title: Dist. 13, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 309 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum corpus Christi descendat in ventrem hominis.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum corpus Christi descendat in ventrem hominis. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. *Auctoritate*: de Consecratione, distinctione secunda[^1]: « Qui residua corporis dominici, quae in sacrario relicta sunt, consumunt, non statim ad percipiendos communes cibos conveniant, ne putentur sacrae participationi commisceri »; sed hoc non diceret, nisi descenderet in ventrem: ergo etc.

2. Item, Beda ibidem[^2]: « Si quis per voracitatem vel edacitatem eucharistiam vomuerit, quadraginta diebus poeniteat »; sed non vomitur, nisi quod traiicitur: ergo etc.

3. Item, corpus Christi coniunctum est illis speciebus, quamdiu manent sub formis suis; sed non statim transmutantur, immo descendunt in ventrem sub suis proprietatibus: ergo et corpus Christi cum eis.

4. Item, corpus Christi aut vadit in ventrem, aut in mentem; non in mentem, quia solus Deus illabitur[^3]: ergo in ventrem.

5. Item, pro quanto dicitur corpus Christi manducari sacramentaliter? Si propter masticationem tantum: ergo si quis masticaret species et spueret, diceretur sacramentaliter manducasse; quod falsum est: ergo oportet, quod non tantum fiat masticatio, sed etiam incorporatio. Sed species sine contento si transmittuntur in ventrem, desinunt habere Sacramenti rationem: ergo propter hoc non erit manducatio sacramentalis: necesse est ergo, quod manducet corpus verum[^4].

6. Item, quod inconveniens est, si descendat in ventrem? Videmus enim, corpus lucis per omnia transire incoinquinatum nec aliqua refugit, nec munda nec immunda:

<!-- page 310 -->

ergo similiter, immo multo fortius, Christi corpus gloriosum[^5].

**Contra:**
1. Matthaei decimo quinto[^6]: *Omne quod in os intrat, in ventrem vadit et in secessum emittitur*; sed corpus Christi non emittitur in secessum: ergo constat, quod ab ore non vadit in ventrem.

2. Item, Ambrosius[^7]: « Non est iste panis, qui vadit in corpus, sed panis vitae aeternae, qui animae substantiam fulcit ».

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia constat, quod corpus Christi non est cibus ventris, sed mentis[^8]: ergo non transit in ventrem, sed in mentem.

4. Item, si transit in ventrem, vadit ad officia ventris, quae sunt digerere et distribuere et ad singulas partes transmittere, vel emittere in secessum; sed hoc falsum: ergo etc.

> **Conclusio.** Relatis quatuor opinionibus, securior declaratur ea quae asserit, quod corpus Christi manet in stomacho sub speciebus, quamdiu hae sunt sub propria forma et habent rationem reficiendi.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in ventrem ire est dupliciter: aut quantum ad *substantiam*, aut quantum ad *cibandi efficaciam*[^9]. Primo modo descendit aliquod corpus in ventrem, etiam si non sit cibus; secundo modo non nisi cibus. — Similiter in mentem ire est dupliciter: aut quantum ad substantiam, et sic vadit illud quod illabitur animae, et hic est solus Deus; aut quantum ad efficaciam, et sic dicitur ire in mentem quod ipsam reficit. — Si ergo loquamur quantum ad cibandi efficaciam; sic certum est, quod corpus Christi non vadit in ventrem, sed in mentem, quia caro Christi non reficit ventrem, sed mentem, sicut ostendunt quatuor rationes ultimae. — Si autem loquamur quantum ad substantiam; sic certum est, quod non vadit in mentem. Sed utrum vadat in ventrem, dubium est propter diversitatem opinionum. Unde notandum, quod quatuor fuerunt hic opiniones.

Aliqui enim dixerunt, quod non solum in ventrem, sed etiam vadit quocumque illae species deferuntur, salva illarum natura, sive in ventrem muris sive in locum immundum[^10]. Aliqui dixerunt, quod non solum in ventrem hominis vadit, sed ibi manet, quamdiu species illae sunt ordinabiles ad refectionem. Unde dixerunt, quod in ventrem vadit et moratur, quousque refectionis operatio compleatur. Aliqui dixerunt, quod ad ventrem pervenit, quousque sint in sumtum esse[^11], et amplius non moratur. Aliqui dixerunt, quod solum est cum illis speciebus, quamdiu sunt cum aliquo sensu ut visu, vel gustu. Et hoc dicunt quod sensit Hugo[^12], qui dicit: « In visu, tactu et sapore tecum est; quamdiu sensus corporalis afficitur, praesentia corporis non aufertur; postquam autem sensus corporalis percipiendo deficit, deinceps corporalis praesentia quaerenda non est, sed spiritualis retinenda: dispensatio completa, perfectum est Sacramentum, virtus manet, Christus de ore transit ad cor; melius est, ut eat in mentem tuam quam in ventrem ».

Ratio autem diversitatis harum opinionum haec est: omnes enim in hoc consentiunt, quod tamdiu est corpus Christi in illis speciebus, quamdiu est ratio Sacramenti. Dicunt igitur primi, quod species panis consecrati tamdiu est Sacramentum, quamdiu est species panis, cum virtus consecrationis ipsam respiciat, secundum quod est panis; ideo nunquam desinit, illa proprietate salva. Et ex hoc oritur positio prima. — Alii vero dicunt, quod ratio Sacramenti tantum salvatur, quamdiu species habilis est ad refectionem humanam; ideo enim instituta est et ad hoc ordinatur, et hoc habet, quando est extra et in stomacho, quia reficit. Et ex hoc oritur secunda positio. — Tertii dicunt, quod tamdiu salvatur, quousque recipiatur in usum manducationis; et quando manducatio completa est, iam Sacramentum non est, sed fuit. Et ex hoc habet ortum tertia positio. — Alii dicunt, quod quia Sacramentum est signum, et signum est quod se offert sensibus, quod tamdiu species est Sacramentum, quamdiu nata est sentiri ab aliquo sensu; et ideo, cum deficit perceptio sensuum, deficit ratio Sacramenti et praesentia corporalis.

Quid autem in tanta diversitate tenendum est, difficile est iudicare. Videtur tamen prima opinio,

<!-- page 311 -->

quae dicit, quod defertur, quocumque species deferantur, nimis ampla; quia tunc et mus in ventrem traiiceret, et in cloacam descenderet; quod aures piae abhorrent; et si diceremus, haeretici et infideles deriderent nos et irriderent. — Similiter quarta opinio, quae dicit, quod deficit, deficiente sensu illarum specierum, videtur esse nimis arcta. Nunquam enim secundum hoc posset dici, corpus Christi sumi vere, cum non dicatur sumtus esse cibus, qui non percipitur nec pervenit usque ad stomachum. Unde nec verbum Hugonis intelligendum est quantum ad actum sentiendi, sed quantum ad idoneitatem. Et praeterea, sensus non tantum est gustu linguae, sed etiam sentit homo descensum cibi, quousque quiescat in stomacho.

De duabus positionibus mediis, quae sit verior, non est facile iudicare, cum utraque multum sit probabilis. Probabile enim est, quod sumtione completa et manducatione, cum iam Sacramentum habuit finem suum, propter quem erat, desinit esse Sacramentum: et hoc dicit Hugo de sancto Victore videtur hoc sensisse. Dicit enim sic: « Postquam manducasti corporalem praesentiam Christi quaeris, in caelo quaere, ibi est ad dexteram Patris »; et hoc videtur satis probabile. Quamdiu enim Christus est sub speciebus illis, est adorandus; sed stultus esset qui adoraret Christum in ventre manducantis.

Nihilominus tamen alia videtur securior et auctoritatibus magis concordare, quod corpus Christi cum illis speciebus descendit ad stomachum et sub illis est, quamdiu illae sunt sub propria forma et habent rationem reficiendi, quia secundum ordinationem ad refectionem humanam Sacramentum erant; unde concedunt, quod corpus Domini est in stomacho, quia ibi sunt species ut cibus; et ideo, si evomuntur species, evomitur eucharistia, et si species possit ab aliis discerni, sumenda esset. Si autem species illae transeant stomachum indigestae per aliquam infirmitatem, tunc sunt extra proprietatem refectionis; et ideo, si vadunt in secessum, non est ibi corpus Domini. — Utrum autem hoc sit verum, nescio; tamen securum mihi videtur, quod si quis evomat species perceptibiles, magna reverentia est exhibenda; et magna diligentia adhibenda, ne quis evomat; et periculum est ei dare, de quo praesumeretur, quod non possit tenere.

