Dist. 11, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 11
Articulus II. De modo, quo Christus confecit.
Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de modo, quo Christus confecit. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo: Primo quaeritur de modo conficiendi quoad signum exterius; Secundo, quoad contentum interius.
Quaestio I. Utrum Christus confecerit in azymo, an in fermentato.
Quaeritur ergo primum, utrum confecerit in azymo, an in fermentato. Et quod in azymo, videtur:
1. Matthaei vigesimo sexto1: Prima autem die azymorum etc.
2. Item, Marci decimo quarto2: Et primo die azymorum; et Lucae vigesimo secundo: Venit autem dies azymorum, in quo necesse erat occidi pascha; sed isto die non reperiebatur fermentatum in omnibus finibus Israel: cum ergo existens in domo Iudaeorum comederit pascha, non potuit conficere nisi in azymo.
3. Item, ratione videtur: quia Dominus non venit solvere Legem, sed adimplere3 mandata Legis; sed praeceptum erat, Exodi duodecimo et Deuteronomii decimo sexto, quod comederent pascha cum azymis: ergo comedit azyma. Sed de illo pane confecit, quem in Coena comederat: ergo etc.
4. Item, Dominus debuit eo modo conficere, quo magis Sacramento conveniret; sed azymum ratione integritatis magis convenit huic Sacramento: ergo in pane azymorum debuit conficere; unde primae ad Corinthios quinto4: Non in fermento veteri, sed in azymis.
Contra: 1. hoc est, quod Dominus praevenit diem azymorum; sed ante illum diem non comedebant azyma: ergo etc. Quod autem praevenerit, ostenditur: quia, si figurae debet veritas respondere; cum agnus, qui erat figura huius, immolaretur decima quarta luna5; Christus fuit crucifixus decima quarta luna, sed ante diem crucifixionis confecit: ergo in fermento.
2. Hoc ipsum probatur auctoritate, quia dicitur Ioannis decimo octavo6: Non introierunt in praetorium, ut non contaminarentur, sed manducarent pascha: ergo ante ductus est ad passionem, quam manducaretur pascha: ergo praevenit: ergo idem quod prius.
3. Item, dies festus paschae dicitur prima dies, in qua manducabatur pascha; sed Ioannis decimo tertio7 ante diem paschae dicitur quod fecit coenam cum discipulis suis: ergo etc.
4. Item, hoc ipsum probatur per Lucam vigesimo tertio8, ubi dicitur, quod mulieres in die crucifixionis aromata paraverunt, in sequenti quieverunt; et Glossa dicit, quod non licebat aliquid parare secundum Legem: ergo magnus dies festus fuit in sequenti crucifixionis; sed magnus dies festus erat prima dies azymorum: ergo etc.
5. Item, ratione videtur: quia, si Dominus noluit, nos ritum Iudaeorum servare; videtur, quod nec ipse servaverit: ergo non confecit in azymis.
Iuxta hoc quaeritur de controversia Graecorum et Latinorum, unde venerit; et videtur, quod non poterit esse; quia ipsi acceperunt ab Apostolis, et Apostoli ab uno9 Domino: ergo vel Apostoli erraverunt, vel Graeci finxerunt. — Quaeritur etiam, qui melius faciunt; et utrum utrique bene faciant, cum aliqui modum Domini non teneant.
Conclusio. Christus consecravit in pane azymo, non in pane fermentato.
Respondeo: Ad primum dicendum, quod Dominus pascha celebravit decima quarta luna; unde non praevenit, sicut expresse tres Evangelistae concordant, nec praevenire debuit. Si ergo manducatio agni typici est evacuata per manducationem Agni veri10, manducatio Agni veri debuit illam sequi, non praeire. Unde quia in luna decima quarta pascha fecit, quando tantum comedebantur azyma, patet conclusio, quod in azymo confecerit.
