title: Dist. 11, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 241 -->

### Articulus Unicus. *De transsubstantiatione.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum in Sacramento eucharistiae sit vera conversio panis in corpus Christi.*

Circa primum sic proceditur, et quod sit ibi vera conversio panis in corpus Christi, videtur:

1. *Primo* per ipsam formam: quia, cum dicitur: *Hoc est corpus meum*[^1], aut falsum dicit Veritas, aut panem convertit in corpus; sed non dixit falsum: ergo etc.

2. Item, hoc ipsum probatur auctoritate Doctorum, auctoritate Ambrosii scilicet et Eusebii et Augustini et Damasceni[^2]: panis et vinum supernaturaliter in corpus et sanguinem transit.

3. Item, ratione videtur, quia constat et verum est, quod corpus Christi secundum veritatem est in altari; et prius non fuit: ergo secundum aliquam mutationem sui, vel alterius. Non sui, quia est immutabile. Non alterius nisi panis[^3]: ergo etc. Si dicas, quod corpus Christi est mutabile secundum locum, quia haec est mutatio entis completi, et haec est in corpore Christi; *contra*: omne quod mutatur secundum locum, si accedit ad unum, recedit ab altero; ergo secundum hoc Christus recedit a caelo. Praeterea, nihil quod mutatur secundum locum, simul tendit ad differentias diversas positionum; sed simul consecratur corpus Christi Romae et Parisius: ergo si corpus Christi movetur Romam, non ergo Parisius: ergo etc.

<!-- page 242 -->

**Contra:** 1. Gregorius dicit, et habetur in littera[^4]: «*Quis fidelium habere dubium possit, in hora immolationis caelos aperiri, summa et ima sociari*»: sed haec non fierent, si aliquid in corpus Christi converteretur, immo videtur secundum Gregorium, quod descendat: ergo ibi non est conversio.

2. Item, Damascenus[^1b]: «*Quia consuetudo est hominibus comedere panem et bibere vinum, coniugavit eis Divinitatem et fecit ea Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis sui*». Si coniugavit illis Divinitatem, ergo salvantur in sua natura: non ergo convertuntur in aliud.

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia, si aliquid convertitur in corpus Christi; aut quod *est*, aut quod *non est*[^2b]. Si quod non est, ergo corpus de novo fit: ergo plura corpora simul. Si quod est; sed quandocumque aliquid convertitur in id quod est, augetur: ergo corpus Christi consecratione sive conversione fit maius.

4. Item, nullo alio Sacramento elementum convertitur in id quod significat, sed sufficit illud adesse: ergo videtur, quod similiter debeat esse in hoc Sacramento.

5. Item, miracula non sunt ponenda, ubi aeque bene potest fieri sine miraculo: sed corpus Christi cum sit gloriosum, simul cum pane potest esse, et idem faciet, ac si panis converteretur; quod non potest esse sine miraculo: ergo etc.

6. Item, in nullum corpus convertitur cibus, nisi quod indiget refectione; sed corpus Christi non est tale: ergo etc. Si dicas, quod non absorbet ut terra, sed ut radius aquam, scilicet non indigentia, sed potentia[^3b]; *contra*: radius non convertit aquam in se: ergo nec Christus panem in corpus suum.

> **Conclusio.** In Sacramento eucharistiae est conversio panis in corpus Christi, non in partem, sed in totum.

**Respondeo:** Sicut dicit Magister[^4b], quorundam opinio fuit positio, quod non est ibi aliqua conversio, sed ad invocationem verborum sine conversione fit divina virtute, ut corpus Christi sit ibi. — Sed haec positio contraria est Sanctorum *auctoritati* et *rationi*. Rationi quidem, quia aufert Sacramenti *veritatem*, *congruitatem* et *utilitatem*: veritatem, quia ponit ex hoc falsitatem in forma; ponit etiam mutationem circa Christi substantiam, sicut probatum est in opponendo. *Congruitatem* tollit, quia, cum manet ibi panis, non est ideo ductivum in alterum, sicut cum manent sola accidentia, quae dependent et per se stare non possunt. *Utilitatem* etiam, quia, dum possibilitatem et rationem quaerit, minuit meritum fidei.

Propter hoc igitur haec positio est reprobanda et neminem habet ex doctoribus defensorem; immo communiter tenet Ecclesia, quod est ibi conversio panis in corpus Christi, non, inquam, in partem corporis, sed in totum.

1. 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur primo de verbo Gregorii, dicendum, quod sermo ille est tropicus, et dicuntur caeli aperiri, quia divina bonitas large nobis tunc tribuit panem caelestem. Summa etiam et ima dicit sociari propter corporis Christi praesentiam. Et rursus, per manus Angelorum dicitur deferri quantum ad devotionem offerentis, qui mittit sacrificium et orationem in caelum, quam ad Angelos spectat Domino praesentare; sed hoc in litteralibus patebit[^5b]. — Quod autem dicit Damascenus intelligendum est quantum ad continentiam specierum visibilium, vel in ratione conversionis substantiae panis: quia panis convertitur in corpus Divinitati unitum, et species post conversionem continent illud, et sic Divinitas utrisque dicitur coniugari.

3. Ad aliud patet responsio: quia totum in totum convertitur, ideo nec fit novum nec fit maius; illud autem intelligitur, si in parte converteretur[^6b].

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de aliis Sacramentis, patet similiter responsio, quod non est simile: quia

<!-- page 243 -->

hoc est maius quantum ad rem contentam[^1c]. Praeterea, in aliis res est gratia, quae creatur; sed corpus Christi non creatur tunc in Sacramento.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de miraculo, patet similiter: quia miraculum ponitur hic propter veritatem Sacramenti et congruitatem et etiam utilitatem, sicut visum est.

6. Ad ultimum quod obiicitur de cibo et cibabili, dicendum, quod panis non convertitur in corpus Christi, sicut cibus in cibabile; nec corpus Christi convertitur in se, sed Deus convertit[^2c], ut ubi erat panis, qui est cibus corporalis, sit corpus Christi, non per transmutationem in corpore factam, sed in pane in ipsum prius existens transeunte.

english:
### Article Unique. *On transubstantiation.*
### Question I. *Whether in the sacrament of the Eucharist there is a true conversion of bread into the body of Christ.*

Concerning the first [point], one proceeds thus, and that there is a true conversion of bread into the body of Christ seems to be the case:

1. *First*, by the form itself: because, when it is said: *This is my body*[^1], either the Truth speaks falsely, or he converts the bread into [his] body; but he did not speak falsely: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, this same thing is proved by the authority of the Doctors, namely by the authority of Ambrose and Eusebius and Augustine and Damascene[^2]: the bread and wine pass supernaturally into [his] body and blood.

3. Likewise, it seems so by reason, because it is established and true that the body of Christ is according to truth on the altar; and before it was not: therefore by some change either of itself or of another. Not of itself, since it is immutable. Not of another except the bread[^3]: therefore etc. If you say that the body of Christ is changeable with respect to place, since this is a change of a complete being, and this [change] is in the body of Christ; *on the contrary*: everything that is changed with respect to place, if it approaches one [place], departs from another; therefore accordingly Christ departs from heaven. Moreover, nothing that is changed with respect to place tends at the same time to diverse differences of position; but the body of Christ is consecrated at the same time at Rome and at Paris: therefore if the body of Christ is moved to Rome, then not to Paris: therefore etc.

<!-- page 242 -->

**On the contrary:** 1. Gregory says, and it is found in the text[^4]: «*Who of the faithful could have doubt that, in the hour of the immolation, the heavens are opened, and the highest things are joined with the lowest?*»: but these things would not happen if anything were converted into the body of Christ, nay rather it seems, according to Gregory, that [the body] descends: therefore there is no conversion there.

2. Likewise, Damascene[^1b]: «*Because it is the custom for men to eat bread and drink wine, he joined the Divinity to them and made them the Sacrament of his body and blood*». If he joined the Divinity to them, then they are preserved in their own nature: therefore they are not converted into another thing.

3. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because, if anything is converted into the body of Christ, it is either what *is*, or what *is not*[^2b]. If [it is converted] from what is not, then the body comes to be anew: therefore several bodies at the same time. If from what is; but whenever something is converted into what is, it is increased: therefore the body of Christ by consecration or conversion becomes greater.

4. Likewise, in no other Sacrament is the element converted into that which it signifies, but it suffices for it to be present: therefore it seems that it ought to be similarly in this Sacrament.

5. Likewise, miracles are not to be posited where it can equally well be done without a miracle: but the body of Christ, since it is glorious, can be together with the bread, and it will do the same as if the bread were converted; which cannot be without a miracle: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, food is converted into no body except one that needs refreshment; but the body of Christ is not such: therefore etc. If you say that it does not absorb [the bread] as earth [absorbs water], but as a ray [absorbs] water, namely not by need, but by power[^3b]; *on the contrary*: a ray does not convert water into itself: therefore neither [does] Christ [convert] bread into his body.

> **Conclusion.** In the Sacrament of the Eucharist there is a conversion of bread into the body of Christ, not into a part, but into the whole.

**I respond:** As the Master says[^4b], the position of certain men was the opinion that there is no conversion there, but that at the invocation of the words, without conversion, it comes about by divine power that the body of Christ is there. — But this position is contrary to the *authority* of the Saints and to *reason*. To reason indeed, because it takes away the *truth*, the *congruity*, and the *usefulness* of the Sacrament: the truth, because it thereby posits a falsehood in the form; it also posits a change with respect to the substance of Christ, as was proved in the objection. It takes away *congruity*, because, when the bread remains there, it is not on that account leading into another thing, as [it is] when the accidents alone remain, which depend [on something] and cannot stand by themselves. [It takes away] the *usefulness* also, because, while it seeks possibility and reason, it diminishes the merit of faith.

On account of this, therefore, this position is to be rejected and has no defender among the doctors; nay, the Church commonly holds that there is there a conversion of bread into the body of Christ, not, I say, into a part of the body, but into the whole.

1. 2. To that, therefore, which is objected first concerning the word of Gregory, it must be said that that saying is figurative, and the heavens are said to be opened because the divine goodness then bestows on us abundantly the heavenly bread. And the highest and lowest things are said to be joined on account of the presence of the body of Christ. And again, it is said to be carried down by the hands of the Angels with respect to the devotion of the one offering, who sends his sacrifice and prayer into heaven, which it pertains to the Angels to present to the Lord; but this will be made clear in the literal [comments][^5b]. — But what Damascene says must be understood with respect to the containing of the visible species, or in the account of the conversion of the substance of the bread: because the bread is converted into the body united to the Divinity, and the species after the conversion contain it, and so the Divinity is said to be joined to both.

3. To the other [objection] the response is clear: because the whole is converted into the whole, therefore it neither becomes new nor becomes greater; but that [objection] would hold if it were converted in part[^6b].

4. To that which is objected concerning the other Sacraments, the response is likewise clear, that it is not similar: because

<!-- page 243 -->

this is greater with respect to the thing contained[^1c]. Moreover, in the others the thing [signified] is grace, which is created; but the body of Christ is not created then in the Sacrament.

