title: Dist. 12, Part 2, Dubia

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

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

source_text:
<!-- page 298 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit, quod *in hoc Sacramento fit memoria illius quod factum est semel.* Si enim hoc verum est, ergo tantum semel deberet fieri ab uno sacerdote et semel manducari. — Item, baptismus, quia significat passionem Christi, non iteratur[^1]: ergo nec illud Sacramentum.

**Respondeo:** sicut dicit Magister in littera, hic[^2] significatur passio Christi tanquam in *signo* et tanquam in signo *rememorativo*; et quoniam frequenter rememorari debemus Christi semel passi: ideo illud Sacramentum iteratur pluries. — Sed *si tunc obiicias* de Sacramento baptismi; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia baptismus significat passionem, prout nos per illam morimur peccato originali, quod traximus ab Adam: et hoc non facit passio in quolibet nisi semel; hinc est, quod baptismus non potest iterari, et si quis iterat, facit contumeliam Sacramento.

<!-- page 299 -->

In hoc autem significatur *Christus* passus ut nos reficiens; et quoniam saepe reficit in omni[^3] memoratione, ideo saepe iteratur illud Sacramentum sine contumelia; nec dicitur proprie *iterari* Sacramentum, sed *frequentari*; quoniam unum et idem continetur in hostia hesterna et hodierna; tunc autem *iteraretur*, si super eandem hostiam fieret iteratio formae[^4]; et hoc non posset fieri scienter absque peccato.

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *quotidie offerimus ad recordationem mortis.* Est enim instantia in die Veneris sancto, quando sacerdos non conficit nec sacrificium offert[^5]; et videtur, quod tunc magis deberet. Si enim hoc est *memoriale passionis*: ergo cum illo die specialiter *memoria* habeatur, videtur, quod tunc magis esset conficiendum. — Item, quaeritur iuxta hoc: quare Sacramentum reservatur sub forma panis, non vini?

Et respondetur ad primum, quod aliud est *conficere* sive consecrare, aliud est *offerre*; et quamvis in illo die non fiat *confectio*, fit tamen *oblatio*, quia sacerdos corpus in praecedenti die consecratum offert in altari. — Si vero quaeras: quare fit oblatio et non *consecratio*? respondetur, quod *oblatio* sive sumtio fit a sacerdote, ne oratio dominicalis, quae dicitur quotidie et illo die ab Ecclesia, in qua petitur: *Panem nostrum quotidianum*[^6] etc., vacua fiat. — Sed *consecratio* non fit, sed reservatio propter hoc, quod in illo die fuit Dominus passus in propria effigie, non in signo. Et quia tota dies est memoriale passionis et totum officium; ideo non fit consecratio a Coena usque ad Sabbatum, in quo est memoria resurrectionis; unde cantatur Missa de resurrectione.

Quod quaeritur de sanguine: quare non reservatur? aliqui dicunt, quod non oportet, quia vinum, quod sacerdos ponit in calicem, per appositionem corporis consecratur. — Sed illud non potest habere veritatem, sicut probari potest de facili, quia nullo modo fit transsubstantiatio sine verbo[^7]. Et ideo dicunt alii, quod triplici de causa non reservatur: una est propter periculum effusionis; alia propter verbum Domini, quod dixit super calicem[^8]: *Non bibam de hoc genimine* etc., et ideo non sumit sanguinem sacerdos a Coena usque ad resurrectionem; tertia est, quia sacerdos magis sumit ad refectionem quam ad significationem, et quia totus Christus est perfecte sub specie panis, quamvis non perfecte significetur; ideo solum in specie panis sumit, et solum sacrificium sive Sacramentum corporis reservatur[^9].

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *semel immolatus est Christus.* Si enim semel immolatus est Christus, videtur, quod saltem in die non liceat sacerdoti pluries conficere. — Quaeritur ergo quomodo liceat sacerdoti pluries conficere et sumere in eodem die, cum populo non liceat nisi semel; et videtur, quod magis sit licitum populo, cum minus sit horum alterum, scilicet sumere, quam utrumque, scilicet conficere et sumere.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod propter reverentiam Sacramenti sunt duo instituta circa modum sumendi hoc Sacramentum, scilicet quod sumatur ieiuno stomacho, et quod tantum semel, ut ab aliis cibis discernatur. In primo communicat sacerdos et populus; oportet enim, quod sacerdos ieiunus sit, sicut populus; et hoc habetur in quadam Decretali de Celebratione Missarum[^10]: *Ex parte vestra*; et infra: «Semper sacerdos vino perfundere debet, postquam accepit totum eucharistiae Sacramentum, nisi cum eodem die aliam Missam celebrare debuerit, ne, si forte vinum perfusionis acciperet, aliam celebrationem impediret». — Sed in alio differt, quia alicui[^11] bis communicari non licet, sed licitum est sacerdoti, propter hoc quod est persona *communis* et debet celebrare Missam omni populo. Et quia potest esse, quod unus sacerdos propter tenuitatem et vicinitatem deservit duabus ecclesiis, vel quia in eadem ecclesia propter solemnitatem officii oportet plures Missas cantari, sicut in Nativitate Domini; et quandocumque celebrant, tenentur communicare: ideo indultum est eis, plures Missas celebrare in eodem die et pluries hoc Sacramentum sumere[^12].

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus, quod *quotidie peccamus peccatis, sine quibus haec mortalis infirmitas duci non potest.* Videtur enim male dicere: quia «nullus peccat in eo quod vitare non potest[^13]»: ergo talia non videntur esse peccata.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ad hoc potest dupliciter responderi: uno modo, quod quamvis non possint vitari *generaliter* et universaliter, possunt tamen vitari *particulariter* hoc et illud; et ponitur exemplum in navi, in quam ingreditur aqua[^14]. — Sed quomodo possunt vitari motus, qui veniunt ex surreptione, etiam in *particulari*, difficile est dicere.

<!-- page 300 -->

— Et ideo alius modus est dicendi, quod est distinguendum in *necessitate* et in *peccato.* Est enim necessitas ex *naturae institutione*, et est necessitas ex *corruptione.* Prima est *data*; secunda est, quam incurrit homo *ex culpa.* Prima necessitas omnino excludit culpam; secunda vero excludit culpam *actualem mortalem*, non tamen *venialem.* Unde, sicut vult Augustinus de Perfectione iustitiae hominis[^15], «quia homo noluit vitare peccatum, cum potuit; inflictum est ei *non posse*, cum velit».

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

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that he says that *in this Sacrament there is made a memorial of that which was done once.* For if this is true, then it ought to be done only once by one priest and eaten once. — Likewise, baptism, because it signifies the Passion of Christ, is not repeated[^1]: therefore neither [should] that Sacrament [be repeated].

**I respond:** As the Master says in the text, here[^2] the Passion of Christ is signified as in a *sign* and as in a *commemorative* sign; and since we ought frequently to commemorate Christ once suffered: therefore that Sacrament is repeated many times. — But *if you then object* concerning the Sacrament of baptism; it must be said that it is not similar: because baptism signifies the Passion inasmuch as through it we die to the original sin which we drew from Adam: and the Passion does not effect this in anyone except once; hence it is that baptism cannot be repeated, and if anyone repeats it, he does an outrage to the Sacrament.

In this [Sacrament], however, *Christ* is signified as suffering so as to refresh us; and since he often refreshes in every[^3] commemoration, therefore that Sacrament is often repeated without outrage; nor is the Sacrament properly said to be *repeated*, but *frequented*; since one and the same thing is contained in yesterday's host and today's; but it would then be *repeated*, if over the same host a repetition of the form were made[^4]; and this could not be done knowingly without sin.

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says that *we daily offer in remembrance of the death.* For there is the instance of Good Friday, when the priest neither confects nor offers the sacrifice[^5]; and it seems that he ought rather [to do so] then. For if this is a *memorial of the Passion*: then since on that day the *memory* is held especially, it seems that it ought rather to be confected then. — Likewise, alongside this it is asked: why is the Sacrament reserved under the form of bread, not of wine?

And it is answered to the first, that to *confect* or consecrate is one thing, to *offer* another; and although on that day no *confection* takes place, yet an *oblation* takes place, because the priest offers on the altar the body consecrated on the preceding day. — But if you should ask: why does an oblation take place and not a *consecration*? it is answered that the *oblation* or reception is made by the priest, lest the Lord's prayer, which is said daily and on that day by the Church, in which is asked: *Our daily bread*[^6] etc., be made void. — But a *consecration* does not take place, but a reservation, on account of this, that on that day the Lord suffered in his own form, not in a sign. And because the whole day is a memorial of the Passion and the whole office; therefore no consecration takes place from the Supper until Saturday, on which is the memory of the resurrection; whence the Mass of the resurrection is sung.

As to what is asked concerning the blood: why is it not reserved? some say that it is not necessary, because the wine which the priest puts in the chalice is consecrated by the placing-with of the body. — But that cannot have truth, as can easily be proven, because in no way is there transubstantiation without the word[^7]. And therefore others say that for a threefold cause it is not reserved: one is on account of the danger of spilling; another on account of the word of the Lord, which he said over the chalice[^8]: *I will not drink of this fruit* etc., and therefore the priest does not receive the blood from the Supper until the resurrection; the third is, because the priest receives rather for refreshment than for signification, and because the whole Christ is perfectly under the species of bread, although not perfectly signified; therefore he receives only in the species of bread, and only the sacrifice or Sacrament of the body is reserved[^9].

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says that *Christ was immolated once.* For if Christ was immolated once, it seems that at least in one day it is not lawful for a priest to confect many times. — It is asked, then, how it is lawful for a priest to confect and receive many times in the same day, when it is not lawful for the people except once; and it seems that it should rather be lawful for the people, since the one of these [acts] is less, namely to receive, than both, namely to confect and to receive.

**I respond:** It must be said that, on account of reverence for the Sacrament, two [things] are instituted concerning the manner of receiving this Sacrament, namely that it be received on a fasting stomach, and that [it be received] only once, so that it may be distinguished from other foods. In the first the priest and the people communicate alike; for it is fitting that the priest be fasting, just as the people; and this is had in a certain Decretal *On the Celebration of Masses*[^10]: *On your part*; and below: «The priest ought always to rinse with wine after he has received the whole Sacrament of the Eucharist, unless he must on the same day celebrate another Mass, lest, if perchance he were to take the wine of the rinsing, he should impede the other celebration». — But in the other [thing] it differs, because it is not lawful for anyone[^11] to communicate twice, but it is lawful for a priest, on account of this, that he is a *public* person and ought to celebrate Mass for all the people. And because it can happen that one priest, on account of slenderness [of means] and nearness, serves two churches, or because in the same church, on account of the solemnity of the office, several Masses must be sung, as on the Nativity of the Lord; and whenever they celebrate, they are bound to communicate: therefore it has been granted to them to celebrate several Masses on the same day and to receive this Sacrament many times[^12].