1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod praevenit, quia crucifixus est decima quarta luna; respondent quidam, quod luna decima quarta est crucifixus, quia solemnitates durant a sero usque ad aliud sero11; unde primo sero comedit agnum, et antequam veniret alterum sero, est crucifixus. — Aliter dicitur et melius, quod passio eius inchoata est statim post Coenam, quia fuit in agonia et fuit comprehensus etc.; unde optime est factum, quod agni comestio et ipsius immolatio facta est decima quarta luna, non quia consummata, sed inchoata12.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non introierunt praetorium, ut non contaminarentur; dicendum, quod pascha tribus modis accipitur. Uno modo pascha cibus paschalis dicitur, ut azyma, quae per septem dies comedebantur a Iudaeis13. Alio modo pascha dicitur agnus paschalis, Lucae vigesimo secundo: In qua necesse erat occidi pascha. Tertio modo dicitur pascha Agnus verus, primae ad Corinthios quinto: Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus. Et primo modo accipitur in Ioanne.
3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de die festo, dicendum, quod illi septem dies omnes erant dies festi; sed primus erat per excellentiam festus dies, hoc est decima quinta; amplius maiori excellentia Sabbatum, quod erat inter illos dies festos, in quo
nihil debebant parare, tum propter suam celebritatem, tum propter azyma. Quod ergo dicit Ioannes, loquitur de die decima quinta, ante quam facta est coena. Quod autem dicunt Iudaei: Non in die festo14; intelligitur de Sabbato. — Similiter, quod mulieres quiescunt, hoc est ob reverentiam Sabbati, non quia primus dies, quia in primo die aliquid parare15, sed in Sabbato parare nil licebat.
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Dominus non debuit facere nos iudaizare; dicendum, quod Dominus de Lege non retinuit, sed de novo instituit; sicut patet de baptismo, quia illi aqua lustrabantur, et nos aqua lustramur; et hoc instituit, quia Sacramento congruebat.
Ad illud quod quaeritur de controversia Graecorum et Latinorum16, dicendum, quod sicut dicit Leo Papa17, antiqui Patres propter Iudaeorum institutionem, et quando error ille vigebat de legali observantia, decreverunt ex consilio Spiritus sancti cessare, quousque error ille minueretur, sicut decreverunt in Christi nomine baptizare. Unde omnis Ecclesia primo in azymis conficiebat, postmodum ex hac causa in fermentato. Sed cessante iam illa causa, rediit iam Romana Ecclesia ad ritum pristinum; Graeci vero, tanquam superbi, noluerunt ad ritum primum redire. Et ideo ex hoc ita coacti sunt defendere, primo dicentes, se ita accepisse; secundo vero, quia hoc non sufficiebat, addiderunt rationem: propter hoc, ne iudaizarent18; tertio, quia hoc non sufficiebat, si Dominus in azymis confecisset, ausi sunt hoc dicere, quod Dominus confecit de fermentato. Et quia Evangelistae dicunt contrarium, ausi sunt dicere, quod falsum dixerunt et a Ioanne correpti sunt. — Ecce, quomodo « error parvus in principio, multus est in fine ». Tamen tam ipsi conficiunt quam nos; hoc enim non est de substantia Sacramenti, sed de congruentia. Et hoc patet ex imitatione vel institutione19 Sanctorum.
