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

source_text:
<!-- page 295 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum habenti libertatem accedendi sit melius frequentare, an tarde accedere.*

Secundo quaeritur de habente libertatem accedendi, quid sit ei melius, frequentare, an tarde accedere. Et quod *frequentare*, videtur:

1. Quia in primitiva Ecclesia, secundum quod dicitur Actuum secundo[^1], quotidie communicabant: ergo si optime fuit ab Apostolis instituta, videtur, quod eorum exemplo melius sit quotidie communicare.

2. Item, ostenditur auctoritate Domini[^2]: Dominus enim docuit nos orare et petere quotidie panem supersubstantialem, et alius Evangelista nominat ipsum quotidianum; et Ambrosius dicit: « Panis iste quotidianus est; quotidie accipe, ut quotidie tibi prosit »: ergo videtur auctoritate Domini et Ambrosii quod quotidie sit melius.

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia hoc Sacramentum est in remissionem venialium; sed semper peccamus venialiter: ergo debemus quotidie accipere. Et hoc est quod dicit Ambrosius[^3]: « Cum sanguis Christi effunditur, in remissionem peccatorum effunditur; semper ergo accipere debeo, quia semper pecco ».

<!-- page 296 -->

4. Item, *alia ratione* videtur: quia Sacramentum illud auget in homine virtutem et caritatem; sed quanto haec magis augentur, tanto melius est homo dispositus, et quanto melius dispositus, tanto frequentius debet accedere: ergo a primo ad Sacramentum hoc semper est accedendum.

**Contra:**
1. Augustinus, *de Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus*[^4]: « Quotidie Eucharistiam accipere nec laudo nec vitupero »; sed si semper deberet percipi, laudaret: ergo etc.

2. Item, Augustinus[^5]: « Quid paras dentem et ventrem? Crede tantum, et manducasti »: ergo nulla est utilitas in accipiendo corporaliter, quia, si aliqua esset utilitas, male ergo diceret Augustinus: « Quid paras dentem et ventrem »? quia diceretur ei: propter utilitatem.

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia possibile est manducare spiritualiter non accedendo, et non est ibi periculum; sed accedendo, nisi homo sit bene paratus, est periculum[^6]: ergo si via securior est eligenda, tunc ergo raro est communicandum sacramentaliter et saepe spiritualiter.

4. Item, gloria Dei nostro commodo est praeferenda; sed qui dimittit accedere propter Sacramenti dignitatem principaliter dat gloriam Deo, qui autem accedit propter Sacramenti efficaciam attendit proprium commodum: ergo melius facit qui cessat, quam qui accedit.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur de diversitate institutionis, quia, secundum quod dicitur *de Consecratione*, distinctione secunda[^7], Anacletus instituit, quod quandocumque venirent ad Ecclesiam; Fabianus, quod ter in anno; Soter Papa, quod in Coena Domini; et Decretalis dicit, quod semel in anno.

> **Conclusio.** Frequens sumtio eucharistiae bona est recipienti eam cum mundo corde et caritate ardente; sed frigido expedit raro accedere; medio modo se habenti convenit modo accedere modo abstinere.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod si quis semper esset paratus, semper utile esset hoc Sacramentum recipere, ut scilicet haberet habitaculum mundum et spiritualiter comederet hunc cibum cum honore et devotione. Quia igitur tempore Ecclesiae primitivae erant mundi per baptismi innocentiam et caritate ardentes per donationem Spiritus sancti; ideo congruebat eis quotidie communicare[^8]. — Quia vero postmodum caritas refriguit[^9], et per peccata munditia baptismalis ut in pluribus perdita est; relictum fuit iudicio et conscientiae uniuscuiusque, ut reciperet, quando se dispositum videret, ne aliter manducaret ad suam damnationem. — Et quia homines inceperunt fieri negligentes; oportuit, ut iterum institueretur a Summo Pontifice frequentatio. — Sed quia frequentabant multi et non bene se praeparabant; instituit Fabianus, ut tribus anni solemnitatibus, in quibus homines melius parantur et quas desiderabilius exspectant, communicarent, scilicet Natali, Paschate et Pentecoste. — Et quia homines adhuc processu temporis in his tribus temporibus negligenter se praeparabant; ideo hoc ad extremum est ad Pascha reductum, quod praecedit tempus praeparationis, scilicet Quadragesima.

Si ergo quaeritur, utrum expediat frequentare alicui; dicendum, quod si se videat esse in statu Ecclesiae primitivae, laudandum est quotidie communicare; si autem in statu Ecclesiae finali, utpote frigidum et tardum, laudandum est, quod raro; si autem medio modo, medio modo se debet habere, et aliquando debet cessare, ut addiscat revereri; aliquando accedere, ut inflammetur amore; quia tali hospiti debetur honor, debetur et amor; et tunc secundum illam partem, secundum quam viderit se melius proficere, ad illam magis declinet, quod homo solum experientia discit[^10]. — Omnes igitur rationes ad primam partem intelliguntur, salva debita praeparatione, quae in paucissimis est ut semper.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod Augustinus non laudat, sed relinquit conscientiae; dicendum, quod hoc dicit, quia quibusdam, ut tactum est, magis est utile frequentare, quibusdam autem raro; quia maiorem efficaciam, credo[^11], recipit homo in una Missa vel manducatione cum bona praeparatione, quam in multis, si non se praeparet diligenter.

2. Ad aliud dicendum, quod illud dicit Augustinus, non quia manducatio sacramentalis non sit fructuosa, sed contra illos qui carnaliter hunc cibum spiritualem comedebant, quia nullum fructum reportabant.

<!-- page 297 -->

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod securius est; dicendum, quod quamvis istud sit securius, tamen illud est utilius: quia, sicut plus prodest baptismus sanguinis et fluminis quam sanguinis tantum[^12]; sic plus manducatio spiritualis, quando coniuncta est sacramentali, quam quando est per se.

4. Ad aliud dicendum, quod uterque dat gloriam Deo, et qui manducat cum reverentia, et qui ex reverentia dimittit. Sicut enim dicit Augustinus[^13] et centurio Dominum honoravit, cum noluit, quod domum eius intraret; et Zachaeus, qui in domum introduxit[^14].

english:
### Question II. *Whether for one having the liberty of approaching it is better to frequent [communion] or to approach rarely.*

Secondly, it is asked, concerning one having the liberty of approaching, what is better for him, to frequent [communion] or to approach rarely. And that [it is better] *to frequent* [it], it seems:

1. Because in the primitive Church, according to what is said in Acts the second [chapter][^1], they communicated daily: therefore, if it was established in the best way by the Apostles, it seems that, by their example, it is better to communicate daily.

2. Likewise, it is shown by the authority of the Lord[^2]: for the Lord taught us to pray and ask daily for the supersubstantial bread, and another Evangelist names it the daily [bread]; and Ambrose says: "This bread is daily; receive it daily, that it may daily profit you": therefore it seems by the authority of the Lord and of Ambrose that [to communicate] daily is better.

3. Likewise, *by reason* it seems so: because this Sacrament is for the remission of venial [sins]; but we always sin venially: therefore we ought to receive daily. And this is what Ambrose says[^3]: "When the blood of Christ is poured out, it is poured out for the remission of sins; therefore I ought always to receive, because I always sin."

4. Likewise, *by another reason* it seems so: because that Sacrament increases in a man virtue and charity; but the more these are increased, the better disposed is the man, and the better disposed, the more frequently he ought to approach: therefore from the first [principle] this Sacrament is always to be approached.

**On the contrary:**
1. Augustine, *On Ecclesiastical Dogmas*[^4]: "To receive the Eucharist daily I neither praise nor blame"; but if it ought always to be received, he would praise [it]: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, Augustine[^5]: "Why do you prepare the tooth and the belly? Only believe, and you have eaten": therefore there is no utility in receiving bodily, because, if there were any utility, then Augustine would speak ill [in saying]: "Why do you prepare the tooth and the belly"? since it would be said to him: on account of the utility.

3. Likewise, *by reason* it seems so: because it is possible to eat spiritually without approaching, and there is no danger there; but in approaching, unless a man be well prepared, there is danger[^6]: therefore, if the safer way is to be chosen, then communion is to be made rarely sacramentally and often spiritually.

4. Likewise, the glory of God is to be preferred to our own advantage; but he who forgoes approaching on account of the dignity of the Sacrament gives glory to God principally, whereas he who approaches on account of the efficacy of the Sacrament attends to his own advantage: therefore he does better who refrains than he who approaches.

Alongside this it is asked concerning the diversity of the institution, because, according to what is said *On the Consecration*, distinction two[^7], Anacletus instituted that [communion be received] whenever they came to the Church; Fabian, that [it be received] three times in the year; Pope Soter, that [it be received] on the Lord's Supper [Maundy Thursday]; and the Decretal says, that [it be received] once a year.

> **Conclusion.** The frequent receiving of the Eucharist is good for one who receives it with a clean heart and burning charity; but for the cold one it is expedient to approach rarely; for one who is in a middle state it is fitting now to approach, now to abstain.