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that Augustine says that *we daily sin with sins, without which this mortal infirmity cannot be led [through life].* For it seems to be said badly: because «no one sins in that which he cannot avoid[^13]»: therefore such [things] do not seem to be sins.

**I respond:** It must be said that to this it can be answered in two ways: in one way, that although they cannot be avoided *generally* and universally, yet this and that can be avoided *particularly*; and an example is set down in a ship, into which water enters[^14]. — But how the motions which come from stealthy assault can be avoided, even in *particular*, is difficult to say.

— And therefore there is another way of speaking, that one must distinguish in *necessity* and in *sin.* For there is a necessity from the *institution of nature*, and there is a necessity from *corruption.* The first is *given*; the second is that which man incurs *from fault.* The first necessity altogether excludes fault; but the second excludes *actual mortal* fault, not however *venial.* Whence, as Augustine wishes in [the book] *On the Perfection of the Justice of Man*[^15], «because man would not avoid sin when he could; it was inflicted upon him to be *unable* [to avoid it], when he wills [to]».

la: Vide supra d. 6. p. I. q. 6.

en: See above, d. 6, p. I, q. 6.

la: Hic c. 5.

en: Here, c. 5.

la: Cod. U *quoniam nos saepe reficit in sui.*

en: Codex U [reads] *quoniam nos saepe reficit in sui* ("because he often refreshes us in himself").

la: Ut docet supra Magister in lit., d. XI. c. 4. in fine. — Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic d. 13. a. 23; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: As the Master teaches above in the text, d. XI, c. 4, at the end. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here d. 13, a. 23; St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Cod. O *offertur,* edd. omittunt *nec et offert.*

en: Codex O [reads] *offertur* ("is offered"); the editions omit *nec et offert* ("nor offers").

la: Luc. 11, 3. — Paulo ante pro *et illo die,* quod habent codd. F G H, in aliis et edd. male tantum *in illo die.*

en: Luke 11:3. — A little before, for *et illo die* ("and on that day"), which codices F G H have, in the others and the editions wrongly only *in illo die* ("on that day").

la: Vide supra p. I. a. 2. q. 2.

en: See above, p. I, a. 2, q. 2.

en: Mark 14:25. Cf. Matthew 26:29.

la: Cfr. supra d. 11. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. — Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic d. 13. a. 24; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. above, d. 11, p. II, a. 1, q. 2. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here d. 13, a. 24; Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.

la: Hoc decretum Innocentii III. ad clericos s. Petri in Magdalona, quod incipit: *Ex parte vestra* (Migne, Patrol. Lat. tom. 215. col. 442. n. 130. alias 401.), duas partes habet, quarum prima invenitur in C. *Ex parte vestra* (1.) X. (libr. III. tit. 46.) de Observ. ieiun.; secunda vero [ideo hic dicitur *et infra*] in X. (libr. III. tit. 41.) c. 3: *Ex parte vestra, et infra: Postulationi vestrae taliter respondemus, quod semper sacerdos... acceperit* [ed. Migne *perceperit*] etc.

en: This decretal of Innocent III to the clergy of St. Peter at Magdalona, which begins: *Ex parte vestra* ("On your part") (Migne, *Patrol. Lat.,* vol. 215, col. 442, n. 130, otherwise 401), has two parts, of which the first is found in the chapter *Ex parte vestra* (1), [Decretals] book X (lib. III, tit. 46), *On the Observance of Fasts*; but the second [whence here it is said *and below*] in [Decretals] book X (lib. III, tit. 41), c. 3: *Ex parte vestra, and below: To your request we answer thus, that the priest should always... have received* [ed. Migne *perceived*] etc.

la: Edd. addunt *de populo.* Aliquanto inferius pro *tenuitatem* cod. aa *communitatem.*

en: The editions add *de populo* ("of the people"). Somewhat below, for *tenuitatem* ("slenderness") codex aa [reads] *communitatem* ("community").

la: Cfr. decretum Innocentii III. in C. *Consuluisti* (3.) X. (libr. III. tit. 41.), de Celebrat. Missar. — Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic d. 13. a. 24.

en: Cf. the decretal of Innocent III in the chapter *Consuluisti* (3), [Decretals] book X (lib. III, tit. 41), *On the Celebration of Masses.* — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here d. 13, a. 24.

la: August., III. de Lib. Arb. c. 18. n. 50: *Quis enim peccat in eo quod nullo modo caveri potest?*

en: Augustine, *On Free Will* III, c. 18, n. 50: *For who sins in that which can in no way be guarded against?*

la: Cod. H (bb a secunda manu) addit: *per multa foramina*... *licet non posset homo unus evitare* (cod. bb *obturare*) *universaliter, potest tamen hoc et hoc etc. particulariter* (cod. ... *hoc et illud*). Cfr. II. Sent. d. 41. a. 2. q. 1, ubi hic modus dicendi exhibetur, et in solut. ad 1. idem exemplum proponitur. — Superius post *quamvis* edd. supplent *peccata.*

en: Codex H (bb by a second hand) adds: *through many openings*... *though one man could not avoid [it] universally, yet he can [avoid] this and this etc. particularly* (cod. bb *stop up*) (cod. ... *this and that*). Cf. II *Sentences,* d. 41, a. 2, q. 1, where this way of speaking is set forth, and in the solution ad 1 the same example is proposed. — Above, after *quamvis* ("although") the editions supply *peccata* ("sins").

la: Cap. 4. n. 9. sententialiter; verba ipsa potius habet III. de Lib. Arb. c. 18. n. 52. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 949, nota. De hoc secundo modo vide II. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XXXVI. et Comment. dub. 4. Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 15. m. 3.

en: [On the Perfection of the Justice of Man] c. 4, n. 9, according to the sense; the very words it has rather in *On Free Will* III, c. 18, n. 52. Cf. vol. II, p. 949, note. On this second way see II *Sentences,* the text of the Master, d. XXXVI, and the Commentary, dub. 4. Cf. Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 15, m. 3.

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`vol4-p298-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p299-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p300-{L,R}-*`) per the Vol IV two-column PDF-priority inversion (the IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters this dubia region with heavy two-column bleed — every Respondeo and footer is fragmented), cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 34410–34526. English is a fresh literal translation. The dubia open on printed p.298 (PDF 318) under the centered header DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI (at the foot of p.298's left column, immediately after the preceding quaestio's Epilogus) and conclude on printed p.300 (PDF 320) immediately above the centered DISTINCTIO XIII header. Running heads read **DIST. XII. P. II. DUBIA. 299** (p.299) / **SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV** (p.300 left) — confirmed DIST. XII, not XI/XIII.

**Page-extract note:** p.298/p.299/p.297 bands pre-existed at split x=1880, but at that split the left column of p.298 was truncated mid-line (column wider than 1880 on this page); re-cropped p.298 at split x=2000 to capture the full left column. p.300 bands were freshly extracted (`extract-pages.py --pages 300 --dpi 450 --force` + `colcrop.py vol4 300 1880`). No page-verify failure on the running heads — only the column-split width needed widening for p.298.

**Dubia count: 4** (Dub. I–IV). Each follows the Master's-text format: objection (*Videtur male dicere…* / *Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit…*) + **Respondeo** (Dub. II's answer opens *Et respondetur ad primum…*).
- **Dub. I** — On *in hoc Sacramento fit memoria illius quod factum est semel:* if a memorial of a once-done thing, why repeat it (cf. baptism, which signifies the once-for-all Passion and is not repeated)? Answer: the Eucharist signifies the Passion as a *commemorative* sign, which we ought to commemorate frequently; it is *frequented*, not properly *repeated* (the same Christ is in yesterday's and today's host); repetition would mean re-saying the form over the same host.
- **Dub. II** — On *quotidie offerimus ad recordationem mortis:* the Good-Friday instance (no confection that day) + why reserve under bread, not wine. Answer: confecting ≠ offering — on Good Friday there is *oblation* of the prior day's consecrated body but no *confection* (lest the Lord's Prayer's "daily bread" be void), no consecration from Supper to Saturday's resurrection memory; the blood is not reserved (danger of spilling; the Lord's *Non bibam de hoc genimine*; the whole Christ is under the bread).
- **Dub. III** — On *semel immolatus est Christus:* if immolated once, may a priest confect several times a day (when the laity may receive only once)? Answer: two institutions for reverence — fasting reception (priest and people alike) and once-only (to distinguish from food); the priest, as a *public* person serving multiple churches / solemnities, is granted by decretal to celebrate several Masses and receive several times daily.
- **Dub. IV** — On Augustine's *quotidie peccamus peccatis, sine quibus haec mortalis infirmitas duci non potest:* are unavoidable things sins (no one sins in what he cannot avoid)? Answer (two ways): (1) what cannot be avoided generally can be avoided particularly (the ship taking on water example), though stealthy motions are hard to avoid even in particular; (2) distinguish *necessity* (from nature's institution — excuses fault; vs from corruption — excludes actual mortal fault, not venial); per Augustine *On the Perfection of the Justice of Man*, the inability is itself the penalty of an earlier unwillingness.

**Page-split map:** Dub. I prints at the foot of p.298's LEFT column (DUBIA header + objection) and its **Respondeo** runs in p.298's RIGHT column bottom; the `<!-- page 299 -->` break falls **inside Dub. I**, at the *…contumeliam Sacramento. | In hoc autem significatur Christus…* seam (verified grammatically continuous — the Respondeo's *In hoc autem…* clause opens p.299's left column). Dub. II (full) + Dub. III (full) print on p.299 (left column = Dub. I tail + Dub. II; right column = Dub. III); Dub. IV's objection begins at the foot of p.299's right column (*Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus…*). The `<!-- page 300 -->` break falls **inside Dub. IV**, at the *…difficile est dicere. | — Et ideo alius modus est dicendi…* seam: Dub. IV's objection + first answer-mode are on p.299 R / p.300 L, its second answer-mode (the *necessitas* distinction) at the top of p.300's right column, ending *…inflictum est ei non posse, cum velit».* immediately above the centered DISTINCTIO XIII header. Both mid-page seams confirmed grammatically continuous against the column bands.