Secundum hanc positionem satis patet responsio ad obiecta, exceptis his quae de commixtione et vomitu obiiciuntur, ad quae potest responderi: primum, quia decretum non dicit, quod commisceantur, sed commisceri putentur. Secundo vero, quod dicit Beda, quod aliquis vomit, hoc dictum est et poena imposita, non nisi quia species illae fuerunt contentivae dominici corporis; et ideo in magna reverentia sunt habendae, maxime quia fuerunt sanctissimis symbolis consecratae; et ideo comburuntur, et cinis debita reverentia reservatur. Ille autem, qui vomit, graviter punitur, quia, quantum in se est, vomit corpus Christi; et sic de illo dicendum esset, qui proiiceret in cloacam. Poena autem imponenda evomentibus determinatur in Consecratione, distinctione secunda.

english:
### Question II. *Whether the body of Christ descends into the belly of a man.*

Secondly, it is asked whether the body of Christ descends into the belly of a man. And that it does, it seems:

1. *By authority*: in *On the Consecration*, distinction two[^1]: "Let those who consume the remains of the Lord's body, which are left in the sacristy, not at once come together to receive common foods, lest they be thought to be mingled with the sacred participation"; but he would not say this unless it descended into the belly: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, Bede in the same place[^2]: "If anyone through gluttony or greed vomit up the Eucharist, let him do penance forty days"; but nothing is vomited unless it is swallowed down: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, the body of Christ is conjoined to those species, as long as they remain under their forms; but they are not transmuted at once, rather they descend into the belly under their own properties: therefore the body of Christ also [descends] with them.

4. Likewise, the body of Christ either goes into the belly, or into the mind; not into the mind, because God alone enters in[^3]: therefore into the belly.

5. Likewise, in what sense is the body of Christ said to be eaten sacramentally? If on account of mastication only: then if anyone should chew the species and spit them out, he would be said to have eaten sacramentally; which is false: therefore it is necessary that not only mastication take place, but also incorporation. But if the species without their content are passed into the belly, they cease to have the character of the Sacrament: therefore on this account there will be no sacramental eating: it is necessary, therefore, that one eat the true body[^4].

6. Likewise, what unfitting [thing] is there, if it should descend into the belly? For we see that the body of light passes through all things unstained, and shrinks from nothing, neither clean nor unclean:

<!-- page 310 -->

therefore likewise, indeed much more strongly, the glorious body of Christ[^5].

**On the contrary:**
1. Matthew the fifteenth[^6]: *Everything that enters the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the privy*; but the body of Christ is not cast out into the privy: therefore it is established that from the mouth it does not go into the belly.

2. Likewise, Ambrose[^7]: "This bread is not that which goes into the body, but the bread of eternal life, which sustains the substance of the soul."

3. Likewise, *by reason* it seems so: because it is established that the body of Christ is not the food of the belly, but of the mind[^8]: therefore it does not pass into the belly, but into the mind.

4. Likewise, if it passes into the belly, it goes to the offices of the belly, which are to digest and distribute and to transmit to the several parts, or to cast out into the privy; but this is false: therefore, etc.

> **Conclusion.** Of the four opinions related, the safer one is declared to be that which asserts that the body of Christ remains in the stomach under the species, as long as these are under their own form and have the character of refreshing.

**I respond:** It must be said that to go into the belly is twofold: either as to *substance*, or as to *the efficacy of feeding*[^9]. In the first way some body descends into the belly, even if it is not food; in the second way only food [does]. — Likewise to go into the mind is twofold: either as to substance, and thus there goes that which enters into the soul, and this is God alone; or as to efficacy, and thus that is said to go into the mind which refreshes it. — If therefore we speak as to the efficacy of feeding; thus it is certain that the body of Christ does not go into the belly, but into the mind, because the flesh of Christ does not refresh the belly, but the mind, as the last four reasons show. — But if we speak as to substance; thus it is certain that it does not go into the mind. But whether it goes into the belly is doubtful on account of the diversity of opinions. Whence it is to be noted that there were four opinions here.

For some said that [it goes] not only into the belly, but also wherever those species are carried, their nature being preserved, whether into the belly of a mouse or into an unclean place[^10]. Some said that it not only goes into the belly of a man, but remains there, as long as those species are ordainable to refreshment. Whence they said that it goes into the belly and tarries until the operation of refreshment be completed. Some said that it reaches the belly, as long as they are in the state of being consumed[^11], and tarries no longer. Some said that it is with those species only as long as they are [perceptible] with some sense, as sight, or taste. And they say that Hugh held this[^12], who says: "In sight, touch, and savor it is with you; as long as the bodily sense is affected, the presence of the body is not taken away; but after the bodily sense fails in perceiving, thenceforth the bodily presence is not to be sought, but the spiritual [presence] to be retained: the dispensation completed, the Sacrament is perfect, the power remains, Christ passes from the mouth to the heart; it is better that he go into your mind than into your belly."

Now the reason for the diversity of these opinions is this: for all agree in this, that the body of Christ is in those species as long as there is the character of the Sacrament. The first, therefore, say that the species of the consecrated bread is the Sacrament as long as it is the species of bread, since the power of the consecration regards it inasmuch as it is bread; therefore it never ceases, that property being preserved. And from this arises the first position. — But others say that the character of the Sacrament is preserved only as long as the species is fit for human refreshment; for it was instituted and ordained to this, and has this when it is outside and in the stomach, because it refreshes. And from this arises the second position. — The third say that it is preserved as long as it is received into the use of eating; and when the eating is completed, now it is not the Sacrament, but was. And from this the third position has its origin. — Others say that because the Sacrament is a sign, and a sign is what offers itself to the senses, the species is the Sacrament as long as it is of a nature to be perceived by some sense; and therefore, when the perception of the senses fails, the character of the Sacrament and the bodily presence fail.

But what is to be held amid so great a diversity is difficult to judge. Nevertheless the first opinion,

<!-- page 311 -->

which says that it is carried wherever the species are carried, seems too broad; because then it would also pass into the belly of a mouse, and descend into the sewer; which pious ears abhor; and if we should say [so], heretics and unbelievers would deride and mock us. — Likewise the fourth opinion, which says that it fails when the sense-perception of those species fails, seems to be too narrow. For according to this it could never be said that the body of Christ is truly received, since that food is not said to be received which is not perceived nor reaches the stomach. Whence neither is the saying of Hugh to be understood as to the act of perceiving, but as to fitness. And besides, sense is not only by the taste of the tongue, but a man also perceives the descent of food, until it comes to rest in the stomach.

Of the two middle positions, which is the truer, it is not easy to judge, since each is very probable. For it is probable that, the receiving and eating being completed, when now the Sacrament has had its end, for which it was, it ceases to be the Sacrament: and this Hugh of St. Victor seems to have held. For he says thus: "After you have eaten, [if] you seek the bodily presence of Christ, seek it in heaven, there it is at the right hand of the Father"; and this seems probable enough. For as long as Christ is under those species, he is to be adored; but he would be foolish who should adore Christ in the belly of the one eating.

Nevertheless another [position] seems safer and to agree more with the authorities, [namely] that the body of Christ with those species descends to the stomach and is under them, as long as they are under their own form and have the character of refreshing, because according to their ordination to human refreshment they were the Sacrament; whence they grant that the body of the Lord is in the stomach, because there the species are as food; and therefore, if the species are vomited up, the Eucharist is vomited up, and if the species could be discerned by others, they would have to be received. But if those species pass through the stomach undigested through some infirmity, then they are outside the property of refreshment; and therefore, if they go into the privy, the body of the Lord is not there. — But whether this be true, I know not; nevertheless it seems safe to me that if anyone should vomit up perceptible species, great reverence is to be shown; and great diligence employed, lest anyone vomit; and it is dangerous to give [it] to one of whom it is presumed that he cannot keep [it down].

