title: Dist. 11, Part 1, Dubia

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

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

source_text:
<!-- page 252 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Magister: *Mysterium fidei credi salubriter potest, investigari salubriter non potest.* Videtur enim secundum hoc, quod omnes peccent graviter, qui disputant de his quae ad fidem spectant.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod facienda est vis tam in hoc quod dicit *mysterium fidei,* quam in verbo *investigandi.* *Mysterium* enim secretum est, et illud non est *investigandum,* ut homo velit ratione comprehendere, quod Dominus voluit occultare; et qui aliter facit peccat et praesumtuosus est, dum se elevat ad id, ad quod non potest pertingere[^1]. Qui autem disputat de fide non ad mysterii investigationem, sed potius ad defensionem, ille non facit contra hoc quod dicit Augustinus et Magister[^2].

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod haec concedenda est: *Illud quod erat panis vel vinum, post consecrationem est corpus Christi.* Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia *quod* est relativum identitatis[^3]; sed ibi nihil manet commune: ergo talis locutio est falsa. — Praeterea, quaero: pro quo supponit, cum dicitur: *quod erat panis?* Aut pro supposito *panis,* aut *Christi.* Si pro supposito *panis:* contra: isti nunquam convenit praedicatum. Si pro supposito *corporis:* ergo implicatio est falsa, quia corpus Christi nunquam fuit panis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod proprie loquendo — cum hoc relativum *quod* sit relativum identitatis, et suppositum non sit idem cum praedicato — quod simpliciter loquendo, proprie falsa est; nec Magister[^4] dicit concedendam secundum opinionem suam. Si autem legatur a Sanctis, exponendam esse credo. Unde cum Augustinus[^5] dicit, quod «corpus Christi dicimus illud quod ex fructibus terrae collectum» etc; dicendum, quod illud dictum est quantum ad *signum exterius,* et secundum metaphoram est intelligendum illud, secundum quod *signum* pro *signato* ponitur; et vocatur hic *corpus Christi* Sacramentum corporis Christi[^6].

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur: quid est quod dicit Gregorius, *in ipsa immolationis hora caelos aperiri?* Videtur enim male dicere, quia, si aperiuntur; quaero, ad quid? Si ut descendat, videtur falsum, quia potest descendere sine apertione caelorum. Et iterum, ad quid descendit, si panis convertitur[^7] in corpus suum hic inferius? Si dicas, hoc dictum tropice; quaero, quo tropo?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod panis iste, qui in altari conficitur, est panis caelestis; caelum autem dicitur aperiri, quando vehemens fit influentia de supernis. Quoniam igitur immolationis hora nobis panis caelestis et supersubstantialis tribuitur; hinc est, quod Gregorius caelos dicit aperiri; sicut in eius nativitate dicitur, quod «per totum mundum

<!-- page 253 -->

melliflui facti sunt caeli[^8], quia datus est nobis ille qui dulcior est super mel et favum.»

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *In caelum rapitur, ministerio Angelorum consociandum corpori Christi.* Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia illud corpus sumitur a sacerdote, ergo non rapitur ministerio. — Item quomodo consociatur corpori Christi, cum idem sit corpus? — Item, quaeritur: quomodo intelligitur illud quod scribitur in canone[^9]: *Iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui?* quid est quod perfertur? et quis est Angelus, qui perfert?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut praedicta verba circa confectionem figurative et secundum tropum intelligenda sunt, sic et ista. Unde sicut manus Angelorum non intelliguntur corporaliter, sic nec rapi hoc Sacramentum intelligendum est localiter vel corporaliter; similiter nec consociari situaliter. Sed hoc intelligendum est, quod sicut Angeli intelliguntur Deo offerre orationes nostras et petitiones, similiter et desideria — non propter ignorantiam Dei, sed propter commoditatem nostram, quia suis sanctis affectibus puris nos adiuvant et merita nostra in conspectu Dei replicant, ut ex eorum puritate sancta et affectione ferventi ratione dignitatis nuntii sint acceptabilia — sic intelligendum est offerre sacrificia, quia sacris mysteriis assistentes una nobiscum precantur, ut nostra munera sint accepta, et una nobiscum reverentur sanctissimum corpus Christi, sicut in caelo. Ideo dicuntur in caelum rapere et consociare quantum ad hoc, quod reputant honore dignum in altari, ut in caelo. Per hunc etiam modum intelligenda est oratio canonis: quia, sicut exponit Innocentius[^10], *Angelus* ille *magni consilii* est Christus; per *manus* illius oramus sacrificium perferri, id est ipsius meritis et precibus nostrum sacrificium Deo acceptari. Unde ipse est *pontifex et advocatus noster* et apparet continue *vultui Dei ad interpellandum pro nobis.* Et sic patent quaesita.

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

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that the Master says: *The mystery of faith can be believed wholesomely, but cannot be investigated wholesomely.* For it seems, according to this, that all sin gravely who dispute about those things which pertain to faith.

**I respond:** It must be said that emphasis is to be placed both on this, that he says *mystery of faith,* and on the word *investigating.* For a *mystery* is something secret, and that is not to be *investigated,* such that a man should wish to comprehend by reason what the Lord willed to conceal; and one who does otherwise sins and is presumptuous, while he raises himself up to that which he cannot reach[^1]. But one who disputes about the faith not for the investigation of the mystery, but rather for its defense, he does not act against this which Augustine and the Master say[^2].

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says that this proposition is to be conceded: *That which was bread or wine, after the consecration is the body of Christ.* For it seems to be said falsely, because *which* is a relative of identity[^3]; but there nothing common remains: therefore such a locution is false. — Moreover, I ask: for what does it supposit, when it is said: *that which was bread?* Either for the supposit *bread,* or *Christ.* If for the supposit *bread:* on the contrary, the predicate never belongs to it. If for the supposit *of the body:* therefore the implication is false, because the body of Christ was never bread.

**I respond:** It must be said that, properly speaking — since this relative *which* is a relative of identity, and the supposit is not the same as the predicate — that, simply speaking, it is properly false; nor does the Master[^4] say it is to be conceded according to his own opinion. But if it is read by the Saints, I believe it is to be expounded. Hence when Augustine[^5] says that «we call the body of Christ that which is gathered out of the fruits of the earth» etc.; it must be said that that statement is made as to the *exterior sign,* and is to be understood according to metaphor, in that the *sign* is put for the *signified;* and here the *body of Christ* is called the Sacrament of the body of Christ[^6].

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked: what is it that Gregory says, that *in the very hour of the immolation the heavens are opened?* For it seems to be said badly, because, if they are opened; I ask, for what? If in order that it may descend, it seems false, because it can descend without the opening of the heavens. And again, for what does it descend, if the bread is converted[^7] into his body here below? If you say this is said tropically; I ask, by what trope?

**I respond:** It must be said that this bread, which is confected on the altar, is heavenly bread; and the heaven is said to be opened, when a vehement influence comes from on high. Since therefore in the hour of the immolation heavenly and supersubstantial bread is bestowed on us; hence it is that Gregory says the heavens are opened; just as at his nativity it is said that «throughout the whole world

the heavens were made to flow with honey[^8], because there has been given to us that one who is sweeter than honey and the honeycomb.»

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *It is caught up into heaven, by the ministry of the Angels, to be associated with the body of Christ.* For it seems to be said falsely, because that body is taken by the priest, therefore it is not caught up by ministry. — Likewise, how is it associated with the body of Christ, since it is the same body? — Likewise, it is asked: how is that understood which is written in the canon[^9]: *Bid these things to be carried up by the hands of thy holy Angel?* What is it that is carried up? and who is the Angel, who carries up?

**I respond:** It must be said that, just as the aforesaid words concerning the confection are to be understood figuratively and according to trope, so also these. Hence, just as the hands of the Angels are not understood corporeally, so neither is the catching-up of this Sacrament to be understood locally or corporeally; likewise neither the association in place. But this is to be understood, that just as the Angels are understood to offer to God our prayers and petitions, likewise also our desires — not on account of God's ignorance, but on account of our advantage, because by their holy pure affections they help us and lay our merits again before the sight of God, so that from their holy purity and fervent affection, by reason of the dignity of the messenger, they may be acceptable — so it is to be understood that they offer sacrifices, because, assisting at the sacred mysteries together with us, they pray that our gifts may be accepted, and together with us they revere the most holy body of Christ, as in heaven. Therefore they are said to catch up into heaven and to associate, as to this, that they reckon worthy of honor on the altar what is so in heaven. By this manner also is to be understood the prayer of the canon: because, as Innocent expounds[^10], that *Angel of great counsel* is Christ; through *his hands* we pray that the sacrifice be carried up, that is, that by his merits and prayers our sacrifice be accepted by God. Hence he himself is *our pontiff and advocate* and appears continually *to the face of God to intercede for us.* And thus the things asked are made clear.

la: Prov. 25, 27: *Qui scrutator est maiestatis opprimetur a gloria.*

en: Proverbs 25:27: *He who is a searcher of majesty shall be overwhelmed by glory.*

la: Algerus, l. de Sacram. c. 9, verba, de quibus agit hoc dubium (lit. Magistri, c. 2.), attribuit Augustino «in libro Sententiarum Prosperi», in quo tamen ea non invenimus. — Cfr. supra d. 10. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. in fine. — Idem dub. solvit S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Alger, *On the Sacraments,* book 1, c. 9, attributes the words with which this doubt deals (the Master's text, c. 2) to Augustine «in the book of the Sentences of Prosper,» in which, however, we do not find them. — Cf. above, d. 10, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, at the end. — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Petr. Hispan., Summul. tr. de Relativis: *Relativum substantiae est quod refert eandem rem in numero cum suo antecedente, ut* qui, ille. *Item relativorum substantiae quaedam sunt relativa diversitatis, ut* alius; *et est illud quod refert eandem rem in numero et supponit pro alia, ut Socrates currit, et alius disputat. Quaedam vero sunt relativa substantiae identitatis, ut* qui, ille, idem; *unde relativum substantiae identitatis est quod refert et supponit pro eodem in numero, pro quo supponit suum antecedens, ut Socrates currit, qui disputat;* ibi hoc relativum qui *refert et supponit pro Socrate* etc. — De minori cfr. supra q. 2.

en: Peter of Spain, *Summulae,* treatise *On Relatives:* «A relative of substance is that which refers the same thing in number as its antecedent, as *who, that one.* Likewise, of relatives of substance some are relatives of diversity, as *other;* and it is that which refers the same thing in number and supposits for another, as *Socrates runs, and another disputes.* But some are relatives of substantial identity, as *who, that one, the same;* whence a relative of substantial identity is that which refers and supposits for the same in number, for which its antecedent supposits, as *Socrates runs, who disputes;* there this relative *who* refers and supposits for Socrates» etc. — On the minor, cf. above, q. 2.

la: Hic in lit. c. 2. Cfr. supra q. 6.

en: Here in the text, c. 2. Cf. above, q. 6.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: See here the Master's text, c. 2.

la: Cfr. supra d. 10. p. I. dub. 3. et 4. — Aliquanto inferius pro *Christi* codd. F G I *corporis Christi.*

en: Cf. above, d. 10, p. I, doubts 3 and 4. — A little below, for *Christi* codices F, G, I read *corporis Christi* ("of the body of Christ").