**Footer ownership:** Printed p.298 footers 7 (*Vide supra d. 6. p. I. q. 6.*) and 8 (*Hic c. 5.*) are owned here → [^1]–[^2] (Dub. I objection + Respondeo). These were the hand-off claim from the a2-q3 writer. p.298 footers 1–6 belong to the PRECEDING quaestio (footers 1–5 = its Conclusio/Epilogus material; footer 6 = *Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.,* anchored at that quaestio's closing *ideo non est simile* — NOT a dubium). Printed p.299 footers 1–10 are owned here — 1 (*Cod. U quoniam…*) + 2 (*Ut docet supra Magister… B. Albert. d.13 a.23*) = Dub. I cont. → [^3]–[^4]; 3 (*Cod. O offertur*) + 4 (*Luc. 11,3 / et illo die*) + 5 (*Vide supra p. I. a. 2. q. 2*) + 6 (*Marc. 14,25*) = Dub. II → [^5]–[^8]; 7 (*Cfr. supra d.11 p.II a.1 q.2 / B. Albert. d.13 a.24*) = Dub. II tail → [^9]; 8 (*Hoc decretum Innocentii III… Ex parte vestra*) + 9 (*Edd. addunt de populo / tenuitatem-communitatem*) + 10 (*Cfr. decretum Innocentii III… Consuluisti / B. Albert. d.13 a.24*) = Dub. III → [^10]–[^12]. Printed p.300 footers 1 (*August. III. de Lib. Arb. c.18 n.50*) + 2 (*Cod. H… per multa foramina / Cfr. II. Sent. d.41 / quamvis-peccata*) + 3 (*Cap. 4 n.9… de Lib. Arb. c.18 n.52 / Alex. Hal.*) = Dub. IV → [^13]–[^15]. The footers at the foot of p.300's RIGHT column (*1 August. de Lib. Arb. … excerptum ex Hugone*; *2 Ioan. 6,62*; etc.) belong to the **DISTINCTIO XIII** body (*Cap. I, Si hoc Sacramentum conficiatur ab haereticis vel excommunicatis*) that begins on p.300 — owned by the d.13 chunk, NOT here.

**d.13 boundary confirmed:** DISTINCTIO XIII (Cap. I, *Si hoc Sacramentum conficiatur ab haereticis vel excommunicatis*) begins on printed p.300 (raw L34527+), immediately after Dub. IV closes (*…inflictum est ei non posse, cum velit».*). The chunk ends cleanly above the centered DISTINCTIO XIII header; everything from that header onward is excluded.

**[?] flags:** none. All 4 dubia bodies read cleanly from the PDF bands cross-checked against the raw OCR; all 15 apparatus entries were transcribed from the printed footers. Footer [^14] (p.300 n.2) preserves an `[?]`-free reading of the codex-H insertion (*per multa foramina… hoc et illud*); the exact codex-sigla mid-clause were partly cut at the band edge but the substantive variant text is legible and complete.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 13

title_alt: De confectione eucharistiae a bonis et malis ministris

title_alt: On the confecting of the Eucharist by good and evil ministers

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 300 -->

### Cap. I. *Si hoc Sacramentum conficiatur ab haereticis, vel excommunicatis.*

Solet etiam quaeri, utrum pravi sacerdotes hoc Sacramentum conficere queant. Ad quod dici potest, quod aliqui, licet sint pravi, consecrant vere, scilicet qui intus sunt nomine et Sacramento, etsi non vita; quia non in merito consecrantis, sed in verbo efficitur Creatoris. Unde Augustinus[^1]: « Intra catholicam Ecclesiam in mysterio corporis et sanguinis Domini nihil a bono maius, nihil a malo minus perficitur sacerdote, quia non in merito consecrantis, sed in verbo perficitur Creatoris et virtute Spiritus sancti. Credendum est enim, quod in verbis Christi Sacramenta conficiantur. Sicut ipse est qui baptizat, ita ipse est qui per Spiritum sanctum suam efficit carnem et sanguinem ». Item Gregorius[^2]: « Putant quidam, communionem corporis minus esse sanctificatam, si illorum fiat officio, quorum vita eorum oculis videtur ignobilis. Heu, in quam magnum laqueum incidunt, ut divina et occulta mysteria plus ab aliis sanctificata posse fieri credant, cum unus idemque Spiritus sanctus in tota Ecclesia invisibiliter ea mysteria et operando sanctificet et sanctificando benedicat! Mysterium ideo dicitur, quod secretam et reconditam habeat dispensationem; *sacrificium* vero, quasi sacrum factum, quia prece mystica consecratur pro nobis in memoriam dominicae passionis. *Sacramentum* est in aliqua celebratione, cum res ita fit, ut aliquid significatae rei accipiamus. Sacramenta sunt: baptisma, chrisma, corpus Christi, quae ideo Sacramenta dicuntur, quia sub tegumento visibilium rerum divina virtus secretius salutem eorundem Sacramentorum operatur; unde a secretis virtutibus vel sacris Sacramenta dicuntur. Panis et calicis Sacramentum Graece *eucharistia* dicitur, latine *bona gratia* interpretatur; et quid melius corpore et sanguine Christi? Sive ergo per bonos, sive per malos ministros intra Ecclesiam dispensetur, Sacramentum tamen est, quia Spiritus sanctus vivificat; nec bonorum dispensatorum meritis ampliatur nec malorum attenuatur. Hoc de corpore Domini, hoc etiam de baptismate et chrismate dicendum est et tenendum; quia virtus divina secretius operatur in eis, et divina solummodo est haec virtus sive potestas, non humanae efficaciae ».

Illi vero, qui excommunicati sunt, vel de haeresi manifeste notati, non videntur hoc Sacramentum posse conficere, licet sacerdotes sint; quia nemo dicit in ipsa consecratione *offero,* sed *offerimus,* quasi ex persona Ecclesiae. Et ideo, cum alia Sacramenta extra Ecclesiam possint celebrari, de hoc non videtur. Quod etiam Augustinus[^3] tradere videtur dicens: « Recolite nomen et advertite veritatem! *Missa* enim dicitur, eo quod caelestis missus ad consecrandam vivificum corpus adveniat, iuxta dictum sacerdotis dicentis: « Omnipotens Deus, iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum » etc. Idcirco, nisi Angelus venerit, *Missa* nequaquam iure vocari potest. Nunquid enim, si hoc mysterium haereticus ausus fuerit usurpare, Angelum de caelis Deus oblationem eius consecrare; maxime cum eisdem per Prophetam comminatus sit dicens: *Maledicam benedictionibus ve-*

<!-- page 301 -->

*stris.* Quod si benedictionibus eorum se asserit maledicturum Veritas, quid erit de hostia? Ergo dicemus, illam posse benedici ab illo quem scimus a Deo fore maledictum cum sua benedictione? Si enim Deus maledixerit[^4], et simoniacus benedixerit; quis eorum praevalebit? Nunquid benedictio maledicti ad nihilum poterit redigere verba verissima comminantis Dei »?

Ex his colligitur, quod haereticus a catholica Ecclesia[^5] praecisus nequeat hoc Sacramentum conficere, quia sancti Angeli, qui huius mysterii celebrationi assistunt, tunc non adsunt, quando haereticus, vel simoniacus hoc mysterium temerarie celebrare praesumit. Non enim dubitari licet, ubi corporis dominici et sanguinis mysteria geruntur, supernorum civium adesse conventus. In huius autem mysterii expletione sicut *formam* servari, ita *ordinem* haberi, scilicet ut sit sacerdos, et *intentionem* adhiberi oportet, ut illud facere intendat. — Sed si non credit de illo mysterio, sicut veritas habet, nunquid potest *intendere* illud conficere? Et si non *intendit,* nunquid conficit? — Aliqui dicunt, etiam non recte de illo mysterio sentientem posse *intendere,* non quidem illud *conficere,* quod iam esset recte credere, sed *id agere,* quod geritur ab aliis, dum illud conficitur, et sic adhibetur intentio; etsi intentio dicatur deesse conficiendi illud mysterium, tamen, ex quo intendit ea dicere et agere, quae ab aliis geruntur, impletur mysterium. — Illud etiam sane dici potest, quod a brutis animalibus corpus Christi non sumitur, etsi videatur. Quid ergo sumit mus, quid manducat? Deus novit. — De hoc caelesti mysterio aliqua perstrinximus, a Catholicis fideliter tenenda; qui enim his contradicit, haereticus iudicatur.

### Cap. II. *Quid faciat haereticum, et quid sit haereticus.*

Ne autem ignores, quid *haereticum* faciat, vel quid sit *haereticus;* audi breviter, quid inde sancti Doctores tradant. Hilarius[^6] ait: « Exstiterunt plures, qui caelestium verborum simplicitatem, non veritatis ipsius absolutionem, susceperunt, aliter interpretantes, quam dictorum virtus postularet. De *intelligentia* enim haeresis, non de *Scriptura* est; et *sensus,* non *sermo,* fit crimen ». Idem libro septimo: « Intelligentiae sensus in crimine est ». Hieronymus[^7] dicit, quod « ex verbis inordinate prolatis incurritur haeresis ». Augustinus definiens, quid sit haereticus, ait: « Haereticus est qui pro alicuius temporalis commodi, et maxime gloriae principatusque sui gratia falsas ac novas opiniones vel gignit, vel sequitur[^8] ».

*Notula 1.* « Maledicam benedictionibus vestris — id est, his quae eis benedictionibus possidetis, vel quidquid a vobis benedicitur — vel quoniam non benedicunt sanctis ex vero corde, vel quia qui inique agunt benedicuntur ab eis, adulanturque peccatoribus, dummodo divites sint ». Item: « Maledicam benedictionibus vestris, id est, quidquid a vobis benedicetur, per me erit maledictum ».

*Notula 2.* Gregorius super Ezechielem: « Qui in expositione sacri Eloquii, ut auditoribus placeat, aliquid fingit, sua verba loquitur, non Dei; qui autem in verbis dominicis aliter, quam is qui protulit, senserit, etsi sub alio intellectu, tamen aedificationem caritatis tendit »; Domini sunt verba, quae dicit.