I. Circa 1. quaestionem praenotanda est doctrina Ecclesiae de usu panis azymi et fermentati, quam proponit Concil. Florent. in Decreto unionis Graecorum his verbis: « In azymo sive fermentato pane triticeo corpus Christi veraciter confici; sacerdotesque in altero ipsum Domini corpus conficere debere, unumquemque scilicet iuxta suae Ecclesiae, sive occidentalis, sive orientalis, consuetudinem ». Econtra Graeci schismatici, odio excaecati, consecrationem in azymo invalidam esse, irrationabiliter blaterant. — Deinde observandum est, etiam inter doctos Catholicos de tribus quaestionibus hic tactis et inter se cohaerentibus controversias exstitisse et adhuc existere: I. Quo praecise die Christus ultimum pascha celebraverit et eucharistiam instituerit. Communius et probabilius Catholici Latini ab antiquo respondebant, hoc factum esse iuxta morem Iudaeorum, agnum paschalem edentium luna 14. mensis Nisan desinente et 13. inchoante. Hoc ipsa verba Scripturae apud Matth. 26, 17; Marc. 14, 12; Luc. 22, 7. satis clare indicant. Graeci autem volunt, Christum anticipasse diem a Lege praescriptam et eucharistiam instituisse die 13, pro quo afferunt verba Ioannis 18, 28. (qui locus aliter et rationabiliter explicari potest; cfr. hic ad 2.), adduntque hanc rationem, quod hoc supposito, Christus mortuus sit eodem die, quo agnus paschalis solebat occidi. — 2. Utrum ipse Christus confecerit eucharistiam in azymo, ut dicunt Latini, an in fermentato, ut contendunt Graeci, qui hac praecipue ratione praenotatam opinionem de tempore institutionis defendunt; cui opinioni favet etiam Abaelardus (Serm. 11.). — 3. Quis fuerit quoad utramque speciem panis usus antiquus utriusque Ecclesiae. Praeter opinionem in resp. ad qq. incidentes positam et historice valde dubiam, quae ob haeresim Ebionitarum ritum mutatum esse dicit, quam cum ceteris Scholasticis etiam S. Thom. (hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3.) tenet, a viris in historia doctissimis tres aliae opiniones magno conatu studioque propugnatae sunt. Nam Iac. Sirmundus cum aliis propugnat usum fermentati in utraque Ecclesia usque ad ortum schismatis Graeci; post eum Mabillon (Dissertatio de pane eucharistico, rursus impressa apud Migne, Patrol. Lat. CXLIII. col. 1219, in appendice ad opera Humberti) defendit usum solius azymi in Ecclesia Romana a primis saeculis; denique Card. Bona, usum utriusque obtinuisse a tempore Apostolorum. Adhuc sub iudice lis est; tamen pro antiquo usu azymi gravissima argumenta militant. — De verbis Leoni papae tributis cfr. nota 4. ad calcem. Quod hic dicitur de Leone, Martinus Polonus in Chronico attribuit Alexandro I. (?) (cfr. Michaelis Lequien Ord. Praed. Dissert. 6. in libros Ioannis Damasc. apud Migne, Patrol. Graeca XCIV. col. 397 n. 36. seq.). De ipsa quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 1. a. 1. § 3. — Scot., hic q. 6. n. 1. seqq. — S. Thom., loc. cit. S. III. q. 74. a. 4. — B. Albert., IV. d. 12. a. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. — Durand., hic q. 4. n. 10. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.
II. Circa 2. quaestionem est notandum, quod opinio Hugonis, ab Alex. Hal. intellecta ut consentiens communi, a Gulielmo Antiss. aliisque reiicitur. — Circa quaestionem de casu, quando in triduo post mortem Sacramentum fuisset reservatum; responsio S. Bonaventurae ab aliis Scholasticis approbatur; cfr. Alex. Hal., loc. cit. q. 11. m. 2. a. 1. § 5. 6; Scot., IV. Sent. d. 10. q. 6. n. 7. seqq., q. 4. n. 10. seqq.; S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 3. S. III. q. 81. a. 4; B. Albert., hic a. 14. De ipsa 2. quaestione: Alex. Hal., q. 11. m. 2. a. 1. § 3. — Scot., qq. citt. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 3; S. loc. cit. a. 3. — B. Albert., IV. Sent. d. 12. a. 13. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 6. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 1. et 4. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 7.
---
Article II. On the manner in which Christ confected [the Eucharist].
Consequently, as regards the second article, it is asked about the manner in which Christ confected. And concerning this, two things are asked: First, it is asked about the manner of confecting as regards the exterior sign; Second, as regards the interior content.
Question I. Whether Christ confected [the Eucharist] in unleavened or in leavened bread.
