. Likewise, *those who are well do not need a physician, but those who are sick*[^5]: therefore since a sinner is sick, the sinner needs this medicine; but one who comes to the medicine he needs does not err; and if he does not err, he does not sin: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, no one sins by doing that to which he is bound; but a sinner is at some time bound to eat[^6]: therefore he does not sin. — *If you say* that he sins because he does not do it duly; *on the contrary*: the act is under the precept, not the manner of eating: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, if eating is a sin; but just as the sinner is unworthy *to eat*, so also *to see*: therefore he sins by seeing.

### Conclusion.

> *A sinner, by receiving the body of Christ, commits a grave sin of omission and of contempt.*

**I respond:** It must be said that a sinner takes the body of Christ to himself unto damnation, not because that body imparts any stain to the soul, but because the sinner despises it, since he neglects to prepare himself—whom he knows to be unclean[^7]—and introduces the Lord into so foul a lodging. And there is here a sin of *omission* in this, that he did not prepare himself to receive so great a guest; and a sin of *contempt*, because, as far as in him lies, he does insult to Christ. Therefore the Apostle says that *he is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord*, because he does insult to him and despises him.

1. To what is objected, that one cannot make ill use of this Sacrament; it must be said that this is false, because not only of the Sacrament but even of God one can make ill use, when he is loved for the sake of something else. But why one cannot make ill use of the virtues is plain, because they themselves are *good uses*, and which a man uses *formally*; yet one can make ill use of them as of an *object*[^8]: so understand it in the present case.

2. To what is objected concerning medicine, it must be said that just as bodily medicine harms one *unprepared*, so spiritual medicine is an occasion of harm to one unprepared; because medicine must be sought *with preparation*, not only bodily but also spiritual—that, namely, which is most noble.

3. To the other point it must be said that he does not sin by reason of the act, but of the circumstance; just as if someone were to give alms in contempt of God, so too this man sins, because he does a good thing in a bad way[^9]. — To what is added, that the manner is not under the precept; it must be said that even if it is not expressed by any precept, it must nonetheless most especially be attended to, as is plain from the Apostle.

4. To what is objected, that seeing would be a sin just as eating; it must be said that it is not the same: first indeed, because *seeing* is not of so great irreverence as *eating*; but secondly, because by eating the Sacrament is received and grace is offered; and when a sinner perseveres in sin at the time when the Lord visits him personally, not merely by voice, he increases the contempt: therefore he sins mortally.

Hence it must be said that there is sin in *taste* on two accounts, namely on account of *irreverence* and on account of *negligence*, because he ought to prepare himself for grace; in *sight* there is sin on neither account; but in *touch* it is in a middle way. For if there is sin, this is only on account of irreverence, because the Sacrament is not ordained to give grace by touch; but he who is spiritually unclean and foul sins if he touches, because, as far as in him lies, he does injury to so great a thing. Yet a distinction is made in *touch*: for either he is forestalled, and necessity presses, because the body of Christ would fall into an unclean place unless he gathered it; and in this way if he touches, he does not sin, because there is no irreverence; otherwise he sins. — *And if you object* that it is always a sin, because the men of Beth-shemesh were slain for seeing the ark, in the first book of Kings, chapter six[^10]; and likewise Uzzah was struck because he touched the ark,

in the second book of Kings, chapter six; it must be said that this was not a figure of those seeing and touching Christ; but the men of Beth-shemesh bear the figure of the simple who wish to see the secret things of this Sacrament, who through curiosity frequently perish and die in the faith; and Uzzah bears the figure of carnal priests who, existing in sins, approach to consecrate. For some say that he lay with his wife by night[^11]. — But the *literal* reason why they were slain is that they acted against the Lord's command, because the Lord had commanded that none of the people should see the ark. He had also commanded that the priests should carry it[^12]; and because both parties acted against the Lord's precept, therefore they were struck down.

Now it must be said that, because *taste* does irreverence simply, he who tastes sins. But because in *touch* there is irreverence, though not always nor so great, therefore he does not sin so much, and it can be that he does it without sin. Because in *sight* there is no irreverence, therefore there is no fault, unless some added condition makes the fault by its own deformity[^13].

---

la: Vers. 29. — Seq. textus est ibid. v. 27: *Reus erit* etc.

en: Verse 29. — The following text is *ibid.*, v. 27: *He will be guilty* etc.

la: *In Ioan. Evang.* tr. 62. n. 1. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. et dub. 16, nec non II. Sent. d. 27. dub. 3. — Mox pro *intelligere* codd. H K N aa est *intellicjere* [intelligere].

en: *On the Gospel of John*, tract 62, n. 1. See here the text of the Master, c. 2, and dub. 16, and also II Sent., d. 27, dub. 3. — Presently, for *intelligere*, codices H K N aa have *intelligere*.

la: Cfr. Gregor., XV. *Moral.* c. 4. n. 5.

en: Cf. Gregory, XV *Morals*, c. 4, n. 5.

la: Libr. II. c. 19. n. 50. Cfr. supra pag. 20, nota 12.

en: Book II, c. 19, n. 50. Cf. above, p. 20, note 12.

la: Cfr. C. *Etsi non frequentius* (16.) et seqq., de Consecrat. d. 2.

en: Cf. canon *Etsi non frequentius* (16) and following, *De consecratione*, d. 2.

la: Ita cod. H, cod. U *cum sciat se immundum*, in ceteris et edd. *cum immundus sit*. Nostra lectio confirmatur verbis Alexandri Hal., S. p. IV. q. II. m. 2. a. 2. § 2.

en: So codex H; codex U reads *since he knows himself unclean*, while in the others and the editions *since he is unclean*. Our reading is confirmed by the words of Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. IV, q. II, m. 2, a. 2, § 2.

la: De ratione, quare virtutibus per se non possit quis male uti, vide I. Sent. d. I. a. I. q. 2. seq., a. 3. a. 2. ad 4.

en: On the reason why one cannot of itself make ill use of the virtues, see I Sent., d. I, a. 1, q. 2 f., a. 3, a. 2, ad 4.

la: Cfr. supra d. 5. dub. 1. — Pro *quia* codd. F G H I Z (V primitus) *qui*. *Solutio Ad illud quod subditur* etc. desideratur in codd. et ed. I; retinuimus ipsam cum Vat., quae sequitur Alex. Hal., loc. cit., cum alias ad obiectum deesset solutio. In fine respicitur I. Cor. 11, 27. seqq.

en: Cf. above, d. 5, dub. 1. — For *quia*, codices F G H I Z (V originally) read *qui*. The solution *Ad illud quod subditur* etc. is wanting in the codices and in ed. I; we have retained it with the Vatican edition, which follows Alexander of Hales, loc. cit., since otherwise a solution to the objection would be lacking. At the end, reference is made to I Cor. 11, 27 ff.

la: Vers. 13. et 19. — Seq. loc. est II. Reg. 6, 6. seq. — Aliquanto inferius pro *curiositatem* codd. G I *temeritatem*, ed. I cum pluribus codd. *timorositatem*, Vat. *timorositatem*. Cfr. Prov. 25, 27: *Qui scrutator est maiestatis opprimetur a gloria.*

en: Verses 13 and 19. — The following passage is II Kings 6, 6 f. — Somewhat lower down, for *curiositatem* codices G I read *temeritatem*, ed. I with several codices *timorositatem*, the Vatican edition *timorositatem*. Cf. Prov. 25, 27: *He who is a searcher of majesty shall be overwhelmed by glory.*

la: Petr. Comest. (✝ 1178.), *Histor. scholast.* libr. II. Reg. c. 9: Dicit Iosephus [VIII. *Antiq.* c. 4.] eum percussum, quia tetigit arcam, « cum sacerdos non esset ». Alii dicunt, quia posuerat arcam super plaustrum, cum humeris portare debuisset. Hebraei tradunt, quod ea nocte dormierat cum uxore sua. Cfr. *de Mirabilibus s. Script.* (inter opera August.) c. 12.

en: Peter Comestor (d. 1178), *Scholastic History*, on Book II of Kings, c. 9: He says, with Josephus [VIII *Antiquities*, c. 4], that he was struck because he touched the ark, « since he was not a priest ». Others say it was because he had placed the ark upon a cart, when he ought to have carried it on his shoulders. The Hebrews hold that on that night he had slept with his wife. Cf. *On the Wonders of Sacred Scripture* (among the works of Augustine), c. 12.

la: Cfr. Num. 4, 15, ubi praecipitur, quod arca ab Aaron et filiis eius non nuda, sed *involuta* detur filiis Caath ad portandum. Vide etiam I. Paralip. 15, 14. seq.: *Sanctificati sunt* ergo *sacerdotes* et levitae, ut portarent arcam Domini Dei Israel. Et tulerunt filii Levi arcam Dei... humeris suis in vectibus. — Pro *etiam* plurimi codd. et ed. I incongrue *enim*. Inferius post vocem *simpliciter* codd. H K addunt *ideo*.

en: Cf. Num. 4, 15, where it is commanded that the ark be given by Aaron and his sons to the sons of Kohath to carry, not bare, but *wrapped*. See also I Paralipomenon 15, 14 f.: *The priests* and Levites *were sanctified*, then, that they might carry the ark of the Lord God of Israel. And the sons of Levi carried the ark of God... upon their shoulders by the poles. — For *etiam*, very many codices and ed. I incongruously read *enim*. Lower down, after the word *simpliciter*, codices H K add *ideo*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: 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{208,209,210}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), authoritative over the cascade-shattered IA djvu OCR (raw lines 23512–23670). English is a fresh literal parallel. Single-pars quaestio, so the id carries no pars label.

**Page-split map.** p. 208 (lower half, two columns): q2 title + intro + videtur arg. 1 (q1 occupies the top of p. 208). p. 209: videtur args. 2–4, Contra 1–4, Conclusio, Respondeo, replies 1–4, the *gustus/visus/tactus* synthesis, Beth-shemesh/Uzzah objection. p. 210 (top): conclusion of the Uzzah excursus + Epilogus, then QUAESTIO III begins (excluded).