---

english:
<!-- page 300 -->

### Chap. I. *Whether this Sacrament is confected by heretics, or by the excommunicate.*

It is also wont to be asked whether wicked priests can confect this Sacrament. To which it can be said that some, although they be wicked, truly consecrate — namely those who are within in name and Sacrament, even if not in life; because it is brought about not by the merit of the one consecrating, but by the word of the Creator. Whence Augustine[^1]: « Within the catholic Church, in the mystery of the body and blood of the Lord, nothing more is brought about by a good priest, nothing less by a bad one, because it is brought about not by the merit of the one consecrating, but by the word of the Creator and the power of the Holy Spirit. For it is to be believed that the Sacraments are confected in the words of Christ. As he himself is the one who baptizes, so he himself is the one who through the Holy Spirit makes his flesh and blood ». Likewise Gregory[^2]: « Some suppose that the communion of the body is less sanctified if it be done by the office of those whose life seems to their eyes ignoble. Alas, into how great a snare they fall, that they believe the divine and hidden mysteries can be made more sanctified by some than by others, when one and the same Holy Spirit invisibly in the whole Church both sanctifies those mysteries by his working and blesses them by his sanctifying! It is therefore called *mystery* because it has a secret and hidden dispensation; but *sacrifice,* as it were a sacred thing done, because by mystical prayer it is consecrated for us in memory of the Lord's passion. *Sacrament* is in some celebration, when the thing is so done that we receive something of the signified reality. The Sacraments are: baptism, chrism, the body of Christ, which are therefore called Sacraments because under the covering of visible things the divine power more secretly works the salvation of those same Sacraments; whence they are called *Sacraments* from secret powers or sacred things. The Sacrament of the bread and the chalice is in Greek called *eucharistia,* in Latin interpreted *good grace;* and what is better than the body and blood of Christ? Whether therefore it be dispensed by good or by evil ministers within the Church, it is nonetheless a Sacrament, because the Holy Spirit gives life; nor is it enlarged by the merits of good dispensers nor diminished by those of bad ones. This is to be said and held concerning the body of the Lord, this also concerning baptism and chrism; because the divine power works in them more secretly, and this power or might is divine alone, not of human efficacy ».

But those who are excommunicate, or manifestly noted for heresy, do not seem able to confect this Sacrament, although they be priests; because no one says in the consecration itself *I offer,* but *we offer,* as if in the person of the Church. And therefore, since the other Sacraments can be celebrated outside the Church, concerning this one it does not seem so. Which Augustine[^3] also seems to hand down, saying: « Recall the name and attend to the truth! For it is called *Missa* (Mass) because the heavenly messenger comes to consecrate the life-giving body, according to the saying of the priest who says: « Almighty God, bid these things to be carried up by the hands of thy holy Angel to thy sublime altar » etc. Therefore, unless the Angel come, it can in no way rightly be called *Missa.* For if a heretic shall have dared to usurp this mystery, would God send an Angel from heaven to consecrate his oblation; especially since he threatened those same by the Prophet, saying: *I will curse your blessings.*

<!-- page 301 -->

For if the Truth asserts that he will curse their blessings, what will become of the victim? Shall we then say that it can be blessed by him whom we know is to be cursed by God along with his blessing? For if God shall have cursed[^4], and a simoniac shall have blessed; which of them will prevail? Can the blessing of the cursed reduce to nothing the most true words of the threatening God »?

From these things it is gathered that a heretic cut off from the catholic Church[^5] cannot confect this Sacrament, because the holy Angels, who assist at the celebration of this mystery, are then not present, when a heretic, or a simoniac, presumes rashly to celebrate this mystery. For it cannot be doubted that, where the mysteries of the Lord's body and blood are performed, an assembly of the citizens above is present. But in the carrying-out of this mystery, just as the *form* must be observed, so the *order* must be kept — namely that there be a priest — and the *intention* must be applied, so that he intend to do it. — But if he does not believe concerning that mystery as the truth holds, can he *intend* to confect it? And if he does not *intend,* does he confect it? — Some say that even one who does not think rightly concerning that mystery can *intend,* not indeed to *confect* it — for that would already be to believe rightly — but to *do that* which is performed by others while it is confected, and thus the intention is applied; and even if the intention be said to be lacking of confecting that mystery, nevertheless, since he intends to say and do the things which are performed by others, the mystery is fulfilled. — This too can soundly be said, that the body of Christ is not taken by brute animals, even if it seem so. What then does a mouse take, what does it eat? God knows. — Concerning this heavenly mystery we have touched on a few things, to be faithfully held by Catholics; for whoever contradicts these is judged a heretic.

### Chap. II. *What makes a heretic, and what a heretic is.*

But lest you be ignorant what makes a *heretic,* or what a *heretic* is, hear briefly what the holy Doctors hand down concerning it. Hilary[^6] says: « There have arisen many who took up the simplicity of the heavenly words, not the absoluteness of the truth itself, interpreting otherwise than the force of the sayings required. For heresy is of the *understanding,* not of *Scripture;* and the *sense,* not the *word,* becomes the crime ». The same, in book seven: « The sense of the understanding is in the crime ». Jerome[^7] says that « by words uttered without order heresy is incurred ». Augustine, defining what a heretic is, says: « A heretic is one who for the sake of some temporal advantage, and especially for the glory and primacy of himself, either begets or follows false and new opinions[^8] ».

*Note 1.* « I will curse your blessings — that is, those things which you possess by those blessings, or whatever is blessed by you — or because they do not bless the holy with a true heart, or because those who act unjustly are blessed by them, and they flatter sinners, provided they be rich ». Likewise: « I will curse your blessings, that is, whatever shall be blessed by you, by me shall be cursed ».

*Note 2.* Gregory on Ezekiel: « He who in the exposition of the sacred Word, in order to please his hearers, invents something, speaks his own words, not God's; but he who in the words of the Lord has thought otherwise than he who uttered them, even if under another understanding, nevertheless tends toward the edification of charity »; the words which he speaks are the Lord's.

---

la: Can. *Intra catholicam* (77.), C. 1. q. 1, et apud Algerum, III. de Sacram. c. 8. — Superius post *nomine* codd. A B C D et edd. 1, 6 omittunt *et.* Supple: *sacerdotes.*

en: The canon *Intra catholicam* (77), C. 1, q. 1, and in Alger, bk. III on the Sacrament, c. 8. — Above, after *nomine,* codd. A B C D and edd. 1, 6 omit *et.* Supply: *priests.*

la: Can. *Multi saecularium* (81.), ibid. — Maior pars huius loci invenitur apud Isidor., VI. Etymolog. c. 19. n. 38. seqq., ordine vero immutato.

en: The canon *Multi saecularium* (81), ibid. — The greater part of this passage is found in Isidore, *Etymologies* VI, c. 19, n. 38 ff., but with the order changed.

la: Non est Augustini, qui potius cum communi sententia contrarium docet. Unde Magister sumserit hunc locum, non invenimus. Oratio citata habetur in canone Missae post consecrationem; locus Scripturae Mal. 2, 2.

en: It is not Augustine's, who rather with the common opinion teaches the contrary. Whence the Master took this passage we have not found. The prayer cited is had in the canon of the Mass after the consecration; the Scripture passage is Mal. 2:2.

la: Cod. B et edd., excepta 1, subiungunt *benedictionibus haereticorum,* deinde sola Vat. *schismaticus* pro *simoniacus.* — Plures edd. hic interserunt notulas in fine distinctionis positas.

en: Cod. B and the editions, except 1, add *benedictionibus haereticorum,* then the Vatican alone has *schismaticus* for *simoniacus.* — Several editions here insert the notes placed at the end of the distinction.

la: Cod. A *unitate,* ed. 1 *fide catholica.* Porro ante *praesumit* codd. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 7 omittunt *celebrare,* ed. 6 *temerare praesumit.* — De seqq. cfr. Beda, super Lucam 24, 4.

en: Cod. A has *unitate,* ed. 1 *fide catholica.* Further, before *praesumit* the codd. and edd. 1, 2, 3, 7 omit *celebrare,* ed. 6 *temerare praesumit.* — On what follows cf. Bede, on Luke 24:4.

la: Libr. II. de Trin. n. 3. — Seq. locus est eiusdem in VII. n. 83, ubi ipsa verba inveniuntur; codd. et edd. citant VIII, (n. 4. et 11.), ubi similis sententia est. Iam cod. Erf. correxit numerum librorum.

en: Bk. II *On the Trinity,* n. 3. — The following passage is from the same, in bk. VII, n. 83, where the very words are found; the codd. and edd. cite bk. VIII, (n. 4 and 11), where there is a similar sentence. Already the Erfurt codex corrected the number of the books.

la: In Glossa ad Osee 2, 16, apud Lyranum; in Comment. mi non invenitur. Locus August. est in libro de Utilitate credendi, c. 1. n. 1.

en: In the Gloss on Hosea 2:16, in Lyra; in the Commentary it is not found. The passage of Augustine is in the book *On the Usefulness of Believing,* c. 1, n. 1.

la: Cod. C hic ponit duas notulas, quae in plerisque edd. et nonnullis codd. ponuntur ad marginem, attamen non ab omnibus eodem loco. — In 1. notula locus 1. sumtus est ex C. *Multi saecularium,* supra pag. 300, nota 2. citato § 5, et seq. locus ex Hieron. in Mal. 2, 2. — Notula 2. sumta est ex Gregor., in Ezech. hom. 10. n. 14.

