title: Dist. 8, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1

title_alt:
De forma verbi super panem
On the form of the word over the bread

source_text:
<!-- page 189 -->

### Articulus I. *De forma verbi in Sacramento eucharistiae.*
### Quaestio I. *De forma verbi super panem.*

Quantum ergo ad formam panis, quae est: *Hoc est corpus meum*, quaeritur primo quantum ad subiectum, scilicet quoad pronomen.

1. Cum enim *hoc* sit pronomen et non relativum, est demonstrativum, quia aliter esset casuale[^1], ut dicit Priscianus[^2]: si igitur demonstrat, aut ad intellectum, aut ad sensum. Si ad intellectum, tunc quaero: quid? Non potest dici nisi corpus Christi verum: ergo sensus est: corpus meum est corpus meum; hoc nihil videtur, quia nullam rationem

<!-- page 190 -->

operandi dicit. Si ad sensum: ergo sensus est: panis est corpus meum; sed hoc simpliciter falsum: ergo neutro modo potest accipi.

2. Item, pronomen importat demonstrationem, hoc non ut conceptam[^3], sed ut exercitam; sed demonstratio non exercetur nisi circa illud quod actu est tempore prolationis: ergo si, cum profertur pronomen, non est ibi nisi panis; demonstratur ergo panis: ergo idem quod prius.

3. Item, «regula est, quod terminus supponens verbo de praesenti, non habenti vim ampliandi, supponit pro eo quod actu est»[^4]; sed actu non est ibi nisi panis: ergo supponit pro pane. Sed illi non convenit praedicatum: ergo locutio falsa.

Quaeritur etiam de compositione[^5], scilicet de hoc verbo *est*.

4. Et cum ista forma sit forma operativa, videtur, quod deberet ibi poni verbum operativum; sed hoc verbum est verbum apracticon, id est extra operationem: ergo nullo modo deberet ibi poni.

5. Item, hoc verbo Christus confecit, et sacerdos intendit conficere, sicut Deus Verbo increato creavit: ergo si ad prolationem huius verbi statim fit, verbum illud est imperiosum: ergo videtur potius utendum verbo imperativo, ut diceretur sic: fiat corpus meum, sicut in creatione non dicitur *fit*, sed *fiat lux*[^6].

6. Item, subiectum et praedicatum[^7] dicunt formas incompossibiles; sed verbum substantivum praesentis temporis dicit simultatem formarum praedicati et subiecti: ergo non debet dici de praesenti *hoc est*, sed *hoc erit*.

Quaeritur etiam de hoc praedicato *corpus meum*.

7. Videtur enim, quod deberet magis dici *caro*, quia caro magis est conveniens cibationi, unde Ioannis sexto[^8]: *Caro mea vere est cibus.*

8. Item, si ista verba proferuntur a conficiente, cum conficiens loquatur de Christo ut de tertia persona, non debet dici *meum*, sed *Christi*. — Si dicas, quod Christus vim dedit his verbis, sicut vim dedit in nomine suo daemonia expellere, cum dixit: *In nomine meo daemonia eicient* Marci ultimo[^9]; et tamen eicientes dicebant: *In nomine Christi*.

9. Item, cum de forma aliorum Sacramentorum sint actus pertinentes ad intentionem et usum sive ad consecrantem[^10]: ergo videtur, quod illud quod antecedit: *Accipite et comedite*, et hoc quod sequitur: *In mei memoriam facietis*, sit de forma.

Quaeritur ergo, quae sit forma praecise; et quare non ponatur in verbo exprimente actum ministri.

### Conclusio

> Conveniens est forma, qua consecratur panis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod circa hoc multiplex fuit opinio.

Quidam enim dicunt, quod verba illa dicit sacerdos non ut sua, sed ut Christi, unde materialiter tenentur[^11]; nec tunc est quaerere, quid ibi demonstretur per pronomen, vel quid copuletur per verbum[^12]. — Sed hoc non sufficit dicere: primo quidem, quia, etsi verba in persona alterius proferantur, non propter hoc omnino materialiter tenentur, sed significative, cum recitentur in eo sensu, in quo ille dixit. Praeterea, similiter possumus quaerere, secundum quod a Christo prolata sunt[^13].

Alii dicunt, quod verba tenentur significative; sed oratio non habet veritatem pro tempore, in quo

<!-- page 191 -->

profertur, sed pro tempore, in quo prolata est, ut haec oratio: *ego bibo*, non est vera pro tempore prolationis, sed pro tempore sibi coniuncto. — Sed hic sermo illud non solvit: quia aut demonstratur ibi panis, aut corpus Christi. Si panis, nullo tempore est oratio vera; si Christi corpus, est omni tempore vera[^14].

Alii dicunt, quod tenetur significative oratio, et vera est etiam pro tempore, in quo profertur; sed non demonstratur ibi aliquid ad sensum, sed ad intellectum, ad intellectum, inquam, non sicut simile in simili, ut cum dicitur: *haec herba crescit in horto meo*, sed sicut signatum in signo, ut sit sensus: *Hoc*, id est signatum per hoc[^15], est corpus meum. Et haec significatio orationis vera est, etiam si nihil fieret; sed rursus, quia significationi verae addita est ex institutione divina virtus efficacissima, ulterius oratio illa et ex Domini institutione et ex sacerdotis intentione est conversiva, ut sit sensus: significatum per hoc quod est convertendum[^16] in corpus meum, est corpus meum. — Et haec opinio probabilior est praedictis; adhuc tamen illud non plene satisfacit. Si enim, ut dicit Augustinus[^17], verbum debet accedere ad elementum, ut fiat Sacramentum; elementum non est ibi significatum, sed magis illud quod in corpus convertitur: non demonstratur ergo corpus Christi, sed substantia panis sub accidentibus, quae possunt oculis conspici. Et hoc quidem verum est, maxime cum intentio conficientis super panem feratur, ut convertatur in corpus, et illud demonstrat, super quod fertur sua intentio.

Et propterea notandum, quod ista oratio singularis est inter omnes orationes; aliae enim sunt indicativae veritatis sive existentiae, haec autem id ipsum quod figurat[^18] facit. Unde est verbum operativum, et operativum non operatione successiva, sed instantanea; et operativum non alicuius rei novae vel non existentis, sed terminus eius est ens actu completum et non mutatum; et ad illud quidem terminatur, ut est alterius signum, id est corporis Christi mystici; et hoc totum facit virtute Verbi increati, adiuncta ministro circa materiam nihil agenti.

Ex his sex conditionibus patet ratio omnium dictorum in hac forma, si quis inspiciat. Quia enim sermo conversivus et transitivus sive ad transsubstantiationem[^19] ordinatus est operativus; et operatio est circa substantiam panis: ideo pronomen demonstrat panis substantiam sub accidentibus, quae oculis conspici possunt, et tangitur illud quod convertitur, per subiectum, sicut illud in quod, per praedicatum. — Quia vero terminus operationis est actu ens, non innovatum: ideo debet poni ibi verbum essendi, non fiendi, ut significetur conversio esse sine mutatione termini, scilicet in eo quod est. — Quia subito, ideo simul est fieri et factum esse, ideo praesens verbum instantaneum et non futurum; et tale est praesens huius verbi *est*[^20], ideo melius dicitur *est* quam *erit*. — Quia vero operatio terminatur ad corpus Christi verum ut signum mystici[^21], in quo est diversitas operationum: ideo dicitur *corpus*, non *caro*, quia corpus commune est ad totum heterogeneum et homogeneum, caro autem dicit homogeneum. — Quia vero hoc operatur virtute Verbi increati coniuncta et ut coniuncta, ideo dicit *meum*; loquitur enim sacerdos in persona Christi: ideo pro Christo dicit *meum*. — Quia vero minister nihil operatur circa materiam nec immutat: ideo nihil plus est de forma; etenim, si minister non tangat nec frangat, dum tamen intendat et verba dicat, confectum est; non sic est in baptismo.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ex his patent omnia obiecta, hoc solo excepto, scilicet de veritate locutionis. Quomodo enim est locutio vera, si demonstratur substantia panis, cum haec sit semper falsa: panis est corpus Christi, cum sint formae incompossibiles? Et si tu dicas, quod hoc verbum *est* non dicit ibi inhaerentiam, sed potius conversionem; tunc ergo secundum hoc potius competeret verbum imperativum.

Et propterea notandum, quod sicut in Verbo aeterno, Filio Dei, Domino nostro Iesu Christo, est

<!-- page 192 -->

veritas et omnipotentia; sic in verbo suo, ab ipso ore Christi prolato, est veritas et efficacia, ut tale verbum Sacramentis novae legis competat; ideo debuit ita dicere verbum enuntiativum veritatis, sicut est ipsa veritas, ac per hoc indicativum. Et quia non esset verum simplici enuntiatione; ut non esset falsus[^22], iunxit verbo efficaciam ore suo. — Et quia mandavit aliis facere et dicere; et ipse non iubet, aliquem esse falsum: ideo in ore eorum, quibus dedit mandatum, dedit verbo efficaciam. Et ideo hoc verbum est in hac oratione non identitatem nec simultatem significat, sed hoc esse corpus, hoc est, ad huius verbi prolationem hoc totum transire in corpus. Unde oratio ista in ore alterius quam in ore sacerdotis falsa est, quia non convertit neque transsubstantiat hoc in illud; nec vera est per identitatem. — Et hic sensus, quamvis sit huic orationi proprius, et similiter formae sanguinis; tamen non est alienus a ratione, pensatis conditionibus superius assignatis.