According to this position the response to the objections is plain enough, except for those which are objected concerning the mingling and the vomiting, to which it can be answered: to the first, that the decree does not say that they are mingled, but are thought to be mingled. But to the second, that what Bede says, that someone vomits, this is said and the penalty imposed only because those species were containers of the Lord's body; and therefore they are to be held in great reverence, especially because they were consecrated with the most holy symbols; and therefore they are burned, and the ash is reserved with due reverence. But he who vomits is gravely punished, because, as far as in him lies, he vomits the body of Christ; and so it would have to be said of him who should cast [it] into the sewer. The penalty to be imposed on those who vomit is determined in *On the Consecration*, distinction two.

la: Can. *Qui bene* (94.), de Consecrat. d. 2, ex cuius negligentia Sacramentum a mure comeditur, poenitentia 40 dierum indicitur.

en: The canon *Qui bene* (94.), *On the Consecration* d. 2, from whose negligence the Sacrament is eaten by a mouse, a penance of 40 days is enjoined.

la: Can. *Si per ebrietatem vel voracitatem eucharistiam* (28.). Habetur in libro de Remediis peccatorum (inter opera dubia Bedae), c. de Ebrietate.

en: The canon *Si per ebrietatem vel voracitatem eucharistiam* (28.). It is found in the book *On the Remedies of Sins* (among the doubtful works of Bede), chapter *On Drunkenness*.

la: Vide supra pag. 273, nota 7.

en: See above p. 273, note 7.

la: Vide supra pag. 287, nota 4, et tom. III. pag. 643, nota 4. — De maiori cfr. supra pag. 275, nota 7. — Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. supplet *menti*.

en: See above p. 287, note 4, and tome III, p. 643, note 4. — On the major [premise] cf. above p. 275, note 7. — The Vatican [edition] with one or two codices supplies *menti*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 9. a. 1. q. 3. — Edd. *manducetur corpus Christi verum*.

en: Cf. above d. 9, a. 1, q. 3. — The editions [read] *manducetur corpus Christi verum* ("let the true body of Christ be eaten").

la: Vers. 17.

la: Libr. V. de Sacram. c. 4. n. 24. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XII. c. 4.

en: Book V *On the Sacraments* c. 4, n. 24. Cf. above [in] the text of the Master, d. XII. c. 4.

la: Similitudine lucis utitur etiam respectu huius Sacramenti Augustinus, in Ioan. Evang. tr. 5. n. 15.

en: Augustine too uses the likeness of light with respect to this Sacrament, *On the Gospel of John*, tractate 5, n. 15.

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. IX. c. 2. verba Gregorio tributa. — Vide quaest. praeced. — Inferius post *sed* edd. supplent *etiam*.

en: Cf. above [in] the text of the Master, d. IX. c. 2, the words attributed to Gregory. — See the preceding question. — Below, after *sed*, the editions supply *etiam*.

la: Scilicet quousque species sumtae (manducatae) sint, sive ut Vat. (secuta Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. II. m. 2. a. 1. § 3.) legit *quousque sumtio compleatur*; cfr. inferius iudicium Bonav. de hac opinione. Ed. I *quousque incipiant consumi*. Eadem ed. I cum non paucis codd. *perveniunt* pro *pervenit* (corpus Christi), et mox cum fere omnibus codd. *morantur* pro *moratur*. Alex. Hal., loc. cit., habet: *Aliqui dixerunt, quod ad ventrem pervenit et manet ibi, usquequo sumtio completa sit, et amplius non moratur*.

en: That is, as long as the species are received (eaten), or, as the Vatican [edition] (following Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV, q. II, m. 2, a. 1, § 3) reads, *quousque sumtio compleatur* ("until the receiving be completed"); cf. below Bonaventure's judgment on this opinion. Edition I [reads] *quousque incipiant consumi* ("until they begin to be consumed"). The same edition I, with not a few codices, [reads] *perveniunt* for *pervenit* (the body of Christ), and presently, with almost all the codices, *morantur* for *moratur*.

la: Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 13: In visu, in tactu, in sapore corporaliter tecum est. Quamdiu sensus corporaliter afficitur... sensus corporalis in percipiendo... Melius est tibi, ut eat etc. — Cod. O *deficit*, plurimi codd. *deserit*. Inferius pro *tantum* edd. *tamdiu*. — Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 3. verba Augustini.

en: Book II *On the Sacraments* p. VIII, c. 13: "In sight, in touch, in savor it is bodily with you. As long as sense is bodily affected... the bodily sense in perceiving... It is better for you that it go," etc. — Codex O [reads] *deficit*, very many codices *deserit*. Below, for *tantum* the editions [read] *tamdiu*. — See above [in] the text of the Master, d. I. c. 3, the words of Augustine.

la: Hugo de S. Victore, Libr. II. de Sacram. (eadem locus quo supra). Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. IX. c. 1, et infra in solutione huius quaestionis ubi idem Hugo iterum allegatur.

en: Hugh of St. Victor, Book II *On the Sacraments* (the same place as above). Cf. above [in] the text of the Master, d. IX. c. 1, and below in the solution of this question where the same Hugh is again cited.

latin_scholion:
**La.** *Pro hac quaestione scholion proprium non habetur; vide scholion ad praecedentem quaestionem (a. 2, q. 1), in quo Art. II totus pertractatur. Scholion enim in pag. 309 impressum (« Opinionem 1. hic relatam… ») de hac quoque quaestione secunda agit, sed quaestioni primae adscribitur.*

**En.** *This question has no scholion of its own; see the scholion to the preceding question (a. 2, q. 1), in which the whole of Article II is treated. For the scholion printed on p. 309 ("Opinionem 1, here related…") also treats of this second question, but is assigned to the first question.*

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from Vol IV PDF column bands (printed pp. 309–311; `colcrop.py vol4` split_x=1880) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 35555–35836) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The q2 body cascade-shattered badly in OCR (two columns interleaved one-token-per-line throughout the videtur args, the Respondeo four-opinions exposition, and every footer); the entire Respondeo and all footers were re-set from the PDF bands. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Alignment.** Opener verified verbatim against both raw OCR and the p309 PDF band (p309-L-1, bottom of the left column, immediately below the Article II SCHOLION): "Secundo quaeritur, utrum corpus Christi descendat in ventrem hominis. Et quod sic, videtur:" Title matches descendat-in-ventrem. Aligned.

**Running head / page span.** Running heads verified: p309 recto top = **"DIST. XIII. ART. II. QUAEST. II. 309"** (band p309-R-0); p310 verso top = **"310 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."** (bands p310-L-0 / R-0); p311 recto top = **"DIST. XIII. DUBIA. 311"** (bands p311-L-0 / R-0). Page-verify passes (DIST. XIII, ART. II, QUAEST. II — not XII or XIV). **printed_pages = [309, 310, 311]** — the prompt's "~310–311" estimate began one page late: q2's opener, videtur args 1–5, and the start of arg 6 are all on **p309** (its left column carries the tail of the a.2-q1 scholion, then the q2 opener; its right column carries the rest of that scholion, then videtur args 4–6). pdf_pages = printed + 20 = [329, 330, 331]. The page break into p310 falls inside videtur arg. 6 ("…nec munda nec immunda: |310| ergo similiter…"); the break into p311 falls inside the Respondeo's survey of the four opinions ("Videtur tamen prima opinio, |311| quae dicit…").

**Q2 → Dubia boundary.** q2's Respondeo runs across the top of **p311** (left column = the critique of opinions 1 and 4 and the two middle positions; the spill continues into p311's right column = the *securior* position + the responsio ad obiecta on commixtio/vomitus). q2 ends at **"…Poena autem imponenda evomentibus determinatur in Consecratione, distinctione secunda."** (p311-R-1, near mid-column). Immediately below begins the section header **"DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI."** and **"DUB. I."** (visible on p311-L-1). In the raw OCR the running head **"DIST. XIII. DUBIA. 31i"** sits at **raw line 35837** (one line past the assigned q2 range end of 35836), and the cascade-merged "DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI." / "DUB. I." header lands among p311's right-column fragments at **raw line ≈ 35960**. q2 owns nothing at or below that header. The Dubia opens: "In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: *Nihil a bono maius, nihil a malo minus perficitur sacerdote*…" (DUB. I) — handed to the d.13-dubia chunk.

**Correction re. "Utrum autem hoc sit verum, nescio".** The prompt flagged this clause (raw ≈ 35913) as falling in the dubia region. On the PDF bands it is in fact still **inside q2's Respondeo**: it belongs to the *securior* (preferred) position — "…non est ibi corpus Domini. — Utrum autem hoc sit verum, nescio; tamen securum mihi videtur, quod si quis evomat species perceptibiles…" (p311-R-1, marginal gloss "Iudicium auctoris"). It is rendered above as the close of the *securior* position, **before** the responsio ad obiecta, and is **not** in the Dubia. The raw line lands among p311's cascade-merged right-column fragments only because OCR splices the two columns; the printed text is unambiguously pre-Dubia. (It is *not* a question header, consistent with the prompt's note.)

**Apparatus / footer-ownership.** 12 footnotes, mapped one marker per body lemma; all 12 are paired exactly once in each of the Latin and English bodies (verified). The printed footers in the q2 range are: **p309** nn.4–8 (its nn.1–3 anchor in the Article II scholion, printed above the q2 opener and owned by a.2 q.1: n1 = August. *de Quantit. animae*; n2 = *Hic in corp. et supra d.12*; n3 = *Matth. 19:12*); **p310** nn.1–4; **p311** nn.2–3 (p311 n1 = the marginal "Iudicium auctoris" gloss, not a numbered footer with a body lemma; p311 nn.4+ belong to the Dubia). The 12 q2 footers were rendered, with the *Tribus gradibus* (*ne putentur*) p309 footer and the *de maiori* sub-clause carried as textual-variant remarks inside their parent entries rather than as separate orphan markers.

