← Back to Distinction 11

Dist. 11, Part 1

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 11

Textus Latinus
p. 238

Cap. I. De modo conversionis.

Si autem quaeritur, qualis sit illa conversio, an formalis, an substantialis, vel alterius generis; definire non sufficio. Formalem tamen non esse, cognosco, quia species rerum, quae ante fuerant, remanent, et sapor et pondus. Quibusdam videtur esse substantialis, dicentibus, sic substantiam converti in substantiam, ut haec essentialiter fiat illa; cui sensui praemissae1 auctoritates consentire videntur.

Sed huic sententiae sic opponitur ab aliis: si substantia panis, inquiunt, vel vini convertitur substantialiter in corpus vel sanguinem Christi, quotidie fit aliqua substantia corpus vel sanguis Christi, quae ante non erat; et hodie est aliquid corpus Christi, quod heri non erat; et quotidie augetur corpus Christi atque formatur de materia, de qua in conceptione non fuit factum. — Quibus hoc modo responderi potest: quia non ea ratione dicitur corpus Christi confici verbo caelesti2, quod ipsum corpus in conceptu Virginis formatum deinceps formetur; sed quia substantia panis vel vini, quae ante non fuerat corpus Christi vel sanguis, verbo caelesti fit corpus et sanguis. Et ideo sacerdotes dicuntur conficere corpus Christi et sanguinem, quia eorum ministerio substantia panis fit caro, et substantia vini fit sanguis Christi; nec tamen aliquid additur corpori vel sanguini, nec augetur corpus Christi vel sanguis.

Cap. II. Quomodo dicitur corpus Christi confici de substantia panis.

« Si vero quaeris modum, quo id fieri possit, breviter respondeo: Mysterium fidei credi salubriter potest, investigari salubriter non potest3 ». Quod ergo corpus Christi panis mutatione in id non augmentatur, nec sanguis ex vini conversione, eius voluntati et potentiae adscribatur, qui idem corpus eduxit de Virgine; fit ergo substantia illa ista sine huius augmento. Nec tamen con[?]...

p. 239

opinio 1. cedunt quidam, quod substantia panis aliquando sit caro Christi, etsi fiat caro Christi; sicut farina facta est panis, et aqua facta est vinum, nec tamen dicitur: farina est panis, et aqua est vinum. — opinio 2. Alii vero concedunt, illud quod erat panis vel vinum, post consecrationem esse corpus et sanguinem; nec tamen sequitur: panis est caro Christi, vel vinum est sanguis, quia substantia panis vel vini, postquam facta est caro Christi vel sanguis, non est substantia panis vel vini, sed caro et sanguis. Ideo distinguendum videtur, cum dicitur: substantia panis, vel id quod erat panis, modo est corpus Christi — manens enim panis non est corpus Christi — sed mutata,1 id est, id quod facta est, est corpus Christi. Nec dicimus, substantiam panis vel vini materiam esse corporis vel sanguinis, quia non de ea ut de materia formatur corpus; sed ipsa formatur in illud et efficitur illud. Unde Augustinus2: « Corpus Christi dicimus illud quod ex fructibus terrae acceptum et prece mystica consecratum sumimus in memoriam dominicae passionis. Quod cum per manus hominis ad illam visibilem speciem perducatur, non sanctificatur, ut sit tam dignum Sacramentum, nisi operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei ».