**Footer ownership (Quaracchi restarts numbering each printed page).**
- **p. 208** carries footers 1–8, but anchors 1 (*re media*), 2 (*sapientia*), 3 (*indigne*/manna), 4 (*cibus mentis · non dicit*), 5 (*d. 4* ref), 6 (*decentissime*), 7 (Rom 2:4 *benignitas*) all fall in **a2-q1's** body (top of the page). Only footer **8** (1 Cor 11:27/29, *Reus erit*) anchors in q2's arg. 1 → rendered here as `[^1]`. Footers 1–7 belong to **a2-q1** (still a skeleton; left for that chunk).
- **p. 209** carries footers 1–9, all anchored in q2's body → rendered here as `[^2]`–`[^10]`.
- **p. 210** carries footers 1–4: footers 1 (*iacuit*, Petr. Comest.), 2 (*ferrent*, Num. 4:15), 3 (*deformitate*, "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.") anchor in q2 → `[^11]`–`[^13]`; footer 4 ("Vide quaest. praeced.") anchors in **QUAESTIO III** → left for **a2-q3**.
- Renumbered sequence here: `[^1]`=p208/fn8, `[^2]`–`[^10]`=p209/fn1–9, `[^11]`–`[^13]`=p210/fn1–3. Total **13** footnotes.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. The SCHOLION for ART. II is a **single joint block** (raw L23474–23507) that precedes q2's title (L23512); its sections explicitly treat all three questions together ("In duabus seqq. (2. 3.) quaestionibus solvendis… De utraque (2. 3.) quaestione…"). It belongs to **a2-q1** and is rendered there; per the brief, nothing is rendered here. q2's body footer 3 (`[^13]`) confirms this by directing the reader back to that scholion ("ad praecedentem quaest.").

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Two readings worth noting (both resolved from the bands/OCR, not flagged): the OCR title artifact `Utrum 'peccator` is a stray mark, not a footnote anchor (the title carries no footer); and `[^2]`'s codex note repeats *intelligere* on both sides of the variant in the raw OCR (the codd. H K N aa variant against the lemma *intelligere* is preserved as printed).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 9, Art. 2, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 210 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum peccator sumendo corpus Christi semper mortaliter peccet.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum peccator sumendo corpus Christi semper mortaliter peccet. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia inter dignum et indignum nihil est medium; sed nullus peccator accedit digne: ergo omnis peccator accedit indigne; et omnis talis peccat[^1]: ergo peccator semper peccat sumendo.

2. Item, omnis qui accedit, tenetur se ipsum praeparare, quia dicit Apostolus primae ad Corinthios undecimo[^2]: *Probet autem se ipsum homo*; sed si praeparat se, facit quod in se est; et si hoc, tunc Deus facit quod in se est, et tunc non est peccator: ergo si est peccator et accedit, non se praeparavit, ergo omnis talis peccat.

3. Item, omnis accipiens Sacramentum et non rem ficte accedit[^3]: sed omnis peccator manens in peccato mortali, qui accipit Sacramentum, accipit illud sine re: ergo ficte accedit. Sed qui ficte accedit peccat mortaliter: ergo etc.

4. Item, sicut dicitur in Glossa, primae ad Corinthios undecimo[^4]: « Indigne manducat qui accedit infidelis vel indevotus »; sed omnis peccator est indevotus, quia caritas facit devotum, qua caret peccator: ergo omnis peccator indigne accedit.

5. Item, si peccator, qui habet peccati mortalis conscientiam, peccat mortaliter accedendo; aut ergo quia habet peccatum, aut quia conscientiam. Non quia conscientiam, quia hoc non est malum cognoscere suum peccatum: ergo quia habet peccatum; et sic semper mortaliter peccat.

6. Item, qui peccat et ignorat minus est dispositus ad medicinam — unde Ambrosius[^5] dicit, quod « peccat gravissime qui ignorat » — si ergo peccat qui accedit cum peccato ignoranter, multo fortius qui accedit cum peccato scienter.

7. Item, iustus credens, se esse in peccato mortali, peccat, si accedat; sed iustus est magis dispositus quam quilibet peccator: ergo multo magis peccat peccator.

**Contra:**
1. Si omnis peccator damnabiliter manducat, cum nullus sciat, se esse iustum[^6], omnis homo exponit se discrimini sumendo.

2. Item, Apostolus[^7]: *Nihil mihi conscius sum, sed non in hoc iustificatus sum*; sed non tenetur homo amplius se disponere, quam quod non habeat remorsum conscientiae: ergo si per hoc non est iustificatus, et qui accedit non iustificatus peccat; tunc quilibet sumendo peccat.

> **Conclusio.** Qui minus sufficienter, scilicet tantum secundum probabilitatem, se praeparat ad sumendam eucharistiam non mortaliter peccat.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam dicendum, quod in hoc Sacramento tenetur percipiens

<!-- page 211 -->

se praeparare, quia Deus venit ad habitandum in homine. Praeparatio autem non semper est sufficiens; sed haec est sufficiens, quando inimicus Domini expellitur de hospitio per veram examinationem et contritionem sive iudicium poenitentiae. *Rursus*, quia divina Maiestas summa se dignatione humiliat, et divina Bonitas offert gratiam; debet homo cum metu reverentiae et cum dilectione accedere, ad hoc quod digne manducet. *Digne* igitur *manducare* est sufficienter se praeparare, scilicet peccati omnis expulsione, reverentia et dilectione.

Quidam igitur sunt, qui se *sufficienter* praeparant secundum *veritatem*; quidam autem *non sufficienter* secundum *veritatem*, sufficienter tamen secundum *probabilitatem*; quidam autem *neutro modo* se praeparant, immo contemnunt. Qui ergo *sufficienter* se praeparat[^8] manducat digne; qui se *nullo modo* parat manducat indigne; qui autem *minus sufficienter* se parat, scilicet secundum *probabilitatem* potius quam secundum *veritatem*, non manducat *digne*, quia non se praeparavit *sufficienter*; nec *indigne*, quia se praeparat *probabiliter*; talis, quamvis non recipiat gratiam, non tamen incurrit offensam.

1. Et sic patet illud quod obiicit de digne et indigne sumente: quia est ibi *medium*, quamvis non sit medium inter dignum et indignum.

2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de praeparatione, dicendum, quod nullus tenetur ad hoc sufficienter praeparare se, quia nullus potest scire, utrum hoc faciat; sed quod se praeparet secundum sufficiens dictamen conscientiae; et in hoc contentus debet esse probabilitate.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de indevoto, dicendum, quod *indevotus* ibi dicitur *contrarie*, qui accedit cum peccandi proposito, sicut ibi patet in Glossa[^9].

5. 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur de eo qui habet conscientiam peccati; dicendum, quod non dicitur quis peccare, quia recognoscit peccatum suum, sed quia cognoscit peccatum et de illo non poenitet et cum illo accedit; hoc autem non potest esse sine contemptu; secus est, quando ignorat. — Similiter patet sequens, quod ignorans minus est dispositus, *ceteris paribus*; sed ignorans *proponens* poenitere et volens sciente[^10], qui vult in culpa persistere, non minus, sed magis est dispositus; unde ignorantia peccati non excusat ratione *ignorantiae*, sed ratione *probabilitatis*, quod sit in gratia.

7. Ad ultimum dicendum, quod iustus ex tali conscientia reddit se magis inhabilem, non propter *culpam*, sed propter *conscientiam erroneam*, quae quidem, quamdiu persistit, obligat, ut non recipiat, propter hoc quod non potest cum hac conscientia recipere, quin contemnat[^11].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether a sinner always sins mortally by receiving the body of Christ.*

Thirdly it is asked whether a sinner always sins mortally by receiving the body of Christ. And it seems that he does:

1. Because between the worthy and the unworthy there is no middle ground; but no sinner approaches worthily: therefore every sinner approaches unworthily; and every such one sins[^1]: therefore a sinner always sins in receiving.

2. Likewise, everyone who approaches is bound to prepare himself, because the Apostle says in First Corinthians, chapter eleven[^2]: *But let a man prove himself*; but if he prepares himself, he does what is in him; and if so, then God does what is in Him, and then he is not a sinner: therefore if he is a sinner and approaches, he has not prepared himself, and so every such one sins.

3. Likewise, everyone who receives the Sacrament and not the reality approaches feignedly[^3]: but every sinner remaining in mortal sin, who receives the Sacrament, receives it without the reality: therefore he approaches feignedly. But whoever approaches feignedly sins mortally: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, as is said in the Gloss on First Corinthians, chapter eleven[^4]: « He eats unworthily who approaches unbelieving or undevout »; but every sinner is undevout, because charity makes one devout, which the sinner lacks: therefore every sinner approaches unworthily.

5. Likewise, if the sinner who has awareness of mortal sin sins mortally by approaching, then it is either because he has the sin, or because he has the awareness. Not because of the awareness, because it is not evil to know one's own sin: therefore because he has the sin; and thus he always sins mortally.

6. Likewise, he who sins and is ignorant is less disposed for the medicine — whence Ambrose[^5] says that « he sins most gravely who is ignorant » — if therefore he sins who approaches with sin ignorantly, much more strongly does he who approaches with sin knowingly.

7. Likewise, a just man believing himself to be in mortal sin sins if he approaches; but the just man is more disposed than any sinner whatever: therefore much more does the sinner sin.

**On the contrary:**
1. If every sinner eats damnably, since no one knows that he is just[^6], every man exposes himself to peril by receiving.

2. Likewise, the Apostle[^7]: *I am conscious of nothing against myself, but I am not hereby justified*; but a man is not bound to dispose himself further than that he have no remorse of conscience: therefore if by this he is not justified, then he too who approaches unjustified sins; and so anyone whatever sins by receiving.

> **Conclusion.** He who prepares himself less than sufficiently — namely, only according to probability — for receiving the Eucharist does not sin mortally.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be said that in this Sacrament the recipient is bound

to prepare himself, because God comes to dwell in man. But the preparation is not always sufficient; rather, this preparation is sufficient when the enemy of the Lord is expelled from the dwelling through true examination and contrition, that is, the judgment of penance. *Again*, because the divine Majesty humbles itself with the highest condescension, and the divine Goodness offers grace, a man ought to approach with fear of reverence and with love, so that he may eat worthily. To eat *worthily*, therefore, is to prepare oneself sufficiently, namely by the expulsion of all sin, by reverence, and by love.

There are therefore some who prepare themselves *sufficiently* according to *truth*; some, however, *not sufficiently* according to *truth*, yet sufficiently according to *probability*; and some who prepare themselves in *neither way*, but rather hold it in contempt. He, therefore, who prepares himself *sufficiently*[^8] eats worthily; he who prepares himself in *no way* eats unworthily; but he who prepares himself *less than sufficiently*, namely according to *probability* rather than according to *truth*, does not eat *worthily*, because he has not prepared himself *sufficiently*; nor *unworthily*, because he prepares himself *probably*; and such a one, although he does not receive grace, nevertheless does not incur offense.

1. And thus is made clear that which is objected concerning him who eats worthily and unworthily: because there is a *middle* there, although there is no middle between the worthy and the unworthy.

2, 3. To that which is objected concerning preparation, it must be said that no one is bound to prepare himself sufficiently for this, because no one can know whether he does so; but rather to prepare himself according to the sufficient dictate of conscience; and in this he ought to be content with probability.