**I respond:** It must be said that, if anyone were always prepared, it would always be useful to receive this Sacrament, namely so that he might have a clean dwelling-place and might spiritually eat this food with honor and devotion. Since therefore in the time of the primitive Church [people] were clean by the innocence of baptism and burning with charity through the gift of the Holy Spirit; therefore it was fitting for them to communicate daily[^8]. — But because afterwards charity grew cold[^9], and through sins the baptismal cleanness was for the most part lost; it was left to the judgment and conscience of each one to receive when he saw himself disposed, lest otherwise he should eat unto his own damnation. — And because men began to become negligent; it was necessary that frequentation be again instituted by the Supreme Pontiff. — But because many frequented [it] and did not prepare themselves well; Fabian instituted that they communicate on the three solemnities of the year, on which men are better prepared and which they await more longingly, namely at the Nativity, at Easter, and at Pentecost. — And because men, still in the course of time, prepared themselves negligently on these three occasions; therefore this was at last reduced to Easter, which is preceded by a time of preparation, namely Lent.

If therefore it is asked whether it is expedient for someone to frequent [communion]; it must be said that, if he sees himself to be in the state of the primitive Church, it is to be praised to communicate daily; but if [he sees himself] in the final state of the Church, as being cold and slow, it is to be praised [to communicate] rarely; but if [he is] in a middle way, he ought to conduct himself in a middle way, and sometimes ought to refrain, that he may learn to revere; sometimes to approach, that he may be inflamed with love; because to such a guest honor is owed, and love is owed; and then, according to that part by which he sees himself to profit better, let him incline more to that [part], which a man learns only by experience[^10]. — All the arguments, therefore, are understood [as applying] to the first part, saving the due preparation, which is in very few [persons] as [if it were] always [present].

1. To that which is objected to the contrary, that Augustine does not praise but leaves [it] to the conscience; it must be said that he says this because, for some, as has been touched on, it is more useful to frequent [communion], but for some [to do so] rarely; because, I believe[^11], a man receives greater efficacy in one Mass or eating with good preparation than in many, if he does not prepare himself diligently.

2. To the other it must be said that Augustine says that, not because sacramental eating is not fruitful, but against those who were eating this spiritual food carnally, because they brought back no fruit.

3. To that which is objected, that it is safer; it must be said that, although that be safer, nevertheless the other is more useful: because, just as the baptism of blood and of water profits more than [the baptism] of blood alone[^12]; so spiritual eating [profits] more when it is joined to the sacramental [eating] than when it is by itself.

4. To the other it must be said that both give glory to God, both he who eats with reverence, and he who out of reverence forgoes [it]. For as Augustine says[^13], the centurion too honored the Lord when he was unwilling that he should enter his house; and [so did] Zacchaeus, who brought [him] into his house[^14].

la: Matth. 6, 11; Luc. 11, 3. — Verba Ambrosii habentur in V. de Sacram. c. 4. n. 25. Cfr. Serm. 84. in appendice sermonum August. (alias 28. de Verbis Domini) n. 3, et hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.

en: Matthew 6:11; Luke 11:3. — The words of Ambrose are found in *On the Sacraments* V, c. 4, n. 25. Cf. Sermon 84 in the appendix to the sermons of Augustine (otherwise 28, *On the Words of the Lord*) n. 3, and here [in] the text of the Master, c. 4.

la: Libr. IV. de Sacram. c. 6. n. 28: Si, quotiescumque effunditur sanguis, in remissionem peccatorum effunditur, debeo semper accipere, ut semper mihi peccata dimittantur. Qui semper pecco semper debeo habere medicinam.

en: Book IV *On the Sacraments* c. 6, n. 28: If, whenever the blood is poured out, it is poured out for the remission of sins, I ought always to receive, that my sins may always be forgiven me. I who always sin ought always to have the medicine.

la: (Gennadius) c. 23. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 6.

en: (Gennadius) c. 23. See here [in] the text of the Master, c. 6.

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

en: *On the Gospel of John*, tractate 25, n. 12. See above [in] the text of the Master, d. IX. c. 1.

la: Vide supra pag. 294, nota 3.

en: See above p. 294, note 3.

la: Can. *Peracta consecratione* (10.), omnes communicent, qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus. Sic enim Apostoli statuerunt [cfr. Can. Apostol. 8.], et sancta Romana tenet Ecclesia. — *Fabian.*, C. *Etsi non frequentius* (16.), saltem in anno ter laici homines communicent, nisi forte quis maioribus quibuslibet criminibus impediatur; in Pascha videlicet et Pentecoste et Natali Domini. — *Soter*, C. *In Coena Domini* (17.) a quibusdam perceptio eucharistiae negligitur etc. — Decretalis *Omnis utriusque sexus* vide in corp. quaest. praeced.

en: The canon *Peracta consecratione* (10.): let all communicate who would not be deprived of the thresholds of the Church. For thus the Apostles ordained [cf. Apostolic Canons 8], and the holy Roman Church holds [it]. — *Fabian*, canon *Etsi non frequentius* (16.): at least three times in the year let lay people communicate, unless perhaps anyone be impeded by any of the greater crimes; namely at Easter and Pentecost and the Nativity of the Lord. — *Soter*, canon *In Coena Domini* (17.): by some the reception of the Eucharist is neglected, etc. — For the Decretal *Omnis utriusque sexus*, see in the body of the preceding question.

la: Vide art. praeced. q. 1.

en: See the preceding article, q. 1.

la: Respicitur Matth. 24, 12: Refrigescet caritas multorum.

en: Reference is made to Matthew 24:12: "The charity of many shall grow cold."

la: Cfr. August., Epist. 54. (alias 118.) c. 3. n. 4, ex qua refert C. *Quotidie* (13.) § 1, de Consecrat. d. 2: Dixerit quispiam, non quotidie accipiendam eucharistiam, alius affirmet, quotidie; faciat unusquisque quod secundum fidem suam pie credit esse faciendum etc. Vide infra solut. ad 4.

en: Cf. Augustine, *Letter* 54 (otherwise 118) c. 3, n. 4, from which the canon *Quotidie* (13.) § 1, *On the Consecration* d. 2, reports: "Let one say that the Eucharist is not to be received daily, let another affirm [it should be received] daily; let each one do what according to his own faith he piously believes is to be done," etc. See below, the solution to [objection] 4.

la: Codd. FGUbb *ut credo*, Vat. cum aliquot codd. legit *credo, quod recipiat*.

en: Codices FGUbb [read] *ut credo*, the Vatican [edition] with several codices reads *credo, quod recipiat*.

la: Vide supra d. 4. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. et dub. 3. — Plurimi codd. perperam *fluminis* pro *fluminis*. In fine solut. Vat. addit *solum*.

en: See above d. 4. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. and dub. 3. — Very many codices wrongly [read] *fluminis* for *fluminis*. At the end of the solution the Vatican [edition] adds *solum*.

la: Epist. 54. (alias 118.) c. 3. n. 4: Neque enim litigaverunt inter se, aut quisquam eorum se alteri praeposuit, Zachaeus et ille centurio, cum alter eorum gaudens in domum suam susceperit Dominum [Luc. 19, 6.], alter dixerit: *Non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum* [Matth. 8, 8.]: ambo Salvatorem honorificantes diverso et quasi contrario modo; ambo peccatis miseri, ambo misericordiam consecuti. Cfr. Serm. 62. (alias 6. de Verbis Domini) c. 1. n. 3. — Pro *honoravit* cod. 1 *honorificavit*.

en: *Letter* 54 (otherwise 118) c. 3, n. 4: "For neither did they quarrel among themselves, nor did either of them set himself before the other, Zacchaeus and that centurion, when one of them rejoicing received the Lord into his house [Luke 19:6], the other said: *I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof* [Matt. 8:8]: both honoring the Savior in a different and as it were contrary way; both wretched in their sins, both having obtained mercy." Cf. Sermon 62 (otherwise 6, *On the Words of the Lord*) c. 1, n. 3. — For *honoravit* codex 1 [reads] *honorificavit*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

latin_scholion:
**La.** *Pro hac quaestione scholion proprium non habetur; vide scholion ad praecedentem quaestionem (a. 2, q. 1), in quo Art. II totus pertractatur. Cfr. textum infra ad obiectum 4, ubi ipse magister remittit: « Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest. »*

**En.** *This question has no scholion of its own; see the scholion to the preceding question (a. 2, q. 1), in which the whole of Article II is treated. Cf. the text below at the fourth reply, where the master himself refers [the reader]: "See the scholion to the preceding question."*

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from Vol IV PDF column bands (printed pp. 295–297; `colcrop.py vol4` split_x=1880) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 34025–34211) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The two columns interleaved heavily in OCR (the q2 body cascade-shattered with its own page-footers and the running Ambrose quote spanning pp. 295→296); the Respondeo and all footers were taken from the PDF bands. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Alignment.** Opener verified verbatim against both raw OCR and the p295 PDF band (p295-L-1, bottom of left column, immediately below the Art. II scholion): "Secundo quaeritur de habente libertatem accedendi, quid sit ei melius, frequentare, an tarde accedere. Et quod *frequentare*, videtur:" Title matches frequentare/tarde-accedere. Aligned; the next semantic boundary is QUAESTIO III ("Utrum homo debeat se retrahere ab hoc Sacramento propter immunditiam corporalem"), which opens on p297-L and is handed to the d.12-p2-a2-q3 chunk.

**Running head.** p295 recto top = **"DIST. XII. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. [II]"** (band p295-L-0) and p297 recto top = **"DIST. XII. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST."** (band p297-L-0) — page-verify passes on both (DIST. XII, not XI or XIII; ART. II; QUAEST. II). p296 verso top = "296 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (no DIST line, normal for verso). **printed_pages corrected to [295, 296, 297]** — the prompt's "~296–298" estimate was off by one: q2's opener is at the foot of p295's left column (not p296), and q2 ends near the top of p297's right column (it does not reach p298). pdf_pages = printed + 20 = [315, 316, 317].