Quidam vero sic dicunt conversionem illam esse intelligendam, ut sub illis accidentibus, sub quibus erat prius substantia panis et vini, post consecrationem sit substantia corporis et sanguinis, sic tamen, ut non eis adiciatur3. Et sic asserunt, dictum panem transire in corpus Christi, quia, ubi erat panis, nunc est corpus Christi. Quod si est, quid ergo fit de substantia panis et vini? Illi dicunt, vel in praeiacentem materiam resolvi, vel in nihilum redigi. — Alii vero putaverunt, ibi substantiam panis et vini remanere, et ibidem corpus Christi esse et sanguinem; et hac ratione dici, illam substantiam fieri istam, quia, ubi est haec, est et illa; quod mirum est; et ipsam substantiam panis vel vini dicunt esse Sacramentum. Sed quod non sit ibi substantia nisi corpus Christi et sanguis, ex praedictis et subditis aperte ostenditur. Ait enim5 Ambrosius4: « Panem istum, quem sumimus in mysterio, illum utique intelligo, qui manu sancti Spiritus formatus est in utero Virginis et igne passionis decoctus in ara crucis. Panis enim Angelorum factus est cibus hominum; unde ait: Ego sum panis vivus, qui de caelo descendi; et iterum: Panis, quem ego dabo, caro mea est pro mundi vita. Ex his namque duabus sententiis aperte datur intelligi, quia panis ille et iste non duo, sed unus panis et una caro proculdubio unum efficitur corpus, illud vere, illud sane, quod sumptum est de Virgine, quod resurrexit et in caelum ascendit ». Item Gregorius6: « Quis fidelium habere dubium possit, in ipsa immolationis hora ad sacerdotis vocem caelos aperiri, in illo Christi mysterio Angelorum choros adesse, summa et ima sociari, unum quid ex invisibilibus atque visibilibus fieri ». Idem7: « Eodem momento et in caelum rapitur, ministerio Angelorum consociandum corpori Christi, et ante oculos sacerdotis in altari videtur. Sicut Divinitas Verbi totum implet mundum, ita multis locis illud corpus consecratur; nec tamen sunt multa corpora Christi, sed unum corpus et unus sanguis. Ideoque sive plus, sive minus quis inde percipiat, omnes aequaliter corpus Christi integerrime sumunt ». — Post consecrationem igitur non est ibi substantia panis vel vini, licet species remaneant. Est enim ibi species panis et vini, sicut et sapor; unde aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur.

Pars II.

Cap. III. Quare sub alia specie.

Sub alia autem specie tribus de causis carnem et sanguinem tradidit Christus et deinceps sumendum instituit, ut fides scilicet haberet meritum, quae est de his quae non videntur; quia « fides non habet meritum, cui humana ratio praebet experimentum8 ». Et etiam ideo, ne abhorreret animus, quod cerneret oculus, quia non habemus in usu carnem crudam et sanguinem comedere. Quia ergo Christum vorari dentibus fas non est, in mysterio carnem et sanguinem nobis commendavit. Et etiam ideo, ne ab incredulis religioni christianae insultaretur. Unde Augustinus: « Nihil rationabilius, quam ut sanguinis similitudinem sumamus, ut ita et veritas non desit, et ridiculum nullum fiat a paganis, quod cruorem occisi hominis bibamus ». Ne igitur hoc fieret, « et ne veluti quidam horror esset cruoris; in similitudinem accipimus Sacramentum ». — Ex praemissis iam liquet, quare sub alia specie, et quare sub ista hoc Sacramentum Dominus celebraverit et celebrari a nobis instituerit.

Cap. IV. Quare sub duplici specie.

Sed quare sub duplici specie sumitur, cum sub alterutra totus sit Christus? « Ut ostenderetur9, totam

p. 240

humanam naturam assumsisse, ut totam redimeret. Panis enim ad carnem refertur, vinum ad animam, quia vinum operatur sanguinem, in quo sedes animae a physicis esse dicitur. Ideo ergo in duabus speciebus celebratur, ut animae et carnis susceptio in Christo et utriusque liberatio in nobis significetur10 ». Valet enim, ut Ambrosius ait, « ad tuitionem corporis et animae11 quod percipimus; quia caro Christi pro salute corporis, sanguis vero pro anima nostra offertur, sicut praefiguravit Moyses: Caro, inquit, pro corpore nostro offertur, sanguis vero pro anima »; sed tamen « sub utraque specie sumitur, quod ad utrumque valet, quia sub utraque sumitur totus Christus. Sed si in altera tantum sumeretur, ad alterius tantum, id est corporis vel animae, non utriusque pariter tuitionem valere significaretur. Sub utraque tamen specie totus sumitur Christus; nec plus sub utraque, nec minus sub altera tantum sumitur ». « Eadem enim ratio est, ut ait Hilarius12, in corpore Christi, quae in manna praecessit; de quo dicitur: Qui plus collegerat non habuit amplius, nec qui minus paraverat habuit minus ». Et licet sub utraque specie totus Christus sumatur, tamen non fit conversio panis nisi in carnem, nec vini nisi in sanguinem; nec debent dici duo Sacramenta, sed unum, quia sub utraque specie idem sumitur; neque iterari Sacramentum, quia benedictio non repetitur super eandem speciem; neque aliae substantiae in sacrificium veritatis offerri debent, quia de aliis non potest consecrari corpus Christi vel sanguis.