4. To that which is objected concerning the undevout, it must be said that the *undevout* is there spoken of in the *contrary* sense, that is, of one who approaches with the intention of sinning, as is clear there in the Gloss[^9].

5, 6. To that which is objected concerning the one who has awareness of sin, it must be said that one is not said to sin because he recognizes his own sin, but because he knows the sin and does not repent of it and approaches with it; but this cannot be without contempt; it is otherwise when he is ignorant. — Likewise what follows is clear, that the ignorant man is less disposed, *all else being equal*; but the ignorant man *intending* to repent and willing knowingly[^10], who wishes to persist in fault, is not less but more disposed; whence ignorance of sin does not excuse by reason of *ignorance*, but by reason of *probability* that one is in grace.

7. To the last it must be said that the just man, from such awareness, renders himself the more unfit, not on account of *fault*, but on account of *erroneous conscience*, which indeed, as long as it persists, binds him not to receive, for this reason: that he cannot receive with this conscience without contempt[^11].

---

la: Vide quaest. praeced.

en: See the preceding question.

la: Vers. 28, super quam Glossa apud Petr. Lombard. dicit: Id est examinet, purget se ipsum.

en: Verse 28, on which the Gloss in Peter Lombard says: That is, let him examine, let him purge himself.

la: Cfr. supra d. 4. p. 1. a. 2. q. 2. seq. — Minor ostensa est supra q. 1. — Ante *accipiens* edd. et plures codd. omittunt *omnis*.

en: Cf. above, d. 4, p. 1, a. 2, q. 2 and following. — The minor was shown above in q. 1. — Before *accipiens* the editions and several codices omit *omnis*.

la: Vers. 27. Verba Glossae vide infra dub. 5. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 11. m. 2. a. 2. § 2. hanc etiam Glossam refert: Si desit fides vel caritas, iudicium sibi manducat et bibit.

en: Verse 27. For the words of the Gloss see below, dub. 5. Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. IV, q. 11, m. 2, a. 2, § 2, also cites this Gloss: If faith or charity be lacking, he eats and drinks judgment to himself.

la: In Glossa super Rom. 2, 4, collecta ex iis quae habentur in Comment. ad hunc loc. olim Ambrosio attributo. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 526, nota 1.

en: In the Gloss on Romans 2:4, gathered from what is found in the Commentary on this passage formerly attributed to Ambrose. Cf. vol. II, p. 526, note 1.

la: Eccle. 9, 1: Nescit homo, utrum amore, an odio dignus sit. — In cod. H additur *certitudinaliter*.

en: Ecclesiastes 9:1: Man knows not whether he be worthy of love or of hatred. — In codex H is added *with certainty*.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 4, 4, in quem locum Petr. Lombard. hanc refert Glossam: Id est, in nullo me remordet conscientia... non ideo me iustum puto, quia potest esse quod nescio.

en: First Epistle to the Corinthians 4:4, on which passage Peter Lombard cites this Gloss: That is, my conscience reproaches me in nothing... I do not on that account think myself just, because it may be something I do not know.

la: Plures codd. *parat*, et etiam inferius pluries edd. et codd. dissentiunt in usu utriusque verbi.

en: Several codices read *parat*, and likewise further below the editions and codices several times disagree in the use of either word.

la: Vide infra dub. 5.

en: See below, dub. 5.

la: Vat. *poenitere, et volens scire* (pauci codd. *scienter*, cod. A *consciente*), *qui non*.

en: The Vatican edition reads *poenitere, et volens scire* (a few codices *scienter*, codex A *consciente*), *qui non*.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 39. a. 1. q. 3. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: Cf. II Sentences, d. 39, a. 1, q. 3. — See the scholion on q. 1 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw `bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 23671–23798), with the 450 dpi PDF column-bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p21{0,1}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo, Solutio, and all footers. Reflowed left column then right column per page. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (pp. 210–211 → pdf 230–231).

**Opener alignment.** Confirmed ART II, q. 3 — raw L23673 title *Utrum peccator sumendo corpus Christi semper mortaliter peccet* / opener *Tertio quaeritur…* QUAESTIO IV begins at L23799 (*Utrum peccet damnabiliter ille, qui corpus Christi dat…*), excluded.

**Page-split map.** p. 210: objections 1–7, Contra 1–2, Conclusio, start of Respondeo (…*tenetur percipiens*). p. 211: rest of Respondeo (*se praeparare…*), the *triplex praeparatio/duplex* doctrine, Conclusio recap, and the full Solutio (ad 1; ad 2/3; ad 4; ad 5/6; ad 7, ending *…quin contemnat*). Page break placed at *…tenetur percipiens* | *se praeparare*.

**Footer ownership.** Per hand-off, this body claims p. 210 note 4 (*Vide quaest. praeced.*) rendered as [^1], plus p. 210 notes 5–10 (rendered [^2]–[^7]). a2-q2 owns p. 210 notes 1–3. On p. 211 this body owns notes 1–4 (rendered [^8]–[^11]); p. 211 note 5 onward (*Vers. 6…*) belongs to a2-q4 (QUAESTIO IV), as do all subsequent p. 211 right-column footers (nn. 6–9).

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. The ART II scholion is a joint block rendered in d9-a2-q1; no distinct q3 scholion section exists. (Note [^11] itself points the reader to that q1 scholion.)

**[?] flags.** None. All anchors and footer text verified against the p.210/211 PDF bands; OCR garbles (*peccalor*, *Terlio*, *morlaliler*, *silus*, *conscienliam*, *examinalionem*) silently normalized with PDF confirmation.

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. 9, Art. 2, Q. 4

source_text:
<!-- page 211 -->

### Quaestio IV. *Utrum peccet damnabiliter ille, qui corpus Christi dat ei, quem scit esse peccatorem.*

Quarto quaeritur, utrum peccet damnabiliter ille, qui corpus Domini dat ei, quem scit esse peccatorem[^1]. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Matthaei septimo[^2]: *Nolite sanctum dare canibus*; et decimo quinto[^3]: *Non est bonum sumere panem filiorum et dare canibus.*

2. Item, Cyprianus[^4]: «Quod histrionibus sacra communio debeat dari, puto nec Maiestati divinae nec evangelicae disciplinae congruere».

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia medicus, qui daret aegroto medicinam, de qua sciret eum moriturum[^5], peccaret mortaliter: ergo similiter sacerdos peccat, qui dat peccatori corpus Christi, cui scit cedere in mortem[^6].

4. Item, quicumque daret corpus Domini alicui, ut proiiceret in latrinam, non tantum proiiciens, sed et dans peccaret mortaliter: ergo similiter in proposito. — Si dicas quod ipse non dat, sed reddit, contra: si furiosus peteret gladium suum, ut se interficeret, qui illi redderet mortaliter peccaret: ergo etc.

5. Item, si peccator peteret in occulto, peccaret qui ei daret: ergo similiter in manifesto. Si dicas, quod non, propter scandalum, contra: hoc est contra veritatem vitae; sed nihil contra veritatem vitae faciendum est propter scandalum[^7]: ergo etc.

6. Item, aliter potest vitare scandalum, ut si pro hostia daret panem benedictum: ergo propter scandalum non tenetur.

**Contra:**

1. Dominus dedit corpus suum Iudae, ne proderet peccatum Iudae[^8]: ergo similiter et sacerdos ei quem scit esse in peccato, debet dare[^9].

<!-- page 212 -->

2. Item, Augustinus, de Consecratione, distinctione secunda[^10]: «Non prohibeat dispensator peccatorem mensam Domini manducare, sed exactorem moneat timere».

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia ipse est dispensator; ergo non est suum quod dat, sed reddit alienum: ergo in facie Ecclesiae tenetur dare. Sed non peccat faciendo quod tenetur[^11]: ergo etc.

4. Item, non debet salvare ita animam unius, quod perdat animas multorum; sed multi possent scandalizari, si non daret: ergo etc.

5. Item, si non dat, prodit crimen et revelat confessionem, quod tenetur non facere[^12].

6. Item, si non dat, ille[^13] nihilominus tamen peccat, quia facit totum quod in se est.

7. Item, si dat simplicem hostiam, ille nihilominus peccat, et est ibi simulatio in Sacramento veritatis[^14]: ergo si hoc nullo modo est faciendum, patet etc.

### Conclusio.

> Sacerdos debet dare eucharistiam peccatori occulto publice petenti, non vero peccatori publico.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum quod sacerdos debet dare illi quem scit esse peccatorem, si petat in aperto, si sit occultus peccator, et ipse solus scit; si manifestus, nullo modo debet dare, sive petat sive non, sicut dicit Dominus, et Cyprianus de histrionibus[^15]. — Ratio autem, quare debet dare est multiplex. Prima est, quia nescit, utrum Deus occulte operetur. Secunda est, ne prodat crimen eius. Tertia est, ne alios scandalizet. Quarta, quia ille ius habet in facie Ecclesiae, et tunc tenetur illi ius suum petenti reddere.

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, dicendum, quod Dominus prohibet, ut non dent, id est non offerant, non quin reddant.

*Ad 3, 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de medicina, et de illo qui proiicit: patet responsio, quia ipse non dat, sed reddit ut alienum. — Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non est reddendus gladius furioso, dicendum, quod in iudicio teneretur reddere, si non constaret, eum esse furiosum; et quia hic peccator in iudicio et facie Ecclesiae petit, et non apparet suum peccatum: ideo debet ei dare.

*Ad 5, 6.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de occulto, dicendum, quod peccator indignus est: in veritate non habet ius; habet tamen ius secundum iudicium Ecclesiae, quia non constat de peccato nec constare potest; et ideo, quando operatur secundum veritatem et iudicium suum, non tenetur dare; quando secundum iudicium Ecclesiae, tenetur. Et ex hoc patet, quod non facit contra veritatem, sed secundum veritatem. Iudex enim in foro Ecclesiae iudicat secundum ea quae patent, non secundum ea quae latent; unde scandalum non est tota causa. — Ultimum patet: quia non deberet dare hostiam[^16]; nihilominus peccaret ille, et ipse simulando[^17]; nisi fortassis ipse peccator hostiam peteret ob vitandam infamiam et in dominici corporis reverentiam[^18].

---

english:
<!-- page 211 -->

### Question IV. *Whether one who gives the body of Christ to someone he knows to be a sinner sins damnably.*

Fourthly it is asked whether one sins damnably who gives the body of the Lord to someone he knows to be a sinner[^1]. And that he does so seems the case.

