Dist. 12, 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/12/q/bon-sent-IV-d12-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 he says that *in this Sacrament there is made a memorial of that which was done once.* For if this is true, then it ought to be done only once by one priest and eaten once. — Likewise, baptism, because it signifies the Passion of Christ, is not repeated: therefore neither [should] that Sacrament [be repeated].

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

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

### Doubt II

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

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

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

### Doubt III

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

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

### Doubt IV

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

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

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