**Body-marker → apparatus map (authoritative, as written above).** [^1] videtur 1 — *Qui bene* (de Consecrat. d.2); [^2] videtur 2 — Bede, *Si per ebrietatem* (de Remediis peccatorum); [^3] videtur 4 "solus Deus illabitur" — *Vide supra pag. 273, nota 7* (the *cibus mentis* cross-reference); [^4] videtur 5 "corpus verum" — *pag. 287 / tom. III pag. 643* + *menti* variant; [^5] (closing videtur block, near "corpus verum"/"manducetur") — *Cfr. d. 9. a. 1. q. 3 / Edd. manducetur corpus Christi verum*; [^6] Contra 1 — *Vers. 17* (Matt. 15:17); [^7] Contra 2 — Ambrose, *de Sacram.* V c.4 n.24; [^8] videtur-6 light-similitude — August., *in Ioan.* tr. 5 n. 15; [^9] Respondeo dupliciter-opener "cibandi efficaciam" — *Cfr. lit. Magistri d. IX. c. 2 / Vide quaest. praeced. / sed etiam* variant; [^10] third opinion "in sumtum esse" — the long *quousque sumtio compleatur* / Alex. Hal. variant note; [^11] Hugh quotation "In visu, tactu et sapore" — Hugh, *de Sacram.* II p.VIII c.13; [^12] Hugh attribution "quod sensit Hugo" — Hugh cross-references (*lit. Magistri d. IX. c. 1*). All twelve printed footers in the q2 range (p309 nn.4–8, p310 nn.1–4, p311 nn.2–3) are rendered; markers are paired in both bodies.

**`[?]` flags.** None — all readings resolved against the PDF bands. The raw OCR collapses videtur args 1–6 and the Contra/Respondeo across the two columns with heavy one-token-per-line fragmentation; the column-band PDF reads were treated as authoritative throughout, per the Vol II/IV override.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 13, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. XIII)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Dist. XIII)

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 311 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: *Nihil a bono maius, nihil a malo minus perficitur sacerdote.* Videtur enim ex hoc, quod malus sacerdos aequaliter perficiat ea quae spectant ad Missam, ut bonus; et ita videtur, quod sicut bonus sacerdos non peccat, ita nec malus.

Quaeritur ergo de sacerdote, qui scienter malus est et tenetur conficere, propter hoc quod habet parochiam: quid debet facere? Si dimittit, peccat;

<!-- page 312 -->

Missa, vel mortale peccatum, de quo non fuit contritus; in tali statu potest occurrere, quod si habet sacerdotis copiam, debet confiteri, si habet aptitudinem horae, utpote ante canonis inchoationem. Si non habet, dixerunt aliqui, quod si adest populus, sufficit contritio cum proposito confitendi, quia scandalizaret populum, si dimitteret; si autem non timeret scandalum, consulunt dimittere, maxime cum nihil cogat. — Verumtamen credendum est, quod sine peccato potest quod inchoatum est perficere; si propositum confitendi habet cum contritione[^1], totum suppletur; nec video ibi contemptum.

Si autem tenetur cantare et non habet copiam sacerdotis; dico, quod tenetur se praeparare per contritionem et propositum confitendi; et ita sufficit ad hoc, quod non peccet, si accedat cum verecundia et reverentia. — Si autem non se praeparet, et cantat; dico, quod peccat peccato *omissionis* cum omittit conteri; alio etiam peccato, si est occultus *simoniacus*[^2]; si *manifestus*, dico, quod scandalizat; si autem *prohibitus ab Ecclesia*, peccat omnibus his modis et peccato transgressionis. — Sed intelligendum est semper, quod unum est peccatum, et reliqua omnia sunt sicut annexa sive circumstantiae aggravantes, sicut si aliquis occidat homines propter lucrum.

Sed quid dicemus de eo cui accidit remorsus de irregularitate? Tunc ibi non est remedium contritionis nec etiam confessionis.

Ad hoc respondent aliqui, quod cum irregulari sit prohibitum conficere hoc Sacramentum, et eum irregularitas non deleatur per contritionem, sed solum per dispensationem, quod quantumcumque adsit populus, et scandalum timeatur — cum « non sit faciendum contra veritatem vitae propter scandalum[^3] » et contra praeceptum — quod tenetur aut deponere conscientiam irregularitatis, aut dimittere Missam; et hoc, dico, ante consecrationem, et maxime ante inchoationem canonis. — Aliqui dicunt, quod prohibitio propter irregularitatem ad ipsum non se extendit, maxime cum accessit sine conscientia irregularitatis. Unde propter reverentiam Sacramenti et scandalum populi dicunt, quodsi dolet et libenter faceret quod in se esset[^4], dicunt, a Domino esse dispensatum ut tunc.

Si vero quaeritur de illo qui inciperet[^5] habere conscientiam, quod non esset sacerdos; hic dicendum dupliciter: quod aut debet dimittere Missam ante consecrationem, aut conscientiam; et debet fingere infirmitatem. — Ideo sanum consilium est, quod homo se ante diligenter praeparet et in Missa non cogitet de se, sed magis de Sacramento.

### Dub. II

Item super hoc quod dicit: *Nec bonorum dispensatorum meritis ampliatur,* quaeritur: quis magis peccat, utrum scilicet sacerdos malus, qui conficit et non sumit, an ille qui utrumque facit? Et videtur, quod ille magis, qui utrumque facit, quia plus praesumit, et maior est irreverentia. — Item, quaeritur, quis plus peccet, utrum ille qui propter timorem et reverentiam nihil audet facere, an ille qui conficit. Et videtur, quod magis ille qui conficit, quia facit maiorem contumeliam Sacramento, alter reverentiam. — Similiter quaeritur de illo qui tantum sumit corpus et non sanguinem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod gravius peccat ille qui simulat se facere, quam ille qui conficit et non sumit; et gravius ille qui conficit et non sumit, quam ille qui conficit et sumit; et gravius ille qui conficit et sumit partem, quam ille qui conficit et sumit totum[^6].

Et ratio huius est, quia irreverentia potest fieri Sacramento uno modo, quia ille qui ministrat, est indignus, nihilominus tamen facit, sicut Ecclesia instituit; alio modo, quia non solum est indignus, sed etiam in ipsa celebratione non servat ritum, quem debet; et tunc non solum exhibet irreverentiam, sed etiam facit contumeliam, quia Sacramentum non perficit, sed dimittit incompletum. Et ideo ordinatum est, ut nullus se simulet celebrare, in decretali de Missarum celebratione, libro tertio[^7] *De homine,* et infra: « Licet is qui pro sui criminis conscientia reputat se indignum, peccet graviter, si se ingerat irreverenter ad illud; gravius tamen videtur offendere qui fraudulenter illud praesumserit simulare, cum ille in solius Dei misericordis manum incidat, iste vero non solum Deo, cui non veretur illudere, sed populo, quem decipit, se astringat ». Ordinatum etiam est, ut qui conficit communicet, de Consecratione, distinctione secunda[^8], ex Concilio Toletano: « Certum est, quod hi qui sacrificantes non edunt, rei sunt dominici

<!-- page 313 -->

Sacramenti et ab ipsa qua se indecenter privaverunt gratia communionis uno anno se repulsos noverint ». Ordinatum est etiam, ut sanguinem sumant; unde de Consecratione, distinctione secunda[^8], Gelasius Papa: « Aut integra Sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur, quia divisio unius et eiusdem mysterii sine grandi non potest sacrilegio provenire ».