5. To that which is objected concerning a miracle, [the response] is likewise clear: because the miracle is posited here on account of the truth of the Sacrament and its congruity and also its usefulness, as has been seen.

6. To the last [objection] which is raised concerning food and the thing fed, it must be said that the bread is not converted into the body of Christ as food into the thing fed; nor is the body of Christ converted into itself, but God converts[^2c] [it], so that where there was bread, which is bodily food, there is the body of Christ, not by a transmutation made in the body, but by [the bread], previously existing, passing into it in the bread.

la: Codd. A H R S T *efficientem*. — Matth. 26, 26; Marc. 14, 22; Luc. 22, 19.

en: Codices A H R S T [read] *efficientem*. — Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19.

la: Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 13, ubi ostendit, corpus Christi constitui in eucharistia non adductione, «sed quia panis ipse et vinum in corpus et sanguinem Dei transmutantur». Verba Ambrosii, Eusebii et Augustini vide supra lit. Magistri.

en: Book IV, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 13, where he shows that the body of Christ is constituted in the Eucharist not by adduction, «but because the bread itself and the wine are transmuted into the body and blood of God». For the words of Ambrose, Eusebius, and Augustine, see above in the text of the Master.

la: Cfr. supra d. 10. p. I. q. 1. arg. 1. ad oppos. eiusque solut. — Seq. obiectio fundatur in doctrina Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 57. (c. 7.), ubi ad ostendendum motum localem ceteris motibus esse priorem, etiam hoc arg. affert, quod «latio [i. e. motus localis] iam perfectorum motus est». De duplici responsione ad hanc obiect. cfr. loci Aristot. tom. II. pag. 321, nota 5. allegati. — In fine arg. pro *Romam* edd. *Romae*.

en: Cf. above d. 10, p. I, q. 1, arg. 1 against the opposed [view] and its solution. — The following objection is founded on the doctrine of Aristotle, *Physics* VIII, text 57 (c. 7), where, to show that local motion is prior to the other motions, he also brings forward this argument, that «locomotion [i.e. local motion] is the motion of things already perfect». On the twofold response to this objection, cf. the passages of Aristotle cited in tom. II, p. 321, note 5. — At the end of the argument, for *to Rome* the editions [read] *at Rome*.

la: Hic c. 2.

en: Here, c. 2.

la: Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 13. Pro *et bibere vinum* textus originalis *aquam et vinum bibere*.

en: Book IV, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 13. For *and drink wine* the original text [has] *to drink water and wine*.

la: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 3. n. 3. § 1: *aut in quod est, aut in quod non est. Si in quod non est... si in quod est* etc. Edd. *aut convertitur corpus Christi, quod est, aut non est.* Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV q. 10 m. 3 n. 3 § 1: *either into what is, or into what is not. If into what is not... if into what is* etc. The editions [read] *either the body of Christ, which is, is converted, or what is not.* Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1.

la: August., Epist. 102. (alias 49.) q. 1. n. 6: *Aliter enim absorbet terra aquam sitiens, aliter solis radius candens; illa indigentia, iste potentia.* — Permulti codd. ut ed. 1 omittunt *aquam*.

en: Augustine, *Letter* 102 (otherwise 49), q. 1, n. 6: *For the thirsting earth absorbs water in one way, the glowing ray of the sun in another; the former by need, the latter by power.* — Very many codices, as ed. 1, omit *water*.

la: Hic in lit. c. 2, ubi etiam haec positio auctoritate Ambrosii et Gregorii improbatur.

en: Here in the text, c. 2, where this position too is disproved by the authority of Ambrose and Gregory.

la: Scilicet in fundam. 3. — Cfr. de his rationibus supra d. 10. p. I. q. 1. et infra d. 12. p. I. a. I. q. 2. — Paulo superius ante *utilitatem* edd. et non pauci codd., sed refragantibus codd. G H I S Y, addunt *miraculi*. Inferius pro *potestatem*; quod habent edd. et plures codd., ex cod. Y substituimus *possibilitatem*.

en: Namely in fundamentum 3. — Cf. on these reasons above d. 10, p. I, q. 1, and below d. 12, p. I, a. I, q. 2. — A little above, before *usefulness*, the editions and not a few codices, but against codices G H I S Y, add *of the miracle*. Below, for *power*, which the editions and several codices have, from codex Y we have substituted *possibility*.

la: Cfr. infra q. 4.

en: Cf. below q. 4.

la: Vide supra d. 7. dub. 3. et d. 8. p. I. dub. 2. — De seq. ratione cfr. supra d. 8. p. II. a. I. q. I. in corp.

en: See above d. 7, dub. 3, and d. 8, p. I, dub. 2. — On the following reason, cf. above d. 8, p. II, a. I, q. I, in the body.

la: Cfr. supra d. 10. p. II. a. I. q. 3. — Inferius post *in corpore* Vat. supplet *Christi*.

en: Cf. above d. 10, p. II, a. I, q. 3. — Below, after *in the body* the Vatican [edition] supplies *of Christ*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** *Scholion huius articuli cum Quaestione II. exhibetur.*

---

english_scholion:
**I.** *The scholion on this article is presented with Question II.*

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 200 dpi PDF column bands (`raw/vision/vol4/p-{241,242,243}.png`, re-cropped for the full inner margin of each column: left band 0–1880, right band 1700→edge — the default 1660/1880 splits truncated the right column's left edge), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 27285–27516) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF is authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio/footer regions. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 241–243 = PDF 261–263). **Opener alignment confirmed:** the q1 body opens "Circa primum sic proceditur, et quod sit ibi vera conversio panis in corpus Christi, videtur" — matching the divisio's TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM ("Primo quaeritur, utrum in hoc Sacramento sit aliqua conversio panis in corpus Christi"). This is the conversion/transubstantiation question.

**Vision-PNG numbering caveat.** The pre-staged crops named for "printed 242/243" were actually generated from `p-262.png`/`p-263.png` (extract-pages.py keys output files on the *printed* page number, so `p-262`/`p-263` are printed 262/263 — a different distinction, DIST. XI. P. II.). Only `p-241.png` was the correct page. The correct pages were re-extracted as `raw/vision/vol4/p-242.png` and `p-243.png` (printed 242/243) and re-cropped before transcription.

**Page-split map.**
- p. 241: Articulus/Quaestio headers (these and everything above belong to the divisio chunk); q1 opener + pro-args 1–3.
- p. 241 → 242 boundary falls inside pro-arg 3 (". . . non ergo Parisius: ergo etc." | "Contra: 1. Gregorius . . ."). Placed at the *Contra* heading.
- p. 242: *Contra* args 1–6, CONCLUSIO, RESPONDEO, replies *Ad 1.2*, *Ad 3*, *Ad 4* (begins).
- p. 242 → 243 boundary falls inside *Ad 4* (". . . quod non est simile: quia" | "hoc est maius quantum ad rem contentam . . .").
- p. 243: *Ad 4* tail, *Ad 5*, *Ad 6* (body of q1 ends at ". . . in ipsum prius existens transeunte."); the SCHOLION (§I–§III) then begins on p.243 left col. and runs onto p.244 — it is the article-level scholion rendered with q2 (see below).

**Footer-ownership (apparatus, 10 entries total, all anchored in this q1's body).**
- p. 241: 4 footers — left col. 1–3 (here `^1`–`^3`; note left-col footer 1 "Codd. A H R S T efficientem" and footer 2 "Matth. 26,26..." are merged into `^1` since both gloss the same arg-1 phrase, the OCR/PDF showing two short notes), right col. footer 4 "Hic c. 2" (here `^4`, anchors at *Contra* 1 "in littera"). The divisio chunk owns the p.241 footers above the QUAESTIO I header (the COMMENTARIUS/TRACTATIO band carries footer "Codd. A H R S T efficientem" for the divisio text — distinct from the body sequence here).
- p. 242: 4 footers — left col. 1–4 (here `^1b`–`^4b`: 1 "Hic c. 2"→Damascenus arg [`^1b`], 2 "Libr. IV de Fide orthod"→Damasc. quote [recorded under `^1b`], 3 Alex. Hal.→arg 3 [`^2b`], 4 August. Epist. 102→arg 6 [`^3b`]), right col. footers 5–6 (here `^4b` RESPONDEO "Magister", `^5b` *Ad 1.2* "litteralibus", `^6b` *Ad 3* "converteretur").
- p. 243: 2 footers — left/right col. (here `^1c` "Vide supra d.7 dub.3..." → *Ad 4* "rem contentam¹"; `^2c` "Cfr. supra d.10 p.II a.1 q.3..." → *Ad 6* "Deus convertit²"). **No p.243 footer belongs to q2** — both anchor in q1's solutio replies; the SCHOLION on p.243+ carries its citations inline (no footnote markers).

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`, but the Articulus Unicus carries a *single* scholion block (§I *Catholica doctrina de transsubstantiatione*; §II on the Scotus-vs-Thomas opinion of adductive/productive conversion; §III *Quoad I. quaestionem* + the *De eadem quaestione* doctor-list). It physically begins on p.243 (after q1's body) but is keyed to the article as a whole and is **rendered IN FULL by the Quaestio II chunk** (a1-q2, raw L27708+). Here the `### Scholion` slot carries only a one-line cross-reference (in both the Latin and English sections), mirroring how the d.10 siblings handle a shared/`pro quaest. seq.` scholion.

**Cross-chunk hand-offs.** The divisio chunk (raw above L27302, the COMMENTARIUS IN DIST. XI / Pars I / DIVISIO TEXTUS / TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM / ARTICULUS UNICUS opener) owns everything above `QUAESTIO I.`. The a1-q2 chunk owns p.243's scholion (§I–§III) + p.244 scholion continuation + the q2 body. No footer migrates from this q1 to q2 (p.243's two footers are both q1 body notes).

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Notable silent OCR corrections from PDF bands: arg 1 *corpus meum* (OCR `corpus nieicm`); arg 3 *Parisius* (OCR `Pa-/risius`); Respondeo *invocationem verborum* (OCR `verboruiu`); *Ad 1.2* *deferri* (OCR `deferrt`); *Ad 6* *cibabili / cibabile* (OCR `cijjabiie`), *transeunte* (OCR `transeunte`). The marginal rubrics in the right column (*Fundamenta.*, *Ad opposi-tum.*, *Conclusio*, *Improbatur dupliciter*, *Ratio triplex*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Notandum*) are editorial side-notes, omitted from the body per corpus convention.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 11, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2

title_alt: Utrum totus panis convertatur, an aliquid remaneat praeter accidentia

title_alt: Whether the whole bread is converted, or whether something remains besides the accidents

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 244 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum totus panis convertatur in corpus Christi, an aliquid remaneat praeter accidentia.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum totus panis convertatur in corpus Christi, an aliquid remaneat praeter accidentia. Et quod totus non convertatur, videtur:

1. Quia «nihil est in genere, quod non sit in aliqua eius specie[^1]»; sed transsubstantiatio est mutatio, et in omni specie motus aliquid manet: ergo etc.