Ex quibus alia obiecta patent. Nec videatur inconveniens dicere, quod hoc verbum *est* non identitatem dicit, sed potius conversionem in hac oratione, quae non tantum est significativa, sed etiam operativa. Magis tamen debuit poni verbum essendi quam operandi, quia magis competebat formae, ut simul esset efficacia cum veritatis enuntiatione, simul etiam notaretur termini immutabilitas cum conversione.

english:
### Article I. *On the form of the word in the Sacrament of the eucharist.*
### Question I. *On the form of the word over the bread.*

As regards, then, the form over the bread, which is: *This is my body*, the first inquiry concerns the subject, namely the pronoun.

1. For since *this* is a pronoun and not a relative, it is demonstrative, because otherwise it would be a casual word[^1], as Priscian says[^2]: if therefore it demonstrates, it does so either to the intellect or to the sense. If to the intellect, then I ask: what? Nothing can be said except the true body of Christ: therefore the sense is, "my body is my body"; but this seems to be nothing, because it states no account

<!-- page 190 -->

of operating. If to the sense: then the sense is, "the bread is my body"; but this is simply false: therefore it can be taken in neither way.

2. Likewise, a pronoun conveys a demonstration, this not as conceived[^3] but as exercised; but a demonstration is not exercised except concerning that which actually is at the time of utterance: therefore if, when the pronoun is uttered, there is nothing there but bread; bread therefore is demonstrated: therefore the same as before.

3. Likewise, «the rule is that a term suppositing with a present-tense verb that has no power of ampliation supposits for that which actually is»[^4]; but actually there is nothing there but bread: therefore it supposits for bread. But the predicate does not belong to it: therefore the locution is false.

There is also an inquiry concerning the composition[^5], namely concerning this verb *is*.

4. And since that form is an operative form, it seems that an operative verb ought to be placed there; but this verb is a non-practical verb (*apracticon*), that is, outside operation: therefore it ought in no way to be placed there.

5. Likewise, by this word Christ confected, and the priest intends to confect, just as God created by the uncreated Word: therefore if at the utterance of this word it is done at once, that word is imperious: therefore it seems that an imperative verb should rather be used, so that it would be said thus, "let my body come to be," just as in creation it is not said *it is made*, but *let there be light*[^6].

6. Likewise, subject and predicate[^7] state incompossible forms; but the substantive verb of present tense states a simultaneity of the forms of predicate and subject: therefore it ought not to be said in the present *this is*, but *this will be*.

There is also an inquiry concerning this predicate, *my body*.

7. For it seems that it ought rather to be said *flesh*, because flesh is more fitting to feeding, whence in the sixth chapter of John[^8]: *My flesh is truly food.*

8. Likewise, if those words are uttered by the one confecting, since the one confecting speaks of Christ as of a third person, it ought not to be said *my* (*meum*), but *Christ's*. — Should you say that Christ gave power to these words, just as he gave power in his name to expel demons, when he said: *In my name they shall cast out demons*, in the last chapter of Mark[^9]; and yet those casting them out said: *In the name of Christ*.

9. Likewise, since concerning the form of the other Sacraments there are acts pertaining to the intention and use, or to the one consecrating[^10]: therefore it seems that what precedes, *Take and eat*, and what follows, *Do this in remembrance of me*, belongs to the form.

It is asked, therefore, what precisely the form is; and why it is not placed in a word expressing the act of the minister.

### Conclusion

> Fitting is the form by which the bread is consecrated.

**I respond:** It must be said that concerning this there has been a manifold opinion.

For some say that the priest speaks those words not as his own but as Christ's, whence they are held materially[^11]; nor then is there any need to ask what is demonstrated there by the pronoun, or what is copulated by the verb[^12]. — But it is not enough to say this: first indeed, because, even though the words are uttered in the person of another, not on that account are they held wholly materially, but significatively, since they are recited in that sense in which he spoke. Moreover, we can likewise inquire according as they were uttered by Christ[^13].

Others say that the words are held significatively; but the locution does not have truth for the time in which

<!-- page 191 -->

it is uttered, but for the time in which it was uttered, as this locution: *I drink*, is not true for the time of utterance, but for the time conjoined to it. — But this discourse does not solve it: because either bread is demonstrated there, or the body of Christ. If bread, the locution is true at no time; if the body of Christ, it is true at every time[^14].

Others say that the locution is held significatively, and is true even for the time in which it is uttered; but nothing is demonstrated there to the sense, but to the intellect — to the intellect, I say, not as like in like, as when it is said, *this herb grows in my garden*, but as the signified in the sign, so that the sense is: *This*, that is, what is signified through this[^15], is my body. And this signification of the locution is true, even if nothing were to come about; but again, because to the true signification there has been added by divine institution a most efficacious power, further that locution, both from the Lord's institution and from the priest's intention, is conversive, so that the sense is: what is signified through that which is to be converted[^16] into my body is my body. — And this opinion is more probable than the foregoing; yet still it does not fully satisfy. For if, as Augustine says[^17], the word must come to the element so that the Sacrament may be made; the element is not signified there, but rather that which is converted into the body: the body of Christ therefore is not demonstrated, but the substance of bread under the accidents, which can be beheld by the eyes. And this indeed is true, especially since the intention of the one confecting is borne upon the bread, that it may be converted into the body, and demonstrates that upon which his intention is borne.

And therefore it must be noted that this locution is singular among all locutions; for others are indicative of truth or existence, but this one does the very thing that it figures[^18]. Hence it is an operative word, and operative not by a successive operation, but by an instantaneous one; and operative not of some new or non-existent thing, but its term is a being actually complete and not changed; and it is indeed terminated at it as it is the sign of another, that is, of the mystical body of Christ; and it does all this by the power of the uncreated Word, with the minister joined to it, doing nothing about the matter.

From these six conditions the reason of all that is said in this form is evident, if one looks closely. For because the discourse, conversive and transitive or ordered to transubstantiation[^19], is operative; and the operation is about the substance of bread: therefore the pronoun demonstrates the substance of bread under the accidents, which can be beheld by the eyes, and that which is converted is touched, through the subject, as that into which, through the predicate. — But because the term of the operation is an actual being, not innovated: therefore the verb of being, not of coming-to-be, must be placed there, so that it may be signified that the conversion is without change of the term, namely in that which is. — Because it is sudden, therefore the coming-to-be and the having-been-made are simultaneous, therefore the present verb is instantaneous and not future; and such is the present of this verb *is*[^20], therefore it is better said *is* than *will be*. — But because the operation is terminated at the true body of Christ as the sign of the mystical[^21], in which there is a diversity of operations: therefore *body* is said, not *flesh*, because "body" is common to the whole heterogeneous and homogeneous, whereas "flesh" states the homogeneous. — But because this is operated by the power of the uncreated Word as joined and inasmuch as joined, therefore it says *my*; for the priest speaks in the person of Christ: therefore for Christ he says *my*. — But because the minister operates nothing about the matter nor changes it: therefore there is nothing more belonging to the form; for indeed, if the minister neither touch nor break, provided that he intend and say the words, it is confected; it is not so in baptism.

To 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. From these all the objections are evident, with this one exception only, namely concerning the truth of the locution. For how is the locution true, if the substance of bread is demonstrated, since this is always false: "the bread is the body of Christ," since they are incompossible forms? And if you should say that this verb *is* does not there state inherence, but rather conversion; then therefore according to this an imperative verb would rather be fitting.

And therefore it must be noted that just as in the eternal Word, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, there is

<!-- page 192 -->

truth and omnipotence; so in his word, uttered from the very mouth of Christ, there is truth and efficacy, so that such a word may befit the Sacraments of the new law; therefore he had to speak thus a word enunciative of truth, just as he is truth itself, and through this indicative. And because it would not be true by a simple enunciation; lest he be false[^22], he joined efficacy to the word by his own mouth. — And because he commanded others to do and to say; and he himself does not bid anyone to be false: therefore in the mouth of those to whom he gave the command, he gave efficacy to the word. And so this verb *is* in this locution signifies not identity nor simultaneity, but this to be the body — that is, at the utterance of this word this whole to pass over into the body. Hence that locution in the mouth of another than in the mouth of the priest is false, because it neither converts nor transubstantiates this into that; nor is it true by identity. — And this sense, although it is proper to this locution, and likewise to the form of the blood, nevertheless is not alien from reason, the conditions assigned above being weighed.