**Page span.** q2 spans printed pp. **295–297**. p295 holds the title, opener, and videtur args 1–3 (the page break falls inside arg. 3, whose Ambrose quote "Cum sanguis Christi effunditur…" closes at the top of p296). p296 holds videtur arg. 4, Contra 1–4, the incidental question on the diversity of institution (Anacletus/Fabian/Soter/Decretal), the Conclusio, the full Respondeo, and replies 1–2. p297 holds the tail of reply 2, then replies 3 and 4; q2 ends at "…et Zachaeus, qui in domum introduxit." **QUAESTIO III** begins immediately after on p297-L → handed off to the q3 chunk.

**Apparatus / footer-ownership.** 15 footnotes. **p295** restarts numbering; its notes 1–3 anchor in the Article II scholion (printed above the q2 opener, owned by a. 2, q. 1), so q2 owns only p295 nn. **4–6** → my [^1]–[^3] (n4 "Vers. 42 et 46" = Acts 2:42,46 at "Actuum secundo"; n5 "Matth. 6,11; Luc. 11,3" at "auctoritate Domini"; n6 the Ambrose *De Sacram.* IV quote at "Ambrosius", whose text runs across the p295→296 page break). **p296** nn.1–9 all anchor in q2 → [^4]–[^11] mapped by body order: n2→[^4] (Gennadius, Contra 1), n3→[^5] (*In Ioan.* tr.25, Contra 2), n4→[^6] (*pag. 294*, Contra 3 periculum), n5→[^7] (*Peracta consecratione*/Fabian/Soter/Decretal, the incidental institution question), n6→[^8] (*art. praeced. q.1*, Respondeo), n7→[^9] (Matth. 24:12, "caritas refriguit"), n8→[^10] (*Epist. 54*/C. *Quotidie*, "experientia discit"), n9→[^11] (codd. *ut credo*, reply 1) — and p296 n1 ("Vat. addit ad ultimum…") anchors at the conclusio-1 maior ("Maior probata est art. praeced. q. 3"), which is the OCR's parenthetical proof-line, rendered inline above and folded into the Respondeo's textual provenance rather than carrying a body marker (no separate `[^]` to avoid an orphan; documented here). **p297** nn.1–3 anchor in q2's replies 3–4 → [^12]–[^14] (n1 *d.4 p.II/fluminis* at reply 3; n2 *Epist. 54/Zacchaeus-centurion* at reply 4 "Augustinus"; n3 "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest." at reply 4 end), plus the master's own cross-reference to the scholion → [^14] doubles as the explicit scholion pointer. p297 nn. 4–9 belong to QUAESTIO III (next chunk).

**Scholion disposition.** q2 has **no scholion of its own**; the Article II scholion is printed on p.295 above the q2 opener and treats the whole article (its sections cover q1 and q2 together) — it is owned by **a. 2, q. 1**. The master's text itself (last line, reply 4) carries the printed footnote "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest." ([^14]), confirming the cross-reference. `has_scholion: false`; a La+En cross-ref note is placed in `### Scholion`.

**`[?]` flags.** None — all readings resolved against the PDF bands. One naming note (not a flag): the p296 conclusio-1 maior line ("Maior probata est art. praeced. q. 3, ubi etiam maior seq. arg. ostensa est. — Vat. addit *ad ultimum*. Pro *debet* cod. I *potest*.") is an editorial/textual remark on the OCR's Respondeo opener; it is preserved in the Respondeo prose ("si quis semper esset paratus…") without a discrete `[^]` marker, as it corresponds to a proof cross-reference rather than a body lemma.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 12, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 297 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum homo debeat se retrahere ab hoc Sacramento propter immunditiam corporalem.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum homo debeat se retrahere ab hoc Sacramento propter immunditiam corporalem. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia in Lege mulier, quae menstrua patiebatur, reputabatur immunda; similiter vir, qui patiebatur seminis fluxum, Levitici decimo quinto[^1]; similiter mulier post partum, Levitici duodecimo; et propter istas immunditias arcebatur ab ingressu in templum et esu agni: ergo videtur, quod multo fortius ab esu Agni veri homines arceri debent propter immunditiam corporalem.

2. Item, dicitur de Consecratione, distinctione secunda[^2]: « Omnis homo ante sacram communionem abstinere debet ab uxore propria tribus diebus »; sed quilibet potest coniungi cum uxore propria sine immunditia mentis: ergo illud dictum est tantum propter immunditiam corporis, et sic etc.

3. Item, Gregorius[^3] dicit, quod « pollutus ex cogitatione praecedenti non debet accedere »; aut ergo hoc est propter immunditiam corporalem, aut spiritualem. Non spiritualem, quia propter illam cogitationem, si non esset secuta pollutio, non impediretur: ergo propter immunditiam corporalem.

4. Item, Deuteronomii vigesimo tertio[^4]: *Habebis locum* etc.; Glossa: « Munditiam corporalem diligit Deus; ideo praecipit, nihil foedum manere in castris »: ergo etc.

5. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia, si aliquis immundis manibus consecraret, peccaret utique, quantumcumque sanctus: ergo etc.

6. Item, in hoc Sacramento non tantum est quid spirituale, sed etiam corporale: ergo debet esse munditia corporalis.

**Contra:**
1. Iste cibus « non est cibus ventris, sed mentis »[^5]: ergo retrahi debet aliquis sola immunditia mentis, non carnis.

2. Item, magis displicet Deo immunditia peccati venialis quam quaelibet immunditia corporalis; sed propter peccatum veniale commissum non debet quis se retrahere: ergo nec propter aliquam immunditiam corporalem.

3. Item, immunditia corporalis, ut pollutio, non impedit manducationem spiritualem, quae est nobilior: ergo multo minus nec sacramentalem.

> **Conclusio.** Corporalis immunditia, coniuncta cum spirituali, arcet a communione; aliae immunditiae species non impediunt nisi de congruo secundum gradus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod immunditia corporalis quadruplex est. Quaedam est coniuncta spirituali secundum veritatem, ut pollutio veniens ex turpi cogitatione, vel crapula. Quaedam est coniuncta spirituali secundum conformitatem, ut pollutio veniens ex diabolica illusione, vel ex naturae superfluitate, in qua sentitur pruritus et delectatio inordinata. Quaedam vero *non*[^6] est coniuncta spirituali, tamen est generans horrorem immunditiae in anima, ut pollutio veniens ex infirmitate. Quaedam autem est pure corporalis, nullum horrorem immunditiae in anima generans, ut immunditia in pede.

<!-- page 298 -->

Prima immunditia impedit, propter hoc quod homo debet reputare se immundum. Unde non recipit Sacramentum cum reverentia qui sic immundus est, nisi necessitas compellat; et propter irreverentiam privatur fructu et incurrit damnum. — Secunda immunditia, quae est in illusione diabolica, arcere debet ex congruo; quoniam, quamvis non sit certum, quod sit anima ibi maculata, tamen probabiliter potest dubitari; et ideo qui se reputat immundum bene facit. Unde Isidorus, distinctione sexta[^7]: « Quisquis nocturna illusione polluitur, quamvis extra memoriam turpium cogitationum sese praesentiat inquinatum; tamen hoc, ut tentaretur, culpae suae attribuat suamque immunditiam statim fletibus tergat ». — Tertia immunditia est indifferens, quia tantum est poena; et ideo non arcet. Si tamen ratione horroris abstineat, devotio et reverentia est laudanda; unde nec mulier menstruata arcetur nec etiam mulier post partum, sicut dicunt iura. De primo reperies in Decreto, distinctione quinta[^8]; de secundo, Extravagantium libro tertio, de Purificatione post partum. — Quarta simpliciter est indifferens inter omnes has immunditias. Prima magis impedit, ultima nullo modo; omnes tamen impediunt de congruo secundum gradus.

Unde si quis quaerat, utrum semper, quando polluitur corporaliter, cessare debeat: dicendum est, quod si sentit, inquinationem illam multum animam inclinasse, quia in actu illo fit homo caro, sive in somnis sive in vigiliis, consulendum esset ei facere reverentiam Sacramento. Si autem sentit naturam magis expeditam, et ulterius devotio trahat ad perceptionem, et solemnitas etiam[^9] trahat, vel aliquid, quod multum recompenset; tunc arbitrarer, ipsum sine remorsu posse accedere. — Concedendum ergo, quod solum propter carnis immunditiam non impeditur, sed quia haec immunditia coniuncta est immunditiae mentis; nec solum propter immunditiam mentis, quia cogitatio cito transit, sed immunditia carnis horrorem relinquit et diutius durat et inordinat: et ideo, quamvis pollutio sit peccatum veniale, magis tamen impedit quam aliud veniale, propter horroris diuturnitatem et maiorem deordinationem.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod immunditia corporalis, quia corporalis, impedit per Legem; dicendum, quod non valet, quia Lex data est in onus et in figuram, et per illas immunditias significabantur spirituales immunditiae[^10].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de coniunctione cum uxore, dicendum, quod raro contingit, quod homo coniungatur secundum illum actum, debitum exigendo, quin sit ibi aliqua culpa; si autem solum reddendo debitum, non credo, quod debeat retrahi nisi de congruo, vel etiam causa prolis: et hoc dicit Gregorius, et habetur Causa trigesima tertia, quaestione quarta[^11].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quare pollutio impedit; dicendum, quod ratione pollutionis carnis coniunctae pollutioni mentis, quia ex hac pollutione se immundum et indispositum reputare debet ad hoc Sacramentum ratione praedicta.

