title: Dist. 12, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 280 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum accidentia illa operationes habeant per naturam, an per miraculum.*

Tertio quaeritur de operationibus, quas habent illa accidentia, utrum habeant per naturam an per miraculum. Et quaeritur primo de immutationis operatione, quae est illarum specierum, utrum sit naturalis, vel miraculosa. Et quod naturalis, videtur:

1. Quia quod per se inest alicui non solum inest illi coniuncto materiae, sed etiam abstracto et separato; sed movere sensus per se inest sensibilibus[^4]: ergo per se inest illis a materia separatis; sed quae per se insunt naturaliter insunt: ergo etc.

2. Item, forma substantialis nunquam movet sensum separata a formis accidentalibus[^5]: ergo forma substantialis nihil facit, nihil privat, quin accidentia moveant sensum, dummodo accidentia habeant esse: ergo per naturam movent.

3. Item, sensus est susceptivus specierum praeter materiam, tamen sub conditionibus materialibus hic et nunc[^6]: si ergo est aliqua species sensibilis sine materia, habens tamen materiales conditiones, illa maxime habet movere sensum: ergo cum huiusmodi sint istae species, patet etc.

4. Item, hoc patet per simile: si idolum[^7] relinqueretur in speculo, abstracto corpore obiecto, moveret visum, et tamen idolum in speculo habet esse spirituale: ergo videtur, quod species illae, cum sint ibi relictae sine materia, quod habent naturaliter immutare.

5. Item, si navis per miraculum levaretur in aëra, licet existentia navis in aëre esset miraculosa, tamen existentia nautae in navi esset naturalis, et operationes consequentes illam existentiam essent naturales: cum igitur accidentia fundentur in quantitate, et quantitas in materia[^8]; sublevatio quantitatis a materia est miraculosa; sed existentia aliorum accidentium est naturalis: ergo operatio in sensus consequens illam existentiam est naturalis.

**Contra:** 1. Philosophus in primo de Anima[^9]: «Recto, in quantum rectum, contingit tangere aeneam sphaeram secundum punctum, tangit autem nunquam separatum», quia aenea sphaera non est nata tangi nisi a naturali: si ergo rectum separatum tangeret aeneam sphaeram, hoc esset supra naturam, vel contra. Cum igitur sensus particularis non sit natus immutari nisi a specie existente in materia; si immutetur a separata, immutatio ista non est naturalis.

2. Item, sicut se habet sensus interior ad speciem sine materia, sic exterior ad speciem in materia; et permutatim, sicut interior ad speciem in materia, sic exterior ad speciem sine materia; sed interior nunquam naturaliter apprehendit speciem in materia, sed abstractam[^1b]: ergo nec exterior speciem separatam a materia.

<!-- page 281 -->

3. Item, formae convenit esse hic et nunc ratione materiae[^2b]; sed per eam naturam, per quam est hic et nunc, habet movere sensum: ergo cum hoc sit a materia, naturaliter ergo habet movere: ergo si fiat separatio a materia, iam non movebit naturaliter.

4. Item, illa species motiva sensus habet triplicem comparationem, ad subiectum scilicet, ad medium et ad organum[^3b], et sunt istae comparationes ordinatae: ergo destructa prima, et destruuntur aliae consequenter: ergo si habeat species illa comparationes duas sequentes sine prima, non habet naturaliter, sed miraculose.

Secundo quaeritur de opere transmutationis et maxime de putrefactione, utrum scilicet sit naturalis. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia quod convenit alicui naturaliter, salvata natura, adhuc illi convenit; sed speciebus illis naturaliter convenit corrumpi et deficere propter defectum virtutis naturalis, et quia causantur a contrariis qualitatibus[^4b]; et constat, quod illae species salvantur in eadem natura: ergo etc.

2. Item, corruptio per contrarietatem est naturalis, hoc patet; sed species illae ibi existentes habent vere naturam contrarietatis: ergo sunt corruptibiles naturaliter. Minor patet sic: ubi contraria sunt secundum esse spirituale, simul possunt esse in eodem et secundum idem, ut in eodem medio, ut in sensu et intellectu contrarii colores[^5b]: cum ergo hic non possint esse contrarii colores nec sapores simul, immo mutuo se expellunt: habent igitur naturam verae contrarietatis.

3. Item, ubi sunt species secundum spirituale esse, excellentia talis speciei non est corruptiva[^6b]: si ergo in speciebus sacramentalibus excellentia sensibilium contristat sensum: ergo est ibi species habens naturam verae contrarietatis. Sed quod sic est corruptibile est naturaliter: ergo etc.

4. Item, Anselmus, de Conceptu virginali[^7b], distinguit triplicem cursum: naturalem, voluntarium et mirabilem, et dicit, quod mirabilis a Deo administratur immediate: cum igitur Deus nihil immediate corrumpat, illa corruptio sive putrefactio cum non sit a Deo immediate: ergo non est mirabilis, ergo est naturalis, vel voluntaria; sed non voluntaria: ergo naturalis.

**Contra:** 1. «Forma de sui natura est in simplici et invariabili essentia consistens[^8b]»: si ergo accidat ei variatio, hoc est per materiam: ergo separata a materia est invariabilis per naturam. Si ergo varietur, hoc est supra naturam: ergo etc.

2. Item, ad transmutationem physicam concurrunt tria principia, scilicet subiectum et duo contraria[^9b]: ergo ubi deficit materia, non est intelligi mutationem physicam; sed hoc est in huiusmodi speciebus: ergo putrefactio illa non est physica.

3. Item, «sicut a forma est agere, ita est a materia pati[^10b]»; sed non contingit agere physice nisi per formam: ergo nec pati nisi per materiam: ergo ubi deficit materia, manifestum est, quod non est passio physica: ergo nec transmutatio.

4. Item, non est vere contrarietas sine subiecto; sed materia prima est subiectum omnis contrarietatis corporalis[^11b]: ergo ubi deficit prima materia, non est vera contrarietas. Sed actio naturalis est per veram contrarietatem: ergo etc. Similiter posset argui de contactu, quod est formae in materia, et actio et passio per contactum.

Tertio quaeritur de opere nutritionis, utrum sit naturalis, vel supernaturalis[^12b].

> **Conclusio.** Duplici via probatur, operationes immutationis, transmutationis et nutritionis partim esse naturales, partim miraculosas.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum ad intelligentiam praedictorum secundum unum modum dicendi satis probabilem[^13b] ex comparatione virtutis ad operationes

<!-- page 282 -->

ex virtute egredientes. Operationes enim habent regulari secundum potentias et virtutes, a quibus egrediuntur.

Propter quod notandum, quod aliquando datur alicui potestas conformis suae naturae; et egressus ab illa potentia est naturalis, sicut cum caeco redditur potentia videndi. — Aliquando datur potestas alicui partim conformis naturae et partim supra naturam; et tunc actus egrediens quodam modo est naturalis, quodam modo supra naturam, sicut caeco videre de nocte. — Aliquando vero datur potestas omnino supra naturam; et tunc actus egrediens ab illa potentia est miraculosus simpliciter et supra naturam, sicut Virgini data est potestas pariendi[^1c].

Considerandum est igitur, quod in hoc Sacramento est haec omnia reperire. Nam primo quantitas naturaliter habet substare aliis accidentibus, et alia accidentia naturaliter sustentari[^2c] ab illa. Si ergo detur quantitati potentia sustentandi alia accidentia, illorum existentia in quantitate est naturalis, et operatio consequens habet potentiam naturalem. Unde dico, quod operationes illarum specierum in sensus sunt naturales, quia in quantitate habent esse conveniens immutationi sensuum.

Omnes igitur rationes hoc ostendentes sunt concedendae.

Ad oppositiones manifesta est responsio: quia quantitas est ibi loco materiae, et per illam sunt hic et nunc et habent esse materiale et conveniens immutationi sensuum, et accidentia primo sunt in quantitate; et hoc potest satis videri per exemplum supra de navi positum. — Quod vero datur ulterius quantitati illi potentia sustinendi transmutationes illarum formarum[^3c]; talis potentia partim est conformis naturae, partim supra naturam. Conformis est quantum ad subsistentiam contrarietatis, quia quantitati per se insunt contraria; sed supra quantum ad hoc, quod manet eadem secundum se, facta fractione: hoc enim est proprium solius substantiae[^4c], et ita supra naturam quantitatis.

Ad illud ergo quod quaeritur de transmutatione, utrum sit naturalis, vel miraculosa; dicendum, quod ratione naturarum illarum specierum, quae habent naturam contrarietatis, illa transmutatio est naturalis, sed ratione sustinentis[^5c] secundum hoc est supra naturam; et ita partim naturalis, partim supra naturam.

Rationes igitur ad partem oppositam factae in secundo problemate currunt secundum has duas vias. Nam quae probant, quod sunt naturales, sumuntur a natura contrarietatis formarum illarum; quae vero probant quod sunt supra naturam, procedunt secundum viam sustinentis. — Et sic patet secundo quaesitum de transmutatione. Si vero datur illis accidentibus potentia convertendi in substantiam, cum desinunt esse, et cum corpus Christi ibi desinit esse; talis potentia omnino est supra naturam, et ideo talis actus omnino supra naturam est et miraculosus.

Ad illud quod quaeritur de nutritione, dicendum, quod ibi triplex est operatio[^6c]. Prima est, quod species illae per actionem virtutis agentis transmutantur; et haec partim est naturalis, partim supra naturam. — Secunda est, quod in fine transmutationis cedunt in substantiam, ita quod in illam convertuntur, sicut converteretur substantia panis, si esset praesens; et haec est miraculosa[^7c]. — Tertia est, quod substantia illa postea convertitur in carnem; et haec est simpliciter naturalis.

Sed quamvis iste modus dicendi probabiliter possit sustineri, aliter potest dici et securius et brevius, quod operationes accidentium sive virtus operans habet comparari et ad illud, a quo egreditur, et ad illud, in quod operatur. Si loquamur per comparationem ad illud a quo; sic dico, quod cum per naturam omnis virtus operans vel sit substantialis, vel saltem ab illa dependeat et reguletur; quod substantia circumscripta, si ulterius accidens operetur, ita miraculum est, quod operetur per se, sicut miraculum est, quod per se manet; et ita omnis operatio est miraculosa. — Si autem loquamur per comparationem ad obiectum, sive sit[^8c] organum sensus, sive aliud quodcumque corpus, sic dico, quod accidentia multas habent ibi operationes naturales; unde quod albedo movet visum et sapor gustum, hoc non est supra naturam nec

<!-- page 283 -->

contra, sed secundum naturam. Quoniam ergo albedo non separatur ibi, ut habeat esse mathematicum, sed salvatur esse naturale et singulare[^1d]; ideo illae operationes, quae inerant albedini et aliis accidentibus, adhuc naturaliter insunt.