From these the other objections are evident. Nor let it seem unfitting to say that this verb *is* does not state identity, but rather conversion in this locution, which is not only significative but also operative. Yet the verb of being had rather to be placed than that of operating, because it was more fitting to the form, so that there might be efficacy together with the enunciation of truth, and at the same time the immutability of the term might be noted together with the conversion.

la: Edd. cum paucis codd. *convenientia*. Utraque lectio defendi potest. Inferius post *forma* cod. B addit: *et de eius virtute sive efficacia*, et sic secundo tangitur ratio institutionis quantum ad tempus quae duplex est: prima est cessatio legalium Sacramentorum; secunda, impressio illius memoriae discipulorum; tertio removetur incidens, ibi: *Sed non exinde*.

en: The editions, with a few codices, read *convenientia*. Either reading can be defended. Below, after *form*, codex B adds: *and concerning its power or efficacy*, and thus secondly the reason of the institution as regards time is touched, which is twofold: the first is the cessation of the legal Sacraments; the second, the impressing of that memory upon the disciples; thirdly the incidental matter is removed, at: *But not thenceforth*.

la: Libr. XII. Grammatic. c. 1; XVII. c. 9. seqq. et de XII versibus Aeneidos principal. c. 10. — Idem XVII. c. 9. ait: *Quoties vero ille vel hic non ostendendum ante oculos aliquid referunt, oportet intelligere, quod eorum demonstratio ad intellectum refertur. Itaque quaedam sunt oculorum demonstrativa, ut* ego *et* tu*, quaedam et oculorum et intellectus oculorum, ut* hic vir*,* hic est tibi quem promitti saepius audis*; intellectus, ut,* hic pietatis honos? sic nos in sceptra reponis? — Grammat. speculat. c. 22. et 24. etc. Cfr. Scot., Inferius post* ad sensum *cod. aa addit:* quia ibi quoad sensum non est nisi panis, vinum vel species visibilis.

en: Book XII of the *Grammar*, c. 1; XVII, c. 9 ff., and *On the twelve verses of the Aeneid*, principal c. 10. — Likewise XVII, c. 9, he says: *But whenever* "ille" *or* "hic" *do not point to something to be shown before the eyes, it must be understood that their demonstration is referred to the intellect. And so some things are demonstratives of the eyes, as* "I" *and* "thou"*; some are both of the eyes and of the intellect of the eyes, as* "this man"*,* "this is for thee whom thou hearest often promised"*; of the intellect, as,* "is this the honor of piety? thus dost thou set us in the scepter?" — *Speculative Grammar* c. 22 and 24, etc. Cf. Scotus. Below, after *to the sense*, codex aa adds: *because there, as regards sense, there is nothing but bread, wine, or the visible species.*

la: *Si enim importaret demonstrationem ut conceptam, tunc pronomen* hoc *sumeretur «ut res quaedam et non ut habens ordinem ad rem aliam, ut si diceretur: hoc pronomen* hoc »* (S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1). Cfr. I. Sent. d. 1. dub. 1. — Post *hoc pronomen* codd. H I P Q supplent *hoc*.

en: *For if it conveyed a demonstration as conceived, then the pronoun* "this" *would be taken «as a certain thing and not as having an ordering to another thing, as if it were said: this pronoun* "this" »* (Thomas, here q. 2. a. 1, little-question 1). Cf. I Sent. d. 1, dub. 1. — After *this pronoun* codices H I P Q supply *this*.

la: Haec regula colligitur ex illa, quam Petr. Hispan., Summul. tr. de Ampliatione, dat: De ampliatione autem, quae fit ratione temporis, talis datur regula: *Terminus communis supponens vel apponens [i. e. positus in subiecto vel positus in praedicato] verbo habenti vim ampliandi quoad tempus supponit pro his quae sunt, quae erunt vel fuerunt, ut* homo necessario est animal*; ibi tam* homo *quam* animal *tenetur pro his quae sunt et erunt.* Cfr. ibid. tr. de Restrictione. — Post *ampliandi* cod. Z addit *non ex se, non ex alio*. Cod. aa hic pro sequitur: *sed iste terminus* hoc *supponit* hoc *verbo* est *non habenti vim ampliandi: ergo supponit pro his quae sunt in actu sed actu non est ibi nisi panis* etc. Idem cod. aa inferius post *praedicatum* supplet *scilicet corpus Christi*.

en: This rule is gathered from the one which Peter of Spain, *Summulae*, tract on Ampliation, gives: Concerning the ampliation that occurs by reason of time, this rule is given: *A common term suppositing or apposing [i.e. placed in the subject or placed in the predicate] with a verb having the power of ampliating as to time supposits for those things which are, which will be or were, as* "man is necessarily an animal"*; there both* "man" *and* "animal" *are taken for those things which are and will be.* Cf. ibid., tract on Restriction. — After *ampliating* codex Z adds *not of itself, not from another*. Codex aa here reads instead of what follows: *but that term* "this" *supposits with this verb* "is," *which has no power of ampliating: therefore it supposits for those things which are in act, but in act there is nothing there but bread,* etc. The same codex aa below, after *predicate*, supplies *namely the body of Christ*.

la: Scilicet quatenus est medium sive copula coniungens composita. Cfr. Aristot., I. Periherm. c. 3, ubi dicit, quod verbum [*est*] «consignificat compositionem quandam, quam sine compositis non est intelligere». — Inferius pro *apracticon* codd. scribunt vel *epracticon* (Vat. *expracticon*), vel perperam *empracticon* (ἔμπρακτον i. e. operativum sive efficax), ed. I pro hac *haereticum* (cfr. tom. I. pag. 739, nota 8.). Priscian., VIII. Grammat. c. 10. refert, quod Graeci verbum *sum* vocant ὑπαρκτικόν «quod nos possumus *substantivum* [cfr. infra arg. 6.] nominare; id enim omnium semper est perfectissimum cui nihil deest».

en: Namely inasmuch as it is the middle or copula joining the composed terms. Cf. Aristotle, *On Interpretation* I, c. 3, where he says that the verb [*is*] «consignifies a certain composition, which cannot be understood apart from the things composed». — Below, for *apracticon* the codices write either *epracticon* (the Vatican, *expracticon*), or wrongly *empracticon* (ἔμπρακτον, i.e. operative or efficacious); edition I reads instead of this *haereticum* (cf. tom. I, p. 739, note 8). Priscian, *Grammar* VIII, c. 10, relates that the Greeks call the verb *am* ὑπαρκτικόν, «which we can name *substantive* [cf. below, arg. 6]; for it is always the most perfect of all, to which nothing is lacking».

la: Gen. 1, 3. — De maiori cfr. supra p. I. a. 2. q. 3, d. 3. p. 1. a. 1. q. Pro *fit* plures codd. *sit*, cod. A *sit vel est*, edd. *est*. Edd. superius post *statim fit* supplent *transsubstantiatio*.

en: Gen. 1:3. — On the major, cf. above p. I, a. 2, q. 3; d. 3, p. 1, a. 1, q. For *it is made* several codices read *let it be*, codex A *let it be or is*, the editions *is*. The editions above, after *at once it is made*, supply *transubstantiation*.

la: Scil. panis et corpus Christi.

en: Namely the bread and the body of Christ.

la: Vers. 56. — Pro *magis est conveniens* codd. *dicit* [cod. aa *dicitur*] *magis conveniens*.

en: Verse 56. — For *is more fitting* the codices read *says* [codex aa *is said*] *more fitting*.

la: Vers. 17.

en: Verse 17.

la: Sive *conficientem*. Fortasse post *et usum* exciderunt verba: *similiter videtur, quod in hoc Sacramento sint actus pertinentes ad intentionem et usum*. Vocibus *actus pertinentes* secunda manus in cod. V. praemisit *verba exprimentia*.

en: Or *the one confecting*. Perhaps after *and use* the words have fallen out: *likewise it seems that in this Sacrament there are acts pertaining to the intention and use*. Before the words *acts pertaining* a second hand in codex V prefixed *words expressing*.

la: Cod. aa et edd. *in forma* [edd. *ibi*] *verbum exprimens*.

en: Codex aa and the editions read *in the form* [the editions, *there*] *a word expressing*.

la: Guliel. Mara, hic q. 1. addit: *Sicut si dicam: Petrus dixit de Ioanne: iste cucurrit, ly* iste *in ore nihil demonstrat.* Post pauca pro *copuletur* edd. *completur*. In cod. aa subiungitur: *quid demonstret hoc pronomen* hoc, *et quid copulet verbum* est.

en: William of Ware, here q. 1, adds: *Just as if I say: Peter said of John, "he ran," the* "he" *in the mouth demonstrates nothing.* A little after, for *be copulated* the editions read *be completed*. In codex aa there is appended: *what this pronoun* "this" *demonstrates, and what the verb* "is" *copulates.*

la: Praepositivus, Sum. p. IV, ait: *Ad hoc respondemus, quod* hoc *non accipitur demonstrative, sed repraesentative.* Cfr. Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro altaris Mysterio, c. 17.

en: Praepositivus, *Summa* p. IV, says: *To this we answer that* "this" *is not taken demonstratively, but representatively.* Cf. Innocent III, *On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar* IV, c. 17.