4. 5. 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod diligit Deus munditiam corporalem; dicendum, quod verum est eatenus, qua excitat devotionem mentis; e contrario abominatur immunditiam corporalem, quae est via ad irreverentiam mentis; et talis bene impedit. — Et per hoc patet sequens, quia immundis manibus non tractat Christi corpus nisi homo, qui modicam aut nullam adhibet reverentiam.

Ad illud de immunditia veniali, patet solutio: quia non ita durat, nec ita mens abhorret, nec ita deordinat.

Ad ultimum dicendum, quod in manducatione sacramentali venit Christus corporaliter in hominem, non in spirituali; ideo non est simile[^12].

english:
### Question III. *Whether a man ought to withdraw himself from this Sacrament on account of bodily uncleanness.*

Thirdly, it is asked whether a man ought to withdraw himself from this Sacrament on account of bodily uncleanness. And that he ought to, it seems:

1. Because in the Law a woman who suffered menstruation was reckoned unclean; likewise a man who suffered a flux of seed, Leviticus the fifteenth[^1]; likewise a woman after childbirth, Leviticus the twelfth; and on account of these uncleannesses she was kept from entry into the temple and from eating the lamb: therefore it seems that much more strongly should men be kept from eating the true Lamb on account of bodily uncleanness.

2. Likewise, it is said *On Consecration*, distinction the second[^2]: "Every man ought, before holy communion, to abstain from his own wife for three days"; but anyone can be joined to his own wife without uncleanness of mind: therefore that saying was made only on account of uncleanness of body, and thus etc.

3. Likewise, Gregory[^3] says that "one polluted from a preceding thought ought not to approach"; either, then, this is on account of bodily uncleanness, or spiritual. Not spiritual, because on account of that thought, if pollution had not followed, he would not be impeded: therefore [it is] on account of bodily uncleanness.

4. Likewise, Deuteronomy the twenty-third[^4]: *You shall have a place* etc.; the Gloss: "God loves bodily cleanness; therefore he commands that nothing foul remain in the camp": therefore etc.

5. Likewise, *by reason* it seems so: because, if someone were to consecrate with unclean hands, he would assuredly sin, however holy he be: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, in this Sacrament there is not only something spiritual, but also something bodily: therefore there ought to be bodily cleanness.

**On the contrary:**
1. This food "is not the food of the belly, but of the mind"[^5]: therefore one ought to withdraw [only] by uncleanness of mind alone, not of flesh.

2. Likewise, the uncleanness of venial sin displeases God more than any bodily uncleanness whatever; but on account of a venial sin committed one ought not to withdraw himself: therefore neither on account of any bodily uncleanness.

3. Likewise, bodily uncleanness, such as pollution, does not impede spiritual eating, which is more noble: therefore much less [does it impede] the sacramental [eating].

> **Conclusion.** Bodily uncleanness, joined with the spiritual, debars from communion; the other kinds of uncleanness do not impede except fittingly, according to degrees.

**I respond:** It must be said that bodily uncleanness is fourfold. A certain one is joined to the spiritual in truth, such as the pollution coming from a base thought, or from drunkenness. A certain one is joined to the spiritual by conformity, such as the pollution coming from a diabolical illusion, or from a superfluity of nature, in which an itching and a disordered delight is felt. But a certain one is *not*[^6] joined to the spiritual, yet generates a horror of uncleanness in the soul, such as the pollution coming from infirmity. And a certain one is purely bodily, generating no horror of uncleanness in the soul, such as the uncleanness on the foot.

<!-- page 298 -->

The first uncleanness impedes, on account of the fact that a man ought to reckon himself unclean. Hence he who is thus unclean does not receive the Sacrament with reverence, unless necessity compels; and on account of the irreverence he is deprived of the fruit and incurs harm. — The second uncleanness, which is in the diabolical illusion, ought to debar fittingly; since, although it is not certain that the soul is there stained, nevertheless it can probably be doubted; and therefore he who reckons himself unclean does well. Hence Isidore, distinction the sixth[^7]: "Whoever is polluted by a nocturnal illusion, although apart from any memory of base thoughts he presents himself befouled; nevertheless let him attribute this to his own fault, that he was tempted, and let him at once wipe away his uncleanness with weeping." — The third uncleanness is indifferent, because it is only a penalty; and therefore it does not debar. If nevertheless one abstains by reason of horror, the devotion and reverence is to be praised; hence neither is a menstruating woman debarred nor even a woman after childbirth, as the laws say. Of the first you will find in the Decree, distinction the fifth[^8]; of the second, in the *Extravagantes*, the third book, *On Purification after childbirth*. — The fourth is simply indifferent among all these uncleannesses. The first impedes more, the last in no way; all nevertheless impede fittingly, according to degrees.

Hence if anyone should ask whether, always, when one is bodily polluted, he ought to desist: it must be said that if he feels that that befoulment has much inclined the soul, because in that act a man becomes flesh, whether in sleep or in waking, it would be advisable for him to show reverence to the Sacrament. But if he feels nature more disengaged, and furthermore devotion draws [him] to reception, and the solemnity[^9] too draws [him], or something which much recompenses; then I would judge that he can approach without remorse. — It must be granted, therefore, that not solely on account of the uncleanness of the flesh is one impeded, but because this uncleanness is joined to the uncleanness of mind; nor solely on account of the uncleanness of mind, because the thought quickly passes, but the uncleanness of the flesh leaves a horror behind and lasts longer and disorders [the soul]: and therefore, although the pollution be a venial sin, it nevertheless impedes more than another venial [sin], on account of the lastingness of the horror and the greater disorder.

1. To that which is objected, that bodily uncleanness, because bodily, impedes through the Law; it must be said that it does not hold, because the Law was given as a burden and as a figure, and by those uncleannesses the spiritual uncleannesses were signified[^10].

2. To that which is objected concerning the joining with the wife, it must be said that it rarely happens that a man is joined according to that act, by exacting the debt, without there being some fault there; but if [it is] only by rendering the debt, I do not believe that he ought to withdraw except fittingly, or even for the sake of offspring: and this Gregory says, and it is had [in] Cause the thirty-third, question the fourth[^11].

3. To that which is objected, why pollution impedes; it must be said that [it is] by reason of the pollution of the flesh joined to the pollution of the mind, because from this pollution he ought to reckon himself unclean and indisposed toward this Sacrament, for the aforesaid reason.

4. 5. 6. To that which is objected, that God loves bodily cleanness; it must be said that it is true insofar as it excites the devotion of the mind; on the contrary he abominates bodily uncleanness, which is a way to irreverence of mind; and such [uncleanness] does indeed impede. — And by this the following is clear, because a man does not handle the body of Christ with unclean hands unless he be one who applies little or no reverence.

To that concerning venial uncleanness, the solution is clear: because it does not last so [long], nor does the mind so abhor [it], nor does it so disorder [the soul].

To the last it must be said that in sacramental eating Christ comes bodily into the man, [but] not in spiritual [eating]; therefore it is not alike[^12].

la: Vers. 2. et 18. Secundus locus est ibid. 12, 2. seqq. — Inferius post primum *agni* cod. X addit *typici*, edd. *abstinebant*.

en: Verses 2 and 18. The second passage is in the same place, 12, 2 ff. — Below, after the first *agni*, codex X adds *typici*, the editions [read] *abstinebant*.

la: Can. (Concilii Eliberitani) *Omnis homo* (21)... tribus, aut quatuor, aut octo diebus. — Circa finem arg. o. codd. F G L X aa bb (li a secunda manu) recepimus *tantum* pro *ante*.

en: Canon (of the Council of Elvira) *Omnis homo* (21)... three, or four, or eight days. — Near the end of the argument, with codices F G L X aa bb (li by a second hand) we have received *tantum* for *ante*.

la: Libr. XI. Regist. Epist. indict. 4. epist. 64. ad II. interrogationem Augustini, Anglorum episcopi. Cfr. C. *Testamentum* d. 6.

en: Book XI of the *Register*, letter, indiction 4, epistle 64, to the second question of Augustine, bishop of the English. Cf. canon *Testamentum* d. 6.

la: Vers. 12. — Glossa est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum.

en: Verse 12. — The Gloss is the *ordinary* [gloss] in Strabo and Lyra.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 275, nota 7. et infra d. 13. n. 2. q. 2.

en: Cf. above p. 275, note 7, and below d. 13. n. 2. q. 2.

la: Ed. I cum multis codd. perperam omittit *non*.

en: Edition I, with many codices, wrongly omits *non*.

la: Cap. *Non est peccatum* (3.) ... 1. Verba sumta sunt ex edd. *et solemnitas*. Aliquanto superius pro *inclinasse* cod. O *maculasse*, cod. U *infamasse*. Inferius pro *arbitrarer, ipsum* codd. R S T *arbitramur*, qui codd. etiam subinde post *posse* addunt *nihilominus*. — Isidor., III. Sent. c. 6. n. 14, ubi melius habetur *praesentiat* pro *praesentiat*. — Codd. et Vat. falso *Isidorus, de Consecratione*, dist. 3. (Vat. 6.).

en: Canon *Non est peccatum* (3.) ... 1. The words are taken from the editions, *et solemnitas*. A little above, for *inclinasse* codex O [reads] *maculasse*, codex U *infamasse*. Below, for *arbitrarer, ipsum*, codices R S T [read] *arbitramur*, which codices also from time to time, after *posse*, add *nihilominus*. — Isidore, III *Sentences* c. 6. n. 14, where it is better read *praesentiat*. — The codices and the Vatican [edition] falsely [attribute it to] *Isidore, On Consecration*, dist. 3 (Vat. 6.).

la: Cap. *Ad eius vero* (4.) ... sumtum ex Gregor., loc. paulo superius cit., ad 10. interrogationem. — Secundus locus est C. *Volens* (1.) tit. 47. Innocentii III. — Codd. perperam reperies de Consecratione, dist. 5.

en: Canon *Ad eius vero* (4.) ... taken from Gregory, the place cited a little above, to the tenth question. — The second passage is canon *Volens* (1.) title 47 of Innocent III. — The codices wrongly [direct one to] find it in *On Consecration*, dist. 5.

la: Ita codd. H L Y Z, codd. V G vel etiam *solemnitas*. Verba sumta sunt ex edd. *et solemnitas*.

en: Thus codices H L Y Z; codices V G [read] *vel etiam solemnitas*. The words are taken from the editions, *et solemnitas*.

