title: Dist. 12, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1

title_alt: Whether this sacrament has efficacy in every just man

source_text:
<!-- page 289 -->

### Articulus I. *De efficacia huius Sacramenti.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum hoc Sacramentum habeat efficaciam in quolibet viro iusto.*

Ad intelligentiam huius partis secundum duo, quae determinat hic Magister, duo principaliter quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur de huius Sacramenti efficacia. Secundo quaeritur de frequentatione. Circa primum quaeruntur tria. — Primo quaeritur, utrum hoc Sacramentum habeat efficaciam in quolibet viro iusto. Secundo, utrum habeat efficaciam in aliquo peccatore, existenti scilicet in mortali peccato. Tertio quaeritur de ipsa efficacia in se.

Circa primum ostenditur, quod habeat efficaciam in quolibet viro iusto:

1. Quia Sacramentum habet efficaciam, nisi habeat obicem; sed in nullo viro iusto habet obicem: ergo in quolibet habet efficaciam.

2. Item, sacramentalis manducatio, quando coniuncta est spirituali, semper habet efficaciam; sed semper coniuncta est spirituali in viro iusto, quia « spiritualiter manducare est in ipso manere », ut dicit Augustinus[^1]; sed omnis iustus manet in ipso: ergo etc.

3. Item, Damascenus[^2] dicit, quod « caro Christi est sicut carbo ignitus »; sed habens sensum corporalem semper calefit per contactum carbonis materialis: ergo similiter habens sensum spiritualem per contactum carbonis spiritualis. Sed omnis iustus sensum habet spiritualem: ergo etc.

Item, si aliquid requiritur ultra caritatem in suscipiente, quaeritur, quid sit illud, et quae et quot.

**Contra:**
1. Baptismus non habet efficaciam in adulto, nisi se praeparet: ergo a simili nec hoc Sacramentum habet efficaciam in iusto, nisi se praeparet; et ad hoc facit verbum beati Pauli primae ad Corinthios undecimo[^3]: *Probet autem se ipsum homo.*

2. Item, possibile est, quod iustus habeat conscientiam, se graviter peccasse vel esse in gravi peccato, quia frequenter peccatum veniale perpetratum reputatur mortale a perfectis, propter hoc tamen non cadit a iustitia; sed si talis accedit, accedit indigne, et talis non recipit efficaciam: ergo etc.

3. Item, efficacia huius Sacramenti consistit in deletione venialium et augmento virtutum[^4]; sed venialia non dimittuntur, nisi homo se praeparet per contritionem, cum ex actu nostro sint commissa; similiter nec virtutes augentur: ergo non in omni iusto habet efficaciam.

> **Conclusio.** Eucharistia non habet efficaciam nisi in digne accedente et debito modo praeparato.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Sacramentum hoc non habet efficaciam in aliquo nisi in digne accedente; digne autem accedere in hoc consistit, quod homo se praeparet, sicut debet. — Tantum enim Sacramentum recipere, sicut recipitur alius cibus, non est congruum nec fructuosum; et quia in hoc Sacramento praesens est divina Maiestas, et summa

<!-- page 290 -->

exprimitur caritas: ideo debet recipi cum honore et devotione. Et quia cum honore et devotione non suscipitur tam nobilis hospes in immundo hospitio; necesse est, quod homo hospitium Deo paret per sui diiudicationem. Et quia non parat hospitium hospiti, nisi ipsum cognoscat; necesse est, quod cibum istum ab aliis discernat. — Ad hoc ergo, quod Sacramentum hoc habeat in aliquo efficaciam, primo oportet cibum istum ab aliis discernere per fidem; secundo, hospitium parare per sui ipsius probationem; tertio, in hospitium paratum recipere cum honore et devotione. — Et primum et secundum habemus ab Apostolo primae ad Corinthios undecimo[^5] secundum ibi: *Probet se ipsum homo*; primum ibi: *Non diiudicans corpus Domini*; de tertio habemus exemplum in Zachaeo. Et quia multi recipiunt hoc Sacramentum, qui se non debite parant; ideo multi imbecilles et infirmi, et dormiunt multi.

Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum vir iustus recipiat efficaciam; dicendum, quod si se debite praeparet, recipit; alioquin, si ex quodam torpore, vel ex distractione non se debite praeparet, aut nullam, aut modicam reportat efficaciam, quamvis non incurrat mortalem offensionem.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de obice, dicendum, quod ad illud Sacramentum requiritur liberi arbitrii cooperatio; et ideo *omissio* obex est, non tantum peccatum, verum etiam sollicitudo vel distractio.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod manducat spiritualiter; dicendum, quod vir iustus non semper manducat spiritualiter, ut puta quando dormit, vel quando distrahitur per cogitationes extrinsecas; sed tunc spiritualiter manducat, quando movetur motu fidei et caritatis, quia tunc masticat et incorporatur[^6]; et ideo, si negligit, non reportat effectum.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de carbone ignito, dicendum, quod operatur in sensum ratione organi; sed si operaretur in sensum ratione sui, tunc sensus occupatus circa aliud non sentiret nec calefieret[^7]. Huius autem exemplum est in visu, quando quis dormit, vel occupatur alibi. Si ergo sensus mentis nostrae vult ab hoc carbone inflammari, necesse habet ad ipsum converti et dirigi; converti autem ad ipsum debet sicut ad memoriale passionis vivum. — Triplex enim habemus memoriale passionis, scilicet in scripto, in verbo et Sacramento. In scripto, ut quando passio describitur vel narratur per scripturam, vel quando imaginibus exprimitur; et hoc memoriale quasi mortuum est et habet fieri ad visum, qui apprehendit magis de longinquo. — In verbo, utpote cum aliquis verbotenus narrat passionem Christi; et illud partim est vivum, partim mortuum. Vivum est in corde bonorum praedicatorum, sed mortuum in corde tepidorum et malorum; vel vivum in corde et cogitatione, non vivum in voce; et hoc est ad auditum[^8], auditus autem non ita apprehendit de longinquo. — In Sacramento vero est memoriale, cum ipsum corpus Christi significatur et continetur in specie panis, et sanguis in specie vini; et hoc est memoriale vivum, quia ipse Christus se ipsum ibi praebet, offerens nobis corpus, quod pro nobis fuit occisum, et sanguinem, qui pro nobis fuit effusus; et hoc est ad gustum, qui de proximo apprehendit, ut iam non quasi speculatione, sed quadam experientia passionis eius memores simus.

Si ergo accendit affectum nostrum passio descripta, et amplius ferventer praedicata; multo magis inflammare et afficere debet in hoc Sacramento expressa. Et hoc absque dubio facit, si quis sensum habet et illum convertit ad hoc Sacramentum. Ille ergo est, qui ex hoc Sacramento efficaciam reportat, qui se convertit[^9]; ille vere audit Missam, non qui tantum verba dicit vel audit sine devotione, sed qui ad hoc memoriale totam mentis intentionem convertit.

english:
### Article I. *On the efficacy of this Sacrament.*
### Question I. *Whether this Sacrament has efficacy in every just man.*

For the understanding of this part, according to the two things which the Master here determines, two matters are principally asked. First, it is asked concerning the efficacy of this Sacrament. Second, it is asked concerning [its] frequentation. Concerning the first, three matters are asked. — First, it is asked whether this Sacrament has efficacy in every just man. Second, whether it has efficacy in any sinner, namely one existing in mortal sin. Third, it is asked concerning the efficacy itself in itself.

Concerning the first it is shown that it has efficacy in every just man:

1. Because a Sacrament has efficacy unless it has an obstacle; but in no just man does it have an obstacle: therefore in every [just man] it has efficacy.

2. Likewise, sacramental eating, when it is joined to spiritual [eating], always has efficacy; but it is always joined to spiritual [eating] in a just man, because "to eat spiritually is to abide in him," as Augustine says[^1]; but every just man abides in him: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, Damascene[^2] says that "the flesh of Christ is like a burning coal"; but one having bodily sense is always warmed by contact with a material coal: therefore likewise one having spiritual sense [is warmed] by contact with a spiritual coal. But every just man has spiritual sense: therefore etc.

Likewise, if anything is required beyond charity in the recipient, it is asked what that is, and what [things] and how many.

**On the contrary:**
1. Baptism has no efficacy in an adult unless he prepares himself: therefore by a like reasoning neither does this Sacrament have efficacy in a just man unless he prepares himself; and to this makes the word of blessed Paul, First to the Corinthians, the eleventh [chapter][^3]: *But let a man prove himself.*

2. Likewise, it is possible that a just man have a conscience [accusing him] that he has gravely sinned or is in grave sin, because frequently a venial sin committed is reckoned mortal by the perfect, yet on account of this he does not fall from justice; but if such a one approaches, he approaches unworthily, and such a one does not receive efficacy: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the efficacy of this Sacrament consists in the blotting out of venial [sins] and the increase of the virtues[^4]; but venial [sins] are not remitted unless a man prepares himself by contrition, since they were committed by our own act; likewise neither are the virtues increased: therefore it does not have efficacy in every just man.

> **Conclusion.** The Eucharist has no efficacy except in one approaching worthily and prepared in the due manner.

**I respond:** It must be said that this Sacrament has no efficacy in anyone except in one approaching worthily; and to approach worthily consists in this, that a man prepare himself as he ought. — For to receive so great a Sacrament as another food is received is neither fitting nor fruitful; and because in this Sacrament the divine Majesty is present, and the highest

<!-- page 290 -->

charity is expressed: therefore it ought to be received with honor and devotion. And because so noble a guest is not received with honor and devotion in an unclean lodging; it is necessary that a man prepare a lodging for God by his self-examination. And because he does not prepare a lodging for a guest unless he knows him; it is necessary that he discern this food from others. — Therefore, in order that this Sacrament may have efficacy in someone, first it behooves [him] to discern this food from others by faith; second, to prepare the lodging by examination of himself; third, to receive [him] into the prepared lodging with honor and devotion. — And the first and second we have from the Apostle, First to the Corinthians, the eleventh [chapter][^5], the second there: *Let a man prove himself*; the first there: *Not discerning the body of the Lord*; of the third we have an example in Zachaeus. And because many receive this Sacrament who do not duly prepare themselves; therefore many are weak and sick, and many sleep.

To that which is asked, whether a just man receives efficacy; it must be said that if he duly prepares himself, he receives [it]; otherwise, if from a certain sluggishness, or from distraction, he does not duly prepare himself, he carries away either no efficacy or little, although he does not incur mortal offense.

1. To that which is objected concerning the obstacle, it must be said that for that Sacrament the cooperation of free choice is required; and therefore *omission* is an obstacle, not only sin, but also anxiety or distraction.

2. To that which is objected, that he eats spiritually; it must be said that a just man does not always eat spiritually, as for instance when he sleeps, or when he is distracted by extrinsic thoughts; but he then eats spiritually when he is moved by a movement of faith and charity, because then he chews and is incorporated[^6]; and therefore, if he is negligent, he does not carry away the effect.