la: Idem est dictu *Hoc est corpus meum*, ut ait Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 4. a. 2. § 3, ut *corpus meum est corpus meum*... sed haec: *corpus meum est corpus meum*, semper fuit vera etc.

en: It is the same as saying *This is my body*, as Alexander of Hales says, S. p. IV, q. 10, m. 4, a. 2, § 3, that *my body is my body*... but this, *my body is my body*, was always true, etc.

la: Cod. aa *per hoc pronomen* hoc, *scilicet panis*. Idem cod. aa mox post *fieret* addit: *quia panis similitudinem habet ad significandum corpus Christi*.

en: Codex aa reads *through this pronoun* "this," *namely of bread*. The same codex aa shortly after, following *would come about*, adds: *because the bread has a likeness for signifying the body of Christ*.

la: Cod. aa *significatum per hoc pronomen* hoc, *scilicet panis, qui est convertendus*. Superius pro *significationi verae* Vat. *significationi vocis*.

en: Codex aa reads *what is signified through this pronoun* "this," *namely the bread, which is to be converted*. Above, for *to the true signification* the Vatican reads *to the signification of the word*.

la: In Ioan. Evang. tr. 80. n. 3. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. III. c. 1.

en: *On the Gospel of John*, tract 80, n. 3. Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. III, c. 1.

la: Cod. P *haec autem oratio conversiva, unde id ipsum quod significat*. Pro *id ipsum* codd. A H V aa et ed. *ad id ipsum*. Verbo *indicativae* cod. V praemittit *tantum*, plures alii codd. *duae*.

en: Codex P reads *but this conversive locution, whence the very thing which it signifies*. For *the very thing* codices A H V aa and the edition read *to the very thing*. To the word *indicative* codex V prefixes *only*, several other codices *two*.

la: Ita fere omnes codd., ut A C D E F G H I L P Q Z bb; edd. *transitionem*, cod. aa *translationem*. Pro *transitivus* in cod. bb secunda manus substituit *transsubstantivus*.

en: So nearly all the codices, as A C D E F G H I L P Q Z bb; the editions read *transition*, codex aa *translation*. For *transitive* in codex bb a second hand substituted *transsubstantive*.

la: Cfr. infra d. 11. p. 1. q. 6. — In cod. aa additur *quia nunc temporis dicitur*. Cfr. Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 80. seqq. (c. 10.) et VIII. text. 11. (c. 1.); August., XI. Confess. c. 14. n. 17. seqq. — Superius pro *ideo* edd. *ideo est*, cod. P a secunda manu *esse debet*.

en: Cf. below d. 11, p. 1, q. 6. — In codex aa there is added *because it is said of present time*. Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* IV, text 80 ff. (c. 10) and VIII, text 11 (c. 1); Augustine, *Confessions* XI, c. 14, n. 17 ff. — Above, for *therefore* the editions read *therefore it is*, codex P by a second hand *must be*.

la: Vide infra a. 2. q. 1. — De seqq. cfr. I. Cor. 12, 12. seqq.; Aristot., I. de Histor. animal. c. 1, et II. de Partib. animal. c. 1.

en: See below, a. 2, q. 1. — On what follows, cf. 1 Cor. 12:12 ff.; Aristotle, *History of Animals* I, c. 1, and *Parts of Animals* II, c. 1.

la: Teste Forcellini (*Lexicon* etc.), adiectivum *falsus* saepe transit in nomen et significat eum qui decipit. Hic refertur ad Christum. — Cod. aa *filius mendax*. Superius pro *ita dicere* cod. H *ita esse*. Subinde voci *verum* cod. Z praemittit *verbum*. Mox pro *ore suo* codd. F G I *ore proprio*.

en: On the testimony of Forcellini (*Lexicon*, etc.), the adjective *falsus* often passes into a noun and signifies one who deceives. Here it is referred to Christ. — Codex aa reads *a lying son*. Above, for *to speak thus* codex H reads *to be thus*. Then before the word *true* codex Z prefixes *word*. Shortly, for *by his own mouth* codices F G I read *by his proper mouth*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Circa hunc articulum iuvat tria praenotare.

1. Consecrationem panis fieri quatuor verbis formae in Missali positae (exclusa particula *enim*), omnino post Concil. II. Florent. tenendum est, cum etiam Concil. Trident. (Sess. XIII. c. 3.) doceat, corpus Christi sub specie panis et sanguinem sub specie vini existere «vi verborum», scilicet sub specie panis vi verborum: *Hoc est corpus meum*. Reiiciendus igitur est (propter varias novatorum saec. XVI. assertiones) etiam error, inter Graecos schismaticos propagatus, quod oratio post consecrationem, quam vocant Ἐπίκλησιν, vel sola, vel simul cum praedicta forma vim habeat consecratoriam. Nec a plerisque probabilis esse censetur opinio Scoti (hic q. 2. n. 1. s.), quod fortasse (nam hoc non asserit determinate) verba: *Qui pridie quam pateretur* etc., ad validam consecrationem requirantur, non quidem ut consecratoria, sed propter hanc rationem, ut sacerdos apte loqui possit in persona Christi, sicut requiritur intentio. — De verbis formae in Scriptura relatis cfr. hic dub. 1. 2.

2. Etiam opinio plurium auctorum, ut Innocentii III. et Praepositivi (cfr. pag. 190, nota 11.), quod sacerdos proferat formam tantum recitative (materialiter), non assertive (significative), cum Ss. Bonav., Thoma Scotoque nunc communiter non probatur (est opinio 1. in corp. relata), sed tenetur, verba proferenda esse recitative simul et assertive sive significative. Et sic vera sunt in rigore sermonis et omnimode congruentia, quamvis corpus Christi non sit sub speciebus nisi in ultimo instanti prolationis.

3. De modo autem probandi, locutionem esse veram et optime congruentem, et speciatim de significatione pronominis *hoc*, ortae sunt diversae sententiae hic allatae. Res non spectat ad fidem, in qua omnes illae opiniones conveniunt, sed potius, ut etiam observat Scotus, ad logicam et grammaticam. Quia autem, ut bene hic dicit S. Doctor, «ista oratio singularis est inter omnes orationes», et regulae communes plene ad eam explicandum non sufficiunt; non est mirum, quod diversae viae ad eundem finem tentatae sint et probabiliter iniri possint. Tamen opiniones 1. et 2. hic relatae etiam a S. Thoma aliisque posterioribus communiter reiiciuntur. Tertiam opinionem S. Thomas accuratius explicat et approbat. Vult enim, pronomen *hoc*, substantive sumtum, demonstrare nec substantiam panis nec corpus Christi nec speciem panis, sed indeterminate et in generali substantiam contentam sub illis speciebus. — S. Bonaventura non negat, hanc opinionem esse probabilem, sed putat, aliam opinionem, quam ingeniose explicat, magis satisfacere; etiam Richard. a Med. et Thom. ab Argentina pluribus argumentis praedictam opinionem S. Thomae evertere conantur.

**II.** Ut perspiciatur via ac ratio S. Bonaventurae ad hanc difficultatem solvendam, quae valde probabilis est, licet sit a pluribus male intellecta, plura supponenda et observanda sunt.

1. In hoc differt propositio speculativa a practica, quod illa supponit existentiam rei significatae, haec vero, cum ordinata sit ad aliquid efficiendum, significando facit vel indicat quod fit: unde, ut talis locutio sit vera, sufficit, ut sit vera in consignificato ultimo instanti prolationis.

2. Locutio consecrationis est practica et operativa virtute divina, ita ut non solum significet, sed etiam efficiat quod significat; unde verba a sacerdote in persona Christi prolata continent simul summam veritatem et summam efficaciam. Hinc arguitur, quod cum verba illa simul habeant rationem causae, ipsa significatio sub hac ratione praecedere debet saltem natura prius terminum productum.

3. Cum transsubstantiatio fiat in instanti, ideo simul tempore est ibi fieri et factum esse; unde ista propositio, cum vere indicet et efficaciter transsubstantiando panem in corpus Christi, operetur, significat, hoc fieri simul et esse in instanti, quo producit suum effectum.

4. Operatio transsubstantiationis versatur circa substantiam panis. Quatenus igitur illa locutio est operativa et conversiva respicit substantiam panis. Unde concludit S. Bonaventura, pronomen *hoc* (sive subiectum) indicare et demonstrare substantiam panis sub accidentibus sive speciebus sensibilibus, sed ut convertendam in id quod praedicatum dicit. Cum autem locutio sit non tantum significativa, sed etiam operativa, et cum operetur in ultimo instanti prolationis, in quo simul est fieri et factum esse; enuntiatio veritatem dicit operando quod exprimit, et exprimendo quod operatur. Hinc coincidunt in hac singulari locutione veritas et operatio, ita ut veritas in significando dependeat ab eiusdem efficacia, et efficacia in operando a veritate in significando. — Ita S. Bonaventura suo modo explicat antiquam opinionem multorum Scholasticorum, quod demonstrativum *hoc* dicatur partim ad sensum, partim ad intellectum, quia scilicet, per sensibile signum, quod est panis convertendus in signatum est intelligibilis demonstratio signati.