en: Cod. C here places two notes, which in most editions and some codices are placed in the margin, yet not by all in the same place. — In the 1st note the 1st passage is taken from the canon *Multi saecularium,* cited above, p. 300, note 2, § 5, and the following passage from Jerome on Mal. 2:2. — Note 2 is taken from Gregory, on Ezekiel, homily 10, n. 14.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 34527–34682), with PDF column-band reads (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{300,301}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) authoritative on the cascade-fragmented two-column body and footers (the OCR for these pages is severely shattered — diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation + two-column bleed). English is a fresh literal parallel. Two-column Vol IV → VOL II OVERRIDE applied. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 300–301 = pdf 320–321).
- **This is the LITTERA MAGISTRI of Distinction XIII** — Peter Lombard's chapters on the confecting of the Eucharist by good and evil ministers (Cap. I: whether heretics/excommunicate can confect, the role of intention, and the brute-animal/mouse case; Cap. II: what makes a heretic). **SINGLE-PARS distinction** — Lombard prints d.XIII as one block (Cap. I + Cap. II + two appended *Notulae*), no Pars division; the frontmatter carries no `pars` field.
- **Chapter list:** Cap. I (*Si hoc Sacramentum conficiatur ab haereticis, vel excommunicatis*); Cap. II (*Quid faciat haereticum, et quid sit haereticus*); + two appended *Notulae* (the Cod. C marginal notes glossing the *Maledicam benedictionibus* lemma and the Gregory-on-Ezekiel passage; rendered in the body as *Notula 1* / *Notula 2*).
- **Page-verify.** p.300 running head `300 / SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV` (top), then `DISTINCTIO XIII.` + `Cap. I. / Si hoc Sacramentum conficiatur ab haereticis, vel excommunicatis.`; p.301 running head `DIST. XIII. DIVISIO TEXTUS 301` + `Cap. II.`. Both confirm the distinction.
- **Opening seam (p.300).** The littera physically OPENS on p.300 below the tail of d.XII's Respondeo (the left-column *Resp. 1 / Non sufficit* material on vitanda peccata — « male dicere… non videntur peccata » through « …difficile est dicere »), then blank, then `DISTINCTIO XIII. / Cap. I.`. The prior d.XII Respondeo and its LEFT-column footers (notes ¹²³ = *Quis enim peccat / Cod. B addit / Cap. 4. n. 9.*) belong to the d.XII chunk and are EXCLUDED here. No body text dropped at the d.XII→d.XIII seam.
- **Footer ownership / two-column split.** p.300 carries TWO footer blocks. The LEFT-column block (notes ¹²³ on the d.XII *Resp. 1* material) belongs to the PRIOR d.XII chunk and is EXCLUDED. The RIGHT-column block headed *NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM* (notes 1–3 = *Intra catholicam / Multi saecularium / Non est Augustini*) is the Lombard littera's apparatus and is claimed HERE as `[^1]–[^3]`. p.301 carries the littera's continuing footers in the LEFT column (notes 1–3 = *Cod. B subiungunt benedictionibus haereticorum / Cod. A unitate / Libr. II de Trin.*) plus the RIGHT column upper block (*In Glossa ad Osee 2,16 / Cod. C duas notulas*) → mapped here as `[^4]–[^8]`. The p.301 LOWER footer block under the `COMMENTARIUS … DIVISIO TEXTUS` rule belongs to the NEXT chunk (the divisio) and is EXCLUDED.
- **Cutoff.** The littera ends with *Notula 2* on p.301 (« …Domini sunt verba, quae dicit »). Immediately below on p.301 the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIII / De potestate conficiendi et sumendi / DIVISIO TEXTUS` begins — that is the NEXT chunk (`d13-divisio`, raw ≥ L34683) and is EXCLUDED. Cross-checked: no body text dropped at the littera→commentarius seam.
- **No scholion** — littera chunk.
- **`[?]` flags:**
  - **p.301 `[^5]` lemma attachment (« catholica Ecclesia »):** the body marker `[^5]` is placed at *a catholica Ecclesia praecisus*, which the band footer glosses with the *Cod. A unitate / ed. 1 fide catholica* variant on *Ecclesia/catholica* plus the *celebrare/temerare praesumit* variant just below; the precise lemma-to-note seam (whether the codex siglum keys to *unitate* on *Ecclesia* or to the *praesumit* clause) is slightly uncertain from the column band. The note text is fully legible; only the anchor point is flagged for a 600 dpi recheck at the d.11–d.20 decade-polish gate.
  - Unambiguous OCR garbles silently corrected from the band (e.g. `conficianlur`→*conficiantur,* `efficilur`→*efficitur,* `Augusliiuis`→*Augustinus,* `ampliatnr`→*ampliatur,* `excommunicaii`→*excommunicati,* `inanducat`→*manducat,* `comminantis Dei,* `Hiiarius`→*Hilarius,* `Hieronymus`→*Hieronymus,* `Ezechielem,* `aedificationem,* `Notula` from *JSotu/a*/`iNotula`).
</content>

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. 13, Divisio Textus

title_alt:
Divisio textus
Division of the text

source_text:
<!-- page 301 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIII.

#### *De potestate conficiendi et sumendi.*

> Solet etiam quaeri, utrum pravi sacerdotes etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de confectione, hic agit de potestate conficiendi. Et dividitur haec pars in tres partes. In prima quaerit Magister et determinat, qui possint conficere. In secunda, qui possint sumere, ostendens, quod soli homines, ibi: *Illud etiam sane dici potest, quod a brutis animalibus etc.* In tertia vero incidenter determinat, pro quanto dicantur aliqui errare sive haeresim incurrere, ibi: *Ne autem ignores, quid faciat hominem haereticum.*

Prima pars habet duas. In prima determinat sive tangit, quae sunt necessaria ad conficiendum hoc Sacramentum licite. In secunda tangit illa quae sunt de necessitate huius Sacramenti simpliciter, quae scilicet sunt intentio et ordo, ibi: *In huius*

<!-- page 302 -->

*autem mysterii expletione etc.* Quamvis enim bonitas sit necessaria sacerdoti ad hoc, quod conficiendo non peccet, saltem quod probabiliter sit bonus; sed tamen[^1] non est necessaria ad hoc, quod conficiat. Sed ordo et intentio ad conficiendum simpliciter sunt necessaria; altero enim deficiente, non conficitur, sed deficiente bonitate, sic. Et sic duo determinantur in hac distinctione: primum spectat ad conficiendi potestatem, secundum vero ad sumtionem.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de potestate conficientis.

Secundo quaeritur de sumente.

Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor.

Primo quaeritur, utrum omnis sacerdos possit conficere.

Secundo, utrum soli sacerdotes.

Tertio quaeritur, in quo resideat maior potestas ad consecrandum, in sacerdote, an in verbo.

Quarto quaeritur, utrum melior sit Missa boni sacerdotis quam mali.

### ARTICULUS I.

#### *De potestate conficientis.*

### QUAESTIO I.

#### *Utrum omnis sacerdos possit conficere.*

---

english:
<!-- page 301 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XIII.

#### *On the power of confecting and of receiving.*

> It is also wont to be asked, whether wicked priests, etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the confecting; here he treats of the power of confecting. And this part is divided into three parts. In the first the Master asks and determines who can confect. In the second, who can receive, showing that only men [can], there: *It can also rightly be said that by brute animals, etc.* In the third he incidentally determines for how far some are said to err or to incur heresy, there: *But lest you be ignorant of what makes a man a heretic.*

The first part has two [parts]. In the first he determines or touches upon those things which are necessary in order to confect this Sacrament licitly. In the second he touches upon those things which belong to the necessity of this Sacrament absolutely, namely intention and order, there: *In the*

<!-- page 302 -->

*completion of this mystery, etc.* For although goodness is necessary to the priest in order that, in confecting, he does not sin — at least that he be probably good — yet nevertheless[^1] it is not necessary in order that he confect. But order and intention are absolutely necessary for confecting; for if either is lacking, [the Sacrament] is not confected, whereas if goodness is lacking, it is [confected]. And thus two things are determined in this distinction: the first pertains to the power of confecting, the second to the receiving.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

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

First it is asked concerning the power of the one confecting.

Second it is asked concerning the one receiving.

Concerning the first, four [things] are asked.

First it is asked, whether every priest can confect.

Second, whether only priests [can].

Third it is asked, in what the greater power for consecrating resides, in the priest or in the word.

Fourth it is asked, whether the Mass of a good priest is better than that of a bad one.

### ARTICLE I.

#### *On the power of the one confecting.*

### QUESTION I.

#### *Whether every priest can confect.*

---

la: Cod. H, voci *saltem* praemisso *vel*, hic supplet *bonitas*.

en: Codex H, with *vel* prefixed to the word *saltem*, here supplies *bonitas* (goodness).

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw lines 34674–34746 (the COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIII header through the QUAESTIO I title) with the PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p301-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `vol4-p302-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) authoritative in the two-column cascade-fragmented regions — the OCR splices the left- and right-column lines together throughout the DIVISIO TEXTUS and TRACTATIO. Offset pdf = printed + 20. Page-verify confirmed: running head on p.301 reads **DIST. XIII. DIVISIO TEXTUS** + folio 301. The QUAESTIO I body (*Circa primum sic proceditur.* 1. Augustinus… through the *Contra* arguments, p.302 both columns, raw line 34758+) is excluded; it opens the next chunk `d13-a1-q1`.
- **Structure confirmed — TWO articles** (per the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM "duo principaliter"): **Art I** *De potestate conficientis* (p.302, "Primo quaeritur de potestate conficientis") with **four questions** listed verbatim under "Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor" — q1 *utrum omnis sacerdos possit conficere*; q2 *utrum soli sacerdotes*; q3 *in quo resideat maior potestas ad consecrandum, in sacerdote, an in verbo*; q4 *utrum melior sit Missa boni sacerdotis quam mali*. **Art II** *De sumente eucharistiam* ("Secundo quaeritur de sumente"), with **two questions** (not enumerated on this page; they open Art II later in the distinction). Per the divisio-chunk convention the ARTICULUS I opener (heading + sub-title) folds in here, along with the QUAESTIO I heading + title; the q1 body is left to `d13-a1-q1`.
- **Page-split map:** the chunk straddles printed pages 301–302 (page break `<!-- page 302 -->` placed mid-sentence inside the DIVISIO TEXTUS, before *autem mysterii expletione etc.*, where the printed text breaks across the page foot). p.301 carries the COMMENTARIUS title (printed mid-page, below Lombard's *Cap. II* littera, which is NOT part of this chunk), the *De potestate conficiendi et sumendi* subtitle, the *Solet etiam quaeri* argumentum, and the opening of the DIVISIO TEXTUS (left + right columns). p.302 carries the DIVISIO conclusion (the intention/order determination), the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (two principal questions + the four Art-I questions, left + right cols), the ARTICULUS I opener, and the QUAESTIO I title.
- **Footer ownership:** **p.301 footers — notes 1–5** are the editors' source/variant notes on Lombard's *Cap. II* littera printed above the COMMENTARIUS; they belong to `bon-sent-IV-d13-littera` (its `[^4]`–`[^8]`, confirmed byte-for-byte duplicates) and do NOT belong here — they anchor no marker in this divisio body. **p.302 footer note 1** (`Cod. H, voci saltem praemisso vel, hic supplet bonitas`) anchors the in-body `tamen` marker in the DIVISIO TEXTUS ("saltem quod probabiliter sit bonus; sed tamen non est necessaria…") and IS claimed here, now `[^1]` (the file's only footnote). **p.302 footer notes 2–10** (Augustinus *in libro Sententiarum Prosperi*, Hieronymus, Cyprianus, Concilium Laodicense, etc.) anchor in the QUAESTIO I *Circa primum sic proceditur* arguments and are **left to `d13-a1-q1`**.
- **J4 apparatus fix (2026-07-13):** the former `[^1]`–`[^5]` were a trap-3c duplication of `bon-sent-IV-d13-littera`'s own `[^4]`–`[^8]` (verified verbatim match) — they were reproduced here for "completeness" but rendered as 5 orphaned/dangling footnotes since nothing in this divisio body anchors them. Deleted; the sole genuine in-body marker (`tamen`) renumbered `[^6]`→`[^1]`. No text lost — the littera chunk already carries these five notes correctly anchored.
- **No `[?]` flags** — the divisio body, the two-articles/six-questions partition, and the six owned footers read cleanly once reflowed from the column bands. Printed title reads *De potestate conficiendi et sumendi* (COMMENTARIUS subtitle), *De potestate conficientis* (ARTICULUS I sub-title); both confirmed against the bands.
- **Hand-off to `d13-a1-q1`:** opening sentence is *Circa primum sic proceditur. 1. Augustinus, in libro Sententiarum Prosperi: «Non est locus veri sacrificii extra catholicam Ecclesiam»…* (p.302, raw line 34758+). It must claim **p.302 footer notes 2–10** (the *Ad oppositum* / *Contra* source apparatus on the q1 arguments and the *Contra* Augustinus ad Parmenianum chain). No body text or footnote is dropped at the seam.
- No scholion in this divisio chunk.


title: Dist. 13, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 302 -->

### Tractatio Quaestionum.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis duo principaliter quaeruntur.

*Primo* quaeritur de potestate conficientis.