la: Ita codd. H Z, cod. K *convertatur,* cod. L *convertetur,* alii cum ed. I *converteretur,* Vat. legit *scilicet ut panis converteretur.* Mox pro *hic inferius* permulti codd. *hic et inferius.* Subinde ante *quo tropo* cum codd. F G H L omisimus *in.*

en: Thus codices H, Z; codex K reads *convertatur,* codex L *convertetur,* others with the first edition *converteretur,* the Vatican edition reads *scilicet ut panis converteretur* ("namely that the bread should be converted"). Just after, for *hic inferius* very many codices read *hic et inferius.* Then, before *quo tropo,* with codices F, G, H, L we have omitted *in.*

la: Gregor., Libro Responsal., in festo Nativ. Domini, 1. Nocturn. resp. lect. 2. — Seq. text. Scripturae est Ps. 18, 11. — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 5. a. 1. § 1; B. Albert., hic a. 9; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit. — Locis citt. solvitur etiam dub. seq.

en: Gregory, *Book of Responsories,* on the feast of the Nativity of the Lord, 1st Nocturn, responsory, lesson 2. — The following text of Scripture is Ps. 18:11. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 10, m. 5, a. 1, § 1; Blessed Albert, here a. 9; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text. — At the cited places the following doubt is also resolved.

la: Missalis Romani, post consecrationem. — Superius post *ministerio* codd. R S T supplent *Angelorum,* cod. U *angelico.* Paulo inferius ex codd. F G H L P Q V supplevimus *quod perfertur.*

en: Of the Roman Missal, after the consecration. — Above, after *ministerio* codices R, S, T supply *Angelorum,* codex U *angelico* ("angelic"). A little below, from codices F, G, H, L, P, Q, V we have supplied *quod perfertur* ("that which is carried up").

la: Libr. V. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 5; sed aliam interpretationem ibi affert dicens: Salvo tamen occulto caelestis oraculi sacramento, possunt haec verba, licet simplicius, tamen securius, sic intelligi: *Iube haec,* vota fidelium videlicet et preces, *perferri per manus sancti Angeli,* hoc est per ministerium etc.

en: *On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar,* book V, c. 5; but he brings forward there another interpretation, saying: Yet, with the hidden sacrament of the heavenly oracle preserved, these words can, though more simply, yet more safely, be understood thus: *Bid these things,* namely the vows and prayers of the faithful, *to be carried up by the hands of the holy Angel,* that is, through the ministry, etc.

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`vol4-p252-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p253-{L,R}-*`) per the Vol IV two-column PDF-priority inversion (offset pdf = printed + 20, so PDF 272–273), cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 28456–28570. The IA OCR cascade-shatters this region (diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation + two-column bleed, plus a stray "DIST. XI. P. II. DIVISIO TEXTUS. 233" running-head bleed mid-stream from a much later page), so the column bands are authoritative throughout. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Dubia count: 4.**
- **Dub. I** — On the Master's *Mysterium fidei credi salubriter potest, investigari salubriter non potest:* it would seem all who dispute about faith sin gravely. Answer: emphasis falls both on *mystery* (a secret, not to be reason-comprehended where God willed concealment — to attempt it is presumption) and on *investigating;* one who disputes for *defense,* not investigation, acts against neither Augustine nor the Master.
- **Dub. II** — On *Illud quod erat panis vel vinum, post consecrationem est corpus Christi:* *quod* is a relative of identity, yet nothing common remains, and the supposition (for bread? for Christ?) fails either way. Answer: simply/properly speaking the proposition is false, and the Master does not concede it as his own opinion; if read in the Saints it is to be expounded metaphorically (sign for signified), the "body of Christ" here naming the Sacrament of the body.
- **Dub. III** — On Gregory's *in ipsa immolationis hora caelos aperiri:* why opened, if Christ can descend without it, and what trope? Answer: the altar-bread is heavenly bread; "heaven opened" = a vehement influence from on high, since heavenly/supersubstantial bread is bestowed in the immolation-hour (cf. the Nativity "honey-flowing heavens").
- **Dub. IV** — On *In caelum rapitur, ministerio Angelorum consociandum corpori Christi* and the canon's *Iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui:* the body is taken by the priest (not caught up), is the same body, so what is carried and who is the Angel? Answer: figurative, like the other confection-words — the Angels' "hands"/"catching-up"/"associating" are not local or corporeal; they offer our prayers/desires and revere the body with us; per Innocent the *Angel of great counsel* is Christ, by whose merits the sacrifice is accepted.

**Picked-up p.252 footers (hand-off from the q6 writer, confirmed):** On printed p.252, footers **1** ("Ex cod. L supplevimus *sustineri potest,* scil. locutio…") and **2** ("Vide scholion ad 4. huius articuli quaest.") anchor in the preceding **Articulus unicus, q. 6** body (the Conclusio-2 region "...sustineri potest¹ ... transitum, non causam² ... est propria") and are owned by `bon-sent-IV-d11-p1-a1-q6`, NOT here. Footers **3** (Prov. 25,27 — Dub. I "non potest pertingere"), **4** (Algerus, *de Sacramentis* — Dub. I "Augustinus et Magister"), and **5** (Petr. Hispan., *de Relativis* — Dub. II "relativum identitatis") DO anchor here, exactly as the q6 writer flagged; they open this chunk's apparatus as [^1], [^2], [^3]. The q6/dubia boundary falls mid-p.252 left column (centered "DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI" header beneath the close of q6's *Quarta regula*).

**Footer ownership / renumber map:** Printed **p.252** footers 3–9 → this chunk's [^1]–[^7] gaplessly (3→[^1] Dub. I; 4→[^2] Dub. I; 5→[^3] Dub. II obj.; 6→[^4] Dub. II resp.; 7→[^5] Dub. II resp.; 8→[^6] Dub. II resp.; 9→[^7] Dub. III). Printed **p.253** footers 1–3 → [^8]–[^10] (1→[^8] Dub. III tail "facti sunt caeli"; 2→[^9] Dub. IV "in canone"; 3→[^10] Dub. IV resp. "Innocentius"). Printed p.253 footer **4** ("In … post dedi[catione]…") anchors in the **Pars II DIVISIO TEXTUS** body ("in quibus⁴ substantiis"), NOT in any dubium — it belongs to `bon-sent-IV-d11-p2-divisio`.

**Page-split map:** The dubia open near the foot of printed p.252 (PDF 272) left column: the centered DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI header + DUB. I + its objection sit at the left-column bottom (beneath q6's *Quarta regula*); Dub. I's Respondeo runs into the right-column top. Dub. I's objection and Dub. II (objection) occupy the left column; Dub. I Respondeo plus Dub. III (objection + Respondeo) occupy the right column. Dub. III's Respondeo breaks at the foot of p.252-R ("...quod «per totum mundum") and continues at the top of printed p.253 (PDF 273) left column ("melliflui facti sunt caeli..."). Then DUB. IV (whole objection + start of Respondeo, breaking at "...nec consociari situa-") fills the p.253 left column; Dub. IV's Respondeo continues at the top of the p.253 right column ("liter. Sed hoc intelligendum est...") and closes ("...Et sic patent quaesita.") above where the centered COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XI / Pars II header + DIVISIO TEXTUS begin (lower in both columns of p.253).

**Pars II boundary / hand-off to divisio:** Everything from the centered **COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XI / Pars II / De materia, in qua fieri debet…** header onward (printed p.253; raw L28571 ff., "Pars II." / DIVISIO TEXTUS "Supra egit Magister de confectione quantum ad transsubstantiationem sive conversionem; hic agit secundo, in qua specie vel substantia debeat fieri talis confectio…") is excluded here and owned by `bon-sent-IV-d11-p2-divisio`. Note the p.253 running head reads "DIST. XI. P. II. DIVISIO TEXTUS." because the bulk of p.253 is Pars II — but the Dub. III tail + the whole of Dub. IV at the top of p.253's columns are still Pars I dubia and belong here.

**[?] flags:** none. All four dubia bodies and all ten apparatus entries read cleanly from the PDF column bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 11, Part 2, Dubia

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

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 265 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Magister: *Ne abhorreret animus quod cerneret oculus.* Videtur enim nulla esse sua ratio: quia non est faciendum aliquid in solatium sensus, quod praeiudicet intellectui; sed sicut horridum est sensui comedere carnes, ita difficile est intellectui credere oppositum eius quod sentit: ergo videtur, quod melius esset, horrorem generari in sensu, ut certa[^1] veritas manifestaretur in intellectu.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ista non est tota ratio, quare sub specie velatur, quia fit in sensus solatium; sed quia fit in sensus solatium et in fidei meritum, in quo captivatur et illuminatur intellectus[^2]. Si autem occultaretur sensui et intellectui non revelaretur per fidem, tunc aliquod praeiudicium fieret intellectui. Nunc autem non est ita, et ideo non valet[^3].

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod vinum refertur ad animam etc. Videtur enim male dicere: quia regula est in alia scientia[^4], quod termino semel posito non est utendum aequivoce: ergo similiter nec signo. Si ergo vinum significat sanguinem Christi, non significat animam Christi; vel si significat animam Christi, non ergo animam nostram.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut in signis vocalibus[^5] duplex attenditur significatio, scilicet propria et allegorica; ita et in hac duplici significatione simul accipitur in theologia. Simile potest esse in signis sacramentalibus, quod unam rem significent proprie, scilicet vel rem, quam continent, vel effectum quem tribuunt; aliam allegorice, scilicet rem, a qua virtutem trahunt, sicut a passione et eius fide[^6]. Et sicut fallit regula sophistarum in primis signis, quia in theologia dictio simul accipitur moraliter et litteraliter et allegorice; sic fallit in his signis, quia unum principaliter et proprie significat et aliud allegorice. — Posset tamen dici, quod unum significat per alterum, ut animam per sanguinem; et sic nullum est inconveniens.

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Ambrosius, quod caro Christi pro salute corporis offertur. Secundum hoc enim videtur, quod istud Sacramentum sanet corporaliter; et hoc etiam videtur Apostolus dicere primae ad Corinthios undecimo[^7]: *Ideo inter vos multi infirmi et imbecilles, et dormiunt multi;* loquitur de indigne accipientibus. Sed contra: est cibus spiritualis et remedium contra peccatum: ergo non videtur, quod sanitatem corporis tribuat. — Item, si tribuat sanitatem corporalem, ergo videtur, quod, corpore existente sano, non deberent homines recipere nisi sanguinem; quod non est dicendum.

<!-- page 266 -->

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Ambrosius loquitur de salute corporum, non quae est in via, sed quae erit in patria, quae annexa est spirituali; et Apostolus de infirmitate loquitur spirituali. — Si quis autem de corporali velit intelligere, hoc solum referendum et intelligendum est per accidens et valde ex consequenti; non enim[^8] ad hoc nec propter hoc est institutum.