Eandem sententiam antiquam recipiunt etiam Alex. Hal., B. Albert., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med. Sed Richard. alio modo eam explicat, dum alii praedicti satis faveant expositioni S. Bonaventurae. Contra Richardum a Med. arguit Scot. (hic q. 2. n. 12. seq.), qui tandem, multis recensitis solutionibus, in re principali convenit cum S. Thoma; in hoc autem concordat cum S. Bonav., quod verba consecrationis vim habeant operativam et conversivam, praecise quatenus significativa, non quatenus vera, licet sint vera in fine prolationis; sive aliis verbis, quod sint causa conversionis ratione significationis, non vero ratione veritatis, cum natura prius intelligatur conversio, quam intelligatur oratio veritatem habere.

De hac 1. quaestione praeter locos citt.: Alex. Hal., S. P. IV. q. 10. m. 4. a. 2. § 1. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3. 4; S. III. q. 78. a. 1. 2. 5. — B. Albert., a. 6. Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.

*[Pars III scholii — «In 2. quaestione agitur de forma consecrationis calicis» — ad quaestionem sequentem (a1-q2) pertinet, ibique redditur.]*

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning this article it is helpful to note three things beforehand.

1. That the consecration of the bread is effected by the four words of the form placed in the Missal (the particle *enim* being excluded) is wholly to be held after the Second Council of Florence, since also the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII. c. 3) teaches that the body of Christ exists under the species of bread and the blood under the species of wine «by force of the words», namely under the species of bread by force of the words: *This is my body*. There is therefore to be rejected (on account of the various assertions of the innovators of the sixteenth century) also the error, propagated among the schismatic Greeks, that the prayer after the consecration, which they call the *Epiclesis*, either alone, or together with the aforesaid form, has consecratory power. Nor is the opinion of Scotus (here q. 2. n. 1. s.) reckoned probable by most, that perhaps (for he does not assert this determinately) the words *Who the day before he suffered*, etc., are required for valid consecration, not indeed as consecratory, but for this reason, that the priest may be able fittingly to speak in the person of Christ, just as intention is required. — On the words of the form as related in Scripture see here dub. 1. 2.

2. Also the opinion of several authors, such as Innocent III and Praepositivus (cf. p. 190, note 11), that the priest utters the form only recitatively (materially), not assertively (significatively), is now commonly not approved together with Saints Bonaventure, Thomas, and Scotus (it is opinion 1 reported in the body), but it is held that the words must be uttered recitatively and at the same time assertively or significatively. And thus they are true in the rigor of speech and in every way congruent, although the body of Christ is not under the species except in the last instant of utterance.

3. But concerning the manner of proving that the locution is true and most congruent, and especially concerning the signification of the pronoun *this*, diverse opinions have arisen, here adduced. The matter does not pertain to faith, in which all those opinions agree, but rather, as Scotus also observes, to logic and grammar. But since, as the Holy Doctor well says here, «this locution is singular among all locutions», and the common rules do not suffice fully to explain it; it is no wonder that diverse ways toward the same end have been attempted and can probably be entered upon. Yet opinions 1 and 2 here reported are commonly rejected also by Thomas and others later. The third opinion Thomas explains more accurately and approves. For he holds that the pronoun *this*, taken substantively, demonstrates neither the substance of bread nor the body of Christ nor the species of bread, but indeterminately and in general the substance contained under those species. — Bonaventure does not deny that this opinion is probable, but thinks that another opinion, which he ingeniously explains, satisfies more; Richard of Middleton too and Thomas of Strasbourg endeavor by several arguments to overturn the aforesaid opinion of Thomas.

**II.** That the way and reasoning of Bonaventure for solving this difficulty may be clearly seen — which is very probable, although misunderstood by many — several things must be supposed and observed.

1. In this a speculative proposition differs from a practical one, that the former supposes the existence of the thing signified, whereas the latter, since it is ordered to effecting something, by signifying makes or indicates what comes to be: whence, that such a locution be true, it suffices that it be true in the consignified at the last instant of utterance.

2. The locution of consecration is practical and operative by divine power, in such a way that it not only signifies but also effects what it signifies; whence the words uttered by the priest in the person of Christ contain at once the highest truth and the highest efficacy. Hence it is argued that, since those words at once have the character of a cause, the signification itself under this character must precede, at least by priority of nature, the term produced.

3. Since transubstantiation comes about in an instant, therefore the coming-to-be and the having-been-made are there at once in time; whence this proposition, since it truly indicates and effectively, by transubstantiating the bread into the body of Christ, operates, signifies that this comes to be and is at once in the instant in which it produces its effect.

4. The operation of transubstantiation is concerned with the substance of bread. Inasmuch, therefore, as that locution is operative and conversive it regards the substance of bread. Whence Bonaventure concludes that the pronoun *this* (or the subject) indicates and demonstrates the substance of bread under the accidents or sensible species, but as to be converted into that which the predicate states. But since the locution is not only significative but also operative, and since it operates in the last instant of utterance, in which the coming-to-be and the having-been-made are at once; the enunciation states truth by operating what it expresses, and by expressing what it operates. Hence in this singular locution truth and operation coincide, in such a way that truth in signifying depends upon its efficacy, and efficacy in operating upon truth in signifying. — Thus Bonaventure in his own way explains the ancient opinion of many Scholastics, that the demonstrative *this* is said partly to the sense, partly to the intellect, because, namely, through the sensible sign, which is the bread to be converted into the signified, there is an intelligible demonstration of the signified.

The same ancient opinion is received also by Alexander of Hales, Blessed Albert, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton. But Richard explains it in another way, while the others aforesaid sufficiently favor the exposition of Bonaventure. Against Richard of Middleton, Scotus argues (here q. 2. n. 12. seq.), who at length, after many solutions have been reviewed, agrees in the principal matter with Thomas; but in this he concurs with Bonaventure, that the words of consecration have operative and conversive power precisely inasmuch as they are significative, not inasmuch as they are true, though they are true at the end of utterance; or in other words, that they are the cause of conversion by reason of signification, but not by reason of truth, since by nature the conversion is understood prior to the locution's being understood to have truth.

On this first question, besides the places cited: Alexander of Hales, S. P. IV. q. 10. m. 4. a. 2. § 1. 3. — Thomas, here q. 2. a. 1. little-question 3. 4; S. III. q. 78. a. 1. 2. 5. — Blessed Albert, a. 6. Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3. a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 3. q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 5.

*[Part III of the scholion — «In the second question there is treatment of the form of the consecration of the chalice» — pertains to the following question (a1-q2), and is rendered there.]*

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR base, raw lines **21497–21891** (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`), confirmed against PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{189–192}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (re-colcropped at split_x=1880, the verified Vol IV column boundary). OCR base was clean running prose throughout; PDF bands used to confirm footer footnote counts and the scholion. English is a fresh literal translation.
- **Title:** La. *De forma verbi super panem* / En. *On the form of the word over the bread*. Alignment **confirmed**: ART I, QUAEST. I, the form *Hoc est corpus meum* over the bread; the divisio (L21453–21496) precedes, and QUAESTIO II (*De forma verbi super vinum*, L21892+) follows and is excluded.
- **Page-split map (body):** p.189 = opener + obj.1 (L21502–21528); p.190 = obj.1 cont.–obj.9 + Conclusio + Respondeo opinion 1 (L21531–21640); p.191 = opinion 2–3 + the six conditions + replies (L21642–21731); p.192 = "sicut in Verbo aeterno…" tail + scholion §I (L21732–21791).
- **Apparatus / footer-ownership:** **22 footnotes** claimed, renumbered continuously [^1]–[^22], every one anchored in this body in both languages (L21497–21891). Quaracchi per-page footer split (numbering restarts each page): **p.189 = 2** (raw notes 1–2 → [^1]–[^2]), **p.190 = 11** (raw notes 1–11 → [^3]–[^13]), **p.191 = 8** (raw notes 1–8 → [^14]–[^21]), **p.192 = 1** (raw note 1 → [^22]). The divisio chunk (L21453–21496) owns the prior page's footers; a1-q2 (L21892+) owns all of p.193's footers. p.192's single footer (the Forcellini *falsus* note, which physically spills into the p.192 right column) is claimed here as [^22].
- **Scholion disposition:** This is an **article-level, joint scholion** (covers a1-q1 and a1-q2). It opens on p.192 (within this chunk's last body page) and physically continues onto p.193. The full §I and §II (preliminaries + opinion analysis) plus the q1-keyed reference list ("De hac 1. quaestione…") are rendered **here**, body-then-scholion. The q2-specific tail — "III. In 2. quaestione agitur de forma consecrationis calicis…" with its q2 reference list (L21882–21888) — is **deferred to a1-q2** and flagged in-place with a bracketed pointer. `has_scholion: true`.
- **[?] flags:** None unresolved. All ambiguous OCR garbles (*apracticon/epracticon/empracticon*, the Greek ὑπαρκτικόν / ἔμπρακτον, the Forcellini *falsus* variants) are preserved verbatim and explained by the surrounding codex/grammarian apparatus ([^5], [^22]). The *fiat lux* objection (obj. 5) carries its own footer ([^6], Gen. 1:3 + the *fit/sit/est* variant), given an explicit body anchor.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 8, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2

title_alt: Utrum haec sit conveniens forma consecrationis vini: «Hic est calix sanguinis mei»

title_alt: Whether this is a fitting form of the consecration of the wine: «This is the chalice of my blood»

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 193 -->

### Quaestio II. *De forma verbi supra vinum.*

Secundo quaeritur de forma verbi super vinum, et haec habetur in canone[^1]: « Hic est calix sanguinis mei » etc. Sed videtur, haec non esse forma:

1. Propter hoc quod Magister[^2] dicit, quod haec est forma: « Hic est sanguis meus »: cum ergo non sint duae, patet etc.