1. Matthew the seventh[^2]: *Do not give what is holy to dogs*; and the fifteenth[^3]: *It is not good to take the children's bread and give it to dogs.*

2. Likewise, Cyprian[^4]: «That the sacred communion ought to be given to actors I judge to befit neither the divine Majesty nor evangelical discipline».

3. Likewise, it seems so by reason: for a physician who would give a sick man a medicine by which he knew he would die[^5] would sin mortally: therefore likewise the priest sins who gives the body of Christ to a sinner, for whom he knows it turns to death[^6].

4. Likewise, whoever would give the body of the Lord to someone so that he might throw it into a latrine — not only the one throwing it, but also the one giving it, would sin mortally: therefore likewise in the case proposed. — If you say that he does not give but renders [it], on the contrary: if a madman were to ask for his own sword in order to kill himself, the one who rendered it to him would sin mortally: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, if a sinner were to ask in secret, the one who gave to him would sin: therefore likewise in the manifest case. If you say that he does not, on account of scandal, on the contrary: this is against the truth of life; but nothing against the truth of life is to be done on account of scandal[^7]: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, he can avoid scandal otherwise, as if instead of the host he gave blessed bread: therefore on account of scandal he is not bound.

**On the contrary:**

1. The Lord gave his body to Judas, lest he betray Judas' sin[^8]: therefore likewise the priest too ought to give to one he knows to be in sin[^9].

<!-- page 212 -->

2. Likewise, Augustine, On the Consecration, distinction two[^10]: «Let the dispenser not forbid the sinner to eat at the table of the Lord, but let him warn the exactor to be afraid».

3. Likewise, it seems so by reason: for he himself is the dispenser; therefore what he gives is not his own, but he renders what belongs to another: therefore in the face of the Church he is bound to give. But he does not sin in doing what he is bound to do[^11]: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, he ought not to save the soul of one person in such a way that he destroy the souls of many; but many could be scandalized if he did not give: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, if he does not give, he betrays the crime and reveals the confession, which he is bound not to do[^12].

6. Likewise, if he does not give, that man[^13] nonetheless still sins, since he does all that is in him.

7. Likewise, if he gives a plain host, that man nonetheless sins, and there is in it a dissimulation in the Sacrament of truth[^14]: therefore if this is in no way to be done, it is plain etc.

### Conclusion.

> The priest ought to give the eucharist to a hidden sinner asking publicly, but not to a public sinner.

**I respond:** It must be said that the priest ought to give to one he knows to be a sinner, if he asks openly, provided he be a hidden sinner and he alone knows it; if [he is] manifest, he ought in no way to give, whether he asks or not, as the Lord says, and Cyprian concerning actors[^15]. — Now the reason why he ought to give is manifold. The first is that he does not know whether God is secretly at work. The second is, lest he betray his crime. The third is, lest he scandalize others. The fourth, because that man has a right in the face of the Church, and then [the priest] is bound to render to him, asking, his own right.

*To 1.* To that, then, which is first objected, it must be said that the Lord forbids that they not give, that is, not offer — not but that they render.

*To 3, 4.* To that which is objected concerning the medicine, and concerning the one who throws it away: the answer is plain, because he himself does not give, but renders what belongs to another. — To that which is objected, that the sword is not to be rendered to a madman, it must be said that in a court of judgment he would be bound to render it, if it were not established that he was mad; and because this sinner asks in the judgment and the face of the Church, and his sin does not appear: therefore he ought to give to him.

*To 5, 6.* To that which is objected concerning the secret [sinner], it must be said that the unworthy sinner: in truth has no right; he has, however, a right according to the judgment of the Church, because the sin is not established nor can be established; and therefore, when [the priest] acts according to the truth and his own judgment, he is not bound to give; when according to the judgment of the Church, he is bound. And from this it is plain that he does not act against the truth, but according to the truth. For the judge in the forum of the Church judges according to the things that are apparent, not according to the things that are hidden; hence scandal is not the whole cause. — The last point is plain: because he ought not to give the host[^16]; nonetheless that man would sin, and [the priest] himself by dissimulating[^17]; unless perhaps the sinner himself were to ask for the host to avoid infamy and out of reverence for the body of the Lord[^18].

---

la: Plures codd. *parcit*, et etiam inferius pluries edd. et codd. dissentiunt in usu utriusque verbi.

en: Several codices read *parcit* (spares); and likewise below the editions and codices frequently disagree in the use of either word.

la: Vers. 6. — Seq. textus est ibid. 13, 26, ubi Vulgata *mittere* pro *dare.*

en: Verse 6. — The following text is at the same place, 13:26, where the Vulgate has *mittere* (to send) for *dare* (to give).

en: See below, dubium 5.

la: Epist. 61. ad Euchratium, n. 1. Cfr. C. *Pro dilectione* (93.), de Consecrat. d. 2.

en: Epistle 61 to Euchratius, n. 1. Cf. canon *Pro dilectione* (93), On the Consecration, d. 2.

la: Vat. *poenitere, et volens scire* (pauci codd. *scienter*, cod. A *consciente*), *qui non.*

en: The Vatican edition reads *poenitere, et volens scire* (a few codices *scienter*, cod. A *consciente*), *qui non.*

en: Cf. II Sentences, d. 39, a. 1, q. 3. — See the scholion on the first quaestio of this article.

la: Cfr. hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2, verba August. et Innoc. III, IV. de Sacro altaris Mysterio, c. 13.

en: Cf. here in the text of the Master, c. 2, the words of Augustine; and Innocent III, IV, On the Mystery of the Altar's Sacrament, c. 13.

la: Vide supra pag. 86, nota 6. in fine, Gregor., l. Homil. in Ezech. homil. 7. n. 3, et Glossa ordinaria in Matth. 18, 6.

en: See above, p. 86, note 6 at the end; Gregory, book of Homilies on Ezekiel, homily 7, n. 3; and the Glossa ordinaria on Matthew 18:6.

la: Cfr. infra d. 11. p. II. dub. 8, et Qq. ex utroque Testamento mixtim (inter opera August.), q. 102.

en: Cf. below, d. 11, p. II, dubium 8; and Questions on both Testaments mixed (among the works of Augustine), q. 102.

la: Can. *Non prohibeat* (67.) dispensator manducare pingues terrae in mensa Domini, sed etc. Cfr. Gloss. ordinaria in Ps. 21, 30.

en: Canon *Non prohibeat* (67): let the dispenser not forbid the rich of the earth to eat at the table of the Lord, but etc. Cf. the Glossa ordinaria on Psalm 21:30.

la: Vel supplendum est *facere*, vel pro *quod* substituendum est cum cod. H *ad quod.*

en: Either *facere* is to be supplied, or for *quod* one should substitute, with cod. H, *ad quod.*

la: Cfr. C. *Si peccaverit* (19.), c. 2. q. 1, et infra d. 21. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.

en: Cf. canon *Si peccaverit* (19), c. 2, q. 1; and below, d. 21, p. II, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Scil. peccator indigne accedens.

en: That is, the sinner approaching unworthily.

la: Sensus est: peccator indigne accedens nihilominus peccat, et insuper est ibi impia simulatio.

en: The sense is: the sinner approaching unworthily nonetheless sins, and moreover there is in it an impious dissimulation.

la: Vide argg. 1. et 2. — Permulti codd. et ed. 1 *de histrione*. Inferius pro *ne prodat* cod. aa *ne pandat.*

en: See arguments 1 and 2. — Very many codices and ed. 1 read *de histrione*. Below, for *ne prodat*, cod. aa reads *ne pandat.*

la: Supple cum edd. *non consecratam*. Edd. substituunt *nam si daret* pro *nihilominus*, cui codd. A G K V W bb addunt *enim*. Paulo ante pro *deberet* codd. A B H aa bb bene *debet.*

en: Supply with the editions *non consecratam* (an unconsecrated [host]). The editions substitute *nam si daret* for *nihilominus*, to which codices A G K V W bb add *enim*. A little before, for *deberet* codices A B H aa bb rightly read *debet.*

la: In fine solut. codd., exceptis paucis, omittunt *in* ante *dominici*; codd. P V W habent *reverentia* (ablativus), pro *reverentiam*, cod. Y, bene *et… irreverentiam* (scilicet vitandam).

en: At the end of the solution the codices, except a few, omit *in* before *dominici*; codices P V W have *reverentia* (ablative) for *reverentiam*; cod. Y rightly *et… irreverentiam* (namely, to be avoided).

la: Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: See the scholion on the first quaestio of this article. ---

translators_notes:
> The article-level scholion for d.9 a.2 is rendered jointly across the sibling chunks (its keyed sections appear in `bon-sent-IV-d9-a2-q1`/`q2`/`q3`); no scholion section is keyed to this Quaestio IV, so none is rendered here (`has_scholion: false`).

- **Provenance.** Latin reflowed from raw OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, L23799–23921), re-set column-by-column against authoritative PDF bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p21{1,2}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (printed pp. 211–212 = pdf pp. 231–232, offset +20). Per the Vol II/III/IV override, the PDF bands were treated as authoritative wherever the OCR cascade-shattered (Conclusio, Respondeo, *Ad*-responses, footers); OCR was the base for the clean *videtur*/*contra* prose and footnote-marker placement. English is a literal parallel rendering.
- **Page-split map.** QUAESTIO IV opens mid-page on printed p.211 (q3's Conclusio/Solutio occupies the top of that page). The title, *Et quod sic videtur*, arguments 1–6, and the first *Contra* fall on p.211; the page break (`<!-- page 212 -->`) falls inside the *Contra* series (just before Contra 2, Augustine). *Contra* 2–7, the CONCLUSIO, the Respondeo, and all *Ad*-responses fall on p.212. The body ends with "…corporis reverentiam" at L23921; DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM begins immediately after (L23922+) and is excluded.
- **Footer-ownership.** Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering each printed page. All nine notes on p.211 (orig. 1–9) anchor in this quaestio's argument block and first *Contra* (q3 carried its own apparatus on prior pages, so none of p.211's notes are q3's). On p.212, notes 1–9 anchor in the *Contra* series, Conclusio, Respondeo, and *Ad*-responses of this quaestio and are renumbered 10–18; notes 10–11 of p.212 anchor in DUB. I (post-body) and are left to the **dubia** chunk. No prior-page apparatus of a2-q3 is claimed here.
- **Scholion disposition.** None rendered (see blockquote above).
- **[?] flags.** None. OCR garbles (e.g. "daranabiliter," "proiiceret," "histrionibus," "reverentiam," "parcit"/"parat" variant) were unambiguous against the PDF bands and resolved silently.


title: Dist. 9, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. IX)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Dist. IX)

source_text:
<!-- page 212 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: *Crede, et manducasti.* Cum enim summa unio et incorporatio sit in caritate[^1], videtur potius, quod deberet dicere: *dilige, et manducasti, quam crede.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ipse intelligit de *fide operante per dilectionem*[^2]. Ratio autem, quare magis dicit de *fide,* duplex est: quia fides respicit intellectum et affectum[^3], et ita utroque modo unit. — Item alia ratio est: quia, licet caritas perfectius dicat unionem, tamen proprietas *manducationis* magis in actu *fidei* invenitur, quia credens masticat recogitando, sed diligens non incorporat, sed incorporatur[^4].