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod aqua est admiscenda; utrum sufficiat, si admiscetur in dolio. Et videtur, quod sic, quia ante inceptionem Missae misceri potest et admixta transferri in vinum. Sed contra hoc est, quia talis admixtio nihil faceret ad Sacramentum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod admixtio aquae cum vino est sacramentalis — unde solius est sacerdotis — et est ad significationem; et ideo tunc debet poni, quando iam inchoantur sacra mysteria; et in Missa solemni poni debet post offertorium, in Missa autem privata in principio, propter periculum oblivionis; et propterea, ut forte diuturno tempore bene commisceatur, securius est ponere statim, cum ponitur vinum in principio Missae[^9]. — Quod ergo obiicit de lymphatione in dolio, dicendum, quod illa non est sacramentalis; et ideo nihil facit ad Sacramentum[^10].

### Dub. V

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Ut mixtio illa non possit separari.* Videtur enim, quod possit separari, quia experimentum est probatum, quod quantumcumque aqua misceatur, quod iuncus appositus attrahit aquam et segregat: ergo videtur, quod nunquam ita possit misceri, ut Magister dicit.

**Respondeo:** Sicut dicit Philosophus[^11], « quando praedominatur vinum, solvitur species aquae; et cum soluta est et conversa in vinum, totum est vinum »; et sic converti potest, non enim converti potest nisi panis, vel vinum. — Aliqui tamen volunt dicere, quod aqua non convertitur in Sacramento, sed tenet semper rationem aquae; et est ibi propter significationem solum, sicut si superinfunderetur aqua post transsubstantiationem sive conversionem vini. — Hanc duplicem opinionem ponit Innocentius in decretali quadam de corpore Domini[^12]. Primam tamen magis approbat, et magis videtur approbanda. Vinum enim potest convertere aquam in se in parva quantitate, ut Philosophus dicit in fine primi de Generatione[^13]. Fuerunt etiam aliqui dicentes, aquam converti in alios humores, et vinum in sanguinem. Sed hoc nihil est, cum solum substantia panis et vini possit transsubstantiari; unde si aliquis puram aquam in calicem poneret, omnino nihil conficeret; non sic de vino. — Et ideo prima opinio tanquam probabilior est tenenda. Quod ergo obiicit de iunco, dicendum, quod non separat aquam mixtam, sed per naturam convenientem aquae attrahit partes vini aquosas, totius, inquam, vini; non quia ibi sit aqua, sed partes debiles vini, quae minus habent de virtute.

### Dub. VI

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Cyprianus: *Nobis ignosci non potest* etc.; aut enim hoc dicit, quia tale peccatum est irremediabile[^14], aut quia culpabile. Si quia irremediabile; hoc falsum est. Si quia culpabile; sed similiter fuit in ignorantibus, quia ignorantia iuris non excusat: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod hoc dicit, non quia peccatum sit in nobis irremediabile, sed quia non habet colorem excusationis, si fiat ex certa scientia; sed qui ex ignorantia faciebant habebant excusationem, quae tamen non excusabat a toto, sed a tanto, quia forte non erat in eis mortale. Nec erat simpliciter ignorantia iuris, immo quodam modo dici poterat ignorantia facti[^15], quia Dominum fecisse nesciebant, cum non habeatur ex Scriptura, coniicitur tamen ex hoc, quod de latere eius exivit sanguis et aqua[^16]; ubi etiam quodam modo praefigurata sunt Sacramenta.

### Dub. VII

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Aqua vero sine vino nullatenus potest offerri.* Ponatur ergo, quod aliquis decipiatur credens, aquam esse vinum, et percipiat hoc tempore perceptionis Sacramenti; quid faciendum est ei?

**Respondent quidam,** quod debet vinum ponere et non debet consecrare, sed panem frangere et mittere in vinum. — Sed ad quid hoc faceret? Si enim vinum non consecratum non est maioris efficaciae quam aqua, sufficit aquam ponere vel positam tenere.

**Et ideo dicunt alii,** quod debet formam verbi super vinum dicere, ut plenum sit Sacramentum, si percipit hora debita, tum propter significationem, tum etiam, quia credo, quod sanguis aliquo modo addat ad efficaciam. Sed tamen consulendum esset tali, quod prius contereretur et doleret de negligentia[^17].

### Dub. VIII

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod Iudas corpus Christi et sanguinem cum aliis discipulis percepit. Videtur enim male dicere: quia peccator erat et malus; et hoc Dominum non latebat: ergo tantum Sacramentum non debebat ei conferre, cum non debeat dari nisi digne accedentibus et sine peccato. — Item Ioannis decimo tertio[^18]: *Cum introisset satanas;* Glossa: « Non, ut quidam putant, Iudas tunc recepit corpus Christi ».

<!-- page 267 -->

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Dominus dedit corpus Iudae, ne eum proderet, ut formam sacerdotibus daret. — Et quod obiicitur de Glossa, dicendum, quod Glossa hoc non negat, sed negat, quod non dedit tunc, quando dedit ei buccellam intinctam.

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

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that the Master says: *Lest the soul should shrink from what the eye beholds.* For it seems that his reasoning is null: because nothing should be done for the comfort of sense which prejudices the intellect; but just as it is dreadful to sense to eat flesh, so it is difficult for the intellect to believe the opposite of what it perceives: therefore it seems that it would be better for horror to be generated in sense, so that the certain[^1] truth might be made manifest in the intellect.

**I respond:** It must be said that this is not the whole reason why it is veiled under a species — that it occurs for the comfort of sense; but rather that it occurs both for the comfort of sense and for the merit of faith, in which the intellect is taken captive and illumined[^2]. But if it were hidden from sense and not revealed to the intellect through faith, then some prejudice would be done to the intellect. But now it is not so, and therefore [the objection] has no force[^3].

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says the wine is referred to the soul, etc. For it seems to be said badly: because the rule in another science[^4] is that, once a term has been laid down, it must not be used equivocally: therefore likewise neither [must] a sign [be]. If, then, the wine signifies the blood of Christ, it does not signify the soul of Christ; or if it signifies the soul of Christ, then it does not [signify] our soul.

**I respond:** It must be said that, just as in vocal signs[^5] a twofold signification is observed, namely the proper and the allegorical; so too in this twofold signification it is taken together in theology. The like can occur in sacramental signs, that they signify one thing properly — namely either the thing they contain, or the effect they confer — and another allegorically, namely the thing from which they draw their power, as from the Passion and faith in it[^6]. And just as the rule of the sophists fails in the first signs, because in theology a word is taken at once morally and literally and allegorically; so it fails in these signs, because one thing it signifies principally and properly, and another allegorically. — Yet it could be said that one is signified through the other, as the soul through the blood; and thus there is no inconvenience.

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that Ambrose says the flesh of Christ is offered for the health of the body. For according to this it seems that this Sacrament heals corporeally; and this too the Apostle seems to say in First Corinthians, chapter eleven[^7]: *Therefore among you many are weak and feeble, and many sleep;* he speaks of those receiving unworthily. But on the contrary: it is a spiritual food and a remedy against sin: therefore it does not seem that it confers health of the body. — Likewise, if it confers bodily health, then it seems that, the body being healthy, men ought not to receive [anything] but the blood; which is not to be said.

**I respond:** It must be said that Ambrose speaks of the health of the body, not that which is on the way, but that which will be in the homeland, which is annexed to the spiritual [health]; and the Apostle speaks of spiritual infirmity. — But if anyone should wish to understand it of the corporeal, this is to be referred and understood only incidentally and very consequentially; for it was not instituted for this nor on account of this[^8].

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says the water is to be mingled; whether it suffices if it is mingled in the cask. And it seems that it does, because before the beginning of the Mass it can be mingled and, once mingled, transferred into the wine. But against this is that such a mingling would do nothing toward the Sacrament.

**I respond:** It must be said that the mingling of water with wine is sacramental — whence it belongs to the priest alone — and it is for signification; and therefore it ought to be put in when the sacred mysteries are now being begun; and in a solemn Mass it ought to be put in after the offertory, but in a private Mass at the beginning, on account of the danger of forgetfulness; and therefore, so that perhaps over a long time it may be well commingled, it is safer to put it in at once, when the wine is put in at the beginning of the Mass[^9]. — As for what he objects concerning the watering in the cask, it must be said that that is not sacramental; and therefore it does nothing toward the Sacrament[^10].

### Doubt V

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *That that mingling cannot be separated.* For it seems that it can be separated, because the experiment has been proven that, however much the water is mingled, an applied rush draws off the water and separates it: therefore it seems that it can never be so mingled as the Master says.

**I respond:** As the Philosopher says[^11], « when the wine predominates, the species of the water is dissolved; and when it is dissolved and converted into wine, the whole is wine »; and thus it can be converted, for nothing can be converted except bread or wine. — Yet some wish to say that the water is not converted in the Sacrament, but always keeps the character of water; and it is there for signification only, just as if water were poured over after the transubstantiation or conversion of the wine. — This twofold opinion Innocent lays down in a certain decretal on the body of the Lord[^12]. Yet he approves the first more, and it seems more to be approved. For the wine can convert the water into itself in a small quantity, as the Philosopher says at the end of the first [book] of *On Generation*[^13]. There were also some saying that the water is converted into other humors, and the wine into blood. But this is nothing, since only the substance of bread and wine can be transubstantiated; whence if anyone were to put pure water into the chalice, he would confect nothing at all; not so of the wine. — And therefore the first opinion is to be held as the more probable. As for what he objects concerning the rush, it must be said that it does not separate the mingled water, but by a nature suited to water draws off the watery parts of the wine, of the whole, I say, of the wine; not because there is water there, but [draws off] the weak parts of the wine, which have less of strength.

### Doubt VI

Likewise it is asked about this, that Cyprian says: *It cannot be pardoned us* etc.; for either he says this because such a sin is irremediable[^14], or because it is culpable. If because irremediable; this is false. If because culpable; but it was likewise so in those who were ignorant, since ignorance of the law does not excuse: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that he says this, not because the sin is irremediable in us, but because it has no color of excuse, if it is done from certain knowledge; but those who acted from ignorance had an excuse, which however did not excuse altogether, but [only] so far, because perhaps it was not mortal in them. Nor was it simply ignorance of the law, but rather in a certain way it could be called ignorance of fact[^15], because they did not know that the Lord had done it, since it is not had from Scripture, yet it is gathered from this, that from his side flowed blood and water[^16]; where also in a certain way the Sacraments were prefigured.

### Doubt VII

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *But water without wine can in no way be offered.* Suppose, then, that someone is deceived, believing that water is wine, and receives [it] at the time of the reception of the Sacrament; what is to be done by him?

**Some respond** that he ought to put in wine and ought not to consecrate, but to break the bread and put it into the wine. — But to what end would he do this? For if unconsecrated wine is of no greater efficacy than water, it suffices to put in the water or to hold the water already put in.

**And therefore others say** that he ought to say the form of the word over the wine, so that the Sacrament may be complete, if he receives at the due hour, both on account of the signification, and also because, I believe, the blood adds in some way to the efficacy. But nevertheless such a one ought to be counseled to be first contrite and to grieve for his negligence[^17].

### Doubt VIII

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says that Judas received the body of Christ and the blood with the other disciples. For it seems to be said badly: because he was a sinner and wicked; and this was not hidden from the Lord: therefore he ought not to confer so great a Sacrament upon him, since it ought not to be given except to those approaching worthily and without sin. — Likewise John, chapter thirteen[^18]: *When Satan had entered;* the Gloss: « Not, as some think, did Judas then receive the body of Christ ».