*Secundo* quaeritur de sumente.

Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor.

*Primo* quaeritur, utrum omnis sacerdos possit conficere.

*Secundo*, utrum soli sacerdotes.

*Tertio* quaeritur, in quo resideat maior potestas ad consecrandum, in sacerdote, an in verbo.

*Quarto* quaeritur, utrum melior sit Missa boni sacerdotis quam mali.

### Articulus I. *De potestate conficientis.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum omnis sacerdos possit conficere.*

Circa primum sic proceditur.

1. Augustinus, in libro Sententiarum Prosperi: «*Non est locus veri sacrificii extra catholicam Ecclesiam*»; sed haereticus est extra catholicam Ecclesiam: ergo in eo non est verum sacrificium, et sic etc.

2. Item, Hieronymus[^2]: «*Panem pollutum comedunt haeretici*»; sed panis iste non potest pollui: ergo non comedunt hunc panem.

3. Item, idem Hieronymus[^3]: «*Odit Deus sacrificia haereticorum, detestatur foetorem*»: ergo non mittit nec se nec Angelos, nec ipsi per consequens mittunt in caelum: ergo non conficiunt nec Missam dicunt et falso dicunt: *Ite, Missa est*.

4. Item, Cyprianus[^4]: «*Haereticorum Sacramenta sacrilegia sunt*»; sed iste panis sanctus est: ergo etc.

5. Item, ex Concilio Laodicensi[^5]: «*Non oportet haereticorum benedictiones accipere; sunt enim magis maledictiones*».

6. Item, ratione videtur: quia hoc Sacramentum est Sacramentum unionis: ergo qui separati sunt ab Ecclesia omnino alieni sunt ab hoc Sacramento; et si hoc, non possunt conficere[^7].

7. Item, qui separati et haeretici sunt, quamvis habeant ordinem, non possunt solvere et ligare; et si solvunt, nihil faciunt[^8]: ergo eadem ratione nec conficere.

8. Item, «*privilegium meretur amittere qui concessa sibi abutitur potestate*»[^9]; sed haereticus et schismaticus abutuntur potestate conficiendi; ergo sicut Deus dedit potestatem, ita et debet auferre.

9. Item, potestatis superioris est compescere inferiorem, si ordinatae sunt potestates: ergo si Papa, vel episcopus vetat sacerdoti, ne conficiat, amplius non potest conficere. Si dicas, quod non potest de iure, potest tamen de facto; contra: hoc solum potest homo apud Deum, quod de iure potest; sed potestas conficiendi est potestas quantum ad Deum: ergo si non potest de iure, nullo modo potest.

**Contra:** 1. Augustinus ad Parmenianum[^10], loquens de haereticis et schismaticis: «*Sicut in eis*

<!-- page 303 -->

*mansit baptismus, sic et ordinatio integra; in praecisione fuerat vitium, quod in unitate pacis est correctum, non in Sacramentis, quae ubicumque sunt, ipsa vera sunt*»[^1b].

2. Item, Causa prima, quaestione prima[^2b]: «*Sacramenta in modum lucis ab immundis coinquinari non possunt*».

3. Item, sacerdos conficit, aut quia *bonus*, aut quia *sacerdos*. Si quia *bonus*; sed non est certus de bonitate: ergo nec certus est, utrum conficiat. Si quia *sacerdos*; cum propter haeresim non desinat esse sacerdos, patet etc.[^3b]

4. Item, ad Sacramentum ex parte dispensantis non plus requiritur quam «*ordo et intentio et actio*»[^4b]; sed haec omnia sunt in praeciso: ergo etc. Si dicas, quod requiritur bonitas: tunc salus nostra in manu alterius est posita[^5b].

> **Conclusio.** In omni sacerdote rite procedente salvatur veritas Sacramenti, non autem eius utilitas conficienti malo, vel excommunicato.

**Respondeo:** Aliqui voluerunt distinguere, ex quibus videtur fuisse Magister[^6b], quod sacerdotes mali quidam occulte sunt mali et de Ecclesia, saltem numero et quoad exteriorem faciem; et tales possunt. Alii vero sunt manifeste mali et ab Ecclesia praecisi; et tales non possunt. — Sed haec positio videtur consonare positioni Cypriani, qui posuit, quod haeretici non habeant vera Sacramenta; quod satis improbat Augustinus[^7b].

Propter hoc dicendum aliter, quod in Sacramento duo attenduntur, scilicet Sacramenti veritas, quae consistit quantum ad rem primam[^8b], et Sacramenti utilitas, quae consistit quantum ad rem ultimam, quae est incorporatio vel unio quantum ad corpus mysticum. Si de veritate Sacramenti loquamur, veritas salvatur, ubi est ex parte ministri ordo et intentio et verbi prolatio, cum adest debitum elementum. — Si autem loquamur quantum ad utilitatem, dicendum, quod sacerdos *bonus* conficit ad utilitatem suam et assistentium; *malus occultus* ad damnum suum, nihilominus tamen ad utilitatem assistentium, qui cum fide et devotione Missam audiunt; sed *praecisus et haereticus* ad damnationem suam et omnium assistentium[^9b]. — Quia ergo in praecisis et haereticis manifestis privatur Sacramentum omni fructu, quamvis sit ibi corpus Christi verum; ideo loquuntur sacri canones et auctoritates Sanctorum, ipsorum sacrificia detestantes, non ratione operis operati, sed damni.

1–5. Et sic solvuntur auctoritates, et sic credendum est intellexisse Magistrum[^10b].

6. Ad illud autem quod obiicitur, quod non possunt praecisi, quia est Sacramentum unionis; dicendum, quod Sacramentum unionis est ratione efficientiae[^11b], et praecisi sine efficacia et fructu conficiunt.

7. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non possunt solvere; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia potestas solvendi est potestas ad alterum ordinata, quae non tantum consistit in *ordine*, sed in *iurisdictione*, quam non habet haereticus[^12b].

8. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod privilegium debet amittere; dicendum, quod dignus est de se, sed tamen Dei largitas non subtrahit quod imprimit ut perpetuum; et quia talis est character sacerdotalis, ideo manet ad divinae largitatis gloriam et malorum perpetuam damnationem et ignominiam, et per consequens ad manifestandam Dei iustitiam.

9. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod superior potestas potest cohibere inferiorem; dicendum, quod secundum illud potest cohibere, secundum quod superior; sed non est superior quantum ad potestatem conficiendi — omnes enim sacerdotes aequaliter possunt conficere — sed quantum ad ordinatam debitam et ordinatam exsecutionem est superior, et quantum ad hanc bene cohibet. Unde si praecisus vel excommunicatus conficiat, facit quidem hoc, ad quod habet potentiam, sed tamen non facit debite et ordinate, immo ad damnationem suam.

english:
### Treatment of the Questions.

For the understanding of this part, two things are principally asked.

*First*, there is asked concerning the power of the one who confects.

*Second*, there is asked concerning the one who receives.

Concerning the first, four things are asked.

*First*, it is asked whether every priest can confect.

*Second*, whether priests alone [can].

*Third*, it is asked in what the greater power for consecrating resides, in the priest or in the word.

*Fourth*, it is asked whether the Mass of a good priest is better than that of a bad one.

### Article I. *On the power of the one who confects.*
### Question I. *Whether every priest can confect [the Eucharist].*

Concerning the first [point], one proceeds thus.

1. Augustine, in the book of the *Sentences of Prosper*: «*There is no place of true sacrifice outside the Catholic Church*»; but a heretic is outside the Catholic Church: therefore in him there is no true sacrifice, and so on.

2. Likewise, Jerome[^2]: «*Heretics eat polluted bread*»; but this bread cannot be polluted: therefore they do not eat this bread.

3. Likewise, the same Jerome[^3]: «*God hates the sacrifices of heretics, he detests the stench*»: therefore he sends neither himself nor the Angels, nor consequently do they themselves send [anything] into heaven: therefore they do not confect, nor do they say Mass, and they say falsely: *Go, the Mass is [ended]*.

4. Likewise, Cyprian[^4]: «*The Sacraments of heretics are sacrileges*»; but this bread is holy: therefore, etc.

5. Likewise, from the Council of Laodicea[^5]: «*One ought not to receive the blessings of heretics; for they are rather maledictions*».

6. Likewise, it seems by reason: because this Sacrament is the Sacrament of union: therefore those who are separated from the Church are altogether alien from this Sacrament; and if this be so, they cannot confect[^7].

7. Likewise, those who are separated and heretics, although they have order, cannot loose and bind; and if they loose, they do nothing[^8]: therefore by the same reasoning neither [can they] confect.

8. Likewise, «*he deserves to lose the privilege who abuses the power granted to him*»[^9]; but the heretic and schismatic abuse the power of confecting; therefore, just as God gave the power, so too he ought to take it away.

9. Likewise, it belongs to a superior power to restrain an inferior one, if the powers are ordered [to one another]: therefore if the Pope, or a bishop, forbids a priest to confect, he can no longer confect. If you say that he cannot by right, yet he can in fact; on the contrary: a man can do before God only that which he can by right; but the power of confecting is a power with respect to God: therefore if he cannot by right, in no way can he.

**On the contrary:** 1. Augustine to Parmenianus[^10], speaking of heretics and schismatics: «*Just as in them*

<!-- page 303 -->

*baptism remained, so also ordination [remained] intact; in the separation there was a fault, which is corrected in the peace of unity, not in the Sacraments, which, wherever they are, are themselves true*»[^1b].

2. Likewise, Cause one, question one[^2b]: «*The Sacraments, after the manner of light, cannot be defiled by the unclean*».