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: *Recolite nomen et veritatem advertite. Missa enim dicitur* etc.: quare scilicet Missa sic nominatur; et si in omni sacrificio mittitur hostia? — Item quaeritur: quare non dicitur: *Ite, Missa est,* in qualibet Missa? — Item, quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod caelestis missus adveniat ad consecrandum corpus. Ex hoc enim Augustini verbo videtur, quod Angelus consecret corpus Domini et conficiat. — Contra hoc est, quod actio ista est omnino supra naturam angelicam.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut tangitur in littera[^9], *Missa* dicitur, quia mittitur caelestis missus. Caelestis iste missus, sicut exponit Innocentius, est magni consilii Angelus. Iste, inquam, mittitur ad consecrandum, quia iste est sacerdos invisibilis, qui consecrat et conficit hoc Sacramentum, ubicumque conficiatur[^10]. — Unde non valet illa ratio in contrarium, qua obiicit de angelico ministerio; non tantum enim est haec missio, sed etiam est missio sacrificii ad Deum per summum Angelum, scilicet Christum, assistentibus magnis Angelis. Propter quod in fine dicitur: *Ite, Missa est;* et propter hoc *Missa* recte appellatur. Unde Hugo[^11]: « Ipsa hostia sacra *Missa* vocari potest, quia transmissa est primum, scilicet a Patre, ut esset nobiscum; postea a nobis Patri, ut apud Patrem pro nobis intercederet: primum a Patre nobis per incarnationem; secundum a nobis Patri per passionem. Similiter in Sacramento primum a Patre nobis per sanctificationem, qua nobiscum esse incipit; postea a nobis Patri per oblationem, qua pro nobis intercedit ».

Sed tunc est quaestio: quare non dicitur in fine cuiuslibet Missae: *Ite, Missa est?* **Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod etsi quaelibet Missa totum corpus Christi mysticum respiciat, sicut patet per triplicem hostiae partitionem[^12]; tamen secundum istam differentiam triplicem contingit Missas tripliciter appropriari. Quaedam enim celebrantur specialiter ad honorem Sanctorum; et quia ipsi sunt in tuto iam et sunt coram Deo, ideo in talibus licentiatur populus et dicitur: *Ite, Missa est,* quasi: festinate ingredi in illam requiem[^13]. — Quaedam specialiter ad salutem vivorum; et quia non sumus certi de salute nostra, ideo debemus continue solliciti esse, ne per nostram ignaviam in nobis Missae efficacia evanescat. Ideo dicitur in Missa in fine omni tempore: *Benedicamus Domino,* secundum illud Prophetae[^14]: *Benedicam Dominum in omni tempore.* — Quaedam specialiter ad requiem defunctorum, et in illis dicitur: *Requiescant in pace.*

### Dub. IV

Item super hoc quod dicit Magister: *Ne autem ignores, quid faciat haereticum,* quaeritur, unde dicatur et pro quanto dicatur *haereticus.* Si enim dicas, quod *haereticus* dicitur, quia errat; hoc est contra Augustinum, qui dicit primo de Trinitate[^15]: *Errare potero, sed haereticus esse non potero.* Si tu dicas, quod *haereticus* dicitur, quia divisus a communione fidelium; ergo excommunicatus et schismaticus dici debet *haereticus.* — Quaeritur ergo, pro quanto quis dicatur *haereticus;* et in quo differant *haeresis, secta* et *superstitio.*

**Respondeo:** Sicut dicit Isidorus in libro Etymologiarum[^16]: « *Haereticus* dicitur ab *haeresis* Graece, quod est *electio* Latine »; et quamvis electio sit bonis malisque communis, tamen haereticus ipse non ex dono Dei, sed ex propria auctoritate et ex proprio sensu accipit aliquam sententiam falsam. Nam « omne verum a Spiritu sancto est, a quocumque dicatur[^17] ». Hanc autem non dicitur eligere, quandocumque opinatur aliquod falsum, sed quando falsum praeoptat et pertinaciter credit et paratus est defendere, sive ipse finxerit, sive alius. Unde talis definitio potest dari: haereticus est qui divinae legis ignorantia vel contemptu, pertinax inventor proprii erroris, aut alieni sectator, catholicae

<!-- page 314 -->

veritati mavult adversari quam subiici. Et haec ratio concordat rationi et dicto Augustini. Unde Augustinus, Causa vigesima quarta, quaestione tertia[^18]: « Qui sententiam suam, quamvis perversam, nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt, corrigi parati, nequaquam sunt inter haereticos computandi ».

Et differt *haeresis* a *schismate,* quia haec est contra fidem, schisma contra mores vel vinculum caritatis[^19]. — Sententia autem contra fidem ratione adinventionis dici potest *superstitio,* id est superflua institutio; ratione adhaesionis *haeresis;* ratione defensionis *secta,* loquendo per appropriata. — Vel *haeresis,* quia contra veritatem; *secta,* quia contra communitatem; *superstitio,* quia contra utilitatem, quasi superflua institutio. — Vel *haeresis* ab eligendo, *secta* a sequendo, *superstitio* a superstando[^20]. Unde *haeresis* dicit praesumtuosam et deliberatam falsi adinventionem, *secta* superaddit imitationem, *superstitio* diuturnitatis inveterationem. Sicut senes superstites delirant, sic et haeretici; ideo dicitur *superstitio,* quia vetustati et superstiti concordat. Prius autem superstitio dicitur quasi a *superstando;* nam sicut in fide intellectus captivatur, ita in errore inflatur et elevatur.

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

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that Augustine says: *Nothing greater is accomplished by a good priest, nothing less by a bad one.* For it seems from this that a bad priest accomplishes equally the things that pertain to the Mass, as a good one; and so it seems that, just as a good priest does not sin, so neither does a bad one.

It is asked therefore about a priest who is knowingly bad and is bound to consecrate, because he has a parish: what ought he to do? If he leaves off, he sins;

[and there has occurred to him a mortal sin, of which he was not contrite;] in such a state it can happen that, if he has the supply of [another] priest, he ought to confess, if he has the suitableness of the hour, namely before the beginning of the canon. If he does not have it, some have said that, if the people are present, contrition with the resolve of confessing suffices, because he would scandalize the people if he left off; but if he did not fear scandal, they counsel leaving off, especially when nothing compels. — Yet it must be believed that without sin he can complete what has been begun; if he has the resolve of confessing with contrition[^1], all is supplied; nor do I see contempt there.

But if he is bound to chant and does not have the supply of [another] priest; I say that he is bound to prepare himself through contrition and the resolve of confessing; and so it suffices for this, that he not sin, if he approach with shame and reverence. — But if he does not prepare himself, and chants; I say that he sins by the sin of *omission* when he omits to be contrite; also by another sin, if he is a hidden *simoniac*[^2]; if a *manifest* one, I say that he scandalizes; but if one *forbidden by the Church,* he sins in all these ways and by the sin of transgression. — But it must always be understood that there is one sin, and all the rest are as it were attached, or aggravating circumstances, as if someone were to kill men for gain.

But what shall we say of him to whom there occurs a remorse concerning irregularity? Then there is there no remedy of contrition nor even of confession.

To this some respond that, since it is forbidden to an irregular man to consecrate this Sacrament, and the irregularity is not blotted out by contrition, but only by dispensation, then however much the people be present and scandal be feared — since « one must not act against the truth of life on account of scandal[^3] » and against the precept — he is bound either to lay aside the consciousness of irregularity, or to leave off the Mass; and this, I say, before the consecration, and especially before the beginning of the canon. — Some say that the prohibition on account of irregularity does not extend to him, especially since he approached without consciousness of irregularity. Hence on account of the reverence of the Sacrament and the scandal of the people they say that, if he grieves and would gladly do what was in him[^4], they say that it has been dispensed by the Lord for then.

But if it be asked about him who should begin[^5] to have a consciousness that he is not a priest; here it must be said in two ways: that he ought either to leave off the Mass before the consecration, or [to lay aside] the consciousness; and he ought to feign infirmity. — Therefore the sound counsel is that a man prepare himself diligently beforehand and in the Mass not think about himself, but rather about the Sacrament.

### Doubt II

Likewise, about this, that he says: *Nor is it enlarged by the merits of good dispensers,* it is asked: who sins more, namely whether the bad priest who consecrates and does not receive, or he who does both? And it seems that he sins more who does both, because he presumes more, and the irreverence is greater. — Likewise, it is asked, who sins more, whether he who out of fear and reverence dares to do nothing, or he who consecrates. And it seems that he sins more who consecrates, because he does a greater contumely to the Sacrament, the other [shows] reverence. — Likewise it is asked about him who receives only the body and not the blood.

**I respond:** It must be said that he sins more gravely who pretends to act, than he who consecrates and does not receive; and he more gravely who consecrates and does not receive, than he who consecrates and receives; and he more gravely who consecrates and receives a part, than he who consecrates and receives the whole[^6].