**I respond:** It must be said that the Lord gave the body to Judas, lest he should betray him, [and] that he might give a model to priests. — And as for what is objected concerning the Gloss, it must be said that the Gloss does not deny this, but denies that he did not give [it] then, when he gave him the dipped morsel.

la: Edd. *et ibi.* Mox pro *in intellectu* cod. M *intellectui.*

en: The editions [read] *et ibi* ("and there"). Just after, for *in intellectu* ("in the intellect") codex M [reads] *intellectui* ("to the intellect").

la: Respicit II. Cor. 10, 5: *In captivitatem redigentes omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi.* Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3, et infra d. 12. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. in corp. — Inferius pro *et intellectui,* quod habent codd. F G P, in aliis *et intellectus.* In fine responsionis codd. F G addunt *illud.*

en: It refers to 2 Corinthians 10:5: *Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ.* Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3, and below, d. 12, p. I, a. 1, q. 2, in the body. — Below, for *et intellectui* ("and to the intellect"), which codices F G P have, in others [it reads] *et intellectus* ("and of the intellect"). At the end of the response codices F G add *illud* ("that").

la: Idem dub. solvit B. Albert. d. 12. a. 1.

en: The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, d. 12, a. 1.

la: Edd. *in philosophica scientia.* — Aristot., Rhetor. ad Alexandrum, c. 24. (c. 25.), monet, quod in ambiguis « nominibus semper id complectamur, quod proprium est significatum », et VI. Topic. c. 5. (c. 10.), agens de aequivocis, dicit, « quod nominatione quidem oportet uti, quae tradita est, et quae se[quitur, et non dimovere quae talia sunt] ».

en: The editions [read] *in philosophica scientia* ("in the philosophic science"). — Aristotle, *Rhetoric to Alexander,* c. 24 (c. 25), advises that in ambiguous matters « we should always embrace that of the names which is the proper signification », and *Topics* VI, c. 5 (c. 10), treating of equivocals, says « that one ought indeed to use the nomenclature which has been handed down, and which follows, and not to remove things that are such ».

la: Ita codd. F G U (E I Q a secunda manu), cod. O *moralibus,* cod. bb a secunda manu *materialibus,* alii codd. et edd. male *vitalibus.* Subinde pro *Simile* cod. aa *Similiter.*

en: Thus codices F G U (E I Q by a second hand); codex O [reads] *moralibus* ("vocal/moral"), codex bb by a second hand *materialibus* ("material"), the other codices and editions wrongly *vitalibus* ("vital"). Thereafter, for *Simile* ("the like") codex aa [reads] *Similiter* ("likewise").

la: Cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2. ad 4, d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. in corp., et III. Sent. d. 20. q. 4. in fine corp. — Paulo inferius vox *sophista* sumitur sensu largiori, scil. pro erudito in logica. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 380, nota 8.

en: Cf. above, d. 1, p. I, q. 2, ad 4; d. 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 3, in the body; and III *Sentences,* d. 20, q. 4, at the end of the body. — A little below, the word *sophista* ("sophist") is taken in a broader sense, namely for one learned in logic. Cf. vol. I, p. 380, note 8.

la: Vers. 30.

en: Verse 30.

la: Pro *non enim* edd. *quia nec.* — Idem dub. solvit S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: For *non enim* ("for not") the editions [read] *quia nec* ("because neither"). — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, here on the text.

la: Loquitur S. Doctor secundum ritum suo tempore et nunc in quibusdam tantum particularibus liturgiis usitatum. — Superius post *privata* ex codd. F G supplevimus *in principio,* pro quo codd. H bb habent *potest poni prius* [bb *primo*]; edd. utrumque omittunt.

en: The holy Doctor speaks according to the rite customary in his time and now only in certain particular liturgies. — Above, after *privata* ("private") we have supplied from codices F G the words *in principio* ("at the beginning"), for which codices H bb have *potest poni prius* ("can be put in first") [bb: *primo*]; the editions omit both.

la: Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 3. a. 1. § 6; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 4; Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 6.

en: The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 10, m. 3, a. 1, § 6; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 4; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 6.

la: Lib. I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 88. (c. 10.): *Activorum autem et passivorum quaecumque sunt facile divisibilia, multa quidem paucis et magna parvis composita non faciunt mixtionem, sed augmentationem dominantis; mutatur enim alterum in dominans: ideo gutta vini decem millibus congiis aquae non miscetur; solvitur enim forma et mutatur in universam aquam.* — Inferius pro *volunt* codd. F G *voluerunt.*

en: *On Generation and Corruption,* book I, text 88 (c. 10): *But of active and passive things, whatever are easily divisible, when many are compounded with few and great with small, they do not make a mixture but an augmentation of the dominant; for the one is changed into the dominant: therefore a drop of wine is not mixed with ten thousand gallons of water; for its form is dissolved and changed into the whole [mass of] water.* — Below, for *volunt* ("they wish") codices F G [read] *voluerunt* ("they wished").

la: Cap. *Cum Marthae* X. (lib. tit. 41. c. 6.), de Celebrat. Missarum. Cfr. IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 29. et 31.

en: The chapter *Cum Marthae,* [Decretals] book X (lib., tit. 41, c. 6), *On the Celebration of Masses.* Cf. *On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar* IV, c. 29 and 31.

la: Text. 88. (c. 10.). Vide supra 3. notam.

en: Text 88 (c. 10). See the third note above.

la: De hoc dubio cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. m. 2. a. 1. § 4; B. Albert., hic d. 12. a. 11; S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 4. quaestiunc. 2. ad 2; Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 3.

en: On this doubt cf. Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, m. 2, a. 1, § 4; Blessed Albert, here d. 12, a. 11; St. Thomas, here on the text; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 4, little-question 2, ad 2; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 3.

la: Codd. G H hic et in seqq. *irremissibile.*

en: Codices G H here and in what follows [read] *irremissibile* ("unforgivable").

la: Cfr. supra pag. 86, nota 7, et II. Sent. d. 22. a. 2. q. 3. — Ioann. 19, 34. Vide supra Prooemium, in fine. — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. m. 4. a. 1. § 6. ad 1; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. above, p. 86, note 7, and II *Sentences,* d. 22, a. 2, q. 3. — John 19:34. See above, the Prooemium, at the end. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, m. 4, a. 1, § 6, ad 1; St. Thomas, here on the text.

la: Cod. R addit *propter hoc.* Inferius pro *contereretur et doleret* codd. F H *conteratur et doleat.* — Solutio huius dubii est secundum Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 24, ubi iudicat, hanc secundam sententiam tanquam tutiorem esse praeferendam. — Idem dub. solvit S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: Codex R adds *propter hoc* ("on account of this"). Below, for *contereretur et doleret* ("should be contrite and grieve") codices F H [read] *conteratur et doleat* ("let him be contrite and grieve"). — The solution of this doubt is according to Innocent III, *On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar* IV, c. 24, where he judges that this second opinion is to be preferred as the safer. — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, here on the text.

la: Ioann. 13. vers. 27: *Et post buccellam introivit in eum satanas.* — Glossa, quae est ordinaria, exhibetur a Strabo et Lyrano ut *ordinaria* in v. 26. Strabus, loc. cit., ex Beda Glossam sic refert: *Non, ut quidam putant, nunc Iudas corpus Christi accepit. Sciendum est enim, quod omnibus Dominus distribuerat Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis, inter quos et Iudas fuit; deinde per buccellam intinctam exprimitur ipse traditor* etc. Cfr. Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 13.

en: John 13, verse 27: *And after the morsel Satan entered into him.* — The Gloss, which is the ordinary one, is presented by Strabo and Lyra as *ordinaria* at v. 26. Strabo, in the place cited, reports the Gloss thus from Bede: *Not, as some think, did Judas now receive the body of Christ. For it must be known that the Lord had distributed the Sacrament of the body and blood to all, among whom was also Judas; then by the dipped morsel the betrayer himself is signified,* etc. Cf. Innocent III, *On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar* IV, c. 13.

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`vol4-p265-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p266-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p267-{L,R}-*`) per the Vol IV two-column PDF-priority inversion, cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 29882–30150. English is a fresh literal translation. The dubia open on printed p.265 (PDF 285) under the centered header DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI and conclude on printed p.267 (PDF 287) immediately above the centered DISTINCTIO XII header. Running heads read **DIST. XI. P. II. DUB[IA]** (p.265 right page) / **SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV** (p.266 left page) — confirmed DIST. XI, not IX/XII. The raw OCR's running-head digit "263" at the dubia opening is a digit-mangle of 265 (printed p.263 and p.264 are entirely QUAESTIO II, ending with footnote *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* at the foot of p.264's right column — verified against the p.263/p.264 bands).

**Dubia count: 8** (Dub. I–VIII). Each follows the Master's-text format: objection (*Videtur male dicere…*) + **Respondeo.**
- **Dub. I** — On *Ne abhorreret animus quod cerneret oculus:* why not generate horror in sense so the intellect may grasp the truth? Answer: the veiling serves both the comfort of sense AND the merit of faith (intellect taken captive, then illumined); since faith reveals it, no prejudice is done to the intellect.
- **Dub. II** — On the wine referred to the soul: a term/sign should not be used equivocally. Answer: as vocal signs bear proper + allegorical signification taken together in theology, so sacramental signs signify one thing properly (the res contained or the effect) and another allegorically (the Passion they draw power from); or one through the other (soul through blood).
- **Dub. III** — On Ambrose's *caro Christi pro salute corporis offertur:* does the Sacrament heal the body? Answer: Ambrose means the health of the body in patria (annexed to the spiritual), and the Apostle means spiritual infirmity; any corporeal sense is only incidental.
- **Dub. IV** — On the water to be mingled: does mingling in the cask suffice? Answer: the mingling is sacramental and significative, belonging to the priest; put in when the mysteries begin (after the offertory in solemn Mass, at the start in private Mass); cask-watering is non-sacramental.
- **Dub. V** — On *ut mixtio illa non possit separari:* a rush can draw the water off. Answer (the Philosopher): when wine predominates it converts the water into itself (only bread/wine can be transubstantiated); the rush draws off not water but the weak watery parts of the wine. Innocent's twofold opinion noted; the first (conversion) preferred.
- **Dub. VI** — On Cyprian's *Nobis ignosci non potest:* is the sin irremediable or merely culpable (and then equally so in the ignorant)? Answer: not irremediable, but lacking color of excuse if done knowingly; the ignorant had partial excuse (perhaps not mortal); it was quasi-ignorance of fact (that the Lord had done it — gathered from the blood and water of his side, prefiguring the Sacraments).
- **Dub. VII** — On *aqua sine vino nullatenus potest offerri:* if a priest is deceived (water for wine) at reception, what then? Two opinions: (1) put in wine, do not consecrate, break and immerse the bread; (2) — preferred — say the form over the wine to complete the Sacrament, with prior contrition for the negligence.
- **Dub. VIII** — On Judas receiving the body with the other disciples (he being a sinner): is this said badly (cf. John 13, the Gloss)? Answer: the Lord gave Judas the body lest he betray him and to give a model to priests; the Gloss does not deny that Judas received then — it denies only the contrary reading (at the dipped-morsel point).