3. To that which is objected concerning the burning coal, it must be said that it operates upon the sense by reason of the organ; but if it were to operate upon the sense by reason of itself, then the sense occupied about something else would neither feel nor be warmed[^7]. Now an example of this is in sight, when someone sleeps, or is occupied elsewhere. If, then, the sense of our mind wishes to be inflamed by this coal, it is necessary for it to be turned and directed to it; and it ought to be turned to it as to a living memorial of the passion. — For we have a threefold memorial of the passion, namely in writing, in word, and in the Sacrament. In writing, as when the passion is described or narrated through Scripture, or when it is expressed by images; and this memorial is as it were dead, and has to be brought to the sight, which apprehends more from afar. — In word, namely when someone narrates the passion of Christ in words; and that is partly living, partly dead. It is living in the heart of good preachers, but dead in the heart of the lukewarm and the wicked; or living in the heart and thought, not living in the voice; and this is to the hearing[^8], but hearing does not so apprehend from afar. — But in the Sacrament there is a memorial, since the very body of Christ is signified and contained under the species of bread, and the blood under the species of wine; and this is a living memorial, because Christ himself offers himself there, presenting to us the body which was slain for us, and the blood which was poured out for us; and this is to the taste, which apprehends from close at hand, so that now we may be mindful not as by speculation, but by a certain experience of his passion.

If, then, the passion described, and still more fervently preached, kindles our affection; much more ought it, expressed in this Sacrament, to inflame and affect [us]. And this it does without doubt, if one has sense and turns it to this Sacrament. He, then, is the one who carries away efficacy from this Sacrament, who turns himself [to it][^9]; he truly hears the Mass, not he who only says or hears the words without devotion, but he who turns the whole intention of his mind to this memorial.

la: In Ioan. Evang. tr. 26. n. 18. Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. IX. c. 1, et pag. 201, nota 4. Cfr. etiam XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 5. n. 2. seqq.

en: On the Gospel of John, treatise 26, n. 18. See above the text of the Master, d. IX. c. 1, and p. 201, note 4. Cf. also *City of God* XXI. c. 5. n. 2 ff.

la: Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 13. Verba relata sunt supra pag. 188, nota 1.

en: Book IV *On the Orthodox Faith* c. 13. The words are reported above p. 188, note 1.

la: Vers. 28. — De prima propos. arg. cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 3. et a. 2. q. 1. seqq. — Pro secunda propos., quae in multis codd. desideratur, codd. FG substituunt: *ergo similiter nec in isto Sacramento.*

en: Verse 28. — On the first proposition of the argument cf. above d. 1. p. I. q. 3. and a. 2. q. 1 ff. — For the second proposition, which is lacking in many codices, codices FG substitute: *therefore likewise neither in this Sacrament.*

la: Ut insinuatur hic in lit. Magistri, c. 6. Cfr. infra q. 3. — Minor exponitur infra d. 21. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.

en: As is suggested here in the text of the Master, c. 6. Cf. below q. 3. — The minor [premise] is expounded below d. 21. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.

la: Vers. 28. — Secundus textus ibid. v. 29; tertius ibid. v. 30: *Ideo inter vos multi* etc. De Zachaeo vide Luc. 19, 6: *Et festinans descendit et excepit illum gaudens.* — Cfr. supra d. 9. a. 1. q. 3. et a. 2. q. 3. — Edd. pro verbo *parare* constanter utuntur *praeparare.* Cum Vat. retinuimus: *secundum ibi: Probet se... primum ibi: Non dijudicans* etc., licet codd. erronee, ut videtur, legant: *primum ibi: Probet se... secundum ibi: Non* etc.

en: Verse 28. — The second text [is] ibid. v. 29; the third ibid. v. 30: *Therefore among you many* etc. Concerning Zachaeus see Luke 19, 6: *And hastening he came down and received him rejoicing.* — Cf. above d. 9. a. 1. q. 3. and a. 2. q. 3. — The editions for the verb *parare* constantly use *praeparare.* With the Vatican [edition] we have retained: *the second there: Let him prove himself... the first there: Not discerning* etc., although the codices, erroneously as it seems, read: *the first there: Let him prove himself... the second there: Not* etc.

la: Vide supra d. 9. a. 1. q. 2. — Edd. *incorporat.*

en: See above d. 9. a. 1. q. 2. — The editions [read] *incorporat.*

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 114. seqq. (c. 11.). Vide etiam tom. II. pag. 741, nota 2.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 114 ff. (c. 11.). See also vol. II. p. 741, note 2.

la: Plurimi codd. *est audiendum*, codd. F G *est ad audiendum.*

en: Most codices [read] *est audiendum*, codices F G *est ad audiendum.*

la: Cfr. Sermo de excellentia ss. Sacram. etc. (inter opera Bernardi) n. 6. — Cod. Y *qui se sic convertit.* Ex eodem cod. cum codd. F G H inferius post *sed* supplevimus *qui.*

en: Cf. the Sermon *On the Excellence of the most holy Sacrament* etc. (among the works of Bernard) n. 6. — Codex Y [reads] *qui se sic convertit.* From the same codex, together with codices F G H, below after *sed* we have supplied *qui.*

latin_scholion:
**I.** Doctrina huius articuli illustratur a Concilio Trident. (Sess. 13. can. 5.): « Si quis dixerit, vel praecipuum fructum ss. eucharistiae esse remissionem peccatorum, vel ex ea non alios effectus provenire, a. s. ». Recte igitur docetur communiter, augmentum gratiae, non primam gratiam, esse per se et principaliter effectum huius ss. Sacramenti; per accidens tamen interdum primam gratiam peccatori bonae fidei et attrito conferri, tenent principales Scholastici contra paucos. Hoc non omnino negat S. Bonav., qui verbis amplioribus utitur quam Alexander Hal., infra ad 2. quaestionem citatus, ut patet ex conclusione sequentis quaestionis, licet contrarium asserat Suarez (in S. p. III. disp. 63. sect. 1.). Nec rem dirimunt alia verba supra d. 9. a. 2. q. 3. in fine corp. prolata et a praedicto auctore obiecta: « Quamvis non recipiat gratiam, non tamen incurrit offensam », quia non inepte respicere possunt casum, quo peccator bonae fidei non est sufficienter dispositus. De hac dispositione cfr. infra d. 17. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. — Plura ad rem spectantia vide supra d. 9. a. 1. q. 2. et d. 12. p. I. a. 3. q. 1. ad 3, infra d. 13. a. 2. q. 2, nec non III. Sent. d. 9. dub. 4.

<!-- page 291 -->

**II.** Quoad 1. quaestionem communiter antiqui Scholastici docent, requiri, saltem in adultis, aliquam positivam dispositionem actualis devotionis, ut augmentum gratiae percipiatur (cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 8. a. 3. § 2; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2.); quod plures recentiores non concedunt. — In solut. ad 3. tangitur doctrina gravissima de ss. Sacrificio Missae; de quo cfr. etiam infra dub. 1-3, d. 13. dub. 1-3. De hac 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. et a. 1. § 2. et a. 2. — Scot., IV. Sent. d. 8. q. 1; cfr. etiam q. 3. — S. Thom., hic loc. cit.; S. III. q. 79. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 2. — De hac et 2 seqq. qq. Durand., hic q. 4; Dionys. Carth., hic q. 4.

**III.** De seq. (2.) quaestione Alex. Hal. (loc. cit. a. 3. § 1. in fine) post plura dicit, quod hoc Sacramentum « non habet efficaciam nisi in iustis. Quia tamen largitas divina non est limitata, neque virtus est alligata ipsis Sacramentis, pie potest supponi, quod gratiam aliquam vel donum assequatur a Domino », scilicet peccator bonae fidei non habens voluntatem peccandi. Attamen (etiam in hoc recedit ab aliis) asserit, hoc non esse de virtute ipsius Sacramenti; cfr. etiam ibid. a. 1. § 2. Loquitur autem Bonav. de propria ordinatione eucharistiae. De eadem 2. quaestione: Scot., in utroque Scripto IV. Sent. d. 9. q. unica. — S. Thom. hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2. et d. 9. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2; S. loc. cit. a. 3. — B. Albert. hic a. 16. 18. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. et a. 1. § 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 1.

**IV.** Circa 3. quaestionem notamus, quod conclusio confirmatur doctrina Concilii Trident. loc. cit. c. 2, et Catechismi Rom. (de eucharistia n. 52.). Nonnulli recentiores theologi docent, remissionem venialium fieri tantum mediate, scilicet auxiliis ad eliciendos actus venialibus contrarios; alii putant, hoc fieri etiam immediate (cfr. infra d. 21. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.).

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The doctrine of this article is illustrated by the Council of Trent (Sess. 13. can. 5.): "If anyone shall say that either the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or that other effects do not proceed from it, let him be anathema." Rightly therefore it is commonly taught that the increase of grace, not first grace, is per se and principally the effect of this most holy Sacrament; yet that per accidens first grace is sometimes conferred upon a sinner of good faith and contrite [by attrition], the principal Scholastics hold against a few. This St. Bonaventure does not altogether deny, who uses ampler words than Alexander of Hales, cited below at the 2nd question, as is clear from the conclusion of the following question, although Suarez asserts the contrary (in *Summa* p. III. disp. 63. sect. 1.). Nor do those other words decide the matter which are brought forward above d. 9. a. 2. q. 3. at the end of the body and objected by the aforesaid author: "Although he does not receive grace, yet he does not incur offense," because they can not unfittingly regard the case in which a sinner of good faith is not sufficiently disposed. Concerning this disposition cf. below d. 17. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. — Concerning more things pertaining to the matter see above d. 9. a. 1. q. 2. and d. 12. p. I. a. 3. q. 1. ad 3, below d. 13. a. 2. q. 2, and also III Sent. d. 9. dub. 4.

<!-- page 291 -->

**II.** As to the 1st question, the ancient Scholastics commonly teach that there is required, at least in adults, some positive disposition of actual devotion, in order that the increase of grace be received (cf. Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV. q. 10. m. 8. a. 3. § 2; St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 1. subquestion 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4. a. 2. subquestion 2.); which many of the more recent do not concede. — In the solution to [objection] 3 there is touched a most weighty doctrine concerning the most holy Sacrifice of the Mass; concerning which cf. also below dub. 1-3, d. 13. dub. 1-3. Concerning this 1st question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. and a. 1. § 2. and a. 2. — Scotus, IV Sent. d. 8. q. 1; cf. also q. 3. — St. Thomas, here loc. cit.; *Summa* III. q. 79. a. 1. — Bl. Albert, here a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 5. q. 2. — Concerning this and the 2 following questions: Durandus, here q. 4; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 4.

**III.** Concerning the following (2nd) question Alexander of Hales (loc. cit. a. 3. § 1. at the end), after many things, says that this Sacrament "has no efficacy except in the just. Since, however, the divine liberality is not limited, nor is power bound to the Sacraments themselves, it may piously be supposed that [a sinner] may obtain some grace or gift from the Lord," namely a sinner of good faith not having the will of sinning. Yet (in this too he departs from the others) he asserts that this is not from the power of the Sacrament itself; cf. also ibid. a. 1. § 2. But Bonaventure speaks of the proper ordination of the Eucharist. Concerning this same 2nd question: Scotus, in both Writings, IV Sent. d. 9. q. unica. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 2. subquestion 2. and d. 9. a. 3. subquestion 2; *Summa* loc. cit. a. 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 16. 18. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 1. subquestion 1. and a. 1. § 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 5. q. 1.