2. Item, in nullo Evangelistarum habetur haec forma, quia in Matthaeo[^3] et Marco dicitur: *Hic est sanguis meus*; in Luca: *Hic est calix in meo sanguine*: si igitur non debet credi alicui, quod non sit in novo vel veteri testamento, sed novo et veteri simpliciter est credendum: ergo ista forma est abiicienda, et forma, quae in Evangelio traditur, est tenenda.

Item, quaero de huius formae congruentia.

3. Et cum in forma non debeat poni, nisi quod spectat ad essentiam Sacramenti; et calix non sit nec de materia nec de forma, sed vas continens: ergo non debet in forma poni.

4. Si dicas, quod tenetur transsumtive, quaero: ad quid? Si ad passionem, ergo sensus est: haec est passio sanguinis; si ad potum, ergo sensus est: hic est potus; sed sicut sanguis est potus, sic corpus est cibus: ergo si in forma panis non dicitur *hic est cibus corporis*, nec in forma vini debet dici: *hic est potus sanguinis*.

5. Item, ubi est sermo translatus, est improprietas, et ubi est improprietas, est occasio erroris; et omnis talis excludenda est[^4]; ergo etc.

6. Item, ubi transsumtio, ibi plures intellectus, scilicet proprius et transsumtus; sed multiplicitas intellectuum est ratio evagandi, quod specialiter debet esse alienum a dispensante et conficiente hoc Sacramentum: ergo etc.

7. Obiicitur autem ultra de hoc quod est sanguinis: si enim hoc est principale in Sacramento, videtur, quod debeat exprimi in recto potius quam in obliquo.

8. Item, si calix stat ibi pro contento, et contentum non differt a sanguine, et obliqui sunt transitivi[^5]: non ergo debet poni in obliquo.

9. Quaeritur etiam ultra de hoc quod dicit: *novi et aeterni testamenti*: quia, si testamentum novum, non ergo aeternum: ergo male coniungitur unum cum altero.

10. Item, videtur, quod non deberet poni: *Mysterium fidei*, quia in aliis Sacramentis est mysterium fidei[^6]; et tamen non ponitur: ergo nec in isto.

11. Item, additur: *Qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur*[^7]; quare similiter non dicitur de corpore *tradetur*?

12. Item, quare distinguit? Cum enim aequaliter pro omnibus sit effusus, videtur, quod non deberet dicere: *pro vobis et pro multis*, sed *pro omnibus*.

> ### Conclusio.
> Forma, qua consecratur calix, videlicet: *hic est calix sanguinis mei*, est certa, congrua, et ut videtur, tota.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod haec forma: « Hic est calix sanguinis mei », est forma certa[^8], forma
<!-- page 194 -->
congrua; sed utrum sit tota, an quod sequitur sit de integritate, dubium est; creditur tamen, quod est tota. Tamen quod sequitur non est frustra additum, nec debet aliquid resecari.

Quod autem ista sit forma certa, patet per hoc, quod ipsam tenet Romana Ecclesia, quae fuit ab Apostolorum principibus edocta. Unde Innocentius[^9]: « Romana Ecclesia illud semper integra fide servavit, quod ab ipsis Apostolis, qui eam praesentialiter factis et doctrinis ecclesiasticos ritus docuerunt, accepit; ab ipsis Apostolis Petro et Paulo, quos vivos auctores habuit et defunctos custodit, hunc ritum sacrificii accepit, quem hactenus immobili cultu servavit ». Accipienda est igitur forma a canone, quia illa traditur non per modum narrationis, sed institutionis; Magister autem non intendit dare formam, sicut nec in aliis Sacramentis fecit, sed illi consimilem insinuare. Accipienda est ab ipsis Apostolis, non ab Evangelistis, quia Apostoli Ecclesiam instituerunt, secundum quod a Domino acceperunt; Evangelistae vero divina verba et opera narraverunt, attendentes ad intellectum, non ad vocem. Ideo nec Evangelistae in forma conveniunt, quia formam fortassis tradere non intendunt; sed conveniunt in sensu, quem narrare volebant. Et sic patet, quod haec est forma.

Utrum autem illa quae traditur in Evangeliis, sit forma, in qua conficiatur; quis audeat negare, aut quis praesumat asserere, cum nesciamus, an ipsi intenderint formam describere, an verba narrare? Quod si intenderunt formam dare, forma in illis verbis omnibus salvatur, et modica variatio verbi salvo sensu, formam non mutat: et ita ex hoc non habetur, quod ista quae habetur in canone, non sit forma, immo vere est forma, cum in sensu cum aliis conveniat. Quod si non intendant, tunc restat, quod ista est forma; ac per hoc haec forma est certa.

**Ad 1, 2.** Et patet responsio ad obiecta duo prima.

Est etiam congrua, quia in hoc Sacramento significatur sanguis Christi ut effusus in pretium et ut administratus in potum; sanguis autem neutrum dicit de se expresse, sed per coniunctionem cum calice, quia sanguis in calice ut effusus et potandus proponitur. Ideo calix in Scriptura significat aliquando passionem, ut Matthaei vigesimo[^1b]: *Potestis*
<!-- page 195 -->
*bibere calicem, quem* etc. Significat et potus refectionem per transsumtionem, ut in Psalmo: *Calix inebrians quam praeclarus est!* Propter hunc duplicem tropum melius dicitur *calix sanguinis* quam *sanguis* per se. — Si ergo quaeratur: ad quid transsumitur? dico, quod ad contentum. Unde dicitur *calix sanguinis*, sicut *calix vini*, cum dicitur: *bibe calicem*. — Si quaeras: quare non de corpore dicitur *cibus corporis*? dicendum, quod corpus Christi de se panis[^2b] est; sed sanguis non dicitur potus, nisi prout propinatur in calice passionis.

**Ad 5, 6.** Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de transsumtione, quod est occasio erroris et evagationis; dicendum, quod hoc verum est, ubi est transsumtio occulta, impropria et inconsueta; sed sic non est hic.

**Ad 7, 8.** Ad illud quod ultra quaeritur: quare sanguis ponitur in obliquo? dicendum, quod in recto intelligitur, nec obliquus et rectus construuntur transitive ut diversa, sed identitas est, sicut cum dicitur *potus vini*, vel *creatura salis*[^3b]. Et sic patet, quod est forma congrua.

Est etiam tota et perfecta; sufficiens enim est ad significandum transsubstantiationem vini in sanguinem Christi. Unde quod additur est de bene esse, quia in sequentibus describuntur effectus sanguinis in hoc Sacramento significati et in passione effusi, qui triplex est. — Unus est testamenti innovatio et innovati confirmatio, quia in morte confirmatur testamentum et novum efficitur; quia vetus, quod in sanguine taurorum fuerat confirmatum, ibi est evacuatum[^4b].

**Ad 9.** Ideo dicit: *Novi et aeterni testamenti*.

Alius effectus effusionis sanguinis est *fidei manifestatio*, quia quod erat sigillatum et secretum in passione Agni est apertum[^5b].

**Ad 10.** Ideo dicit: *Mysterium fidei*, id est secretum; hoc enim erat in fide secretissimum, et hoc revelato, revelata est fides; vel quia difficilius ad credendum.

Tertius effectus est *salus* quorundam Iudaeorum et multorum gentilium.

**Ad 11, 12.** Ideo dicit: *Qui pro vobis*, per Apostolos intelligens iudaeos; et *pro multis*, per hoc intelligens gentiles. — Vel ideo dicit, quia in hoc Sacramento sacerdotes debent pro se specialiter et pro aliis rogare; ideo dicit: *pro vobis* sacerdotibus, et *pro multis* subditis, per vos convertendis[^p195-1].

Posset hic quaeri de harum formarum variatione quantum ad additionem, diminutionem et cetera consimilia; et de hoc sentiendum est, quod dictum est circa formam baptismi. Hic enim sunt diversae opiniones; nam quidam dicunt, quod qualiscumque variatio, salvo sensu, non tollit efficaciam formae; alii vero dicunt, quod minima mutatio tollit, quia his verbis sic ordinatis data est virtus. — Sed sicut tactum fuit supra distinctione tertia[^p195-2], melius est viam mediam tenere; unde quae ibi dicta sunt hic etiam supponenda sunt[^p195-3].

english:
### Question II. *On the form of the word over the wine.*

Secondly it is asked about the form of the word over the wine, and this is had in the canon[^1]: « This is the chalice of my blood » etc. But it seems that this is not the form:

1. On account of the fact that the Master[^2] says that the form is: « This is my blood »: since therefore there are not two, the matter is plain, etc.