3. Likewise, a priest confects either because he is *good* or because he is a *priest*. If because he is *good*; but one is not certain of [his] goodness: therefore neither is one certain whether he confects. If because he is a *priest*; since on account of heresy he does not cease to be a priest, it is clear, etc.[^3b]

4. Likewise, for the Sacrament, on the part of the one dispensing it, no more is required than «*order and intention and action*»[^4b]; but all these are present in the one cut off: therefore, etc. If you say that goodness is required: then our salvation is placed in the hand of another[^5b].

> **Conclusion.** In every priest proceeding duly the truth of the Sacrament is preserved, but not its usefulness for the one confecting if he be bad or excommunicate.

**I respond:** Certain men wished to distinguish — among whom the Master seems to have been[^6b] — that some bad priests are bad secretly and [yet] are of the Church, at least by number and as to outward appearance; and these can [confect]. But others are manifestly bad and cut off from the Church; and these cannot. — But this position seems to accord with the position of Cyprian, who held that heretics do not have true Sacraments; which Augustine sufficiently disproves[^7b].

On account of this it must be said otherwise, that in the Sacrament two things are to be considered, namely the *truth* of the Sacrament, which consists with respect to the first thing[^8b], and the *usefulness* of the Sacrament, which consists with respect to the ultimate thing, which is incorporation or union with respect to the mystical body. If we speak of the truth of the Sacrament, the truth is preserved where, on the part of the minister, there is order and intention and the utterance of the word, when the due element is present. — But if we speak with respect to usefulness, it must be said that a *good* priest confects unto the usefulness of himself and of those assisting; a *secretly bad* one unto his own harm, yet nonetheless unto the usefulness of those assisting who hear the Mass with faith and devotion; but a *cut-off and heretical* one unto the damnation of himself and of all those assisting[^9b]. — Since therefore in the manifestly cut-off and heretical the Sacrament is deprived of all fruit, although the true body of Christ be there; therefore the sacred canons and the authorities of the Saints speak, detesting their sacrifices, not by reason of the work worked, but of the harm.

1–5. And thus the authorities are resolved, and thus it is to be believed that the Master understood [it][^10b].

6. To that which is objected, that the cut-off cannot [confect], because it is the Sacrament of union; it must be said that it is the Sacrament of union by reason of [its] efficacy[^11b], and the cut-off confect without efficacy and fruit.

7. To that which is objected, that they cannot loose; it must be said that it is not similar: because the power of loosing is a power ordered to another, which consists not only in *order*, but in *jurisdiction*, which the heretic does not have[^12b].

8. To that which is objected, that he ought to lose the privilege; it must be said that he is deserving [to lose it] of himself, but nevertheless the bounty of God does not take away what it imprints as perpetual; and because the priestly character is such, therefore it remains unto the glory of the divine bounty and unto the perpetual damnation and ignominy of the bad, and consequently unto the manifesting of God's justice.

9. To that which is objected, that a superior power can restrain an inferior; it must be said that it can restrain according to that respect in which it is superior; but it is not superior with respect to the power of confecting — for all priests can equally confect — but with respect to ordered, due, and orderly execution it is superior, and with respect to this it rightly restrains. Whence if a cut-off or excommunicate person confects, he does indeed do that for which he has the potency, but nevertheless he does not do it duly and in an orderly way, nay rather unto his own damnation.

la: Num. 15. Cfr. C. *Extra catholicam* (71.), C. 1. q. 1.

en: Num. 15. Cf. the chapter *Extra catholicam* (71.), C. 1. q. 1.

la: Comment. in Osee, 9, 3: *Et in Assyriis pollutum comedit.* Et in Aggaeum, 2, 11. seqq., ubi ait in fine: *Quamvis enim sancta videantur specie sui quae offeruntur a talibus, tamen, quia tacta sunt ab eo qui pollutus in anima est, omnia polluentur.* Vide C. *Sic populus* (61.), C. 1. q. 1. — Comment. in Amos, 5, 22; quod etiam allegatur in C. *Odit Deus* (62.) C. 1. q. 1.: *sacrificia haereticorum et a se proiicit, et quotiescumque sub nomine Domini fuerint congregati, detestatur foetorem eorum* etc. — De aliis propos. arg. vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1, et infra dub. 3.

en: Commentary on Hosea, 9, 3: *And among the Assyrians he eats what is polluted.* And on Haggai, 2, 11 ff., where he says at the end: *For although the things offered by such men seem holy in their own appearance, nevertheless, because they have been touched by one who is polluted in soul, all things will be polluted.* See the chapter *Sic populus* (61.), C. 1. q. 1. — Commentary on Amos, 5, 22; which is also alleged in the chapter *Odit Deus* (62.) C. 1. q. 1.: *He casts away the sacrifices of heretics from himself, and as often as they are gathered under the name of the Lord, he detests their stench*, etc. — On the other authorities of the argument see here the text of the Master, c. 1, and below dub. 3.

la: Epist. ad Magnum, n. 1. Cfr. C. *Si quis, inquit* (70.), § 1. C. 1. q. 1.

en: Letter to Magnus, n. 1. Cf. the chapter *Si quis, inquit* (70.), § 1. C. 1. q. 1.

la: Allegatur C. 1. q. 1. C. *Non oportet haereticorum* (66.) *benedictiones accipere, quoniam magis sunt maledictiones quam benedictiones.*

en: Alleged at C. 1. q. 1. the chapter *Non oportet haereticorum* (66.): *One ought not to receive the blessings of heretics, since they are rather maledictions than blessings.*

la: Cap. *Audivimus, quod* (4.), C. 24. q. 1. Gratianus sub § 1. ait: *Quicumque ergo ab unitate Ecclesiae, quae per Petrum intelligitur, fuerit alienus, exsecrare potest, consecrare non valet.*

en: The chapter *Audivimus, quod* (4.), C. 24. q. 1. Gratian under § 1 says: *Whoever therefore shall be alien from the unity of the Church, which is understood through Peter, can curse [but] is not able to consecrate.*

la: Cfr. infra d. 19. a. 2. q. 2.

la: Cap. *Tuarum* (11.), X. de Privileg. et excess. privileg. (lib. V. tit. 33.) et ibid. C. *Ut privilegia* (24.); suntque Innocent. III. — Post *Item* cod. G addit *Gregorius*, scil. IX, in suis Decretal., loc. cit.

en: The chapter *Tuarum* (11.), X. on Privileges and the abuse of privilege (bk. V. tit. 33.) and ibid. the chapter *Ut privilegia* (24.); and they are of Innocent III. — After *Item* codex G adds *Gregorius*, namely IX, in his Decretals, loc. cit.

la: Sive contra epist. Parmeniani, lib. II. c. 13. n. 28, ubi textus originalis post *integra* prosequitur: *quia* in praecisione.

en: Or *Against the Letter of Parmenianus*, bk. II. c. 13. n. 28, where the original text after *intact* continues: *because* in the separation.

la: Cap. *Remissionem* (39.), cui Gratianus haec verba subiungit.

en: The chapter *Remissionem* (39.), to which Gratian subjoins these words.

la: Hug. a S. Vict., Sum. Sent. tr. 6. c. 4.

en: Hugh of St. Victor, *Summa Sententiarum* tr. 6. c. 4.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1, et supra d. 5. a. 2. q. 1. fundam. 2.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1, and above d. 5. a. 2. q. 1. fundamentum 2.

la: Hic in lit. c. 1.

en: Here in the text [of the Master], c. 1.

la: Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. VI. c. 2; et in Decretal. Causa 1. q. 1; Causa 24. q. 1; de Consecrat. d. 4.

en: See above the text of the Master, d. VI. c. 2; and in the Decretals, Cause 1. q. 1; Cause 24. q. 1; on Consecration d. 4.

la: Codd. N aa addunt *scilicet corpus Christi verum* (cfr. supra d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.). Inferius post *corpus mysticum* iidem codd. N aa subiungunt *vel remissio venialium et augmentum virtutum* (cfr. supra d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 3.).

en: Codices N aa add *namely the true body of Christ* (cf. above d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.). Below, after *mystical body*, the same codices N aa subjoin *or the remission of venial [sins] and the increase of virtues* (cf. above d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 3.).

la: Cod. M *scienter assistentium*. Cfr. C. *Si quis dederit* (41.), C. 24. q. 1, et infra q. 1.

en: Codex M [reads] *of those knowingly assisting*. Cf. the chapter *Si quis dederit* (41.), C. 24. q. 1, and below q. 1.

la: Vide ea quae Gratianus ad C. *Quod quidam* (97.), C. 1. q. 1. sub § 3. seqq. notat.

en: See what Gratian notes on the chapter *Quod quidam* (97.), C. 1. q. 1. under § 3 ff.

la: Codd. F I K *efficaciae*, econtra mox pro *efficacia* codd. G U *efficientia*. Cfr. supra. lit. Magistri, d. IX. c. 2. seq.

en: Codices F I K [read] *of efficacy*, on the contrary shortly after, for *efficacy*, codices G U [read] *efficiency*. Cf. above the text of the Master, d. IX. c. 2. f.

la: Codd. N aa subiungunt: *sed conficiendi est potestas absoluta.* Vide infra d. 19. a. 2. q. 2.

en: Codices N aa subjoin: *but the power of confecting is absolute.* See below d. 19. a. 2. q. 2.

la: Cfr. supra d. 6. p. I. q. 1. seq.

en: Cf. above d. 6. p. I. q. 1. f.

la: Vide Gratian., loc. superius cit. § 3. et C. *Miramur, quomodo* (37.), § 1. C. 24. q. 1.

en: See Gratian, loc. cited above § 3 and the chapter *Miramur, quomodo* (37.), § 1. C. 24. q. 1. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Opinio, cui favet Magister (hic c. 1.), quod sacerdotes excommunicati non possint valide eucharistiam consecrare, est prorsus erronea et obsoleta; quam etiam nonnulli antiqui doctores, ut Geroch Reichersbergensis († 1169, de quo vide Dr. Bach, *Dogmengeschichte des Mittelalters*, I. pag. 435 seqq.), Petrus Cellensis et Petrus Pictaviensis, discipulus Magistri, tenuerunt. In eundem scopulum impegit Hugo a S. Vict., qui in *Quaestion. in Epist. S. Pauli* (q. 102.) ait: «*Qui autem excommunicati sunt non videntur hoc [consecrare] posse*». Idem in opere ipsi a plerisque tributo *Sum. Sentent.* (tr. 6. c. 9.) eandem opinionem praefert, quod scilicet, «*cum alia Sacramenta extra Ecclesiam possint fieri; haec nunquam extra*». Hic error eliditur duplici principio: primo scilicet, quod «*Christus non deserit Sacramentum, etiam si habuerit malum instrumentum*»; altero vero, quod potestas *ordinis*, distincta a potestate *iurisdictionis*, fundatur in sacerdotali charactere prorsus indelebili. Cfr. supra d. 5. a. 1, ubi in scholio citantur decreta Ecclesiae, quae generaliter de ministris Sacramentorum loquuntur, praesertim Concilii Trident. (Sess. VII. de Sacram. in genere can. 12, et de baptism. c. 4; item Sess. XIV. can. 10.). — Ultima propositio responsionis respicit sacerdotem excommunicatum et vitandum et leges disciplinares ea aetate vigentes; cfr. S. Thom., S. loc. infra cit. a. 9. — De hac 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 5. a. 1. § 4. 5. 6. — Scot., de hac et seqq. qq. hic in utroque Scripto q. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3. 4: S. III. q. 82. a. 7. 8. — B. Albert., hic a. 29. 30. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica a. 2. 3. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — De hac et seqq. qq. Durand., hic q. 2; Dionys. Carth. hic q. 1.