It is asked, then, first, whether he confected in unleavened or in leavened bread. And that [he confected] in unleavened, it seems:
1. Matthew twenty-six1: Now on the first day of unleavened bread etc.
2. Likewise, Mark fourteen2: And on the first day of unleavened bread; and Luke twenty-two: Now the day of unleavened bread came, on which it was necessary that the passover be killed; but on that day no leaven was to be found in all the borders of Israel: since therefore, being in the house of the Jews, he ate the passover, he could not confect except in unleavened bread.
3. Likewise, by reason it seems so: because the Lord came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill3 the commandments of the Law; but it was commanded, Exodus twelve and Deuteronomy sixteen, that they should eat the passover with unleavened bread: therefore he ate unleavened bread. But he confected of that bread which he had eaten at the Supper: therefore, etc.
4. Likewise, the Lord ought to have confected in that manner which best suited the Sacrament; but unleavened bread, by reason of its integrity, best suits this Sacrament: therefore he ought to have confected in the bread of unleavened bread; whence First Corinthians five4: Not in the old leaven, but in unleavened bread.
On the contrary: 1. this is so, that the Lord anticipated the day of unleavened bread; but before that day they did not eat unleavened bread: therefore, etc. And that he anticipated it is shown: because, if the truth ought to correspond to the figure; since the lamb, which was the figure of this, was immolated on the fourteenth moon5; Christ was crucified on the fourteenth moon, but he confected before the day of the crucifixion: therefore in leavened bread.
2. This same thing is proved by authority, because it is said in John eighteen6: They entered not into the praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover: therefore he was led to his passion before the passover was eaten: therefore he anticipated [it]: therefore the same as before.
3. Likewise, the festal day of the passover is called the first day, on which the passover was eaten; but in John thirteen7 it is said that before the day of the passover he made the supper with his disciples: therefore, etc.
4. Likewise, this same thing is proved through Luke twenty-three8, where it is said that the women on the day of the crucifixion prepared spices, [and] on the following [day] rested; and the Gloss says that it was not permitted to prepare anything according to the Law: therefore a great festal day fell on the day following the crucifixion; but the great festal day was the first day of unleavened bread: therefore, etc.
5. Likewise, by reason it seems so: because, if the Lord did not wish that we should keep the rite of the Jews; it seems that he himself did not keep it either: therefore he did not confect in unleavened bread.
Connected with this, it is asked about the controversy of the Greeks and the Latins, whence it arose; and it seems that it cannot be; because they themselves received [it] from the Apostles, and the Apostles from one9 Lord: therefore either the Apostles erred, or the Greeks feigned. — It is also asked which act better; and whether both act well, since some do not hold the manner of the Lord.
Conclusion. Christ consecrated in unleavened bread, not in leavened bread.
Respondeo: To the first it must be said that the Lord celebrated the passover on the fourteenth moon; whence he did not anticipate [it], just as the three Evangelists expressly agree, nor ought he to have anticipated [it]. If, therefore, the eating of the typical lamb is done away by the eating of the true Lamb10, the eating of the true Lamb ought to have followed it, not preceded [it]. Whence, because on the fourteenth moon he made the passover, when only unleavened bread was eaten, the conclusion is clear, that he confected in unleavened bread.
1. To that which is objected, that he anticipated [it], because he was crucified on the fourteenth moon; some respond that he was crucified on the fourteenth moon, because the solemnities last from one evening to another evening11; whence on the first evening he ate the lamb, and before the other evening came, he was crucified. — Otherwise it is said, and better, that his passion began immediately after the Supper, because he was in agony and was seized, etc.; whence it was most fitting that the eating of the lamb and its immolation took place on the fourteenth moon, not because consummated, but because begun12.
2. To that which is objected, that they entered not the praetorium, that they might not be defiled; it must be said that "passover" is taken in three ways. In one way "passover" is called the paschal food, as the unleavened bread which was eaten by the Jews for seven days13. In another way "passover" is called the paschal lamb, Luke twenty-two: On which it was necessary that the passover be killed. In a third way "passover" is called the true Lamb, First Corinthians five: Christ our passover is sacrificed. And in the first way it is taken in John.
