title: Dist. 10, Part 1, Dubia

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

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

source_text:
<!-- page 225 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: *Sacramentum Ecclesiae duobus constare* etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia ex corpore Christi et signo visibili nihil unum fit.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quamvis non fiat

<!-- page 226 -->

unum per essentiam, fit tamen unum Sacramentum, quia Sacramentum non dicit aliquid absolutum, sed magis *ad aliquid*[^1]. Unde dicuntur facere unum Sacramentum, non quia fiant unum, sed quia ad unum.

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Sicut persona Christi constat et conficitur ex Deo et homine.* Videtur enim improprie loqui, quia persona Christi est simplicissima: ergo non habet compositionem aliquam[^2]. — Item, nulla videtur similitudo, quia est unio in persona et unio omnino sempiterna et inseparabilis; haec autem ad modicum tempus est.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod similitudo attenditur quantum ad duo: et quantum ad *ea quae dicuntur componi,* et etiam quantum ad *modum compositi.* Quantum ad *ea quae dicuntur componi,* quia, sicut est ibi aliquid spirituale et invisibile, ut divina natura, et aliquid corporale et visibile; sic et in proposito. Quantum ad *modum compositi*[^3], quia, sicut divina natura et humana dicuntur componi, non quia ex eis constet *unum,* sed quia uniuntur *in uno,* scilicet in una persona Christi; sic in proposito dicuntur componi, quia ad unum.

Quod ergo obiicit de compositione, dicendum, quod *large* dictum est, personam Christi constare et confici duobus[^4], quia illas duas naturas in se habet. Unde dicitur *composita,* quia cum alio posita, non ex aliis confecta. — Quod obiicitur de inseparabilitate, dicendum, quod quantum ad hoc non attenditur similitudo[^5].

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur ulterius de hoc quod dicit: *Conficitur Sacramentum Ecclesiae duobus,* cum illud Sacramentum dicatur constare ex carne et sanguine et ex specie vini et panis, similiter ex specie et vero corpore; quaeritur: quomodo differenter?[^6] — Item, cum conficitur ex *Sacramento et re*; quaeritur, quomodo se habeant per modum partium: aut enim sunt partes *subiectivae,* aut *integrales.* Non subiectivae, quia ex eis non constaret. Si *integrales*: sed pars integralis non recipit denominationem totius: ergo Sacramentum non habet confici ex Sacramento et re.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Sacramentum novae legis duo habet, scilicet quod est *figura* et *causa*[^7]. Quoniam ergo illud Sacramentum habet rationem *significandi* a specie exteriori, sed rationem *dandi gratiam* a carne Christi vera; ideo signanter dicit Augustinus[^8], quod Sacramentum Ecclesiae duobus conficitur, scilicet *Sacramento,* id est signo, cui appropriat rationem Sacramenti propter significationem, et *re Sacramenti,* quae efficit.

Et per hoc patet illud, quod quaeritur: quia aliter sunt partes species duae[^9], scilicet panis et vinum, quam species cum re, quia solum quantum ad alterum, scilicet quantum ad rationem significandi completam, sicut tactum est supra.

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Caro carnis et sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia nihil idem est signum sui ipsius. *Si tu dicas mihi,* quod idem sub diversis statibus potest esse signum et signatum, ut caro, prout est sub Sacramento, sit signum sui, prout est in caelo, quod videtur dicere littera sequens[^10]; *contra:* signum debet esse notius sensibus, quam signatum; sed caro, prout est sub Sacramento, est invisibilis et impalpabilis, in caelo visibilis et palpabilis: ergo non est signum eius. *Si tu dicas,* sicut dicit Magister[^11], quod caro accipitur pro signo carnis, scilicet pane; *contra:* species panis est visibilis et palpabilis; sed Augustinus dicit, quod carne invisibili significatur caro visibilis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod tropologicus est sermo, nec tantum uno tropo, sed duplici, quia quod est *signi* attribuitur signato, et quod est *signati* attribuitur signo. Species enim panis est signum, quoniam est visibilis; sed caro interius contenta est signatum, quia est invisibilis[^12]. Dicere ergo, quod caro invisibilis signat, hoc est dicere, quod species panis, quae est signum carnis invisibilis, signat corpus Christi visibile et palpabile: et illa species panis est caro invisibilis, non quia non videatur, sed

<!-- page 227 -->

quia contentum eius, quod est caro, est invisibile et intelligibile eatenus, qua ibidem continetur; quasi vellet Augustinus dicere: caro Christi visibilis et palpabilis signatur et continetur a specie panis invisibiliter et intelligibiliter[^13].

### Dub. V

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Significatur corpus Christi, quod est visibile et palpabile in sua* forma. Videtur enim male dicere, quia Gregorius in homilia paschae[^14]: «Quod palpari potest corrumpi necesse est»: ergo si corpus Christi est incorruptibile, est impalpabile.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Gregorius intelligit de palpabilitate secundum tactum corporis non glorificati, et de palpabilitate, qua aliquid dicitur palpabile[^15] ex necessitate, non potestate, quo modo est palpabile corpus Christi glorificatum.

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

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that Augustine says: *That the Sacrament of the Church consists of two things,* etc. For it seems to be said falsely, because out of the body of Christ and a visible sign nothing one comes to be.

**I respond:** It must be said that, although it does not become

one by essence, it nevertheless becomes one Sacrament, because a Sacrament does not express something absolute, but rather something *in relation to something*[^1]. Hence they are said to make one Sacrament, not because they become one, but because they are ordered to one.

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *Just as the person of Christ consists and is constituted of God and man.* For it seems to be spoken improperly, because the person of Christ is most simple: therefore it has no composition[^2]. — Likewise, no likeness seems to hold, because there is a union in the person and a union altogether everlasting and inseparable; but this one is for a brief time.

**I respond:** It must be said that the likeness is regarded as to two things: both as to *the things which are said to be composed,* and also as to *the manner of the composite.* As to *the things which are said to be composed,* because, just as there is there something spiritual and invisible, namely the divine nature, and something corporeal and visible; so also in the matter at hand. As to *the manner of the composite*[^3], because, just as the divine nature and the human are said to be composed, not because some *one* is constituted out of them, but because they are united *in one,* namely in the one person of Christ; so in the matter at hand they are said to be composed, because they are ordered to one.

What therefore he objects concerning composition must be answered thus: that it is said *broadly* that the person of Christ consists and is constituted of two things[^4], because it has those two natures in itself. Hence it is called *composite,* because placed-with-another, not made-out-of-others. — What is objected concerning inseparability must be answered thus: that as to this the likeness is not regarded[^5].

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked further about this, that he says: *The Sacrament of the Church is constituted of two things,* since that Sacrament is said to consist of flesh and blood and of the species of wine and bread, likewise of species and the true body; it is asked: in what way differently?[^6] — Likewise, since it is constituted of *Sacrament and reality*; it is asked how they stand to one another by way of parts: for either they are *subjective* parts, or *integral* ones. Not subjective, because it would not be constituted of them. If *integral*: but an integral part does not receive the denomination of the whole: therefore the Sacrament cannot be constituted of Sacrament and reality.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Sacrament of the new law has two things, namely that it is *figure* and *cause*[^7]. Since therefore that Sacrament has the character of *signifying* from the exterior species, but the character of *giving grace* from the true flesh of Christ; therefore Augustine pointedly says[^8] that the Sacrament of the Church is constituted of two things, namely of the *Sacrament,* that is, the sign, to which he appropriates the character of Sacrament on account of signification, and of the *reality of the Sacrament,* which effects.

And by this is made clear that which is asked: because in one way the two species are parts[^9], namely bread and wine, than the species with the reality, because only as to the one, namely as to the complete character of signifying, as was touched on above.

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *The flesh is the Sacrament of the flesh, and the blood is the Sacrament of the blood.* For it seems to be said falsely, because nothing is the sign of its very self. *If you say to me* that the same thing under diverse states can be sign and signified, as the flesh, insofar as it is under the Sacrament, may be the sign of itself insofar as it is in heaven, which the following text seems to say[^10]; *on the contrary:* a sign ought to be better known to the senses than the signified; but the flesh, insofar as it is under the Sacrament, is invisible and impalpable, in heaven visible and palpable: therefore it is not the sign of it. *If you say,* as the Master says[^11], that the flesh is taken for the sign of the flesh, namely the bread; *on the contrary:* the species of bread is visible and palpable; but Augustine says that by the invisible flesh the visible flesh is signified.

**I respond:** It must be said that the discourse is tropological, and not by a single trope only, but a twofold one, because what belongs to the *sign* is attributed to the signified, and what belongs to the *signified* is attributed to the sign. For the species of bread is a sign, since it is visible; but the flesh contained within is the signified, because it is invisible[^12]. To say therefore that the invisible flesh signifies, this is to say that the species of bread, which is the sign of the invisible flesh, signifies the body of Christ visible and palpable: and that species of bread is the invisible flesh, not because it is not seen, but

because its content, which is the flesh, is invisible and intelligible to the extent that it is contained there; as if Augustine wished to say: the flesh of Christ, visible and palpable, is signified and contained by the species of bread invisibly and intelligibly[^13].

### Doubt V

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *The body of Christ is signified, which is visible and palpable in its own* form. For it seems to be said falsely, because Gregory in the Easter homily[^14] [says]: «What can be touched must of necessity be corruptible»: therefore if the body of Christ is incorruptible, it is impalpable.