Cap. V. Quare aqua admisceatur.

Aqua vero admiscenda est vino, quia aqua populum significat13, qui per Christi passionem redemptus est. « Calix ergo dominicus iuxta canonum praeceptum aqua et vino mixtus debet offerri; quia videmus, in aqua populum intelligi14, in vino ostendi sanguinem Christi. Cum igitur in calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus adunatur, et credentium plebs ei, in quem credit, copulatur; quae copulatio aquae et vini sic miscetur in calice Christi, ut mixtio illa non possit separari. Nam si vinum tantum quis offerat, sanguis Christi incipit esse sine nobis ».

Si vero quaeritur, an irritum sit quod geritur, si aqua praetermittatur; audi quod sequitur in eodem canone: « Non potest, inquit, calix Domini esse aqua sola, aut vinum solum, nisi utrumque misceatur ». Item Cyprianus15: « Calix Domini non est aqua sola, aut vinum solum, nisi utrumque misceatur; sicut nec corpus Domini potest esse farina sola, nec aqua sola, nisi utrumque fuerit adunatum et panis unius compage solidatum ». Si quis tamen, non intendens introducere haeresim, oblivione vel ignorantia aquam praetermiserit, non videtur esse irritum Sacramentum; sed ille graviter est corripiendus; nam et Graecorum Ecclesia non apponere aquam dicitur. Quod etiam ex dictis Cypriani videtur posse colligi. Ait enim: « Si quis de antecessoribus nostris vel ignoranter vel simpliciter non hoc servaverit, quod nos Dominus facere et exemplo et magisterio docuit; potest simplicitati eius indulgentia Domini venia concedi. Nobis vero non potest ignosci, qui nunc a Domino instructi sumus, ut calicem Domini cum vino mixtum, secundum quod Dominus obtulit, offeramus ». — Ex hoc videtur, quod si quis simpliciter vel ignoranter vinum offerat sine aqua, Sacramentum conficiat. Aqua vero nullatenus sine vino potest offerri in sacrificium, nec panis nisi de frumento, nec granum frumenti, nisi redactum fuerit in panem, quia Christus et panem se dicit et grano frumenti se comparat16. Quod ergo supra dictum est, non posse vinum solum offerri, determinari oportet; recipit enim exceptionem: non potest, nisi simpliciter vel ignoranter fiat; vel non potest, id est non debet. Quibusdam tamen videtur hoc generaliter verum.

Cap. VI. Quale corpus dedit Christus discipulis in coena.

Colligitur etiam ex praedictis, quod Christus vinum aqua mixtum dedit discipulis. Corpus vero tale dedit, quale tunc habuit, id est mortale et passibile; nunc vero sumitur a nobis immortale et impassibile; nec tamen maiorem habet efficientiam. Eucharistia quoque intincta non debet dari populo pro supplemento communionis17, quia non legitur Christus alicui discipulorum praebuisse panem intinctum nisi Iudae. Tunc vero non accepit Iudas corpus Christi, sed tantum panem; corpus vero et sanguinem Christi ante cum aliis discipulis perceperat.

---

English Translation
p. 238

Chap. I. On the manner of the conversion.

But if it is asked of what kind that conversion is — whether formal, or substantial, or of another kind — I am not competent to determine. That it is not formal, however, I do know, because the species of the things which were before remain, and the savor and the weight. To some it seems to be substantial, who say that the substance is so converted into the substance that this one essentially becomes that one; to which sense the aforesaid1 authorities seem to consent.

But to this opinion it is thus objected by others: if the substance of bread, they say, or of wine is substantially converted into the body or blood of Christ, then daily some substance becomes the body or blood of Christ which was not before; and today there is something the body of Christ which yesterday was not; and daily the body of Christ is increased and formed from matter from which in his conception it was not made. — To these it can be answered in this manner: that the body of Christ is not said to be confected by the heavenly word2 in the sense that that very body, formed in the conception of the Virgin, is thereafter formed; but because the substance of bread or wine, which before was not the body or blood of Christ, becomes by the heavenly word his body and blood. And therefore the priests are said to confect the body and blood of Christ, because by their ministry the substance of bread becomes flesh, and the substance of wine becomes the blood of Christ; yet nothing is added to the body or blood, nor is the body or blood of Christ increased.