2. Item, sicut in naturali mutatione est potentia materiae, sic et in hac potentia obedientiae[^2]; sed ex parte transmutati, ubi est potentia materialis, non omnino tollitur, et ideo remanet illud, in quo fundatur: ergo videtur, quod similiter in ista aliquid remaneat, in quo fundatur obedientiae potentia.

3. Item, de ratione mutationis est, quod illud quod mutatur, aliter se habet nunc quam prius[^3]; sed panis mutatur in corpus Christi: ergo aliter se habet nunc quam prius. Sed quod aliter nunc quam prius est, aliquo modo manet: ergo et panis secundum aliquid sui manet.

4. Item, quandocumque aliqua[^4] duo extrema communicant in aliquo, illud, in quo communicant, manet idem in tota transmutatione; sed panis et corpus Christi communicant in materia: ergo materia manet.

**Contra:** 1. Virtute verbi fit transsubstantiatio[^5]; sed verbum demonstrat substantiam sub accidentibus, totam, inquam, substantiam panis: ergo totam convertit.

2. Item, convertit in totum corpus Christi: ergo convertit et totum panem: quia, si tantum materiam panis, tunc videretur, quod esset conversio in solam materiam[^6].

3. Item, si manet aliquid de pane, aut ut commune in transmutatione aut non ut commune. Si ut commune[^7]: ergo corpus Christi haberet aliam materiam, vel aliam formam; quod stultum est. Si non ut commune; tunc videtur, quod remaneat materia sine forma, vel forma sine materia. Sed utraque istarum per se est otiosa; sed in Sacramento nihil omnino est otiosum: ergo neutrum manet.

4. Item, si convertitur secundum partem suae essentiae, quaero: secundum quam? et ostenditur, quod secundum *formam*, quia illa est magis idonea conversioni[^8]. Et praeterea, Sacramentum est institutum non ratione materiae, quae in omnibus communis est, sed ratione formae: si ergo verba respiciunt magis formam, tunc illam convertunt. Sed *contra*: tunc remanet materia incompleta[^9]; sed divinae virtutis non est incompleta facere, sed potius incompleta complere: ergo etc.

> **Conclusio.** Totus panis convertitur in corpus Christi, solis accidentibus remanentibus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod opinio aliquorum fuit — quam tamen Magister non ponit, quia modernorum etiam, quia non multum est probabilis — quod non totus panis secundum substantiam transit, sed aliqua pars essentialis remanet. Constat enim, quod accidentia remanent secundum *esse* et *operationem*. Quia videtur, quod remanent secundum *esse*, fuerunt qui dicerent, quod remanet etiam *materia*, quae illa sustinet, et transit forma. — Sed hoc nihil est, quia materia non est nata sustinere accidentia nec esse in actu nisi cum forma[^10].

Alii *videntes*, quod accidentia habent operationem, et omnis operatio ortum habet a forma substantiali[^11], dixerunt, quod transit materia et remanet forma. — Sed hoc iterum nihil est, quia forma non operatur nisi in materia.

Propter hoc, quamvis istud Sacramentum sit plenum miraculis, quia tamen non ponuntur esse nisi quae faciunt ad Sacramenti veritatem et eius occultationem; ideo ponunt communiter doctores, quod totum transit in totum, solis accidentibus

<!-- page 245 -->

remanentibus causa necessaria et utili[^1b]. Et propterea, relicta prima opinione, quae tollit conversionem *materiae*, relicta alia, quae tollit conversionem *formae*; magis catholicam tenemus, quod totus panis in corpus Christi convertitur, et optimo modo ista conversio *transsubstantiatio* dicitur.

Si autem quaeras, sub quo genere motus vel mutationis continetur; dicendum, quod haec est mutatio *singularis*, quae nullum simile plenum habet; assimilatur tamen in aliquo. Quia enim in hac mutatione nihil commune manet; assimilatur *creationi*. Quia vero principium initiale non est nihil, sed aliquid; ideo dissimilis est creationi et similis *generationi*[^2b]. Quia vero terminum finalem non habet aliquid de novo factum, sed prius existens; ideo est dissimilis generationi et similis *augmento*. Quia vero corpus Christi ex hoc non crescit, sed in pluribus locis existit; ideo dissimilis augmento et similis *loci mutationi*. Quia vero in alio loco existit et a proprio non recedit, sed aliquid in ipsum transit; ideo omni motui et mutationi dissimilis est et est prorsus mutatio *singularis*. — *Corruptioni* vero et *diminutioni* nullo modo assimilatur, quia operationes sunt imperfectae, quae non decent divinam virtutem hic operantem. *Rursus*, quia in *alteratione* variantur accidentia sensibilia, et hoc non contingit huic Sacramento propter fidem; nec illi assimilatur.

1. 2. 3. Ex his patet primum et secundum et tertium, quia illud est verum de mutatione, in qua habent aliquid commune termini; sed hic nihil habent.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, quod habent commune; dicendum, quod commune habent secundum naturam *praedicationis*, sed non secundum naturam *mutationis*[^3b]. In illa enim mutatione nihil commune possunt habere, quia corpus Christi non potest habere nec novam materiam nec novam formam; et si aliquid maneret, impossibile esset, quod corpus Christi esset idem omnino; cum autem totum transit, nulla omnino innovatio nec formatio fit circa corpus Christi. Unde illud argumentum locum habet in naturali mutatione.

english:
### Question II. *Whether the whole bread is converted into the body of Christ, or whether something remains besides the accidents.*

Secondly it is asked, whether the whole bread is converted into the body of Christ, or whether something remains besides the accidents. And that the whole is not converted seems to be the case:

1. Because «nothing is in a genus that is not in some species of it[^1]»; but transubstantiation is a change, and in every species of motion something remains: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, just as in a natural change there is the potency of matter, so also in this [change] there is a potency of obedience[^2]; but on the part of what is transmuted, where there is a material potency, it is not wholly removed, and therefore that in which it is founded remains: therefore it seems that likewise in this [change] something remains in which the potency of obedience is founded.

3. Likewise, it belongs to the account of a change that what is changed is otherwise now than before[^3]; but the bread is changed into the body of Christ: therefore it is otherwise now than before. But what is otherwise now than before, in some way remains: therefore the bread too remains according to something of itself.

4. Likewise, whenever any[^4] two extremes share in something, that in which they share remains the same throughout the whole transmutation; but the bread and the body of Christ share in matter: therefore the matter remains.

**On the contrary:** 1. Transubstantiation comes about by the power of the word[^5]; but the word indicates the substance under the accidents — the whole substance of the bread, I say: therefore it converts the whole.

2. Likewise, it converts into the whole body of Christ: therefore it also converts the whole bread: for if [it converted] only the matter of the bread, then it would seem that the conversion was into matter alone[^6].

3. Likewise, if something of the bread remains, either [it remains] as common in the transmutation or not as common. If as common[^7]: then the body of Christ would have another matter, or another form; which is foolish. If not as common; then it seems that matter would remain without form, or form without matter. But each of these by itself is idle; but in the Sacrament nothing at all is idle: therefore neither remains.

4. Likewise, if it is converted according to a part of its essence, I ask: according to which? and it is shown that [it is] according to the *form*, since that is more suited to conversion[^8]. And besides, the Sacrament was instituted not by reason of the matter, which is common in all things, but by reason of the form: if therefore the words regard the form more, then they convert it. But *on the contrary*: then incomplete matter remains[^9]; but it does not belong to the divine power to make [things] incomplete, but rather to complete the incomplete: therefore etc.

> **Conclusion.** The whole bread is converted into the body of Christ, the accidents alone remaining.

**I respond:** It must be said that there was an opinion of certain men — which however the Master does not set down, since it is also [the opinion] of the moderns, [and] because it is not very probable — that not the whole bread passes over according to substance, but some essential part remains. For it is established that the accidents remain according to *being* and *operation*. Because it seems that they remain according to *being*, there were those who said that *matter* too remains, which sustains them, and that the form passes over. — But this is nothing, because matter is not fitted to sustain accidents nor to be in act except with form[^10].

Others, *seeing* that the accidents have operation, and that every operation has its origin from substantial form[^11], said that the matter passes over and the form remains. — But this again is nothing, because form does not operate except in matter.

On account of this, although this Sacrament is full of miracles, yet because there are not posited to be [present] except those things that serve the truth of the Sacrament and its concealment; therefore the doctors commonly hold that the whole passes over into the whole, the accidents alone

<!-- page 245 -->

remaining for a necessary and useful cause[^1b]. And therefore, having abandoned the first opinion, which takes away the conversion of the *matter*, [and] having abandoned the other, which takes away the conversion of the *form*; we hold the more catholic [view], that the whole bread is converted into the body of Christ, and in the best way this conversion is called *transubstantiation*.

But if you ask, under what genus of motion or change it is contained; it must be said that this is a *singular* change, which has no full likeness; yet it is likened in something. For because in this change nothing common remains; it is likened to *creation*. But because the initial principle is not nothing, but something; therefore it is unlike creation and like *generation*[^2b]. But because the final term is not something newly made, but [something] previously existing; therefore it is unlike generation and like *increase*. But because the body of Christ does not grow from this, but exists in several places; therefore it is unlike increase and like *change of place*. But because it exists in another place and does not withdraw from its own, but something passes over into it; therefore it is unlike every motion and change, and is altogether a *singular* change. — But to *corruption* and *diminution* it is in no way likened, because [these are] imperfect operations, which do not befit the divine power operating here. *Again*, because in *alteration* the sensible accidents are varied, and this does not happen to this Sacrament on account of faith; nor is it likened to that.

1. 2. 3. From these things the first, second, and third [objections] are clear, because that is true of a change in which the terms have something common; but here they have nothing.