Concedendum ergo, quod immutatio et transmutatio quodam modo naturalis est in relatione ad obiectum, quia salvatur ibi natura accidentium; quodam modo est supra naturam in comparatione ad subiectum, quia accidentia per se agunt. — Et secundum hoc currunt rationes ad partes oppositas adductae[^2d].

english:
### Question III. *Whether those accidents have their operations by nature or by miracle.*

Thirdly it is asked concerning the operations which those accidents have, whether they have them by nature or by miracle. And it is asked first about the operation of altering [the senses], which belongs to those species, whether it is natural or miraculous. And that it is natural, seems to be the case:

1. Because what belongs to something *per se* belongs to it not only when joined to matter, but also when abstracted and separated; but to move the senses belongs *per se* to sensible things[^4]: therefore it belongs *per se* to those [species] separated from matter; but the things that belong *per se* belong naturally: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, a substantial form never moves the sense when separated from accidental forms[^5]: therefore the substantial form does nothing, deprives of nothing, but that the accidents should move the sense, provided the accidents have being: therefore they move by nature.

3. Likewise, the sense is receptive of species apart from matter, yet under material conditions, here and now[^6]: if therefore there is some sensible species without matter, yet having material conditions, that one most of all is apt to move the sense: therefore since these species are of this kind, it is clear etc.

4. Likewise, this is clear by a similar [case]: if an image[^7] were left in a mirror, the opposed body being removed, it would move the sight, and yet the image in the mirror has spiritual being: therefore it seems that those species, since they are left there without matter, that they alter [the sense] naturally.

5. Likewise, if a ship were raised into the air by a miracle, although the existence of the ship in the air would be miraculous, nevertheless the existence of the sailor in the ship would be natural, and the operations consequent upon that existence would be natural: since therefore the accidents are founded in quantity, and quantity in matter[^8]; the raising of quantity from matter is miraculous; but the existence of the other accidents is natural: therefore the operation upon the senses consequent upon that existence is natural.

**On the contrary:** 1. The Philosopher in the first [book] *On the Soul*[^9]: «A straight [line], insofar as it is straight, happens to touch a bronze sphere at a point, but it never touches a separated [thing]», because a bronze sphere is not apt to be touched except by a natural [thing]: if therefore a separated straight [line] touched a bronze sphere, this would be above nature, or against [it]. Since therefore the particular sense is not apt to be altered except by a species existing in matter; if it be altered by a separated [species], that alteration is not natural.

2. Likewise, as the interior sense is related to a species without matter, so the exterior to a species in matter; and conversely, as the interior to a species in matter, so the exterior to a species without matter; but the interior never naturally apprehends a species in matter, but [only] an abstracted one[^1b]: therefore neither does the exterior [apprehend] a species separated from matter.

<!-- page 281 -->

3. Likewise, it belongs to a form to be here and now by reason of matter[^2b]; but by that nature by which it is here and now, it is apt to move the sense: therefore since this is from matter, it therefore moves naturally: therefore if a separation from matter occurs, it will no longer move naturally.

4. Likewise, that species that moves the sense has a threefold relation, namely to the subject, to the medium, and to the organ[^3b], and these relations are ordered: therefore, the first being destroyed, the others are consequently destroyed: therefore if that species has the two following relations without the first, it does not [act] naturally, but miraculously.

Secondly it is asked concerning the work of transmutation and especially of putrefaction, namely whether it is natural. And that it is, seems to be the case:

1. Because what belongs to something naturally, the nature being preserved, still belongs to it; but to those species it belongs naturally to be corrupted and to fail because of the defect of natural power, and because they are caused by contrary qualities[^4b]; and it is established that those species are preserved in the same nature: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, corruption through contrariety is natural — this is clear; but those species existing there have truly the nature of contrariety: therefore they are corruptible naturally. The minor is shown thus: where contraries exist according to spiritual being, they can be at once in the same [thing] and according to the same [respect], as in the same medium, as in the sense and in the intellect contrary colors [exist][^5b]: since therefore here contrary colors or savors cannot exist at once, but rather mutually expel each other: they therefore have the nature of true contrariety.

3. Likewise, where there are species according to spiritual being, the excellence of such a species is not corruptive[^6b]: if therefore in the sacramental species the excellence of the sensibles distresses the sense: therefore there is there a species having the nature of true contrariety. But what is thus corruptible is so naturally: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, Anselm, *On the Virginal Conception*[^7b], distinguishes a threefold course: the natural, the voluntary, and the miraculous, and says that the miraculous is administered immediately by God: since therefore God corrupts nothing immediately, that corruption or putrefaction, since it is not from God immediately: therefore it is not miraculous, therefore it is natural or voluntary; but it is not voluntary: therefore it is natural.

**On the contrary:** 1. «A form by its own nature consists in a simple and invariable essence[^8b]»: if therefore variation should befall it, this is through matter: therefore separated from matter it is invariable by nature. If therefore it be varied, this is above nature: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, three principles concur in a physical transmutation, namely the subject and two contraries[^9b]: therefore where matter is lacking, a physical change cannot be understood; but this is the case in species of this kind: therefore that putrefaction is not physical.

3. Likewise, «as acting is from form, so undergoing is from matter[^10b]»; but it does not happen [for anything] to act physically except through form: therefore neither to undergo except through matter: therefore where matter is lacking, it is manifest that there is no physical undergoing: therefore neither transmutation.

4. Likewise, there is no true contrariety without a subject; but prime matter is the subject of all corporeal contrariety[^11b]: therefore where prime matter is lacking, there is no true contrariety. But natural action is through true contrariety: therefore etc. Similarly it could be argued concerning contact, which is of form in matter, and action and passion [occur] through contact.

Thirdly it is asked concerning the work of nutrition, whether it is natural or supernatural[^12b].

> **Conclusion.** By a twofold way it is proved that the operations of alteration, of transmutation, and of nutrition are partly natural, partly miraculous.

**I respond:** It must be said, for the understanding of the foregoing, according to one fairly probable manner of speaking[^13b], from the comparison of the power to the operations

<!-- page 282 -->

issuing from the power. For operations have to be regulated according to the potencies and powers from which they issue.

On account of which it must be noted that sometimes there is given to someone a power conformable to his nature; and the issuance from that potency is natural, as when the power of seeing is restored to a blind man. — Sometimes there is given to someone a power partly conformable to nature and partly above nature; and then the issuing act is in a certain way natural, in a certain way above nature, as for a blind man to see by night. — Sometimes, however, there is given a power wholly above nature; and then the act issuing from that potency is miraculous simply and above nature, as the power of giving birth was given to the Virgin[^1c].

It must be considered therefore that in this Sacrament all these are to be found. For first, quantity naturally has it to underlie the other accidents, and the other accidents naturally to be sustained[^2c] by it. If therefore there is given to quantity the power of sustaining the other accidents, their existence in the quantity is natural, and the consequent operation has a natural potency. Hence I say that the operations of those species upon the senses are natural, because in the quantity they have a being suited to the alteration of the senses.

All the reasons therefore showing this are to be conceded.

To the opposing [arguments] the reply is manifest: because quantity is there in place of matter, and through it [the accidents] are here and now and have material being suited to the alteration of the senses, and the accidents are first in quantity; and this can be sufficiently seen by the example of the ship set forth above. — But as to what is further given to that quantity, namely the power of sustaining the transmutations of those forms[^3c]; such a power is partly conformable to nature, partly above nature. It is conformable as regards the subsistence of contrariety, because contraries belong *per se* to quantity; but it is above [nature] as regards this, that it remains the same in itself when fracture has occurred: for this is proper to substance alone[^4c], and so above the nature of quantity.

To the question therefore which is asked concerning transmutation, whether it is natural or miraculous; it must be said that by reason of the natures of those species, which have the nature of contrariety, that transmutation is natural, but by reason of what sustains [them][^5c] it is on this account above nature; and so partly natural, partly above nature.

The reasons therefore made for the opposing part in the second problem run according to these two ways. For those which prove that they are natural are taken from the nature of the contrariety of those forms; but those which prove that they are above nature proceed according to the way of what sustains [them]. — And thus the second question concerning transmutation is clear. But if there is given to those accidents the power of being converted into the substance, when they cease to be, and when the body of Christ ceases to be there; such a power is wholly above nature, and therefore such an act is wholly above nature and miraculous.

To the question which is asked concerning nutrition, it must be said that there is a threefold operation there[^6c]. The first is that those species are transmuted through the action of the acting power; and this is partly natural, partly above nature. — The second is that at the end of the transmutation they pass into the substance, so that they are converted into it, just as the substance of bread would be converted, if it were present; and this is miraculous[^7c]. — The third is that that substance is afterward converted into flesh; and this is simply natural.

But although this manner of speaking can probably be maintained, it can be said otherwise, both more safely and more briefly, that the operations of the accidents, or the operating power, has to be compared both to that from which it issues and to that upon which it operates. If we speak by comparison to that from which [it issues]; thus I say that, since by nature every operating power is either substantial or at least depends upon and is regulated by it [substance]; [it follows] that a substance being removed, if an accident should further operate, it is as much a miracle that it operates *per se* as it is a miracle that it remains *per se*; and so every operation is miraculous. — But if we speak by comparison to the object, whether it be[^8c] an organ of sense, or any other body, thus I say that the accidents have there many natural operations; hence that whiteness moves the sight and savor the taste, this is not above nature nor

<!-- page 283 -->

against [it], but according to nature. Since therefore whiteness is not there separated so as to have mathematical being, but its natural and singular being is preserved[^1d]; therefore those operations which inhered in whiteness and the other accidents still inhere naturally.

It must be conceded therefore that alteration and transmutation are in a certain way natural in relation to the object, because the nature of the accidents is there preserved; in a certain way they are above nature in comparison to the subject, because the accidents act *per se*. — And according to this the reasons brought forward for the opposing parts run [their course][^2d].

la: Vide Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 63. seqq. (c. 6.). — De *maiori* cfr. Aristot., I. Poster. c. 4. — Cod. aa legit *inest accidentibus: ergo movere sensus per se* etc.

en: See Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 63 ff. (c. 6). — On the *major* [premise] cf. Aristotle, *Posterior [Analytics]* I, c. 4. — Codex aa reads *belongs to the accidents: therefore to move the senses per se* etc.

la: Substantia enim per se est obiectum intellectus (Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 9. seqq. et text. 38. seq.) et a sensu non percipitur nisi per accidens «ut si album sit Diaris filius; secundum accidens enim hoc sentit, quoniam accidit albo hoc quod sentit» (Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 65.).

en: For substance is *per se* the object of the intellect (Aristotle, *On the Soul* III, text 9 ff. and text 38 ff.) and is not perceived by the sense except by accident, «as if the white thing should be the son of Diaris; for it senses this by accident, since it befalls the white thing, this which it senses» (Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 65).