**Page-split map:** Dub. I + Dub. II (full) print in the LEFT column of p.265 (PDF 285); the *Posset tamen dici… nullum est inconveniens.* tail of Dub. II + Dub. III + the opening of Dub. IV print in the RIGHT column of p.265. The `<!-- page 266 -->` break is placed inside **Dub. III**, at the objection/Respondeo seam (*…quod non est dicendum. | Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Ambrosius loquitur…*) — Dub. III's objection ends the p.265 right column, its Respondeo opens p.266 left column (verified continuous). Dub. IV (Respondeo) + Dub. V + Dub. VI print on p.266 (left column = Dub. IV Resp. + Dub. V; the Cyprian/irremediable Dub. VI runs across both columns); Dub. VII + the opening of Dub. VIII print in p.266's right column. The `<!-- page 267 -->` break falls **inside Dub. VIII**, at the objection/Respondeo seam (*…recepit corpus Christi ». | Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Dominus dedit corpus Iudae…*): Dub. VIII's objection + Gloss are on p.266 R, its Respondeo at the top of p.267 (both columns), ending *…dedit ei buccellam intinctam.* immediately above the centered DISTINCTIO XII header. Both mid-page seams were confirmed grammatically continuous against the column bands.

**Footer ownership:** Printed p.265 footers 1–8 are owned here — 1–3 = Dub. I → [^1]–[^3]; 4–6 = Dub. II → [^4]–[^6]; 7–8 = Dub. III → [^7]–[^8]. Printed p.266 footers 1–10 are owned here — 1 (*ritum suo tempore* / *in principio*) = Dub. IV → [^9]; 2 (Alex. Hal. q.10 / Petr. a Tar. / Richard.) = Dub. IV → [^10]; 3 (*de Generat.* text 88 / *volunt-voluerunt*) = Dub. V → [^11]; 4 (*Cum Marthae* decretal) = Dub. V (Innocent) → [^12]; 5 (*Text. 88. Vide supra 3. notam*) = Dub. V → [^13]; 6 (*De hoc dubio* Alex. Hal. m.2 …) = Dub. VI → [^14]; 7 (*irremissibile*) = Dub. VI → [^15]; 8 (*supra pag. 86 nota 7*) + 9 (*Ioann. 19, 34 / Prooemium*) = Dub. VI, consolidated → [^16]; 10 (Cod. R *propter hoc* / *contereretur-conteratur* / *Solutio huius dubii… Innocent III c.24* tail) = Dub. VII → [^17]. Printed p.267 footers 1–3 (Ioann. 13 v.27 *Et post buccellam*; August. Epist. 44 cross-ref; Strabus/Beda Gloss + Innocent c.13) = Dub. VIII, consolidated → [^18]. The **NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM** footers at the foot of p.267's right column (1 *Cap. 1. excerptum… ex Hugone*; 2 *Ioan. 6, 62*; 3 *In Glossa ad 1. Cor. 11, 24…*; 4 *Can. Ego Berengarius…*; 5 *Edd…. addunt corporis*) belong to the **DISTINCTIO XII** body (*Cap. I. Ubi illa accidentia fundentur*) that begins on p.267 — owned by the d.12 chunk, NOT here.

**d.12 boundary confirmed:** DISTINCTIO XII (Pars I, Cap. I, *Ubi illa accidentia fundentur*) begins on printed p.267 (raw L30155–30180), in the lower portion of both columns, immediately after Dub. VIII closes (*…dedit ei buccellam intinctam.*). The raw running-head `DISTINCTIO XII. 267` at raw L30133 sits ABOVE the Dub. VIII Respondeo continuation and is the page running-head, not the distinction start; the genuine distinction header is the centered one lower on the page. Everything from that centered DISTINCTIO XII header onward is excluded from this chunk.

**[?] flags:** none. All 8 dubia bodies read cleanly from the PDF bands cross-checked against the raw OCR; all 18 apparatus entries were transcribed from the printed footers. Two deliberate (non-ambiguous) consolidations are documented under "Footer ownership": Dub. VI's two short printed footers (p.266 nn. 8 + 9) are merged into a single [^16]; Dub. VIII's three printed footers (p.267 nn. 1–3) are merged into a single [^18] anchored at the dubium's first marker (*Ioannis decimo tertio*) so that one dubium does not start a fresh per-page footnote sequence — a later reviewer may split these if per-marker granularity is wanted.

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

title_alt: De accidentibus, fractione et institutione eucharistiae

title_alt: On the accidents, the breaking, and the institution of the Eucharist

source_text:
<!-- page 267 -->

### Cap. I. *Ubi illa accidentia fundentur.*

Si autem quaeritur de accidentibus, quae remanent, scilicet de speciebus et sapore et pondere, in quo subiecto fundentur; potius mihi videtur fatendum, existere sine subiecto, quam esse in subiecto; quia ibi non est substantia nisi corporis et sanguinis dominici, quae non afficitur illis accidentibus. Non enim corpus Christi talem habet in se formam, sed qualis in iudicio apparebit. Remanent ergo illa accidentia per se subsistentia ad mysterii ritum, ad gustus fideique suffragium, quibus corpus Christi, habens formam et naturam suam, tegitur[^1].

### Cap. II. *De fractione et partibus.*

Solet etiam quaeri de fractione et partitione, quae ibi videtur fieri, utrum vera sit; et si vera fractio est, cuius rei sit, vel in qua re fiat. Cumque non sit ibi alia substantia quam Christi, si in aliqua substantia est illa fractio, in corpore Christi videtur esse. — Sed econtra, cum ipsum corpus incorruptibile sit, quia immortale et impassibile, in ipso non posse esse videtur. Nam et Christus redarguit carnalem sensum discipulorum, qui putabant, Christi carnem sicut aliam in partes dividendam et morsibus dilacerandam[^2]. Ideo quibusdam placet, quod non sit ibi fractio, sicut videtur; sed dicitur frangi, quia videtur frangi. — Quibus obiicitur quod ait Ambrosius[^3]: « Nihil falsi putandum in sacrificio veritatis, vel sicut fit in magorum praestigiis, ubi delusione quadam falluntur oculi ut videant esse quod non est ». Ad hoc illi dicunt: Non fallit nos visus nec fallitur; quod esset, si crederetur ita frangi, ut videtur; nec illusio est, quia ad utilitatem fidei, non ad deceptionem ita fit; sicut et Christus se ostendit duobus discipulis in via in specie peregrini, nec in eo tamen talis forma erat, sed oculi eorum tenebantur, ne eum agnoscerent. — Alii vero dicunt, quod sicut ibi species panis est, et non est ibi res, cuius vel in qua sit illa species, ita est ibi fractio, quae non fit in aliqua re, quia nihil ibi frangitur; quod mirabiliter Dei potentia fieri dicunt, ut ibi sit fractio, ubi nihil frangitur.

### Cap. III. *De confessione Berengarii.*

Alii tradunt, corpus Christi essentialiter frangi et dividi, et tamen integrum et incorruptibile existere. Quod colligere asserunt ex confessione Berengarii, qui confessus est coram Nicolao Papa et pluribus episcopis[^4], « panem et vinum, quae in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem non solum Sacramentum, sed etiam verum corpus et sanguinem Christi esse; et sensualiter, non solum Sacramento, sed in veritate, manibus sacerdotum tractari et frangi et fidelium dentibus atteri ». — Sed quia corpus Christi incorruptibile est, sane sententia dici potest fractio illa et partitio non in substantia corporis, sed in ipsa forma panis sacramentali fieri, ut vera fractio et partitio sit ibi, quae fit non in substantia[^5], sed in Sacramento, id est, in specie. Ne autem mireris vel insultes, si accidentia videantur frangi, cum ibi sint sine subiecto, licet quidam asserant, ea

<!-- page 268 -->

fundari in aëre! Est ibi vera fractio et partitio, quae fit in pane, id est in forma panis — unde Apostolus ait: *Panis, quem frangimus* — quia forma panis ibi frangitur et in partes dividitur, Christus vero integer manet et totus est in singulis. Unde Augustinus[^6]: « Quando Christus manducatur, vita manducatur. Sed quis audeat manducare Dominum suum? Et tamen Veritas invitans nos ad manducandum ait: *Qui manducat me vivit propter me.* Nec occiditur Christus, ut manducetur, sed mortuos vivificat, quando manducatur; reficit, non deficit; vivit manducatus, quia resurrexit occisus; nec, quando manducamus, partes de illo facimus, et quidem in Sacramento sic fit ». Item[^7]: « Norunt fideles, quomodo manducent carnem Christi; unusquisque accipit partem suam, unde et ipsa gratia *partes* vocantur. Per *partes* manducatur, et manet integer totus; per *partes* manducatur in Sacramento, et manet integer totus in caelo, manet integer totus in corde tuo ». — « Ideo ista dicuntur Sacramenta, quia in eis aliud videtur, et aliud intelligitur »; videtur panis et calix, quod et oculi renuntiant, quod autem fides postulat instruenda: panis est corpus Christi, calix est sanguis. — Ex his satis datur intelligi, quod fractio et partes, quae ibi videntur fieri, in Sacramento fiunt, id est in specie visibili. Ideoque illa Berengarii verba ita distinguenda sunt, ut « sensualiter, non modo Sacramento, sed in veritate, dicatur corpus Christi tractari manibus sacerdotum, frangi vero et atteri dentibus », vere quidem, sed in Sacramento tantum. Vera igitur est ibi attritio et partitio, sed in singulis partibus totus est Christus. Unde Hieronymus[^8]: « Singuli accipiunt Christum Dominum, et in singulis portionibus totus est nec per singulas minuitur, sed integrum se praebet in singulis ». Item Hilarius: « Ubi pars est corporis, est et totum ».

### Cap. IV. *Quid illae partes significent.*

Quid autem partes illae significent, Sergius[^9] Papa tradit inquiens: « Triforme est corpus Christi: pars oblatae in calicem missa corpus Christi, quod iam surrexit, monstrat; pars comesta, ambulans adhuc super terram; pars in altari usque ad finem Missae remanens, corpus iacens in sepulcro, quia usque in finem saeculi corpora Sanctorum in sepulcris erunt ». Et sicut partes illae mysticam tenent significationem, ita etiam et *fractio* passionis Christi et mortis est repraesentatio. Unde ipse ait: *Hoc facite in meam commemorationem*[^10], id est « in memoriam passionis et mortis meae ». Nam, ut ait Ambrosius[^11], « quia in morte Christi liberati sumus, huius in edendo et bibendo carnem et sanguinem memores esse debemus ». — Sed caveat quisque, ne indigne percipiat, quia *iudicium* sibi manducat. « Non est enim panis iste, qui vadit in corpus, sed panis vitae aeternae, qui animae nostrae substantiam fulcit[^12] ». « Sic igitur vive, ut quotidie merearis accipere », nec accedas indignus. « Indignus est, qui aliter celebrat mysterium, quam Christus tradidit », vel qui habens mortale peccatum accedit. « Ergo etsi sint peccata quotidiana vel non sint mortifera; antequam accedatis, dimittite debitoribus vestris. Si dimittitis, dimittetur tibi, et sic securus accede. Panis enim salutaris est et non venenum ». Si ita accedis, spiritualiter manducas; « spiritualiter enim manducat qui innocentiam ad altare portat ».