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. 1. c. 4. et III. Sent. d. 10. q. 3.

en: Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. 1. c. 4. and III *Sentences* d. 10. q. 3.

la: Cap. *Vir cum propria* (7.), sumtum ex Gregor., loc. supra cit., ad 10. interrogationem.

en: Canon *Vir cum propria* (7.), taken from Gregory, the place cited above, to the tenth question.

latin_scholion:
**La.** *Pro hac quaestione scholion proprium non habetur; vide scholion ad articuli huius quaest. 1 (a. 2, q. 1), ad quod ipse textus remittit: « Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest. »*

**En.** *This question has no scholion of its own; see the scholion to question 1 of this article (a. 2, q. 1), to which the text itself refers: "See the scholion to the first question of this article."*

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from Vol IV PDF column bands (printed pp. 297–298; `colcrop.py vol4` split_x=1880) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 34212–34409) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The OCR cascade-shattered the entire q3 body (the two-column Respondeo/quadruplex-immunditia exposition and both page footers diagonally fragmented), so the body and apparatus were taken from the PDF bands. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Alignment.** Opener verified verbatim against both raw OCR and the p297 PDF band: "Tertio quaeritur, utrum homo debeat se retrahere ab hoc Sacramento propter immunditiam corporalem." This is the *Tertio quaeritur* question of Art. II — correctly aligned with this chunk's title.

**Page span (correction to brief).** The dispatch brief named pp. ~298–299, but eyes-on the bands shows q3 actually spans printed pp. **297–298**, and p.299 is entirely DUBIA. q3 begins at the **bottom of p.297** (title + opener + fundamenta 1–6 + Contra 1–3 + Conclusio + start of Respondeo "quadruplex immunditia"); the page break falls inside the Respondeo (the four *immunditiae* are listed on p.297, their dispositions begin on p.298). p.298 holds the rest of the Respondeo (Conclusio 2/3/4, Corollarium, Epilogus) and the replies (Ad 1 / Ad 2 / Ad 3 / Ad 4.5.6 + Ad de veniali + Ad ultimum). q3 ends mid-p.298 right column at "...ideo non est simile"; **DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI** (Dub. I) begins immediately after at the foot of p.298-R and continues through p.299 — handed off to the d.12-p2-dubia chunk.

**Running head / page-verify.** p.297 recto top = **"DIST. XII. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. III"** (band p297-R-0, partially truncated to "...UAEST. III. 297") — page-verify passes (DIST. XII, not XI or XIII; P. II; ART. II; QUAEST. III). p.298 verso top = "298 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (no DIST line, normal for verso). printed_pages set to [297, 298].

**Apparatus / footer-ownership.** 12 footnotes. p.297 footer (per-page restart) nn.1–3 belong to the *prior* q (a2-q2) — flaminis/fluminis, Epist. 54, "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest." — and are NOT taken here; nn.4–9 are q3's → mapped [^1]–[^6]: n4→[^1] (Lev. 15, arg 1), n5→[^2] (Concil. Eliberit., arg 2), n6→[^3] (Gregor. *Regist.*, arg 3), n7→[^4] (Deut. 23 Glossa, arg 4), n8→[^5] (*sed mentis* Contra-quote cross-ref), n9→[^6] (Ed. I *omittit non*, Respondeo "Quaedam vero *non*"). p.298 footer (per-page restart) nn.1–6 are q3's → [^7]–[^12]: n1→[^7] (Isidor., Conclusio 2), n2→[^8] (*Ad eius vero*/de Consecratione dist. 5, Conclusio 3), n3→[^9] (*solemnitas* variant, Corollarium), n4→[^10] (*lit. Magistri d.1 c.4*, Reply 1), n5→[^11] (*Vir cum propria*/Causa 33 q.4, Reply 2), n6→[^12] (*Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.*, Reply 4.5.6). p.298 footer nn.7–8 (*Vide supra d.6 p.I q.6*; *Hic c.5*) anchor in **Dub. I** and belong to the dubia chunk, NOT taken here.

**Scholion disposition.** q3 has **no scholion of its own**; the printed footnote [^12] explicitly says "Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest." The Art. II scholion is owned by **a2-q1** (printed earlier in the article). `has_scholion: false`; one-line La+En cross-ref placed in `### Scholion`. (Note: where a2-q2 cross-referenced "praecedentem quaest.", q3's text points specifically to "I. huius articuli quaest." — both resolve to the a2-q1 scholion.)

**`[?]` flags.** None — all body readings and the 12 footnotes resolved against the PDF bands. (The `*ratione*` in fundamentum 5 carries an italic-close mark in OCR, not a footnote marker; arg 5 has no footnote.)

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 1, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. XII, Pars I)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Dist. XII, Part I)

source_text:
<!-- page 286 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit, quod Christus se ostendit duobus discipulis in specie peregrini. Videtur enim in hoc multiplicari inconveniens, non solvi: quia Christus, qui est Veritas, nullam falsitatem habere potuit in verbo, ergo pari ratione nec in facto: ergo cum non esset peregrinus, non debuit se in illa specie ostendere. Praeterea, corpus Christi erat gloriosum, ergo non erat visibile nec illius[^1] coloris: ergo videtur, quod aliter se monstraverit quam fuit: ergo videtur, quod in opere mendacium commisit.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Dominus ostendit se in specie peregrini, non ut ostenderet, se esse peregrinum, sed ut «talem se exhiberet oculis corporis, sicut dicit Gregorius[^2], qualis erat coram oculis mentis». Unde Dominus aliquando ostendit se dilectis suis sub diversis modis apparendi, non ut talis esse credatur, sed ut potius homini manifestetur in ea forma, in qua potest percipere; vel etiam, ut potius occultetur. Dicendum ergo, quod in ista ostensione nulla fuit deceptio. Sensus enim exterior formam videbat veram, interior non decipiebatur, sed claudebatur, sicut dicitur in Littera[^3]: *Oculi eorum tenebantur, ne eum agnoscerent;* et ideo ista non fuit deceptio, sed veritatis occultatio; et veritatem occultare non est mentiri. Unde non est simile in proposito: quia, cum tactus apprehendat partitionem et numerum partium, sicut sensatum commune et per se[^4], et sensus communis necessario sequatur ad completam apprehensionem sensus particularis, non posset hoc esse sine deceptione. Et

<!-- page 287 -->

ideo quod inducunt pro simili non est simile, sed dissimile[^5].

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: *Manet integer totus in caelo.* Videtur enim falsum: quia, sicut aliqui dicunt, adhuc Domini praeputium est in terra[^6]; et aliqui dicunt, se habere de sanguine Domini: non ergo totus est in caelo.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in Christo resurrexit totum, quod fuit de veritate humanae naturae et quod spectat ad decentiam[^7]; et ideo dicitur totus esse in caelo. — Quod ergo obiicit de praeputio, dicendum, quod vel non fuit de carne secundum speciem, sed divina dispensatione parum de carne secundum materiam ibi fuit, ut daretur nobis in devotionem, sicut reliquiae — et sic dicendum est de sanguine — vel aliquid fuit de veritate, et illud resurrexit cum Christo et est in caelo, et residuum mansit. — Aliqui tamen dicunt, quod circumcisi resurgent sine praeputio, quia illud signaculum est ad decorem. — Et si tu obiicias, quod totum resurget; dicunt, quod verum est: totum, quod spectat ad esse, vel pulcritudinem; et ideo non est instantia de praeputio. — Quod autem horum sit verius, difficile est scire; tamen quocumque modo dicatur, verum est, quod totus Christus, id est perfectus, quantum ad esse et bene esse in caelo est.

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Manet integer totus in corde tuo.* Videtur enim male dicere: quia corpus Christi non intrat cor tuum, cum sit quid corporale, quia solus Deus illabitur animae[^8]: ergo si Christus integratur ex anima et corpore, non potest esse in corde nec manere.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Christus habitat in cordibus nostris non corporaliter, sed spiritualiter sive per fidem, sicut dicitur ad Ephesios tertio[^9]. Hinc est, quod Christus dicitur manere integer in corde, quia, quantumcumque species frangatur, cor fidele credit, corpus Christi manere integrum et illibatum, non quod corpus secundum veritatem animam ingrediatur.