**IV.** Concerning the 3rd question we note that the conclusion is confirmed by the doctrine of the Council of Trent, loc. cit. c. 2, and of the Roman Catechism (on the Eucharist n. 52.). Some more recent theologians teach that the remission of venial [sins] comes about only mediately, namely by aids for eliciting acts contrary to venial [sins]; others think that this comes about also immediately (cf. below d. 21. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.).

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from Vol IV PDF column bands (printed pp. 289–291; pdf pp. 309–311 at +20; `colcrop.py vol4` split_x=1880) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 33092–33454) as base for the clean videtur/contra running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The Respondeo, Solutio replies, all footers, and the scholion were cascade-shattered in OCR (two-column diagonal fragmentation + column bleed) and taken from the PDF bands. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Alignment (★ opener folded in).** The article opener falls inside this q1's range. The PDF (p.289) prints, in order: the pars-II DIVISIO TEXTUS, TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM, then ARTICULUS I (*De efficacia huius Sacramenti*) with its three-question division (`Ad intelligentiam huius partis... duo principaliter quaeruntur. Primo... de huius Sacramenti efficacia. Secundo... de frequentatione. Circa primum quaeruntur tria. — Primo... utrum hoc Sacramentum habeat efficaciam in quolibet viro iusto. Secundo... in aliquo peccatore... Tertio... de ipsa efficacia in se`), then QUAESTIO I. Per the locked chunking convention the short ARTICULUS opener is folded into q1 (no standalone divisio chunk for this article). The q1 opener `Utrum hoc Sacramentum habeat efficaciam in quolibet viro iusto` matches `title_la`. **Aligned.** (The pars-level DIVISIO TEXTUS / TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM that begins on p.288 R belongs to the d.12-p2-divisio chunk, not yet built.)

**Running head / page-verify.** p.289 L top recto reads **"DIST. XII. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I. 289"** — page-verify PASSES (DIST. XII, ART. I, QUAEST. I). p.290 verso top = "290 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (no DIST line). p.291 L top reads "DIST. XII. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. II." with the 291 folio on the recto — the page where this q1 ends and QUAESTIO II begins.

**Page span.** Article opener + fundamenta + Contra + Conclusio + start of Respondeo on p.289; the Respondeo and Solutio replies 1–3 run through p.290; the Articulus I scholion (sections I–IV) is printed at the foot of p.290 (section I) and continues onto p.291 (sections II–IV), ending immediately before QUAESTIO II on p.291. printed_pages = [289, 290, 291].

**Apparatus / footer-ownership.** 9 footnotes, all paired in both bodies. Page 289 (per-page restart) notes 1–4 anchor in the videtur args + Contra and map to [^1]–[^4] in body order (n1=Augustinus/In Ioan.→[^1], n2=Damascenus/de Fide orthod.→[^2], n3=Vers.28/Probet→[^3], n4=Ut insinuatur/lit. Magistri→[^4]). Page 290 (per-page restart) notes 1–5 anchor in the Respondeo + Solutio replies and map to [^5]–[^9] in body order (n1=Vers.28/Zachaeo/parare→[^5], n2=d.9.a.1.q.2/incorporat→[^6], n3=Aristot. de Anima→[^7], n4=est audiendum→[^8], n5=Sermo de excellentia→[^9]). No footers spill to neighboring chunks within q1's range.

**Scholion disposition (★ ownership).** This chunk OWNS the Articulus I scholion in full. It is question-keyed and covers the article's three questions: **I** = the doctrine of the article (Trent Sess. 13 can. 5; augmentum gratiae vs prima gratia; the Bonaventure-vs-Alexander/Suarez dispute) — anchored to q1's Conclusio; **II** = "Quoad 1. quaestionem" (positive disposition of actual devotion) + the "De hac 1. quaestione" parallel-author list — this q1; **III** = "De seq. (2.) quaestione" (Alexander's view that the Sacrament has efficacy only in the just) + the "De eadem 2. quaestione" list — keyed to a1-q2; **IV** = "Circa 3. quaestionem" (remission of venials, mediate vs immediate) — keyed to a1-q3. Rendered in full (both languages), body-first / scholion-last per the parser gotcha. Sections span p.290 (I) → p.291 (II–IV), ending immediately before QUAESTIO II. **Coverage: a1 q1, q2, q3.** Sibling questions a1-q2 (efficacy in a sinner) and a1-q3 (the efficacy in itself) render `has_scholion: false` and point here. No second distinct scholion block appears within q1's raw range; the next material is QUAESTIO II (begins raw line 33455, p.291).

**`[?]` flags.** None — all readings resolved against the PDF bands. OCR garbles silently corrected per CLAUDE.md (e.g. `efflcaciam`→`efficaciam`, `elTicaciam`/`efhcaciam`→`efficaciam`, `habel`→`habet`, `obicem` retained, `nnllo`→`nullo`, `Ilem`→`Item`, `Auglusinus`→`Augustinus`, `conlactum`→`contactum`, `caleflt`→`calefit`, `Baptisraus`→`Baptismus`, `incorpora-tur`→`incorporatur`, `calelieret`→`calefieret`, `conflrmatur`→`confirmatur`, `Tridenl.`→`Trident.`, `quaesliunc.`→`quaestiunc.`, `venialillm`→`venialium`, `flcri`→`fieri`).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 12, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 291 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum hoc Sacramentum habeat efficaciam in aliquo peccatore.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum habeat efficaciam in aliquo peccatore, videlicet qui est in mortali peccato. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per illam Collectam[^1]: « Sit ablutio scelerum, sit fortitudo fragilium »; sed scelera non dicuntur nisi magna peccata: ergo etc.

2. Item, Damascenus[^2]: « Corpus Christi omnis laesionis est unctio, omnis sordis purgatio »: ergo sordis mortalis.

3. Item, Iulius Papa, de Consecratione distinctione secunda[^3]: « Omne crimen atque peccatum oblatis Deo sacrificiis deletur »; sed crimen pro maioribus peccatis accipitur: ergo etc.

4. Item, ratione videtur: quia illud Sacramentum est expressivum signum passionis: ergo cum efficacia sequatur significantiam, et omnia Sacramenta efficaciam habeant a passione[^4], hoc habebit potissimam: ergo si baptismus et poenitentia habent efficaciam in peccatore, videtur similiter, quod et illud.

5. Item, in Sacramento isto realiter continetur auctor et mediator et fons gratiae; quod in nullo alio[^5]: ergo videtur, quodsi aliquod Sacramentum potest fugare culpam, quod hoc multo magis; sed aliquod potest, ut baptismus: ergo etc.

6. Item, esto quod aliquis peccator attritus accedat ad hoc Sacramentum, non tamen sufficienter; si talis accederet ad baptismum et poenitentiam, iustificaretur, quia non habet obicem[^6]: ergo pari ratione, cum non habeat obicem, iustificatur in hoc Sacramento.

7. Item, accedens fictus ad baptismum, fictione recedente, habet efficaciam[^7]: ergo similiter videtur, quod istud Sacramentum, et ita est utile peccatori.

**Contra:**
1. Augustinus ad Renatum[^8]: « Quis offerat corpus Christi, nisi pro his qui sunt de corpore Christi »; sed nullus peccator est talis: ergo pro eo non debet offerri.

2. Item, Ambrosius[^9]: « Spiritualiter manducat qui innocentiam ad altare portat »; sed nullus existens in mortali portat innocentiam: ergo etc.

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia accedens ad hoc Sacramentum aut accedit digne, aut non. Si digne accedit: ergo dignus est, et ita non habet culpam; si non digne: ergo non reportat efficaciam[^10]: ergo non habet efficaciam in peccatore.

4. Item, hoc Sacramentum habet efficaciam mediante manducatione spirituali; sed manducatio spiritualis fit mediante caritate[^11]: ergo praesupponit caritatem: ergo qui accedit sine caritate non reportat efficaciam.

<!-- page 292 -->

> **Conclusio.** Licet Deus in hoc Sacramento facere possit et aliquando faciat remissionem omnis culpae; tamen de communi lege illud non habet effectum nisi in iustis.

**Respondeo:** Non limitamus largitatem Dei, quin in hoc Sacramento possit et aliquando faciat remissionem omnis culpae; sed secundum forum commune et generalem rationem institutionis Sacramenti, dicendum, quod istud Sacramentum datum est in cibum illis qui sunt de corpore Christi; et omnes tales habent caritatem: ideo effectum habet in solis iustis. Effectus autem in iustis est liberando a culpa veniali et praeservando a mortali, ut patebit[^12].

**Ad argumenta:**

1. 2. 3. Ex hoc patet responsio ad tria prima: quod aut intelligitur per praeservationem, vel quantum ad aliquas reliquias[^13].

4. 5. 6. Ad tria sequentia dicendum, quod Sacramentum tantam habet efficaciam, quantam congruit habere his quibus datur; et hoc solis iustis datur: ideo non valet de baptismo et poenitentia. — Si ergo obiicias, quod nobile est illud Sacramentum inter cetera; dicendum, quod nobile est ratione contenti, non ratione effectus prae ceteris aliis[^14]. — Sed tunc obiicitur, quia adhuc non videtur solvi: cum enim Christus sit hic praesens, videtur, quod abundantius congrueret, hic gratiam eius communicari. Nam in adventu Christi abundanter gratia collata est. — Et ad hoc dicendum, quod hoc spectat ad nobilitatem Sacramenti, quod non deletur ibi culpa mortalis; tam enim est nobile Sacramentum et tam nobilis panis, quod non debet dari nisi filiis et iam iustificatis[^15]; et qui tales sunt non habent culpam mortalem. Ideo de speciali dignitate huius Sacramenti est, quod non ordinatur contra mortalem culpam. Et sic patet responsio ad illa tria.

7. Ad illud quod obiicitur de recessu fictionis, dicendum, quod non est simile, quia in baptismo manet character, ex quo est susceptibilis gratiae; non sic in proposito[^16].

english:
### Question II. *Whether this sacrament has efficacy in some sinner.*

Secondly it is asked whether it has efficacy in some sinner, namely one who is in mortal sin. And that it does, it seems:

1. By that Collect[^1]: "Let it be a cleansing of crimes, let it be a strength of the frail"; but crimes are named only of great sins: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, Damascene[^2]: "The body of Christ is the anointing of every wound, the cleansing of every defilement": therefore of mortal defilement.

3. Likewise, Pope Julius, in *On Consecration*, distinction two[^3]: "Every crime and sin is wiped away by sacrifices offered to God"; but a crime is taken for the greater sins: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, it seems by reason: because that Sacrament is an expressive sign of the passion: therefore since efficacy follows signification, and all the Sacraments have their efficacy from the passion[^4], this will have the greatest: therefore if baptism and penance have efficacy in a sinner, it seems likewise that this one does too.