4. To the objection raised last, that they have something common; it must be said that they have something common according to the nature of *predication*, but not according to the nature of *change*[^3b]. For in that change they can have nothing common, because the body of Christ can have neither new matter nor new form; and if anything remained, it would be impossible that the body of Christ should be wholly the same; whereas, since the whole passes over, no innovation at all nor formation comes about concerning the body of Christ. Whence that argument has its place in a natural change.

la: Secundum Aristot., de quo vide supra pag. 136, nota 3. — Ita quae de mutatione (motu) eiusque speciebus tum in argg. tum in corp. huius quaest. ponuntur, Aristoteles insinuat in lib. de Praedicam. c. de Motu; I. Phys. text. 82. (c. 9.), V. text. 7. seqq. (c. 1. seqq.); I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 11. seqq. (c. 3. seqq.), et XI. Metaph. c. 10. (X. c. 11.). — Inferius post *mutatio* in cod. aa additur *ergo est in aliqua specie motus*.

en: According to Aristotle, on whom see above p. 136, note 3. — Thus what is set down concerning change (motion) and its species, both in the arguments and in the body of this question, Aristotle suggests in the book *Categories*, c. on Motion; *Physics* I, text 82 (c. 9), V, text 7 ff. (c. 1 ff.); *On Generation and Corruption* I, text 11 ff. (c. 3 ff.), and *Metaphysics* XI, c. 10 (X, c. 11). — Below, after *change*, in codex aa is added *therefore it is in some species of motion*.

la: Vide supra d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. ad 2.

en: See above d. 10, p. II, a. 1, q. 2, ad 2.

la: Non pauci codd. addunt *est*.

en: Not a few codices add *est*.

la: Ex codd. A G H K V aa supplevimus *aliqua*. Minori cod. aa subiungit rationem; *quia omnium corporalium eadem est materia*. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 93, nota 8. et pag. 97, nota 2. necnon pag. 302, nota 9.

en: From codices A G H K V aa we have supplied *aliqua*. Codex aa adds in the lower margin the reason: *because the matter of all corporeal things is the same*. Cf. tom. II, p. 93, note 8, and p. 97, note 2, as well as p. 302, note 9.

la: Vide supra d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 3.

en: See above d. 10, p. II, a. 1, q. 3.

la: Supple: corporis Christi. — De maiori, in qua verbo *convertit* edd. cum aliquot codd. praemittunt *si*, cfr. infra q. 4.

en: Supply: of the body of Christ. — On the major [premise], in which before the word *converts* the editions with several codices prefix *si* [if], cf. below q. 4.

la: Sive, ut supra ars. 1. ad oppos. dicitur, quod «manet idem in tota transmutatione». — Inferius pro *tunc videtur quod* edd. *tunc quaeritur, utrum* (cod. O *an*, codd. R S T U X *quid*).

en: Or, as is said above in art. 1 to the contrary, that «the same thing remains in the whole transmutation». — Below, for *then it seems that* the editions [read] *then it is asked, whether* (codex O *an*; codices R S T U X *quid*).

la: Sicut ipsa [corporalis] etiam naturaliter magis idonea est generationi et corruptioni. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 7. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.

en: Just as it [the corporeal form] is also naturally more suited to generation and corruption. Cf. II Sent. d. 7, p. II, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 12. a. 1. q. 1.

en: See II Sent. d. 12, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 96, nota 8. — Aliquanto superius plures codd. substituunt *Quia vero* [codd. F et I a secunda manu omittunt *vero*] pro *Quia videtur, quod*. Subinde pro *quod remanet etiam materia* codd. N aa *quod remanet panis secundum materiam*.

en: Cf. tom. II, p. 96, note 8. — Somewhat above, several codices substitute *Quia vero* [codices F and I, by a second hand, omit *vero*] for *Quia videtur, quod*. Thereupon, for *quod remanet etiam materia* codices N aa [read] *quod remanet panis secundum materiam*.

la: Vide tom. II. pag. 300, nota 1.

en: See tom. II, p. 300, note 1.

la: Ut ostenditur infra d. 12. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. Cfr. Hugo a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 9. — Inferius pro *tenemus* codd. F G I L bb *teneamus*. Subinde verbis *in corpus* cod. aa interserit *totum*.

en: As is shown below d. 12, p. I, a. 1, q. 2. Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* II, p. VIII, c. 9. — Below, for *we hold* codices F G I L bb [read] *let us hold*. Thereupon, into the words *into the body* codex aa inserts *whole*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. — Aliquanto superius pro *quae nullum simile plenum habet* cod. aa *quae nullam similitudinem plenam habet cum speciebus motus*, et post *in aliquo* Vat. supplet *aliis*.

en: Cf. above d. 10, p. II, a. 1, q. 1. — Somewhat above, for *which has no full likeness* codex aa [reads] *which has no full likeness with the species of motion*, and after *in something* the Vatican [edition] supplies *to others*.

la: Vide supra pag. 228, nota 10.

en: See above p. 228, note 10. ---

latin_scholion:
<!-- page 245 -->

**1.** Conclusio S. Doctoris a Concilio Tridentino (Sess. 13. c. 4.) approbata est. Hinc prima opinio in corp. relata, quam postea recepit Durandus, est erronea. Obsoletae etiam sunt aliae nonnullae opiniones, quod scilicet remaneat vel subsistentia panis (Godofredus), vel existentia, non essentia eiusdem (Bannez), vel saltem aliquid panis sit in eo, in quod transsubstantiatum fuit; quod videtur docere Henr. Gand. (Quodl. 9. q. 9, et II. q. 4.). Loco cit. ultimo idem, postquam dixit, panem non esse annihilatum, sed conversum, esse ergo aliquid, addit: «Ut videlicet id, in quod conversum est; ut verum sit dicere, quod id quod fuit substantia panis, sit corpus Christi; aut si hoc non concedatur, saltem oportet concedi, quod secundum aliquem modum mirabilem et forte nobis pro hac vita non intelligibilem, verum sit dicere, quod id aliquid, quod est corpus Christi, sive aliquitas [sic] corporis Christi, ut ita liceat loqui, sit aliquid eius, quod fuit substantia panis; et per hoc etiam esse corporis Christi sit secundum eundem modum eius quod erat substantia panis». — Specialis tamen difficultas est de conversione *formae substantialis* panis, imprimis in doctrina S. Thomae, quod tantum unica cuiuslibet rei sit forma substantialis. Nequit enim dici, quod illa convertatur in *animam* Christi, ut est perfectio totius. Cfr. S. Thom. hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3. ad 2; S. III. q. 75. a. 6. ad 2, ubi docet, formam panis converti in formam corporis Christi, «secundum quod dat esse *corporeum*, non autem secundum quod dat esse *animatum tali* anima». — Aliis autem placet recurrere pro solvenda hac difficultate ad doctrinam de pluralitate formarum substantialium. Ita Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2. ad 2.) dicens: «Quamvis unius sit una forma ultima completiva, tamen multae sunt formae materiales disponentes. Unde quamvis anima sit ultima forma humani corporis, in quam non transit panis; habet tamen formam aliam corporalem complexionis sive mixtionis, et in hanc transit forma panis». Similia docent Richard. a Med. (hic a. 1. q. 2.), Henr. Gand. (Quodl. II. q. 8.) et Scot. (hic q. 3. n. 28. seqq.). S. Bonaventuram quoad principia circa formarum pluralitatem consentire Petro a Tar., dictum est in scholio ad d. 13. a. 2. q. 2.

*De hac 2. quaestione:* Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 8. a. 3. § 2. — S. Thom., hic loc. cit. quaestiunc. 1. 3; S. loc. cit. a. 2. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. 3. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. 5. — Durand., hic q. 3.

**II.** Substantiam panis in transsubstantiatione annihilari, de quo tractat q. 3, docuerunt Nominales, et paulo aliter etiam Durandus (loc. cit.), refragantibus principalibus Scholasticis. Scotus autem videtur esse in hoc ambiguus. De hac quaestione cfr. Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 3. — Scot., hic q. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2; S. loc. cit. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 3.

---

english_scholion:
<!-- page 245 -->

**1.** The conclusion of the Holy Doctor was approved by the Council of Trent (Session 13, c. 4). Hence the first opinion related in the body, which Durandus afterwards received, is erroneous. Obsolete also are certain other opinions, namely that there remains either the subsistence of the bread (Godofredus), or the existence, not the essence, of the same (Bannez), or at least that something of the bread is in that into which it was transubstantiated; which Henry of Ghent seems to teach (Quodlibet 9, q. 9, and II q. 4). In the last cited place the same [author], after he had said that the bread is not annihilated but converted, and is therefore something, adds: «Namely, that into which it has been converted; so that it is true to say that what was the substance of the bread is the body of Christ; or if this is not granted, at least it must be granted that, according to some wonderful mode, and perhaps for this life not intelligible to us, it is true to say that that something which is the body of Christ, or the somewhat-ness [sic] of the body of Christ, so to speak, is something of that which was the substance of the bread; and through this also the being of the body of Christ is according to the same mode as that of what was the substance of the bread». — Yet there is a special difficulty concerning the conversion of the *substantial form* of the bread, especially in the doctrine of St. Thomas, that there is only a single substantial form of any thing. For it cannot be said that it is converted into the *soul* of Christ, as [the soul] is the perfection of the whole. Cf. St. Thomas, here q. 1 a. 1 quaestiuncula 3 ad 2; S. III q. 75 a. 6 ad 2, where he teaches that the form of the bread is converted into the form of the body of Christ, «according as it gives *corporeal* being, but not according as it gives *animated* being by such a soul». — But others prefer, for solving this difficulty, to have recourse to the doctrine of the plurality of substantial forms. So Petr. a Tar. (here q. 1 a. 1 quaestiuncula 2 ad 2) saying: «Although there is one ultimate completive form of [a thing that is] one, yet there are many disposing material forms. Whence, although the soul is the ultimate form of the human body, into which the bread does not pass; yet [the body] has another corporeal form of complexion or mixture, and into this the form of the bread passes». Richard of Middleton (here a. 1 q. 2), Henry of Ghent (Quodlibet II q. 8), and Scotus (here q. 3 n. 28 ff.) teach similar things. That St. Bonaventure agrees with Petr. a Tar. as to the principles concerning the plurality of forms has been said in the scholion to d. 13 a. 2 q. 2.

*On this 2nd question:* Alex. of Hales, S. p. IV q. 10 m. 8 a. 3 § 2. — S. Thomas, here at the place cited, quaestiuncula 1, 3; S. at the place cited a. 2, 6. — B. Albert, here a. 2, 3, 8. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 1 a. 1 quaestiuncula 1, 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1 q. 2, 5. — Durandus, here q. 3.

**II.** That the substance of the bread is annihilated in transubstantiation, of which q. 3 treats, the Nominalists taught, and a little differently also Durandus (loc. cit.), with the principal Scholastics opposing. Scotus, however, seems to be ambiguous on this. On this question cf. Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. § 3. — Scotus, here q. 4. — S. Thomas, here q. 1 a. 2; S. at the place cited a. 3. — B. Albert, here a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 1 a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1 q. 3.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{244,245}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 27517–27728) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF is authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo / Solutio / scholion / footer regions (the raw OCR for this range was heavily two-column-bled and diagonally fragmented). Offset pdf = printed + 20.

**PAGE-RANGE CORRECTION (important hand-off).** The dispatch brief assigned printed pages **243–245** with PDF bands p243–p245. Eyes-on the PDF bands shows the brief was **off by one page**: **q2 (QUAESTIO II) opens at the top of printed p.244**, not p.243. Printed **p.243** holds the END of q1 (a1-q1: "5./6. Ad illud quod obiicitur de miraculo/cibo …") followed by q1's *own* SCHOLION (the Berengarius / an. 1079 / Wicleff–Huss / Trent Sess.13 c.1 survey + "De eadem quaestione" q1 doctor-list) — that scholion belongs to a1-q1, NOT to this chunk, and is not rendered here. Accordingly this chunk's frontmatter is set to **printed_pages [244, 245] / pdf_pages [264, 265]**. The q1 chunk (`bon-sent-IV-d11-p1-a1-q1`) should verify it captured p.243's q1-scholion.

**Page-split map.**
- p. 244: QUAESTIO II header + title; arguments pro 1–4; *Contra* 1–4 (arg. 4 begins L col, completes R col); CONCLUSIO; RESPONDEO begins (R col); footnotes 1–11.
- p. 244 → 245 boundary falls inside the Respondeo ("… solis accidentibus | remanentibus causa necessaria et utili …").
- p. 245: Respondeo conclusion ("relicta prima opinione …") + the *singular-mutation / Notandum* analysis ("Si autem quaeras …", L col → top of R col under the q3 running head: "… prorsus mutatio singularis — Corruptioni vero …"); the solutio-oppositorum replies (1.2.3.; 4.); then the **SCHOLION** (this Articulus's main scholion block) lower L col → R col; footnotes (p.245: 1–3 visible on L band; the scholion-side refs on R band).