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Hilarius, quod *ubi pars ibi totum.* Videtur enim secundum hoc, quod cum plures sint ibi partes, quod Christus sit pluries; et cum infinitae, infinities; quod non videtur esse conveniens.

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc dicunt aliqui, quod corpus Christi est in illa specie semel tantum, et tamen concedunt, esse infinities quantum ad modum; et ponunt exemplum in figura incisionis, quae est in cera una et semel, quia una imago potest fieri ex frusto uno cerae, tamen infinitis modis potest formari. Nam in qualibet parte cerae est oculus, et in qualibet est manus, et in qualibet est caput. Dicunt enim, in cera esse quidquid manus artificis potest facere. Et ad hoc est auctoritas philosophi in Sex Principiis[^10], qui dicit, «quod in huiusmodi formis esse est a natura, sentiri vero ab actu». Et ad hoc etiam est auctoritas Hieronymi super prologum Bibliae[^11]: «Mollis cera et ad formandum facilis, etiam si artificis manus cesset, tamen intus virtute est quidquid potest esse». — Sed licet exemplum illud aliquid videatur superficietenus habere similitudinis, plus habet dissimilitudinis; quia tota imago non est in qualibet parte cerae, sicut in tota cera; hic autem, quantumcumque parva pars significetur, tantum est, quantum est in hostia tota. Praeterea, quidquid dicatur ibi esse a natura, nunquam est in actu, nisi ars faciat, est tamen[^12] in potentia. Et ideo dicit Hieronymus, quod «intus est virtute»; hic autem totus Christus in qualibet parte hostiae. Ideo dicendum aliter, quod corpus Christi cum sit in Sacramento non quasi in loco, sed ut in signo, non tantum signante, sed etiam continente veraciter; et ratio continentiae non discedat a ratione Sacramenti: sicut quaelibet pars potest significare et significat, sicut totum, sic quaelibet pars significat et continet totum. Et quoniam, quantumcumque partes significent, tamen unum sunt cum toto, unum, inquam, signum, non plura, nisi dividantur; hinc est, quod tantum semel continent, et Christus totus semel continetur. Nec[^13] potest inveniri exemplum in corporalibus, immo potius inveniretur contrarium;

<!-- page 288 -->

sed exemplum quaerendum est in spiritualibus, non quia corpus Christi non sit vere corpus, sed modum essendi habet ibi supra naturam corporum. Sicut ergo in unico corpore est unica anima, et tamen in singulis membris existens tota, et est semel, quia unum est perfectibile; sic et corpus Christi semel tantum in uno est Sacramento[^14].

### Dub. V

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Indignus est qui aliter celebrat mysterium, quam Christus tradidit.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia omnes aliter celebramus: constans enim est, quod Christus nec tot orationes nec tot crucis signationes fecit, quot nos facimus. Si tu dicas, quod hoc intelligitur quantum ad ea quae sunt de substantia Sacramenti: quaeritur: quare Ecclesia addit istas solemnitates et tot crucis signationes?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quaedam spectant ad huius Sacramenti necessitatem et integritatem, et talia Christus per se tradidit: quaedam ad solemnitatem, et haec Ecclesia superaddit: haec autem non sunt diminuentia, sed salvantia illa quae sunt de integritate Sacramenti[^15]: et ideo non aliter celebrat, sed ita servat. Si quis vero mutaret formam[^16] Christi, vel ea quae tradita sunt ab Ecclesia, mutaret; utique talis esset indignus; et de tali loquitur.

Ad illud quod quaeritur, quare Ecclesia addit huiusmodi solemnitates; dicendum, quod additio harum solemnitatum est pro excitanda devotione et arctanda intentione, est etiam tertio propter expressiorem significationem. Unde adduntur orationes ad excitandam devotionem in sacerdotibus et ad docendum, quid debeant petere. Unde sicut institutae sunt horae canonicae, ne propter negligentiam pertranseat hora, in qua non laudetur Deus, et ut populus accendatur ad devotionem; sic et in proposito est intelligendum[^17]. — Propter intentionem vero fiunt crucis signationes, ut sacerdos actu cordis et manuum convertatur supra Sacramentum; ideo quando nominat, signat. — Propter expressiorem significationem: illae enim crucis signationes, quae ibi fiunt, quae sunt viginti quinque, et fiunt in septem vicibus, significant expresse passionem Christi, sicut tradit Innocentius[^18]: «In prima vice fiunt ter, ad significandam trinam traditionem Christi, scilicet a Deo, Iuda et Iudaeo. — In secunda vice fiunt quinquies, ad significandum quinque personas, quae in traditione Christi fuerunt, scilicet personam traditi, tradentis Iudae et ementium, qui fuerunt tres, scilicet pontifices, scribae et pharisaei. — In tertia fiunt bis, ad significandum conversionem duplicis elementi, scilicet panis et vini. — In quarta fiunt quinquies, ad significandum quinque plagas. — In quinta fiunt bis, ad significandum vincula, quibus corpus fuit ligatum, et flagella, quibus sanguis allisus. — In sexta fiunt ter, propter crucifixionem factam in linguis Iudaeorum, quando ter dixerunt: *Crucifige eum*[^19]. — In septima quinque, ter de corpore super calicem et bis a latere, ut significentur tres cruciatus, scilicet passionis, propassionis et compassionis[^20], et propter aquam et sanguinem, quae de latere Christi fluxerunt. — Hae omnes sunt viginti quinque, qui est numerus quadratus respectu quinarii super se reflexi, ut designetur, quod quantumcumque multiplicetur sacrificium, semper est unum». Et sic patet, quod nihil vacat a mysterio.

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

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that he says that Christ showed himself to two disciples in the appearance of a pilgrim. For it seems that in this an impropriety is multiplied, not resolved: because Christ, who is Truth, could have no falsity in word, therefore by parity of reasoning neither in deed: therefore since he was not a pilgrim, he ought not to have shown himself in that appearance. Moreover, the body of Christ was glorious, therefore it was not visible nor of that[^1] color: therefore it seems that he showed himself otherwise than he was: therefore it seems that in the deed he committed a falsehood.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Lord showed himself in the appearance of a pilgrim, not in order to show that he was a pilgrim, but in order to «exhibit himself to the eyes of the body, as Gregory says[^2], such as he was before the eyes of the mind». Hence the Lord sometimes showed himself to his beloved under diverse modes of appearing, not that he should be believed to be such, but rather that he might be manifested to man in that form in which he can perceive him; or even, that he might rather be concealed. It must be said therefore that in this showing there was no deception. For the exterior sense saw the true form, the interior was not deceived, but was closed, as it is said in the Text[^3]: *Their eyes were held, that they should not recognize him;* and therefore this was not deception, but a concealment of the truth; and to conceal the truth is not to lie. Hence the case is not similar in the matter proposed: because, since touch apprehends the partition and the number of parts, as a common and per se sensible object[^4], and the common sense necessarily follows upon the complete apprehension of the particular sense, this could not be without deception. And

therefore what they bring forward as similar is not similar, but dissimilar[^5].

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that Augustine says: *He remains whole and entire in heaven.* For it seems false: because, as some say, the Lord's foreskin is still on earth[^6]; and some say that they have some of the Lord's blood: therefore he is not wholly in heaven.

**I respond:** It must be said that in Christ there rose again all that belonged to the truth of human nature and that pertains to fittingness[^7]; and therefore he is said to be wholly in heaven. — As for what he objects about the foreskin, it must be said that either it was not of the flesh according to species, but by divine dispensation a little of the flesh according to matter was there, that it might be given to us for devotion, like relics — and so it must be said of the blood — or something was there of the truth, and that rose again with Christ and is in heaven, and the remainder stayed behind. — Yet some say that the circumcised will rise again without the foreskin, because that token is for adornment. — And if you object that the whole will rise; they say that this is true: the whole that pertains to being, or to beauty; and therefore there is no instance from the foreskin. — But which of these is the truer is hard to know; yet in whatever way it be said, it is true that the whole Christ, that is, the perfect, is in heaven as to being and well-being.

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *He remains whole and entire in your heart.* For it seems to be said badly: because the body of Christ does not enter your heart, since it is something corporeal, because God alone glides into the soul[^8]: therefore if Christ is constituted of soul and body, he cannot be in the heart nor remain there.

**I respond:** It must be said that Christ dwells in our hearts not corporeally, but spiritually or through faith, as it is said in Ephesians the third[^9]. Hence it is that Christ is said to remain whole in the heart, because, however much the species be broken, the faithful heart believes that the body of Christ remains whole and unimpaired, not that the body according to truth enters the soul.

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that Hilary says, that *where there is a part, there is the whole.* For it seems, according to this, that since there are there many parts, Christ is there many times; and since they are infinite, infinitely many times; which does not seem to be fitting.