2. Likewise, in none of the Evangelists is this form found, since in Matthew[^3] and Mark it is said: *This is my blood*; in Luke: *This is the chalice in my blood*: if therefore one ought not to give credence to anything which is not in the New or Old Testament, but credence is to be given simply to the New and the Old: therefore that form is to be rejected, and the form which is handed down in the Gospel is to be held.

Likewise, I inquire about the fittingness of this form.

3. And since nothing ought to be placed in the form except what pertains to the essence of the Sacrament; and the chalice is neither of the matter nor of the form, but the containing vessel: therefore it ought not to be placed in the form.

4. If you say that it is taken transumptively, I ask: for what? If for the passion, then the sense is: this is the passion of the blood; if for the drink, then the sense is: this is the drink; but just as blood is drink, so the body is food: therefore if in the form of the bread it is not said *this is the food of the body*, neither in the form of the wine ought it to be said: *this is the drink of the blood*.

5. Likewise, where the speech is transferred, there is impropriety, and where there is impropriety, there is an occasion of error; and every such thing is to be excluded[^4]; therefore etc.

6. Likewise, where there is transumption, there are several meanings, namely the proper and the transumed; but the multiplicity of meanings is a cause of wandering, which ought especially to be foreign to the one dispensing and confecting this Sacrament: therefore etc.

7. But it is further objected concerning the word "of the blood": for if this is the principal thing in the Sacrament, it seems that it ought to be expressed in the nominative rather than in the oblique case.

8. Likewise, if "chalice" stands there for the thing contained, and the thing contained does not differ from the blood, and oblique cases are transitive[^5]: therefore it ought not to be placed in the oblique case.

9. It is further asked about what it says: *of the new and eternal testament*: because, if the testament is new, then it is not eternal: therefore the one is badly joined with the other.

10. Likewise, it seems that it ought not to be placed: *Mystery of faith*, since in the other Sacraments there is a mystery of faith[^6]; and yet it is not placed there: therefore neither in this one.

11. Likewise, it is added: *Which shall be poured out for you and for many*[^7]; why is it not likewise said of the body, *shall be handed over*?

12. Likewise, why does it distinguish? For since it was poured out equally for all, it seems that it ought not to say: *for you and for many*, but *for all*.

> ### Conclusion.
> The form by which the chalice is consecrated, namely: *this is the chalice of my blood*, is certain, fitting, and, as it seems, complete.

**I respond:** It must be said that this form: « This is the chalice of my blood », is a certain form[^8], a
<!-- page 194 -->
fitting form; but whether it is complete, or whether what follows belongs to its integrity, is doubtful; yet it is believed that it is complete. Nevertheless what follows is not added in vain, nor ought anything to be cut away.

That this is a certain form is plain from this, that the Roman Church holds it, the Church which was instructed by the chief of the Apostles. Hence Innocent[^9]: « The Roman Church has always preserved with whole faith that which it received from the very Apostles, who taught it the ecclesiastical rites by deeds and doctrines while present; from the very Apostles Peter and Paul, whom it had as living authors and guards as deceased, it received this rite of sacrifice, which until now it has preserved with unmoved observance ». The form is therefore to be taken from the canon, since it is handed down not by way of narration, but of institution; the Master, however, does not intend to give the form, just as he did not in the other Sacraments, but to convey something like it. It is to be taken from the very Apostles, not from the Evangelists, because the Apostles instituted the Church, according to what they received from the Lord; the Evangelists, however, narrated the divine words and works, attending to the meaning, not to the wording. Therefore neither do the Evangelists agree in the form, because perhaps they do not intend to hand down the form; but they agree in the sense which they meant to narrate. And so it is plain that this is the form.

But whether that which is handed down in the Gospels is the form in which it is confected — who would dare to deny, or who would presume to assert, since we do not know whether they themselves intended to describe the form, or to narrate the words? But if they intended to give the form, the form is preserved in all those words, and a slight variation of the word, the sense being safe, does not change the form: and thus from this it does not follow that the one which is had in the canon is not the form; rather it is truly the form, since it agrees in sense with the others. But if they did not so intend, then it remains that this is the form; and through this this form is certain.

**To the first and second.** And the response to the first two objections is plain.

It is also fitting, because in this Sacrament the blood of Christ is signified as poured out as a price and as administered as a drink; but the blood expresses neither of these of itself expressly, but through the conjunction with the chalice, since the blood is set forth in the chalice as poured out and as to be drunk. Therefore the chalice in Scripture sometimes signifies the passion, as in Matthew chapter twenty[^1b]: *Can you*
<!-- page 195 -->
*drink the chalice which* etc. It also signifies the refreshment of drink by transumption, as in the Psalm: *How excellent is the chalice that inebriates!* On account of this twofold trope it is better said *chalice of blood* than *blood* by itself. — If therefore it be asked: to what is it transumed? I say, to the thing contained. Hence it is called *chalice of blood*, just as *chalice of wine*, when it is said: *drink the chalice*. — If you ask: why is it not said of the body *food of the body*? it must be said that the body of Christ is of itself bread[^2b]; but the blood is not called drink, except insofar as it is offered to drink in the chalice of the passion.

**To the fifth and sixth.** To that, then, which is objected concerning transumption, that it is an occasion of error and wandering; it must be said that this is true where there is a hidden, improper, and unaccustomed transumption; but it is not so here.

**To the seventh and eighth.** To that which is further asked: why is "blood" placed in the oblique case? it must be said that it is understood in the nominative, nor are the oblique and the nominative construed transitively as diverse things, but there is identity, just as when one says *drink of wine*, or *creature of salt*[^3b]. And so it is plain that it is a fitting form.

It is also complete and perfect; for it is sufficient to signify the transubstantiation of the wine into the blood of Christ. Hence what is added is for well-being, because in what follows are described the effects of the blood signified in this Sacrament and poured out in the passion, which are threefold. — One is the renewal of the testament and the confirmation of the renewed, since in death the testament is confirmed and made new; for the old, which had been confirmed in the blood of bulls, is there made void[^4b].

**To the ninth.** Therefore it says: *Of the new and eternal testament*.

Another effect of the pouring out of the blood is the *manifestation of faith*, because what was sealed and secret in the passion of the Lamb is opened[^5b].

**To the tenth.** Therefore it says: *Mystery of faith*, that is, secret; for this was most secret in faith, and this being revealed, faith was revealed; or because it is more difficult to believe.

The third effect is the *salvation* of certain Jews and of many gentiles.

**To the eleventh and twelfth.** Therefore it says: *Which for you*, understanding by the Apostles the Jews; and *for many*, understanding by this the gentiles. — Or it says it because in this Sacrament the priests ought to pray specially for themselves and for others; therefore it says: *for you* the priests, and *for many* the subjects, to be converted through you[^p195-1].

It could here be asked about the variation of these forms as to addition, diminution, and the like; and concerning this it is to be held what was said about the form of baptism. For here there are diverse opinions; for some say that any variation whatsoever, the sense being safe, does not take away the efficacy of the form; others, however, say that the least change takes it away, because to these words so ordered the power has been given. — But just as was touched upon above in the third distinction[^p195-2], it is better to hold the middle way; whence what was said there is to be supposed here also[^p195-3].

la: Missalis Romani.

en: Of the Roman Missal.

la: Hic in lit. c. 1.

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

la: Cap. 26, 28: Hic est enim sanguis meus. — Marc. 14, 24. — Luc. 22, 20: Hic est calix novum testamentum in sanguine meo.

en: Chapter 26, 28: For this is my blood. — Mark 14, 24. — Luke 22, 20: This chalice is the new testament in my blood.

la: Cfr. Aristot., VI. Topic. c. 2.

en: Cf. Aristotle, Topics VI, c. 2.

la: Vide Priscian., V. Grammat. c. 13. et XVIII. c. 1.

en: See Priscian, Grammar V, c. 13, and XVIII, c. 1.

la: Cfr. supra d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 3.

la: Multi codd. et ed. 1 tradetur.

en: Many codices and ed. 1 [read] tradetur ["shall be handed over"].

la: Ita cod. L, cuius lectio cum subnexis, ubi etiam alii codd. exhibent forma certa [edd. forma recta], congruit; alii codd. et ed. 1 recta, Vat. hic et in fine corp. recta et certa.

en: So codex L, whose reading agrees with what follows, where also other codices exhibit forma certa ["a certain form"; the editions, forma recta, "a correct form"]; other codices and ed. 1 [read] recta; the Vatican edition, here and at the end of the body, recta et certa ["correct and certain"].