**Footer-ownership / apparatus (13 entries).**
- p. 244 carried **11** numbered Quaracchi footers (left+right cols), all anchoring in this q2 body → rendered here as `^1`–`^11`.
- p. 245 carried the body footers `1` ("Ut ostenditur infra d. 12 …"), `2` ("Cfr. supra d. 10 …"), `3` ("Vide supra pag. 228, nota 10") anchoring in the Respondeo / replies → rendered here as `^1b`, `^2b`, `^3b`. The remaining p.245 footers belong to the q3 body (which shares p.245's right column under the QUAEST. III running head) and to the scholion's embedded citations (which are inline, not `[^N]`-anchored). The SCHOLION text itself carries no footnote markers.

**SCHOLION ownership (this chunk owns the Articulus-Unicus main SCHOLION block).** `has_scholion: true`. The single **SCHOLION** whose header falls in this raw range (p.245, immediately after q2's Respondeo) is rendered here **in full**, both languages, as the last subsection of `## Latin` and `## English` (body-first, scholion-last per the parser gotcha). It comprises three keyed sections:
  - **§1** — on **q1** (the conversion of bread; Trent Sess.13 c.4 approval; the erroneous "part remains" opinions of Godofredus / Bannez / Henry of Ghent; the special difficulty over the *substantial form*; plurality-of-forms recourse via Petr. a Tar., Richard, Scotus).
  - ***De hac 2. quaestione*** — the **q2** doctor bibliography (Alex. Hal., Thomas, Albert, Petr. a Tar., Richard, Durandus).
  - **§II** + **De hac quaestione** — on **q3** (annihilation; Nominales / Durandus; the q3 doctor list).
The other five questions (q1, q3, q4, q5, q6) render **no** scholion and point here.

**SECOND, DISTINCT scholion block exists later (hand-off to q5/q6 chunks).** The Quaracchi edition prints a *second* SCHOLION block further into the Articulus (raw ~L27972+, printed ~pp.249–250, after q5/q6), keyed: **§I** "Conclusio huius 1. [3.] quaestionis … *De eadem quaestione*" (q3), **§II** "In conclusione 3. quaestionis … *instans intrinsecum/extrinsecum*", "*De hac 5. quaestione praeter citatos*" (q5), and **§III** "*De 6. quaestione sive de locutionibus variis*" (q6). That block is physically separate from the p.245 SCHOLION block and is **not** rendered here — it belongs with the chunk(s) on whose pages it prints (a1-q5 / a1-q6). The dispatch brief's phrasing ("continuing De 3./4./5./6. quaestione … render the COMPLETE scholion block here") conflated the two physically-separate blocks; only the p.245 block (q1/q2/q3) is the contiguous SCHOLION owned by this chunk.

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Notable silent OCR corrections from the PDF bands: *Tridentino* (OCR "Tridont."); *Godofredus* (OCR "Godofrediis"); *Bannez* (OCR "Dannez"); *quaestiuncula* (OCR "quaestiunc."); *aliquitas [sic]* preserved with the editor's `[sic]`; *idonea conversioni* (OCR "ido-/nea conversionil"); *incompleta* (OCR "incorapleta"); *singularis / assimilatur* (OCR "assifflilatur"). Marginal rubrics in the columns (*Ad oppositum*, *Fundamenta*, *Opiniones falsae*, *Opinio 1/2*, *Reprobatur*, *Conclusio*, *Quaestio incidens solvitur*, *Notandum*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Corollarium*) are editorial side-notes, omitted from the body per corpus convention.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 11, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 3

title_alt: Utrum talis conversio panis in corpus Christi possit dici annihilatio

title_alt: Whether such a conversion of bread into the body of Christ can be called annihilation

source_text:
<!-- page 245 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum ista conversio sit annihilatio.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum ista conversio sit annihilatio. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia omne illud quod sic mutatur, quod nihil de ipso remanet, annihilatur; sed taliter est de substantia panis in proposito: ergo est annihilatio.

<!-- page 246 -->

2. Item, succedens generatio non aufert corruptionem praecedentem[^1]: ergo succedens conversio non aufert corruptionem praecedentem; sed hic corrumpitur materia et forma, et ita totum: ergo quidquid succedat, nihilominus est annihilatus panis.

3. Item, esto quod pari virtute converteretur totum universum in corpus Christi, ipsum esset annihilatum. *Probatio:* toto universo cedente in nihil, solo Christo manente, nil minus remanet, quam si converteretur totum in Christum, quia tantum Christus est: ergo si ibi esset annihilatio, et hic.

4. Item, argumentum hoc est necessarium: A non est B nec pars B nec aliquid eius nec aliquid aliud; et fuit: ergo est annihilatum. Sed panis non est Christus nec pars Christi nec aliquid aliud: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Nihil quod convertitur in rem digniorem se, annihilatur; sed panis convertitur in rem multo digniorem se: ergo etc.

2. Item, actio penes terminum denominatur; ergo cum annihilatio denominetur ab hoc quod est nihil, et annihilatione nihil fit; sed nihil non habet aliquid de bono: ergo nec annihilatio. Sed nulla actio est a summo Bono nisi bona[^2]: ergo etc.

3. Item, a summo Bono nunquam id quod est bonum, fit malum: ergo a simili nunquam id quod est ens, fit non-ens sive nihil[^3].

4. Item, Augustinus[^4]: «Conditor naturae nihil facit contra naturam»; sed omnis natura appetit esse, sicut dicit Philosophus: «Naturam, inquimus, desiderare quod melius est, et melius est esse quam non esse».

5. Item, in Sacramento debet salvari ratio signi sive conveniens significatio[^5]; sed hoc Sacramentum non est corruptivum, sed conservativum et meliorativum: ergo in ipso non debet esse annihilatio.

> **Conclusio.** Transsubstantiatio non est annihilatio, sed in meliorem substantiam commutatio.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut tangit Magister in littera[^6], quorundam positio fuit, quod esset annihilatio panis, cum nihil de eo remaneat, vel quia videbatur indignum dicere, quod aliquid extraneum in corpus Christi transiret; ideo rationabilius videbatur eis, quod panis corpori Christi cederet, non mutando locum, sed desinendo esse, et Christi corpus superveniret. — Sed haec positio stare non potest, cum hoc non deceat Deum facere, qui est tota causa in hac conversione, nec deceat Sacramentum opus tam vile.

Ideo communiter ponunt omnes, quod non est annihilatio panis, immo in meliorem substantiam commutatio; et ideo *transsubstantiatio*, non annihilatio, talis conversio est et sic appellari debet[^7]. Amplius, si panis non converteretur in corpus Christi, non esset intelligere, quomodo corpus Christi inciperet esse in altari sine sui mutatione, sicut prius[^8] ostensum fuit; propter quod conversio panis, non annihilatio dicenda est.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur: Nihil remanet de pane, ergo annihilatur; dicendum, quod istud non sequitur, quia annihilatio est non tantum nihil de re remanere, sed illud in nihilum cedere; sed hic non cedit in nihil, immo in aliquid melius.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod posterior generatio non tollit priorem corruptionem etc.; dicendum, quod verum est, quia forma corrumpitur, quae non cedit in formam contrariam[^9]; sed si forma illa converteretur in contrariam, non diceretur omnino corrumpi, sed in aliud transire.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de universo, dicendum quod propter hoc non annihilatur omnino. — Quod obiicit: Non plures res remanent, quam si nihil[^10]; verum est non plures res, sed tamen Christus fit in pluribus locis et sub omnibus speciebus et locum omnium substantiarum supplet, et illa accidentia ex praesentia dominici corporis habent operationem, quam haberet substantia, sicut patebit infra[^11]. Et cum destruitur aliqua operatio conveniens speciei, eodem miraculo redit forma panis et eius materia, sicut melius patebit infra; ideo nil perit propter hoc in natura, sed quodam modo ad tempus cessat.

4. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, dicendum,

<!-- page 247 -->

quod illa divisio est insufficiens, quia non sequitur, quod sit annihilatum, si non est hoc nec aliud; quia haec habet duas causas veritatis[^1d]: non est hoc nec aliud: aut quia cessit in nihil, aut quia transit in aliud; et ratione huius est vera, et hoc non est annihilari[^2d].

english:
### Question III. *Whether this conversion is an annihilation.*

Thirdly it is asked whether this conversion is an annihilation. And that it is, seems to be the case:

1. Because everything that is so changed that nothing of it remains is annihilated; but it is so with the substance of the bread in the matter at hand: therefore it is an annihilation.

<!-- page 246 -->

2. Likewise, a succeeding generation does not take away the preceding corruption[^1]: therefore a succeeding conversion does not take away the preceding corruption; but here the matter and the form are corrupted, and so the whole: therefore whatever succeeds, the bread is nonetheless annihilated.

3. Likewise, suppose that by an equal power the whole universe were converted into the body of Christ, it would be annihilated. *Proof:* with the whole universe ceasing into nothing, Christ alone remaining, no less remains than if the whole were converted into Christ, since Christ alone exists: therefore if there were annihilation there, [there is] also here.

4. Likewise, this argument is necessary: A is not B, nor a part of B, nor anything of it, nor anything else; and it existed: therefore it is annihilated. But the bread is not Christ, nor a part of Christ, nor anything else: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Nothing that is converted into a thing more worthy than itself is annihilated; but the bread is converted into a thing much more worthy than itself: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, an action is named from its term; therefore, since annihilation is named from this, that it is nothing, also by annihilation nothing comes to be; but nothing has nothing of good: therefore neither does annihilation. But no action is from the highest Good except a good one[^2]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, from the highest Good never does that which is good become evil: therefore by a similar [reasoning] never does that which is being become non-being or nothing[^3].

4. Likewise, Augustine[^4]: «The Founder of nature does nothing against nature»; but every nature desires to be, as the Philosopher says: «We say that nature desires what is better, and to be is better than not to be».

5. Likewise, in the Sacrament the character of a sign or a fitting signification ought to be preserved[^5]; but this Sacrament is not corruptive, but conservative and meliorative: therefore in it there ought not to be annihilation.

> **Conclusion.** Transubstantiation is not annihilation, but a change into a better substance.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the Master touches upon in the text[^6], the position of certain men was that there is an annihilation of the bread, since nothing of it remains, or because it seemed unworthy to say that something foreign should pass over into the body of Christ; hence it seemed more reasonable to them that the bread should yield to the body of Christ, not by changing place, but by ceasing to be, and that Christ's body should supervene. — But this position cannot stand, since this does not befit God to do, who is the whole cause in this conversion, nor does so vile a work befit the Sacrament.

Therefore all commonly hold that it is not an annihilation of the bread, but rather a change into a better substance; and therefore such a conversion is *transubstantiation*, not annihilation, and ought to be so called[^7]. Furthermore, if the bread were not converted into the body of Christ, it would not be [possible] to understand how the body of Christ could begin to be on the altar without a change of itself, as was shown before[^8]; on account of which it is to be called a conversion of the bread, not an annihilation.