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 121. (c. 12.); I. Poster. c. 11. et 24. (c. 18. et 31.), de quo vide supra pag. 220, nota 9.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 121 (c. 12); *Posterior [Analytics]* I, c. 11 and 24 (c. 18 and 31), concerning which see above, p. 220, note 9.

la: A voce graeca εἴδωλον i. e. imago, simulacrum, species.

en: From the Greek word εἴδωλον, i.e. image, likeness, species.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 276, nota 1. — Inferius ex cod. H substituimus *in sensus*, pro *in sensibus*.

en: Cf. above, p. 276, note 1. — Below, from codex H we have substituted *upon the senses* for *in the senses*.

la: Text. 13. (c. 1.): *Recto, in quantum rectum, multa accidunt, ut tangere* etc.

en: Text 13 (c. 1): *To the straight [line], insofar as it is straight, many things befall, such as to touch* etc.

la: Vide Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 136. seqq. (III. c. 2. seq.), ubi agit de interioribus sensibus, scil. sensu communi, imaginatione etc.

en: See Aristotle, *On the Soul* III, text 136 ff. (III, c. 2 ff.), where he treats of the interior senses, namely the common sense, imagination, etc.

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 92. (c. 9.); II. Sent. d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. fundam. 3. et a. 2. q. 3. — Infra post *a materia* (vel *naturaliter*) supple: *a materia*; quod in codd. et edd. excidisse videtur. In fine arg. Vat. *movebitur* pro *movebit*.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Heaven and the World* I, text 92 (c. 9); *II Sent.* d. 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, fundamentum 3, and a. 2, q. 3. — Below, after *from matter* (or *naturally*) supply: *from matter*; which seems to have dropped out in the codices and editions. At the end of the argument the Vatican [edition reads] *will be moved* for *will move*.

la: De quo vide Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 73. seqq. (c. 7.).

en: Concerning which see Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 73 ff. (c. 7).

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. de Longitud. et brevit. vitae, c. 2; de Iuvent. et senect. etc. c. 3. (c. 5.). Vide tom. II. pag. 192, nota 7. — Vat., voci *propter* praemisso *vel* et pro *et quia* substituto *vel quia*, hic addit *et habent contraria*.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On Length and Shortness of Life* I, c. 2; *On Youth and Old Age* etc. c. 3 (c. 5). See tom. II, p. 192, note 7. — The Vatican [edition], having prefixed *or* to the word *because of* and substituted *or because* for *and because*, here adds *and they have contraries*.

la: Vide Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 37. seq. (c. 8.).

en: See Aristotle, *On the Soul* III, text 37 ff. (c. 8).

la: Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 123. et 143, nec non III. text. 7. (c. 2. et 4.), constituit differentiam sensus et intellectus in eo, quod sensus per excellens sive forte sensibile tristatur et laeditur, intellectus vero per excellens intelligibile fortificatur. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 38, nota 5. et pag. 39, nota 5.

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 123 and 143, as well as III, text 7 (c. 2 and 4), establishes the difference between sense and intellect in this, that the sense is saddened and harmed by an excelling or strong sensible, but the intellect is strengthened by an excelling intelligible. Cf. tom. I, p. 38, note 5, and p. 39, note 5.

la: Cap. 11. Vide tom. II. pag. 346, nota 1. — Quod Deus nihil immediate corrumpat, insinuat August. supra pag. 246, nota 3.

en: Chapter 11. See tom. II, p. 346, note 1. — That God corrupts nothing immediately, Augustine intimates above, p. 246, note 3.

la: Ut dicit Gilbert. Porret., de Sex Principiis, c. 1. Cfr. supra pag. 273, nota 4.

en: As Gilbert of Poitiers says, *On the Six Principles*, c. 1. Cf. above, p. 273, note 4.

la: Vide Aristot., I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 23. seqq. (c. 5.), et VIII. Metaph. text. 4. (VII. c. 1.), et XII. text. 6. seqq. (c. 4.); VIII. (XI. c. 2.). — Inferius pro *intelligi* cod. F *intelligere*, et pro *hoc* cod. A *sed non*.

en: See Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* I, text 23 ff. (c. 5), and *Metaphysics* VIII, text 4 (VII, c. 1), and XII, text 6 ff. (c. 4); VIII (XI, c. 2). — Below, for *to be understood* codex F [reads] *to understand*, and for *this* codex A *but not*.

la: Secundum Aristot., II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 53. (c. 9.). Vide supra pag. 273, nota 3. — Inferius pro *manifestum est, quod* cod. B *ibi*, Vat. *per consequens, ibi*.

en: According to Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* II, text 53 (c. 9). See above, p. 273, note 3. — Below, for *it is manifest that* codex B [reads] *there*, the Vatican [edition] *consequently, there*.

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. Phys. text. 81. seq. (c. 9.); I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 43. seqq. (c. 6.), ubi etiam agitur de contactu, actione et passione, quae mox nominantur.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* I, text 81 ff. (c. 9); *On Generation and Corruption* I, text 43 ff. (c. 6), where also there is treatment of contact, action, and passion, which are mentioned shortly.

la: Codd. et ed. 1. non bene omittunt totam hanc propositionem.

en: The codices and the first edition not rightly omit this whole proposition.

la: Secunda manus in cod. P addidit *qui sumitur*. Edd. legunt: *secundum unum modum dicendi est, quod ex satis probabili comparatione... egredientes operationes habent regulari* etc. Aliquanto inferius pro *et egressus* eaedem edd. *et actus egressus*.

en: A second hand in codex P added *which is taken*. The editions read: *according to one manner of speaking it is, that from a fairly probable comparison... the issuing operations have to be regulated* etc. Somewhat below, for *and the issuance* the same editions [read] *and the act of issuance*.

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 44. q. 4.

la: Codd. plerique *substantificari*, quod explicari posset, cum secundum Dionysium dicatur: *Malum substantificatur in bono*; (cfr. tom. II. pag. 812, nota 6.). Vide supra pag. 276, nota 1.

en: Most codices [read] *to be substantified*, which could be explained, since according to Dionysius it is said: *Evil is substantified in the good*; (cf. tom. II, p. 812, note 6). See above, p. 276, note 1.

la: Codd. R S *sustentandi transmutationes*, edd. *subsistendi transmutationibus*.

en: Codices R S [read] *of sustaining the transmutations*, the editions *of subsisting in the transmutations*.

la: Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Substantia: *Maxime vero proprium substantiae esse videtur, cum unum et idem numero sit, contrariorum susceptivum esse; quare in aliis quidem non habet quisquam quod proferat tale, quaecumque non sunt substantiae, quod cum sit unum numero, susceptibile contrariorum sit, velut color, qui est unus et idem numero, non dicitur* contra, sed secundum naturam. — Pro *facta fractione* (cfr. a. 3. q. 2. ad 2; Scot. hic q. 5.), cui codd. N aa subnectunt *scilicet et sine subiecto*, cod. O *facta transsubstantiatione*, edd. *facta mutatione*. Mox pro *quantitatis* edd. *contrarietatis*.

en: Aristotle, *Categories*, c. on Substance: *But it seems most of all proper to substance, while remaining numerically one and the same, to be receptive of contraries; wherefore among other things no one can bring forward any such thing, whatever things are not substances, which while being numerically one should be receptive of contraries, as a color, which is numerically one and the same, is not said [to be receptive]* — [it is] not against, but according to nature. — For *fracture having occurred* (cf. a. 3, q. 2, ad 2; Scotus, here q. 5), to which codices N aa append *namely also without a subject*, codex O [reads] *transubstantiation having occurred*, the editions *change having occurred*. Shortly, for *of quantity* the editions [read] *of contrariety*.

la: Scilicet subiecti. — Codd. H aa *subsistentis*; ed. 1 *subsistentialitatis*, Vat. *subsistentialitatis* (idem recurrit aliquanto inferius). Immediate post ex cod. aa supplevimus *secundum hoc*, pro quo alii codd. vel *hic*, vel *haec*, vel *hoc*.

en: Namely of the subject. — Codices H aa [read] *of what subsists*; the first edition *of subsistentiality*, the Vatican [edition] *of subsistentiality* (the same recurs somewhat below). Immediately after, from codex aa we have supplied *according to this*, for which other codices [read] either *here*, or *these*, or *this*.

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 31. seqq. (c. 5.), et II. de Anima, text. 42. seqq. (c. 4.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* I, text 31 ff. (c. 5), and *On the Soul* II, text 42 ff. (c. 4).

la: De quo vide supra q. 1.

en: Concerning which see above, q. 1.

la: Cum codd. F G L bb omisimus *ad*, quod in aliis additur. Inferius pro *movet* cod. L *immutet*.

en: With codices F G L bb we have omitted *to*, which is added in others. Below, for *moves* codex L [reads] *should alter*.

la: Cfr. supra q. 2. ad 3. — Pro *mathematicum* cod. ll *metaphysicum*.

en: Cf. above, q. 2, ad 3. — For *mathematical* codex ll [reads] *metaphysical*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

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

---

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

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{280,281,282,283}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 31966–32353) as base only for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF is authoritative throughout: the OCR for this q3 is *severely* cascade-shattered and two-column-interleaved (one-token-per-line fragmentation + left/right column bleed), so the PDF bands carried the entire reconstruction. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 280–283 = PDF 300–303).

**Page-verify.** Running heads confirmed on the bands: p. 280 = "280 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; p. 281 = "DIST. XII. P. I. ART. II. QUAEST. III. 281" (+ footer "S Bonav. — Tom. IV. 36"); p. 282 = "282 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; p. 283 = "DIST. XII. P. I. ART. III. QUAEST. I. 283" (q3's epilogue tail occupies only the very top of p. 283's left column before the ARTICULUS III header — hence p. 283's running head already names ART. III).

**Opener alignment.** Confirmed: the q3 opener on p. 280 (left col., bottom → right col.) reads "QUAESTIO III. *Utrum accidentia illa operationes habeant per naturam, an per miraculum.* Tertio quaeritur de operationibus, quas habent illa accidentia, utrum habeant per naturam an per miraculum …" — matches the assigned title. This is the "Tertio quaeritur" question of Articulus II.

**Internal structure.** This quaestio interrogates three operations in one question: (1) *de immutationis operatione* (altering the senses) — args 1–5 + Contra 1–4; (2) *de opere transmutationis et putrefactione* ("Secundo quaeritur…") — args 1–4 + Contra 1–4; (3) *de opere nutritionis* ("Tertio quaeritur…", a single line, no separate args/Contra). The Conclusio + Respondeo then answer all three via two "viae" (the *via prima* = comparison of power to issuing operations; the *via secunda et securior* = comparison of operating power to its source and to its object).