5. Likewise, in this Sacrament there is really contained the author and mediator and fount of grace; which [is] in no other[^5]: therefore it seems that if any Sacrament can drive away guilt, this one [can] much more; but some can, as baptism: therefore, etc.

6. Likewise, suppose that some attrite sinner approaches this Sacrament, yet not sufficiently; if such a one were to approach baptism and penance, he would be justified, because he has no obstacle[^6]: therefore by parity of reasoning, since he has no obstacle, he is justified in this Sacrament.

7. Likewise, one who approaches baptism feignedly, when the feigning departs, has efficacy[^7]: therefore it seems likewise concerning that Sacrament, and so it is useful to a sinner.

**On the contrary:**
1. Augustine to Renatus[^8]: "Who would offer the body of Christ except for those who are of the body of Christ"; but no sinner is such: therefore it ought not to be offered for him.

2. Likewise, Ambrose[^9]: "He eats spiritually who carries innocence to the altar"; but no one existing in mortal [sin] carries innocence: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, it seems by reason: because one who approaches this Sacrament either approaches worthily or not. If he approaches worthily: therefore he is worthy, and so he has no guilt; if not worthily: therefore he does not carry away efficacy[^10]: therefore it has no efficacy in a sinner.

4. Likewise, this Sacrament has efficacy by means of spiritual eating; but spiritual eating comes about by means of charity[^11]: therefore it presupposes charity: therefore he who approaches without charity does not carry away efficacy.

> **Conclusion.** Although God can in this Sacrament bring about, and sometimes does bring about, the remission of all guilt; nevertheless by the common law it has no effect except in the just.

**Respondeo:** We do not limit the largesse of God, as though in this Sacrament he could not, and sometimes does not, bring about the remission of all guilt; but according to the common forum and the general ground of the Sacrament's institution, it must be said that this Sacrament was given as food to those who are of the body of Christ; and all such have charity: therefore it has its effect only in the just. Now the effect in the just is by freeing from venial guilt and preserving from mortal [guilt], as will be made clear[^12].

**To the arguments:**

1. 2. 3. From this is clear the reply to the first three: that it is understood either through preservation, or as regards certain remnants[^13].

4. 5. 6. To the three following it must be said that the Sacrament has as much efficacy as is fitting for it to have for those to whom it is given; and this is given only to the just: therefore the case does not hold concerning baptism and penance. — If, then, you object that that Sacrament is noble among the rest; it must be said that it is noble by reason of its content, not by reason of an effect [superior] beyond the others[^14]. — But then it is objected, because it still does not seem to be resolved: for since Christ is here present, it seems that it would be more abundantly fitting that his grace be communicated here. For at the coming of Christ grace was abundantly conferred. — And to this it must be said that it pertains to the nobility of the Sacrament that mortal guilt is not wiped away there; for the Sacrament is so noble and the bread so noble that it ought not to be given except to sons and to those already justified[^15]; and those who are such have no mortal guilt. Therefore it belongs to the special dignity of this Sacrament that it is not ordained against mortal guilt. And thus is clear the reply to those three.

7. To that which is objected concerning the departure of feigning, it must be said that the case is not alike, because in baptism the character remains, from which [the soul] is capable of grace; not so in the case at hand[^16].

la: Quae incipit: *Purificent nos* etc., et de qua vide supra pag. 197, nota 3.

en: Which begins: *Purificent nos* ("Let them cleanse us") etc., and concerning which see above page 197, note 3.

la: Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 13.

en: Book IV, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 13.

la: Can. *Cum omne crimen* (1.)... *deleatur* etc.

en: Canon *Cum omne crimen* (1.)... *deleatur* etc.

la: Cfr. supra d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 3, et III. Sent. d. 20. q. 4. in fine corp. — Superius pro *expressivum* Vat. *expressissimum.*

en: Cf. above d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 3, and III Sent. d. 20. q. 4. at the end of the corpus. — Above, for *expressivum* the Vatican edition [reads] *expressissimum.*

la: Supple: *est.* — Cfr. supra d. 8. p. I. dub. 2.

en: Supply: *est* ("is"). — Cf. above d. 8. p. I. dub. 2.

la: Vide infra d. 17. p. I. a. 2. q. 3. et p. II. a. 2. q. 2. in corp.

en: See below d. 17. p. I. a. 2. q. 3, and p. II. a. 2. q. 2, in the corpus.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 4. p. I. a. 2. q. 3.

en: As was shown above d. 4. p. I. a. 2. q. 3.

la: Sive I. de Anima et eius orig. (hoc opus misit Renato) c. 9. n. 10.

en: Or rather *On the Soul and its Origin* I (this work he sent to Renatus), c. 9. n. 10.

la: Potius Augustinus; occasio erroris videtur fuisse lit. Magistri, in qua (hic c. 4.) haec verba verbis Ambrosii connectuntur. Dicit August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 26. n. 1: « Videte ergo, fratres, panem caelestem spiritaliter manducate, innocentiam ad altare apportate ». Mutata propositione, C. *Panem caelestem* (64.), de Consecrat. d. 2. legit *Panem caelestem spiritualiter manducare est innocentiam ad altare apportare.*

en: Rather Augustine; the occasion of the error seems to have been the text of the Master, in which (here c. 4) these words are joined to the words of Ambrose. Augustine says, in *On the Gospel of John*, tract 26. n. 1: "See therefore, brethren, eat the heavenly bread spiritually, carry innocence to the altar." With the sentence altered, the canon *Panem caelestem* (64.), *On Consecration* d. 2, reads *To eat the heavenly bread spiritually is to carry innocence to the altar.*

en: Cf. 1 Corinthians 11:27.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 9. a. I. q. 2.

en: As was shown above d. 9. a. I. q. 2.

la: Quaest. seq. — Pro *liberando et praeservando* codd. *liberatio et praeservatio*, cod. aa *liberandi et praeservandi.*

en: [In] the following question. — For *liberando et praeservando* the codices [read] *liberatio et praeservatio*, codex aa *liberandi et praeservandi.*

la: Supple: *peccatorum.* — In cod. I secunda manus post *vel* addidit *liberationem.*

en: Supply: *peccatorum* ("of sins"). — In codex I a second hand has added *liberationem* after *vel.*

la: Vide supra d. 7. dub. 3. — Permulti codd. et edd. omittunt *prae*, et pro *effectus* codd. I K substituunt *efficaciae.* Inferius ex codd. F G H aa posuimus *communicari* pro *comitari.*

en: See above d. 7. dub. 3. — Very many codices and editions omit *prae*, and for *effectus* codices I K substitute *efficaciae.* Below, from codices F G H aa, we have put *communicari* for *comitari.*

la: Respicitur Matth. 15, 26: *Non est bonum sumere panem filiorum et mittere canibus.* Cfr. ibid. 7, 6.

en: There is regard to Matthew 15:26: *It is not good to take the bread of the children and to cast it to the dogs.* Cf. ibid. 7:6.

la: Vide supra d. 4. p. I. a. 2. q. 3. ad 3. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See above d. 4. p. I. a. 2. q. 3. ad 3. — See the scholion to the preceding question.

latin_scholion:
*Articuli I scholion (sectiones I–III, quaestiones 1–3 complectens) cum Quaestione I exhibetur; vide* `bon-sent-IV-d12-p2-a1-q1`.

---

english_scholion:
*The scholion of Articulus I (sections I–III, covering questions 1–3) is rendered with Question I; see* `bon-sent-IV-d12-p2-a1-q1`.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from Vol IV PDF column bands (printed pp. 291–292; `colcrop.py vol4` split_x=1880) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 33455–33620) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The Conclusio, Respondeo, Solutio, and all footers were cascade-shattered in the two-column OCR and taken from the PDF bands. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Alignment.** Opener confirmed against the Articulus I TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM ("Primo quaeritur de huius Sacramenti efficacia... Secundo, utrum habeat efficaciam in aliquo peccatore, existenti scilicet in mortali peccato"): the q2 body opens "Secundo quaeritur, utrum habeat efficaciam in aliquo peccatore, videlicet qui est in mortali peccato" (PDF p.291, QUAESTIO II). Article = ARTICULUS I *De efficacia huius Sacramenti*. Aligned, but the q2 frontmatter title was a stale dispatch estimate ("Utrum utraque harum specierum...") — corrected here to the actual title *Utrum hoc Sacramentum habeat efficaciam in aliquo peccatore.*

**Page span — CORRECTION.** q2 spans printed pp. **291–292**, NOT 291–293 as the dispatch estimated. p.291 (running head "DIST. XII. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. II.", folio 291) holds the q1 scholion tail (top of L/R), then QUAESTIO II's header and full *videtur* (args 1–7, L column) + *Contra* (1–4, R column). q2's Conclusio, Respondeo, and Solutio occupy p.292 (running head "QUAEST. III." because q3 opens lower on that page); QUAESTIO III ("Quae sit efficacia huius Sacramenti") begins partway down p.292 left column and is owned by a1-q3. q2 does NOT reach p.293. pdf_pages = [311, 312] (pdf = printed + 20).

**Apparatus / footer-ownership.** 16 footnotes. Page 291 (per-page restart) notes 1–11 are all anchored in q2's body — nn.1–7 in *videtur* args 1–7, nn.8–11 in *Contra* 1–4 → [^1]–[^11]. Page 292 (per-page restart) notes 1–5 are anchored in q2's Conclusio/Respondeo/Solutio (n1→*ut patebit*, n2→*aliquas reliquias*, n3→*prae ceteris aliis*, n4→*filiis et iam iustificatis*, n5→*non sic in proposito*) → [^12]–[^16] by body order. Page 292 footers numbered 6–11 (n6 "Hic in lit. c.6" → "Et dicit Magister"; nn.7–11) anchor in QUAESTIO III's body and belong to **a1-q3**.

**Scholion disposition.** Articulus I carries a single question-keyed scholion (sections I–III, covering qq.1–3), printed under QUAESTIO I and tailing onto p.291. Per the locked convention it is rendered in full with **q1** (`bon-sent-IV-d12-p2-a1-q1`), not here. The `### Scholion` slot here holds a one-line La+En cross-reference; `has_scholion: false`. The q1 article-level scholion tail (sections II/III on p.291 L/R top) lies inside the OCR raw range but is forwarded to q1 (still an auto-chunked skeleton as of this writing), not rendered here.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Forwarded to q1:* the Articulus I SCHOLION (sections I–III) printed under QUAESTIO I and tailing onto p.291-L/R top; the p.291 scholion-block footers.
- *Forwarded to q3:* p.292 footers numbered 6–11 (anchored in QUAESTIO III "Quae sit efficacia huius Sacramenti"); q3 opens partway down p.292 left column.

**`[?]` flags.** None — all readings resolved against the PDF bands (p.291 and p.292 column crops).

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. 12, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 3

title_alt:
Quae sit efficacia huius Sacramenti
What is the efficacy of this Sacrament

source_text:
<!-- page 292 -->

### Quaestio III. *Quae sit efficacia huius Sacramenti.*

Tertio quaeritur, quae sit efficacia huius Sacramenti. Et dicit Magister[^1], quod est venialium remissio et augmentatio virtutum. Et quod ita sit, videtur.