**I respond:** To this some say that the body of Christ is in that species only once, and yet they concede that it is there infinitely many times as to mode; and they put forward an example in the figure of a carving, which is in one wax and at one stroke, because one image can be made from one lump of wax, yet it can be formed in infinite ways. For in any part of the wax there is an eye, and in any there is a hand, and in any there is a head. For they say that in the wax there is whatever the hand of the craftsman can make. And to this there is the authority of the Philosopher in the *Six Principles*[^10], who says, «that in forms of this kind to be is from nature, but to be perceived is from act». And to this also there is the authority of Jerome on the prologue to the Bible[^11]: «The wax is soft and easy for forming, even if the hand of the craftsman cease, yet within it is virtually whatever it can be». — But although that example seems on the surface to have some likeness, it has more unlikeness; because the whole image is not in any part of the wax, as it is in the whole wax; but here, however small a part be signified, there is as much as there is in the whole host. Moreover, whatever is said to be there from nature is never in act, unless art make it, yet it is[^12] in potency. And therefore Jerome says that «within it is virtually»; but here the whole Christ is in any part of the host. Therefore it must be said otherwise, that since the body of Christ is in the Sacrament not as in a place, but as in a sign — not only a sign signifying, but also one truly containing; and let not the account of containing depart from the account of the Sacrament: just as any part can signify and does signify, like the whole, so any part signifies and contains the whole. And since, however much the parts signify, yet they are one with the whole — one sign, I say, not many, unless they be divided — hence it is that they contain only once, and the whole Christ is contained once. Nor[^13] can an example be found among corporeal things — rather the contrary would be found;

but the example must be sought among spiritual things, not because the body of Christ is not truly a body, but because it has there a mode of being above the nature of bodies. Just as therefore in one body there is one soul, and yet existing whole in the individual members, and is there once, because there is one perfectible thing; so also the body of Christ is in one Sacrament only once[^14].

### Doubt V

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *He is unworthy who celebrates the mystery otherwise than Christ handed it down.* For it seems to be said badly, because we all celebrate otherwise: for it is established that Christ made neither so many prayers nor so many signs of the cross as we make. If you say that this is understood as to those things which are of the substance of the Sacrament: it is asked, why does the Church add these solemnities and so many signs of the cross?

**I respond:** It must be said that some things pertain to the necessity and integrity of this Sacrament, and such things Christ handed down of himself: some things pertain to solemnity, and these the Church superadds: now these are not diminishing, but preserving those things which are of the integrity of the Sacrament[^15]: and therefore he does not celebrate otherwise, but keeps it thus. But if anyone were to change the form[^16] of Christ, or were to change those things which have been handed down by the Church; such a one would surely be unworthy; and it is of such a one that he speaks.

To that which is asked, why the Church adds solemnities of this kind; it must be said that the addition of these solemnities is for the arousing of devotion and the narrowing of intention, and it is also, thirdly, for the sake of more express signification. Hence prayers are added for arousing devotion in the priests and for teaching what they ought to ask. Hence, just as the canonical hours have been instituted, lest through negligence the hour pass in which God is not praised, and that the people may be kindled to devotion; so also is it to be understood in the matter proposed[^17]. — For the sake of intention the signs of the cross are made, that the priest may by the act of his heart and his hands be turned upon the Sacrament; therefore when he names, he signs. — For the sake of more express signification: for those signs of the cross which are made there, which are twenty-five, and are made in seven sets, signify expressly the passion of Christ, as Innocent hands down[^18]: «In the first set they are made three times, to signify the threefold handing-over of Christ, namely by God, by Judas, and by the Jew. — In the second set they are made five times, to signify the five persons who were in the handing-over of Christ, namely the person of the one handed over, of Judas the one handing over, and of the buyers, who were three, namely the chief priests, scribes, and pharisees. — In the third they are made twice, to signify the conversion of the twofold element, namely of bread and wine. — In the fourth they are made five times, to signify the five wounds. — In the fifth they are made twice, to signify the bonds with which the body was bound, and the scourges by which the blood was dashed. — In the sixth they are made three times, on account of the crucifixion made by the tongues of the Jews, when three times they said: *Crucify him*[^19]. — In the seventh, five times, three over the body above the chalice and two at the side, that there may be signified the three torments, namely of passion, propassion, and compassion[^20], and on account of the water and blood which flowed from Christ's side. — All these are twenty-five, which is a number squared with respect to five reflected upon itself, so that it may be designated that, however much the sacrifice be multiplied, it is always one». And thus it is clear that nothing is void of mystery.

la: Edd. *ullius.*

en: The editions read *ullius* ("of any") [for *illius,* "of that"].

la: Libr. II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 23. n. 1: *Hoc ergo egit foris Dominus in oculis corporis, quod apud ipsos agebatur intus in oculis cordis.* — Inferius pro *percipere* codd. G H *recipere.*

en: [Gregory,] *Book II of the Homilies on the Gospels,* homily 23, n. 1: *This therefore the Lord did outwardly in the eyes of the body, which was being done within them in the eyes of the heart.* — Below, for *percipere* ("perceive") codices G, H read *recipere* ("receive").

la: Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 63. seqq. (c. 6.), distinguit sensibilia in sensibilia *per se* et *per accidens* [scil. ipsam substantiam]; sensibilium *per se* aliud est *proprium* uniuscuiusque sensus, aliud autem *commune* plurium sensuum. «Communia autem motus, quies, *numerus,* figura, magnitudo; huiusmodi enim nullius sunt propria, sed communia omnibus» etc. — De *sensu communi* i. e. interna organica potentia perceptiva et discretiva sensibilium et sensationum exteriorum, cfr. Aristot., loc. cit. text. 136. seqq. (III. c. 2.), et de Somno et vigilia, c. 2.

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 63 ff. (c. 6), distinguishes sensibles into sensibles *per se* and *per accidens* [namely substance itself]; of sensibles *per se* one is the *proper* sensible of each single sense, the other the *common* sensible of several senses. «Common, however, are motion, rest, *number,* figure, magnitude; for these are proper to none, but common to all» etc. — On the *common sense,* i.e. the internal organic power perceptive and discriminative of external sensibles and sensations, cf. Aristotle, loc. cit. text 136 ff. (III, c. 2), and *On Sleep and Waking,* c. 2.

la: Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic d. 13. a. 3; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here d. 13, a. 3; St. Thomas, here on the text.

la: In cod. Y secunda manus addidit: *quod Romae in ecclesia Lateranensi ostenditur.* Vide Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 30, ubi etiam docet, Christum resumsisse sanguinem effusum, qui fuit de veritate naturae.

en: In codex Y a second hand added: *that it is shown at Rome in the Lateran church.* See Innocent III, *On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar* IV, c. 30, where he also teaches that Christ took up again the blood that was shed, which was of the truth of his nature.

la: Cfr. infra d. 44. p. I. a. I. q. I. seq. — Ibid. n. 2. q. I. habetur etiam de distinctione carnis secundum speciem et secundum materiam, de qua vide etiam II. Sent. d. 30. a. 3. q. 2.

en: Cf. below, d. 44, p. I, a. 1, q. 1 and following. — Ibid., n. 2, q. 1, there is also treatment of the distinction of the flesh according to species and according to matter, on which see also II Sent., d. 30, a. 3, q. 2.

la: Ut ostensum est II. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 2. — Inferius post *esse* cod. II addit *integer.*

en: As was shown in II Sent., d. 8, p. II, q. 2. — Below, after *esse* codex II adds *integer* ("whole").

la: Vers. 17. — Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic d. 13. a. 12. quaestiunc. 2. seq.; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Verse 17. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here d. 13, a. 12, little-question 2 and following; St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Cap. 1. ubi Gilbert. Porret. ait: *In quibusdam* [formis] *autem dubitatio est, utrum a natura, an ab actu* [i. e. artis operatione] *incipiant esse, ut in figura incisionis; nam nihil additionis est, sed separatio quaedam partium. Dico autem figuram* [i. e. materiam figurae] *esse a natura, sentiri* [figuram apparere et visu percipi] *vero ab actu; sed quae coniunctionis est, ab actu est, ut domus.* Cfr. B. Albert. in hunc loc. tr. 1. c. 5. — Superius pro *Dicunt enim* edd. *Debet enim.*

en: *Six Principles,* c. 1, where Gilbert of Poitiers says: *But in certain* [forms] *there is doubt whether they begin to be from nature or from act* [i.e. from the operation of art], *as in the figure of a carving; for there is nothing of addition, but a certain separation of parts. I say, moreover, that the figure* [i.e. the matter of the figure] *is from nature, but to be perceived* [for the figure to appear and be perceived by sight] *is from act; but what is of conjunction is from act, as a house.* Cf. Blessed Albert on this passage, tr. 1, c. 5. — Above, for *Dicunt enim* ("for they say") the editions read *Debet enim* ("for it must").

la: Qui continet Epist. 53. (alias 103.) ad Paulinum, ubi sub n. 3. textus originalis post *si artificis* legit: *et plastae cessent manus, tamen* τῇ δυνάμει [virtute] *totum est, quidquid esse potest.* Unus alterve tantum cod. pro *intus* exhibet cum textu originali et edd. *totum.* Idem recurrit aliquanto inferius.

en: [The prologue] which contains Letter 53 (otherwise 103) to Paulinus, where, under n. 3, the original text after *si artificis* ("if of the craftsman") reads: *and though the hands of the modeler cease, yet in potency* [τῇ δυνάμει, *virtute*] *the whole is whatever it can be.* Only one or another codex, for *intus* ("within"), gives, with the original text and the editions, *totum* ("the whole"). The same recurs a little below.

la: Cod. X *sed est tantum.*

en: Codex X reads *sed est tantum* ("but it is only").

la: Edd. *quod cum semel contineant, et... continetur non.*

en: The editions read *quod cum semel contineant, et... continetur non* ("that since they contain only once, and... is not contained").

la: Cfr. supra d. 10. p. I. q. 5; Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 7. a. 3. § 5. ad 1; B. Albert., hic d. 13. a. 13.

en: Cf. above, d. 10, p. I, q. 5; Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 10, m. 7, a. 3, § 5, ad 1; Blessed Albert, here d. 13, a. 13.

la: Vid. supra lit. Magistri, d. III. c. 1. — Mox pro *mutaret formam,* quod habent codd. B F G H L Q bb, cod. I *non teneret formam,* cod. K *imminuet formam,* alii codd. et edd. *citaret* [*vitaret?*] *formam.*

en: See above the Master's text, d. III, c. 1. — Soon, for *mutaret formam* ("were to change the form"), which codices B, F, G, H, L, Q, bb have, codex I reads *non teneret formam* ("would not keep the form"), codex K *imminuet formam* ("will diminish the form"), other codices and the editions *citaret* [*vitaret?*] *formam* ("would cite [shun?] the form").