**Page-split map.**
- p. 280 (left col., bottom): QUAESTIO III. header + title + opener + immutatio arg. 1; (right col.) args 2–5 + Contra 1–2 (Contra 2 runs into p. 281).
- p. 280 → 281 boundary inside immutatio Contra 2 ("…sed abstractam¹ : | ergo nec exterior…").
- p. 281: immutatio Contra 3–4; transmutatio "Secundo quaeritur…" args 1–4 + Contra 1–4; nutritio "Tertio quaeritur…"; CONCLUSIO; RESPONDEO opens ("…satis probabilem ex comparatione virtutis ad operationes |").
- p. 281 → 282 boundary inside Respondeo ("…ad operationes | ex virtute egredientes …").
- p. 282: Respondeo *via prima* (Notandum on the threefold power; the in-Sacramento application; Conclusio 1; Ad oppositiones / Ad obiecta; Resp. ad 2. quaesitum [transmutatio]; Resp. ad 3. quaesitum [nutritio] with triplex operatio; then the *via secunda et securior*, ending "…hoc non est supra naturam nec |").
- p. 282 → 283 boundary inside the *via secunda* epilogue ("…nec | contra, sed secundum naturam …").
- p. 283 (top, left col.): epilogue completes ("…immutatio et transmutatio quodam modo naturalis est… ad partes oppositas adductae²."), immediately before the ARTICULUS III header.

**Footer-ownership (apparatus, 29 entries total, all anchored in this q3's body).**
- p. 280: the printed page carries footers 1–9. **Notes 1–3 belong to the q2 tail** (the "Ad quaest. incid." block at the top of p. 280's columns — *mixtio* / *Sive proprietatem, Alex. Hal.* / *Innocent. III, Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*) and are owned by the a2-q2 chunk; q3's body carries **footers 4–9** (`^4` immutatio arg. 1 *sensibilibus*; `^5` arg. 2 *accidentalibus*; `^6` arg. 3 *hic et nunc*; `^7` arg. 4 *idolum*; `^8` arg. 5 *quantitas in materia*; `^9` Contra 1 *de Anima*).
- p. 281: **13 footers**, all q3's (`^1b`–`^13b`): immutatio Contra 3–4 + transmutatio args/Contra + nutritio line + Respondeo opener.
- p. 282: **8 footers**, all q3's (`^1c`–`^8c`): the *via prima* and *via secunda* of the Respondeo.
- p. 283: **2 footers**, q3's epilogue tail (`^1d` *esse naturale et singulare*; `^2d` *adductae* → "see the scholion to the preceding question"). The remaining p. 283 footer sequence (notes 3+, "Augustino tribuuntur… C. Qui manducant", "Relata in C. Ego Berengarius", etc.) opens the ARTICULUS III / QUAESTIO I apparatus and is owned by the a3 chunk.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`, but **q3 renders none of its own**: Articulus II carries a single SCHOLION block covering q1–q3, which the Quaracchi edition prints with QUAESTIO I and which the **a2-q1 chunk** owns and renders. The `### Scholion` slot here holds a one-line Latin+English cross-reference per the dispatch instruction. No "SCHOLION." header occurs inside the raw range 31966–32353.

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Silent OCR corrections from the PDF bands (OCR was cascade-interleaved): the opener *de operationibus, quas habent illa accidentia* (OCR `operalionibus`); arg. 1 *coniuncto materiae* / *sensibilibus* (OCR `couiuncto`/`sensibili-bus`); arg. 5 *navis per miraculum levaretur in aëra* / *sublevatio quantitatis* (OCR `aera`/`sublevalio`); Contra 1 *Recto, in quantum rectum* (OCR `Recto, quantum`); transmutatio arg. 2 *naturam contrarietatis* (OCR `conlrarietatis`); Respondeo *miraculosus simpliciter* / *Virgini data est potestas pariendi*; *via prima* / *via secunda* marginal rubrics (*Notandum*, *Quaesitum 4. de operatione immutationis*, *Quaesit. 2. Transmutatione*, *Quaesit. 3. De nutritione*, *Conclusio*, *Via prima*, *Pro 2. parte*, *Ad argg.*, *Ad obiecta*, *Resp. ad 2. quaesitum*, *Species 3 actuum*, *Resp. ad quaesit. de distinctione*, *Via secunda et securior*, *Duplex comparatio*, *Epilogus*) are editorial side-notes and are omitted from the body per corpus convention.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 12, Part 1, Art. 3, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 283 -->

### Articulus III. *De fractione specierum.*

Consequenter quantum ad tertium articulum quaeritur de fractione illarum specierum. Et circa hoc tria principaliter quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur, utrum vera fractio sit in corpore Christi. Secundo, utrum sit in speciebus. Tertio quaeritur, quid partes significent.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum corpus Christi verum in eucharistia frangatur.*

Et quod corpus Christi verum frangatur, videtur:

1. Augustinus[^1] dicere: « Norunt, inquit, fideles: quando manducant carnem Christi, unusquisque accipit partem suam »; quod si verum est: ergo dividitur.

2. Item, ostenditur ex confessione Berengarii[^2], quae acceptata fuit a Nicolao Papa; confessus est enim, « corpus Christi verum sacerdotis manibus attrectari et frangi »: ergo si ista confessio ut fidelis acceptata est, patet etc.

3. Item, *ratione*[^3] videtur: quia corpus Christi verum manducatur[^4]; sed quod manducatur atteritur, et quod atteritur frangitur: ergo etc.

4. Item, hoc Sacramentum est memoriale passionis, et ita memoriale, quod hic non tantum est signum, sed etiam veritas; sed in passione vere fuit corpus Christi fractum et divisum: ergo in hoc Sacramento vere frangitur[^5].

5. *Si dicas*, quod est incorruptibile, ideo non potest frangi; hoc nihil est, quia corpus Christi, quod natum est esse[^6] in uno loco, est in pluribus per miraculum: ergo similiter per miraculum potest incorruptibile frangi.

**Sed contra:**
1. Corpus animatum, quod dividitur, corrumpitur: ergo cum corpus Christi sit animatum[^7], si frangitur et dividitur, corrumpitur; et si corrumpitur, non manet verum Sacramentum: ergo etc.

2. Item, si potest frangi et masticari, ergo eadem ratione et digeri: ergo et eadem ratione et in secessum emitti; quod nefas est dicere[^8].

3. Item, de manna, quod fuit figura huius Sacramenti, *nec qui plus colligebat habuit plus, nec qui minus habuit minus*[^9]: si ergo fuit vera figura, corpus Christi tantum est in parva parte hostiae quantum in utraque, vel in magno pane: ergo non dividitur.

> **Conclusio.** Corpus Christi verum in eucharistia non frangitur.

**Respondeo:** Quidam dixerunt, quos tangit Magister in *littera*[^10], quod corpus Christi verum frangitur in Sacramento, et tamen non corrumpitur; et hoc quidem fit per virtutem supra naturam, sicut factum est, quod corpus Christi passibile datum est discipulis, et tamen non est ab eorundem dentibus passum. Et in assertionem suae positionis habere voluerunt confessionem Berengarii. — Sed haec positio non potest stare: quia, si est incorruptibile, non dividitur; si frangitur, dividitur: ergo simul dividitur et non dividitur: tunc ergo Deus faceret, duo contradictorie opposita simul esse vera; quod numquam faciet.

<!-- page 284 -->

Propter hoc dicendum, quod corpus Christi verum non frangitur, immo in quotcumque partes dividitur hostia, est totum et integrum[^11].

1. 2. Quod ergo obiicitur de confessione Berengarii et verbo Augustini, dicendum, quod utrumque dictum est ratione *specierum exteriorum*, circa quas contingit esse attritionem, fractionem et masticationem. Nec modus iste loquendi est tenendus. Recepit[^12] tamen Ecclesia confessionem Berengarii et publicavit, quamvis nimis expressam, ad elidendum suum errorem, qui non concedebat, corpus Christi verum ibi esse nisi sicut in signo. Unde propter hoc recepit, ut intelligeretur ibi *vere esse*, non vere dividi.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod corpus Christi verum manducatur; dicendum, quod in manducatione tria sunt: masticatio, in ventrem traiectio et incorporatio; et haec tria respondent tribus, quae sunt in Sacramento. Nam masticatio est specierum tantum; incorporatio est quantum ad corpus Christi mysticum[^13]; in ventrem traiectio est non solum specierum, sed etiam corporis Christi veri, quod ibi est, quamdiu species panis. Non ergo dicitur corpus Christi verum vere manducari corporaliter, quia corporaliter masticetur; sicut enim non frangitur, sic nec masticatur.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est signum passionis; dicendum, quod non est signum passionis, quae tunc sit, quia tunc semper pateretur Christus; sed passionis, quae semel fuit[^14]. — Et quod obiicit, quod est ibi veritas; dicendum, quod non est ibi veritas passionis, sed veritas eius qui est passus.

5. Ad illud quod dicitur, hoc posse fieri per miraculum; dicendum, quod non est simile de *esse in pluribus locis*, quia ibi nulla est contradictio, hic autem sic.

english:
### Article III. *On the breaking of the species.*

Consequently, as to the third article, it is asked concerning the breaking of those species. And concerning this, three matters are principally asked. First it is asked whether there is a true breaking in the body of Christ. Second, whether there is [a true breaking] in the species. Third it is asked what the parts signify.

### Question I. *Whether the true body of Christ is broken in the Eucharist.*

And that the true body of Christ is broken, it seems:

1. Augustine[^1] [seems] to say: "The faithful know, he says: when they eat the flesh of Christ, each one receives his own part"; and if this is true: therefore it is divided.

2. Likewise, it is shown from the confession of Berengarius[^2], which was accepted by Pope Nicholas; for he confessed "that the true body of Christ is handled and broken by the hands of the priest": therefore, if that confession was accepted as faithful, it is clear, etc.

3. Likewise, it seems so *by reason*[^3]: because the true body of Christ is eaten[^4]; but what is eaten is worn down, and what is worn down is broken: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, this Sacrament is a memorial of the passion, and a memorial in such a way that here there is not only a sign, but also the reality; but in the passion the body of Christ was truly broken and divided: therefore in this Sacrament it is truly broken[^5].

5. *Should you say* that it is incorruptible, and therefore cannot be broken; this is nothing, because the body of Christ, which is by nature [meant] to be[^6] in one place, is in many places by a miracle: therefore likewise by a miracle the incorruptible can be broken.

**On the contrary:**
1. An animate body which is divided is corrupted: therefore, since the body of Christ is animate[^7], if it is broken and divided, it is corrupted; and if it is corrupted, the true Sacrament does not remain: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, if it can be broken and chewed, then by the same reasoning [it can] also be digested: therefore also by the same reasoning [it can] be voided in excrement; which it is wicked to say[^8].

3. Likewise, concerning the manna, which was a figure of this Sacrament, *neither did he who gathered more have more, nor did he who [gathered] less have less*[^9]: if then it was a true figure, the body of Christ is just as much in a small part of the host as in the whole, or in a great bread: therefore it is not divided.