1. Innocentius[^2]: « Eucharistia liberat a malo et conservat in bono, delet venialia et cavet mortalia ». « Huius etiam virtute Sacramenti universae virtutes augentur, et omnium gratiarum fructus exuberant ».

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia hoc dicitur esse Sacramentum unionis; aut ergo quia de novo unit, aut quia magis unit. Non quia de novo unit[^3]: ergo quia magis unit; sed si magis unit: ergo auget virtutes.

3. Item, si magis unit, ergo repugnat ei quod minus; sed hoc est veniale, quia Augustinus[^4]: « Minus te amat qui tecum aliquid amat », et hoc dicitur de veniali: ergo etc.

4. Item, « caro Christi est sicut carbo ignitus[^5] »; sed carbonis igniti est pellere frigus et intendere calorem: ergo hoc Sacramentum reprimit motus frigidos culpae et intendit motus vivos gratiae: ergo delet et auget.

5. Item, hoc Sacramentum quotidie offertur: ergo si non frustra est, dat ergo aliquid quo quotidie indigemus; sed illud quo quotidie indigemus, est liberatio a veniali malo et profectus in bono, quia caritas aut deficit, aut proficit[^6]: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Unius Sacramenti unus debet esse effectus praecipuus: ergo non est ad hos duos effectus praedictos.

Item, quod non sit ad remissionem venialium, contra ostenditur:

2. Primo: quia qui accedit ad hoc Sacramentum aut accedit contritus, aut non. Si contritus: ergo remissa est sibi culpa; si non contritus: ergo remanet culpa: ergo nullum habet eucharistia effectum super venialia. Si dicas, quod contritio non semper sufficit; esto quod tanta sit, quod sufficiat, tunc non habebit hoc Sacramentum effectum, et tamen melius est dispositus.

<!-- page 293 -->

3. Item, si effectus huius Sacramenti est deletio venialium: ergo qui peccat venialiter irritat effectum eius, sicut qui peccat mortaliter irritat effectum baptismi; sed homo habet necesse peccare venialiter[^7], ergo et hoc Sacramentum irritare: ergo nunquam accipi debet, quia nunquam debet quis contumeliam huic Sacramento inferre.

Item, quod augmentum virtutum non sit effectus huius Sacramenti, videtur:

4. Quia, si hoc, tunc ergo valde cito fieret aliquis perfectus, qui hoc Sacramentum quotidie recipit; sed hoc videmus esse falsum: ergo etc.

5. Item, augmentum virtutum est effectus baptismi et confirmationis, sicut supra dixit Magister[^8], et similiter remissio venialium: non ergo huius Sacramenti.

> **Conclusio.** Efficacia huius Sacramenti est unitos magis unire triplici modo.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod cum hoc Sacramentum sit unionis, effectus eius primus aut est unire, aut magis unire; sed non de novo unire, ut supra[^9] ostensum est, sed iam unitos magis unire. Magis autem unire est tripliciter: aut quia quis unitur maiori vinculo, ut ille magis unitur, qui maiorem habet caritatem; aut quia eodem vinculo unitur strictius, ut ille qui secundum eundem habitum ferventius amat; aut quia eodem firmius, ut ille qui in eodem habitu est magis radicatus[^10]. — Dicitur ergo hoc Sacramentum magis unire, quia digne accedentem reddit ferventiorem, ut carbo ignitus; et iterum, reddit fortiorem, ut bonus cibus. Et ex hoc, quod reddit caritatem magis ignitam, adiuvat ad consumendam peccati venialis rubiginem; ex hoc quod magis firmat, adiuvat ad vitandum omnia scelera; et ratione utriusque valet ad augmentum virtutum, et maxime caritatis, quae est vinculum[^11], non quantum ad essentiam, sed quantum ad fervorem, vel radicationem. Fervor enim minuitur quotidie per venialia et radicatio; ideo oportet, per hunc cibum restaurari deperditum. — Ex his patent obiecta. Nam rationes ad primam partem sunt concedendae.

1. Quod vero obiicit, quod unius Sacramenti[^12] unus est effectus; dicendum, quod verum est, primus; et ille est magis unire, et per illum habet hos duos consequentes.

2. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod venialia delentur in contritione; dicendum, quod iste non est effectus primus, sed ex consequenti fit, quando homo indiget; ut puta quando fervor caritatis per se non est ita intensus, quod peccata venialia deleat, adiungitur carbo divinus, per quem vigoratur, et vigorata delet venialia; nihilominus tamen, si non habet venialia, caritatis fervor vigoratur.

3. Ad aliud dicendum, quod non irritatur huius Sacramenti effectus per aliquod veniale: quia veniale non tollit gratiam, sicut mortale tollit; et possibile est, unum veniale remitti, altero non remisso[^13]. Unde veniale nec irritat antecedenter faciendo fictum, nec consequenter evacuando fructum; nec oportet, alia venialia deleri, sed secundum quod homo melius se disponit, et caritas contra illa vigoratur; unde plus et minus in diversis.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de augmento, dicendum, quod augmentum intelligitur quantum ad fervorem, non quantum ad essentiam. Et quantum ad fervorem non omnes ita procedunt propter multa venialia, quae committunt, quae illum diminuunt.

5. Ultimum manifestum est, quia neuter horum est primus et proprius effectus huius Sacramenti, sed magis unire, ut visum est[^14].

english:
### Question III. *What is the efficacy of this Sacrament.*

Thirdly it is asked what is the efficacy of this Sacrament. And the Master says[^1] that it is the remission of venial sins and the augmentation of the virtues. And that it is so, it seems.

1. Innocent[^2]: "The Eucharist frees from evil and preserves in good, blots out venial [sins] and guards against mortal [ones]." "By the power of this Sacrament also all the virtues are increased, and the fruits of all graces abound."

2. Likewise, *by reason* it seems so: because this is said to be the Sacrament of union; either therefore because it unites anew, or because it unites more. Not because it unites anew[^3]: therefore because it unites more; but if it unites more: therefore it increases the virtues.

3. Likewise, if it unites more, then that which [unites] less is repugnant to it; but this is venial [sin], because Augustine [says][^4]: "He loves you less who loves anything together with you," and this is said of the venial: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, "the flesh of Christ is like a burning coal[^5]"; but it belongs to a burning coal to drive away cold and to intensify heat: therefore this Sacrament represses the cold motions of fault and intensifies the living motions of grace: therefore it blots out and augments.

5. Likewise, this Sacrament is offered daily: therefore, if it is not in vain, it gives therefore something of which we have daily need; but that of which we have daily need is liberation from venial evil and advance in good, because charity either falls away or advances[^6]: therefore, etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Of one Sacrament there ought to be one principal effect: therefore it is not [ordered] to these two aforesaid effects.

Likewise, that it is not [ordered] to the remission of venial [sins], is shown on the contrary:

2. First: because he who approaches this Sacrament either approaches contrite or not. If contrite: then the fault has been remitted to him; if not contrite: then the fault remains: therefore the Eucharist has no effect upon venial [sins]. If you say that contrition is not always sufficient; granted that it be so great that it suffices, then this Sacrament will have no effect, and yet he is better disposed.

3. Likewise, if the effect of this Sacrament is the blotting out of venial [sins]: then he who sins venially nullifies its effect, just as he who sins mortally nullifies the effect of baptism; but a man is necessarily bound to sin venially[^7], therefore [he is bound] also to nullify this Sacrament: therefore it ought never to be received, because no one ought ever to offer insult to this Sacrament.

Likewise, that the augmentation of the virtues is not the effect of this Sacrament, it seems:

4. Because, if this [were so], then someone who receives this Sacrament daily would very quickly become perfect; but we see this to be false: therefore, etc.

5. Likewise, the augmentation of the virtues is the effect of baptism and confirmation, as the Master said above[^8], and likewise the remission of venial [sins]: therefore not of this Sacrament.

> **Conclusion.** The efficacy of this Sacrament is to unite the already-united more closely in a threefold way.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that, since this Sacrament is [a Sacrament] of union, its first effect is either to unite or to unite more; but not to unite anew, as was shown above[^9], but to unite more those already united. Now to unite more is [done] in three ways: either because someone is united by a greater bond, as he is united more who has greater charity; or because he is united by the same bond more closely, as he who according to the same habit loves more fervently; or because [he is united] by the same [bond] more firmly, as he who is more rooted in the same habit[^10]. — This Sacrament is therefore said to unite more because it renders the one who worthily approaches more fervent, like a burning coal; and again, it renders him stronger, like good food. And from this, that it renders charity more enkindled, it helps toward the consuming of the rust of venial sin; from this, that it strengthens more, it helps toward the avoiding of all crimes; and by reason of both it avails toward the augmentation of the virtues, and especially of charity, which is the bond[^11], not as regards essence, but as regards fervor or rootedness. For fervor is daily diminished through venial [sins], and [so is] rootedness; therefore it is necessary that what is lost be restored through this food. — From these things the objections are clear. For the reasons [adduced] for the first part are to be granted.

1. As to what is objected, that of one Sacrament[^12] there is one effect; it must be said that this is true [of] the first [effect]; and that is to unite more, and through it [the Sacrament] has these two as consequents.

2. To that which is objected, that venial [sins] are blotted out in contrition; it must be said that this is not the first effect, but comes about as a consequence, when a man has need; as for instance when the fervor of charity is not of itself so intense as to blot out venial sins, the divine coal is joined [to it], by which it is invigorated, and once invigorated it blots out the venial [sins]; nevertheless, even if he has no venial [sins], the fervor of charity is invigorated.

3. To the other it must be said that the effect of this Sacrament is not nullified by any venial [sin]: because the venial does not take away grace, as the mortal takes [it] away; and it is possible for one venial [sin] to be remitted while another is not remitted[^13]. Hence the venial neither nullifies antecedently by producing pretense, nor consequently by emptying out the fruit; nor is it necessary that other venial [sins] be blotted out, but according as a man better disposes himself, charity is invigorated against them; whence there is more and less in different [persons].

4. To that which is objected concerning augmentation, it must be said that the augmentation is understood as regards fervor, not as regards essence. And as regards fervor not all advance in this way, on account of the many venial [sins] which they commit, which diminish it.