### Pars II.

### Cap. V. *Si Christus immoletur in altari quotidie, et an sit sacrificium quod a sacerdote geritur.*

Post haec quaeritur, si quod gerit sacerdos proprie dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio; et si Christus quotidie immoletur, vel semel tantum immolatus sit. — Ad hoc breviter dici potest, illud quod offertur et consecratur a sacerdote, vocari sacrificium et oblationem, quia memoria est et repraesentatio veri sacrificii et sanctae immolationis, factae in ara crucis. Et semel Christus mortuus est in cruce ibique immolatus est in semetipso; quotidie autem immolatur in Sacramento, quia in Sacramento recordatio fit illius quod factum est semel. Unde Augustinus[^13]: « Certum habemus, quia Christus resurgens ex mortuis iam non moritur etc.; tamen, ne obliviscamur quod semel factum est, in memoria nostra omni anno fit, scilicet quoties pascha celebratur. Nunquid toties Christus occiditur? Sed tantum anniversaria recordatio repraesentat quod olim factum est; et sic nos facit moneri, tanquam videamus Dominum in cruce ». Item[^14]: « Semel immolatus est Christus in semetipso, et tamen quotidie immolatur in

<!-- page 269 -->

Sacramento; quod sic intelligendum est: quia in manifestatione corporis et distinctione membrorum semel tantum in cruce pependit, offerens se Patri hostiam redemptionis efficacem, eorum scilicet, quos praedestinavit ». Item Ambrosius[^15]: « In Christo semel oblata est hostia ad salutem potens. Quid ergo nos? Nonne per singulos dies offerimus? Etsi quotidie offeramus, ad recordationem mortis eius fit; et una est hostia, non multae. Quomodo una et non multae? Quia semel immolatus est Christus. Hoc autem sacrificium exemplum est illius; idipsum et semper idipsum offertur, proinde hoc idem est sacrificium; alioquin, quoniam in multis locis offertur, multi sunt Christi? Non, sed unus ubique est Christus, et hic plenus existens et illic plenus; sicut quod ubique offertur unum est corpus, ita et unum est sacrificium. Christus hostiam obtulit, ipsam offerimus et nunc; sed quod nos agimus recordatio est sacrificii ». « Nec causa *suae* infirmitatis repetitur, quia perficit hominem, sed *nostrae*, quia quotidie peccamus ». — Ex his colligitur, *sacrificium* esse et dici quod agitur in altari, et Christum semel oblatum et quotidie offerri, sed aliter tunc, aliter nunc; et etiam, quae sit virtus huius Sacramenti, ostenditur, remissio scilicet venialium peccatorum et perfectio virtutis.

### Cap. VI. *De causa institutionis.*

Institutum est enim hoc Sacramentum duabus de causis: in *augmentum virtutis,* scilicet caritatis, et in medicinam quotidianae infirmitatis. Unde Ambrosius[^16]: « Si, quoties effunditur sanguis Christi, in remissionem peccatorum effunditur, debeo semper accipere; qui semper pecco, debeo semper habere medicinam ». Item Augustinus[^17]: « Iteratur quotidie haec oblatio, licet Christus semel passus sit; quia quotidie peccamus peccatis, sine quibus mortalis infirmitas vivere non potest. Et quia quotidie labimur, quotidie Christus mystice pro nobis immolatur ». « Dedit enim nobis hoc Sacramentum salutis, ut, quia nos quotidie peccamus, et ille iam mori non potest, per hoc Sacramentum remissionem consequamur. Quotidie comeditur ipse et bibitur in veritate, sed integer et vivus manet ». Item: « Mysterium fidei dicitur, quia credere debes, quod ibi salus nostra consistat ».

Si autem quaeritur, utrum quotidie communicandum sit, audi, quid inde tradit Augustinus[^18]: « Quotidie, inquit, eucharistiam accipere nec laudo nec vitupero; omnibus tamen dominicis diebus communicandum hortor. Si tamen mens in affectu peccandi est, gravari magis dico eucharistiae perceptione quam purificari. Et licet quis peccato mordeatur; si peccandi tamen de cetero non habeat voluntatem et satisfaciat lacrymis et orationibus, accedat securus, sed hoc de illo dico, quem mortalia peccata non gravant ». — « Si non frequentius, saltem ter in anno homines communicent, nisi forte quis criminalibus impediatur, in Pascha scilicet et in Pentecoste et in Natali ». « Omnes ergo communicent, qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus ».

---

english:
<!-- page 267 -->

### Chap. I. *Where those accidents are grounded.*

But if it is asked concerning the accidents which remain — namely, the species and the savor and the weight — in what subject they are grounded; it seems to me rather to be confessed that they exist without a subject than that they are in a subject; because there is there no substance except that of the Lord's body and blood, which is not affected by those accidents. For the body of Christ does not have in itself such a form, but such as it will appear in the judgment. Therefore those accidents remain, subsisting through themselves, for the rite of the mystery, for the support of taste and faith, by which the body of Christ, having its own form and nature, is veiled[^1].

### Chap. II. *On the breaking and the parts.*

It is also wont to be asked concerning the breaking and the partition, which seems to take place there, whether it is real; and if there is a real breaking, of what thing it is, or in what thing it occurs. And since there is no other substance there than Christ's, if that breaking is in some substance, it seems to be in the body of Christ. — But on the contrary, since that very body is incorruptible, because immortal and impassible, it seems that it cannot be in it. For Christ too rebuked the carnal understanding of the disciples, who thought that the flesh of Christ, like any other, was to be divided into parts and torn by bites[^2]. Therefore it pleases some that there is no breaking there, as it seems; but it is said to be broken, because it seems to be broken. — To these it is objected what Ambrose says[^3]: « Nothing false is to be supposed in the sacrifice of truth, or as happens in the illusions of magicians, where by a certain deception the eyes are deceived so as to see what is not ». To this they say: The sight neither deceives us nor is deceived; which would be the case if it were believed to be broken thus, as it appears; nor is it an illusion, because it is done thus for the benefit of faith, not for deception; just as Christ also showed himself to two disciples on the way in the appearance of a stranger, yet there was not in him such a form, but their eyes were held, lest they should recognize him. — But others say that, just as the species of bread is there, and there is not there the thing of which, or in which, that species is, so there is there a breaking which takes place in no thing, because nothing is broken there; which they say comes about marvelously by the power of God, that there should be a breaking there where nothing is broken.

### Chap. III. *On the confession of Berengarius.*

Others hand down that the body of Christ is essentially broken and divided, and yet exists whole and incorruptible. This they assert that they gather from the confession of Berengarius, who confessed before Pope Nicholas and many bishops[^4], « that the bread and wine which are placed on the altar, after the consecration are not only the Sacrament, but also the true body and blood of Christ; and that sensibly, not only in the Sacrament, but in truth, they are handled and broken by the hands of the priests and ground by the teeth of the faithful ». — But because the body of Christ is incorruptible, it can soundly be said that that breaking and partition takes place not in the substance of the body, but in the very sacramental form of the bread, so that there is there a real breaking and partition, which takes place not in the substance[^5], but in the Sacrament, that is, in the species. But lest you wonder or scoff, if the accidents seem to be broken, since they are there without a subject, although some assert that they

<!-- page 268 -->

are grounded in the air! There is there a real breaking and partition, which takes place in the bread, that is, in the form of the bread — whence the Apostle says: *The bread which we break* — because the form of the bread is there broken and divided into parts, whereas Christ remains whole and is entire in each. Whence Augustine[^6]: « When Christ is eaten, life is eaten. But who would dare to eat his Lord? And yet the Truth, inviting us to eat, says: *He who eats me lives because of me.* Christ is not killed in order to be eaten, but he gives life to the dead when he is eaten; he refreshes, he does not fail; eaten, he lives, because slain he rose again; nor, when we eat, do we make parts of him, and yet in the Sacrament it is so done ». Likewise[^7]: « The faithful know how they eat the flesh of Christ; each one receives his part, whence the grace itself is called *parts.* He is eaten by *parts,* and remains whole and entire; he is eaten by *parts* in the Sacrament, and remains whole and entire in heaven, remains whole and entire in your heart ». — « Therefore these are called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, and another is understood »; bread and a chalice are seen, which the eyes also report, but what faith requires to be instructed: the bread is the body of Christ, the chalice is the blood. — From these things it is sufficiently given to be understood that the breaking and the parts, which seem to take place there, take place in the Sacrament, that is, in the visible species. And therefore those words of Berengarius are to be distinguished thus, that « sensibly, not merely in the Sacrament, but in truth, the body of Christ is said to be handled by the hands of the priests, but to be broken and ground by the teeth », truly indeed, but in the Sacrament only. There is therefore there a real grinding and partition, but in each of the parts the whole Christ is present. Whence Jerome[^8]: « Each one receives Christ the Lord, and in each of the portions he is whole, nor is he diminished by the several portions, but offers himself whole in each ». Likewise Hilary: « Where there is a part of the body, there is also the whole ».

### Chap. IV. *What those parts signify.*

But what those parts signify, Pope Sergius[^9] hands down, saying: « Threefold is the body of Christ: the part of the offering put into the chalice shows the body of Christ which has now risen; the part consumed, walking still upon the earth; the part remaining on the altar until the end of the Mass, the body lying in the sepulchre, because until the end of the age the bodies of the Saints will be in the sepulchres ». And just as those parts hold a mystical signification, so also the *breaking* is a representation of the passion and death of Christ. Whence he himself says: *Do this in my commemoration*[^10], that is « in memory of my passion and death ». For, as Ambrose says[^11], « because in the death of Christ we have been set free, of this in eating and drinking the flesh and blood we ought to be mindful ». — But let each one beware lest he receive unworthily, because he eats *judgment* to himself. « For this is not the bread which passes into the body, but the bread of eternal life, which sustains the substance of our soul[^12] ». « Live therefore so that you may daily be worthy to receive », and do not approach unworthy. « He is unworthy who celebrates the mystery otherwise than Christ handed it down », or who approaches having mortal sin. « Therefore even if there are daily sins, or sins that are not deadly; before you approach, forgive your debtors. If you forgive, it will be forgiven to you, and so approach secure. For the bread is salutary and not poison ». If you approach thus, you eat spiritually; « for he eats spiritually who brings innocence to the altar ».