Chap. II. How the body of Christ is said to be confected from the substance of bread.

« But if you ask the manner in which this can come to be, I answer briefly: the mystery of faith can be wholesomely believed, but cannot be wholesomely investigated3 ». Therefore, that the body of Christ is not increased in itself by the change of bread, nor his blood by the conversion of wine, let it be ascribed to the will and power of him who drew the same body out of the Virgin; thus therefore that substance becomes this one without any increase of the latter. And yet not[?]...

p. 239

opinion 1. Certain men grant that the substance of bread sometimes is the flesh of Christ, even though it become the flesh of Christ; just as flour has become bread, and water has become wine, yet it is not said: flour is bread, and water is wine. — opinion 2. Others, however, concede that what was bread or wine, after the consecration is the body and blood; yet it does not follow: bread is the flesh of Christ, or wine is blood, because the substance of bread or wine, after it has become the flesh or blood of Christ, is not the substance of bread or wine, but flesh and blood. Therefore it seems that a distinction must be made, when it is said: the substance of bread, or that which was bread, is now the body of Christ — for bread remaining is not the body of Christ — but changed,1 that is, that which it has become is the body of Christ. Nor do we say that the substance of bread or wine is the matter of the body or blood, because the body is not formed from it as from matter; but it itself is formed into that and is made that. Whence Augustine2: « We call the body of Christ that which, taken from the fruits of the earth and consecrated by the mystical prayer, we receive in memory of the Lord's passion. And when this is brought by the hands of men to that visible appearance, it is not sanctified, so as to be so worthy a Sacrament, except by the Spirit of God working invisibly ».

But some say that that conversion is to be understood thus: that under those accidents, under which the substance of bread and wine was before, after the consecration there is the substance of the body and blood, yet in such a way that nothing is added to them3. And so they assert that bread is said to pass over into the body of Christ, because, where bread was, now is the body of Christ. But if this is so, what then becomes of the substance of bread and wine? They say it is either resolved into the underlying matter, or reduced to nothing. — Others, however, supposed that the substance of bread and wine remains there, and in the same place the body and blood of Christ are; and that on this account that substance is said to become this one, because, where this is, there also is that; which is astonishing; and they say that the very substance of bread or wine is the Sacrament. But that there is no substance there except the body and blood of Christ is clearly shown from what has been said and what is added below. For there says5 Ambrose4: « That bread which we receive in the mystery, I understand assuredly to be the one which was formed by the hand of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin and cooked by the fire of the passion on the altar of the cross. For the bread of Angels has become the food of men; whence he says: I am the living bread, who came down from heaven; and again: The bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. For from these two sayings it is clearly given to be understood that that bread and this are not two, but one bread and one flesh, and without doubt are made one body — that one truly, that one indeed, which was taken from the Virgin, which rose again and ascended into heaven ». Likewise Gregory6: « What of the faithful could have any doubt that, in the very hour of the immolation, at the voice of the priest the heavens are opened, that in that mystery of Christ the choirs of Angels are present, that the highest and the lowest are joined together, that one thing is made out of the invisible and the visible ». The same7: « In the same moment it is also caught up into heaven, to be united by the ministry of Angels to the body of Christ, and before the eyes of the priest it is seen upon the altar. Just as the Divinity of the Word fills the whole world, so in many places that body is consecrated; yet there are not many bodies of Christ, but one body and one blood. And therefore whether one receive more or less thereof, all equally receive the body of Christ most entire ». — After the consecration, therefore, there is no substance of bread or wine there, although the species remain. For there is there the species of bread and wine, as also the savor; whence one thing is seen, another is understood.

Part II.

Chap. III. Why under another species.