5. The last is manifest, because neither of these is the first and proper effect of this Sacrament, but [rather] to unite more, as has been seen[^14].

la: Hic in lit. c. 6.

en: Here in the text [of the Master], c. 6.

la: Libr. IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 44, ubi textus originalis *et confirmat* pro *et conservat.* Secundus textus habetur ibid. paulo superius: Per huius ergo Sacramenti virtutem universae... fructus exuberant. — Plurimi codd. *exuberat.*

en: Book IV *On the sacred mystery of the Altar*, c. 44, where the original text [reads] *and confirms* for *and preserves.* The second text is found in the same place a little above: Through the power, therefore, of this Sacrament all... the fruits abound. — Very many codices [read] *abounds.*

la: Vide quaest. praeced.

en: See the preceding question.

la: Libr. X. Confess. c. 29. n. 40.

en: Book X *Confessions* c. 29, n. 40.

la: Ut dicit Damasc., IV. de Fide orthod. c. 13. Cfr. supra pag. 188, nota 4.

en: As Damascene says, IV *On the orthodox faith* c. 13. Cf. above p. 188, note 4.

la: Bernard., Serm. 35. de Diversis, n. 2. dicit, quod « unum necesse sit e duobus, aut proficere scilicet, aut prorsus deficere ». Cfr. tom. III. pag. 661, nota 6. De ipso arg. vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 6.

en: Bernard, *Sermon* 35 *On Various Subjects*, n. 2, says that "one of two [things] is necessary, namely either to advance or to fall away utterly." Cf. vol. III, p. 661, note 6. Concerning this argument see here the text of the Master, c. 6.

la: Cfr. infra dub. 4. nec non II. Sent. d. 36. dub. 4, et magis explicite d. 41. a. 2. q. 1. — Finem arg. insinuat August., l. de Baptismo contra Donatistas, c. 1. n. 2: Nulli enim Sacramento iniuria facienda est.

en: Cf. below dub. 4, and also II *Sent.* d. 36. dub. 4, and more explicitly d. 41. a. 2. q. 1. — The end of the argument Augustine intimates, *On Baptism, against the Donatists*, bk. 1, c. 1, n. 2: For no injury is to be done to a Sacrament.

la: Dist. III. c. 9; d. IV. c. 5. et c. VII. c. 4.

en: Distinction III, c. 9; d. IV, c. 5, and c. VII, c. 4.

la: Quaest. praeced.

en: The preceding question.

la: Col. 3, 14: Vinculum perfectionis. — De modo, quo augetur et minuitur, cfr. I. Sent. d. 17. p. II. q. 2. seq.

en: Col. 3, 14: The bond of perfection. — Concerning the manner in which it is increased and diminished, cf. I *Sent.* d. 17. p. II. q. 2 ff.

la: Ex codd. F G H U supplevimus *unius Sacramenti.*

en: From codices F G H U we have supplied *of one Sacrament.*

la: Cfr. infra d. 15. p. I. q. 2. ad 3; d. 21. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. et q. 2. ad 5. — In fine solut. cod. II, variata interpunctione, legit: *vigoratur secundum plus et minus in diversis.*

en: Cf. below d. 15. p. I. q. 2. ad 3; d. 21. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. and q. 2. ad 5. — At the end of the solution codex II, with altered punctuation, reads: *is invigorated according to more and less in different [persons].*

latin_scholion:
Cf. the scholion rendered with **Articulus I, Quaestio I** (`bon-sent-IV-d12-p2-a1-q1`), which covers the questions of this article together. Footnote 8 of p. 293 above expressly refers the reader there: *Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.*

---

english_scholion:
See the scholion rendered with **Article I, Question I** (`bon-sent-IV-d12-p2-a1-q1`), which treats the questions of this article together. Footnote 8 of p. 293 above expressly refers the reader there: *See the scholion on question 1 of this article.*

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from Vol IV PDF column bands (printed pp. 292–293; `colcrop.py vol4` split_x=1880) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 33621–33741, which run on into ARTICULUS II at the tail) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The contra arguments, Respondeo, the five solutions, and all footers were cascade-shattered / column-interleaved in OCR and taken from the PDF bands. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Alignment.** The chunk opener (`Tertio quaeritur, quae sit efficacia huius Sacramenti`) is the article's QUAESTIO III, confirmed against the PDF (p.292 QUAESTIO III header, *Quae sit efficacia huius Sacramenti*) and against the raw (line 33621 = QUAESTIO III, line 33455 = QUAESTIO II). The "Tertio quaeritur" opener correctly matches q3. Note: this question uses *Quae sit* (not *Utrum*) as its title — set verbatim.

**Page span.** q3 spans printed pp. **292–293** (not 293–294). The skeleton/brief named "~293–294," but the QUAESTIO III header and arguments 1–5 + contra fall on the bottom of p.292; the prompt's intended bands (p293/p294) covered only the second page. p292 bands (`vol4-p292-{L,R}-{0,1,2}`) already existed and were read. q3 opens low on p.292 (after q2's reply 7), runs through to the upper portion of p.293 R column (`...ut visum est⁸`), just before ARTICULUS II. printed_pages set to [292, 293]; pdf_pages [312, 313] (offset +20).

**Running heads.** p.292 L top = "292 SENTENTIARUM [LIB. IV]"; p.293 L top = "DIST. XII. P. II. ART. II ... 293" (the running head already advances to ART. II because Articulus II opens on p.293). Page-verify passes for DIST. XII. P. II. ART. (the I→II head reflects Art II's opening low on p.293, not a misalignment).

**Apparatus / footer-ownership (per-page restart).**
- **p.292**: notes **6–11** are anchored in q3's body (opener *Magister*, args 1–5, contra) → [^1]–[^6]. Notes 1–5 of p.292 anchor in q2's solutio and belong to **a1-q2**.
- **p.293**: notes **1–8** are anchored in q3's body (contra arg. 3, args 4–5, Respondeo, solutions 1–5) → [^7]–[^14]. The whole of p.293 above ARTICULUS II is q3; Art II's q1 ("Secundo quaeritur, quid sit melius…") carries no footnote markers on p.293.

**Hand-off forwarded.** ARTICULUS II (*De frequentatione huius Sacramenti*, raw 33742) begins low on p.293 R column and continues onto p.294; its first question ("Primo quaeritur, utrum necesse sit accedere…") and any p.294 footers belong to **a2** (next chunk). No q3 footer was stranded in Art II.

**Scholion disposition.** q3 renders **no** scholion of its own. The Articulus I scholion is rendered with QUAESTIO I (`bon-sent-IV-d12-p2-a1-q1`); p.293 footnote 8 (*Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.*) is the explicit pointer. A one-line La+En cross-reference is given under `### Scholion`. No distinct "SCHOLION." header falls within this chunk's raw range. `has_scholion: false`.

**`[?]` flags.** None — all readings resolved against the PDF bands.


title: Dist. 12, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 293 -->

### Articulus II. *De frequentatione huius Sacramenti.*

Consequenter quaeritur de huius Sacramenti frequentatione. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur, utrum necesse sit accedere ad hoc Sacramentum, sive utrum teneamur accedere. Secundo quaeritur, quid sit melius habenti libertatem accedendi, scilicet frequentare, an tarde accedere. Tertio, utrum homo debeat se retrahere ab hoc Sacramento propter immunditiam corporalem[^1].

<!-- page 294 -->

### Quaestio I. *Utrum teneamur accedere ad Sacramentum eucharistiae.*

Circa primum ostenditur, quod sit necesse ad hoc Sacramentum accedere, hoc modo:

1. Ioannis sexto[^2]: *Nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis et biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis* etc.

2. Item, Ecclesia excommunicat non accedentes ad hoc Sacramentum determinatis temporibus[^3]; sed non excommunicat pro veniali culpa vel levi: ergo gravis culpa est non accedere; et si hoc, necesse est accedere.

3. Item, Innocentius[^4]: « Necessario manducandus est Agnus, ut a vastante Angelo protegamur; nec exire possumus de Aegypto, nisi celebrando phase paschalem Agnum comedamus ». Et ante hoc dicit, quod necesse est, quod homo se praeparet, ne cessando sumere incurrat periculum.

4. Item, de sacerdote specialiter ostenditur, ut dicit Ambrosius[^5] in quadam oratione: « Grave est, quod ad mensam tuam mundo corde et innocentibus manibus non venimus; sed gravius est, si, quia peccata metuimus, sacrificium non reddamus »; sed primum mortale: ergo et secundum.

5. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia sacerdoti impositum est officium; sed officium sine usu est otiosum; et amplius, qui habet talentum, tenetur illo uti, ne damnetur cum servo nequam[^6]: ergo tenetur sacrificium offerre. Et est exemplum: si aliquis habet officium praedicandi sibi impositum et videret, expedire exsecutionem, et negligeret; graviter peccaret.

**Contra:**
1. Augustinus[^7]: « Quid paras dentem et ventrem? Crede, et manducasti »: si ergo sufficit ad manducationem credere, non ergo tenemur sumere Sacramentum.

2. Item, effectus huius Sacramenti est deletio venialium et augmentum virtutum[^8]; sed neutrum est de necessitate salutis: ergo etc.

3. Item, si necesse esset accedere: ergo parvuli, qui non accedunt nec manducant, omnes damnarentur.

> **Conclusio.** Eucharistiae sumtio non est de necessitate, quantum est de sua institutione; est tamen necessaria ex officio assumto, vel ex praecepto superaddito.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Sacramentum hoc non est de necessitate, quantum est de sua institutione; sed si est, hoc est ex assumto officio, vel mandato superaddito: ex assumto officio, quod scilicet necessarium est exsequi, ut cum sacerdos vivit de altari, ut parochianus[^9] debet servire altari; si autem non vivat de altari, sed in libertate sua remaneat, non tenetur magis quam alius homo ex debito, sed magis de bono et aequo. Ex mandato superaddito, quod instituit Ecclesia, ut fideles communicarent semel in anno et in morte. Unde si quis negligit, non est sine contemptu; ideo peccat mortaliter.

Ratio autem, quare Ecclesia instituit, est, quia hoc Sacramentum est salubre, et multi erant negligentes de sua salute. Institutio autem Ecclesiae fuit sub praecepto, ut patet in Decretali de Poenitentiis, libro ultimo[^10]: « Omnis utriusque sexus fidelis, cum ad annos discretionis pervenerit, recipiat reverenter ad minus in Pascha eucharistiae Sacramentum, nisi forte de proprii sacerdotis consilio ob aliquam rationabilem causam ab eius perceptione ad tempus duxerit abstinendum; alioquin et vivens ab ingressu ecclesiae arceatur et moriens christiana careat sepultura ». Constat autem, quod haec est poena excommunicatorum. — Ex his patent obiecta.

<!-- page 295 -->

1. Nam verbum Ioannis, sive Domini in Ioanne intelligitur de manducatione spirituali, quae est per fidem et caritatem, sine qua nemo adultus salvatur; et haec etiam est in parvulo aliquo modo quantum ad incorporationem[^11].

2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Ecclesia, patet responsio: quia Ecclesia instituit, et ut institutio esset firma, addidit poenam. — Similiter illud Innocentii intelligitur aut de manducatione spirituali, aut de sacramentali ratione institutionis Ecclesiae.

4. Ad illud quod quaeritur de sacerdote, dicendum, quod si sacerdos est, qui habet curam[^12], tenetur, nisi alius eius defectum suppleat. — Ad illud quod obiicitur de Ambrosio, dicendum, quod loquitur de talibus, qui tenentur; vel si de omnibus, tunc loquitur de immunditia veniali, non mortali.