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Credere in eum, hoc est comedere panem et vinum.* Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia illud est spirituale, scilicet credere, hoc est corporale: ergo unum non est alterum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod hoc non est dictum per omnimodam identitatem, sed per aequi-

<!-- page 213 -->

pollentiam in effectu, quia idem facit; vel per expressionem significationis, quia hoc significat illud; et sic patet obiectio.

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Qui non manet in me, nec ego in illo, etsi accipit Sacramentum, acquirit magnum tormentum.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia, cum nemo sciat, utrum maneat in eo; ergo nemo scit, utrum peccet, quando accipit Sacramentum: ergo quilibet, quando accipit, committit se discrimini.

**Respondeo:** Verbum illud intelligendum est de eo qui scit, se esse extra Christum, ita quod plura signa et fortiora habeat ad oppositum quam ad propositum. Nam si probabilia signa habeat de gratia, sufficit sibi ad hoc, quod peccatum non incurrat, quia non incurrit contemptum, quamvis non tantum se disponat, quod Deus acceptet omnino[^5].

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *In illo Sacramento corpus et sanguinem suum commendavit, quod et fecit nos ipsos.* Videtur enim male dicere: quia, si nos sumus res Sacramenti: ergo cum recipimus rem Sacramenti, manducamus nosmetipsos; quod est omnino inconveniens, ut videtur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod nos sumus res huius Sacramenti non *simpliciter,* sed in quantum sumus membra[^6], sive in quantum sumus uniti ipsi capiti; unde Sacramentum illud significat unionem corporis Christi per comparationem membrorum ad invicem et ad caput. Quando ergo nos sibi univit, fecit *nos,* id est ipsam unionem, *rem* huius Sacramenti, quia[^7] nobis *rem* Sacramenti tribuit; quae unio quotidie in nobis crescit et melioratur, secundum quod devotius Sacramentum suscipitur.

### Dub. V

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur: *Qui manducat et bibit indigne;* quid sit manducare indigne.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod triplex est indignitas, secundum quod distinguit Glossa, primae ad Corinthios undecimo[^8], quae facit hominem accedere indigne: «Indignus est, inquit, qui aliter celebrat mysterium, quam a Domino institutum est, et qui non devota mente accedit ad eucharistiam, vel in voluntate peccandi manet». Et ex hoc elicere possumus triplicem indignitatem: una quarum est in memoria; secunda in voluntate; tertia in opere. Prima respicit peccatum *praeteritum,* de quo non poenitet; et haec vocatur indevotio. Secunda respicit peccatum *futurum,* quod proponit facere, et hanc vocat voluntatem peccandi. Tertia respicit peccatum *praesens;* et haec est, quando aliter celebrat mysterium, ita quod actu peccat, dum conficit. Et haec indignitas secundum triplicem differentiam inducit contemptum, ac per hoc facit accedere indigne, et ita actu peccare[^9].

### Dub. VI

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Factum est malum, dum male accipitur bonum.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia corpus Christi et ipse Christus est bonum *secundum se:* ergo non potest fieri malum aliquo modo.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Sacramentum dicitur fieri malum *non in se,* sed *isti,* et ita ut comparatum ad hoc; et comparatur per sumtionem et manducationem. Et ita vult dicere, quod sumere corpus Christi, quod erat bonum in genere sive in se, per circumstantiam factum est malum, non, inquam, *ipsum quod sumitur,* sed *actus* sumendi[^10].

english:
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that Augustine says: *Believe, and thou hast eaten.* For since the highest union and incorporation is in charity[^1], it seems rather that he ought to say: *love, and thou hast eaten, rather than believe.*

**I respond:** It must be said that he understands it of *faith working through love*[^2]. But the reason why he speaks rather of *faith* is twofold: because faith regards both the intellect and the affection[^3], and so unites in both ways. — Likewise there is another reason: because, although charity expresses union more perfectly, nevertheless the proper character of *eating* is found more in the act of *faith,* since the believer chews by thinking over, whereas the one who loves does not incorporate, but is incorporated[^4].

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *To believe in him, this is to eat the bread and wine.* For it seems to be said falsely, because that, namely to believe, is spiritual, this is corporeal: therefore the one is not the other.

**I respond:** It must be said that this is not said by an utter identity, but by an equi-

valence in effect, because it does the same thing; or by an expression of signification, because this signifies that; and thus the objection is clear.

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *He who does not abide in me, nor I in him, even if he receives the Sacrament, acquires a great torment.* For it seems to be said falsely, because, since no one knows whether he abides in him, therefore no one knows whether he sins when he receives the Sacrament: therefore everyone, when he receives, exposes himself to danger.

**I respond:** That word must be understood of one who knows that he is outside Christ, in such a way that he has more and stronger signs to the contrary than in favor. For if he has probable signs of grace, it suffices him for this, that he not incur sin, because he does not incur contempt, even though he does not so dispose himself that God altogether accepts him[^5].

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *In that Sacrament he commended his body and blood, which also made us ourselves.* For it seems to be said falsely: because, if we are the thing of the Sacrament: therefore when we receive the thing of the Sacrament, we eat ourselves; which is altogether unfitting, as it seems.

**I respond:** It must be said that we are the thing of this Sacrament not *simply,* but insofar as we are members[^6], or insofar as we are united to the head itself; hence that Sacrament signifies the union of the body of Christ through the comparison of the members to one another and to the head. When therefore he united us to himself, he made *us,* that is, the union itself, the *thing* of this Sacrament, because[^7] he bestows on us the *thing* of the Sacrament; which union grows and is bettered in us daily, according as the Sacrament is received more devoutly.

### Doubt V

Likewise it is asked about this, that is said: *He who eats and drinks unworthily;* what it is to eat unworthily.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a threefold unworthiness, according as the Gloss distinguishes, on the first to the Corinthians, chapter eleven[^8], which makes a man approach unworthily: «He is unworthy, it says, who celebrates the mystery otherwise than it was instituted by the Lord, and who approaches the eucharist not with a devout mind, or remains in the will to sin». And from this we can draw out a threefold unworthiness: one of which is in the memory; the second in the will; the third in the deed. The first regards a *past* sin, of which he does not repent; and this is called indevotion. The second regards a *future* sin, which he proposes to do, and this he calls the will to sin. The third regards a *present* sin; and this is, when he celebrates the mystery otherwise, in such a way that he actually sins while he confects. And this unworthiness according to its threefold difference brings on contempt, and through this makes one approach unworthily, and so actually sin[^9].

### Doubt VI

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *Evil is done, when a good is taken badly.* For it seems to be said falsely, because the body of Christ and Christ himself is a good *in itself:* therefore it cannot be made evil in any way.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Sacrament is said to be made evil *not in itself,* but *for that one,* and so as compared to this; and it is compared through reception and eating. And so he means to say that to receive the body of Christ, which was a good in its kind or in itself, has through circumstance been made evil — not, I say, *the very thing which is received,* but the *act* of receiving[^10].

en: See the scholion on q. 1 of this article.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 1. in corp. et dub. 1, nec non August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 26. n. 13.

en: Cf. III Sent., d. 27, a. 2, q. 1, in the body and dub. 1, as also Augustine, *On the Gospel of John,* tract 26, n. 13.

la: Vide III. Sent. d. 23. n. I. q. 2. — Superius respicitur Gal. 5, 6: *Fides, quae per caritatem operatur.* — Mox Vat. omittit *unit.*

en: See III Sent., d. 23, n. 1, q. 2. — Above, reference is made to Gal. 5:6: *Faith, which works through charity.* — Just after, the Vatican edition omits *unit* ("unites").

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 2. — Idem dub. solvit S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2. ad 3.

en: Cf. above, a. 1, q. 2. — St. Thomas resolves the same doubt here, on the text; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2, subquestion 2, ad 3.

la: Vide supra a. 2. q. 3. — Superius pro *probabilia* cod. G *probabiliora*.

en: See above, a. 2, q. 3. — Above, for *probabilia* ("probable") codex G reads *probabiliora* ("more probable").

la: Cod. bb supplet *Christi*.

en: Codex bb adds *Christi* ("of Christ").

la: Multi codd. *quasi,* cod. A *quod*. Paulo ante pro *univit, fecit nos* cod. F *unit, facit nos*. Inferius pro *devotius* cod. E *melius,* edd. *devote*. — Hoc dub. solvit S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit. Cfr. etiam supra d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.

en: Many codices read *quasi* ("as it were"), codex A *quod*. A little before, for *univit, fecit nos* ("he united, he made us") codex F reads *unit, facit nos* ("he unites, he makes us"). Below, for *devotius* ("more devoutly") codex E reads *melius* ("better"), the editions *devote* ("devoutly"). — This doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text. Cf. also above, d. 8, p. II, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Vers. 27. — Glossa, quae est apud Petr. Lombard. et Lyranum *ordinaria,* sumta est ex Comment. olim Ambrosio attributo. In ipsa substituitur *quam a Christo traditum est* pro *quam a Domino institutum est,* et *manens* pro *manet*. Cfr. supra pag. 103, nota 2. — Inferius pro *una quarum* edd. *Prima, quae*.

en: Verse 27. — The Gloss, which in Peter Lombard and Lyra is the *ordinaria* (Ordinary Gloss), is taken from the Commentary once attributed to Ambrose. In it is substituted *quam a Christo traditum est* ("than what was handed down by Christ") for *quam a Domino institutum est* ("than what was instituted by the Lord"), and *manens* ("remaining") for *manet* ("remains"). Cf. above, p. 103, note 2. — Below, for *una quarum* ("one of which") the editions read *Prima, quae* ("The first, which").

la: Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 3. ad 4, et scholion, in quo allegantur alii auctores, qui de hac re scripserunt.

en: Cf. above, a. 2, q. 3, ad 4, and the scholion, in which other authors are cited who have written on this matter.

la: Vide supra a. 1. q. 1. ad 2. — Cod. Z addit *Sic patent quae sunt in littera*. Pro *inquam* edd. *in quantum*. — Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic a. 12; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: See above, a. 1, q. 1, ad 2. — Codex Z adds *Sic patent quae sunt in littera* ("Thus the things in the text are clear"). For *inquam* ("I say") the editions read *in quantum* ("insofar as"). — This same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 12; St. Thomas, here on the text.