But under another species Christ handed over flesh and blood, and instituted them to be received thereafter, for three reasons: namely, that faith might have merit, which is of the things that are not seen; for « faith has no merit, where human reason supplies experience8 ». And also for this reason, lest the mind should shrink from what the eye beheld, since we are not in the habit of eating raw flesh and blood. Therefore, since it is not lawful for Christ to be devoured by the teeth, he committed to us flesh and blood in a mystery. And also for this reason, lest the Christian religion be insulted by unbelievers. Whence Augustine: « Nothing is more reasonable than that we should receive the likeness of the blood, so that both the truth may not be lacking, and no ridicule be made by the pagans, that we drink the gore of a slain man ». Lest, therefore, this should happen, « and lest, as it were, there should be a certain horror of gore; we receive the Sacrament in a likeness ». — From what has been set forth it is now clear why under another species, and why under this one, the Lord celebrated this Sacrament and instituted it to be celebrated by us.

Chap. IV. Why under a twofold species.

But why is it received under a twofold species, since under either alone the whole Christ is present? « That it might be shown9 that he assumed

p. 240

the whole human nature, in order to redeem the whole. For bread is referred to the flesh, wine to the soul, because wine produces blood, in which the seat of the soul is said by the physicists to be. Therefore it is celebrated in two species, that the assumption of soul and flesh in Christ, and the liberation of both in us, may be signified10 ». For it avails, as Ambrose says, « for the protection of body and soul11 that which we receive; because the flesh of Christ is offered for the salvation of the body, but the blood for our soul, as Moses prefigured: The flesh, he says, is offered for our body, but the blood for the soul »; yet « it is received under each species, which avails for both, because under each the whole Christ is received. But if it were received under one only, it would be signified to avail for the protection of the one only, that is of the body or of the soul, not of both alike. Yet under each species the whole Christ is received; neither more under each, nor less under one alone is received ». « For the same reasoning holds, as Hilary12 says, in the body of Christ, which preceded in the manna; of which it is said: He who had gathered more had no more, nor did he who had prepared less have less ». And although under each species the whole Christ is received, yet the conversion of the bread is only into the flesh, and of the wine only into the blood; nor ought they to be called two Sacraments, but one, because under each species the same is received; nor is the Sacrament to be repeated, because the blessing is not repeated over the same species; nor ought other substances to be offered in the sacrifice of the truth, because from others the body of Christ or his blood cannot be consecrated.

Chap. V. Why water is mingled.

But water is to be mingled with the wine, because water signifies the people13 which has been redeemed by the passion of Christ. « The Lord's chalice, therefore, according to the precept of the canons, ought to be offered mixed of water and wine; because we see that in the water the people is understood14, in the wine is shown the blood of Christ. When, therefore, in the chalice water is mingled with wine, the people is united to Christ, and the throng of believers is joined to him in whom it believes; which joining of water and wine is so mingled in the chalice of Christ that that mixture cannot be separated. For if anyone offer wine only, the blood of Christ begins to be without us ».

But if it is asked whether what is done is null, if the water is omitted; hear what follows in the same canon: « It cannot be, he says, that the Lord's chalice be water alone, or wine alone, unless both be mingled ». Likewise Cyprian15: « The Lord's chalice is not water alone, or wine alone, unless both be mingled; just as neither can the body of the Lord be flour alone, nor water alone, unless both have been joined together and made solid in the compacting of one bread ». If, however, anyone, not intending to introduce heresy, by forgetfulness or ignorance omit the water, the Sacrament does not seem to be null; but he is to be gravely rebuked; for the Church of the Greeks too is said not to add water. Which can also seem to be gathered from the words of Cyprian. For he says: « If any of our predecessors, whether by ignorance or by simplicity, has not observed this which the Lord taught us to do both by example and by teaching; the pardon of the Lord's indulgence can be granted to his simplicity. But to us it cannot be forgiven, who now have been instructed by the Lord, to offer the Lord's chalice mixed with wine, according as the Lord offered it ». — From this it seems that, if anyone simply or ignorantly offer wine without water, he confects the Sacrament. But water can in no way be offered alone in sacrifice without wine, nor bread except of grain, nor a grain of wheat unless it has been made into bread, because Christ calls himself both bread and compares himself to a grain of wheat16. Therefore what was said above, that wine alone cannot be offered, ought to be qualified; for it admits an exception: it cannot, unless it be done simply or ignorantly; or it cannot, that is, it ought not. To some, however, this seems to be generally true.

Chap. VI. What kind of body Christ gave to the disciples at the supper.