**I respond:** It must be said that Gregory understands it of palpability according to the touch of a body not glorified, and of the palpability by which something is said to be palpable[^15] by necessity, not by power — in which way the glorified body of Christ is palpable.

la: Verbis *ad aliquid* (πρός τι) utitur Aristot., de Praedicam. c. De his quae *ad aliquid,* et V. Metaph. text. 20. (IV. c. 15.), ad designanda *relativa.* — Cfr. de hoc dub. supra d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 2; S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: Aristotle uses the phrase *ad aliquid* (πρός τι, "in relation to something") in the *Categories,* chapter "On things which are *in relation to something*," and *Metaphysics* V, text 20 (IV, c. 15), to designate *relatives.* — Cf. on this doubt above, d. 8, p. II, a. 2, q. 2; St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.

la: Vide III. Sent. d. 6. a. 1. q. 2. — Ibid. a. 2. q. 1. seqq. insinuatur ratio seq. — Mox post *quia* codd. F H I addunt *ibi.*

en: See III Sent., d. 6, a. 1, q. 2. — Ibid., a. 2, q. 1 and following, the following reason is intimated. — Just after *quia,* codices F, H, I add *ibi.*

la: Codd. omittunt *compositi.*

en: The codices omit *compositi* ("of the composite").

la: Ex cod. H supplevimus *duobus.*

en: From codex H we have supplied *duobus* ("two").

la: De eodem dubio Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: On the same doubt, Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.

la: Ut habetur hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1. — De partibus *subiectivis* etc. cfr. tom. II. pag. 898, nota 9. — Paulo superius pro *differenter* edd. *differunt,* pauci codd. *differentur.*

en: As it is found here in the text of the Master, c. 1. — On *subjective* parts etc. cf. tom. II, p. 898, note 9. — A little above, for *differenter* ("differently") the editions read *differunt,* a few codices *differentur.*

la: Nam, ut supra lit. Magistri, d. IV. c. 1, ex August. dicitur, «Sacramenta... efficiunt quod figurant». Cfr. etiam supra d. 1. p. I. q. 1. seq. — Edd. *quod est signum et res.*

en: For, as above in the text of the Master, d. IV, c. 1, it is said from Augustine, «The Sacraments... effect what they figure». Cf. also above, d. 1, p. I, q. 1 and following. — The editions read *quod est signum et res* ("which is sign and reality").

la: Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1, ex quo textus huius dubii sumtus est, ubi pro *Sacramentum* habetur *sacrificium.* — Inferius pro *et re* edd. cum pluribus codd. *et rem.*

en: Here in the text of the Master, c. 1, from which the text of this doubt is taken, where for *Sacramentum* it reads *sacrificium* ("sacrifice"). — Below, for *et re* the editions with several codices read *et rem.*

la: Pro *duae* edd. *sine re.* — Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic a. 4.

en: For *duae* ("two") the editions read *sine re* ("without the reality"). — Blessed Albert resolves the same doubt, here a. 4.

la: Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1. in verbis Augustino attributis: *Carne et sanguine, utroque invisibili... significatur corpus Christi visibile et palpabile, plenum gratia et divina Maiestate.* — De seq. propos. cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 3. et d. VIII. c. 6.

en: Here in the text of the Master, c. 1, in the words attributed to Augustine: *By the flesh and blood, both invisible... is signified the body of Christ, visible and palpable, full of grace and divine Majesty.* — On the following proposition cf. above, the text of the Master, d. I, c. 3, and d. VIII, c. 6.

la: Hic in lit. c. 1. in fine. — Verba August. vide in nota praeced.

en: Here in the text, c. 1, at the end. — For Augustine's words see the preceding note.

la: MM. addunt *gratiae,* omisso subinde *dicere.*

en: The manuscripts add *gratiae* ("of grace"), thereupon omitting *dicere* ("to say").

la: Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Blessed Albert resolves the same doubt, here a. 5; St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Libr. II. homil. in Evang. homil. 26. n. 1: *Nam et corrumpi necesse est quod palpatur, et palpari non potest quod non corrumpitur.*

en: Book II of the homilies on the Gospels, homily 26, n. 1: *For what is touched must also of necessity be corruptible, and what is not corruptible cannot be touched.*

la: Ita codd. G H, edd. *palpari,* plures codd. *palpare.* — Cfr. de hoc dubio infra d. 49. p. II. art. princ. 2. a. 3. q. 2; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Thus codices G, H; the editions read *palpari,* several codices *palpare.* — Cf. on this doubt below, d. 49, p. II, principal article 2, a. 3, q. 2; Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`vol4-p225-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p226-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p227-{L,R}-*`) per the Vol IV two-column PDF-priority inversion, cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 25535–25693. Bands re-cropped with `colcrop.py vol4 226 2050` / `colcrop.py vol4 227 2050` (default split_x=1880 clipped the left column's right edge) at 4 bands / scale 1.4 to keep every band under the 5 MB API cap. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Dubia count: 5.**
- **Dub. I** — On Augustine's *Sacramentum Ecclesiae duobus constare*: out of the body of Christ + visible sign nothing one comes to be. Answer: not one by essence but one Sacrament, since *Sacramentum* names an *ad-aliquid* (a relative), an ordering-to-one, not an absolute.
- **Dub. II** — On *Sicut persona Christi constat et conficitur ex Deo et homine*: the simplest person has no composition, and the personal union is everlasting/inseparable (unlike the eucharist). Answer: the likeness holds as to the components and the *manner* of composite (united-in-one, not made-of-others, hence *composita* = placed-with); the inseparability point is no part of the likeness.
- **Dub. III** — On the Sacrament constituted *duobus* (Sacrament + reality): how do they differ, and are they subjective or integral parts? Answer: the new-law Sacrament is *figura* (signifying, from the species) and *causa* (grace, from Christ's flesh); the two species are parts in one way, species-with-reality in another (only as to complete signification).
- **Dub. IV** — On *Caro carnis et sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis*: nothing signs itself; sign must be more sensible than signified, yet here the reverse. Answer: a twofold trope (sign↔signified attributes swapped); the visible bread-species signs the invisible-contained flesh, which itself signs the visible-palpable body of Christ — invisible only as intelligibly contained.
- **Dub. V** — On *Significatur corpus Christi, quod est visibile et palpabile in sua forma* vs. Gregory's «what is palpable must be corruptible». Answer: Gregory means palpability by the touch of a *non-glorified* body, and palpability *by necessity* not *by power*; the glorified body of Christ is palpable in the latter sense.

**Page-split map:** The dubia open at the foot of printed p.225 (PDF 245) right column: the centered header DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI, DUB. I, its objection, and the opening of its Respondeo ("...quod quamvis non fiat") all sit in p.225's right column, beneath the close of Articulus unicus q. 5. Dub. I's Respondeo concludes at the top of p.226 (PDF 246) left column (page break placed mid-sentence at "...quamvis non fiat / unum per essentiam..."). P.226 left column: Dub. I tail, Dub. II (whole), Dub. III (objection + start). P.226 right column: Dub. III Respondeo, Dub. IV (objection + Respondeo, running to "...non quia non videatur, sed"). Dub. IV's Respondeo concludes at the top of p.227 (PDF 247) left column (page break at "...non quia non videatur, sed / quia contentum eius..."), followed there by DUB. V (objection). Dub. V's continuation + Respondeo print in p.227's right column, closing ("...est palpabile corpus Christi glorificatum.") immediately above the centered COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM X / Pars II header.

**Footer ownership:** Printed p.225's right-column footers 6–11 ("Cod. aa subiungit…", "Cfr. quaest. praeced. ad 2", "Codd. L P Q supplent sit", the long "Aliis verbis…" continuum note, "Cod. aa subiungit est", "Vide scholion ad 3. quaestionem") belong to the preceding **Articulus unicus, q. 5** and are owned by `bon-sent-IV-d10-p1-a1-q5`, NOT here (no dubia footnote is anchored on p.225). Printed p.226's footers 1–12 are owned here and renumbered gaplessly: footers 1 (→[^1], Dub. I), 2–5 (→[^2]–[^5], Dub. II), 6–9 (→[^6]–[^9], Dub. III), 10–12 (→[^10]–[^12], Dub. IV). Printed p.227's footers 1–3 are owned here: footer 1 (→[^13], Dub. IV tail "intelligibiliter"), footer 2 (→[^14], Dub. V "homilia paschae"/Gregory), footer 3 (→[^15], Dub. V "palpabile"). Printed p.227's footers 4 ("Edd. omittunt *quae potuit creare*") and 5 ("Cod. B supplet *Christi*") anchor in the **Pars II DIVISIO TEXTUS** body, NOT in any dubium — they belong to `bon-sent-IV-d10-p2-divisio`.

**Pars II boundary confirmed:** Pars II's COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM X / Pars II begins at raw **L25694** (centered header), with its DIVISIO TEXTUS body ("Primo quaeritur de Sacramento eucharistiae per comparationem ad virtutem transsubstantiantem… Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor") following. Everything from L25694 on is excluded here and owned by `bon-sent-IV-d10-p2-divisio`. NOTE the running-head bleed at raw ~L25674 ("DIST. X. P. II. DIVISIO TEXTUS. 227") is the p.227 running head, not the chapter start — the Pars I dubia (Dub. IV tail + Dub. V) continue past it through L25693.