1. To the objection therefore: Nothing remains of the bread, therefore it is annihilated; it must be said that this does not follow, because annihilation is not only that nothing of a thing remains, but that it ceases into nothing; but here it does not cease into nothing, but rather into something better.

2. To the objection that a posterior generation does not take away the prior corruption, etc.; it must be said that this is true, because the form is corrupted which does not yield into a contrary form[^9]; but if that form were converted into a contrary one, it would not be said to be corrupted altogether, but to pass into another thing.

3. To the objection from the universe, it must be said that on this account it is not annihilated altogether. — As to what it objects: No more things remain than if [there were] nothing[^10]; it is true that no more things [remain], but nevertheless Christ comes to be in several places and under all the species and supplies the place of all the substances, and those accidents, from the presence of the Lord's body, have the operation which the substance would have, as will be made clear below[^11]. And when some operation fitting to the species is destroyed, by the same miracle the form of the bread and its matter return, as will be made clearer below; therefore nothing perishes on this account in nature, but in a certain way ceases for a time.

4. To the last objection, it must be said

<!-- page 247 -->

that that division is insufficient, because it does not follow that it is annihilated if it is neither this nor that; because this [proposition] has two grounds of truth[^1d]: it is neither this nor that — either because it ceased into nothing, or because it passes into another thing; and by reason of this it is true, and this is not to be annihilated[^2d].

la: Codd. X aa subiungunt *immo corruptio manet, sicut quando fit mutatio aeris in ignem, non ideo remanet, quin forma aeris corrumpatur.*

en: Codices X aa add *rather, the corruption remains; just as, when a change of air into fire occurs, [the corruption] does not therefore remain, but the form of air is corrupted.*

la: Vide tom. II. pag. 113, nota 7, verba Dionysii. — De *maiori* cfr. Aristot., V. Phys. text. 7. et 48. (c. 1. et 5.).

en: See tom. II, p. 113, note 7, the words of Dionysius. — On the *major* [premise] cf. Aristotle, *Physics* V, text 7 and 48 (c. 1 and 5).

la: August., 83 Qq. q. 21: *Esse autem et in nullo deficere bonum est; et malum est deficere. At ille, ad quem non-esse non pertinet, non est causa deficiendi, id est tendendi ad non-esse; quia, ut ita dicam, essendi causa est. Boni igitur tantummodo causa est* etc.

en: Augustine, *Eighty-three Questions* q. 21: *But to be and to fail in nothing is good; and to fail is evil. But he to whom non-being does not pertain is not the cause of failing, that is, of tending toward non-being; because, so to speak, he is the cause of being. He is therefore the cause only of good* etc.

la: Libr. XXVI. contra Faustum, c. 3: *Deus autem, creator et conditor omnium naturarum, nihil contra naturam facit.* — Verba Aristot. habentur in II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 39. (c. 10.); in ipsis, originali textu concordante, ex codd. F G H supplevimus alterum *melius est.*

en: Book XXVI *Against Faustus*, c. 3: *But God, the creator and founder of all natures, does nothing against nature.* — The words of Aristotle are found in II *On Generation and Corruption*, text 39 (c. 10); in them, with the original text agreeing, from codices F G H we have supplied the second *to be is better.*

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2.

en: As was shown above, d. 1, p. I, q. 2.

la: Hic c. 2; secundam rationem, scil. *vel* [edd. omittunt *vel*] *quia videbatur* etc., tangit hic in lit. c. 1. — Aliquanto inferius post *superveniret* Vat. ex Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 3. a. 3. n. 6. addit *quam quod panis in ipsum* [Alex. Hal. *in corpus Christi*] *converteretur.*

en: Here c. 2; the second reason, namely *vel* [the editions omit *vel*] *because it seemed* etc., he touches upon here in the text, c. 1. — Somewhat below, after *should supervene*, the Vatican [edition], from Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV q. 10 m. 3 a. 3 n. 6, adds *than that the bread should be converted into him* [Alex. Hal.: *into the body of Christ*].

la: Cfr. Hugo a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 9.

en: Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* II, p. VIII, c. 9.

la: Quaest. 1. fundam. 3. — Pro *intelligere* cod. Z substituit *intelligibile.*

en: Question 1, fundamentum 3. — For *to understand* codex Z substitutes *intelligible.*

la: Vide Aristot., V. Phys. text. 7. (c. 1.), et I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 11. seqq. (c. 3.).

en: See Aristotle, *Physics* V, text 7 (c. 1), and *On Generation and Corruption* I, text 11 ff. (c. 3).

la: Vat. *quam si in nihil vel nullum cederet.*

en: The Vatican [edition reads] *than if it ceased into nothing or naught.*

la: Dist. 12. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. ad 1, ubi etiam de seq. propositione. Cfr. ibid. q. 3. — Post pauca ex cod. H (E a secunda manu) substituimus *destruitur* pro *dicitur*, et pro *cedit* ex cod. L *redit* (cfr. d. 12. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. ad 1.).

en: Dist. 12, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, ad 1, where also concerning the following proposition. Cf. ibid. q. 3. — A little later, from codex H (E by a second hand), we have substituted *is destroyed* for *is said*, and for *yields* from codex L *returns* (cf. d. 12, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, ad 1).

la: Cfr. tom. III. pag. 252, nota 7. — Inferius verbo *transit* cod. Y praemittit *omnino.*

en: Cf. tom. III, p. 252, note 7. — Below, to the word *passes* codex Y prefixes *altogether.*

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

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

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

---

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

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{245,246,247}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, re-cropped at split x=1980, scale 1.7 to capture the full inner margin of each column; the default 1880 split truncated the left column's right edge), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 27729–27867) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF is authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo / Solutio / footer regions — and the OCR for this q3 is *severely* two-column-interleaved (the right-column q2-Solutio text bled into the left-column q3 lines line-for-line), so the PDF bands carried the entire reconstruction. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 245–247 = PDF 265–267).

**Page-verify.** Running heads confirmed on the bands: p. 246 = "246 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; p. 247 = "DIST. XI. P. I. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. IV. 247". (p. 247's running head names QUAEST. IV because q4 opens on that page; q3's tail occupies only the very top of p. 247's two columns before the QUAESTIO IV. header.)

**Opener alignment.** Confirmed: the q3 opener on p. 245 (right column, bottom) reads "QUAESTIO III. Utrum ista conversio sit annihilatio. Tertio quaeritur, utrum ista conversio sit annihilatio …" — matches the assigned title.

**Page-split map.**
- p. 245 (bottom, right col.): QUAESTIO III. header + arg. 1.
- p. 245 → 246 boundary inside arg. 1 (". . . ergo est annihilatio." closes on p. 245; arg. 2 opens p. 246).
- p. 246: args. 2–4; *Contra* 1–5; Conclusio; Respondeo; Solutiones *Ad 1*–*Ad 3* (complete) and *Ad 4* (opens, "Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, dicendum,").
- p. 246 → 247 boundary inside *Ad 4* ("dicendum," | "quod illa divisio est insufficiens . . .").
- p. 247 (top, both cols.): *Ad 4* completes (". . . et hoc non est annihilari."), immediately before the QUAESTIO IV. header.

**Footer-ownership (apparatus, 13 entries total, all anchored in this q3's body).**
- p. 245: the page's footer sequence is shared with q2; q3's opener (arg. 1) on p. 245 carries **no** footnote marker (the p. 245 footers — incl. notes 2 "Cfr. supra d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 1." and 3 "Vide supra pag. 228, nota 10." — anchor in q2's body and are owned by the q2 chunk).
- p. 246: **11 footers** — left col. 1–5 (`^1` arg. 2 *praecedentem*; `^2` *Contra* 2 *a summo Bono . . . bona*; `^3` *Contra* 3 *non-ens sive nihil*; `^4` *Contra* 4 *Augustinus*; `^5` *Contra* 5 *conveniens significatio*); right col. 6–11 (`^6` Respondeo *tangit Magister in littera*; `^7` *appellari debet*; `^8` *prius* ostensum fuit; `^9` *Ad 2* *formam contrariam*; `^10` *Ad 3* *quam si nihil*; `^11` *Ad 3* *patebit infra*).
- p. 247: **2 footers** — q3's tail carries `^1d` (*duas causas veritatis*) and `^2d` (*annihilari* → "see the scholion to the preceding question"). The remaining p. 247 footer sequence (notes "Cfr. tom. III. pag. 252", "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.", then Psalm 77, etc.) opens the QUAESTIO IV. apparatus and is owned by the a1-q4 chunk.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`, but **q3 renders none of its own**: the Articulus Unicus carries a single SCHOLION block (q1/q2/q3 bibliography) which the Quaracchi edition prints on p. 245 and which the **a1-q2 chunk** owns and renders (its `### Scholion` carries §1 + *De hac 2. quaestione*; the q3 doctor-list "*De hac 3. quaestione: . . . Durand., hic q. 3.*" sits in that same p. 245 block). The `### Scholion` slot here holds a one-line Latin+English cross-reference per the dispatch instruction. No "SCHOLION." header occurs inside the raw range 27729–27867.

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Silent OCR corrections from the PDF bands (OCR was cascade-interleaved): arg. 1 *taliter est de substantia panis* (reconstructed from the band — the OCR spliced q2-Solutio text mid-line); *succedens conversio* (OCR `succedetis`); Respondeo *cederet* / *superveniret*; *transsubstantiatio* (OCR `transsiibstantiatio`); *meliorem substantiam commutatio* (Conclusio); Solutio 3 *supplet* / *patebit infra*; p. 247 tail *insufficiens* / *duas causas veritatis* / *annihilari*. Marginal rubrics in the right column (*Non probatur*, *Opinio 2.ª / conclusio*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Ad opposita / Ad oppositum*, *Fundamenta*, *Opinio 1.ª*) are editorial side-notes and are omitted from the body per corpus convention.


title: Dist. 11, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 4

title_alt: Utrum panis convertatur in totum Christum, scilicet in animam et Divinitatem, sicut in carnem

title_alt: Whether the bread is converted into the whole Christ, namely into the soul and the Divinity, as into the flesh

source_text:
<!-- page 247 -->

### Quaestio IV. *Utrum panis convertatur in totum Christum.*

Quarto quaeritur, utrum panis convertatur in totum Christum. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia ad id se extendit *conversio*, ad quod id *continentia* — species enim non continent nisi virtute conversionis — sed ibi continetur totus Christus[^1]: ergo panis convertitur in totum Christum.

2. Item, quod specialiter panis convertatur in *Divinitatem*[^2], videtur: quia intentio consecrantis est, ut cibus corporalis convertatur in spiritualem; sed cibus spiritualis est Deus, qui est cibus sanctorum spirituum[^4]: cum ergo conversio elementi sequatur intentionem, videtur, quod conversio sit in Deum.

3. Item, quod in *animam*[^3], videtur: quia anima Christi in uno loco est per naturam, sicut corpus: ergo si corpus Christi non fit in multis locis, nisi aliquid convertatur in ipsum[^5], pari ratione nec anima Christi. Sed anima est sub Sacramento, alioquin corpus esset exanime, quod est inconveniens: ergo etc.

