Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 12, Part 1, Dubia

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 12

Textus Latinus

p. 286

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit, quod Christus se ostendit duobus discipulis in specie peregrini. Videtur enim in hoc multiplicari inconveniens, non solvi: quia Christus, qui est Veritas, nullam falsitatem habere potuit in verbo, ergo pari ratione nec in facto: ergo cum non esset peregrinus, non debuit se in illa specie ostendere. Praeterea, corpus Christi erat gloriosum, ergo non erat visibile nec illius¹ coloris: ergo videtur, quod aliter se monstraverit quam fuit: ergo videtur, quod in opere mendacium commisit.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Dominus ostendit se in specie peregrini, non ut ostenderet, se esse peregrinum, sed ut «talem se exhiberet oculis corporis, sicut dicit Gregorius², qualis erat coram oculis mentis». Unde Dominus aliquando ostendit se dilectis suis sub diversis modis apparendi, non ut talis esse credatur, sed ut potius homini manifestetur in ea forma, in qua potest percipere; vel etiam, ut potius occultetur. Dicendum ergo, quod in ista ostensione nulla fuit deceptio. Sensus enim exterior formam videbat veram, interior non decipiebatur, sed claudebatur, sicut dicitur in Littera³: Oculi eorum tenebantur, ne eum agnoscerent; et ideo ista non fuit deceptio, sed veritatis occultatio; et veritatem occultare non est mentiri. Unde non est simile in proposito: quia, cum tactus apprehendat partitionem et numerum partium, sicut sensatum commune et per se⁴, et sensus communis necessario sequatur ad completam apprehensionem sensus particularis, non posset hoc esse sine deceptione. Et

p. 287

ideo quod inducunt pro simili non est simile, sed dissimile⁵.

Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: Manet integer totus in caelo. Videtur enim falsum: quia, sicut aliqui dicunt, adhuc Domini praeputium est in terra⁶; et aliqui dicunt, se habere de sanguine Domini: non ergo totus est in caelo.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in Christo resurrexit totum, quod fuit de veritate humanae naturae et quod spectat ad decentiam⁷; et ideo dicitur totus esse in caelo. — Quod ergo obiicit de praeputio, dicendum, quod vel non fuit de carne secundum speciem, sed divina dispensatione parum de carne secundum materiam ibi fuit, ut daretur nobis in devotionem, sicut reliquiae — et sic dicendum est de sanguine — vel aliquid fuit de veritate, et illud resurrexit cum Christo et est in caelo, et residuum mansit. — Aliqui tamen dicunt, quod circumcisi resurgent sine praeputio, quia illud signaculum est ad decorem. — Et si tu obiicias, quod totum resurget; dicunt, quod verum est: totum, quod spectat ad esse, vel pulcritudinem; et ideo non est instantia de praeputio. — Quod autem horum sit verius, difficile est scire; tamen quocumque modo dicatur, verum est, quod totus Christus, id est perfectus, quantum ad esse et bene esse in caelo est.

Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Manet integer totus in corde tuo. Videtur enim male dicere: quia corpus Christi non intrat cor tuum, cum sit quid corporale, quia solus Deus illabitur animae⁸: ergo si Christus integratur ex anima et corpore, non potest esse in corde nec manere.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Christus habitat in cordibus nostris non corporaliter, sed spiritualiter sive per fidem, sicut dicitur ad Ephesios tertio⁹. Hinc est, quod Christus dicitur manere integer in corde, quia, quantumcumque species frangatur, cor fidele credit, corpus Christi manere integrum et illibatum, non quod corpus secundum veritatem animam ingrediatur.

Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Hilarius, quod ubi pars ibi totum. Videtur enim secundum hoc, quod cum plures sint ibi partes, quod Christus sit pluries; et cum infinitae, infinities; quod non videtur esse conveniens.