**[?] flags:** none. All five dubia bodies and all fifteen apparatus entries read cleanly from the re-cropped PDF column bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 10, Part 2, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. X, Pars II)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Dist. X, Part II)

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 237 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Magister: *Satis responsum est haereticis* etc.[^1]; quia his duabus obiectionibus ipse non respondit, scilicet de manducatione Domini nostri, quod videtur esse irreverentiae; et de formatione corporis Christi, quod videtur esse dementiae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod solutio huius secundi articuli patebit in sequenti distinctione[^2] de conversione; alterius vero, scilicet de irreverentia,

<!-- page 238 -->

patet ex praecedentibus: quia non manducatur manducatione carnali, sed spirituali, sicut medicina salutifera; et hoc non est irreverentia, immo magis irreverentia Domini contemnere medicinam.

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Ambrosius: *Si tantum valuit sermo Eliae* etc.[^3]: unde hoc habuit sermo Eliae? Aut a se, aut aliunde. Non a se, constat; non aliunde, ut videtur, quoniam appetere vel petere consumtionem aliorum non est caritatis, cum caritas dictet contrarium; sed si non est ex caritate, non est exaudienda petitio: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sermo Eliae dicitur valuisse, non quia potentia fuerit in Elia vel eius sermone ad illud faciendum, sed quia ad eius petitionem astitit vis superior; et hoc non fuit tantum ratione caritatis, quae erat in eo, sed potius ratione gratiae miraculorum, quae potissime vigebat in eo. Nec peccavit in hoc Elias, immo digne fecit, quia illi confidentes in multitudine comitum irreverenter loquebantur, contemnentes virtutem Dei, quae erat in eo: et ideo iuste experti sunt Dei iudicium iustum et potentiam viri sancti; et nos etiam instructi sumus, quantam servis suis velit Deus reverentiam exhiberi.

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: *Post consecrationem carnem Christi et sanguinem, quod benedictio consecravit.*[^4] Videtur enim male dicere: quia in substantia formae nihil est pertinens ad benedictionem, sed totum per modum narrationis; quod patet, cum dicitur: *Hoc est corpus meum.*[^5]

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod verba, in quibus consistit vis consecrandi, dicuntur *benedictio* tum ratione benedictionis praecedentis, tum quia ad eorum prolationem Dominus benedicit, quia convertit in corpus, quod super omnia benedixit, ditando perfectis donis gratiarum animam, et sanctificatione et puritate carnem illam sanctissimam.

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

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that the Master says: *Sufficient answer has been made to the heretics* etc.[^1]; for he did not answer these two objections, namely concerning the eating of our Lord, which seems to be a matter of irreverence; and concerning the formation of the body of Christ, which seems to be a matter of madness.

**I respond:** It must be said that the solution of this second article will be clear in the following distinction[^2], on the conversion; but that of the other, namely concerning the irreverence,

is clear from what precedes: because he is not eaten by a carnal eating, but by a spiritual one, like a health-giving medicine; and this is not irreverence, but rather it is irreverence toward the Lord to despise the medicine.

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that Ambrose says: *If the word of Elijah had such power* etc.[^3]: whence did the word of Elijah have this? Either of itself, or from elsewhere. Not of itself, it is plain; not from elsewhere, as it seems, since to desire or to ask the destruction of others is not of charity, since charity dictates the contrary; but if it is not of charity, the petition is not to be granted: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that the word of Elijah is said to have had power, not because there was power in Elijah or in his word for doing that, but because at his petition a higher power was present; and this was not only by reason of the charity that was in him, but rather by reason of the grace of miracles, which was most strongly vigorous in him. Nor did Elijah sin in this, but rather he did worthily, because those men, trusting in the multitude of their company, spoke irreverently, despising the power of God which was in him: and therefore they justly experienced the just judgment of God and the power of the holy man; and we too are instructed how great a reverence God wills to be shown to his servants.

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that Augustine says: *After the consecration [it is] the flesh and blood of Christ, which the blessing has consecrated.*[^4] For it seems to be said badly: because in the substance of the form there is nothing pertaining to a blessing, but the whole is by way of narration; which is clear, since it is said: *This is my body.*[^5]

**I respond:** It must be said that the words in which the power of consecrating consists are called a *blessing,* both by reason of the preceding blessing, and because at their utterance the Lord blesses, since he converts into the body what he blessed above all things, enriching the soul with the perfect gifts of graces, and that most holy flesh with sanctification and purity.

la: Hic in lit. c. I. in fine.

en: Here in the text, c. 1, at the end.

la: Lit. Magistri, c. 1. seq. — Cod. L addit *ubi affertur.* Mox pro *praecedentibus* (scil. lit. Magistri, d. IX. c. I. seq., et Comment. a. I. et 2) edd. *sequentibus.*

en: The text of the Master, c. 1 and following. — Codex L adds *ubi affertur* ("where it is brought forward"). Just after, for *praecedentibus* ("the preceding things," namely the text of the Master, d. IX, c. 1 and following, and the Commentary, a. 1 and 2) the editions read *sequentibus* ("the following things").

la: In codd. L aa suppletur *esset.* — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: In codices L and aa the word *esset* ("had been") is supplied. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 6; St. Thomas, here on the text.

la: Cfr. tom. III. pag. 104, nota 9. et pag. 373, nota 5. Paulo inferius pro *sermo Eliae,* quod habent codd. F G H, alii codd. et edd. falso *sermo Dei.*

en: Cf. vol. III, p. 104, note 9, and p. 373, note 5. A little below, for *sermo Eliae* ("the word of Elijah"), which codices F G H have, the other codices and the editions wrongly read *sermo Dei* ("the word of God").

la: Cfr. II. de Mirabilibus sacrae Script. (inter opera August.) c. 20. et Ser. 275. (in Append. serm. August., alias 38. ex Eigneriano) n. 2. — Superius pro *iuste* cod. R *recte.* Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. *On the Marvels of Holy Scripture,* book II (among the works of Augustine), c. 20, and Sermon 275 (in the Appendix to Augustine's sermons, otherwise 38, from the Eigner collection), n. 2. — Above, for *iuste* ("justly") codex R reads *recte* ("rightly"). The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 7; St. Thomas, here on the text.

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`vol4-p238-{L,R}-*`) per the Vol IV two-column PDF-priority inversion, cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 26886–26969. English is a fresh literal translation. The running head of printed p.238 reads **SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV** (left page); the column/section context is **DIST. X. P. II.** (confirmed — not DIST. IX). The dubia open in the lower portion of both columns of printed p.237 (PDF 257) under the centered header DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI, and conclude on p.238 (PDF 258).

**Dubia count: 3.**
- **Dub. I** — On the Master's *Satis responsum est haereticis:* he left two objections unanswered (the eating of the Lord = seeming irreverence; the formation of Christ's body = seeming madness). Answer: the second is solved in the next distinction (on conversion); the first is already clear — the eating is spiritual/medicinal, not carnal, so it is no irreverence; rather, to despise the medicine is the irreverence.
- **Dub. II** — On Ambrose's *Si tantum valuit sermo Eliae:* whence had Elijah's word its power? Not of itself; and not from charity (since calling down destruction seems contrary to charity, and a non-charitable petition should not be granted). Answer: a higher power assisted at his petition, by reason of the grace of miracles (not merely of charity); Elijah did not sin but acted worthily, since the men despised the divine power in him — teaching us the reverence God wills shown to his servants.
- **Dub. III** — On Augustine's *Post consecrationem… quod benedictio consecravit:* the words of the form seem to contain nothing of blessing, being mere narration (*Hoc est corpus meum*). Answer: the consecratory words are called a *blessing* both from the preceding blessing and because at their utterance the Lord blesses, converting the elements into the body he blessed above all, enriching soul and flesh with graces, sanctification, and purity.

**Page-split map:** Dub. I's objection + the opening of its Respondeo print on p.237 (PDF 257); the Respondeo concludes ("patet ex praecedentibus… contemnere medicinam.") at the top of p.238 (PDF 258). The page break is placed at the Respondeo's natural clause boundary ("…in sequenti distinctione de conversione; alterius vero, scilicet de irreverentia, | patet ex praecedentibus…"). Dub. II and Dub. III print in full on p.238 (Dub. II in the left column, Dub. III in the right column). Dub. III closes ("…et puritate carnem illam sanctissimam.") immediately above the DISTINCTIO XI header (right column).

**Footer ownership:** Printed p.237's left-column footers and the right-column footers 3–6 (the *abstrahit* / *De Quinque sensibus* / *p. I. q. 2.* / *velatione* / *scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* material) belong to the preceding **a. 2, q. 2** and are NOT owned here. P.237's right-column footers 7–8 are owned here (Dub. I), renumbered [^1]–[^2]. P.238's left-column footers 1–3 are owned here (footer 1 = Dub. I tail *esset* / Albert a.6; footer 2 = Dub. II *sermo Eliae*; footer 3 = Dub. III *De Mirabilibus* / Albert a.7), renumbered [^3]–[^5]. P.238's right-column footers 4–5 plus the **NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM** footers (1 *Dist. X. c. ult.*; 2 *Cfr. Algerus, l. de Sacram. c. 9…*) belong to the **DISTINCTIO XI** body (*De modo conversionis*) that begins on p.238's right column — owned by the d.11 chunk, NOT here.

**d.11 boundary confirmed:** DISTINCTIO XI begins at raw **L26970** ("DISTINCTIO XI" / "Pars I" / "Cap. I. De modo conversionis"), in the right column of printed p.238 immediately after Dub. III closes. Everything from L26970 onward is excluded from this chunk.

**[?] flags:** none. All 3 dubia bodies and all 5 apparatus entries read cleanly from the PDF bands cross-checked against the raw OCR.