3. 4. To that which is objected concerning the festal day, it must be said that all those seven days were festal days; but the first was by excellence the festal day, that is the fifteenth; further, by greater excellence the Sabbath, which fell among those festal days, on which
they ought to prepare nothing, both because of its festivity and because of the unleavened bread. Therefore what John says speaks of the fifteenth day, before which the supper took place. But what the Jews say: Not on the festal day14; is understood of the Sabbath. — Likewise, that the women rest, this is out of reverence for the Sabbath, not because it was the first day, since on the first day to prepare something [was permitted]15, but on the Sabbath to prepare nothing was permitted.
5. To that which is objected, that the Lord ought not to make us judaize; it must be said that the Lord did not retain [this] from the Law, but instituted [it] anew; just as is clear from baptism, because they were washed with water, and we are washed with water; and he instituted this because it suited the Sacrament.
To that which is asked about the controversy of the Greeks and the Latins16, it must be said that, as Pope Leo17 says, the ancient Fathers, on account of the institution of the Jews, and when that error concerning legal observance was strong, decreed by the counsel of the Holy Spirit to cease, until that error should be diminished, just as they decreed to baptize in the name of Christ. Whence the whole Church first confected in unleavened bread, afterward, for this cause, in leavened bread. But that cause now ceasing, the Roman Church has now returned to the ancient rite; but the Greeks, as proud, were unwilling to return to the first rite. And so, thus driven, they were [led] to defend [it], first saying that they had so received [it]; but secondly, because this did not suffice, they added a reason: for this, lest they should judaize18; thirdly, because this did not suffice, if the Lord had confected in unleavened bread, they dared to say this, that the Lord confected of leavened bread. And because the Evangelists say the contrary, they dared to say that they spoke falsely and were rebuked by John. — Behold, how "a small error in the beginning is great in the end." Yet they confect as much as we do; for this is not of the substance of the Sacrament, but of its fittingness. And this is clear from the imitation or institution19 of the Saints.
I. Concerning the 1st question, the doctrine of the Church about the use of unleavened and leavened bread is to be noted beforehand, which the Council of Florence sets forth in the Decree of the union of the Greeks in these words: "that the body of Christ is truly confected in unleavened or leavened wheaten bread; and that priests ought to confect the Lord's body in the one or the other, each according to the custom of his Church, whether Western or Eastern." On the contrary the schismatic Greeks, blinded by hatred, irrationally babble that consecration in unleavened bread is invalid. — Then it must be observed that even among learned Catholics controversies have existed and still exist concerning the three questions here touched on and mutually connected: I. On precisely which day Christ celebrated the last passover and instituted the Eucharist. The Catholic Latins more commonly and more probably answered from antiquity that this was done according to the custom of the Jews, who ate the paschal lamb at the ending of the 14th moon of the month Nisan and the beginning of the 13th. The very words of Scripture at Matt. 26, 17; Mark 14, 12; Luke 22, 7 indicate this clearly enough. But the Greeks hold that Christ anticipated the day prescribed by the Law and instituted the Eucharist on the 13th day, for which they adduce the words of John 18, 28 (which passage can be explained otherwise and reasonably; cf. here at the [reply] to 2), and they add this reason, that on this supposition Christ died on the same day on which the paschal lamb was wont to be killed. — 2. Whether Christ himself confected the Eucharist in unleavened bread, as the Latins say, or in leavened, as the Greeks contend, who chiefly by this argument defend the aforesaid opinion about the time of the institution; which opinion Abelard also favors (Serm. 11). — 3. What was the ancient usage of both Churches as to each species of bread. Besides the opinion set forth in the reply to the incidental questions and historically very doubtful, which says that the rite was changed on account of the heresy of the Ebionites, which along with the other Scholastics St. Thomas also holds (here q. 2. a. 2. subquestion 3.), three other opinions have been defended by men most learned in history with great effort and zeal. For James Sirmond with others defends the use of leavened bread in both Churches up to the rise of the Greek schism; after him Mabillon (Dissertation on eucharistic bread, reprinted in Migne, Patrol. Lat. CXLIII, col. 1219, in the appendix to the works of Humbert) defends the use of unleavened bread alone in the Roman Church from the first centuries; finally Cardinal Bona, that the use of both obtained from the time of the Apostles. The case is still before the judge; yet for the ancient use of unleavened bread very weighty arguments fight. — On the words attributed to Pope Leo, cf. note 4 at the foot. What is here said of Leo, Martin of Poland in his Chronicle attributes to Alexander I (?) (cf. Michael Lequien O.P., Dissertation 6 on the books of John Damascene, in Migne, Patrol. Graeca XCIV, col. 397 n. 36 seq.). On this very question: Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV. q. 10. m. 1. a. 1. § 3. — Scotus, here q. 6. n. 1 ff. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. Summa III. q. 74. a. 4. — Bl. Albert, IV. d. 12. a. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 2. subquestion 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 3. — Durandus, here q. 4. n. 10. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3.