It is also gathered from what has been said that Christ gave wine mixed with water to the disciples. But he gave such a body as he then had, that is, mortal and passible; whereas now it is received by us immortal and impassible; nor yet does it have greater efficacy. The Eucharist, moreover, dipped, ought not to be given to the people as a supplement of communion17, because it is not read that Christ gave dipped bread to any of the disciples except Judas. And then Judas did not receive the body of Christ, but only bread; for he had received the body and blood of Christ beforehand with the other disciples.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    In codd. L aa suppletur esset. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. Thom., hic circa lit.
    In codd. L aa is supplied esset. — The same doubt is resolved by Bl. Albert, here a. 6; St. Thomas, here near the text.
  2. 2
    Cfr. tom. III. pag. 104, nota 9. et pag. 373, nota o. — Paulo inferius pro sermo Eliae, quod habent codd. F G H l, alii codd. et edd. falso sermo Dei. — Cfr. II. de Mirabilibus sacrae Script. (inter opera August.) c. 20. et Ser. 27d. (in Append. serm. August., alias 38. ex Vigerian.) n. 2. — Superius pro iuste cod. h recte. Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. Thom., hic circa lit.
    Cf. vol. III, p. 104, note 9, and p. 373, note o. — A little below, for sermo Eliae, which codd. F G H l have, the other codd. and editions wrongly read sermo Dei. — Cf. II On the Marvels of Sacred Scripture (among the works of Augustine) c. 20, and Sermon 27d (in the Appendix of Augustine's sermons, otherwise 38, from Vigerianus) n. 2. — Above, for iuste cod. h has recte. The same doubt is resolved by Bl. Albert, here a. 7; St. Thomas, here near the text.
  3. 3
    Notae ad libr. Sententiarum: (1) Dist. X. c. ult. (2) Cfr. Algerus, l. de Sacram. c. 9. Quod sequitur excerptum est ex Sum. Sent. (Hugoni tribuita) tr. 6. c. 4.; ubi pro sine huius pleraeque edd. sine eius, et pro sit caro perperam fit caro. — Vide supra d. 8. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. — Post sed edd. addunt dicitur. — Codd. H L supplent panem, et mox post corpus cod. H addit Christi.
    Notes to the Book of the Sentences: (1) Dist. X, last chapter. (2) Cf. Alger, bk. on the Sacrament, c. 9. What follows is excerpted from the Summa Sententiarum (attributed to Hugh), tr. 6, c. 4; where for sine huius most editions have sine eius, and for sit caro wrongly fit caro. — See above, d. 8, p. II, a. 1, q. 1. — After sed the editions add dicitur. — Codd. H L supply panem, and just after corpus cod. H adds Christi.
  4. 1
    Vat., supplendo, praefigit substantia; deinde pro id est, id edd. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 ponunt in id.
    The Vatican edition, by way of supplement, prefixes substantia; then for id est, id edd. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 put in id.
  5. 2
    Libr. III. de Trin. c. 4. n. 10; et C. Corpus et sanguinem (60.), de Consecrat. dist. 2.
    Bk. III On the Trinity, c. 4, n. 10; and the canon Corpus et sanguinem (60), de Consecrat., dist. 2.
  6. 3
    Cod. Erf. annotat: Id est, ut non insint corpori, sicut insunt accidentia subiecto.
    Cod. Erf. notes: That is, that they be not in the body, as accidents are in a subject.
  7. 4
    Locus collectus est ex libro de Mysteriis c. 9, et IV. de Sacram. c. 4; verbotenus in C. Omnia quaecumque (74.). Cfr. etiam Petr. Chrysolog., Serm. 67. n. 10. — Loci Scripturae sunt Ioan. 6, 31. et 52.
    The passage is collected from the book On the Mysteries, c. 9, and bk. IV On the Sacraments, c. 4; verbatim in the canon Omnia quaecumque (74). Cf. also Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 67, n. 10. — The Scripture passages are John 6:31 and 52.