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. 11, Part 1

title_alt: De confectione et conversione corporis et sanguinis Christi

title_alt: On the confecting and conversion of the body and blood of Christ

source_text:
<!-- page 238 -->

### Cap. I. *De modo conversionis.*

Si autem quaeritur, qualis sit illa conversio, an formalis, an substantialis, vel alterius generis; definire non sufficio. Formalem tamen non esse, cognosco, quia species rerum, quae ante fuerant, remanent, et sapor et pondus. Quibusdam videtur esse substantialis, dicentibus, sic substantiam converti in substantiam, ut haec essentialiter fiat illa; cui sensui praemissae[^p238-1] auctoritates consentire videntur.

Sed huic sententiae sic opponitur ab aliis: si substantia panis, inquiunt, vel vini convertitur substantialiter in corpus vel sanguinem Christi, quotidie fit aliqua substantia corpus vel sanguis Christi, quae ante non erat; et hodie est aliquid corpus Christi, quod heri non erat; et quotidie augetur corpus Christi atque formatur de materia, de qua in conceptione non fuit factum. — Quibus hoc modo responderi potest: quia non ea ratione dicitur corpus Christi confici verbo caelesti[^p238-2], quod ipsum corpus in conceptu Virginis formatum deinceps formetur; sed quia substantia panis vel vini, quae ante non fuerat corpus Christi vel sanguis, verbo caelesti fit corpus et sanguis. Et ideo sacerdotes dicuntur conficere corpus Christi et sanguinem, quia eorum ministerio substantia panis fit caro, et substantia vini fit sanguis Christi; nec tamen aliquid additur corpori vel sanguini, nec augetur corpus Christi vel sanguis.

### Cap. II. *Quomodo dicitur corpus Christi confici de substantia panis.*

« Si vero quaeris modum, quo id fieri possit, breviter respondeo: Mysterium fidei credi salubriter potest, investigari salubriter non potest[^p238-3] ». Quod ergo corpus Christi panis mutatione in id non augmentatur, nec sanguis ex vini conversione, eius voluntati et potentiae adscribatur, qui idem corpus eduxit de Virgine; fit ergo substantia illa ista sine huius augmento. Nec tamen con[?]...

<!-- page 239 -->

opinio 1. cedunt quidam, quod substantia panis aliquando sit caro Christi, etsi fiat caro Christi; sicut farina facta est panis, et aqua facta est vinum, nec tamen dicitur: farina est panis, et aqua est vinum. — opinio 2. Alii vero concedunt, illud quod erat panis vel vinum, post consecrationem esse corpus et sanguinem; nec tamen sequitur: panis est caro Christi, vel vinum est sanguis, quia substantia panis vel vini, postquam facta est caro Christi vel sanguis, non est substantia panis vel vini, sed caro et sanguis. Ideo distinguendum videtur, cum dicitur: *substantia panis,* vel *id quod erat panis, modo est corpus Christi* — manens enim panis non est corpus Christi — sed *mutata,*[^1] id est, *id quod facta est, est corpus Christi.* Nec dicimus, substantiam panis vel vini materiam esse corporis vel sanguinis, quia non de ea ut de materia formatur corpus; sed ipsa formatur in illud et efficitur illud. Unde Augustinus[^2]: « Corpus Christi dicimus illud quod ex fructibus terrae acceptum et prece mystica consecratum sumimus in memoriam dominicae passionis. Quod cum per manus hominis ad illam visibilem speciem perducatur, non sanctificatur, ut sit tam dignum Sacramentum, nisi operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei ».

Quidam vero sic dicunt conversionem illam esse intelligendam, ut sub illis accidentibus, sub quibus erat prius substantia panis et vini, post consecrationem sit substantia corporis et sanguinis, sic tamen, ut non eis adiciatur[^3]. Et sic asserunt, dictum panem transire in corpus Christi, quia, ubi erat panis, nunc est corpus Christi. Quod si est, quid ergo fit de substantia panis et vini? Illi dicunt, vel in praeiacentem materiam resolvi, vel in nihilum redigi. — Alii vero putaverunt, ibi substantiam panis et vini remanere, et ibidem corpus Christi esse et sanguinem; et hac ratione dici, illam substantiam fieri istam, quia, ubi est haec, est et illa; quod mirum est; et ipsam substantiam panis vel vini dicunt esse Sacramentum. Sed quod non sit ibi substantia nisi corpus Christi et sanguis, ex praedictis et subditis aperte ostenditur. Ait enim[^5] Ambrosius[^4]: « Panem istum, quem sumimus in mysterio, illum utique intelligo, qui manu sancti Spiritus formatus est in utero Virginis et igne passionis decoctus in ara crucis. Panis enim Angelorum factus est cibus hominum; unde ait: *Ego sum panis vivus, qui de caelo descendi;* et iterum: *Panis, quem ego dabo, caro mea est pro mundi vita.* Ex his namque duabus sententiis aperte datur intelligi, quia panis ille et iste non duo, sed unus panis et una caro proculdubio unum efficitur corpus, illud vere, illud sane, quod sumptum est de Virgine, quod resurrexit et in caelum ascendit ». Item Gregorius[^6]: « Quis fidelium habere dubium possit, in ipsa immolationis hora ad sacerdotis vocem caelos aperiri, in illo Christi mysterio Angelorum choros adesse, summa et ima sociari, unum quid ex invisibilibus atque visibilibus fieri ». Idem[^7]: « Eodem momento et in caelum rapitur, ministerio Angelorum consociandum corpori Christi, et ante oculos sacerdotis in altari videtur. Sicut Divinitas Verbi totum implet mundum, ita multis locis illud corpus consecratur; nec tamen sunt multa corpora Christi, sed unum corpus et unus sanguis. Ideoque sive plus, sive minus quis inde percipiat, omnes aequaliter corpus Christi integerrime sumunt ». — Post consecrationem igitur non est ibi substantia panis vel vini, licet species remaneant. Est enim ibi species panis et vini, sicut et sapor; unde aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur.

### Pars II.

### Cap. III. *Quare sub alia specie.*

Sub alia autem specie tribus de causis carnem et sanguinem tradidit Christus et deinceps sumendum instituit, ut fides scilicet haberet meritum, quae est de his quae non videntur; quia « fides non habet meritum, cui humana ratio praebet experimentum[^8] ». Et etiam ideo, ne abhorreret animus, quod cerneret oculus, quia non habemus in usu carnem crudam et sanguinem comedere. Quia ergo Christum vorari dentibus fas non est, in mysterio carnem et sanguinem nobis commendavit. Et etiam ideo, ne ab incredulis religioni christianae insultaretur. Unde Augustinus: « Nihil rationabilius, quam ut sanguinis similitudinem sumamus, ut ita et veritas non desit, et ridiculum nullum fiat a paganis, quod cruorem occisi hominis bibamus ». Ne igitur hoc fieret, « et ne veluti quidam horror esset cruoris; in similitudinem accipimus Sacramentum ». — Ex praemissis iam liquet, quare sub alia specie, et quare sub ista hoc Sacramentum Dominus celebraverit et celebrari a nobis instituerit.

### Cap. IV. *Quare sub duplici specie.*

Sed quare sub duplici specie sumitur, cum sub alterutra totus sit Christus? « Ut ostenderetur[^9], totam

<!-- page 240 -->

humanam naturam assumsisse, ut totam redimeret. Panis enim ad carnem refertur, vinum ad animam, quia vinum operatur sanguinem, in quo sedes animae a physicis esse dicitur. Ideo ergo in duabus speciebus celebratur, ut animae et carnis susceptio in Christo et utriusque liberatio in nobis significetur[^10] ». Valet enim, ut Ambrosius ait, « ad tuitionem corporis et animae[^11] quod percipimus; quia caro Christi pro salute corporis, sanguis vero pro anima nostra offertur, sicut praefiguravit Moyses: *Caro,* inquit, *pro corpore nostro offertur, sanguis vero pro anima* »; sed tamen « sub utraque specie sumitur, quod ad utrumque valet, quia sub utraque sumitur totus Christus. Sed si in altera tantum sumeretur, ad alterius tantum, id est corporis vel animae, non utriusque pariter tuitionem valere significaretur. Sub utraque tamen specie totus sumitur Christus; nec plus sub utraque, nec minus sub altera tantum sumitur ». « Eadem enim ratio est, ut ait Hilarius[^12], in corpore Christi, quae in manna praecessit; de quo dicitur: *Qui plus collegerat non habuit amplius, nec qui minus paraverat habuit minus* ». Et licet sub utraque specie totus Christus sumatur, tamen non fit conversio panis nisi in carnem, nec vini nisi in sanguinem; nec debent dici *duo* Sacramenta, sed unum, quia sub utraque specie idem sumitur; neque iterari Sacramentum, quia benedictio non repetitur super eandem speciem; neque aliae substantiae in sacrificium veritatis offerri debent, quia de aliis non potest consecrari corpus Christi vel sanguis.

### Cap. V. *Quare aqua admisceatur.*

Aqua vero admiscenda est vino, quia aqua populum significat[^13], qui per Christi passionem redemptus est. « Calix ergo dominicus iuxta canonum praeceptum aqua et vino mixtus debet offerri; quia videmus, in aqua populum intelligi[^14], in vino ostendi sanguinem Christi. Cum igitur in calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus adunatur, et credentium plebs ei, in quem credit, copulatur; quae copulatio aquae et vini sic miscetur in calice Christi, ut mixtio illa non possit separari. Nam si vinum tantum quis offerat, sanguis Christi incipit esse sine nobis ».