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`vol4-p212-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p213-{L,R}-*`) per the Vol IV two-column PDF-priority inversion, cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 23922–24047. English is a fresh literal translation. Dub. III–VI added 2026-06-20 (p.213 re-cropped with `colcrop.py vol4 213 1750` to un-clip the right column's left edge).

**Dubia count: 6.**
- **Dub. I** — On Augustine's *Crede, et manducasti*: why "believe" rather than "love," since union/incorporation is highest in charity. Answer: faith working through love unites in both intellect and affection, and *eating* (mastication = thinking-over) belongs more to faith's act.
- **Dub. II** — On *Credere in eum, hoc est comedere panem et vinum*: how the spiritual (believing) can be the corporeal (eating). Answer: not by utter identity but by equivalence-in-effect / expression-of-signification.
- **Dub. III** — On *Qui non manet in me… acquirit magnum tormentum*: if no one knows whether he abides in Christ, everyone receiving risks danger. Answer: the warning is for one who knows he is outside Christ (more contrary than favorable signs); probable signs of grace suffice to avoid contempt.
- **Dub. IV** — On *quod et fecit nos ipsos*: do we then eat ourselves when we receive the *res Sacramenti*? Answer: we are the *res* not *simpliciter* but as members united to the Head; the Sacrament signifies the union of Christ's body, which grows daily with devout reception.
- **Dub. V** — On *Qui manducat et bibit indigne*: what is eating unworthily. Answer: a threefold unworthiness (memory = past sin / indevotion; will = future sin / will-to-sin; deed = present sin), per the Gloss on 1 Cor 11:27, each inducing contempt.
- **Dub. VI** — On *Factum est malum, dum male accipitur bonum*: how a good (Christ) can be made evil. Answer: the Sacrament is made evil *not in itself* but for that one, by comparison/reception — the *act* of receiving, not the thing received.

**Page-split map:** The dubia open on printed p.212 (PDF 232), in the lower portion of both columns under the centered header DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI. Dub. I and Dub. II's objection + start of Respondeo sit on p.212; Dub. II's Respondeo concludes ("...sed per aequi- / pollentiam in effectu... et sic patet obiectio.") at the top of p.213 (PDF 233) left column. Page break placed mid-word in "aequipollentiam." Dub. III–IV print in p.213's left column; Dub. V–VI in p.213's right column. Dub. VI closes ("...sed *actus* sumendi.") immediately above the DISTINCTIO X header (right column), which begins d.10.

**Footer ownership:** Printed p.212's left-column footers 1–7 belong to the preceding article II, q. 4 CONCLUSIO ("Sacerdos debet dare eucharistiam peccatori...") and are owned by `bon-sent-IV-d9-a2-q4`, NOT here. P.212's right-column footers 8–11 are owned here, renumbered [^1]–[^4]. On p.213, the dubia own all six page-213 footers: the left-column footer sequence 1–3 (Dub. III–IV) plus footer 4 (Dub. V's "Vers. 27" Gloss note, anchored at *Corinthios undecimo*), and the right-column footers 5–6 (Dub. V–VI); these are renumbered gaplessly [^5]–[^10]. P.213's "NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM" footer ("Matth. 26, 26…") belongs to the Distinction X littera, owned by the d.10 chunk.

**d.10 boundary confirmed:** A running-head bleed "DISTINCTIO X. 213" appears at raw L23965 (= the p.213 running head) but is NOT the chapter start — the dubia continue past it through L24047. Distinction X proper begins at **raw L24048**, printed two-line ("DISTINCTIO X. / Pars I. / Cap. I.") at the foot of p.213's right column, owned by the d.10 chunk.

**[?] flags:** none. All ten apparatus entries and all six dubia bodies read cleanly from the PDF bands (p.213 re-cropped at split_x=1750 to recover the right column's clipped left edge).


title: Dist. 10, Part 1

title_alt: Distinctio X — textus Magistri Sententiarum

title_alt: Distinction X — text of the Master of the Sentences

source_text:
<!-- page 213 -->

### Cap. I. *De haeresi illorum qui dicunt, corpus Christi non esse in altari nisi in signo.*

Sunt item alii praecedentium insaniam transcendentes, qui Dei virtutem iuxta modum naturalium remetientes, audacius ac periculosius veritati contradicunt asserentes, in altari non esse corpus Christi vel sanguinem, nec substantiam panis vel vini in substantiam carnis et sanguinis converti; sed ita Christum dixisse[^1]: *Hoc est corpus meum,* sicut Apostolus dixit: *Petra autem erat Christus.* Dicunt enim, ibi esse

<!-- page 214 -->

corpus Christi tantum in Sacramento, id est in *signo,* et tantum in signo manducari a nobis. Qui errandi occasionem sumunt a verbis Veritatis, unde[^2] « prima haeresis facta est in discipulis Christi. Cum enim diceret: *Nisi quis manducaverit carnem meam et biberit sanguinem meum, non habebit vitam aeternam;* illi non intelligentes dixerunt: *Durus est hic sermo; quis potest eum audire? et abierunt retro.* Illis discedentibus, instruxit duodecim, qui remanserant: *Spiritus est,* inquit, *qui vivificat; caro nihil prodest. Verba, quae locutus sum vobis, spiritus et vita sunt.* Intellexisti spiritualiter? Spiritus et vita sunt. Intellexisti carnaliter? Etiam sic spiritus et vita sunt, sed tibi non sunt. Spiritualiter intellige[^3] quae locutus sum. Non hoc corpus, quod videtis, manducaturi estis et bibituri illum sanguinem, quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi; spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos; caro autem non prodest quidquam ».

Sunt etiam alia illorum insaniae fomitem ministrantia. Ait enim Augustinus: « Donec saeculum finiatur, sursum est Dominus; sed tamen etiam hic nobiscum est Veritas, Dominus. Corpus enim, in quo resurrexit, in uno loco esse oportet; veritas autem eius ubique diffusa est ». Item: « Una persona est Deus et homo, ubique per id quod est Deus, in caelo per id quod homo est ». Christus etiam dicit: *Pauperes semper habebitis vobiscum, me autem non semper habebitis.* His aliisque utuntur praefati haeretici in assertione sui erroris. — Quae ex eadem ratione omnia accipienda sunt. Non enim his negatur, verum corpus Christi a fidelibus sumi vel in altari esse; sed his Veritas Apostolos et in eis nos instruxit, quod ipsius corpus non per partes discerptum, ut putaverunt illi discipuli, qui retro ierunt, sed integrum; nec visibiliter in forma humana, sed invisibiliter sub forma panis et vini corpus et sanguinem nobis traderet. Quem sensum Augustinus[^4] confirmat dicens: « Ipsum quidem et non ipsum corpus, quod videbatur, manducatur: ipsum invisibiliter, non ipsum visibiliter ». Item: « Etsi necesse est, illud visibiliter celebrari, necesse est tamen, invisibiliter intelligi ». Ita etiam intelligendum est, corpus Christi esse in uno loco, scilicet visibiliter in forma humana; Veritas tamen eius, id est Divinitas, ubique est, eius veritas etiam, id est verum corpus, in omni altari est, ubicumque celebratur. Sic etiam illud intelligendum est: *Pauperes semper habebitis vobiscum, me autem non semper habebitis,* secundum corporalem praesentiam scilicet, qua cum eis conversabatur. Similiter per id quod *homo* est, in caelo est,

<!-- page 215 -->

visibiliter scilicet, invisibiliter autem est in altari, quia non in forma humana apparet, sed forma panis et vini operitur. Unde et invisibilis caro eius dicitur, quae vere est in altari; sed quia non in sua specie apparet, invisibilis dicitur. Ait enim Augustinus: « Hoc quod dicimus, quod modis omnibus approbare contendimus: sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus confici, duobus constare, visibili elementorum specie et invisibili Domini nostri Iesu Christi carne et sanguine; Sacramento et re Sacramenti, id est corpore Christi; sicut Christi persona constat et conficitur ex Deo et homine, cum Christus sit verus Deus et homo; quia omnis res illarum rerum naturam et veritatem in se continet, ex quibus conficitur. Conficitur autem sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus: Sacramento et re Sacramenti, id est corpore Christi. Est igitur Sacramentum et res Sacramenti, id est corpus Christi ». — Ecce invisibilem dixit carnem Christi, quia forma panis operta sumitur et tractatur. Idem corpus Christi dixit esse Sacramentum et rem; ex quo confirmatur quod supra diximus. Deinde addit quod magis movet lectorem: « Caro, inquit, eius est, quam sub forma panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus; et sanguis eius, quem sub vini specie ac sapore potamus. Caro videlicet carnis, et sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis; carne et sanguine, utroque invisibili, intelligibili, spirituali, significatur corpus Christi visibile et palpabile, plenum gratia et divina Maiestate ».

Attende his diligenter, quia tropo quodam utitur hic Augustinus, quo solent res significantes rerum sortiri vocabula, quas significant. Hic enim visibilis species panis vocatur nomine carnis, et visibilis species vini nomine sanguinis. Invisibilis vero et intelligibilis dicitur caro Christi, quia secundum illam speciem non videtur caro, sed intelligitur; ita et sanguis. Caro ergo invisibilis dicitur esse Sacramentum carnis visibilis, quia species panis, secundum quam illa non videtur caro, est Sacramentum carnis visibilis, quia carne invisibili, id est specie, secundum quam caro Christi non videtur caro, significatur corpus Christi, quod est visibile et palpabile, ubi in sua forma apparet. Ita et de sanguine accipi debet. Quem sensum confirmat Augustinus aperiens, qualiter praedicta intelligenda sint — quia obscure dixerat — consequenter dicens, ita panem vocari corpus Christi, cum vere sit Sacramentum corporis Christi, quod in cruce positum est; sicut ipsa immolatio, quae fit manibus sacerdotis, vocatur Christi passio, non rei veritate, sed significandi mysterio[^5], et sicut « Sacramentum fidei dicitur fides ».

### Pars II.

Satis responsum est haereticis et obiectionibus eorum qui negant, verum corpus Christi in altari esse, et panem in corpus, vel vinum in sanguinem mystica consecratione converti, dicentes: quis audeat manducare Dominum suum? Quis etiam audeat dicere, quotidie formari corpus Christi de materia vel substantia, quae non fuit caro Virginis?

