Dist. 11, Part 2, Dubia
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/11/q/bon-sent-IV-d11-p2-dubia
----------------------------------------
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I

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

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

### Doubt II

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

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

### Doubt III

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

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

### Doubt IV

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

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

### Doubt V

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

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

### Doubt VI

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

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

### Doubt VII

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

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

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

### Doubt VIII

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

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