la: Libr. IV. de Sacro altaris Mysterio, c. 5: Romanam autem Ecclesiam... nulla prorsus haereticae pravitatis procella potuit conquassare. Sed illud semper integra fide servavit, quod ab ipsis accepit Apostolis, qui praesentialiter eam sacris vel instituere doctrinis et ecclesiastici ritus regulam docuere. Ab ipsis ergo beatis Apostolis Petro et Paulo, quos et vivos habuit et defunctos custodit, hunc sacrificii ritum accepit, quem hactenus inviolabili cultu servavit. — In nonnullis codd. inveniuntur lectiones, quae cum textu originali magis conveniunt, ipsum tamen integrum non exhibent, ideoque vel incongruae vel minus congruae sunt; sic pro factis cod. F substituit sacris, cod. A sacris et, cod. M factis et sacris; post doctrinis plures codd. subiungunt et.

en: Book IV, On the Holy Mystery of the Altar, c. 5: But the Roman Church... no storm whatsoever of heretical depravity could shatter. But it has always preserved with whole faith that which it received from the very Apostles, who while present taught it both to be established by sacred doctrines and the rule of ecclesiastical rite. From those blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, then, whom it both had alive and guards as deceased, it received this rite of sacrifice, which until now it has preserved with inviolable observance. — In some codices are found readings which agree better with the original text, yet do not present it whole, and are therefore either incongruous or less congruous; thus for factis codex F substitutes sacris, codex A sacris et, codex M factis et sacris; after doctrinis several codices add et.

la: Vers. 22. — Seq. textus est Ps. 22, 5.

en: Verse 22. — The following text is Ps. 22, 5.

la: Vat. cibus.

en: The Vatican edition [reads] cibus ["food"].

la: Pro sic, quod plurimi codd. omittunt, codd. II L hoc. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 3. p. II. dub. 3. — Pro ut diversa cod. W ut sit diversitas.

en: For sic, which very many codices omit, codices II L [read] hoc. Cf. I Sent., d. 3, p. II, dub. 3. — For ut diversa codex W [reads] ut sit diversitas ["that there be diversity"].

la: Vide Hebr. 9, 15. seqq. et Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro altaris Mysterio, c. 28.

en: See Hebrews 9, 15 ff. and Innocent III, On the Holy Mystery of the Altar IV, c. 28.

la: Cfr. Apoc. 5, 6. seqq., et III. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 1. seqq.

en: Cf. Apoc. 5, 6 ff., and III Sent., d. 23, a. 2, q. 1 ff.

la: Paschas. Radbert., de Corp. et sang. Domini, c. 15. n. 3, ubi ostendens, quod Christus dixerit pro vobis et pro multis, ait: « Quia hic sanguis et pro Apostolis et pro multis, qui credituri erant per verbum eorum, effusus est ». Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro altaris Mysterio, c. 41, utitur distinctione, quam etiam Magister (III. Sent. d. XX. c. 5.) exhibet: Pro solis praedestinatis effusus est quantum ad efficientiam; sed pro cunctis hominibus est effusus quantum ad sufficientiam. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 19. a. 1. q. 2. ad 4. et q. 3. in corp.

en: Paschasius Radbertus, On the Body and Blood of the Lord, c. 15, n. 3, where, showing that Christ said for you and for many, he states: « Because this blood was poured out both for the Apostles and for the many who were going to believe through their word ». Innocent III, On the Holy Mystery of the Altar IV, c. 41, uses the distinction which the Master also presents (III Sent., d. XX, c. 5): It was poured out for the predestined alone as to efficacy; but it was poured out for all men as to sufficiency. Cf. III Sent., d. 19, a. 1, q. 2, ad 4, and q. 3 in the body.

la: Partis a. 2. q. 3. Vide etiam Innocent. III, loc. cit. c. 18.

en: [Of this] Part, a. 2, q. 3. See also Innocent III, loc. cit. c. 18.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

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

latin_scholion:
<!-- page 193 -->

**III.** In 2. quaestione agitur de forma consecrationis calicis. Sententiam, quam S. Bonav., Alex. Hal., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., Scot., Henr. Gand. tanquam probabiliorem tenent, quod speculative loquendo, sola verba: *hic est calix sanguinis mei* (vel *sanguis meus*), sint forma essentialis, nunc fere communiter tenetur. Attamen S. Thom. (hic q. 2. a. 2; S. loc. cit. 3; ut eius verba exprimere videntur et antiqui eius discipuli eum interpretati sunt) putavit, etiam verba, quae in Missali sequuntur usque ad: *Haec quotiescumque* (exceptis, ut nonnulli volunt, verbis: mysterium fidei), « ad substantiam » et essentiam formae pertinere. Duce vero Caietano, plures recentiores Thomistae, inter quos est Gotti, aliam sui magistri interpretationem, quae convenit cum communi opinione, tentaverunt, distinguentes inter esse *de essentia* et esse de *substantia* (scilicet integritate); quae explicatio quomodo applicari possit verbis in Comment. cit. prolatis, aliis discutiendum relinquimus. De hac 2. quaestione praeter S. Thomam: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 4. — Scot., hic q. 2. n. 6. seqq. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 2. — Henr. Gand., Quodl. 9. q. 10. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 6.

---

english_scholion:
<!-- page 193 -->

**III.** In the second question the form of the consecration of the chalice is treated. The opinion which St. Bonaventure, Alexander of Hales, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Middleton, Scotus, and Henry of Ghent hold as more probable — that, speculatively speaking, the words alone: *this is the chalice of my blood* (or *my blood*) are the essential form — is now held almost universally. Nevertheless St. Thomas (here q. 2, a. 2; S. loc. cit. 3; as his words seem to express and his ancient disciples interpreted him) thought that even the words which follow in the Missal up to: *As often as you do these things* (excepting, as some hold, the words: mystery of faith) pertain « to the substance » and essence of the form. But under the lead of Cajetan, several more recent Thomists, among whom is Gotti, attempted another interpretation of their master, which agrees with the common opinion, distinguishing between being *of the essence* and being of the *substance* (that is, integrity); how this explanation can be applied to the words set forth in the cited Commentary, we leave to others to discuss. On this second question, besides St. Thomas: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 4. — Scotus, here q. 2, n. 6 ff. — Blessed Albert, here a. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit. q. 2. — Henry of Ghent, Quodl. 9, q. 10. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 6.

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, raw lines 21892–22127), with the 450-dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{193,194,195}-{L,R}-{0..2}.png`) authoritative over every cascade-shattered region — the entire Respondeo / Solutiones / scholion and all three pages' footers. English is a fresh literal translation per the project formula and terminology tables.
- **Page-split map.** Body spans pp. 193–195. p. 193 = q2 header (*De forma verbi supra vinum*), the 12 *videtur* objections, *Conclusio*, and the opening of the Respondeo. p. 194 = the body of the Respondeo (form is certain/fitting, the Innocent quotation, *Ad 1, 2*, the congruity argument) through "*Potestis*". p. 195 (L+R columns) = the Respondeo's continuation (the *Ad* replies 5–12 and the threefold *effectus*) and the closing remark on form-variation ("*…supponenda sunt*"), after which **ARTICULUS II** (*De significatione Sacramenti eucharistiae*) begins — that and all of p. 195's footnotes 4 ff. belong to the next chunk (`a2-q1`).
- **Title.** Printed running header is *De forma verbi supra vinum* (q2); the form in question is the printed canon words *Hic est calix sanguinis mei*. ALIGNMENT CONFIRMED: this is ART I, q2, the form over the wine (p. 192 is entirely ART I q1 *super panem*, body + scholion §§ I–II; q2 + scholion § III begin on p. 193-L).
- **Footer ownership (cross-chunk split).**
  - p. 193 footnotes 1–8 are all anchored in this q2 body (objections + Respondeo opener) and are rendered here as `[^1]`–`[^8]`.
  - p. 194 footnote 1 (Innocent / *Romana Ecclesia*) → `[^9]`; p. 194 footnotes 2–9 (the *Ad*-reply / *effectus* notes) → `[^1b]`–`[^5b]` — all anchored in this q2 and rendered here.
  - p. 195 footnotes **1–3** are anchored in this q2's tail ("*…convertendis*" / "*supra distinctione tertia*" / "*supponenda sunt*") and are rendered here as `[^p195-1]`–`[^p195-3]`. **p. 195 footnotes 4, 5, and 6–12 belong to ARTICULUS II / its q1 and are left to the neighbor chunk `bon-sent-IV-d8-p2-a2-q1`.**
  - The prior question `a1-q1` (*super panem*, pp. 191–193) owns p. 192's footers and p. 193's left-column ART-I-scholion §§ I–II footers; nothing of this q2's apparatus is owed to it.
- **Scholion disposition.** The ART I scholion is a single block printed across pp. 192 (§§ I–II, the *Circa hunc articulum* preamble + q1 substance) and 193-L (§ III, keyed to q2). Per the brief, only the section keyed to **q2** (`De 2. quaestione` ≈ § III, "*In 2. quaestione agitur de forma consecrationis calicis…*") is rendered **here**; §§ I–II belong to `a1-q1`. `has_scholion: true`.
- **`[?]` flags.** None. All readings resolved against the PDF bands; the only textual cruces (forma certa / recta / recta-et-certa at `[^8]`; tradetur at `[^7]`) are the editors' own apparatus variants, transcribed as printed, not transcription ambiguities.

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