> **Conclusion.** The true body of Christ is not broken in the Eucharist.

**I respond:** Some have said — whom the Master touches upon in his *text*[^10] — that the true body of Christ is broken in the Sacrament, and yet is not corrupted; and this indeed comes about by a power above nature, just as it came about that the passible body of Christ was given to the disciples, and yet was not suffered by their teeth. And in support of their position they wished to have the confession of Berengarius. — But this position cannot stand: because, if it is incorruptible, it is not divided; if it is broken, it is divided: therefore it is at once divided and not divided: then therefore God would bring it about that two contradictory opposites be at once true; which he will never do.

<!-- page 284 -->

On account of this it must be said that the true body of Christ is not broken; rather, into however many parts the host is divided, it is whole and entire[^11].

1. 2. As to what is objected concerning the confession of Berengarius and the saying of Augustine, it must be said that each was said by reason of the *exterior species*, about which there occurs wearing-down, breaking, and chewing. Nor is this manner of speaking to be held. The Church nevertheless accepted[^12] and published the confession of Berengarius, although too explicitly expressed, in order to strike down his error, which did not concede that the true body of Christ was there except as in a sign. Whence on account of this it accepted [it], so that it might be understood that [Christ] is *truly there*, not truly divided.

3. To that which is objected, that the true body of Christ is eaten; it must be said that in eating there are three things: chewing, passing into the belly, and incorporation; and these three correspond to the three things which are in the Sacrament. For chewing is of the species only; incorporation is as regards the mystical body of Christ[^13]; the passing into the belly is not only of the species, but also of the true body of Christ, which is there, as long as the species of bread [remain]. Therefore the true body of Christ is not said to be truly eaten bodily, because it is bodily chewed; for just as it is not broken, so neither is it chewed.

4. To that which is objected, that it is a sign of the passion; it must be said that it is not a sign of a passion which is then [happening], because then Christ would always be suffering; but [a sign] of the passion which happened once[^14]. — And as to what it objects, that the reality is there; it must be said that the reality of the passion is not there, but the reality of him who suffered.

5. To that which is said, that this can come about by a miracle; it must be said that it is not similar to *being in many places*, because there [is] no contradiction, but here there is.

la: Augustino tribuuntur haec verba a C. *Qui manducant* (88.), de Consecrat. d. 2; sed cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3, et supra pag. 219, nota 4. — Pro *quando manducant* [permulti codd. *manducent*] textus originalis *quemadmodum manducent*.

en: These words are attributed to Augustine in the canon *Qui manducant* (88.), *On Consecration* d. 2; but cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3, and above p. 219, note 4. — For *quando manducant* [very many codices *manducent*] the original text [reads] *quemadmodum manducent*.

la: Relata in C. *Ego Berengarius* (42.), de Consecrat. d. 2. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. — Pro *ostenditur* codd. A I K Z et ed. 1 *hoc consequitur*.

en: Reported in the canon *Ego Berengarius* (42.), *On Consecration* d. 2. See here the text of the Master, c. 3. — For *ostenditur* codices A I K Z and edition 1 [read] *hoc consequitur*.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

la: Ioan. 6, 55: *Qui manducat meam carnem* etc.

en: John 6, 55: *He who eats my flesh* etc.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. — Pro *minori* communiter allegatur Ioan. 19, 34: *Sed unus militum lancea latus eius aperuit.*

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 4. — For the *minor* [premise] there is commonly cited John 19, 34: *But one of the soldiers opened his side with a lance.*

la: Ut dicitur hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2. — De propos. seq. cfr. supra d. 10. p. 1. q. 1. seqq. — Pro *quod natum est esse* non pauci codd. *natum esse*, codd. R S T *animatum*, quod potest esse; ed. 1 legit: *quia si possibile est corpus Christi animatum esse in uno loco et in pluribus* etc. Cod. X post *uno loco* addit *naturaliter*.

en: As is said here in the text of the Master, c. 2. — On the following proposition cf. above d. 10. p. 1. q. 1. ff. — For *quod natum est esse* not a few codices [read] *natum esse*, codices R S T *animatum*, which can be [a reading]; edition 1 reads: *because if it is possible for the body of Christ, [being] animate, to be in one place and in many* etc. Codex X after *uno loco* adds *naturaliter*.

la: Cfr. supra q. 2. ad 3. — Pro *mathematicum* cod. II *metaphysicum*.

en: Cf. above q. 2. ad 3. — For *mathematicum* codex II [reads] *metaphysicum*.

la: Cfr. infra d. 13. a. 2. q. 2. fundam. 1. et 4.

en: Cf. below d. 13. a. 2. q. 2. fundamenta 1 and 4.

la: Exod. 16, 18. — Mox post *figura* edd. addunt *necesse... esse*. Post pauca pro *magno pane* edd. *magna parte*.

en: Exod. 16, 18. — Soon after *figura* the editions add *necesse... esse*. A little after, for *magno pane* the editions [read] *magna parte*.

la: Hic c. 3. — Quod Christus dedit discipulis in Coena corpus passibile quidem in se, sed non quatenus fuit in Sacramento, docet Magister dist. praeced. c. 6. Cfr. ibid. Comment. p. II. a. 2. q. 2.

en: Here c. 3. — That Christ gave the disciples at the Supper a body passible indeed in itself, but not insofar as it was in the Sacrament, the Master teaches in the preceding distinction, c. 6. Cf. the Commentary there, p. II. a. 2. q. 2.

la: Vide Hug. a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 11.

en: See Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* II. p. VIII. c. 11.

la: Non pauci codd. *Recipit*, quod etiam circa finem solut., omisso *corpus Christi verum*, plures codd. pro *ut intelligatur* pauci codd. exhibent, substituto subinde *ut intelligeretur*. Edd. et plurimi codd. *minus pro nimis*.

en: Not a few codices [read] *Recipit*, which also near the end of the solution, with *corpus Christi verum* omitted, several codices [exhibit] in place of *ut intelligatur*, with *ut intelligeretur* thereupon substituted by a few codices. The editions and very many codices [read] *minus* for *nimis*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. ad 5; d. 9. a. 1. — De seq. propos. agitur infra d. 13. a. 2. q. 2. — In principio solut., omisso *corpus Christi verum*, plures codd. pro *manducatur* perperam substituunt *masticatur*, et pro *in manducatione* cum ed. 1 *in masticatione*.

en: Cf. above d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. ad 5; d. 9. a. 1. — Concerning the following proposition treatment is made below d. 13. a. 2. q. 2. — At the beginning of the solution, with *corpus Christi verum* omitted, several codices in place of *manducatur* wrongly substitute *masticatur*, and for *in manducatione* with edition 1 [read] *in masticatione*.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. seq.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 4 f.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Opinionem hic primo loco positam et manifeste falsam commemorat Magister (hic c. 3.); similiter etiam prima et secunda opinio seq. (2.) quaestionis recte improbatur. — De utraque quaestione concorditer agunt: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 9. a. 1. 2. — Scot., hic q. 1. n. 2-5. seqq.; Report. hic q. 5. n. 18. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. 2; S. III. q. 77. a. 7. — B. Albert., IV. Sent. d. 13. a. 1. 2. 4. 6. 7. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 3.

**II.** Explicatio mystici sensus huius fractionis in 3. quaestione excerpta est ex Alex. Hal. (loc. cit. a. 4.), quam approbat S. Thom. in Comment. loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3. — De eadem 3. quaestione: B. Albert., IV. Sent. d. 13. a. 14. 15. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 6. q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The opinion here placed in the first position and manifestly false the Master mentions (here c. 3.); likewise also the first and second opinion of the following (2nd) question is rightly disproved. — Concerning each question these treat concordantly: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV. q. 10. m. 9. a. 1. 2. — Scotus, here q. 1. n. 2-5. ff.; *Reportata* here q. 5. n. 18. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 3. subquestion 1. 2; *Summa* III. q. 77. a. 7. — Bl. Albert, IV Sent. d. 13. a. 1. 2. 4. 6. 7. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question, here q. 3.

**II.** The explanation of the mystical sense of this breaking, in the 3rd question, is excerpted from Alexander of Hales (loc. cit. a. 4.), which St. Thomas approves in his *Commentary* loc. cit. subquestion 3. — Concerning this same 3rd question: Bl. Albert, IV Sent. d. 13. a. 14. 15. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 6. q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from Vol IV PDF column bands (printed pp. 283–284; pdf pp. 303–304 at +20; `colcrop.py vol4` split_x=1880) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 32354–32507) as base for the clean videtur/Sed-contra running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The Respondeo, Solutio replies, all footers, and the scholion were cascade-shattered/two-column-bled in OCR and taken from the PDF bands. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Alignment.** ARTICULUS III opener (`Consequenter quantum ad tertium articulum quaeritur de fractione illarum specierum… tria principaliter quaeruntur`) is folded into this q1 per the locked chunking convention — there is no standalone a3-divisio chunk. The three article-points (Primo: utrum vera fractio sit in corpore Christi; Secundo: utrum sit in speciebus; Tertio: quid partes significent) are printed split across p.283 L/R and reflowed here. QUAESTIO I title `Utrum corpus Christi verum in eucharistia frangatur` confirmed against PDF p.283. Aligned. The chunk ends immediately before QUAESTIO II (`Utrum in speciebus sit vera fractio`), which begins at the foot of p.284 / raw line 32508.

**Running head.** p.283 recto top reads **"DIST. XII. P. I. ART. III. QUAEST. I. 283"** — page-verify PASSES (DIST. XII, ART. III, QUAEST. I). p.284 verso top = "284 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (no DIST line).

**Page span.** Article opener + QUAESTIO I title + fundamenta 1–5 + Sed contra 1–3 + Conclusio + Respondeo opening on p.283 (L = opener/title/fundam 1–5/Sed-contra start + footers 1–6; R = article three-points/fundam tail/Conclusio/Respondeo start + footers 7–10). The Respondeo "Reprobatur" continuation, the second Conclusio, the Solutio replies 1.2./3./4./5., and the scholion finish on p.284 (L footers 1–4; R footers carry the Solutio overflow + scholion). printed_pages = [283, 284].