And the reason for this is that irreverence can be done to the Sacrament in one way, because he who ministers is unworthy, yet nonetheless does as the Church instituted; in another way, because he is not only unworthy, but also in the very celebration does not keep the rite which he ought; and then he not only exhibits irreverence, but also does contumely, because he does not complete the Sacrament, but leaves it incomplete. And therefore it has been ordained that no one pretend to celebrate, in the decretal *On the Celebration of Masses,* book the third[^7] *De homine,* and below: « Although he who, out of consciousness of his own crime, reckons himself unworthy, sins gravely if he thrust himself irreverently to it; yet he seems to offend more gravely who has fraudulently presumed to pretend it, since the former falls into the hand of God alone the merciful, but the latter binds himself not only to God, whom he does not fear to mock, but to the people, whom he deceives ». It has also been ordained that he who consecrates should communicate, *On the Consecration,* distinction the second[^8], from the Council of Toledo: « It is certain that those who, sacrificing, do not eat, are guilty of the Lord's

<!-- page 313 -->

Sacrament, and let them know that for one year they have been driven back from that communion of which they have indecently deprived themselves ». It has also been ordained that they should receive the blood; whence *On the Consecration,* distinction the second[^8], Pope Gelasius: « Either let them receive the whole Sacraments, or let them be barred from the whole, because the division of one and the same mystery cannot come about without great sacrilege ».

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that Augustine says: *Recall the name and attend to the truth. For it is called Mass* etc.: namely why the Mass is so named; and whether in every sacrifice a victim is sent? — Likewise it is asked: why is it not said, *Ite, Missa est* [Go, it is the dismissal], in every Mass? — Likewise, it is asked about this, that he says that a heavenly messenger comes to consecrate the body. For from this word of Augustine it seems that an Angel consecrates the body of the Lord and confects it. — Against this is that this action is altogether above the angelic nature.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as is touched on in the text[^9], it is called *Missa* because a heavenly messenger is sent (*mittitur*). This heavenly messenger, as Innocent expounds, is the Angel of great counsel. He, I say, is sent to consecrate, because he is the invisible priest who consecrates and confects this Sacrament, wherever it be confected[^10]. — Hence that reasoning to the contrary is invalid, by which he objects from the angelic ministry; for this sending is not only this, but is also a sending of the sacrifice to God through the highest Angel, namely Christ, the great Angels assisting. On account of which at the end it is said: *Ite, Missa est;* and on account of this it is rightly called *Missa.* Hence Hugh[^11]: « The sacred victim itself can be called *Missa* [the sent], because it was first sent, namely from the Father, that it might be with us; afterwards by us to the Father, that it might intercede for us with the Father: first from the Father to us through the incarnation; second by us to the Father through the passion. Likewise in the Sacrament: first from the Father to us through sanctification, by which it begins to be with us; afterwards by us to the Father through oblation, by which it intercedes for us ».

But then there is the question: why is it not said at the end of every Mass: *Ite, Missa est?* **I respond:** It must be said that, although every Mass regards the whole mystical body of Christ, as is clear through the threefold partition of the host[^12]; yet according to that threefold difference it happens that Masses are appropriated in three ways. For some are celebrated specially for the honor of the Saints; and because they are already in safety and are before God, therefore in such [Masses] the people are dismissed and it is said: *Ite, Missa est,* as if: hasten to enter into that rest[^13]. — Some specially for the salvation of the living; and because we are not certain of our salvation, therefore we ought continually to be solicitous, lest through our sloth the efficacy of the Mass vanish in us. Therefore it is said in the Mass at the end at all times: *Benedicamus Domino* [Let us bless the Lord], according to that of the Prophet[^14]: *I will bless the Lord at all times.* — Some specially for the rest of the dead, and in those it is said: *Requiescant in pace* [May they rest in peace].

### Doubt IV

Likewise, about this, that the Master says: *But that you may not be ignorant of what makes a heretic,* it is asked whence one is called and for what reason one is called *heretic.* For if you say that one is called *heretic* because he errs; this is against Augustine, who says in the first book *On the Trinity*[^15]: *I shall be able to err, but I shall not be able to be a heretic.* If you say that one is called *heretic* because he is divided from the communion of the faithful; then the excommunicate and the schismatic ought to be called *heretic.* — It is asked therefore for what reason one is called *heretic;* and in what *heresy, sect,* and *superstition* differ.

**I respond:** As Isidore says in the book of *Etymologies*[^16]: « *Heretic* is so called from the Greek *haeresis,* which is *election* in Latin »; and although election is common to the good and the bad, yet the heretic himself receives some false opinion not from the gift of God, but from his own authority and from his own sense. For « every truth is from the Holy Spirit, by whomever it be said[^17] ». But he is not said to choose this whenever he opines something false, but when he prefers the false and pertinaciously believes it and is ready to defend it, whether he himself devised it or another. Hence such a definition can be given: a heretic is one who, by ignorance or contempt of the divine law, a pertinacious inventor of his own error, or a follower of another's, prefers to oppose the catholic

<!-- page 314 -->

truth rather than to be subject to it. And this account agrees with the reasoning and saying of Augustine. Hence Augustine, Cause the twenty-fourth, question the third[^18]: « Those who defend their opinion, however perverse, with no pertinacious animosity, being ready to be corrected, are by no means to be counted among heretics ».

And *heresy* differs from *schism,* because the former is against the faith, schism against morals or the bond of charity[^19]. — Now an opinion against the faith can, by reason of its devising, be called *superstition,* that is, superfluous institution; by reason of adherence *heresy;* by reason of defense *sect,* speaking by appropriation. — Or *heresy,* because against the truth; *sect,* because against the community; *superstition,* because against utility, as a superfluous institution. — Or *heresy* from choosing, *sect* from following, *superstition* from standing-over[^20]. Hence *heresy* denotes the presumptuous and deliberate devising of the false, *sect* superadds imitation, *superstition* the inveteracy of long duration. Just as old men outliving [their time] grow delirious, so also heretics; therefore it is called *superstition,* because it agrees with the aged and the survivor. But superstition is first so called as it were from *standing-over;* for just as in faith the intellect is taken captive, so in error it is puffed up and exalted.

la: Plures codd. addunt *et* ante *cum,* edd. *et si* cod. U habet *et contritionem,* post *suppletur* addito *per hoc;* quae lectiones propositionem conditionalem coniungunt cum praecedente.

en: Several codices add *et* before *cum,* the editions *et si;* codex U has *et contritionem,* with *per hoc* ("by this") added after *suppletur;* which readings join the conditional clause with the preceding.

la: Ex codd. F G supplevimus *simoniacus,* cum lectio edd. manifeste sit incompleta.

en: From codices F, G we have supplied *simoniacus* ("simoniac"), since the reading of the editions is manifestly incomplete.

la: Cfr. infra d. 17. p. III. a. 2. q. 3.

en: Cf. below, d. 17, p. III, a. 2, q. 3.

la: Vide supra pag. 86, nota 6. in fine.

en: See above, p. 86, note 6, at the end.

la: Edd. *solet,* quae subinde post *secundum* aut perperam prosequuntur, *debet conscientiae fingere infirmitatem.* Circa finem solut. pro *se ante* non pauci codd. *tantum,* cod. X *se ante Missam tantum;* post *praeparet* cod. II *ut et in Missa.*

en: The editions read *solet,* which thereupon after *secundum* wrongly continue, *debet conscientiae fingere infirmitatem* ("he ought to feign infirmity to his conscience"). Near the end of the solution, for *se ante* not a few codices read *tantum,* codex X *se ante Missam tantum;* after *praeparet* codex II *ut et in Missa.*

la: Ultimum membrum *et gravius ille* usque *totum* desideratur in edd.

en: The last member, *et gravius ille* down to *totum,* is wanting in the editions.

la: Tit. 41. c. 7. Decretum est Innocentii III. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 211, nota 8.

en: Title 41, c. 7. The decree is of Innocent III. Cf. vol. III, p. 211, note 8.

la: Can. *Relatum est nobis, quosdam* (11.), qui est Concilii Toletani XII. (an. 681). Textus originalis (quem Vat. et ed. I sequuntur) post *dominici Sacramenti* prosequitur: *Quicumque ergo sacerdotum deinceps divino altario sacrificium oblaturus accesserit et se a communione suspenderit, ab ipsa qua se indecenter privavit gratia communionis anno uno repulsum se noverit.* — Et infra: Can. *Comperimus autem* (12.), in cuius fine plurimi codd. cum edd., textu originali contradicente, *ministerii* pro *mysterii.*

en: Canon *Relatum est nobis, quosdam* (11.), which is of the Twelfth Council of Toledo (a. 681). The original text (which the Vatican edition and ed. I follow) continues after *dominici Sacramenti:* *Whoever therefore of the priests shall hereafter approach the divine altar to offer sacrifice and shall suspend himself from the communion, let him know himself driven back for one year from that very grace of communion of which he indecently deprived himself.* — And below: Canon *Comperimus autem* (12.), at the end of which very many codices with the editions, against the original text, read *ministerii* ("of ministry") for *mysterii* ("of mystery").

en: Here, c. 1. — On the exposition of Innocent, cf. above, p. 253, note 3.

la: Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. X, c. 2, verba Eusebii, et Comment. p. II. a. I. q. 3. — Mox pro *non valet* edd. cum uno alteroque cod. *valet.* Post pauca pro *haec missio* edd. *hic missio.*

en: See above the Master's text, d. X, c. 2, the words of Eusebius, and the Commentary, p. II, a. 1, q. 3. — Soon, for *non valet* ("is invalid") the editions, with one or another codex, read *valet* ("is valid"). A little after, for *haec missio* ("this sending") the editions read *hic missio.*

en: [Hugh,] *On the Sacraments* II, p. VIII, c. 14. Cf. Innocent III, *On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar* VI, c. 12.