  8. 5
    In solis edd., excepta 1, suppletur Veritas.
    In the editions alone, except 1, Veritas is supplied. [The exact lemma to which this variant attaches is uncertain in the cascade-fragmented OCR / column band; it is here placed at the supplied subject of « Ait enim ».]
  9. 6
    Libr. IV. Dialog. c. 58; et C. Quid sit sanguis (73.), ibid. § 1, ubi § 2. etiam seq. locus.
    Bk. IV of the Dialogues, c. 58; and the canon Quid sit sanguis (73), ibid., § 1, where § 2 has the following passage also.
  10. 7
    Invenitur apud Alcuinum, de Divinis Officiis c. 40, qui citat Gregorium, in quo saltem verba non inveniuntur.
    It is found in Alcuin, On the Divine Offices, c. 40, who cites Gregory, in whom at least the words are not found.
  11. 8
    Gregor., II. Homil. in Evang., homil. 26. n. 1; in quo pro cui edd., excepta 1, ubi. Cfr. Hugo a S. Vict., Sum. Sent. tr. 6. c. 4.
    Gregory, bk. II of the Homilies on the Gospel, homily 26, n. 1; in which, for cui, the editions, except 1, have ubi. Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, Summa Sententiarum, tr. 6, c. 4.
  12. 9
    Can. Utrum sub figura (72.), ibid. § 2., sumtus ex Paschas. Radb., de Corp. et sang. Dom. c. 13. Seq. sententia sumta est ex C. Panis est (53.), loc. cit., ex Ambros., IV. de Sacram. c. 4. n. 20, ubi pro accipimus edd. A B D accipis.
    Canon Utrum sub figura (72), ibid., § 2, taken from Paschasius Radbertus, on the body and blood of the Lord, c. 13. The following sentence is taken from the canon Panis est (53), loc. cit., from Ambrose, bk. IV On the Sacraments, c. 4, n. 20, where for accipimus edd. A B D have accipis.
  13. 10
    Glossa ad I. Cor. 11, 26, apud Lyranum.
    Gloss on 1 Cor. 11:26, in Lyra.
  14. 11
    Comment. in I. Cor. 11, 26; ubi respicitur Deuter. 12, 23 (cfr. Levit. 17, 11.): Cave, ne sanguinem comedas; sanguis enim eorum pro anima est. Deinde pro utrumque valet, plurimae edd. non bene utramque valet, refragante etiam Hugone, loc. cit. c. 6, unde ista sumta sunt.
    Commentary on 1 Cor. 11:26; where Deut. 12:23 is regarded (cf. Lev. 17:11): Beware lest you eat blood; for their blood is for the soul. Then for utrumque valet, very many editions have, not well, utramque valet, against Hugh too, loc. cit., c. 6, whence these are taken.
  15. 12
    Can. Ubi pars (78.), ibid.; eadem sententia invenitur apud Isidor., Serm. 4. de Corp. et sang. Dom. n. 8. — Locus Scripturae est Exod. 16, 18.
    Canon Ubi pars (78), ibid.; the same sentence is found in Isidore, Sermon 4 on the body and blood of the Lord, n. 8. — The Scripture passage is Exod. 16:18.
  16. 13
    Cod. E et edd., excepta 1, praefigunt debet. Sententia est ex Hugone, loc. cit.
    Cod. E and the editions, except 1, prefix debet. The sentence is from Hugh, loc. cit.
  17. 14
    Apoc. 17, 15. Locus seq. est C. Cum omne (7.), ibid. § 1; cfr. Innoc. III., libr. IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio c. 29.
    Apoc. 17:15. The following passage is the canon Cum omne (7), ibid., § 1; cf. Innocent III, bk. IV On the Mystery of the Holy Altar, c. 29.
  18. 15
    Epist. 63. n. 13, et C. Sic in sanctificando (2.), ibid. Inferius verba sunt eiusdem ibid. n. 17, et Can. seq.
    Letter 63, n. 13, and the canon Sic in sanctificando (2), ibid. Below, the words are of the same, ibid., n. 17, and the following canon.
  19. 16
    Ioan. 6, 48. et 12, 24.
    John 6:48 and 12:24.
  20. 17
    Ex C. Cum omne (7.), ibid. § 1. De Iuda cfr. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 62. n. 3, et Hugo loc. cit. c. 9.
    From the canon Cum omne (7), ibid., § 1. Concerning Judas, cf. Augustine, on the Gospel of John, tr. 62, n. 3, and Hugh, loc. cit., c. 9.
Dist. 11, Part 1, Divisio Textus→