**Apparatus / footer-ownership (hand-off picked up).** 14 footnotes, all paired in both bodies, presented in body-anchor order. The a2-q3 writer's hand-off (p.283 footers 3+ Augustine/Berengarius belong here) is confirmed and claimed: ALL of p.283's per-page-restart notes 1–10 belong to this q1. Printed-footer → body-marker map (printed footer number in parentheses): (1) mathematicum [Sed contra 1 "animatum"] → [^7]; (2) scholion-ad-praec [fundam 3 "ratione"] → [^3]; (3) Augustine *Qui manducant* [fundam 1] → [^1]; (4) *Ego Berengarius* [fundam 2] → [^2]; (5) Ioan.6,55 [fundam 3 "manducatur"] → [^4]; (6) Ioan.19,34/Magistri c.4 [fundam 4 "frangitur"] → [^5]; (7) Magistri c.2/natum-esse [fundam 5 "natum est esse"] → [^6]; (8) infra d.13 [Sed contra 2 "nefas est dicere"] → [^8]; (9) Exod.16,18 [Sed contra 3 "minus"] → [^9]; (10) Christus-dedit-discipulis/Magister-in-littera [Respondeo] → [^10]. Page 284 q1 notes (per-page restart): (1) Hugo de Sacram [Conclusio "integrum"] → [^11]; (2) Recipit codd. [Solutio "Recepit"] → [^12]; (3) supra d.8/infra d.13 [Solutio "mysticum"] → [^13]; (4) Magistri c.4 seq. [Solutio "semel fuit"] → [^14]. Page-284 printed notes 5–9 (Quaest. praec.; substantiam singularem; dictum supra; Matth/Marc/Luc; Aristot. Phys.) belong to the FOLLOWING QUAESTIO II and are NOT rendered here.

**Scholion disposition (★ ownership).** This chunk OWNS the Articulus III scholion in full (printed at the foot of p.284 L–R, immediately before QUAESTIO II). It covers the article's q1–q3: section **I** treats the first question (whether the true body is broken) — the lead — and explicitly notes that the first/second opinions of the *following* (2nd) question are rightly disproved, then gives the parallel-author list "De utraque quaestione concorditer agunt" for q1–q2; section **II** treats the 3rd question (the mystical sense of the breaking, "Explicatio mystici sensus huius fractionis in 3. quaestione") with its own author list "De eadem 3. quaestione." Rendered in full (both languages), body-first / scholion-last per the parser gotcha. **Coverage: a3 q1, q2, q3.** Sibling questions a3-q2 and a3-q3 render `has_scholion: false` and point here. The scholion ends immediately before QUAESTIO II at the foot of p.284. No second distinct scholion block appears within this article's range.

**`[?]` flags.** None — all readings resolved against the PDF bands. OCR garbles silently corrected per CLAUDE.md (e.g. `frangattir`→`frangatur`, `Auguslinus`→`Augustinus`, `manducanl`→`manducant`, `Berengarii`/`Berengarii \`→`Berengarii`, `ostendilur`→`ostenditur`, `atterit111`→`atteritur`, `corrurnpitur`→`corrumpitur`, `incorruplibile`→`incorruptibile`, `Maglster`/`Magister in hltera`→`Magister in littera`, `traiectio`/`incorporalio`→`incorporatio`, `mysticum '`→`mysticum` w/ marker, `masticelur`→`masticetur`, `miraculuiii`→`miraculum`).

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, Art. 3, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 284 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum in speciebus sit vera fractio.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum in speciebus sit vera fractio. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Quia quod vere fit in signo significatur fieri in signato; sed in signato non est fractio, ut probatum est[^5]: ergo nec in signo.

2. Item, omnis actio terminatur ad hoc aliquid[^6]; sed non est ibi aliqua substantia nisi substantia corporis Christi: ergo non frangitur ibi aliquid. Et videtur frangi: ergo est ibi tantum fractio apparens.

3. Item, licet videantur ibi esse accidentia in subiecto, tamen in nullo subiecto sunt; nec est ibi falsitas aliqua[^7]: ergo videtur similiter, quod quamvis videatur ibi esse fractio, si non sit, non est ibi falsitas.

**Contra:** 1. Dicitur in Evangeliis Matthaei, Marci et Lucae[^8], quod benedixit et fregit; sed ibi fuit vera benedictio: ergo et vera fractio; alioquin ipsa Veritas in Sacramento veritatis et Evangelium veritatis narrat quod apparet verum, et est falsum.

2. Item, species illa panis alba est vere et vere potest denigrari: ergo eadem ratione vere potest dividi.

3. Item, divisio sequitur quantitatem[^9]: ergo si est ibi vera quantitas, ergo et vera divisio et fractio: non ergo tantum apparens.

<!-- page 285 -->

4. Item, si tantum apparens: ergo non oportet, aliquam violentiam digitis fieri nec aliquo actu corporis uti, sed solus actus animae sufficeret: cum ergo oporteat, violentiam digitis inferri, patet, quod est ibi vera divisio.

> **Conclusio.** In fractione eucharistiae est vera divisio, et quidem in speciebus.

**Respondeo:** Quorundam opinio fuit, quod ibi non est vera divisio, sed tantum apparens; nec tamen est ibi falsitas vel deceptio, quia non fit ad fallendum, sed ad instruendum; sicut etiam Dominus alio modo apparuit, quam esset, discipulis euntibus in Emmaus[^1], nec ulla fuit ibi falsitas. — Sed ista opinio stare non potest: quia, si non est ibi vera fractio, ergo nec vere masticantur species, et ita totum videtur esse fictio.

Propter hoc fuit alia opinio, quae dixit, quod homo frangit, quia actus est a parte hominis; sed tamen nihil ibi frangitur, quia accidentia frangi per se non possunt. — Haec etiam positio non potest stare: quia actio, si completur, infert passionem necessario.

Et propterea est alia positio rationabilis, quod divisio est ibi vera et in speciebus[^2], quia manet vera quantitas et vera soliditas; et quia divisio consequitur quantitatem per se; sicut est ibi vera quantitas, ita et vera fractio.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod non est fractio in signato; dicendum, quod fractio illa non significat fractionem corporis Christi ibi contenti, sed significat passionem, quae praeteriit[^3].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod actio terminatur ad substantiam; dicendum, quod verum est per naturam; sed si accidens posset per se stare, utique susceptivum esset actionis, nunc autem miraculo stat; et ideo accidens est actionis susceptivum[^4].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sicut accidentia apparent etc.; dicendum, quod illud est ex consequenti, sed divisio primo apparet. Unde accidentia apparent et per consequens ducunt in cognitionem subiecti, et antequam veniatur ad hoc, potest fides obviare. Sed ibi prima fronte apparet divisio, et ideo necesse esset, ibi esse deceptionem sine aliqua veritate, ex alia parte veritatem[^5b] esse sine deceptione[^6b].

english:
### Question II. *Whether in the species there is a true breaking.*

Secondly it is asked whether in the species there is a true breaking. And that there is not, seems to be the case:

1. Because what truly comes to be in a sign is signified to come to be in the thing signified; but in the thing signified there is no breaking, as was proven[^5]: therefore neither in the sign.

2. Likewise, every action is terminated at some this-something[^6]; but there is no substance there except the substance of the body of Christ: therefore nothing is broken there. And it seems to be broken: therefore there is there only an apparent breaking.

3. Likewise, although accidents seem to be there in a subject, nevertheless they are in no subject; nor is there any falsity there[^7]: therefore it seems likewise that, although a breaking seems to be there, if it is not, there is no falsity there.

**On the contrary:** 1. It is said in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke[^8] that He blessed and broke; but there was there a true blessing: therefore also a true breaking; otherwise the Truth itself, in the Sacrament of truth, and the Gospel of truth, recounts as true what appears, and it is false.

2. Likewise, that white species of bread truly is, and can truly be blackened: therefore by the same reasoning it can truly be divided.

3. Likewise, division follows upon quantity[^9]: therefore if there is true quantity there, then also a true division and breaking: therefore not only apparent.

<!-- page 285 -->

4. Likewise, if it is only apparent: therefore it is not necessary that any violence be done by the fingers, nor that any bodily act be used, but the act of the soul alone would suffice: since therefore it is necessary that violence be applied by the fingers, it is clear that there is a true division there.

> **Conclusion.** In the breaking of the Eucharist there is a true division, and indeed in the species.

**I respond:** The opinion of certain men was that there is no true division there, but only an apparent one; and yet there is no falsity or deception there, because it is not done to deceive, but to instruct; just as the Lord also appeared otherwise than He was to the disciples going to Emmaus[^1], and there was no falsity there. — But this opinion cannot stand: because, if there is no true breaking there, then neither are the species truly masticated, and thus the whole seems to be a fiction.

On account of this there was another opinion, which said that a man breaks, since the act is on the part of the man; but yet nothing is broken there, because accidents cannot be broken of themselves. — This position too cannot stand: because an action, if it is completed, necessarily entails a being-acted-upon.

And therefore there is another reasonable position, that the division is true there and in the species[^2], because true quantity and true solidity remain; and because division follows quantity of itself; as there is true quantity there, so also true breaking.

1. To the objection therefore that there is no breaking in the thing signified; it must be said that that breaking does not signify the breaking of the body of Christ contained there, but signifies the suffering which has passed by[^3].

2. To the objection that an action is terminated at a substance; it must be said that this is true by nature; but if an accident could subsist of itself, it would surely be receptive of action; now, however, it stands by miracle; and therefore the accident is receptive of action[^4].

3. To the objection that just as accidents appear etc.; it must be said that this is by consequence, but the division appears first. Hence the accidents appear and by consequence lead to a knowledge of the subject, and before one comes to this, faith can intervene. But there the division appears at first glance, and therefore it would be necessary that there be deception there without any truth, [whereas] on the other side there is truth[^5b] without deception[^6b].

la: Quaest. praeced.

en: The preceding question.

la: Sive ad substantiam singularem. Vide tom. II. pag. 197, nota 3. Cfr. etiam supra pag. 273, nota 3. — Cod. aa addit ex Gilbert. Porret., de Sex Principiis, c. 2, *quia est actio, secundum quam in id quod subiicitur, agere dicimur*, et paulo inferius post *Christi* subiungit *quae non frangitur*.

en: Or [terminated] at a singular substance. See tom. II, p. 197, note 3. Cf. also above, p. 273, note 3. — Codex aa adds, from Gilbert de la Porrée, *On the Six Principles*, c. 2, *because it is an action, according to which we are said to act upon that which is subjected*, and a little below, after *Christ*, subjoins *which is not broken*.

la: Ut dictum est supra n. 1. q. 2. ad 2.

en: As was said above, n. 1, q. 2, ad 2.

la: Aristot. VI. Phys. text. 37. (c. 4.) dicit, quod divisio est «quantitatis quidem secundum se, qualitatis autem secundum accidens». Cfr. V. Metaph. text. 18. (IV. c. 13.).

en: Aristotle, *Physics* VI, text 37 (c. 4), says that division is «of quantity indeed in itself, but of quality by accident». Cf. *Metaphysics* V, text 18 (IV, c. 13).

la: Luc. 24, 15. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2, ubi haec et seq. opinio proponitur.

en: Luke 24:15. See here the text of the Master, c. 2, where this and the following opinion are set forth.

la: Gilbert. Porret., de Sex Principiis, c. 2: *Naturalis vero actionis proprietas est passionem ex se in id quod subiicitur, inferre; omnis enim actio passionis est effectiva, et omne passionem inferens actio est.* Cfr. Aristot., III. Phys. text. 18. seqq. (c. 3.). — Inferius edd. omittunt *et in speciebus, quia manet*.

en: Gilbert de la Porrée, *On the Six Principles*, c. 2: *But it is the property of a natural action to inflict, of itself, a being-acted-upon upon that which is subjected; for every action is productive of a being-acted-upon, and everything inflicting a being-acted-upon is an action.* Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* III, text 18 ff. (c. 3). — Below, the editions omit *and in the species, because it remains*.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. seq. et quaest. seq.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 4 ff., and the following question.

la: Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 3.

en: Cf. above, a. 2, q. 3.

la: Permulti codd. incongrue *veritas*, nisi pro *esse* ponatur cod. aa *veritas esset*. Cfr. Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 9. seq.

en: Very many codices, incongruously, [read] *veritas* [truth, nom.], unless for *esse* codex aa puts *veritas esset*. Cf. Innocent III, *On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar* IV, c. 9 ff.