5. Ad aliud dicendum, quod officium sacerdotale non imponitur, ut homo necessario exsequatur, sed pro loco et tempore, ut sibi videbitur expedire; et ideo, si conscientia dictat, quod sit abstinendum ob sui indignitatem et reverentiam Sacramenti, non peccat; nec etiam praedicator, nisi quando videt imminere periculum, vel officium per obedientiam est ei iniunctum[^13], ut illud exsequatur.

english:
### Article II. *On the frequenting of this Sacrament.*

Consequently it is asked about the frequenting of this Sacrament. And concerning this, three things are asked. First, it is asked whether it is necessary to approach this Sacrament, or whether we are bound to approach [it]. Second, it is asked what is better for one who has the freedom of approaching, namely to frequent [it], or to approach [it] rarely. Third, whether a man ought to withdraw himself from this Sacrament on account of bodily uncleanness[^1].

### Question I. *Whether we are bound to approach the Sacrament of the Eucharist.*

Concerning the first, it is shown that it is necessary to approach this Sacrament, in this way:

1. John six[^2]: *Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have* etc.

2. Likewise, the Church excommunicates those who do not approach this Sacrament at determined times[^3]; but it does not excommunicate for a venial or light fault: therefore it is a grave fault not to approach; and if this is so, it is necessary to approach.

3. Likewise, Innocent[^4]: "The Lamb must necessarily be eaten, that we may be protected from the destroying Angel; nor can we go out of Egypt unless, by celebrating the phase, we eat the paschal Lamb." And before this he says that it is necessary that a man prepare himself, lest by ceasing to receive he incur danger.

4. Likewise, concerning the priest in particular it is shown, as Ambrose[^5] says in a certain prayer: "It is grievous that we do not come to your table with a clean heart and innocent hands; but it is more grievous if, because we fear sins, we do not render the sacrifice"; but the first is mortal: therefore also the second.

5. Likewise, *by reason* it seems so: because an office has been imposed on the priest; but an office without use is idle; and further, he who has a talent is bound to use it, lest he be condemned with the wicked servant[^6]: therefore he is bound to offer the sacrifice. And there is an example: if someone has the office of preaching imposed on him and were to see that it would be expedient to carry it out, and were to neglect [it]; he would sin grievously.

**On the contrary:**
1. Augustine[^7]: "Why do you prepare your tooth and your belly? Believe, and you have eaten": if therefore it suffices for eating to believe, then we are not bound to receive the Sacrament.

2. Likewise, the effect of this Sacrament is the blotting out of venial [sins] and the increase of virtues[^8]; but neither is of the necessity of salvation: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, if it were necessary to approach: then little children, who do not approach nor eat, would all be damned.

> **Conclusion.** The reception of the Eucharist is not of necessity, as regards its institution; yet it is necessary by reason of an office undertaken, or by a superadded precept.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that this Sacrament is not of necessity, as regards its institution; but if it is [necessary], this is by reason of an office undertaken, or by a superadded mandate: by reason of an office undertaken, namely which is necessary to carry out, as when a priest lives from the altar, just as a parishioner[^9] ought to serve the altar; but if he does not live from the altar, but remains in his freedom, he is not bound more than any other man out of debt, but rather out of what is good and equitable. By a superadded mandate, which the Church instituted, that the faithful should communicate once in the year and at death. Whence if anyone neglects [this], it is not without contempt; therefore he sins mortally.

But the reason why the Church instituted [this] is that this Sacrament is salutary, and many were negligent of their salvation. And the institution of the Church was under precept, as is clear in the Decretal *On Penances*, in the last book[^10]: "Let every faithful person of either sex, when he has come to the years of discretion, reverently receive at least at Easter the Sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perhaps by the counsel of his own priest, for some reasonable cause, he should think it right to abstain from receiving it for a time; otherwise let him while living be barred from entrance to the church, and at death let him lack Christian burial." But it is established that this is the penalty of the excommunicated. — From these things the objections are clear.

<!-- page 295 -->

1. For the word of John, or of the Lord in John, is understood of *spiritual* eating, which is through faith and charity, without which no adult is saved; and this also is in a little child in some manner as regards incorporation[^11].

2. 3. To that which is objected concerning the Church, the response is clear: because the Church instituted [it], and that the institution might be firm, it added a penalty. — Likewise that [saying] of Innocent is understood either of *spiritual* eating, or of the sacramental character of the Church's institution.

4. To that which is asked concerning the priest, it must be said that if he is a priest who has a cure [of souls][^12], he is bound, unless another supplies his default. — To that which is objected concerning Ambrose, it must be said that he speaks of such persons as are bound; or if of all, then he speaks of venial uncleanness, not mortal.

5. To the other it must be said that the priestly office is not imposed so that a man should necessarily carry it out, but according to place and time, as it shall seem expedient to him; and therefore, if conscience dictates that he ought to abstain on account of his own unworthiness and reverence for the Sacrament, he does not sin; nor does even a preacher, except when he sees danger threatening, or the office through obedience has been enjoined on him[^13], that he carry it out.

la: Cfr. infra dub. 4. nec non II. Sent. d. 36. dub. 4, et magis explicite d. 41. a. 2. q. 1. — Finem arg. insinuat August., I. de Baptismo contra Donatistas, c. 1. n. 2: *Nulli enim Sacramento iniuria facienda est.*

en: Cf. below dub. 4, and also II Sent. d. 36. dub. 4, and more explicitly d. 41. a. 2. q. 1. — Augustine hints at the purpose of the argument, I *On Baptism against the Donatists*, c. 1. n. 2: *For no injury must be done to a Sacrament.* [p. 293, n. 1]

la: Vers. 54.

la: Vide C. *Saeculares, qui in* (19.), de Consecr. d. II. 2. et C. *Omnis utriusque sexus* (12.), X. de Poenitentiis et remission. (libr. V. tit. 38.).

en: See the canon *Saeculares, qui in* (19), *On Consecration* dist. II. 2, and the canon *Omnis utriusque sexus* (12), in the Decretals *On Penances and Remissions* (book V. tit. 38). [p. 294, n. 2]

la: Libr. IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 42, ubi, praemissis verbis Domini, Ioan. 6, 54: *Nisi manducaveritis* etc, et Apostoli I. Cor. 11, 29: *Qui manducat et bibit indigne* etc, ac v. 28: *Probet autem se ipsum* etc, deinde ait: *Ingens itaque nobis videtur vel indicitur bene vivendi necessitas, ne corpus Domini vel indigne sumendo sumamus iudicium, vel sumere cessando nihilominus incurramus periculum. Necessario quippe sumendus est Agnus... paschalem Agnum edamus* (Exod. 12, 11.).

en: Book IV *On the sacred mystery of the Altar*, c. 42, where, having premised the words of the Lord, John 6:54: *Unless you eat* etc., and of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11:29: *He who eats and drinks unworthily* etc., and v. 28: *But let a man prove himself* etc., he then says: *There is therefore seen, or declared, to us a great necessity of living well, lest by receiving the body of the Lord even unworthily we should receive judgment, or by ceasing to receive we should nonetheless incur danger. For the Lamb must necessarily be received... let us eat the paschal Lamb* (Exod. 12:11). [p. 294, n. 3]

la: Oratio, ex qua verba subnexa sunt sumta, non est Ambrosii, sed Anselmi; inter cuius orationes invenitur sub n. 33: *Si tantum, Domine, reatum nostrae delinquentiae cogitamus, deputatum observationis ministerium non implemus; grave est enim, quod ad mensam... sed gravius est, si, dum peccatum metuimus, etiam sacrificium non reddamus.*

en: The prayer from which the words appended below are taken is not Ambrose's, but Anselm's; among whose prayers it is found under n. 33: *If, Lord, we consider only the guilt of our delinquency, we do not fulfill the appointed ministry of observance; for it is grievous that [we do not come] to the table... but it is more grievous if, while we fear sin, we also do not render the sacrifice.* [p. 294, n. 4]

la: De quo Luc. 19, 22. seqq. Cfr. Matth. 25, 26. — Glossa ordinaria sumta ex Beda exponit hunc versum de praedicatoribus Evangelii. — Inferius pro *habet* codd. GH *haberet.*

en: On which see Luke 19:22 ff. Cf. Matt. 25:26. — The ordinary Gloss, taken from Bede, expounds this verse of the preachers of the Gospel. — Below, for *habet* ("has") codices GH [read] *haberet* ("would have"). [p. 294, n. 5]

la: In Ioan. Evang. tr. 25. n. 12. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. IX. c. 1.

en: *On the Gospel of John*, tractate 25, n. 12. Cf. above the text of the Master, d. IX. c. 1. [p. 294, n. 6]

la: Ut ostensum est art. praeced. q. 3.

en: As was shown in the preceding article, q. 3. [p. 294, n. 7]

la: Edd. *ut parochianis prosit.*

en: The editions [read] *ut parochianis prosit* ("that it may profit the parishioners"). [p. 294, n. 8]

la: Sive lib. V. tit. 38. c. 12, ubi textus originalis post *pervenerit* subiungit praeceptum confitendi semel in anno peccata sua proprio sacerdoti.

en: That is, book V. tit. 38. c. 12, where the original text, after *pervenerit* ("has come"), adds the precept of confessing one's sins once a year to one's own priest. [p. 294, n. 9]

la: Cfr. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 26. n. 15; I. de Peccator. mer. et remiss. etc. c. 20. n. 26. seq., et III. c. 4. n. 7. seq. Vide etiam supra lit. Magistri, d. IX. c. 1, et de eadem re Comment. a. 1. q. 2; d. 4. p. 1. dub. 2. et p. II. a. 2. q. 1. seqq.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the Gospel of John*, tractate 26, n. 15; I *On the merits and remission of sins* etc. c. 20. n. 26 seq., and III. c. 4. n. 7 seq. See also above the text of the Master, d. IX. c. 1, and on the same matter the Commentary, a. 1. q. 2; d. 4. p. 1. dub. 2. and p. II. a. 2. q. 1 ff. [p. 295, n. 1]

la: Cod. H (F a secunda manu) supplet *animarum.* Mox post *alius* cod. F addit *esset qui.*

en: Codex H (F by a second hand) supplies *animarum* ("of souls" — i.e. *curam animarum*, "a cure of souls"). Soon after, following *alius* ("another"), codex F adds *esset qui* ("there were one who"). [p. 295, n. 2]

la: Edd. *vel negligit officium per inobedientiam; est enim iniunctum.*

en: The editions [read] *vel negligit officium per inobedientiam; est enim iniunctum* ("or he neglects the office through disobedience; for it has been enjoined"). [p. 295, n. 3]