### Part II.

### Chap. V. *Whether Christ is immolated daily on the altar, and whether what is performed by the priest is a sacrifice.*

After these things it is asked whether what the priest performs is properly called a sacrifice or immolation; and whether Christ is immolated daily, or was immolated once only. — To this it can be answered briefly that what is offered and consecrated by the priest is called a sacrifice and oblation, because it is a memory and a representation of the true sacrifice and holy immolation made on the altar of the cross. And Christ died once on the cross and there was immolated in himself; but daily he is immolated in the Sacrament, because in the Sacrament there is made a remembrance of that which was done once. Whence Augustine[^13]: « We hold for certain that Christ, rising from the dead, dies no more, etc.; yet, lest we forget what was done once, it is done in our memory every year, namely as often as the Pasch is celebrated. Is Christ then slain so many times? But only the anniversary remembrance represents what was once done; and so it makes us to be reminded, as though we saw the Lord upon the cross ». Likewise[^14]: « Christ was immolated once in himself, and yet daily he is immolated in

<!-- page 269 -->

the Sacrament; which is to be understood thus: that in the manifestation of his body and the distinction of his members he hung but once upon the cross, offering himself to the Father as a victim of redemption efficacious, namely for those whom he predestined ». Likewise Ambrose[^15]: « In Christ the victim was offered once, availing for salvation. What then of us? Do we not offer on each single day? Even though we offer daily, it is done for a remembrance of his death; and there is one victim, not many. How one and not many? Because Christ was immolated once. But this sacrifice is an example of that one; the same and ever the same is offered, and therefore this is the same sacrifice; otherwise, since it is offered in many places, are there many Christs? No, but one Christ is everywhere, both being whole here and whole there; just as that which is everywhere offered is one body, so also there is one sacrifice. Christ offered the victim, the same we offer also now; but what we do is a remembrance of the sacrifice ». « Nor is it repeated for the cause of *his* infirmity, because he perfects man, but of *ours,* because we sin daily ». — From these things it is gathered that what is done at the altar is and is called a *sacrifice,* and that Christ was offered once and is offered daily, but otherwise then, otherwise now; and also there is shown what is the power of this Sacrament, namely the remission of venial sins and the perfection of virtue.

### Chap. VI. *On the cause of its institution.*

For this Sacrament was instituted for two causes: for the *increase of virtue,* namely of charity, and for the medicine of daily infirmity. Whence Ambrose[^16]: « If, as often as the blood of Christ is poured out, it is poured out for the remission of sins, I ought always to receive; I who always sin ought always to have the medicine ». Likewise Augustine[^17]: « This oblation is repeated daily, although Christ suffered once; because we sin daily with sins without which mortal infirmity cannot live. And because we daily slip, daily Christ is mystically immolated for us ». « For he gave us this Sacrament of salvation, that, since we sin daily, and he can now die no more, through this Sacrament we may obtain remission. Daily he himself is eaten and drunk in truth, yet he remains whole and living ». Likewise: « It is called the mystery of faith, because you ought to believe that in it our salvation consists ».

But if it is asked whether one ought to communicate daily, hear what Augustine[^18] hands down concerning it: « To receive the Eucharist daily, he says, I neither praise nor blame; yet I exhort that on all the Lord's days one should communicate. If, however, the mind is in the disposition of sinning, I say that one is rather burdened by the reception of the Eucharist than purified. And although one be gnawed by sin; if nevertheless he have no will to sin henceforth and make satisfaction with tears and prayers, let him approach secure, but this I say of him whom mortal sins do not burden ». — « If not more often, at least three times in the year let men communicate, unless perhaps someone be hindered by crimes, namely at Pasch and at Pentecost and at Christmas ». « Let all therefore communicate who would not be deprived of the thresholds of the Church ».

---

la: Cap. 1. excerptum est ex Hugone, Sum. Sent. tr. 6. c. 4, et seq. capitulum ex c. 8.

en: Chap. 1 is excerpted from Hugh, *Summa Sententiarum,* tr. 6, c. 4, and the following chapter from c. 8.

la: Ioan. 6, 62. — Pro *dilacerandam* codd. A C D E et ed. 1 *lacerandam.*

en: John 6:62. — For *dilacerandam* codd. A C D E and ed. 1 have *lacerandam.*

la: In Glossa ad I. Cor. 11, 24, apud Lyranum. — De duobus discipulis cfr. Luc. 24, 16.

en: In the Gloss on 1 Cor. 11:24, in Lyra. — Concerning the two disciples, cf. Luke 24:16.

la: Can. *Ego Berengarius* (42.), de Consecrat. dist. 2, et Lanfranc, de Eucharistiae Sacram. c. 2.

en: The canon *Ego Berengarius* (42), de Consecrat., dist. 2, and Lanfranc, on the Sacrament of the Eucharist, c. 2.

la: Edd., excepta 1, addunt *corporis.*

en: The editions, except 1, add *corporis.*

la: Epist. I. Cor. 10, 16. — Locus seq. non invenitur in August., sed in Beda, I. Cor. 10, 16, et in Glossa Lyrani; insuper in C. *Invitat Dominus* (70.), ibid. Locus Scripturae est Ioan. 6, 58.

en: *Letter,* 1 Cor. 10:16. — The following passage is not found in Augustine, but in Bede, on 1 Cor. 10:16, and in the Gloss of Lyra; furthermore in the canon *Invitat Dominus* (70), ibid. The Scripture passage is John 6:58.

la: Ex eisdem et C. *Qui manducant* (58.), ibid., ubi etiam seq. locus invenitur.

en: From the same and the canon *Qui manducant* (58), ibid., where the following passage too is found.

la: Can. *Singuli accipiunt* (77.), ibid., et apud Algerum, l. de Sacram. etc. c. 13, quod sumtum est ex Gregor., libr. Sacrament. Praefatio Dom. 5. post Theophaniam n. 174; in quo loco pro *per singulas* codd. D E et edd., exceptis 1, 6 et Vat., *per singulos.* Seq. locus est C. *Ubi pars* (78.), ibid.

en: The canon *Singuli accipiunt* (77), ibid., and in Alger, bk. on the Sacrament etc., c. 13, which is taken from Gregory, in the book of the Sacramentary, Preface of the 5th Sunday after Epiphany, n. 174; in which place, for *per singulas,* codd. D E and the editions, except 1, 6, and the Vatican, have *per singulos.* The following passage is the canon *Ubi pars* (78), ibid.

la: Can. *Triforme* (22.), ibid., ex Glossa ad I. Cor. 11, 24, apud Lyranum et Hugonem, loc. cit. c. 9. — Pro *pars oblatae,* quod cum codd. et edd. 2, 5, 7, 9 Algerus (loc. cit.) et Correct. Romani approbant, in aliis edd. *pars oblata.*

en: The canon *Triforme* (22), ibid., from the Gloss on 1 Cor. 11:24, in Lyra and Hugh, loc. cit., c. 9. — For *pars oblatae,* which together with the codd. and edd. 2, 5, 7, 9 Alger (loc. cit.) and the Roman Correctors approve, other editions have *pars oblata.*

la: Epist. I. Cor. 11, 24; verba adiecta habentur in Glossa, ibid., et locus Ambrosii in Comment. ad eundem locum v. 26; cfr. C. *Quia morte* (50.), ibid. — Mox citatur I. Cor. 11, 29.

en: *Letter,* 1 Cor. 11:24; the added words are had in the Gloss, ibid., and the passage of Ambrose in the Commentary on the same place, v. 26; cf. the canon *Quia morte* (50), ibid. — Just below, 1 Cor. 11:29 is cited.

la: Ambros., V. de Sacram. c. 4. n. 24; secundus ibid. n. 25; cfr. C. *Non iste panis* (56.), ibid.; tertius in Comment. cit. v. 27; sequentes sunt August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 26. n. 11, et C. *Panem caelestem* (64.), ibid.

en: Ambrose, bk. V *On the Sacraments,* c. 4, n. 24; the second [passage] ibid., n. 25; cf. the canon *Non iste panis* (56), ibid.; the third in the Commentary cited, v. 27; the following are Augustine, on the Gospel of John, tr. 26, n. 11, and the canon *Panem caelestem* (64), ibid.

la: *[Quaracchi marks this lemma (« animae nostrae substantiam fulcit »), but the per-page note key is cascade-shattered in the column band and does not cleanly resolve to a numbered footer on p.268; flagged [?]. The variant most plausibly attaches to the* fulcit *reading.]*

en: *[Quaracchi marks this lemma (« it sustains the substance of our soul »), but the per-page note key is cascade-shattered in the column band and does not cleanly resolve to a numbered footer on p.268; flagged [?]. The variant most plausibly attaches to the* fulcit *reading.]*

la: In Ps. 21. enarrat. 2. n. 4, et C. *Semel Christus* (51.), de Consecrat. dist. 2, ubi citatur Rom. 6, 9. — Superius post *in cruce* codd. A C D et ed. 1 subiungunt *scilicet.*

en: On Ps. 21, 2nd exposition, n. 4, and the canon *Semel Christus* (51), de Consecrat., dist. 2, where Rom. 6:9 is cited. — Above, after *in cruce,* codd. A C D and ed. 1 add *scilicet.*

la: Can. *Semel immolatus est* (52.), ibid., et apud Alger., l. de Sacram. c. 16, qui sententiam illam sumsit ex August., Epist. 98. (alias 23.) ad Bonifac. episc. n. 9. — Pro *distinctione membrorum* sola ed. 1 *distensione membrorum,* refragante etiam originali Algeri.

en: The canon *Semel immolatus est* (52), ibid., and in Alger, bk. on the Sacrament, c. 16, who took that sentence from Augustine, Letter 98 (otherwise 23) to Boniface the bishop, n. 9. — For *distinctione membrorum* ed. 1 alone has *distensione membrorum,* against the original of Alger too.

la: Can. *In Christo semel* (53.), ibid., et apud Rabanum, Comment. in Epist. ad Hebr. 10, 1; cfr. etiam Chrysost., hom. 13. in eund. locum n. 3. Seq. locus est apud Lyranum, ibid. v. 3.

en: The canon *In Christo semel* (53), ibid., and in Rabanus, Commentary on the Letter to the Hebrews 10:1; cf. also Chrysostom, homily 13 on the same place, n. 3. The following passage is in Lyra, ibid., v. 3.

la: Libr. IV. de Sacram. c. 6. n. 28, et C. *Si quotiescumque* (14.), ibid.

en: Bk. IV *On the Sacraments,* c. 6, n. 28, and the canon *Si quotiescumque* (14), ibid.

la: Can. *Utrum sub figura* (72.), ibid. § 1, et apud Paschas., de Corpore et sang. Dom. c. 9. Seq. locus est C. *Quid sanguis* (73.), ibid. § 4. Tertius ibid., immediate supra.

en: The canon *Utrum sub figura* (72), ibid., § 1, and in Paschasius, on the body and blood of the Lord, c. 9. The following passage is the canon *Quid sanguis* (73), ibid., § 4. The third is ibid., immediately above.

la: (Gennad.) de Ecclesiast. Dogmat. c. 23, et C. *Quotidie* (...)[?], ibid. Seq. locus est C. *Etsi non frequentius* (16.), ibid.; tertius C. *Peracta consecratione* (10.), ibid.