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

---

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

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{284,285}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 32508–32625) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF is authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo / Solutio / footer regions — the OCR here is severely two-column-interleaved (q2's Solutio in the p. 285 right column was spliced line-for-line into the left-column text), so the PDF bands carried the reconstruction. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 284–285 = PDF 304–305).

**Footnote-marker naming.** Because Quaracchi restarts numbering per printed page, both p. 284 and p. 285 carry a note 5 and a note 6. Markdown footnote IDs must be unique, so p. 285's two collisions are tagged `^5b`/`^6b` here (the same `b`-suffix device the corpus uses elsewhere, e.g. the template's `^1d`/`^2d`); they print as plain *5*/*6* in the source apparatus.

**Page-verify.** Running heads confirmed on the bands: p. 284 left = "284 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; p. 285 (continuation page header) = "DIST. XII. P. I. ART. III. QUAEST. III. 285". (p. 285's running head names QUAEST. III because q3 opens lower on that page; q2's Respondeo/Solutio occupy the top of p. 285's two columns before the QUAESTIO III. header in the left column.)

**Opener alignment.** Confirmed: the q2 opener on p. 284 (right column, after the SCHOLION block) reads "QUAESTIO II. Utrum in speciebus sit vera fractio. Secundo quaeritur, utrum in speciebus sit vera fractio. Et quod non, videtur …" — matches the assigned title.

**Page-split map.**
- p. 284 (right col., after SCHOLION): QUAESTIO II. header; args. 1–3; *Contra* 1–3.
- p. 284 → 285 boundary inside the *Contra* block (*Contra* 3 closes p. 284 "… non ergo tantum apparens."; *Contra* 4 opens p. 285 left col.).
- p. 285 (left col.): *Contra* 4; Conclusio; Respondeo (opinio 1, opinio 2). The QUAESTIO III. header begins lower in the left column — q2 ends just before it.
- p. 285 (right col.): Respondeo continues (opinio 3 = the determinatio "Et propterea est alia positio rationabilis …"); Solutiones *Ad 1*–*Ad 3*, ending "… veritatem esse sine deceptione." (note 6). Right column then continues with QUAESTIO III material (owned by the a3-q3 chunk).

**Footer-ownership (apparatus, 11 entries total, all anchored in this q2's body).**
- p. 284: the page's footer sequence has 9 notes; **notes 1–4 (Hug. a S. Vict.; Recipit variant; Cfr. supra d. 8; Vide hic lit. Magistri c. 4) anchor in the Art-III SCHOLION block and the q1 body at the top of p. 284 and are owned by the a3-q1 chunk.** q2 owns **notes 5–9**: `^5` arg. 1 *probatum est* (Quaest. praeced.); `^6` arg. 2 *ad hoc aliquid* (Sive ad substantiam); `^7` arg. 3 *falsitas aliqua* (Ut dictum est); `^8` *Contra* 1 *Marci et Lucae* (Matth. 26 etc.); `^9` *Contra* 3 *sequitur quantitatem* (Aristot. VI Phys.).
- p. 285: the page's footer sequence has at least 10 notes. q2 owns **notes 1–6** (rendered here `^1`,`^2`,`^3`,`^4`,`^5b`,`^6b` to keep Markdown IDs unique against p. 284's `^5`/`^6`): `^1` Respondeo *in Emmaus* (Luc. 24, 15); `^2` opinio 3 *in speciebus* (Gilbert. Porret.); `^3` *Ad 1* *quae praeteriit* (Vide lit. Magistri c. 4); `^4` *Ad 2* *actionis susceptivum* (Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 3); `^5b` *Ad 3* *veritatem* (Permulti codd. … veritas variant); `^6b` *Ad 3* *deceptione* (Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.). The remaining p. 285 footers (7 "Vide supra d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. ad 1. et 5."; 8 "Vat. supplet significari"; 9 "Matth. 20, 22 …"; 10 "Secundum Sergium Papam …") anchor in QUAESTIO III's body and are owned by the a3-q3 chunk.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`, but **q2 renders none of its own**: Articulus III carries a single SCHOLION block (q1/q2/q3, "I. Opinionem hic primo loco positam … II. Explicatio mystici sensus … De eadem 3. quaestione …") which the Quaracchi edition prints on p. 284 between q1 and q2; per the dispatch instruction this block is owned and rendered by the **a3-q1 chunk** (its §II "Explicatio mystici sensus huius fractionis in 3. quaestione" + the q2/q3 doctor-lists sit in that same p. 284 block). The `### Scholion` slot here holds a one-line Latin+English cross-reference. No standalone "SCHOLION." header falls inside the raw range 32508–32625 (the SCHOLION header on p. 284 sits *above* the QUAESTIO II. opener, in the q1 region).

**J4 apparatus repair (2026-07-17).** `[^5b]`/`[^6b]` were defined in the Apparatus section but not anchored in either body — the corpus classifier flagged them as orphaned. Root cause: the body's *Ad 3* solutio already carried markers on the correct lemmas (*veritatem*, *deceptione*), but they were mistyped as bare `[^5]`/`[^6]` — colliding with p. 284's own notes 5/6 (already anchored earlier in this same chunk on *probatum est* and *ad hoc aliquid*) instead of using the `b`-suffixed IDs this file's own footer-ownership note calls for. Verified against the printed page (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p285-R-1.png`): superscript ⁵ sits on *veritatem*, superscript ⁶ on *deceptione* in "…ex alia parte veritatem⁵ esse sine deceptione⁶." — matching the p. 285 note 5/6 content (*Permulti codd. … veritas* variant; *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*), not p. 284's notes. Relabeled both occurrences (Latin and English) from `[^5]`/`[^6]` to `[^5b]`/`[^6b]` to match the apparatus defs. No Latin, English, or apparatus prose was changed — marker labels only.

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Silent OCR corrections from the PDF bands (OCR was cascade-interleaved): *probatum est* (OCR `proba-tum est`); *susceptivum esset actionis* / *actionis susceptivum* (OCR `susceptiouni`); *divisio primo apparet* (OCR `dioisio`); *necesse esset, ibi esse deceptionem* (OCR `ibiess^e deceplionem`); *masticantur species* (OCR `masticanturspecies`). Marginal rubrics in both columns (*Reprobatur*, *Ad oppositum / Ad opposita*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Notandum*, *Opinio 1.ª / 2.ª*, *Opinio 3. et conclusio*, *Fundamenta*) are editorial side-notes and are omitted from the body per corpus convention.


title: Dist. 12, Part 1, Art. 3, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 285 -->

### Quaestio III. *Quid significent partes hostiae fractae.*

Tertio quaeritur, quid significent partes; et earum significatio his versibus continetur:

> Hostia dividitur in partes: tincta beatos
> Plene, sicca notat vivos, servata sepultos.

1. Obiicitur primo contra significationem divisionis: quia in corpore Christi mystico non est divisio, sed unio[^7]: ergo si Sacramentum est verum signum, in Sacramento divisio fieri non debet; aut si fit, falsum significat.

2. Item, videtur, quod sufficeret in *duas* tantum partes dividere, quia Ecclesia sufficienter dividitur in vivos et mortuos. Si dicas, quod mortui sunt in duplici differentia, quia quidam in purgatorio, quidam in paradiso: hoc non solvit, quia Beati non indigent sacrificio: ergo non debent in nostro sacrificio significari.

3. Item, videtur, quod in *plures* partes; quia vivi sunt in multiplici differentia. Quidam enim sunt activi, quidam contemplativi; quidam praelati, quidam subditi; quidam sunt boni, quidam mali; sed si debent significari vivi, sicut mortui: ergo multo plures debent esse partes. Si dicas, quod mali non debent[^8]: contra: Christus pro omnibus se obtulit in cruce; sed haec oblatio est rememoratio illius: ergo etc.

4. Item, obiicitur contra hoc quod dicitur, quod pars intincta significat Beatos. Sed contra: calix significat passionem[^9]: ergo nullo modo congruit ad significandum Beatos.

5. Item, dicitur, quod pars comesta significat ambulantes super terram[^10]. Sed contra: illa pars comesta incorporatur; sed ambulantes minime possunt incorporari: ergo per illam non debent significari.

6. Item, dicitur, quod pars servata significat mortuos. Contra: pauci, aut nulli reservant: ergo nulli perficiunt Sacramentum.

<!-- page 286 -->

> **Conclusio.** Fractio significat passionem Christi, partes fractae vero partes corporis mystici.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Magister[^1d] in littera, ipsa fractio significat passionem, sed partes fractae significant partes corporis mystici: et quia in corpore mystico sunt in triplici differentia — quidam enim regnant in paradiso, quidam securi exspectant in sepulcro, quidam autem pugnant in merito: — ideo tantum tres partes fiunt in hoc Sacramento.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur primo, quod falsa est divisio; dicendum, quod non est, immo significat divisionem, quae fuit in passione.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod deberent esse tantum duae partes; patet responsio; quia mortui sunt in duplici differentia, unde duae partes sunt ad significandum illos. — Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non deberet esse pro Beatis; dicendum, quod hoc sacrificium non tantum offertur in expiationem, sed etiam in gratiarum actionem[^2d]; et ideo pro miseris et Beatis.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod vivi sunt in multiplici differentia, sicut mortui; dicendum, quod non sunt in tanta differentia, quia omnes vivi indigent sacrificio *expiante a culpa*, quidam autem mortui *liberante a poena*, alii solum *laudis memoria*. — Ad illud quod obiicitur de malis, dicendum secundum Augustinum[^3d], quod sacrificium corporis Christi solum pro his offerri debet, qui sunt de corpore Christi. Nec valet, quod Christus pro omnibus est oblatus, quia hic non significantur omnes, pro quibus est oblatus, sed tantum illi qui sunt de corpore mystico.