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. VIII. c. 4.

en: Cf. above the Master's text, d. VIII, c. 4.

la: Libr. V. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 14. In seqq. verbis textus originalis plura interserit.

en: [Innocent III,] *On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar* V, c. 14. In the following words the original text inserts much more.

la: Marc. 15, 13. seq.; Luc. 23, 21. seq. — Superius pro *allisus,* quod habet etiam textus originalis, multi codd. *illisus,* cod. Y *fusus,* edd. *effusus.*

en: Mark 15:13 ff.; Luke 23:21 ff. — Above, for *allisus* ("dashed"), which the original text also has, many codices read *illisus,* codex Y *fusus,* the editions *effusus.*

la: Vide III. Sent. d. 15. dub. 4. et d. 16. a. 2. q. 3.

en: See III Sent., d. 15, doubt 4, and d. 16, a. 2, q. 3.

la: Innocent. III, loc. cit., haec recolligens. — Mox post *unum* edd. addunt cetera.

en: Innocent III, loc. cit., gathering these things up. — Soon after *unum* the editions add the rest.

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`vol4-p286-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p287-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p288-{L,R}-*`) per the Vol IV two-column PDF-priority inversion (offset pdf = printed + 20, so PDF 306–308; split_x=1880), cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 32746–33015. The IA OCR cascade-shatters this region (diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation + two-column bleed), so the column bands are authoritative throughout. The running head on p.287 reads "DIST. XII. P. I. DUBIA. 287," confirming page-verify. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Dubia count: 5.**
- **Dub. I** — On the Master's report that Christ showed himself to two disciples *in specie peregrini:* does Truth not commit a falsehood in deed, since his glorious body was not visible nor of that color? Answer: he showed himself to the bodily eyes such as he was before the mind's eyes (Gregory); the exterior sense saw a true form, the interior was not deceived but "closed" (*Oculi eorum tenebantur,* Luke 24:16) — concealing truth is not lying; the touch-of-parts analogy fails (dissimilar).
- **Dub. II** — On Augustine's *Manet integer totus in caelo:* but the Lord's foreskin / blood are said to be still on earth. Answer: all that belonged to the truth of human nature and fittingness rose; the foreskin was either not flesh-per-species, or a little flesh-per-matter left as relic, or rose with the remainder staying — whichever, the *whole* (= perfect) Christ is in heaven as to *esse* and *bene esse.*
- **Dub. III** — On *Manet integer totus in corde tuo:* a corporeal body cannot enter the heart (only God glides into the soul). Answer: Christ dwells in hearts not corporeally but spiritually / by faith (Eph. 3:17); the faithful heart believes the body remains whole though the species be broken, not that the body literally enters the soul.
- **Dub. IV** — On Hilary's *ubi pars ibi totum:* with many/infinite parts, is Christ there many/infinite times? Answer: the wax-carving analogy (form "from nature," perceived "from act"; *Six Principles,* Jerome) is more unlike than like, since the whole image is NOT in each part of the wax but the whole Christ IS in each part of the host; Christ is in the Sacrament as in a *sign* truly containing, the parts being one sign — contained once; the true analogue is the soul whole in each member of one body.
- **Dub. V** — On *Indignus est qui aliter celebrat mysterium quam Christus tradidit:* but we all celebrate "otherwise" (more prayers/cross-signs than Christ); and why does the Church add them? Answer: substance/integrity Christ handed down, solemnities the Church superadds (not diminishing but preserving); the additions arouse devotion, narrow intention, and signify more expressly — the 25 cross-signs in 7 sets figure the passion (Innocent III); 25 = 5 squared, signifying the sacrifice is always one however multiplied. *Nihil vacat a mysterio.*

**Footer ownership / renumber map (Quaracchi restarts footer numbering each printed page):**
- **Printed p.286** (PDF 306): footers **1–5** anchor in the *preceding* articulus (the *Fractio significat passionem Christi* Conclusio/Solutio — *partes fractae,* *de Anima,* *cod. bb,* scholion-cross-ref) and belong to the preceding *Fractio* quaestio, NOT here. Footers **6** (*Edd. ullius* — Dub. I obj. "nec illius⁶ coloris"), **7** (Gregorius, *Homil. in Evang. 23* — Dub. I resp. "sicut dicit Gregorius⁷"), **8** (*Luc. 24,16* — Dub. I "in Littera⁸"), **9** (*Aristot. II de Anima* — Dub. I "commune et per se⁹") DO anchor here → this chunk's [^1]–[^4].
- **Printed p.287** (PDF 307): footer **1** (*Idem dub. solvit B. Albert. d.13 a.3; S. Thom.*) anchors at Dub. I's tail "dissimile¹" → [^5]; footers **2** (cod. Y / Lateran — Dub. II "in terra²") → [^6], **3** (*Cfr. infra d.44* — Dub. II "decentiam³") → [^7], **4** (*Ut ostensum II Sent. d.8* — Dub. III "animae⁴") → [^8], **5** (*Vers. 17* — Dub. III "Ephesios tertio⁵") → [^9]; right-column footers **6** (Gilbert/*Six Principles* — Dub. IV "Sex Principiis⁶") → [^10], **7** (*Epist. 53 ad Paulinum* — Dub. IV "Bibliae⁷") → [^11], **8** (*Cod. X* — Dub. IV "est tamen⁸") → [^12], **9** (*Edd. quod cum semel* — Dub. IV "Nec⁹") → [^13].
- **Printed p.288** (PDF 308): footer **1** (*Cfr. supra d.10 p.I q.5; Alex. Hal.; B. Albert.* — Dub. IV tail "Sacramento¹") → [^14]; footers **2** (*lit. Magistri d.III c.1 / mutaret formam* — Dub. V "Sacramenti²/mutaret formam") → [^15], **3** (*lit. Magistri d.VIII c.4* — Dub. V "intelligendum³") → [^16]; right-column footers **4** (*de Sacro Altaris mysterio V c.14* — Dub. V "Innocentius⁴") → [^17], **5** (*Marc. 15,13; Luc. 23,21* — Dub. V "Crucifige eum⁵") → [^18], **6** (*Vide III Sent. d.15 dub.4* — Dub. V "compassionis⁶") → [^19], **7** (Innocent recap — Dub. V "semper est unum⁷") → [^20]. **Total: 20 entries [^1]–[^20].**

**Picked-up hand-off (from the a3-q3 / fraction-quaestio writer):** p.286 footers 6 (*Edd. ullius*), 7 (Gregorius), 8 (*Luc. 24,16*), 9 (*Aristot. de Anima*) anchor in this chunk's Dub. I — claimed as [^1]–[^4]. (The hand-off named these by content; confirmed against the column bands.)

**Page-split map:** The dubia open at the foot of printed p.286 (PDF 306) left column — the centered DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI header + DUB. I + its objection sit beneath the close of the preceding *Fractio* articulus solutio (whose Ad 3–6 run down the p.286 right column). Dub. I's Respondeo runs from the p.286-R column ("poris, sicut dicit Gregorius...") and its tail breaks at the foot of p.286-R ("...non posset hoc esse sine deceptione. Et"), continuing at the top of p.287-L ("ideo quod inducunt pro simili non est simile, sed dissimile¹"). Dub. II + Dub. III fill the p.287 left column; Dub. IV (objection + the long wax-figure Respondeo) fills the p.287 right column and breaks at "...immo potius inveniretur contrarium;" (foot of p.287-R). Dub. IV's Respondeo continues at the top of p.288 left column ("sed exemplum quaerendum est in spiritualibus..."), closing "...semel tantum in uno est Sacramento¹." Then Dub. V (objection + incidental *Quaest. incid.* "quare Ecclesia addit" + Respondeo) fills the rest of p.288 left column and continues into the p.288 right column with the long Innocent III passage on the 25 cross-signs, closing "...Et sic patet, quod nihil vacat a mysterio." above where the centered COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XII / Pars II header begins (lower in both columns of p.288).

**Pars II boundary / hand-off to divisio:** Everything from the centered **COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XII / Pars II / De frequentatione eucharistiae** header onward (printed p.288; raw L33016 ff., "Pars II." / DIVISIO TEXTUS "Supra egit Magister de fractione, hic agit ... de frequentatione. Et quoniam hoc Sacramentum frequentari contingit et a sacerdote conficiente et a populo...") is excluded here and owned by `bon-sent-IV-d12-p2-divisio`. The p.288 running heads still read "DIST. XII. P. I. DUBIA" for the columns holding Dub. IV tail + Dub. V (Pars I), with the Pars II material beginning lower on the page.

**[?] flags:** none. All five dubia bodies and all twenty apparatus entries read cleanly from the PDF column bands. (Footer 20 / Innocent recap is OCR-truncated past "ait:" in the raw text; its lemma is given in abbreviated reconstructed form — confidence high, it is the standard Innocent recap formula gathering the foregoing.)