4. Item, quod *sanguis* sit ibi, videtur: quia aut conversio panis *exspectat* conversionem vini, aut non. Si *non exspectat*; ergo ante conversionem vini virtute huius verbi: *Hoc est corpus meum*, est ibi sanguis. Sed ad id extendit se elementum *passive*, ad quod verbum *operative*: ergo elementum panis convertitur in sanguinem. Si *exspectat*; ergo est ibi successio: ergo non deberet elevari corpus in conspectu populi ante consecrationem vini, quod est contra communem ritum totius Ecclesiae; tunc enim tota Ecclesia facit, quantum in se est, simplices idololatrare, cum nondum sit ibi Christus.

**Sed quod in solum corpus convertatur et non in Divinitatem, videtur:**

1. Quia, si in Divinitatem, tunc creatura posset fieri creator; quod est inconveniens.

2. Item, Divinitas est ubique[^6]: ergo ex conversione non potest de novo in aliquo loco esse: si ergo conversio facit de novo esse, ubi res convertitur; ergo non convertitur nisi in corpus unitum.

**Item, quod non in animam, videtur:**

3. Quia Sacramentum habet rationem significandi et efficiendi, et ratio significandi tantum vel amplius se extendit, quantum ratio efficiendi[^7]; sed constat, quod panis non habet similitudinem ad Christi animam: ergo nec habet converti in ipsam. — Praeterea, si in animam converteretur; cum illa pars sit dignior, ab illa deberet denominari[^8]: ergo deberet dici: haec est anima mea.

**Item, quod non in sanguinem, videtur:**

4. Quia, si panis converteretur in sanguinem, sicut in carnem; frustra ergo sub duabus speciebus fieret hoc Sacramentum[^9]. — Praeterea, istae duae orationes: *Hoc est corpus meum*, *hic est calix sanguinis mei*, habent distinctas significationes: ergo et efficacias.

> **Conclusio.** Panis convertitur praecise in corpus Christi, non in Divinitatem nec in animam nec in sanguinem, quae tamen ibi sunt per concomitantiam.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod praecise panis in id convertitur, cum quo habet similitudinem; super hanc enim similitudinem fundatur institutio, et advenit verbi sanctificatio[^10]. Quia ergo panis habet similitudinem tantum ad corpus, ideo est institutum tantum converti in corpus; et verbum sanctificans, scilicet: *Hoc est corpus meum*, significat converti in corpus; non in Divinitatem nec in animam nec in sanguinem aliquid panis convertitur. — Nec tamen est sub Sacramento corpus sine istis, quia[^11] non sunt ibi propter conversionem, sed propter inseparabilem coniunctionem sive indivisionem. Sanguis enim est ibi ratione *commixtionis*, anima ratione *coniunctionis*, sed Divinitas ratione *unionis*.

<!-- page 248 -->

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1.* Ex his patent obiecta: quia, etiamsi totus Christus contineatur[^12], non tamen in totum est conversio; unde falsum est, quod quidquid continetur in Sacramento, est ratione conversionis, immo ratione conversionis vel indivisionis.

*Ad 2. 3.* Ad aliud patet responsio, quia corpus est cibus ratione unionis cum Divinitate. — Similiter aliud de anima patet, quia corpus est in pluribus locis ratione conversionis, sed anima consequenter ratione unionis sive perfectionis[^2b].

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de sanguine, similiter dicendum, quod illae conversiones non se exspectant, sed utrobique est totum[^3b]. Panis tamen et virtus suae formae ordinatur ad corpus primo, ad cetera sicut ex consequenti; similiter dicendum de conversione vini, sicut et panis.

english:
<!-- page 247 -->

### Question IV. *Whether the bread is converted into the whole Christ.*

Fourthly it is asked whether the bread is converted into the whole Christ. And that it is so, it seems:

1. Because *conversion* extends itself to that to which *containment* extends — for the species do not contain except by virtue of the conversion — but there the whole Christ is contained[^1]: therefore the bread is converted into the whole Christ.

2. Likewise, that the bread is converted specially into the *Divinity*[^2], it seems: because the intention of the one consecrating is that the bodily food be converted into spiritual food; but spiritual food is God, who is the food of the holy spirits[^4]: since therefore the conversion of the element follows the intention, it seems that the conversion is into God.

3. Likewise, that it is into the *soul*[^3], it seems: because the soul of Christ is in one place by nature, just as the body is: therefore if the body of Christ does not come to be in many places unless something be converted into it[^5], by parity of reasoning neither does the soul of Christ. But the soul is under the Sacrament, otherwise the body would be without soul, which is unfitting: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, that the *blood* is there, it seems: because either the conversion of the bread *awaits* the conversion of the wine, or not. If it *does not await* it; then before the conversion of the wine, by virtue of this word: *This is my body*, the blood is there. But the element extends itself *passively* to that to which the word [extends] *operatively*: therefore the element of bread is converted into blood. If it *awaits* it; then there is a succession there: therefore the body ought not to be elevated in the sight of the people before the consecration of the wine, which is against the common rite of the whole Church; for then the whole Church, as far as in it lies, makes the simple folk commit idolatry, since Christ is not yet there.

**But that it is converted into the body alone and not into the Divinity, it seems:**

1. Because, if into the Divinity, then a creature could become a creator; which is unfitting.

2. Likewise, the Divinity is everywhere[^6]: therefore by conversion it cannot anew be in some place: if therefore the conversion makes there to be anew, where the thing is converted; therefore it is not converted except into the united body.

**Likewise, that it is not into the soul, it seems:**

3. Because the Sacrament has the character of signifying and of effecting, and the character of signifying extends itself as far as, or further than, the character of effecting[^7]; but it is established that the bread does not have a likeness to the soul of Christ: therefore neither can it be converted into it. — Moreover, if it were converted into the soul; since that part is more worthy, it ought to be denominated from it[^8]: therefore it ought to be said: this is my soul.

**Likewise, that it is not into the blood, it seems:**

4. Because, if the bread were converted into the blood, as into the flesh; then this Sacrament would be made under two species in vain[^9]. — Moreover, these two utterances: *This is my body*, *this is the chalice of my blood*, have distinct significations: therefore also distinct efficacies.

> **Conclusion.** The bread is converted precisely into the body of Christ, not into the Divinity nor into the soul nor into the blood, which nevertheless are there by concomitance.

**I respond:** It must be said that the bread is converted precisely into that with which it has a likeness; for upon this likeness the institution is founded, and the sanctification of the word supervenes[^10]. Since therefore the bread has a likeness only to the body, for that reason it was instituted to be converted only into the body; and the sanctifying word, namely: *This is my body*, signifies a conversion into the body; nothing of the bread is converted into the Divinity nor into the soul nor into the blood. — Nor yet is the body under the Sacrament without these, because[^11] they are not there on account of the conversion, but on account of the inseparable conjunction or indivision. For the blood is there by reason of *commixture*, the soul by reason of *conjunction*, but the Divinity by reason of *union*.

<!-- page 248 -->

**To the arguments:**

*To 1.* From these the objections are clear: because, even though the whole Christ is contained[^12], yet the conversion is not into the whole; whence it is false that whatever is contained in the Sacrament is there by reason of the conversion — rather, by reason of the conversion or of the indivision.

*To 2 and 3.* To the other [objection] the response is clear, because the body is food by reason of its union with the Divinity. — Likewise the other concerning the soul is clear, because the body is in several places by reason of the conversion, but the soul consequently by reason of the union or perfection[^2b].

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning the blood, it must likewise be said that those conversions do not await one another, but in both there is the whole[^3b]. The bread, however, and the power of its form is ordered to the body primarily, to the rest as it were consequently; likewise it must be said of the conversion of the wine, as also of the bread.

la: Cfr. tom. III. pag. 232, nota 7. — Inferius verbo *transit* cod. Y praemittit *omnino*.

en: Cf. vol. III, p. 232, note 7. — Below, before the word *transit* ("passes over"), codex Y prefixes *omnino* ("altogether").

en: See the scholion on the preceding question.

la: Vide supra d. 10. p. 1. q. 2. fundam. 1.

en: See above, d. 10, p. 1, q. 2, foundation 1.

la: Psalm. 77, 25: *Panem Angelorum manducavit homo.* Cfr. C. *Sicut verus est* (84.), § 1. de Consecrat. d. 2; hic lit. Magistri, c. 2, et supra pag. 187, nota 6.

en: Psalm 77:25 [78:25]: *Man ate the bread of Angels.* Cf. the canon *Sicut verus est* (84), § 1, *de Consecratione* d. 2; here the text of the Master, c. 2, and above, p. 187, note 6.

la: Vide supra d. 10, p. 1. q. 3. in corp.

en: See above, d. 10, p. 1, q. 3, in the body.

la: Cfr. 1. Sent. d. 37. p. 1. a. 1. et 2. — In fine arg. pro *unitum*, scil. *Divinitati*, quod certo habent codd. A E X, edd. *unicum*, plures codd. dubiae sunt lectionis.

en: Cf. I *Sent.* d. 37, p. 1, a. 1 and 2. — At the end of the argument, for *unitum* ("united"), namely *to the Divinity*, which codices A E X and the editions certainly have as *unicum* ("single"), several codices are of doubtful reading.

la: Vide supra d. 1. p. 1. q. 2. et 4. seq.

en: See above, d. 1, p. 1, q. 2 and 4, following.

la: Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 49. (c. 4.): *A fine appellare omnia iustum est.*

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 49 (c. 4): "It is just to name all things from their end."

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. et infra p. II. a. 1. q. 2. — De seq. ratione, in qua codd. omittunt *mei*, vide supra d. 8. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seq.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4, and below, p. II, a. 1, q. 2. — On the following argument, in which the codices omit *mei* ("my"), see above, d. 8, p. II, a. 1, q. 1, following.

la: Respiciuntur verba Hug. a S. Vict. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2. ad o. relata. — Inferius verbis *non in Divinitatem* Vat. praemittit *ideo*.

en: Reference is made to the words of Hugh of St. Victor, related above at d. 1, p. I, q. 2, ad o. — Below, before the words *non in Divinitatem* ("not into the Divinity"), the Vatican edition prefixes *ideo* ("therefore").

la: Intellige: quia, etsi non sunt... sunt tamen propter inseparabilem coniunctionem etc.

en: Understand: because, although they are not [there on account of the conversion]... they are nevertheless there on account of the inseparable conjunction, etc.

la: Ex his patent obiecta: quia, etiamsi totus Christus contineatur. *(p. 248, nota 1)* Cod. N supplet *sub Sacramento*.

en: *(p. 248, note 1)* Codex N supplies *sub Sacramento* ("under the Sacrament").

la: *(p. 248, nota 2)* Sive in quantum anima est corporis forma (ἐντελέχεια, i. e. forma, actus, perfectio). Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. ... seqq. (c. 1.). — De praeced. solut. vide supra d. 10. p. 1. q. ...

en: *(p. 248, note 2)* Or in so far as the soul is the form of the body (*entelecheia*, i.e. form, act, perfection). Cf. Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text ... ff. (c. 1). — On the preceding solution see above, d. 10, p. 1, q. ...

la: *(p. 248, nota 3)* In Vat. additur *sive totus Christus*.

en: *(p. 248, note 3)* In the Vatican edition there is added *sive totus Christus* ("or the whole Christ").

latin_scholion:
**I.** Conclusio huius 4. quaestionis et distinctio illa inter id quod in hoc ss. Sacramento est *vi verborum*, et quod est ratione *concomitantiae*, a Concilio Trident. consecratae sunt (cfr. supra d. 10. p. I. q. I. scholion). De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. a. 3. § 3. — S. Thom., IV. Sent. d. 10. q. I. a. 2; S. III. q. 76. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic q. I. — Petr. a Tar., IV. Sent. d. 10. q. I. a. I. quaestiunc. 2. ad 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. 3. — Durand., IV. Sent. d. 10. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., IV. Sent. d. 10. q. I.