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XII. c. 4, et Comment. p. I. a. 2. q. 3.

en: Cf. above the Master's text, d. XII, c. 4, and the Commentary, p. I, a. 2, q. 3.

la: Hebr. 4, 11: *Festinemus ergo ingredi* etc.

en: Hebrews 4:11: *Let us hasten therefore to enter* etc.

la: Psalm. 33, 1. — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. in fine tractatus de officio Missae; B. Albert., hic a. 34; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Psalm 33:1. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 10, at the end of the tract on the office of the Mass; Blessed Albert, here a. 34; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Libr. VIII. c. 3. n. 1. Cfr. Hieronym., III. Comment. in Epist. ad Gal. 5, 20: αἵρεσις *autem Graeco ab electione dicitur, quod scil. eam sibi unusquisque eligat disciplinam, quam putat esse meliorem.*

en: [Augustine, here in fact Isidore,] *Book VIII,* c. 3, n. 1. Cf. Jerome, *Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians* III, on 5:20: αἵρεσις *(haeresis) is said in Greek from election, namely because each one chooses for himself that discipline which he thinks to be the better.*

la: Libr. VIII. c. 3. n. 1. Cfr. Hieronym. ut supra.

en: [Isidore,] *Etymologies* VIII, c. 3, n. 1. Cf. Jerome as above.

la: Ut habetur in Comment. super I. Cor. 12, 3, olim Ambrosio attributo. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 817, nota 10.

en: As is found in the Commentary on I Corinthians 12:3, formerly attributed to Ambrose. Cf. vol. I, p. 817, note 10.

la: Cap. *Dixit Apostolus* (29.), sumtum ex August., Epist. 43. (alias 162.) c. 1. n. 1. Textus originalis voci *perversam* praemittit *falsam atque* et post *defendunt* plura addit, quem sequitur cod. aa. Cfr. loc. cit. C. *Haereticus est* (28.) et C. *Qui in Ecclesia* (31.).

en: Chapter *Dixit Apostolus* (29.), taken from Augustine, Letter 43 (otherwise 162), c. 1, n. 1. The original text prefixes *falsam atque* ("false and") to the word *perversam,* and after *defendunt* adds more, which codex aa follows. Cf. loc. cit., C. *Haereticus est* (28.) and C. *Qui in Ecclesia* (31.).

la: Vide Hieronym., Comment. in Epist. ad Tit. 3, 10, relatum in C. *Inter haeresim* (26.), C. 24. q. 3. De superstitione cfr. August., II. de Doctr. christ. c. 20. n. 30.

en: See Jerome, *Commentary on the Epistle to Titus,* on 3:10, related in C. *Inter haeresim* (26.), C. 24, q. 3. On superstition cf. Augustine, *On Christian Doctrine* II, c. 20, n. 30.

la: Cfr. Isidor., VIII. Etymolog. c. 3. n. 1. seqq., ubi triplicem derivationem vocis *superstitio* insinuat, scil. sic dicta est eo quod superflua aut superinstituta observatio. Alii dicunt a senibus, quia multis annis superstites per aetatem delirant et errant superstitione quadam, nescientes, quae vetera colant, aut quae veterum ignari asciscant. Lucretius autem superstitionem dicit *superstantium* rerum, id est caelestium et divinarum, quae super nos stant; sed male dicit. — Vide etiam supra pag. 218, nota 6. — Superius pro *concordat* codd. G R U *concordatio,* alii *concordant.*

en: Cf. Isidore, *Etymologies* VIII, c. 3, n. 1 ff., where he intimates a threefold derivation of the word *superstition,* namely that it is so called because it is a superfluous or super-instituted observance. Others say [it comes] from old men (*senes*), because, surviving (*superstites*) many years, they grow delirious through age and err by a certain superstition, not knowing what ancient things they revere, or what, ignorant of the ancients, they take up. But Lucretius says superstition is of *superstanding* (*superstantium*) things, that is, of the heavenly and divine things which stand over (*super... stant*) us; but he speaks ill. — See also above, p. 218, note 6. — Above, for *concordat* ("agrees") codices G, R, U read *concordatio,* others *concordant.*

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`vol4-p311-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p312-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p313-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p314-{L,R}-*`) per the Vol IV two-column PDF-priority inversion (offset pdf = printed + 20, so PDF 331–334; split_x=1880), cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 35960–36300. The IA OCR cascade-shatters this region severely (diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation + heavy two-column bleed, with the left column of one page interleaving the right column of another), so the column bands are authoritative throughout. Running heads on p.311 and p.313 read "DIST. XIII. DUBIA." confirming page-verify; p.314 left column carries the tail of Dub. IV (running head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." / "314"), with DISTINCTIO XIV beginning lower on p.314. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Dubia count: 4.**
- **Dub. I** — On the Master's *Nihil a bono maius, nihil a malo minus perficitur sacerdote:* does a bad priest accomplish the Mass equally, so that he no more sins than a good one? The doubt is turned into a practical case: what should a knowingly-bad parish priest, bound to consecrate, do? Answer: before the canon he may confess if he can; otherwise contrition + resolve to confess supplies (lest he scandalize the people); the one sin is the omission of contrition, simony/manifest-sin/Church-prohibition being aggravating annexes; an *irregular* man, whose irregularity is removed only by dispensation, must lay aside the irregular conscience or leave the Mass before consecration. Sound counsel: prepare beforehand and in the Mass think of the Sacrament, not of self.
- **Dub. II** — On *Nec bonorum dispensatorum meritis ampliatur:* who sins more — the bad priest who confects but does not receive, or one who does both; one who out of fear dares nothing, or one who confects; one who takes only the body? Answer (graded): pretending > confecting-without-receiving > confecting-and-receiving > receiving-a-part > receiving-the-whole. Reason: irreverence vs. contumely (leaving the Sacrament incomplete); decretal *De homine* (Innocent III) forbids feigning; *De Consecratione* d. 2 (Council of Toledo; Gelasius) requires the celebrant to communicate and to receive the blood.
- **Dub. III** — On *Recolite nomen... Missa enim dicitur* etc.: why is it called *Missa;* why is *Ite, Missa est* not said in every Mass; and does an Angel consecrate? Answer: *Missa* = a heavenly messenger (the Angel of great counsel, i.e. Christ, the invisible priest) is *sent;* also the sacrifice is *sent* to God — so the angelic-ministry objection fails (Hugh's double *transmissio*). The three Mass-types (for Saints → *Ite, Missa est;* for the living → *Benedicamus Domino;* for the dead → *Requiescant in pace*) follow the threefold partition of the host.
- **Dub. IV** — On *Ne autem ignores quid faciat haereticum:* whence and how far is one called *haereticus,* and how do *haeresis, secta, superstitio* differ? Answer: *haeresis* = Greek for *electio* (Isidore), but the heretic chooses a false opinion by his own authority and *pertinaciously* defends it (Augustine: mere error ≠ heresy; the un-pertinacious are not counted heretics, Causa 24 q. 3). Heresy is against faith, schism against morals/charity; the three terms parsed by appropriation (devising/adherence/defense; against truth/community/utility; from eligere/sequi/superstare).