### Cap. II. *De Sanctorum testimoniis, quibus probatur, verum corpus Christi esse in altari.*

Haec et his similia obiiciunt illi, in divino mysterio legem naturae sectantes; quorum perfidiam subdita convincunt testimonia. Ait enim Veritas[^6]: *Accipite, hoc est corpus meum.* Item, Ambrosius: « Si tantum valuit sermo Eliae, ut ignem de caelo deponeret; non valebit tantum sermo Christi, ut substantias mutet? De totius mundi operibus legitur: *Quia ipse dixit, et facta sunt* etc. Sermo igitur, id est Filius[^7], qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat, non potest ea quae sunt, in id mutare, quod non erant? Non enim minus est creare quam mutare novas naturas rebus ». Item: « Si ordinem quaerimus, viro mixta femina generare consueverat. Liquet igitur, quod praeter naturae ordinem Virgo generavit; et hoc quod conficimus corpus ex Virgine est. Quid ergo hic quaeris naturae ordinem in Christi corpore, cum praeter naturam sit ipse partus ex Virgine? » — Item: « Ante benedictionem alia species nominatur, post consecrationem corpus significatur. Ante consecrationem aliud dicitur, post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur. Tu dicis Amen, hoc est, verum est. Quod sermo sonat, affectus sentiat ». Item, Augustinus: « In specie panis et vini, quam videmus, res invisibiles, carnem et sanguinem, id est honoramus; nec similiter pendimus has duas species, sicut ante consecrationem pendebamus, cum fideliter fateamur, ante consecrationem panem esse et vinum quod natura formavit; post consecrationem vero carnem Christi et sanguinem, quod benedictio consecravit ». Item, Ambrosius[^8]: « Panis est in altari usitatus ante verba sacra; ubi accessit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. Quomodo autem potest quod panis est esse corpus Christi? Consecratione, quae fit Christi sermone ». Item: « Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini, ut inciperent esse quae non erant; quanto magis operatorius est, ut sint quae erant, et in aliud commutentur? Et sic quod erat panis ante consecrationem iam corpus Christi est post consecrationem, quia sermo Christi creaturam mutat; et sic ex pane fit corpus Christi et vinum cum aqua in calicem missum, fit sanguis consecratione verbi caelestis ». Item, Augustinus: « Sicut per Spiritum sanctum vera caro sine coitu creatur, ita per eundem ex substantia panis et vini idem corpus Christi et sanguis consecratur. Corpus Christi et veritas est et figura: veritas, dum corpus Christi et sanguis virtute Spiritus ex panis viníque substantia efficitur; figura vero est id quod exterius sentitur ». Item, Eusebius Emissenus: « Invisibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis et sanguinis sui verbo suo secreta potestate commutat ». — Ex his aliisque pluribus constat, verum corpus Christi et sanguinem in altari esse, immo integrum Christum sub utraque specie, et substantiam panis in corpus, viníque substantiam in sanguinem converti.

---

english:
<!-- page 213 -->

### Chap. I. *On the heresy of those who say that the body of Christ is not on the altar except in a sign.*

There are also others who go beyond the madness of those preceding, who, measuring God's power according to the manner of natural things, more boldly and more dangerously contradict the truth, asserting that on the altar there is not the body of Christ or his blood, nor is the substance of bread or wine converted into the substance of flesh and blood; but that Christ so spoke[^1]: *This is my body,* as the Apostle said: *And the rock was Christ.* For they say that there is

<!-- page 214 -->

the body of Christ there only in a Sacrament, that is, in a *sign,* and is eaten by us only in a sign. They take their occasion of erring from the words of the Truth, whence[^2] « the first heresy arose among the disciples of Christ. For when he said: *Unless one eats my flesh and drinks my blood, he shall not have eternal life;* they, not understanding, said: *This is a hard saying; who can hear it? and they went back.* When these had departed, he instructed the twelve who had remained: *It is the Spirit,* he says, *that gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.* Have you understood spiritually? They are spirit and life. Have you understood carnally? Even so they are spirit and life, but they are not so for you. Understand spiritually[^3] what I have spoken. It is not this body which you see that you are to eat, nor are you to drink that blood which they who crucify me will shed. I have committed to you a certain Sacrament; understood spiritually it will give you life; but the flesh profits nothing ».

There are also other things that furnish kindling for their madness. For Augustine says: « Until the world is ended, the Lord is above; yet even here the Truth, the Lord, is with us. For the body in which he rose must be in one place; but his truth is diffused everywhere ». Likewise: « One person is God and man, everywhere by that which is God, in heaven by that which is man ». Christ also says: *The poor you will always have with you, but me you will not always have.* These and other things the aforesaid heretics use in the assertion of their error. — All of which are to be taken from the same reasoning. For by these it is not denied that the true body of Christ is received by the faithful or is on the altar; but by these the Truth instructed the Apostles, and in them us, that his body is not torn apart in parts, as those disciples supposed who went back, but is whole; nor that he would hand over to us his body and blood visibly in human form, but invisibly under the form of bread and wine. Which sense Augustine[^4] confirms, saying: « The same body that was seen both is and is not eaten: itself invisibly, not itself visibly ». Likewise: « Although it is necessary that it be celebrated visibly, it is nevertheless necessary that it be understood invisibly ». Thus too it must be understood that the body of Christ is in one place, namely visibly in human form; yet his Truth, that is, his Divinity, is everywhere, and his truth also, that is, his true body, is on every altar, wherever it is celebrated. Thus too that saying is to be understood: *The poor you will always have with you, but me you will not always have,* namely according to the bodily presence by which he conversed with them. Likewise by that which is *man* he is in heaven,

<!-- page 215 -->

visibly that is, but invisibly he is on the altar, because he does not appear in human form, but is covered by the form of bread and wine. Hence his flesh is also called invisible, which is truly on the altar; but because it does not appear in its own species, it is called invisible. For Augustine says: « This which we say, which we strive to prove in every way: that the sacrifice of the Church is effected by two things, consists of two things, the visible species of the elements and the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; the Sacrament and the reality of the Sacrament, that is, the body of Christ; just as the person of Christ consists and is constituted of God and man, since Christ is true God and man; for every thing contains in itself the nature and truth of those things out of which it is constituted. Now the sacrifice of the Church is effected by two things: the Sacrament and the reality of the Sacrament, that is, the body of Christ. Therefore it is the Sacrament and the reality of the Sacrament, that is, the body of Christ ». — Behold, he called the flesh of Christ invisible, because it is taken and handled covered by the form of bread. He said that the same body of Christ is the Sacrament and the reality; from which is confirmed what we said above. Then he adds what moves the reader more: « It is his flesh, he says, which we receive in the Sacrament covered under the form of bread; and his blood, which we drink under the species and savor of wine. The flesh, namely, is the Sacrament of the flesh, and the blood the Sacrament of the blood; by the flesh and blood, both invisible, intelligible, spiritual, is signified the body of Christ visible and palpable, full of grace and of divine Majesty ».

Attend to these things carefully, for here Augustine uses a certain trope, by which things that signify are wont to obtain the names of the things they signify. For here the visible species of bread is called by the name of flesh, and the visible species of wine by the name of blood. But the invisible and intelligible is called the flesh of Christ, because according to that species the flesh is not seen, but understood; so too the blood. The invisible flesh, therefore, is said to be the Sacrament of the visible flesh, because the species of bread, according to which that flesh is not seen, is the Sacrament of the visible flesh, because by the invisible flesh, that is, the species, according to which the flesh of Christ is not seen as flesh, is signified the body of Christ, which is visible and palpable, where it appears in its own form. So too it must be taken of the blood. Which sense Augustine confirms, opening up how the aforesaid things are to be understood — because he had spoken obscurely — consequently saying that bread is so called the body of Christ, since it is truly the Sacrament of the body of Christ which was set upon the cross; just as the immolation itself, which is done by the hands of the priest, is called the passion of Christ, not by the truth of the matter, but by the mystery of signifying[^5], and as « the Sacrament of faith is called faith ».

### Part II.

Sufficient answer has been made to the heretics and to the objections of those who deny that the true body of Christ is on the altar, and that the bread is converted into the body, or the wine into the blood, by mystical consecration, saying: who would dare to eat his Lord? Who too would dare to say that the body of Christ is daily formed from matter or substance which was not the flesh of the Virgin?

### Chap. II. *On the testimonies of the saints, by which it is proved that the true body of Christ is on the altar.*

These and similar things do those men object, following the law of nature in the divine mystery; whose treachery the testimonies set forth below convict. For the Truth says[^6]: *Take, this is my body.* Likewise, Ambrose: « If the word of Elijah availed so much, that it brought down fire from heaven; will not the word of Christ avail so much, that it changes the substances? Of the works of the whole world it is read: *For he spoke, and they were made,* etc. Therefore the Word, that is, the Son[^7], who was able to make out of nothing that which was not, can he not change the things that are into that which they were not? For it is no less to create than to change new natures upon things ». Likewise: « If we seek the order [of nature], the woman, joined with a man, was wont to generate. It is clear, therefore, that the Virgin generated beyond the order of nature; and this which we effect is the body from the Virgin. Why then do you here seek the order of nature in the body of Christ, since beyond nature is his very birth from the Virgin? » — Likewise: « Before the blessing another species is named, after the consecration the body is signified. Before consecration one thing is said, after consecration it is called blood. You say Amen, that is, it is true. What the word sounds, let the affection feel ». Likewise, Augustine: « In the species of bread and wine, which we see, we honor invisible realities, the flesh and the blood; nor do we weigh these two species in the same way as we weighed them before the consecration, since we faithfully confess that before the consecration there was bread and wine which nature formed; but after the consecration the flesh and blood of Christ, which the blessing consecrated ». Likewise, Ambrose[^8]: « The bread is on the altar customary before the sacred words; when consecration has come, of the bread is made the flesh of Christ. But how can that which is bread be the body of Christ? By consecration, which is done by the word of Christ ». Likewise: « If there is such power in the word of the Lord, that the things which were not began to be; how much more is it operative, that the things which were be, and be changed into something else? And so what was bread before the consecration is now the body of Christ after the consecration, because the word of Christ changes the creature; and so out of bread is made the body of Christ, and the wine with water put into the chalice becomes blood by the consecration of the heavenly word ». Likewise, Augustine: « Just as through the Holy Spirit true flesh is created without intercourse, so through the same, out of the substance of bread and wine, the same body of Christ and his blood is consecrated. The body of Christ is both truth and figure: truth, while the body and blood of Christ is effected by the power of the Spirit out of the substance of bread and wine; but figure is that which is sensed outwardly ». Likewise, Eusebius of Emesa: « The invisible priest by his word, by a secret power, changes the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood ». — From these and many other things it is clear that the true body and blood of Christ are on the altar, indeed the whole Christ under each species, and that the substance of bread is converted into the body, and the substance of wine into the blood.