Si vero quaeritur, an irritum sit quod geritur, si aqua praetermittatur; audi quod sequitur in eodem canone: « *Non potest,* inquit, *calix Domini esse aqua sola, aut vinum solum, nisi utrumque misceatur* ». Item Cyprianus[^15]: « Calix Domini non est aqua sola, aut vinum solum, nisi utrumque misceatur; sicut nec corpus Domini potest esse farina sola, nec aqua sola, nisi utrumque fuerit adunatum et panis unius compage solidatum ». Si quis tamen, non intendens introducere haeresim, oblivione vel ignorantia aquam praetermiserit, non videtur esse irritum Sacramentum; sed ille graviter est corripiendus; nam et Graecorum Ecclesia non apponere aquam dicitur. Quod etiam ex dictis Cypriani videtur posse colligi. Ait enim: « Si quis de antecessoribus nostris vel ignoranter vel simpliciter non hoc servaverit, quod nos Dominus facere et exemplo et magisterio docuit; potest simplicitati eius indulgentia Domini venia concedi. Nobis vero non potest ignosci, qui nunc a Domino instructi sumus, ut calicem Domini cum vino mixtum, secundum quod Dominus obtulit, offeramus ». — Ex hoc videtur, quod si quis simpliciter vel ignoranter vinum offerat sine aqua, Sacramentum conficiat. Aqua vero nullatenus sine vino potest offerri in sacrificium, nec panis nisi de frumento, nec granum frumenti, nisi redactum fuerit in panem, quia Christus et panem se dicit et grano frumenti se comparat[^16]. Quod ergo supra dictum est, non posse vinum solum offerri, determinari oportet; recipit enim exceptionem: non potest, nisi simpliciter vel ignoranter fiat; vel non potest, id est non debet. Quibusdam tamen videtur hoc generaliter verum.

### Cap. VI. *Quale corpus dedit Christus discipulis in coena.*

Colligitur etiam ex praedictis, quod Christus vinum aqua mixtum dedit discipulis. Corpus vero tale dedit, quale tunc habuit, id est mortale et passibile; nunc vero sumitur a nobis immortale et impassibile; nec tamen maiorem habet efficientiam. Eucharistia quoque intincta non debet dari populo pro supplemento communionis[^17], quia non legitur Christus alicui discipulorum praebuisse panem intinctum nisi Iudae. Tunc vero non accepit Iudas corpus Christi, sed tantum panem; corpus vero et sanguinem Christi ante cum aliis discipulis perceperat.

---

english:
<!-- page 238 -->

### Chap. I. *On the manner of the conversion.*

But if it is asked of what kind that conversion is — whether formal, or substantial, or of another kind — I am not competent to determine. That it is not formal, however, I do know, because the species of the things which were before remain, and the savor and the weight. To some it seems to be substantial, who say that the substance is so converted into the substance that this one essentially becomes that one; to which sense the aforesaid[^p238-1] authorities seem to consent.

But to this opinion it is thus objected by others: if the substance of bread, they say, or of wine is substantially converted into the body or blood of Christ, then daily some substance becomes the body or blood of Christ which was not before; and today there is something the body of Christ which yesterday was not; and daily the body of Christ is increased and formed from matter from which in his conception it was not made. — To these it can be answered in this manner: that the body of Christ is not said to be confected by the heavenly word[^p238-2] in the sense that that very body, formed in the conception of the Virgin, is thereafter formed; but because the substance of bread or wine, which before was not the body or blood of Christ, becomes by the heavenly word his body and blood. And therefore the priests are said to confect the body and blood of Christ, because by their ministry the substance of bread becomes flesh, and the substance of wine becomes the blood of Christ; yet nothing is added to the body or blood, nor is the body or blood of Christ increased.

### Chap. II. *How the body of Christ is said to be confected from the substance of bread.*

« But if you ask the manner in which this can come to be, I answer briefly: the mystery of faith can be wholesomely believed, but cannot be wholesomely investigated[^p238-3] ». Therefore, that the body of Christ is not increased in itself by the change of bread, nor his blood by the conversion of wine, let it be ascribed to the will and power of him who drew the same body out of the Virgin; thus therefore that substance becomes this one without any increase of the latter. And yet not[?]...

<!-- page 239 -->

opinion 1. Certain men grant that the substance of bread sometimes is the flesh of Christ, even though it become the flesh of Christ; just as flour has become bread, and water has become wine, yet it is not said: flour is bread, and water is wine. — opinion 2. Others, however, concede that what was bread or wine, after the consecration is the body and blood; yet it does not follow: bread is the flesh of Christ, or wine is blood, because the substance of bread or wine, after it has become the flesh or blood of Christ, is not the substance of bread or wine, but flesh and blood. Therefore it seems that a distinction must be made, when it is said: *the substance of bread,* or *that which was bread, is now the body of Christ* — for bread remaining is not the body of Christ — but *changed,*[^1] that is, *that which it has become is the body of Christ.* Nor do we say that the substance of bread or wine is the matter of the body or blood, because the body is not formed from it as from matter; but it itself is formed into that and is made that. Whence Augustine[^2]: « We call the body of Christ that which, taken from the fruits of the earth and consecrated by the mystical prayer, we receive in memory of the Lord's passion. And when this is brought by the hands of men to that visible appearance, it is not sanctified, so as to be so worthy a Sacrament, except by the Spirit of God working invisibly ».

But some say that that conversion is to be understood thus: that under those accidents, under which the substance of bread and wine was before, after the consecration there is the substance of the body and blood, yet in such a way that nothing is added to them[^3]. And so they assert that bread is said to pass over into the body of Christ, because, where bread was, now is the body of Christ. But if this is so, what then becomes of the substance of bread and wine? They say it is either resolved into the underlying matter, or reduced to nothing. — Others, however, supposed that the substance of bread and wine remains there, and in the same place the body and blood of Christ are; and that on this account that substance is said to become this one, because, where this is, there also is that; which is astonishing; and they say that the very substance of bread or wine is the Sacrament. But that there is no substance there except the body and blood of Christ is clearly shown from what has been said and what is added below. For there says[^5] Ambrose[^4]: « That bread which we receive in the mystery, I understand assuredly to be the one which was formed by the hand of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin and cooked by the fire of the passion on the altar of the cross. For the bread of Angels has become the food of men; whence he says: *I am the living bread, who came down from heaven;* and again: *The bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.* For from these two sayings it is clearly given to be understood that that bread and this are not two, but one bread and one flesh, and without doubt are made one body — that one truly, that one indeed, which was taken from the Virgin, which rose again and ascended into heaven ». Likewise Gregory[^6]: « What of the faithful could have any doubt that, in the very hour of the immolation, at the voice of the priest the heavens are opened, that in that mystery of Christ the choirs of Angels are present, that the highest and the lowest are joined together, that one thing is made out of the invisible and the visible ». The same[^7]: « In the same moment it is also caught up into heaven, to be united by the ministry of Angels to the body of Christ, and before the eyes of the priest it is seen upon the altar. Just as the Divinity of the Word fills the whole world, so in many places that body is consecrated; yet there are not many bodies of Christ, but one body and one blood. And therefore whether one receive more or less thereof, all equally receive the body of Christ most entire ». — After the consecration, therefore, there is no substance of bread or wine there, although the species remain. For there is there the species of bread and wine, as also the savor; whence one thing is seen, another is understood.

### Part II.

### Chap. III. *Why under another species.*

But under another species Christ handed over flesh and blood, and instituted them to be received thereafter, for three reasons: namely, that faith might have merit, which is of the things that are not seen; for « faith has no merit, where human reason supplies experience[^8] ». And also for this reason, lest the mind should shrink from what the eye beheld, since we are not in the habit of eating raw flesh and blood. Therefore, since it is not lawful for Christ to be devoured by the teeth, he committed to us flesh and blood in a mystery. And also for this reason, lest the Christian religion be insulted by unbelievers. Whence Augustine: « Nothing is more reasonable than that we should receive the likeness of the blood, so that both the truth may not be lacking, and no ridicule be made by the pagans, that we drink the gore of a slain man ». Lest, therefore, this should happen, « and lest, as it were, there should be a certain horror of gore; we receive the Sacrament in a likeness ». — From what has been set forth it is now clear why under another species, and why under this one, the Lord celebrated this Sacrament and instituted it to be celebrated by us.

### Chap. IV. *Why under a twofold species.*

But why is it received under a twofold species, since under either alone the whole Christ is present? « That it might be shown[^9] that he assumed

<!-- page 240 -->

the whole human nature, in order to redeem the whole. For bread is referred to the flesh, wine to the soul, because wine produces blood, in which the seat of the soul is said by the physicists to be. Therefore it is celebrated in two species, that the assumption of soul and flesh in Christ, and the liberation of both in us, may be signified[^10] ». For it avails, as Ambrose says, « for the protection of body and soul[^11] that which we receive; because the flesh of Christ is offered for the salvation of the body, but the blood for our soul, as Moses prefigured: *The flesh,* he says, *is offered for our body, but the blood for the soul* »; yet « it is received under each species, which avails for both, because under each the whole Christ is received. But if it were received under one only, it would be signified to avail for the protection of the one only, that is of the body or of the soul, not of both alike. Yet under each species the whole Christ is received; neither more under each, nor less under one alone is received ». « For the same reasoning holds, as Hilary[^12] says, in the body of Christ, which preceded in the manna; of which it is said: *He who had gathered more had no more, nor did he who had prepared less have less* ». And although under each species the whole Christ is received, yet the conversion of the bread is only into the flesh, and of the wine only into the blood; nor ought they to be called *two* Sacraments, but one, because under each species the same is received; nor is the Sacrament to be repeated, because the blessing is not repeated over the same species; nor ought other substances to be offered in the sacrifice of the truth, because from others the body of Christ or his blood cannot be consecrated.