latin_scholion:
**I.** Hic agitur de sumtione *sacramentali* eucharistiae; de sumtione sive manducatione *spirituali* cfr. supra d. 9. q. 1. 3. — Ad solvendam hanc 1. quaestionem supponenda est distinctio inter necessitatem *medii* et necessitatem *praecepti*. Haec iterum duplex est, secundum quod praeceptum vel est *divinum*, vel *ecclesiasticum*. Quod autem sumtio eucharistiae sacramentalis non requiratur necessitate *medii* ad obtinendam, vel augendam gratiam, patet (cfr. supra scholion ad a. 1. q. 1.); nec requiritur, absolute loquendo, ad perseverandum in gratia. Quoad parvulos generatim dicit Concil. Tridentum (Sess. XXI. can. 4.): « Si quis dixerit, parvulis, antequam ad annos discretionis pervenerint, necessariam esse eucharistiae communionem, a. s. ». — De praecepto *ecclesiastico* quoad *adultos* non est dubium; sed utrum praeceptum *divinum* eosdem obliget ad realem eucharistiae sumtionem, fuit quaestio controversa. S. Bonav. (ad 1.) hoc vult negare; quod etiam cum pluribus antiquis docuerunt Alex. Hal. et ipse S. Thomas in Comment. (hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. et d. 9. q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2.), atque Dionys. Carth. Sed S. Thom. (S. III. q. 80. a. 11.) hanc sententiam retractavit, recte arguens: « Frustra esset *votum*, nisi impleretur, quando opportunitas adesset. Et ideo manifestum est, quod homo tenetur hoc Sacramentum sumere, non solum ex statuto ecclesiae, sed ex mandato Domini... Ex statuto autem Ecclesiae sunt determinata tempora exsequendi Christi praeceptum ». Conveniunt Richard. a Med. (hic a. 6. q. 1.), Scot. (IV. Sent. d. 13. q. 2. n. 20.), Durand. (IV. Sent. d. 13, q. 2.). Sententia nunc communis docet, lege *divina* praecipi adultis, ut eucharistiam sumant interdum, saltem instante morte. — De hac 1. quaestione praeter locos citt.: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 11. m. 2. a. 1. § 1. in fine. — S. Thom., S. III. q. 73. a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., IV. Sent. d. 9. q. 1. a. 3. — Dionys. Carth., IV. Sent. d. 9. q. 1.

**II.** Ad seq. (2.) quaestionem Scholastici antiqui communiter respondent, quod perfecte disposito magis expediret communicare, etiam singulis diebus, quam a communione abstinere; simul laudant humilitatem, qua quis ob reverentiam interdum eam omittit. Quoad praxim notum est, frequentem communionem illa aetate non fuisse ita in usu, sicut in primitiva Ecclesia et nostris temporibus respectu eorum qui pietatem profitentur. Hinc B. Albert. (IV. Sent. d. 13. a. 28. ad ult.), postquam dixit, devotas mulieres, etiam in matrimonio viventes, quae se praeparant, non esse prohibendas a frequenti communione, addit: « praecipue de mense ad mensem secundum solemnitates maiores, quia iniuste arcentur qui digni sunt ». — De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 1. in principio. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1; S. III. q. 80. a. 10. — B. Albert. a. cit. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 6. q. 1. — Durand., hic q. 5. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.

**III.** De seq. (3.) quaestione alii commentatores Magistri solent tractare supra in d. 9, qui in doctrina satis conveniunt. — De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 2. § 3. — Scot. rem tangit infra d. 32. n. 7. — S. Thom., d. 9. q. 1. a. 4; S. loc. cit. a. 7. — B. Albert., d. 9. a. 10. 11. — Petr. a Tar., d. 9. q. 2. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., d. 9. a. 2. q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., d. 9. q. 5.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Here treatment is made of the *sacramental* reception of the Eucharist; on the *spiritual* reception or eating cf. above d. 9. q. 1. 3. — For solving this 1st question a distinction is to be presupposed between the necessity of *means* and the necessity of *precept*. This again is twofold, according as the precept is either *divine* or *ecclesiastical*. That the sacramental reception of the Eucharist is not required by necessity of *means* for obtaining or increasing grace, is clear (cf. above the scholion on a. 1. q. 1.); nor is it required, absolutely speaking, for persevering in grace. As regards little children, the Council of Trent says generally (Sess. XXI. can. 4): "If anyone shall say that for little children, before they have come to the years of discretion, communion of the Eucharist is necessary, let him be anathema." — Concerning the *ecclesiastical* precept as regards *adults* there is no doubt; but whether the *divine* precept obliges the same to the real reception of the Eucharist was a controverted question. St. Bonaventure (at 1) wishes to deny this; which, with many of the ancients, Alexander of Hales and St. Thomas himself in his Commentary also taught (here q. 3. a. 2. subquestion 1, and d. 9. q. 1. a. 1. subquestion 2), and also Dionysius the Carthusian. But St. Thomas (*Summa* III. q. 80. a. 11) retracted this opinion, rightly arguing: "A *vow* would be in vain unless it were fulfilled when opportunity is present. And therefore it is manifest that a man is bound to receive this Sacrament, not only from the statute of the Church, but from the mandate of the Lord... But from the statute of the Church the times of carrying out Christ's precept are determined." Richard of Mediavilla (here a. 6. q. 1.), Scotus (IV Sent. d. 13. q. 2. n. 20.), Durandus (IV Sent. d. 13. q. 2.) agree. The now common opinion teaches that adults are commanded by *divine* law to receive the Eucharist from time to time, at least at the approach of death. — On this 1st question, besides the places cited: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV. q. 11. m. 2. a. 1. § 1. at the end. — St. Thomas, *Summa* III. q. 73. a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, IV Sent. d. 9. q. 1. a. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, IV Sent. d. 9. q. 1.

**II.** To the following (2nd) question the ancient Scholastics commonly respond that for one perfectly disposed it would be more expedient to communicate, even on single days, than to abstain from communion; at the same time they praise the humility by which one, out of reverence, sometimes omits it. As regards practice, it is known that frequent communion was not so much in use in that age as in the primitive Church and in our times in respect of those who profess piety. Whence Bl. Albert (IV Sent. d. 13. a. 28. at the end), after he had said that devout women, even those living in matrimony, who prepare themselves, are not to be prohibited from frequent communion, adds: "especially from month to month according to the greater solemnities, because those who are worthy are unjustly barred." — Concerning the same question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 1. at the beginning. — St. Thomas, here q. 3. a. 1; *Summa* III. q. 80. a. 10. — Bl. Albert, the article cited. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4. a. 2. subquestion 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 6. q. 1. — Durandus, here q. 5. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 5.

**III.** Concerning the following (3rd) question other commentators on the Master are wont to treat above in d. 9, who agree well enough in doctrine. — Concerning the same question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. a. 2. § 3. — Scotus touches on the matter below at d. 32. n. 7. — St. Thomas, d. 9. q. 1. a. 4; *Summa* loc. cit. a. 7. — Bl. Albert, d. 9. a. 10. 11. — Peter of Tarentaise, d. 9. q. 2. a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, d. 9. a. 2. q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, d. 9. q. 5.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from Vol IV PDF column bands (printed pp. 293–295; `colcrop.py vol4` split_x=1880) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 33742–34024) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The two-column body, Respondeo, solutions, scholion, and all footers were cascade-shattered in OCR (diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation + two-column bleed) and taken from the PDF bands. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Alignment.** The opener aligns: raw `Primo quaeritur, utrum necesse sit accedere ad hoc Sacramentum, sive utrum teneamur accedere` matches the q1 title and the PDF (p.293 bottom: ARTICULUS II, *De frequentatione huius Sacramenti*; QUAESTIO I, *Utrum teneamur accedere ad Sacramentum eucharistiae*, opening at the top of p.294). Per the d.1/d.10 convention, the short ARTICULUS II opener (`Consequenter quaeritur de huius Sacramenti frequentatione… quaeruntur tria`) folds into this q1 — no standalone article-divisio chunk.

**Page span — CORRECTED.** The prompt estimated ~pp. 293–296; the actual span is **pp. 293–295**. The ARTICULUS II opener is printed at the foot of the left column of **p. 293** (above which sits the tail — CONCLUSIO + RESPONDEO — of the preceding question on the Sacrament's *efficacy*, "Efficacia huius Sacramenti est unitas magis unire"). QUAESTIO I proper opens at the top of **p. 294** (verso head "294 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."): the arguments 1–5, Contra 1–3, Conclusio, and Respondeo all run on p. 294. The solutions (replies 1, 2.3, 4, 5) and the full three-section article SCHOLION run on **p. 295** (head "DIST. XII. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. II. 295" — the page head already reads QUAEST. II because the right columns of p. 295 carry QUAESTIO II, but q1's solutions + scholion occupy the upper portion). QUAESTIO II's body begins lower on p. 295. printed_pages = [293,294,295]; pdf_pages = [313,314,315] (offset +20).

**Apparatus / footer-ownership.** 13 footnotes. **Page 293** carries the ARTICULUS II opener's single note (left-column n. **1**, "Cfr. infra dub. 4… Finem arg. insinuat August.", anchoring after *immunditiam corporalem*) → [^1]; p. 293's remaining footers (nn. 2–8) belong to the preceding efficacy question and are NOT rendered here. **Page 294** has a single per-page footer sequence 1–9, all anchored in q1's body (args 1–5, Contra 1, Contra 2, Respondeo *parochianus* + *libro ultimo*) → [^2]–[^10]. **Page 295** restarts 1–6, of which nn. **1** (incorporationem — reply 1), **2** (curam *animarum* — reply 4), **3** (iniunctum — reply 5) anchor in q1's solutions → [^11]–[^13]; nn. 4–6 anchor in QUAESTIO II's body and belong to the next chunk. All footers in raw range L33742–34024 are thus accounted for; the preceding efficacy/pars-II-art-I chunk owns p. 293 nn. 2–8.

**Scholion disposition — ARTICLE-LEVEL, covers the whole of Articulus II (present in full here).** A SCHOLION is printed on p. 295 keyed to the *article's three questions*: section **I** = the 1st question (necessity of receiving — this q1); section **II** = the 2nd question (frequent vs. rare communion — a2-q2 territory); section **III** = the 3rd question (withdrawing for bodily uncleanness — a2-q3 territory). All three sections are printed on q1's closing page (p. 295), and section I leads with q1; per the prompt convention the scholion is therefore rendered IN FULL here (body first, scholion last). **Hand-off to q2 (`bon-sent-IV-d12-p2-a2-q2`):** do NOT re-render this scholion — point to a2-q1 (`scholion: see a2-q1`). Sections II and III are fully captured in this chunk (read from the p. 295 right-column bands), so the q2 and q3 writers need not re-read them. q2's opener is at raw L34025 ("QUAESTIO II. *Utrum habenti libertatem accedendi sit melius frequentare an tarde accedere*") with body beginning "Secundo quaeritur de habente libertatem accedendi…" (p. 295, running head "DIST. XII. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. II.").

**`[?]` flags.** None — all body and apparatus readings resolved against the PDF bands. Minor OCR normalizations silently corrected per the cleanup rules (`Ulrum`→`Utrum`, `aocedere`→`accedere`, `teneamur` OCR `ieneamur`, `lioc`→`hoc`, `delerminatis`→`determinatis`, `manducaverilis`→`manducaveritis`, `servo nequam`, `parochiauus`→`parochianus`, `immunditiara`→`immunditiam`, `insinual`→`insinuat`, `nelur`→`tenetur`, `obiicitur`, `exsequatur`).