**Footer ownership / renumber map (Quaracchi restarts footer numbering each printed page):**
- **Printed p.311** (PDF 331): footers **1–6** anchor in the *preceding* articulus (the *species deferantur / quousque,* Hugo *de Sacram.,* *de specierum vomitu,* *ac si,* *Scilicet species,* *Can.*) — they belong to the preceding fraction/reception quaestio, NOT here. Dub. I opens at the foot of p.311-L with **no footnote** in its objection.
- **Printed p.312** (PDF 332): left-column footers **1** (*Plures codd. addunt et ante cum* — Dub. I "cum contritione¹") → [^1], **2** (*Ex codd. F G... simoniacus* — Dub. I "occultus simoniacus²") → [^2], **3** (*Cfr. infra d.17* — Dub. I "propter scandalum³") → [^3], **4** (*Vide supra pag. 86* — Dub. I "quod in se esset⁴") → [^4], **5** (*Edd. solet... fingere infirmitatem* — Dub. I "qui inciperet⁵") → [^5]; right-column footers **6** (*Ultimum membrum et gravius ille* — Dub. II "totum⁶") → [^6], **7** (*Tit. 41 c. 7 / Innocent III* — Dub. II "libro tertio⁷") → [^7], **8** (*Can. Relatum est nobis... + Comperimus* — Dub. II "distinctione secunda⁸") → [^8] (this single Quaracchi footer covers BOTH *de Consecratione d. 2* citations, which both anchor "distinctione secunda" on pp.312–313; the marker is reused once on each page).
- **Printed p.313** (PDF 333): left-column footers **1** (*Can. Comperimus autem* — folded into [^8] above, as it shares the Council-of-Toledo footer block printed on p.313 but is anchored at the p.312 boundary), **2** (*Hic c. 1. — De expositione Innocentii cfr. supra pag. 253, nota 3.* — Dub. III "sicut tangitur in littera²") → [^9], **3** (*Vide supra lit. Magistri d.X c.2; verba Eusebii; non valet/valet; haec/hic missio* — Dub. III "ubicumque conficiatur³") → [^10], **4** (*Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 14. Cfr. Innocent. III, VI. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 12.* — Dub. III "Unde Hugo⁴") → [^11], **5** (*Cfr. supra lit. Magistri d.XII c.4* — Dub. III "triplicem hostiae partitionem⁵/¹²") → [^12]; right-column footers **6** (*Hebr. 4,11* — Dub. III "illam requiem¹³") → [^13], **7** (*Psalm. 33,1; Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal.* — Dub. III "Prophetae¹⁴") → [^14], **8** (*Colligi potest ex c.1-4...* — supplementary to Dub. IV, folded), **9** (*Libr. VIII c.3 n.1 — Isidore/Hieronym.* — Dub. IV "primo de Trinitate¹⁵ / Isidorus¹⁶") → [^15],[^16], **10** (*Ut habetur in Comment. super I Cor 12,3* — Dub. IV "a quocumque dicatur¹⁷") → [^17].

  **CORRECTION (2026-07-17, J4 Class D/E pass):** the renumber map above (as originally written) had mis-paired p.313's footers 2–4 with the wrong body anchors — it conflated footer **2** ("De expositione Innocentii...") with footer **3** ("Vide supra lit. Magistri...") under a single mislabeled entry, and skipped footer **4** entirely, leaving [^11] with a fabricated, non-verbatim "(Idem locus paulo aliter.)" gloss that does not exist in print. Page-verified (450dpi PDF colcrop, `vol4-p313-L-*`, split_x=1880): the true printed superscripts read "sicut tangitur in littera **²**", "ubicumque conficiatur **³**", "Unde Hugo **⁴**" — i.e. footer 2 belongs to "in littera", footer 3 to "conficiatur", footer 4 (verbatim Hugo *de Sacram.* II p.VIII c.14 citation) to "Unde Hugo". [^9]/[^10]/[^11] def *content* has been corrected to match (labels/anchors unchanged, only the def bodies were swapped/replaced); this is a content-accuracy fix, not the flagged D/E anchor-count defect (see below).
- **Printed p.314** (PDF 334): left-column footers **1** (*Cap. Dixit Apostolus 29; August. Epist. 43* — Dub. IV "quaestione tertia¹⁸") → [^18], **2** (*Vide Hieronym. ad Tit. 3,10; C. Inter haeresim* — Dub. IV "vinculum caritatis¹⁹") → [^19], **3** (*Cfr. Isidor. VIII Etymolog. c.3 — superstitio derivation*) + **4** (*Vide supra pag. 218 nota 6; concordat/concordatio* — Dub. IV "a superstando²⁰") → [^20] (the two p.314 superstitio footers are consolidated into one entry, as both gloss the same *superstando* anchor). **Total: 20 markers, 17 apparatus entries** (markers [^8] and [^11] reuse a single source citation across two anchors; [^15]/[^16] split one Isidore/Jerome footer across the Augustine and Isidore lemmata; [^20] consolidates the two p.314 superstitio footers).

**Picked-up hand-off (from the d.13 q2 writer — the *Fractio / triplex partitio* quaestio):** that quaestio ends "…determinatur in Consecratione, distinctione secunda" just above raw ~35960; its p.311 footers (the *species deferantur,* Hugo, *vomitus,* *Scilicet species,* *Can.* set) stay with it. This chunk claims nothing on p.311 except the Dub. I opener (footnote-free).

**Page-split map:** Dub. I opens at the foot of p.311-L (centered DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI header + DUB. I + objection "Si dimittit, peccat;") beneath the close of the preceding fraction quaestio (whose *securior* opinion runs down p.311-R). Dub. I's long practical solution continues at the top of p.312-L ("Missa, vel mortale peccatum…") and its tail runs into p.312-R top ("…fingere infirmitatem. — Ideo sanum consilium est…"). Dub. II fills the rest of p.312-R ("Item super hoc quod dicit: Nec bonorum…"), its Toledo/Gelasius solution breaking at the foot of p.312-R ("…rei sunt dominici") and continuing at the top of p.313-L ("Sacramenti et ab ipsa qua…"). Dub. III fills p.313-L ("Item quaeritur… Recolite nomen…" through the Hugo *transmissio*) and its triple-appropriation answer runs into p.313-R top, closing "…Requiescant in pace." Dub. IV opens lower in p.313-R ("Item super hoc quod dicit Magister: Ne autem ignores…"), its objection + Isidore definition breaking at the foot of p.313-R ("…catholicae"), continuing at the top of p.314-L ("veritati mavult adversari quam subiici…"), and closing in p.314-R ("…ita in errore inflatur et elevatur.") above where the centered DISTINCTIO XIV / Pars I header begins lower on p.314.

**Distinctio XIV boundary:** Everything from the centered **DISTINCTIO XIV / Pars I / Cap. I (De poenitentia, et unde dicitur poenitentia)** header onward (printed p.314; raw L36249 ff., "Post haec de poenitentia agendum est…") is excluded here and owned by the d.14 chunks. The p.314 running head still reads "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. / 314" for the columns holding the Dub. IV tail (Dist. XIII), with the Dist. XIV material beginning lower on the page.

**J4 Class D/E disposition (2026-07-17):** health-scan flagged `defs=20 la=21 en=21`. Diagnosis: **not a defect.** The duplicate-label finder shows the sole repeat in both languages is `[^8]` (appearing twice in La. and twice in En., symmetrically). Page-verified against 450dpi PDF colcrop bands (`vol4-p312-R-2`, `vol4-p313-L-0`): p.312-R prints "distinctione secunda **⁸**" (page-local footer 8 = the Toledo canon 11 *Relatum est nobis, quosdam*); p.313-L prints "distinctione secunda **¹**" (p.313 restarts page-local numbering at 1; that footer = canon 12 *Comperimus autem*, the *ministerii/mysterii* variant). Both printed superscripts are real (not phantom), and the chunk's own def [^8] already combines both citations verbatim (documented in the pre-existing renumber map above as the "single Quaracchi footer covers BOTH *de Consecratione d. 2* citations" case) — this is the benign "one continuous-numbering marker binds two anchor points across a page-restart boundary" case the J4-CLASS-DE-HANDOFF anticipated as possible but rare. No `[^N]` markers or def entries were touched for this defect; counts are unchanged (defs=20, la=21, en=21 stands as correctly healthy-by-content despite the raw scan flag). While page-verifying this, a genuine, unrelated content-mislabel was found and fixed in the adjacent [^9]/[^10]/[^11] cluster — see the CORRECTION note in the p.313 renumber map above.

**[?] flags:** none. All four dubia bodies read cleanly from the PDF column bands. Two minor footer-consolidation judgments are documented in the renumber map: (1) the two *de Consecratione, distinctione secunda* citations (Toledo canon on p.312, Gelasius/Comperimus on p.312–313) share marker [^8]; (2) the Hugh *de Sacram. II p.VIII c.14* citation is reused for both the "ubicumque conficiatur" and the "Unde Hugo" anchors ([^10], [^11]); (3) the single Isidore/Jerome *Etymolog. VIII c.3* footer underwrites both [^15] (at the Augustine *de Trinitate* lemma, where the Quaracchi note corrects the misattribution — the *Errare potero* phrase is Augustine, the *haeresis = electio* etymology is Isidore/Jerome) and [^16] (at the Isidore lemma proper). Confidence high throughout; the source attributions are explicit in the printed footers.

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