### Chap. V. *Why water is mingled.*

But water is to be mingled with the wine, because water signifies the people[^13] which has been redeemed by the passion of Christ. « The Lord's chalice, therefore, according to the precept of the canons, ought to be offered mixed of water and wine; because we see that in the water the people is understood[^14], in the wine is shown the blood of Christ. When, therefore, in the chalice water is mingled with wine, the people is united to Christ, and the throng of believers is joined to him in whom it believes; which joining of water and wine is so mingled in the chalice of Christ that that mixture cannot be separated. For if anyone offer wine only, the blood of Christ begins to be without us ».

But if it is asked whether what is done is null, if the water is omitted; hear what follows in the same canon: « *It cannot be,* he says, *that the Lord's chalice be water alone, or wine alone, unless both be mingled* ». Likewise Cyprian[^15]: « The Lord's chalice is not water alone, or wine alone, unless both be mingled; just as neither can the body of the Lord be flour alone, nor water alone, unless both have been joined together and made solid in the compacting of one bread ». If, however, anyone, not intending to introduce heresy, by forgetfulness or ignorance omit the water, the Sacrament does not seem to be null; but he is to be gravely rebuked; for the Church of the Greeks too is said not to add water. Which can also seem to be gathered from the words of Cyprian. For he says: « If any of our predecessors, whether by ignorance or by simplicity, has not observed this which the Lord taught us to do both by example and by teaching; the pardon of the Lord's indulgence can be granted to his simplicity. But to us it cannot be forgiven, who now have been instructed by the Lord, to offer the Lord's chalice mixed with wine, according as the Lord offered it ». — From this it seems that, if anyone simply or ignorantly offer wine without water, he confects the Sacrament. But water can in no way be offered alone in sacrifice without wine, nor bread except of grain, nor a grain of wheat unless it has been made into bread, because Christ calls himself both bread and compares himself to a grain of wheat[^16]. Therefore what was said above, that wine alone cannot be offered, ought to be qualified; for it admits an exception: it cannot, unless it be done simply or ignorantly; or it cannot, that is, it ought not. To some, however, this seems to be generally true.

### Chap. VI. *What kind of body Christ gave to the disciples at the supper.*

It is also gathered from what has been said that Christ gave wine mixed with water to the disciples. But he gave such a body as he then had, that is, mortal and passible; whereas now it is received by us immortal and impassible; nor yet does it have greater efficacy. The Eucharist, moreover, dipped, ought not to be given to the people as a supplement of communion[^17], because it is not read that Christ gave dipped bread to any of the disciples except Judas. And then Judas did not receive the body of Christ, but only bread; for he had received the body and blood of Christ beforehand with the other disciples.

---

en: In codd. L aa is supplied *esset.* — The same doubt is resolved by Bl. Albert, here a. 6; St. Thomas, here near the text.

la: Cfr. tom. III. pag. 104, nota 9. et pag. 373, nota o. — Paulo inferius pro *sermo Eliae,* quod habent codd. F G H l, alii codd. et edd. falso *sermo Dei.* — Cfr. II. de Mirabilibus sacrae Script. (inter opera August.) c. 20. et Ser. 27d. (in Append. serm. August., alias 38. ex Vigerian.) n. 2. — Superius pro *iuste* cod. h *recte.* Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. vol. III, p. 104, note 9, and p. 373, note o. — A little below, for *sermo Eliae,* which codd. F G H l have, the other codd. and editions wrongly read *sermo Dei.* — Cf. II *On the Marvels of Sacred Scripture* (among the works of Augustine) c. 20, and Sermon 27d (in the Appendix of Augustine's sermons, otherwise 38, from Vigerianus) n. 2. — Above, for *iuste* cod. h has *recte.* The same doubt is resolved by Bl. Albert, here a. 7; St. Thomas, here near the text.

la: *Notae ad libr. Sententiarum:* (1) Dist. X. c. ult. (2) Cfr. Algerus, l. de Sacram. c. 9. Quod sequitur excerptum est ex Sum. Sent. (Hugoni tribuita) tr. 6. c. 4.; ubi pro *sine huius* pleraeque edd. *sine eius,* et pro *sit caro* perperam *fit caro.* — Vide supra d. 8. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. — Post *sed* edd. addunt *dicitur.* — Codd. H L supplent *panem,* et mox post *corpus* cod. H addit *Christi.*

en: *Notes to the Book of the Sentences:* (1) Dist. X, last chapter. (2) Cf. Alger, bk. on the Sacrament, c. 9. What follows is excerpted from the *Summa Sententiarum* (attributed to Hugh), tr. 6, c. 4; where for *sine huius* most editions have *sine eius,* and for *sit caro* wrongly *fit caro.* — See above, d. 8, p. II, a. 1, q. 1. — After *sed* the editions add *dicitur.* — Codd. H L supply *panem,* and just after *corpus* cod. H adds *Christi.*

la: Vat., supplendo, praefigit *substantia;* deinde pro *id est, id* edd. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 ponunt *in id.*

en: The Vatican edition, by way of supplement, prefixes *substantia;* then for *id est, id* edd. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 put *in id.*

la: Libr. III. de Trin. c. 4. n. 10; et C. *Corpus et sanguinem* (60.), de Consecrat. dist. 2.

en: Bk. III *On the Trinity,* c. 4, n. 10; and the canon *Corpus et sanguinem* (60), de Consecrat., dist. 2.

la: Cod. Erf. annotat: *Id est, ut non insint corpori, sicut insunt accidentia subiecto.*

en: Cod. Erf. notes: *That is, that they be not in the body, as accidents are in a subject.*

la: Locus collectus est ex libro de Mysteriis c. 9, et IV. de Sacram. c. 4; verbotenus in C. *Omnia quaecumque* (74.). Cfr. etiam Petr. Chrysolog., Serm. 67. n. 10. — Loci Scripturae sunt Ioan. 6, 31. et 52.

en: The passage is collected from the book *On the Mysteries,* c. 9, and bk. IV *On the Sacraments,* c. 4; verbatim in the canon *Omnia quaecumque* (74). Cf. also Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 67, n. 10. — The Scripture passages are John 6:31 and 52.

la: In solis edd., excepta 1, suppletur *Veritas.*

en: In the editions alone, except 1, *Veritas* is supplied. *[The exact lemma to which this variant attaches is uncertain in the cascade-fragmented OCR / column band; it is here placed at the supplied subject of « Ait enim ».]*

la: Libr. IV. Dialog. c. 58; et C. *Quid sit sanguis* (73.), ibid. § 1, ubi § 2. etiam seq. locus.

en: Bk. IV of the *Dialogues,* c. 58; and the canon *Quid sit sanguis* (73), ibid., § 1, where § 2 has the following passage also.

la: Invenitur apud Alcuinum, de Divinis Officiis c. 40, qui citat Gregorium, in quo saltem verba non inveniuntur.

en: It is found in Alcuin, *On the Divine Offices,* c. 40, who cites Gregory, in whom at least the words are not found.

la: Gregor., II. Homil. in Evang., homil. 26. n. 1; in quo pro *cui* edd., excepta 1, *ubi.* Cfr. Hugo a S. Vict., Sum. Sent. tr. 6. c. 4.

en: Gregory, bk. II of the *Homilies on the Gospel,* homily 26, n. 1; in which, for *cui,* the editions, except 1, have *ubi.* Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, *Summa Sententiarum,* tr. 6, c. 4.

la: Can. *Utrum sub figura* (72.), ibid. § 2., sumtus ex Paschas. Radb., de Corp. et sang. Dom. c. 13. Seq. sententia sumta est ex C. *Panis est* (53.), loc. cit., ex Ambros., IV. de Sacram. c. 4. n. 20, ubi pro *accipimus* edd. A B D *accipis.*

en: Canon *Utrum sub figura* (72), ibid., § 2, taken from Paschasius Radbertus, on the body and blood of the Lord, c. 13. The following sentence is taken from the canon *Panis est* (53), loc. cit., from Ambrose, bk. IV *On the Sacraments,* c. 4, n. 20, where for *accipimus* edd. A B D have *accipis.*

la: Glossa ad I. Cor. 11, 26, apud Lyranum.

en: Gloss on 1 Cor. 11:26, in Lyra.

la: Comment. in I. Cor. 11, 26; ubi respicitur Deuter. 12, 23 (cfr. Levit. 17, 11.): *Cave, ne sanguinem comedas; sanguis enim eorum pro anima est.* Deinde pro *utrumque valet,* plurimae edd. non bene *utramque valet,* refragante etiam Hugone, loc. cit. c. 6, unde ista sumta sunt.

en: Commentary on 1 Cor. 11:26; where Deut. 12:23 is regarded (cf. Lev. 17:11): *Beware lest you eat blood; for their blood is for the soul.* Then for *utrumque valet,* very many editions have, not well, *utramque valet,* against Hugh too, loc. cit., c. 6, whence these are taken.

la: Can. *Ubi pars* (78.), ibid.; eadem sententia invenitur apud Isidor., Serm. 4. de Corp. et sang. Dom. n. 8. — Locus Scripturae est Exod. 16, 18.

en: Canon *Ubi pars* (78), ibid.; the same sentence is found in Isidore, Sermon 4 on the body and blood of the Lord, n. 8. — The Scripture passage is Exod. 16:18.