II. Concerning the 2nd question it must be noted that the opinion of Hugh, understood by Alexander of Hales as agreeing with the common [opinion], is rejected by William of Auxerre and others. — Concerning the question of the case, when in the three days after [his] death the Sacrament should have been reserved; the response of St. Bonaventure is approved by the other Scholastics; cf. Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. q. 11. m. 2. a. 1. § 5. 6; Scotus, IV Sent. d. 10. q. 6. n. 7 ff., q. 4. n. 10 ff.; St. Thomas, here q. 3. a. 3. Summa III. q. 81. a. 4; Bl. Albert, here a. 14. On this very 2nd question: Alexander of Hales, q. 11. m. 2. a. 1. § 3. — Scotus, the questions cited. — St. Thomas, here q. 3. a. 3; Summa loc. cit. a. 3. — Bl. Albert, IV Sent. d. 12. a. 13. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 6. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 4. q. 1 and 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 7.
---
- 1Vers. 17. — Plurimi codd. falso Venit prima dies azymorum.Verse 17. — Very many codices wrongly [read] The first day of unleavened bread came. [p. 260, n. 9]
- 2Vers. 12. — Seq. textus est Luc. 22, 7. — De minori in omnibus finibus Israel cfr. Exod. 13, 7. — In hoc arg. pro existens, quod praebent codd. HPQ (V primitus) Y, alii codd. et edd. conficiens, et pro comederit plures codd. comedit, edd. voluit comedere.Verse 12. — The following text is Luke 22, 7. — On the lesser point in all the borders of Israel cf. Exod. 13, 7. — In this argument, for existens ("being"), which codices HPQ (V originally) Y give, other codices and the editions [read] conficiens ("confecting"), and for comederit very many codices [read] comedit, the editions voluit comedere ("wished to eat"). [p. 260, n. 10]
- 3Matth. 5, 17.Matt. 5, 17. [p. 261, n. 1]
- 4Vers. 8.Verse 8. [p. 261, n. 2]
- 5Exod. 12, 6: Et servabitis eum usque ad quartam decimam diem mensis huius, immolabitque eum universa multitudo filiorum Israel ad vesperam. Cfr. supra d. 8. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2.Exod. 12, 6: And you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, and the whole multitude of the children of Israel shall immolate it toward evening. Cf. above d. 8. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2. [p. 261, n. 3]
- 6Vers. 28. — De hac et seqq. obiectionibus cfr. Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 4, et Alger., II. de Sacram. c. 10, nec non Humbert. cardinalis (✝ 1064.), Adversus Graecor. calumnias.Verse 28. — On this and the following objections cf. Innocent III, IV On the sacred mystery of the Altar, c. 4, and Alger, II On the Sacraments c. 10, and also Cardinal Humbert (✝ 1064), Against the calumnies of the Greeks. [p. 261, n. 4]
- 7Vers. 1.Verse 1. [p. 261, n. 5]
- 8Vers. 56. — Glossa, quae est ordinaria apud Strabum.Verse 56. — The Gloss, which is the ordinary [gloss] in Strabo. [p. 261, n. 6]
- 9Vat. cum pluribus codd. ab ipso. Inferius post aliqui cod. X addit illorum.The Vatican [edition], with very many codices, [reads] ab ipso ("from him"). Below, after aliqui ("some"), codex X adds illorum ("of them"). [p. 261, n. 7]