Respondeo: Ad hoc dicunt aliqui, quod corpus Christi est in illa specie semel tantum, et tamen concedunt, esse infinities quantum ad modum; et ponunt exemplum in figura incisionis, quae est in cera una et semel, quia una imago potest fieri ex frusto uno cerae, tamen infinitis modis potest formari. Nam in qualibet parte cerae est oculus, et in qualibet est manus, et in qualibet est caput. Dicunt enim, in cera esse quidquid manus artificis potest facere. Et ad hoc est auctoritas philosophi in Sex Principiis¹⁰, qui dicit, «quod in huiusmodi formis esse est a natura, sentiri vero ab actu». Et ad hoc etiam est auctoritas Hieronymi super prologum Bibliae¹¹: «Mollis cera et ad formandum facilis, etiam si artificis manus cesset, tamen intus virtute est quidquid potest esse». — Sed licet exemplum illud aliquid videatur superficietenus habere similitudinis, plus habet dissimilitudinis; quia tota imago non est in qualibet parte cerae, sicut in tota cera; hic autem, quantumcumque parva pars significetur, tantum est, quantum est in hostia tota. Praeterea, quidquid dicatur ibi esse a natura, nunquam est in actu, nisi ars faciat, est tamen¹² in potentia. Et ideo dicit Hieronymus, quod «intus est virtute»; hic autem totus Christus in qualibet parte hostiae. Ideo dicendum aliter, quod corpus Christi cum sit in Sacramento non quasi in loco, sed ut in signo, non tantum signante, sed etiam continente veraciter; et ratio continentiae non discedat a ratione Sacramenti: sicut quaelibet pars potest significare et significat, sicut totum, sic quaelibet pars significat et continet totum. Et quoniam, quantumcumque partes significent, tamen unum sunt cum toto, unum, inquam, signum, non plura, nisi dividantur; hinc est, quod tantum semel continent, et Christus totus semel continetur. Nec¹³ potest inveniri exemplum in corporalibus, immo potius inveniretur contrarium;

p. 288

sed exemplum quaerendum est in spiritualibus, non quia corpus Christi non sit vere corpus, sed modum essendi habet ibi supra naturam corporum. Sicut ergo in unico corpore est unica anima, et tamen in singulis membris existens tota, et est semel, quia unum est perfectibile; sic et corpus Christi semel tantum in uno est Sacramento¹⁴.

Dub. V

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Indignus est qui aliter celebrat mysterium, quam Christus tradidit. Videtur enim male dicere, quia omnes aliter celebramus: constans enim est, quod Christus nec tot orationes nec tot crucis signationes fecit, quot nos facimus. Si tu dicas, quod hoc intelligitur quantum ad ea quae sunt de substantia Sacramenti: quaeritur: quare Ecclesia addit istas solemnitates et tot crucis signationes?

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quaedam spectant ad huius Sacramenti necessitatem et integritatem, et talia Christus per se tradidit: quaedam ad solemnitatem, et haec Ecclesia superaddit: haec autem non sunt diminuentia, sed salvantia illa quae sunt de integritate Sacramenti¹⁵: et ideo non aliter celebrat, sed ita servat. Si quis vero mutaret formam¹⁶ Christi, vel ea quae tradita sunt ab Ecclesia, mutaret; utique talis esset indignus; et de tali loquitur.