la: Cod. E et edd., excepta 1, praefigunt *debet.* Sententia est ex Hugone, loc. cit.

en: Cod. E and the editions, except 1, prefix *debet.* The sentence is from Hugh, loc. cit.

la: Apoc. 17, 15. Locus seq. est C. *Cum omne* (7.), ibid. § 1; cfr. Innoc. III., libr. IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio c. 29.

en: Apoc. 17:15. The following passage is the canon *Cum omne* (7), ibid., § 1; cf. Innocent III, bk. IV *On the Mystery of the Holy Altar,* c. 29.

la: Epist. 63. n. 13, et C. *Sic in sanctificando* (2.), ibid. Inferius verba sunt eiusdem ibid. n. 17, et Can. seq.

en: Letter 63, n. 13, and the canon *Sic in sanctificando* (2), ibid. Below, the words are of the same, ibid., n. 17, and the following canon.

la: Ex C. *Cum omne* (7.), ibid. § 1. De Iuda cfr. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 62. n. 3, et Hugo loc. cit. c. 9.

en: From the canon *Cum omne* (7), ibid., § 1. Concerning Judas, cf. Augustine, on the Gospel of John, tr. 62, n. 3, and Hugh, loc. cit., c. 9.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 26970–27236), with PDF column-band reads (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{239,240}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) authoritative on the cascade-fragmented two-column body and footers. English is a fresh literal parallel. Two-column Vol IV → VOL II OVERRIDE applied. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 238–240 = pdf 258–260).
- **This is the LITTERA MAGISTRI of Distinction XI, Pars I** — Lombard's chapters on the *modus conversionis* / *confectio* of the Eucharist. The distinction has TWO partes, so the id carries `p1`. Pars II begins mid-page on p.239 (the `### Pars II.` marker before Cap. III) and continues through Cap. VI; despite "Pars II," all six chapters belong to this single littera chunk (the Bonaventure commentary's pars-split is handled by the separate `d11-p1-*` / `d11-p2-*` quaestio chunks).
- **Chapter list:** Cap. I (*De modo conversionis*); Cap. II (*Quomodo dicitur corpus Christi confici de substantia panis*); Cap. III (*Quare sub alia specie*); Cap. IV (*Quare sub duplici specie*); Cap. V (*Quare aqua admisceatur*); Cap. VI (*Quale corpus dedit Christus discipulis in coena*).
- **Page-split / page-238 head.** The littera physically OPENS at the foot of printed p.238 (Cap. I left column + Cap. II opener right column), which is why `printed_pages` includes 238. That p.238 material is rendered here under `<!-- page 238 -->` with its own footers folded into the `[^p238-N]` keys (Cap. I notes 1–3 + the *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* block consolidated into `[^p238-3]`). The top of p.238 belongs to the PRIOR chunk (d.10/d.11 commentary DUB. II–III, raw ≤ L26969) and is excluded.
- **Two-column reading order (p.239).** The footnote numbering follows the continuous Lombard text, which zig-zags the two columns: Cap. II reportatio (L: notes 1–3) → Cap. II refutatio with Ambrose/Gregory testimonia (R: notes 4–7) → Cap. III (note 8 in L, the «Nihil rationabilius» continuation in R) → Cap. IV opener (R: note 9). p.239 = 9 footnotes; p.240 = 8 footnotes (Cap. IV close + Cap. V + Cap. VI); total 17 entries + 3 p.238-head keys.
- **Cross-page seam.** p.238 right column ends "…sine huius augmento. Nec tamen con-" and the OCR/column-band does not cleanly continue this clause into p.239 (which opens with the fresh "opinio 1. cedunt quidam…" reportatio). The "Nec tamen con-" tail is flagged `[?]` inline; it most likely runs "Nec tamen conceditur / convertitur…" but the continuation is illegible at the column foot and is not recoverable from the available bands. NO body text is dropped between this chunk and the prior chunk's tail; the seam loss is internal to p.238→239.
- **Footer ownership.** All p.239 footers (1–9) and p.240 footers (1–8) anchor in this littera's body and are claimed here. They sit physically below the COMMENTARIUS/divisio openers that follow on p.241, but mark the littera lemmata, so they belong to this chunk, NOT to `d11-p1-divisio` (whose own footers begin on p.241; note the running head `DIST. XI. P. I. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. I. 241` at raw L27232 marks the start of the next chunk and is excluded).
- **No scholion** — littera chunk.
- **`[?]` flags:**
  - **p.238→239 seam:** "Nec tamen con-[?]" — clause foot illegible / cascade-broken at the p.238 column boundary; continuation not recoverable from the p.239 bands (p.238 was not crop-verified). See "Cross-page seam" above.
  - **p.239 note 5 (`[^5]`, *Veritas* variant):** the exact lemma to which Quaracchi's "In solis edd. … suppletur *Veritas*" attaches is ambiguous in the cascade-fragmented OCR and the column band; the marker is placed at the supplied subject of « Ait enim [Veritas] Ambrosius », the most grammatically plausible site, and flagged for a 600 dpi recheck at the d.11–d.20 decade-polish gate.
  - Unambiguous OCR garbles silently corrected (e.g. `larina`→*farina*, `subslanlia`→*substantia*, `mulala`→*mutata*, `Augnslinus`→*Augustinus*, `coi'pus`→*corpus*, `eOicitur`→*efficitur*, `inleiligi`→*intelligi*, `Iradidit`→*tradidit*, `admiscealur`→*admisceatur*, `oiTerat`→*offerat*, `redaclum`→*redactum*, `assumsisse` retained as the Quaracchi spelling).


title: Dist. 11, Part 1, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum (Pars I)

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions (Part I)

source_text:
<!-- page 241 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XI.

#### Pars I.

*De eucharistia per comparationem ad conficientem.*

> Si autem quaeritur, qualis sit illa conversio, an formalis etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de Sacramento eucharistiae in se et in comparatione ad manducantem. In hac parte agit de ipso per comparationem ad conficientem[^1]. Et dividitur haec pars in tres partes. In prima parte agit de ipsa confectione. In secunda de consequentibus ad confectionem, infra distinctione duodecima, ibi: *Si autem quaeritur de accidentibus, quae remanent* etc. In tertia agit de potestate conficientis, infra distinctione decima tertia: *Solet etiam quaeri, utrum pravi sacerdotes* etc.

Prima pars habet duas partes. In prima parte agit de ipsa confectione quantum ad actum transsubstantiandi; in secunda quantum ad materiam, ibi: *Sub alia autem specie tribus de causis.* Prima pars habet duas partes. In prima determinat veritatem. In secunda reprobat falsas opiniones, ibi: *Quidam vero sic dicunt conversionem illam* etc. Prima pars habet duas. Primo enim determinat, quid sentiendum; secundo vero, quid loquendum, ibi: *Nec tamen concedunt aliqui* etc.

Similiter secunda pars habet duas. In prima ponit opiniones. In secunda reprobat, ibi: *Sed quod non sit ibi substantia nisi corpus Christi* etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis sex quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, utrum in hoc Sacramento sit aliqua conversio panis in corpus Christi.

Secundo, dato quod sic, quaeritur, utrum totus panis convertatur, an aliquid remaneat praeter accidentia.

Tertio, dato quod convertatur totus, quaeritur, utrum talis conversio panis possit dici annihilatio.

Quarto, dato quod non, quaeritur, utrum panis convertatur in totum Christum, id est in animam et Divinitatem, sicut in carnem.

Quinto, utrum haec conversio sit subita, an successiva.

Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, quibus verbis sit exprimenda illa conversio.

### ARTICULUS UNICUS.

#### *De transsubstantiatione.*

### QUAESTIO I.

#### *Utrum in Sacramento eucharistiae sit vera conversio panis in corpus Christi.*

---

english:
<!-- page 241 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XI.

#### Part I.

*On the Eucharist in relation to the one who confects it.*

> But if it is asked, of what kind that conversion is, whether formal, etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the Sacrament of the Eucharist in itself and in relation to the one who eats it. In this part he treats of it in relation to the one who confects it[^1]. And this part is divided into three parts. In the first part he treats of the confecting itself. In the second, of the things consequent upon the confecting, below in the twelfth distinction, there: *But if it is asked concerning the accidents which remain,* etc. In the third he treats of the power of the one confecting, below in the thirteenth distinction: *It is also wont to be asked, whether wicked priests,* etc.

The first part has two parts. In the first part he treats of the confecting itself with respect to the act of transubstantiating; in the second, with respect to the matter, there: *Under another species, for three causes.* The first part has two parts. In the first he determines the truth. In the second he refutes false opinions, there: *But certain ones speak thus of that conversion,* etc. The first part has two. For first he determines what is to be held; second, what is to be said, there: *Nor yet do some concede,* etc.

Likewise the second part has two. In the first he sets down opinions. In the second he refutes, there: *But that there is not there a substance except the body of Christ,* etc.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part six [things] are asked.

First it is asked, whether in this Sacrament there is any conversion of the bread into the body of Christ.

Second, granted that there is, it is asked, whether the whole bread is converted, or whether something remains besides the accidents.

Third, granted that the whole is converted, it is asked, whether such a conversion of the bread can be called annihilation.

Fourth, granted that it cannot, it is asked, whether the bread is converted into the whole Christ, that is, into the soul and the Divinity, as into the flesh.

Fifth, whether this conversion is sudden or successive.

Sixth and last it is asked, by what words that conversion is to be expressed.