**II.** Quoad seq. (2.) quaestionem cfr. definitio Concilii Trident. (Sess. XXII. c. 1, can. 2, et Sess. XXIII. can. 1.) nec non Lateranensis IV. c. 1. — De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 2. 3. — S. Thom., hic loc. cit. quaestiunc. 1; S. loc. cit. a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2.

**III.** In 3. quaestione solvenda S. Doctor repetit cum summa moderatione eadem principia, quae posuit supra d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 3, et quae saepius explicavit, praesertim supra d. 1. p. I. q. 3. 4, et III. Sent. d. 40. dub. 3. — De hac quaestione non invenimus explicite tractantes nisi Alexandrum Hal., loc. cit. q. 10. m. 4. a. 2. § 6. (quaestio: de comparatione ad ordinem sacrum).

**IV.** Quoad 4. quaestionem Innocentius III. in professione fidei praescripta Waldensibus docet: «*In quo [sacrificio] nihil a bono maius, vel a malo minus perfici credimus sacerdote, quia non in merito consecrantis, sed in verbo efficitur Creatoris et in virtute Spiritus S.*»; cfr. Magister, hic c. 1, supra d. 5. a. 2. q. 1; Breviloq. p. VI. c. — Distinctio inter *opus operatum* et *opus operantis* est ab omnibus recepta. — De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal. rem tangit loc. cit. m. 3. a. 1. § 4. 5. 6. — Scot., loc. cit., et Quodl. 20. praesertim n. 20. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 5; S. III. q. 82. a. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 31. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. ad 5.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The opinion which the Master favors (here c. 1.) — that excommunicated priests cannot validly consecrate the Eucharist — is altogether erroneous and obsolete; an opinion which certain ancient doctors too held, such as Geroch of Reichersberg († 1169, on whom see Dr. Bach, *History of Dogma of the Middle Ages*, I. p. 435 ff.), Peter of Celle, and Peter of Poitiers, a disciple of the Master. Upon the same rock Hugh of St. Victor struck, who in his *Questions on the Epistles of St. Paul* (q. 102.) says: «*But those who are excommunicated do not seem able to [consecrate] this*». The same [author], in the work attributed to him by very many, the *Summa Sententiarum* (tr. 6. c. 9.), prefers the same opinion, namely that «*although the other Sacraments can be performed outside the Church, this one never [can] outside*». This error is struck down by a twofold principle: first, namely, that «*Christ does not abandon the Sacrament, even if he should have a bad instrument*»; second, that the power of *order*, distinct from the power of *jurisdiction*, is founded in the wholly indelible priestly character. Cf. above d. 5. a. 1, where in the scholion are cited the decrees of the Church which speak generally of the ministers of the Sacraments, especially of the Council of Trent (Sess. VII. on the Sacraments in general, can. 12, and on baptism c. 4; likewise Sess. XIV. can. 10.). — The last proposition of the response regards the priest excommunicated and to be shunned and the disciplinary laws in force in that age; cf. St. Thomas, S. loc. cited below a. 9. — On this 1st question: Alex. of Hales, S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 5. a. 1. § 4. 5. 6. — Scotus, on this and the following questions here in both Writings, q. 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 1. little-questions 3. 4: S. III. q. 82. a. 7. 8. — Bl. Albert, here a. 29. 30. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. unica a. 2. 3. 4. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 1. — On this and the following questions Durandus, here q. 2; Denis the Carthusian, here q. 1.

**II.** As to the following (2nd) question, cf. the definition of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII. c. 1, can. 2, and Sess. XXIII. can. 1.), as also of the Fourth Lateran, c. 1. — On the same question: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. § 2. 3. — St. Thomas, here loc. cit. little-question 1; S. loc. cit. a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 2.

**III.** In resolving the 3rd question the Holy Doctor repeats with the utmost moderation the same principles which he laid down above d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 3, and which he has often explained, especially above d. 1. p. I. q. 3. 4, and III Sent. d. 40. dub. 3. — On this question we do not find [anyone] treating it explicitly except Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. q. 10. m. 4. a. 2. § 6. (the question: on relation to sacred order).

**IV.** As to the 4th question, Innocent III, in the profession of faith prescribed for the Waldensians, teaches: «*In which [sacrifice] we believe that nothing more is accomplished by a good priest, or less by a bad one, since it is effected not by the merit of the one consecrating, but by the word of the Creator and in the power of the Holy Spirit*»; cf. the Master, here c. 1, above d. 5. a. 2. q. 1; *Breviloquium* p. VI. c. — The distinction between *opus operatum* and *opus operantis* is received by all. — On the same question: Alex. of Hales touches the matter loc. cit. m. 3. a. 1. § 4. 5. 6. — Scotus, loc. cit., and Quodl. 20. especially n. 20. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 1. little-question 5; S. III. q. 82. a. 6. — Bl. Albert, here a. 31. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 3. little-question 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 1. ad 5.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{302,303,304}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, re-cropped at split_x=2060 to capture the right-column footers), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 34747–34968) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The raw OCR for this range is severely two-column-bled, so per the Vol II/IV override the PDF is authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo/Conclusio/Solutio/scholion/footer regions. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 302–304 = PDF 322–324). **Page-verify confirmed:** the running head on p. 303 reads "DIST. XIII. ART. I. QUAEST. I."

**Opener alignment confirmed.** The q1 body opens "Circa primum sic proceditur" and treats *utrum omnis sacerdos possit conficere* — matching the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM's first question ("Primo quaeritur, utrum omnis sacerdos possit conficere"). The chunk ends just before QUAESTIO II ("Secundo quaeritur, utrum soli sacerdotes possint conficere", raw 34969 / p. 304 right col.). Distinction XIII has no pars division (single-pars per the brief), so there is no `pars` field. The pars-level TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM and the ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I openers are folded into this q1 per the locked chunking convention (no standalone divisio chunk in the skeleton set). The auto-chunker's `line_end` (35060) over-reached past QUAESTIO II and into QUAESTIO III; the correct semantic boundary is honored here.

**Scholion finding — PRESENT, rendered IN FULL here.** A single article-level "SCHOLION." block begins on p. 303 (bottom, after q1's solutio, spanning both columns) and continues onto p. 304 (left + right columns), ending immediately before QUAESTIO II. It has **four** numbered parts and explicitly covers **all four questions of Articulus I (q1–q4)**: §I "Opinio, cui favet Magister…" (the Master's erroneous view that excommunicate priests cannot validly consecrate; Geroch of Reichersberg, Hugh of St. Victor, the order/jurisdiction distinction, Trent) + the consolidated doctor-list for the 1st question; §II the 2nd question (Trent Sess. XXII/XXIII, Lateran IV) + its doctor-list; §III the 3rd question (cross-refs to d. 10 p. II and d. 1 p. I) + its sole authority; §IV the 4th question (Innocent III's Waldensian profession, *opus operatum* vs *opus operantis*) + its doctor-list. Per the brief, since it lives in this q1's range it is rendered here body-first, scholion-last. **Hand-off: sibling chunks `d13-a1-q2`, `d13-a1-q3`, `d13-a1-q4` should carry only a cross-reference pointing back here** for the scholion (this q1 holds the whole article's scholion).

**Page-split / footer-ownership map (22 apparatus entries, all anchored in this q1).**
- p. 302: TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM + ARTICULUS I + QUAESTIO I headers + args 1–9 + Contra arg 1 (begins) + footers 1–10. (Footer 1 ["Cod. H, voci *saltem* praemisso *vel*, hic supplet *bonus*"] is an editorial textual-variant note on the opener with no clean in-body anchor in q1's argument sequence; per corpus convention for marker-less editorial variants it is omitted rather than forced onto an arbitrary clause — flagged below. Arg 1 [Augustine ex Prospero] carries no footnote in the printed apparatus.)
- p. 302 → 303 boundary falls inside Contra arg 1 (Augustine ad Parmenianum: "…«Sicut in eis | mansit baptismus…»"). Grammatically continuous.
- p. 303: Contra args 1–4 (continuation) + CONCLUSIO + RESPONDEO + replies *1–5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9* + SCHOLION §I–II (begin) + footers 1–12 (`^1b`–`^12b`).
- p. 304: SCHOLION §I (continuation, Hugh/Trent + doctor-list) + §II–§IV + the consolidated doctor-lists (left + right cols, ending immediately before QUAESTIO II). The p. 304 footnotes (1–8) belong to the QUAESTIO II *fundamenta* on that same page and are NOT part of this q1 — they are forwarded to the `d13-a1-q2` chunk.

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Footer 1 on p. 302 ("Cod. H, voci *saltem* praemisso *vel*, hic supplet *bonus*") is rendered marker-less per the note above — flagged for the d.11–d.20 decade-polish sweep. Notable silent OCR corrections from the PDF bands: arg 3 *foetorem* (OCR `fcetorem`); arg 8 *abutitur potestate* (OCR `abulitur potestale`); Respondeo *occulte* / *praecisi* (OCR fragmented); scholion §I *Reichersbergensis* / *Pictaviensis* / *indelebili* (OCR garbled); scholion §IV *Waldensibus* (cod. *[Waldenses]*). The right-column marginal rubrics (*Ad oppositum.*, *Fundamenta.*, *Conclusio*, *Conclusio 2. triplex.*, *Corollarium.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Notandum.*, *Distinctio.*) are editorial side-notes, omitted from the body per corpus convention.