- 10Edd. est figura manducationis Agni veri.The editions [read] is the figure of the eating of the true Lamb. [p. 261, n. 8]
- 11Cfr. Levit. 23, 32: A vespera usque ad vesperam celebrabitis Sabbata vestra. Vide etiam Exod. 12, 18.Cf. Lev. 23, 32: From evening to evening you shall celebrate your Sabbaths. See also Exod. 12, 18. [p. 261, n. 9]
- 12Ita exponitur a Glossa ordinaria (ex Beda) apud Strabum, in Luc. 22, 7.Thus it is expounded by the ordinary Gloss (from Bede) in Strabo, on Luke 22, 7. [p. 261, n. 10]
- 13Ut praecipitur Exod. 12, 18. — Seq. textus est Luc. 22, 7; tertius I. Cor. 5, 7.As is enjoined Exod. 12, 18. — The following text is Luke 22, 7; the third [is] 1 Cor. 5, 7. [p. 261, n. 11]
- 14Matth. 26, 3; Marc. 14, 2.Matt. 26, 3; Mark 14, 2. [p. 262, n. 1]
- 15Supple cum cod. H licebat; secunda manus in codd. EL addidit poterant. — Exod. 12, 16: Dies prima erit sancta atque solemnis et dies septima..., nihil operis facietis in eis, exceptis his, quae ad vescendum pertinent.Supply with codex H licebat ("was permitted"); a second hand in codices EL added poterant ("they could"). — Exod. 12, 16: The first day shall be holy and solemn, and the seventh day..., you shall do no work on them, except those things which pertain to eating. [p. 262, n. 2]
- 16Cfr. Anselm., de Azymo et ferment. c. 3, et Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 4.Cf. Anselm, On Unleavened and Leavened Bread c. 3, and Innocent III, IV On the sacred mystery of the Altar, c. 4. [p. 262, n. 3]
- 17Leo IX., qui primo huius controversiae meminit, hanc sententiam non habet, immo in epistolis ad Michaelem, Constantinopolitanum patriarcham (in ed. Migne epist. 100. n. 3. et 102.), et ad Constantinum Monomachum contrarium docet, arguens ipsum Michaelem hac in re tanquam novum Ecclesiae Latinae reprehensorem. Cfr. Innocent. III, loc. cit.Leo IX, who first mentions this controversy, does not hold this view; rather in his letters to Michael, patriarch of Constantinople (in Migne's edition epist. 100. n. 3. and 102.), and to Constantine Monomachus he teaches the contrary, charging Michael himself in this matter as a novel reprover of the Latin Church. Cf. Innocent III, loc. cit. [p. 262, n. 4]
- 18Cfr. supra solut. ad 2. et 3. — Superius pro ne iudaizarent cod. R ne iudaizare viderentur.Cf. above the solution to 2 and 3. — Above, for ne iudaizarent ("lest they should judaize") codex R [reads] ne iudaizare viderentur ("lest they should seem to judaize"). [p. 262, n. 5]
- 19Secundum Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 33. (c. 5.). — In fine solut. codd. BL omittunt vel institutione, et edd. male substituunt Sacramentorum pro Sanctorum.According to Aristotle, On the Heavens I, text 33 (c. 5). — At the end of the solution codices BL omit vel institutione ("or institution"), and the editions wrongly substitute Sacramentorum ("of the Sacraments") for Sanctorum ("of the Saints"). [p. 262, n. 6]