---

la: Vide supra a. 2. q. 3. — Superius pro *probabilia* cod. G *probabiliora.* — Cod. bb supplet *Christi.* — Multi codd. *quasi,* cod. A *quod.* Paulo ante pro *univit, fecit nos* cod. F *unit, facit nos.* Inferius pro *devotius* cod. E *melius,* edd. *devote.* — Hoc dub. solvit S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit. Cfr. etiam supra d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. — Vers. 27. — Glossa, quae est apud Petr. Lombard. et Lyranum *ordinaria,* sumta est ex Comment. olim Ambrosio attributo. In ipsa substituitur *quam a Christo traditum est* pro *quam a Domino institutum est,* et *manens* pro *manet.* Cfr. supra pag. 103, nota 2. — Inferius pro *una quarum* edd. *Prima, quae.* — Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 3. ad 4, et scholion, in quo allegantur alii auctores, qui de hac re scripserunt. — Vide supra a. 1. q. 1. ad 2. — Cod. Z addit *Sic patent quae sunt in littera.* Pro *inquam* edd. *in quantum.* — Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic a. 12; S. Thom., hic circa lit. *Notae ad libr. Sententiarum:* Matth. 26, 26; deinde 1 Cor. 10, 4.

en: See above, a. 2, q. 3. — Above, for *probabilia* cod. G has *probabiliora.* — Cod. bb supplies *Christi.* — Many codd. *quasi,* cod. A *quod.* Shortly before, for *univit, fecit nos* cod. F has *unit, facit nos.* Below, for *devotius* cod. E has *melius,* the editions *devote.* — This doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton, here near the text. Cf. also above, d. 8, p. II, a. 2, q. 1. — Verse 27. — The Gloss, which is in Peter Lombard and Lyra the *ordinary* gloss, is taken from the Commentary once attributed to Ambrose. In it is substituted *which was handed over by Christ* for *which was instituted by the Lord,* and *remaining* for *remains.* Cf. above, p. 103, note 2. — Below, for *one of which* the editions have *the first, which.* — Cf. above, a. 2, q. 3, ad 4, and the scholion, in which other authors are cited who wrote on this matter. — See above, a. 1, q. 1, ad 2. — Cod. Z adds *Thus what is in the text is evident.* For *inquam* the editions have *in quantum.* — The same doubt is resolved by Bl. Albert, here a. 12; St. Thomas, here near the text. *Notes to the Book of the Sentences:* Matt. 26:26; then 1 Cor. 10:4.

la: Quod sequitur sumtum est ex C. *Prima quidem* (44.), de Consecrat. dist. 2; qui collectus est ex August., *Enarrat. in Ps.* 34. n. 23, et in *Ps.* 98. n. 9.; verbotenus autem legitur in Algero, l. de Sacram. corp. et sang. Dom. c. 11. Loci Scripturae sunt Ioan. 6, 54. 61. 67. 64.

en: What follows is taken from the canon *Prima quidem* (44), de Consecrat., dist. 2; which was collected from Augustine, *Enarrat. in Ps.* 34, n. 23, and in *Ps.* 98, n. 9; but it is read verbatim in Alger, bk. on the Sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, c. 11. The Scripture passages are John 6:54, 61, 67, 64.

la: Codd. et ed. 1 *intelligite.* — In Ioan. Evang. tr. 30. n. 1; cfr. etiam tr. 30. n. 12. seq., et can. cit. § 1. — Pro *in uno loco* codd. B C D E et ed. 1 *uno loco.*

en: The codd. and ed. 1 have *intelligite* [understand ye]. — On the Gospel of John, tr. 30, n. 1; cf. also tr. 30, n. 12 ff., and the cited canon, § 1. — For *in uno loco* codd. B C D E and ed. 1 have *uno loco.*

la: August., *Epist.* 187. (alias 57.) ad Dardan. c. 3. n. 10. — Post *persona* codd. A B et plures edd. omittunt *est.* — Seq. locus Scripturae est Matth. 26, 11; Marc. 14, 7.

en: Augustine, *Letter* 187 (formerly 57), to Dardanus, c. 3, n. 10. — After *persona* codd. A B and several editions omit *est.* — The following Scripture passage is Matt. 26:11; Mark 14:7.

la: Ita C. *Non hoc corpus* (43.), ibid., et invenitur apud Algerum, loc. cit. c. 9. — Seq. locus est August., *Enarrat. in Ps.* 98. n. 9, et Can. cit. — Non invenitur in Augustino, sed in Lanfranco, de Corp. et sang. Dom. c. 10, ut iam notavimus tom. III. pag. 144, nota 9. Est in C. *Hoc est quod dicimus* (48.), ibid. — Dist. VIII. c. 7. — Locus seq. est in can. cit. et in Lanfranco, loc. cit. c. 14. — Scilicet can. cit., sed § 2. Ultimus huius capituli locus est August., *Epist.* 98. (alias 23.) ad Bonifac. episc. n. 9. — Pro *significandi mysterio* codd. B C E (A a prima manu), ed. 1 et can. cit. *significante mysterio.*

en: Thus the canon *Non hoc corpus* (43), ibid., and it is found in Alger, loc. cit., c. 9. — The following passage is Augustine, *Enarrat. in Ps.* 98, n. 9, and the cited canon. — It is not found in Augustine, but in Lanfranc, on the body and blood of the Lord, c. 10, as we have already noted in vol. III, p. 144, note 9. It is in the canon *Hoc est quod dicimus* (48), ibid. — Dist. VIII, c. 7. — The following passage is in the cited canon and in Lanfranc, loc. cit., c. 14. — Namely the cited canon, but § 2. The last passage of this chapter is Augustine, *Letter* 98 (formerly 23), to Boniface the bishop, n. 9. — For *significandi mysterio* codd. B C E (A by the first hand), ed. 1 and the cited canon have *significante mysterio.*

la: Matth. 26, 26. Locus Ambrosii est de Mysteriis, c. 9. n. 52; seq. locus ibid. n. 53; tertius n. 54; qui tres loci sunt in C. *Revera mirabile* (69.), ibid. § 2. Loci Scripturae sunt (de Elia) IV. Reg. 1, 14; deinde Ps. 148, 5.

en: Matt. 26:26. The passage of Ambrose is from *On the Mysteries,* c. 9, n. 52; the following passage ibid., n. 53; the third, n. 54; which three passages are in the canon *Revera mirabile* (69), ibid., § 2. The Scripture passages are (concerning Elijah) 4 Kings 1:14; then Ps. 148:5.

la: Codd. B D E et ed. 1 omittunt *id est Filius,* pro quo codd. A C ponunt *Christi.*

en: Codd. B D E and ed. 1 omit *that is, the Son,* in place of which codd. A C put *of Christ.*

la: Can. *Nos autem* (41.), ibid.; cfr. Lanfranc, loc. cit. c. 13. — Libr. IV. de Sacram. c. 4. n. 14; seq. locus ibid. n. 15; qui duo loci sunt in C. *Panis est* (33.), ibid. — Pro *inciperent esse* edd., excepta 1, *incipiant esse,* refragantibus codd. et originali. — Can. *Utrum sub figura* (72.), ibid.; cfr. Paschasius Radb., de Corp. et sang. Christi, c. 4. n. 1. — Can. *Quia corpus* (33.) ibid. Verbotenus est in Serm. 4. de Corp. et sang. Dom. n. 3. (inter opera Isidori et Hieronymi; cfr. supra pag. 178, nota 7.).

en: Canon *Nos autem* (41), ibid.; cf. Lanfranc, loc. cit., c. 13. — Bk. IV on the Sacraments, c. 4, n. 14; the following passage ibid., n. 15; which two passages are in the canon *Panis est* (33), ibid. — For *inciperent esse* the editions, except 1, have *incipiant esse,* against the codd. and the original. — Canon *Utrum sub figura* (72), ibid.; cf. Paschasius Radbertus, on the body and blood of Christ, c. 4, n. 1. — Canon *Quia corpus* (33), ibid. It is verbatim in Sermon 4 on the body and blood of the Lord, n. 3 (among the works of Isidore and Jerome; cf. above, p. 178, note 7).

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 24048–24312), with PDF column-band reads (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{213,214,215}-{L,R}-*.png`) authoritative on the cascade-fragmented footers and running-prose splices. English is a fresh literal parallel. Two-column Vol IV → VOL II OVERRIDE applied. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 213–215 = pdf 233–235).
- **This is the LITTERA MAGISTRI of Distinction X, Pars I** (the eucharistic-presence distinction, *De veritate corporis Christi in altari*). The distinction has TWO partes, so the id carries `p1`.
- **Chapter list:** Cap. I (*De haeresi illorum qui dicunt corpus Christi non esse in altari nisi in signo*); the Magister's interpretation/confirmation; Pars II opener (*Satis responsum est…*); Cap. II (*De Sanctorum testimoniis, quibus probatur verum corpus Christi esse in altari*).
- **Page-split map:** p.213 = Cap. I opening (L24048–24082); p.214 = the body of Cap. I + Magister's exposition (L24083–24238); p.215 = the close of the *Attende* exposition + Pars II + Cap. II testimonia (L24239–24297). The COMMENTARIUS / DIVISIO TEXTUS that begins at L24302/24313 on p.215 is the NEXT chunk (`bon-sent-IV-d10-p1-divisio`) and is excluded.
- **Footer ownership.** d.9 dubia ended on p.213 *before* this chunk's range (raw ≤ L24047); all p.213 footers anchored in THIS littera text are claimed: notes 1–6 plus the *Notae ad libr. Sententiarum* one-line block, consolidated here into `[^1]` (Quaracchi's per-page sequence is rendered continuously). The *Notae ad libr. Sententiarum* (Matth. 26:26; 1 Cor. 10:4) entry anchors the Cap. I lemma and is folded into `[^1]`. p.214 footers 1–8 → `[^2]–[^5]` here, all anchor in the Cap. I/Magister body. p.215 footers 1–6 → `[^6]–[^8]` here, all anchor in the Cap. II *Sanctorum testimonia* littera text (Matth./Ambrose/Augustine/Eusebius); they sit physically below the COMMENTARIUS opener but mark the littera lemmata, so they belong to this chunk, NOT to d10-p1-divisio (whose own footers begin further down p.216).
- **No scholion** — littera chunk.
- **`[?]` flags:** none. The OCR base was clean for this littera and all footers were confirmed against the PDF column bands; the few OCR garbles (`Irnnscendentes`→*transcendentes*, `remetientes`, `Yeritalis`→*Veritatis*, `sfm,9i«s`→*sanguis*, `Nm[?]`→*Veritas*, `viiium`→*vinum*) were unambiguous in context and silently corrected.