**II.** In conclusione 5. quaestionis omnes doctores tenent, quod transsubstantiatio fiat in *instanti*, non successive; sed valde laborant et dissentiunt in solutione arg. 4. ad oppos. Desitio enim panis et positio corporis Christi nec possunt dici fieri in unico instanti intrinseco, quia tunc simul essent panis et corpus; nec, si in *duobus* instantibus fieri dicuntur, evitari posse videtur, quin sint secundum *successionem*, cum inter quaelibet duo instantia consequenter se habentia sit tempus medium. Eadem difficultas occurrit generatim in desitione et inceptione formarum substantialium. — Primam hic relatam opinionem tenet cum Scoto (Quodl. 12. n. 16.) multisque aliis S. Thom. (S. III. q. 73. a. 7; cfr. hic q. I. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2.), qui distinguit instans *intrinsecum*, in quo fit introductio novae formae, et *extrinsecum*, quod est in tempore, deinde ibi concludit: « Et ideo est quidem dare primum instans, in quo est corpus Christi; non est autem dare ultimum instans, in quo sit substantia panis, sed est dare ultimum tempus ». Aliter S. Bonav., cum doceat, dari et primum et ultimum instans in fieri, licet non in facto esse; istos autem motus et incipere et desinere per indivisibilia sive in instanti intrinseco. Concedit quidem, duo indivisibilia in eodem continuo non posse esse immediata, cum inter unum et alterum sit tempus (nam continuum non componitur ex indivisibilibus mathematicis); sed illud negat quoad contigua propriam mensuram intrinsecam habentia, ut accidit in generationibus et corruptionibus. Illa autem duo instantia indivisibilia respiciunt unicum instans extrinsecum sive temporis, cui coexistunt. Exemplum est in duabus semihoris sibi succedentibus cum duobus motibus. Licet motus non fiat in instanti, tamen unusquisque horum habet suum terminum intrinsecum. Si igitur istae duae semihorae conferantur cum una hora temporis continui communis, cui coexistunt; tunc ista duo instantia non coexistunt nisi unico illius continui instanti temporis. Eadem principia S. Doctor docet infra d. 17. p. I. a. 2. q. I. ad 4; d. 49. p. II. art. princip. 2. a. 3. q. I. in corp., nec non I. Sent. d. 19. p. I. a. unic. q. I. ad 2; II. Sent. d. I. p. I. a. I. q. 2. ad 3. I; III. Sent. d. 2. a. 3. q. 2. ad 3. — Cfr. etiam de *tempore* I. Sent. d. 37. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. ad 3. S. et dub. 3; II. Sent. d. 2. p. I. a. I. q. 2, a. 2. q. I. et d. 7. p. II. a. I. q. 2. ad 3. — De hac 5. quaestione praeter citatos: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 5. a. 3. § 7. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. 4. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. I. circa med.

**III.** De 6. quaestione sive de locutionibus variis, quibus hoc mysterium exprimi potest, diffuse disputat Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 6. a. 1-3. Cfr. Scot., hic q. 5. — S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 4; S. III. q. 73. a. 8. — B. Albert., hic a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 6. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The conclusion of this 4th question, and that distinction between what in this most holy Sacrament is present *by force of the words* and what is present by reason of *concomitance*, were consecrated [as dogma] by the Council of Trent (cf. above, d. 10, p. I, q. I, scholion). On the same question: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV, q. 10, a. 3, § 3. — St. Thomas, IV *Sent.* d. 10, q. I, a. 2; *Summa* III, q. 76, a. 1. — Bl. Albert, here, q. I. — Peter of Tarentaise, IV *Sent.* d. 10, q. I, a. I, little-question 2, ad 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here, a. I, q. 3. — Durandus, IV *Sent.* d. 10, q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, IV *Sent.* d. 10, q. I.

**II.** On the conclusion of the 5th question all the doctors hold that the transsubstantiation comes about *in an instant*, not successively; but they labor greatly and disagree in the solution of the 4th argument to the contrary. For the ceasing-to-be of the bread and the positing of the body of Christ can neither be said to come about in a single intrinsic instant, since then the bread and the body would be at once; nor, if they are said to come about in *two* instants, does it seem that it can be avoided that they be according to *succession*, since between any two instants successively related to one another there is an intermediate time. The same difficulty occurs in general in the ceasing-to-be and the beginning-to-be of substantial forms. — The first opinion related here St. Thomas holds, together with Scotus (*Quodl.* 12, n. 16) and many others (*Summa* III, q. 73, a. 7; cf. here, q. I, a. 3, little-question 2), who distinguishes the *intrinsic* instant, in which the introduction of the new form takes place, and the *extrinsic*, which is in time, and then concludes there: "And therefore it is indeed possible to assign a first instant in which the body of Christ is present; but it is not possible to assign a last instant in which the substance of the bread is, but it is possible to assign a last time." St. Bonaventure [holds] otherwise, since he teaches that both a first and a last instant are to be assigned in the becoming, though not in the being-accomplished; and that these motions both begin and end through indivisibles, that is, in an intrinsic instant. He grants indeed that two indivisibles in the same continuum cannot be immediate, since between the one and the other there is time (for a continuum is not composed of mathematical indivisibles); but he denies this with respect to contiguous things having their own intrinsic measure, as happens in generations and corruptions. Those two indivisible instants, however, regard a single extrinsic instant, that is, of time, to which they coexist. The example is in two half-hours succeeding one another with two motions. Although the motion does not come about in an instant, yet each of these [motions] has its own intrinsic terminus. If therefore these two half-hours are compared with one hour of the common continuous time, to which they coexist; then those two instants do not coexist except at the single instant of time of that continuum. The same principles the Holy Doctor teaches below, d. 17, p. I, a. 2, q. I, ad 4; d. 49, p. II, principal art. 2, a. 3, q. I, in the body, and also I *Sent.* d. 19, p. I, a. unic., q. I, ad 2; II *Sent.* d. I, p. I, a. I, q. 2, ad 3, I; III *Sent.* d. 2, a. 3, q. 2, ad 3. — Cf. also concerning *time*, I *Sent.* d. 37, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, ad 3, S. and dub. 3; II *Sent.* d. 2, p. I, a. I, q. 2, a. 2, q. I, and d. 7, p. II, a. I, q. 2, ad 3. — On this 5th question, besides those cited: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 5, a. 3, § 7. — Bl. Albert, here, a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. I, a. 4. — Richard of Mediavilla, here, a. I, q. 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. I, near the middle.

**III.** On the 6th question, that is, concerning the various manners of speaking by which this mystery can be expressed, Alexander of Hales disputes at length, loc. cit. m. 6, a. 1-3. Cf. Scotus, here, q. 5. — St. Thomas, here, q. I, a. 4; *Summa* III, q. 73, a. 8. — Bl. Albert, here, a. 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. I, a. 6. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw lines 27868–28019), reflowed column-by-column (vol4 "VOL II OVERRIDE": OCR base for clean prose, PDF authoritative for cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio/scholion/footers) against PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p247-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` and `vol4-p248-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (p.247→pdf 267, p.248→pdf 268). Running heads on p.247 read "DIST. XI. P. I. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. IV" — distinction/quaestio confirmed.
- **Opener alignment:** verified — raw "Quarto quaeritur, utrum panis convertatur in totum Christum" matches q4.
- **Body span:** q4's videtur/contra args + Respondeo are on p.247; the Solutio (*Ex his patent obiecta…* through *Ad 4.*) and the SCHOLION begin on p.248 L, with the scholion continuing across p.248 L→R. The scholion ends on p.248 R (section III on q6), immediately before the running head's `QUAESTIO V.` opener.
- **Scholion ownership:** this is the SECOND article-scholion block in the raw range (begins ~raw line 28006 / p.248 L). It is keyed to the later questions and rendered here IN FULL: **section I = q4** (*Conclusio huius 4. quaestionis…*), **section II = q5** (*In conclusione 5. quaestionis…*, the in-instanti / Scotus-vs-Bonaventure debate), **section III = q6** (*De 6. quaestione sive de locutionibus variis…*). Per brief, q5 and q6 render no scholion of their own and point here. The EARLIER scholion block (q1–q3) belongs to q2 and is NOT duplicated here.
- **Page-247 footers:** notes 1–11 all rendered ([^1]–[^11]). Note 4 ([^4], Psalm 77:25) and note 5 ([^5]) anchor in the *Sed quod… videtur* preamble / argument context; [^4]'s marker falls in the OCR at the "cibus sanctorum spirituum" clause and is anchored on [^2] there in the body (the raw places the Psalm citation footer for the *cibus spiritualis* argument). The Aristotle note (de Anima, *a fine appellare*) is [^8], anchored at the *deberet denominari* clause.
- **Page-248 footers:** the p.248 footer block carries its own restarted sequence (notes 1, 2, 3 visible: Cod. N *sub Sacramento*; the *entelecheia* note; *sive totus Christus*). These belong to the q4 Solutio (*Ad 1./Ad 2.3./Ad 4.*) on p.248 L and are rendered as [^12], [^2b], [^3b]. The remaining p.248 footers (notes 4, 5, 6) belong to q5 (*Quinto quaeritur, utrum haec conversio sit subita…*), whose body begins on p.248 and continues onto p.249 — those footers hand off to the q5 chunk and are NOT captured here.
- **Hand-off to q5/q6:** q5's body opener (*Quinto quaeritur, utrum haec conversio sit subita, an successiva*) appears at the bottom of p.248 L and bottom of R; its footers 4–6 (Cod. N *sub Sacramento* supplement on "movendum"; *Colligi potest ex text. 11.*; Aristot. *de Generat. et corrupt.*) belong to the q5 chunk. The scholion sections II and III above are the scholia FOR q5 and q6 respectively (rendered here per brief).
- **[?] flags:** [^2b] — the p.248 nota 2 Aristotle de Anima text-number and the trailing *vide supra d. 10. p. 1. q. ...* citation are partially illegible in the band (right-edge crop); the *entelecheia* gloss and substance of the note are clear, but the exact text number and final q-number are flagged `[?]` as illegible. Likewise the Greek ἐντελέχεια is reconstructed from the partial glyphs + the Latin gloss.