### SINGLE ARTICLE.

#### *On transubstantiation.*

### QUESTION I.

#### *Whether in the Sacrament of the Eucharist there is a true conversion of the bread into the body of Christ.*

---

la: Codd. A H R S T *efficientem.*

en: Codices A H R S T read *efficientem* (the one who effects it).

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw lines 27238–27284 (COMMENTARIUS/Pars-I header through the QUAESTIO I title) with the PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p241-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) authoritative in the two-column cascade-fragmented regions. Offset pdf = printed + 20. The QUAESTIO I body (*Circa primum sic proceditur…* / Fundamenta, raw L27285+) is excluded; it opens the next chunk `d11-p1-a1-q1`.
- **Structure confirmed:** Distinction XI is a **two-pars** distinction (this chunk carries `p1`). Pars I = *De eucharistia per comparationem ad conficientem*, with a single **ARTICULUS UNICUS** (*De transsubstantiatione*) holding **six questions**, confirmed verbatim in the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (p.241, left col q1–q3, right col q4–q6): q1 *conversio panis in corpus Christi*; q2 *utrum totus panis convertatur, an aliquid remaneat praeter accidentia*; q3 *annihilatio*; q4 *in totum Christum (animam et Divinitatem)*; q5 *subita an successiva*; q6 *quibus verbis exprimenda*. Per the divisio-chunk convention the ARTICULUS UNICUS opener (heading + sub-title) folds in here; the chunk also shows the QUAESTIO I heading + title, with the q1 body left to `d11-p1-a1-q1`.
- **Page-split map:** the entire chunk sits on printed page 241 — no page break inside. The COMMENTARIUS title, *Pars I* subtitle/argumentum, DIVISIO TEXTUS, full TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM, ARTICULUS UNICUS opener, and QUAESTIO I title all occupy p.241 (DIVISIO + left-col TRACTATIO in the left column; right-col TRACTATIO + ARTICULUS/QUAESTIO openers across the column foot).
- **Footer ownership:** p.241 carries **4 footers**. Only note **1** (`Codd. A H R S T efficientem.`) anchors in this DIVISIO body (`conficientem`¹) and is claimed here. Notes **2** (`Matth. 26, 26; Marc. 14, 22; Luc. 22, 19` — *Hoc est corpus meum*), **3** (`Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 13…` — Damascenus), and **4** (`Cfr. supra d. 10. p. I. q. 1. arg. 1…`) all anchor in the QUAESTIO I *Fundamenta* and are **left to `d11-p1-a1-q1`**.
- **No `[?]` flags** — all body text and the one owned footer read cleanly from the OCR and confirmed against the PDF bands. (The printed body reads *conficientem*; codd. A H R S T read *efficientem*, recorded as note 1 — not an OCR error.)
- No scholion in this divisio chunk.


title: Dist. 11, Part 2, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem XI, Pars II — De materia in qua fieri debet confectio eucharistiae

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction XI, Part II — On the matter in which the confection of the Eucharist must take place

source_text:
<!-- page 253 -->

## Commentarius in Distinctionem XI
### Pars II.

*De materia, in qua fieri debet confectio eucharistiae.*

**Sub alia autem specie tribus de causis carnem et sanguinem tradidit etc.**[^1]

> TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 239.

### Divisio textus.

Supra egit Magister de confectione quantum ad transsubstantiationem sive conversionem; hic agit secundo, in qua specie vel substantia debeat fieri talis confectio. Et habet haec pars duas partes. In prima determinat, in qua specie vel substantia nunc conficere debeat Ecclesia. In secunda ostendit, quod sic fuerit in confectione prima, quae fuit in Coena, ibi: *Colligitur etiam ex praedictis, quod Christus* etc., ubi ostendit, in quibus substantiis confecit et quale corpus discipulis dedit.

Prima pars habet tres partes. In prima ostendit, quare illud Sacramentum sive Christi corpus datur sub alia specie. In secunda, quare sub duplici specie, ibi: *Sed quare sub duplici specie sumitur* etc. In tertia vero determinat, quod aqua vino commiscenda est, ibi: *Aqua vero admiscenda est vino.* Et illa pars duas habet. In prima ostendit modum commiscendi. In secunda vero inquirit, utrum hoc spectet ad Sacramenti necessitatem, ibi: *Si vero quaeritur, an irritum sit quod geritur, si aqua* etc.

<!-- page 254 -->

### Tractatio quaestionum.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis secundum duo, quae determinat Magister, duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo ad intelligentiam primi quaeritur de speciebus, in quibus nunc conficit Ecclesia.

Secundo quaeritur de modo, quo confecit Christus.

Circa primum quaeruntur breviter quatuor.

Primo quaeritur, utrum hoc Sacramentum confici debeat in specie panis et vini.

Secundo, utrum utraque harum specierum sit de integritate Sacramenti.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum aqua sit de integritate Sacramenti.

Quarto, utrum in omni pane et vino possit confici Sacramentum hoc.

### Articulus I.
*De speciebus, in quibus nunc conficit Ecclesia.*

---

english:
## Commentary on Distinction XI
### Part II.

*On the matter in which the confection of the Eucharist must take place.*

**But under another species he handed over his flesh and blood for three reasons, etc.**[^1]

> FOR THE TEXT OF THE MASTER SEE ABOVE, PAGE 239.

### Division of the text.

Above the Master treated of the confection as regards the transubstantiation or conversion; here he treats, second, of the species or substance in which such a confection ought to take place. And this part has two parts. In the first he determines in what species or substance the Church ought now to confect. In the second he shows that it was so in the first confection, which was at the Supper, there: *It is also gathered from the foregoing, that Christ* etc., where he shows in what substances he confected and what kind of body he gave to the disciples.

The first part has three parts. In the first he shows why that Sacrament, that is, the body of Christ, is given under another species. In the second, why under a twofold species, there: *But why is it taken under a twofold species* etc. In the third he determines that water must be mixed with the wine, there: *Now water must be mixed with the wine.* And that part has two parts. In the first he shows the manner of mixing. In the second he inquires whether this pertains to the necessity of the Sacrament, there: *But if it is asked whether what is done is void, if water* etc.

### Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of this part, according to the two things which the Master determines, two things are principally inquired.

First, for the understanding of the first, it is asked about the species in which the Church now confects.

Second, it is asked about the manner in which Christ confected.

Concerning the first, four things are asked briefly.

First it is asked whether this Sacrament ought to be confected in the species of bread and wine.

Second, whether each of these species belongs to the integrity of the Sacrament.

Third, it is asked whether water belongs to the integrity of the Sacrament.

Fourth, whether this Sacrament can be confected in any bread and wine whatsoever.

### Article I.
*On the species in which the Church now confects.*

---

la: In codd. R S T Y bb non bene additur *verbis vel.* Subinde post *dedit* edd. subiungunt *et quale nos sumimus.*

en: In codices R S T Y bb the words *verbis vel* are wrongly added. Then after *dedit* the editions append *et quale nos sumimus.*

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw lines 28571–28649; two-column PDF bands for printed pp. 253–254 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p253-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `vol4-p254-{L,R}-0.png`) authoritative where OCR fragmented. Running head confirmed **DIST. XI. P. II. DIVISIO TEXTUS** (printed p. 253); printed "253"/"254" page numbers verified in the band tops; offset pdf = printed + 20.
- **The divisio spills onto p. 254.** The COMMENTARIUS header, Pars II rubric, Master subtitle, DIVISIO TEXTUS, and the p. 253 footer block sit on p. 253 (its left-column top still carries the prior Pars I *Dub. IV* tail + Respondeo). The `<!-- page 254 -->` break falls immediately before the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM, which together with the ARTICULUS I header + subtitle occupies the top of p. 254. QUAESTIO I (*Utrum hoc Sacramentum confici debeat in specie panis et vini*) begins on p. 254 and opens the next chunk (`d11-p2-a1-q1`).
- **Pars II structure confirmed (TRACTATIO):** "duo principaliter quaeruntur" → **TWO articles.** (1) *De speciebus in quibus nunc conficit Ecclesia* = **ARTICULUS I**, with **four** questions ("Circa primum quaeruntur breviter quatuor"): q1 *utrum hoc Sacramentum confici debeat in specie panis et vini*; q2 *utrum utraque harum specierum sit de integritate Sacramenti*; q3 *utrum aqua sit de integritate Sacramenti*; q4 *utrum in omni pane et vino possit confici Sacramentum hoc*. (2) *De modo quo confecit Christus* = **ARTICULUS II**. ✓
- **Footer ownership (p. 253):** notes 1 (*Gregor., Libro Responsal. … B. Albert., hic a. 9; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med. …*), 2 (*Missalis Romani, post consecrationem … supplevimus quod perfertur*), and 3 (*Libr. V. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 5 …*) are all anchored in the preceding **Pars I Dubium IV** (the *ministerio Angelorum* / *Iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli* canon-of-the-Mass material) and belong to that chunk. This chunk owns only note **4** (`In codd. RSTYbb non bene additur verbis vel. Subinde post dedit edd. subiungunt et quale nos sumimus`), the textual note on the Master's Pars II lemma *Sub alia autem specie … tradidit etc.*, renumbered here as [^1].
- **Footers left to `d11-p2-a1-q1`:** none from p. 253. QUAESTIO I and any p. 254 footers belong to `d11-p2-a1-q1`.
- **`[?]` flags:** none. All readings resolved against the PDF bands. *VIDE SUPRA PAG. 239* digits confirmed against the p. 253-R band; OCR "2S4" running-foot resolved to printed 254.