4. Ad illud, quod calix significat passionem; dicendum quod alia proprietas est, scilicet facilis sumtionis, per quam Beati significantur, qui sine aliqua retardatione degustant.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod comestio dicit incorporationem; dicendum, quod non tantum incorporationem dicit, sed etiam deperditi restaurationem, et per hoc significat ambulantes.

6. Ad ultimum dicendum, quod modo non reservatur propter periculum[^4d]; nihilominus tamen in divisione trimembri triplex status membrorum Christi significatur, et reservatio partium solum ad evidentiam est[^5d].

english:
### Question III. *What the parts of the broken host signify.*

Thirdly it is asked what the parts signify; and their signification is contained in these verses:

> The host is divided into parts: the moistened [part] marks the blessed
> Fully, the dry [part] the living, the reserved [part] the buried.

1. It is objected first against the signification of the division: because in the mystical body of Christ there is no division, but union[^7]: therefore if the Sacrament is a true sign, in the Sacrament no division ought to be made; or if it is made, it signifies something false.

2. Likewise, it seems that it would suffice to divide into only *two* parts, because the Church is sufficiently divided into the living and the dead. If you say that the dead are in a twofold distinction, because some are in purgatory, some in paradise: this does not solve [the difficulty], because the blessed do not need a sacrifice: therefore they ought not to be signified in our sacrifice.

3. Likewise, it seems [that the division should be] into *several* parts; because the living are in a manifold distinction. For some are active, some contemplative; some prelates, some subjects; some are good, some evil; but if the living ought to be signified, just as the dead: therefore there ought to be many more parts. If you say that the evil ought not [to be signified][^8]: on the contrary: Christ offered himself for all on the cross; but this oblation is a memorial of that one: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, it is objected against this which is said, that the moistened part signifies the blessed. But on the contrary: the chalice signifies the passion[^9]: therefore in no way is it fitting for signifying the blessed.

5. Likewise, it is said that the eaten part signifies those walking upon the earth[^10]. But on the contrary: that eaten part is incorporated; but those walking can by no means be incorporated: therefore they ought not to be signified by it.

6. Likewise, it is said that the reserved part signifies the dead. On the contrary: few, or none, reserve [it]: therefore none complete the Sacrament.

<!-- page 286 -->

> **Conclusion.** The fraction signifies the passion of Christ, but the broken parts the parts of the mystical body.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the Master[^1d] says in the text, the fraction itself signifies the passion, but the broken parts signify the parts of the mystical body: and because in the mystical body they are in a threefold distinction — for some reign in paradise, some securely await in the tomb, some however fight in [the state of] merit: — therefore only three parts are made in this Sacrament.

1. To the objection therefore made first, that the division is false; it must be said that it is not, but rather it signifies the division which took place in the passion.

2. To the objection that there ought to be only two parts; the response is clear; because the dead are in a twofold distinction, hence there are two parts for signifying them. — To the objection that there ought not to be [a part] for the blessed; it must be said that this sacrifice is offered not only in expiation, but also in thanksgiving[^2d]; and therefore for the wretched and for the blessed.

3. To the objection that the living are in a manifold distinction, just as the dead; it must be said that they are not in so great a distinction, because all the living need the sacrifice *expiating from guilt*, but some of the dead [need it] *freeing from punishment*, others only [for] *the memory of praise*. — To the objection concerning the evil, it must be said, according to Augustine[^3d], that the sacrifice of the body of Christ ought to be offered only for those who are of the body of Christ. Nor does it avail that Christ was offered for all, because here are not signified all for whom he was offered, but only those who are of the mystical body.

4. To the objection that the chalice signifies the passion; it must be said that there is another property, namely that of easy reception, by which the blessed are signified, who taste without any delay.

5. To the objection that eating bespeaks incorporation; it must be said that it bespeaks not only incorporation, but also the restoration of what was lost, and by this it signifies those walking [upon the earth].

6. To the last [objection] it must be said that nowadays it is not reserved on account of the danger[^4d]; nevertheless in the threefold division the threefold state of the members of Christ is signified, and the reservation of the parts is only for [the sake of] making this evident[^5d].

la: Vide supra d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. ad 1. et 5.

en: See above, d. 8, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, ad 1 and 5.

la: Vat. supplet *significari.*

en: The Vatican [edition] supplies *signified.*

la: Matth. 20, 22: *Potestis bibere calicem* etc., et 26, 39: *Transeat a me calix iste.*

en: Matthew 20:22: *Are you able to drink the chalice* etc., and 26:39: *Let this chalice pass from me.*

la: Secundum Sergium Papam, hic in lit. Magistri, c. 4, allegatum, qui etiam exhibet significationem in seq. arg. adductam. Cfr. etiam Hugo a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 9. seq. et Innocent. III, VI. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 3.

en: According to Pope Sergius, here alleged in the text of the Master, c. 4, who also presents the signification adduced in the following argument. Cf. also Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* II, p. VIII, c. 9 ff., and Innocent III, *On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar* VI, c. 3.

la: Hic c. 2. — Edd. pro *partes fractae* substituunt *partes istae* et post *corporis* supplent *Christi.*

en: Here c. 2. — The editions substitute *these parts* for *the broken parts*, and after *of the body* supply *of Christ.*

la: Vide infra lit. Magistri, d. XLV. c. 2. verba Augustini.

en: See below, in the text of the Master, d. XLV, c. 2, the words of Augustine.

la: Libr. I. de Anima et eius origine c. 9. n. 10. Verba vide infra p. II. a. 4. q. 2. fundam. 1.

en: Book I *On the Soul and its Origin*, c. 9, n. 10. See the words below, p. II, a. 4, q. 2, fundamentum 1.

la: In cod. bb secunda manus notavit: *Olim reservabatur usque ad gratiarum actionem, scil. ad collectas ultimas; sed postea multae factae sunt negligentiae circa partem reservatam, quia quidam ponebant librum desuper: ideo modo sumitur cum aliis.*

en: In codex bb a second hand noted: *Formerly it was reserved up to the thanksgiving, namely to the final collects; but afterward many negligences came about concerning the reserved part, because some would set a book on top of it: therefore nowadays it is taken with the others.*

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

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

---

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

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{285,286}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 32626–32745) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF is authoritative in the cascade-shattered regions — and the OCR for this q3 is severely two-column-interleaved (the q2-Solutio right column on p. 285 and the q3-Solutio right column on p. 286 bled line-for-line into the left-column lines), so the PDF bands carried the reconstruction. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 285–286 = PDF 305–306).

**Page-verify.** Running heads confirmed on the bands: p. 285 = "DIST. XII. P. I. ART. III. QUAEST. III. … 285"; p. 286 = "286 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."

**Opener alignment.** Confirmed: the q3 opener on p. 285 (left column, bottom) reads "QUAESTIO III. *Quid significent partes hostiae fractae.* Tertio quaeritur, quid significent partes …" — matches the assigned title.

**Page-split map.**
- p. 285 (left col., bottom): QUAESTIO III. header + the two-verse mnemonic + arg. 1, opening arg. 2.
- p. 285 (right col.): args. 3–6 complete (all the arguments live on p. 285; there is no separate *Contra/Sed contra* block — each numbered objection carries its own internal *Sed contra/Contra*).
- p. 285 → 286 boundary: all args. close on p. 285; the Conclusio opens p. 286.
- p. 286 (left col.): Conclusio + Respondeo + Solutiones *Ad 1*, *Ad 2*, opening *Ad 3*.
- p. 286 (right col.): *Ad 3* (cont.)–*Ad 6* complete (". . . solum ad evidentiam est."), immediately before "DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI" (raw 32746), which opens the next chunk.

**Footer-ownership (apparatus, 9 entries owned here).**
- p. 285 footer has 10 notes (1–10), restarting at the page top. Notes **1–6 belong to q2** (whose Respondeo/Solutio tail occupies the p. 285 left-column top and right-column top: 1 = *Luc. 24,15 / Emmaus*; 2 = *Gilbert. Porret., de Sex Principiis*; 3 = *Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4*; 4 = *Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 3*; 5 = *Permulti codd. … veritas … Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro mysterio, c. 9*; 6 = *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*) and are owned by the **a3-q2 chunk** (cross-chunk hand-off documented there). Notes **7–10 belong to this q3's arguments** (`^7` arg. 1 *unio*; `^8` arg. 3 *mali non debent*; `^9` arg. 4 *calix … passionem*; `^10` arg. 5 *ambulantes super terram*).
- Note 10 (Sergius Papa) overflows the p. 285 → p. 286 page break: its tail ("*allegatum, qui etiam exhibet significationem … et Innocent. III, VI. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 3.*") is set at the very top of the p. 286 left footer band, ahead of the p. 286 numbered sequence; it is merged here into `^10`.
- p. 286 footer has 6 numbered notes. Notes **1–5 belong to this q3** (`^1d` Respondeo *Magister*; `^2d` *gratiarum actionem*; `^3d` *secundum Augustinum*; `^4d` *propter periculum*; `^5d` *ad evidentiam est*). Note **6** ("*Edd. ullius.*") and the p. 286 right-footer notes 7–9 (Gregorius / *Luc. 24,16* / *Aristot., II. de Anima* on the *sensus communis*) all anchor in the DUB. I littera of the following chunk and are owned by the **p1-dubia** chunk.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false` here. Articulus III carries a single SCHOLION block (q1–q3 bibliography) which the Quaracchi edition prints with QUAESTIO I; the **a3-q1 chunk** owns and renders it. Both p. 285 note 6 and p. 286 note 5 are cross-references to that scholion ("*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*" / "*Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.*"). No "SCHOLION." header occurs inside the raw range 32626–32745. The `### Scholion` slot here holds a one-line Latin+English cross-reference per the dispatch instruction.

**Hand-off to p1-dubia.** The "DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI" / "DUB. I." block opens at raw 32746 (p. 286 right column). p. 286 footer notes **6 (*Edd. ullius.*), 7 (*Libr. II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 23. n. 1 …*, Gregorius), 8 (*Luc. 24,16. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 38. q. 2. ad 3.*), and 9 (*Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 63 …*, sensus communis)** all anchor in DUB. I's body and belong to the p1-dubia chunk — do not re-park them here.

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Silent OCR corrections from the bands: arg. 3 *contemplativi / praelati / subditi / boni / mali* (OCR cascade-merged with the right-column Solutio); *Christus pro omnibus se obtulit*; Respondeo *securi exspectant in sepulcro*; Solutio 2 *Beatis* (OCR `Reatis`); Solutio 3 *expiante a culpa / liberante a poena / laudis memoria*; Solutio 6 *propter periculum / ad evidentiam est*. The two-verse mnemonic ("*Hostia dividitur in partes: tincta beatos / Plene, sicca notat vivos, servata sepultos.*") is set as a blockquote couplet per the printed indentation. Marginal rubrics in the columns (*oppositum / oppositorum*, *conclusio*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Notandum*) are editorial side-notes and are omitted from the body per corpus convention.