en: (Gennadius) *On Ecclesiastical Dogmas,* c. 23, and the canon *Quotidie* (...)[?], ibid. The following passage is the canon *Etsi non frequentius* (16), ibid.; the third the canon *Peracta consecratione* (10), ibid.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 30150–30476), with PDF column-band reads (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{267,268,269}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) authoritative on the cascade-fragmented two-column body and footers (the OCR for these pages is severely shattered — diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation + two-column bleed). English is a fresh literal parallel. Two-column Vol IV → VOL II OVERRIDE applied. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 267–269 = pdf 287–289).
- **This is the LITTERA MAGISTRI of Distinction XII** — Peter Lombard's chapters on the *accidentia eucharistiae* (the eucharistic accidents, breaking, the signification of the parts, the daily immolation, and the cause of institution). The distinction has TWO partes; the `### Pars II.` marker falls mid-p.268 (before Cap. V), but all six chapters belong to this single littera chunk, so the id carries `p1` (the Bonaventure commentary's own pars-split is handled by the separate `d12-p1-*` / `d12-p2-*` chunks).
- **Chapter list:** Cap. I (*Ubi illa accidentia fundentur*); Cap. II (*De fractione et partibus*); Cap. III (*De confessione Berengarii*); Cap. IV (*Quid illae partes significent*); Pars II → Cap. V (*Si Christus immoletur in altari quotidie…*); Cap. VI (*De causa institutionis*).
- **Page-verify.** p.267 running head `DISTINCTIO XII.` (left band, top-right); p.267 page number top-right; p.268 page number top-left; p.269 running head `DIST. XII. P. I. DIVISIO TEXTUS 269`. All three confirm the distinction.
- **Opening seam (p.267).** The littera physically OPENS on p.267 below the tail of d.XI's Respondeo (the « ut quidam putant, Iudas… » / buccella material in the upper part of the columns), then blank, then `DISTINCTIO XII. / Pars I. / Cap. I. / Ubi illa accidentia fundentur.` The prior d.XI Respondeo and its LEFT-column footers (¹ *Vers. 27: Et post buccellam introivit satanas,* ² *Cfr. supra pag. 211, nota 9,* ³ *Strabus, loc. cit., ex Beda Glossam sic refert*) belong to the d.XI chunk and are EXCLUDED here. No body text dropped at the d.XI→d.XII seam.
- **Footer ownership / two-column split (p.267).** p.267 carries TWO footer blocks. The LEFT-column block (notes ¹²³ on the buccella/Judas Respondeo) belongs to the PRIOR d.XI chunk. The RIGHT-column block headed *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* (notes 1–5) is the Lombard littera's apparatus and is claimed HERE as `[^1]–[^5]`. p.268 footers (left block 1–4 = *In Christo / Qui manducant / Singuli accipiunt / Triforme*; right block 5–8 = *Epist. I Cor 11,24 / Ambros. V de Sacram / In Ps 21 / Semel immolatus 52*) → `[^6]–[^14]` with the `[^12]` lemma flagged. p.269 footers (left 1–2 = *In Christo semel 53 / Libr. IV de Sacram c.6 n.28*; right 3–4 = *Utrum sub figura 72 / (Gennad.) de Ecclesiast 23*) → `[^15]–[^18]`.
- **Cutoff.** The littera ends at Cap. VI on p.269 (« …qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus »). Immediately below on p.269 the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XII / Pars I / De accidentibus et fractione / DIVISIO TEXTUS` begins — that is the NEXT chunk (`d12-p1-divisio`, raw ≥ L30477) and is EXCLUDED. Cross-checked: no body text dropped at the littera→commentarius seam.
- **No scholion** — littera chunk.
- **`[?]` flags:**
  - **p.268 `[^12]` (« animae nostrae substantiam fulcit »):** the body lemma carries a Quaracchi marker, but its per-page note key is cascade-shattered in the available column band and does not cleanly resolve to a numbered footer on p.268's footer block. The marker is RETAINED at the lemma with a placeholder apparatus entry and flagged for a 600 dpi recheck at the d.11–d.20 decade-polish gate; the variant most likely concerns the *fulcit* reading but is not recoverable here.
  - **p.269 `[^18]` (the *Quotidie* canon number):** the canon number for « Quotidie … eucharistiam accipere nec laudo » is illegible/cascade-broken in the band (rendered `(...)[?]`); the surrounding citations ((Gennad.) de Ecclesiast. 23, *Etsi non frequentius* 16, *Peracta consecratione* 10) are legible. Flagged for the 600 dpi gate.
  - Unambiguous OCR garbles silently corrected (e.g. `falhuUur`→*falluntur,* `Vbi`→*Ubi,* `subslantia`→*substantia,* `incorruptibilc`→*incorruptibile,* `redarguil`→*redarguit,* `dilaceraudam`→*dilacerandam,* `epi-scopis`→*episcopis,* `Iradit`→*tradit,* `commemoralionem`→*commemorationem,* `immolelur`→*immoletur,* `recordalio`→*recordatio,* `praedeslinavit`→*praedestinavit,* `quolidie`→*quotidie,* `communicaudum`→*communicandum*).


title: Dist. 12, Part 1, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum (Pars I)

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

source_text:
<!-- page 269 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XII.

#### Pars I.

*De accidentibus et fractione specierum.*

> Si autem quaeritur de accidentibus, quae remanent etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de confectione sive consecratione. In hac distinctione agit de consequentibus. Et quoniam duo sunt consequentia, scilicet fractio et iteratio sive frequentatio; ideo distinctio ista dividitur in duas partes. In prima agit de fractione, in secunda de huius Sacramenti frequentatione, ibi: *Post haec quaeritur, si quod gerit sacerdos.*

Et quoniam fractio illa non potest esse nisi circa illud quod remanet post transsubstantiationem; et haec sunt accidentia: ideo primo quaerit, utrum ibi sint accidentia in se ipsis subsistentia. Secundo vero quaerit, utrum ibi sit fractio vera, ibi: *Solet etiam quaeri de fractione.*

Et illa pars habet tres partes. In prima determinat quaestionem secundum aliorum opinionem. In secunda secundum veritatem et opinionem propriam, ibi: *Sed quia corpus Christi incorruptibile est,* ostendens, quod fractio illa est vera, et tamen est tantum circa accidentia. In tertia vero ostendit, quid partes illae significent, ibi: *Quid autem partes illae significent.* Subdivisiones partium manifestae sunt in littera.

<!-- page 270 -->

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis tria principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo de existentia specierum sive accidentium sine subiecto.

Secundo de actione ipsorum, sive transmutatione.

Tertio de fractione.

### ARTICULUS I.

#### *De existentia accidentium sine subiecto.*

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum sit possibile, quod accidens sit sine subiecto, etiam per miraculum.

Secundo, utrum sit congruum.

Tertio, utrum sit verum sive verificetur in hoc Sacramento.

### QUAESTIO I.

#### *Utrum accidentia possint esse sine subiecto.*

---

english:
<!-- page 269 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XII.

#### Part I.

*On the accidents and the breaking of the species.*

> But if it is asked concerning the accidents which remain, etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the confecting or consecration. In this distinction he treats of the things consequent [upon it]. And since there are two consequent things, namely the breaking and the repetition or frequenting; therefore this distinction is divided into two parts. In the first he treats of the breaking, in the second of the frequenting of this Sacrament, there: *After these things it is asked, whether what the priest performs.*

And since that breaking can be only about that which remains after the transubstantiation; and these are the accidents: therefore he first asks, whether there are accidents subsisting in themselves there. Second he asks, whether there is a true breaking there, there: *It is also wont to be asked concerning the breaking.*

And that part has three parts. In the first he determines the question according to the opinion of others. In the second according to the truth and his own opinion, there: *But since the body of Christ is incorruptible,* showing that that breaking is true, and yet is only about the accidents. In the third he shows what those parts signify, there: *But what those parts signify.* The subdivisions of the parts are evident in the text.

<!-- page 270 -->

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

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

First, concerning the existence of the species or accidents without a subject.

Second, concerning their action, or transmutation.

Third, concerning the breaking.

### ARTICLE I.

#### *On the existence of accidents without a subject.*

Concerning the first, three [things] are asked.

First it is asked, whether it is possible that an accident be without a subject, even by a miracle.

Second, whether it is fitting.

Third, whether it is true, or is verified, in this Sacrament.

### QUESTION I.

#### *Whether accidents can be without a subject.*

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw lines 30477–30554 (COMMENTARIUS/Pars-I header through the QUAESTIO I title) with the PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p269-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `vol4-p270-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) authoritative in the two-column cascade-fragmented regions (the OCR splices left- and right-column lines together throughout). Offset pdf = printed + 20. Running head on p.269 confirmed: **DIST. XII. P. I. DIVISIO TEXTUS**. The QUAESTIO I body (*Circa primum proceditur sic et ostenditur, quod accidentia sit possibile esse sine subiecto…* / Fundamenta, p.270 left col foot, raw L30555+) is excluded; it opens the next chunk `d12-p1-a1-q1`.
- **Structure confirmed — THREE articles:** The TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM partitions Pars I "tria principaliter": **Art I** *De existentia accidentium sine subiecto* (p.270, "Primo de existentia specierum sive accidentium sine subiecto"); **Art II** *De actione et transmutatione accidentium* ("Secundo de actione ipsorum, sive transmutatione"); **Art III** *De fractione specierum* ("Tertio de fractione"). Each article holds **three questions**. Art I's three are listed verbatim under "Circa primum quaeruntur tria" (p.270 right col): q1 *utrum sit possibile, quod accidens sit sine subiecto, etiam per miraculum*; q2 *utrum sit congruum*; q3 *utrum sit verum sive verificetur in hoc Sacramento*. Per the divisio-chunk convention the ARTICULUS I opener (heading + sub-title + "Circa primum quaeruntur tria" with its three-question listing) folds in here, along with the QUAESTIO I heading + title; the q1 body is left to `d12-p1-a1-q1`.
- **Page-split map:** the chunk straddles printed pages 269–270 (page break `<!-- page 270 -->` placed before TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM). p.269 carries the COMMENTARIUS title (printed mid-page, below Lombard's Cap. VI littera which is NOT part of this chunk), the *Pars I* subtitle/argumentum, and the full DIVISIO TEXTUS (left-column body + right-column continuation). p.270 carries the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (overall tria-articulorum partition, left col), the "Circa primum quaeruntur tria" Art-I question listing (right col), the ARTICULUS I opener, and the QUAESTIO I title.
- **Footer ownership:** all **4 footers (notes 1–4)** belong to printed page **269** and are claimed here — they are the editors' source notes on Lombard's littera printed above the COMMENTARIUS on p.269; none anchor to a numbered marker in the divisio body, so they are rendered as page-foot apparatus for completeness. Printed page **270** carries footer note **1** (`Basilius in Hexaëmeron…`) which anchors in the QUAESTIO I *Fundamenta* and is **left to `d12-p1-a1-q1`**.
- **No `[?]` flags** — the divisio body, the tria-articulorum partition, and the four owned footers read cleanly once reflowed from the column bands (OCR raw is column-spliced but the PDF bands disambiguate every line). The printed title reads *fractione specierum* in the Pars-I subtitle and *De fractione* in the TRACTATIO; both confirmed against the bands.
- No scholion in this divisio chunk.

**J3 apparatus reassignment (2026-07-13).** REMOVED all 4 apparatus entries from this chunk. Its 4 apparatus entries were duplicates of notes that already live — correctly anchored — in `bon-sent-IV-d12-p1-littera.md` ([^15]–[^18]). The superscripts they answer to are printed in Lombard's littera on p.269, ABOVE the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XII.` heading, i.e. outside this chunk's range (verified on the 450dpi bands for pp.269–270: no superscript numeral appears anywhere in this chunk's body). They were unanchored here in BOTH bodies (rendering as dangling footnotes attached to nothing). Nothing is lost: the owning littera chunk is complete and fully anchored. `has_apparatus` set to false.