Ad illud quod quaeritur, quare Ecclesia addit huiusmodi solemnitates; dicendum, quod additio harum solemnitatum est pro excitanda devotione et arctanda intentione, est etiam tertio propter expressiorem significationem. Unde adduntur orationes ad excitandam devotionem in sacerdotibus et ad docendum, quid debeant petere. Unde sicut institutae sunt horae canonicae, ne propter negligentiam pertranseat hora, in qua non laudetur Deus, et ut populus accendatur ad devotionem; sic et in proposito est intelligendum¹⁷. — Propter intentionem vero fiunt crucis signationes, ut sacerdos actu cordis et manuum convertatur supra Sacramentum; ideo quando nominat, signat. — Propter expressiorem significationem: illae enim crucis signationes, quae ibi fiunt, quae sunt viginti quinque, et fiunt in septem vicibus, significant expresse passionem Christi, sicut tradit Innocentius¹⁸: «In prima vice fiunt ter, ad significandam trinam traditionem Christi, scilicet a Deo, Iuda et Iudaeo. — In secunda vice fiunt quinquies, ad significandum quinque personas, quae in traditione Christi fuerunt, scilicet personam traditi, tradentis Iudae et ementium, qui fuerunt tres, scilicet pontifices, scribae et pharisaei. — In tertia fiunt bis, ad significandum conversionem duplicis elementi, scilicet panis et vini. — In quarta fiunt quinquies, ad significandum quinque plagas. — In quinta fiunt bis, ad significandum vincula, quibus corpus fuit ligatum, et flagella, quibus sanguis allisus. — In sexta fiunt ter, propter crucifixionem factam in linguis Iudaeorum, quando ter dixerunt: Crucifige eum¹⁹. — In septima quinque, ter de corpore super calicem et bis a latere, ut significentur tres cruciatus, scilicet passionis, propassionis et compassionis²⁰, et propter aquam et sanguinem, quae de latere Christi fluxerunt. — Hae omnes sunt viginti quinque, qui est numerus quadratus respectu quinarii super se reflexi, ut designetur, quod quantumcumque multiplicetur sacrificium, semper est unum». Et sic patet, quod nihil vacat a mysterio.

English Translation

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 Christ showed himself to two disciples in the appearance of a pilgrim. For it seems that in this an impropriety is multiplied, not resolved: because Christ, who is Truth, could have no falsity in word, therefore by parity of reasoning neither in deed: therefore since he was not a pilgrim, he ought not to have shown himself in that appearance. Moreover, the body of Christ was glorious, therefore it was not visible nor of that¹ color: therefore it seems that he showed himself otherwise than he was: therefore it seems that in the deed he committed a falsehood.

I respond: It must be said that the Lord showed himself in the appearance of a pilgrim, not in order to show that he was a pilgrim, but in order to «exhibit himself to the eyes of the body, as Gregory says², such as he was before the eyes of the mind». Hence the Lord sometimes showed himself to his beloved under diverse modes of appearing, not that he should be believed to be such, but rather that he might be manifested to man in that form in which he can perceive him; or even, that he might rather be concealed. It must be said therefore that in this showing there was no deception. For the exterior sense saw the true form, the interior was not deceived, but was closed, as it is said in the Text³: Their eyes were held, that they should not recognize him; and therefore this was not deception, but a concealment of the truth; and to conceal the truth is not to lie. Hence the case is not similar in the matter proposed: because, since touch apprehends the partition and the number of parts, as a common and per se sensible object⁴, and the common sense necessarily follows upon the complete apprehension of the particular sense, this could not be without deception. And

therefore what they bring forward as similar is not similar, but dissimilar⁵.

Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that Augustine says: He remains whole and entire in heaven. For it seems false: because, as some say, the Lord's foreskin is still on earth⁶; and some say that they have some of the Lord's blood: therefore he is not wholly in heaven.

I respond: It must be said that in Christ there rose again all that belonged to the truth of human nature and that pertains to fittingness⁷; and therefore he is said to be wholly in heaven. — As for what he objects about the foreskin, it must be said that either it was not of the flesh according to species, but by divine dispensation a little of the flesh according to matter was there, that it might be given to us for devotion, like relics — and so it must be said of the blood — or something was there of the truth, and that rose again with Christ and is in heaven, and the remainder stayed behind. — Yet some say that the circumcised will rise again without the foreskin, because that token is for adornment. — And if you object that the whole will rise; they say that this is true: the whole that pertains to being, or to beauty; and therefore there is no instance from the foreskin. — But which of these is the truer is hard to know; yet in whatever way it be said, it is true that the whole Christ, that is, the perfect, is in heaven as to being and well-being.

Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: He remains whole and entire in your heart. For it seems to be said badly: because the body of Christ does not enter your heart, since it is something corporeal, because God alone glides into the soul⁸: therefore if Christ is constituted of soul and body, he cannot be in the heart nor remain there.

I respond: It must be said that Christ dwells in our hearts not corporeally, but spiritually or through faith, as it is said in Ephesians the third⁹. Hence it is that Christ is said to remain whole in the heart, because, however much the species be broken, the faithful heart believes that the body of Christ remains whole and unimpaired, not that the body according to truth enters the soul.

Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that Hilary says, that where there is a part, there is the whole. For it seems, according to this, that since there are there many parts, Christ is there many times; and since they are infinite, infinitely many times; which does not seem to be fitting.

I respond: To this some say that the body of Christ is in that species only once, and yet they concede that it is there infinitely many times as to mode; and they put forward an example in the figure of a carving, which is in one wax and at one stroke, because one image can be made from one lump of wax, yet it can be formed in infinite ways. For in any part of the wax there is an eye, and in any there is a hand, and in any there is a head. For they say that in the wax there is whatever the hand of the craftsman can make. And to this there is the authority of the Philosopher in the Six Principles¹⁰, who says, «that in forms of this kind to be is from nature, but to be perceived is from act». And to this also there is the authority of Jerome on the prologue to the Bible¹¹: «The wax is soft and easy for forming, even if the hand of the craftsman cease, yet within it is virtually whatever it can be». — But although that example seems on the surface to have some likeness, it has more unlikeness; because the whole image is not in any part of the wax, as it is in the whole wax; but here, however small a part be signified, there is as much as there is in the whole host. Moreover, whatever is said to be there from nature is never in act, unless art make it, yet it is¹² in potency. And therefore Jerome says that «within it is virtually»; but here the whole Christ is in any part of the host. Therefore it must be said otherwise, that since the body of Christ is in the Sacrament not as in a place, but as in a sign — not only a sign signifying, but also one truly containing; and let not the account of containing depart from the account of the Sacrament: just as any part can signify and does signify, like the whole, so any part signifies and contains the whole. And since, however much the parts signify, yet they are one with the whole — one sign, I say, not many, unless they be divided — hence it is that they contain only once, and the whole Christ is contained once. Nor¹³ can an example be found among corporeal things — rather the contrary would be found;

but the example must be sought among spiritual things, not because the body of Christ is not truly a body, but because it has there a mode of being above the nature of bodies. Just as therefore in one body there is one soul, and yet existing whole in the individual members, and is there once, because there is one perfectible thing; so also the body of Christ is in one Sacrament only once¹⁴.

Doubt V

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: He is unworthy who celebrates the mystery otherwise than Christ handed it down. For it seems to be said badly, because we all celebrate otherwise: for it is established that Christ made neither so many prayers nor so many signs of the cross as we make. If you say that this is understood as to those things which are of the substance of the Sacrament: it is asked, why does the Church add these solemnities and so many signs of the cross?

I respond: It must be said that some things pertain to the necessity and integrity of this Sacrament, and such things Christ handed down of himself: some things pertain to solemnity, and these the Church superadds: now these are not diminishing, but preserving those things which are of the integrity of the Sacrament¹⁵: and therefore he does not celebrate otherwise, but keeps it thus. But if anyone were to change the form¹⁶ of Christ, or were to change those things which have been handed down by the Church; such a one would surely be unworthy; and it is of such a one that he speaks.

To that which is asked, why the Church adds solemnities of this kind; it must be said that the addition of these solemnities is for the arousing of devotion and the narrowing of intention, and it is also, thirdly, for the sake of more express signification. Hence prayers are added for arousing devotion in the priests and for teaching what they ought to ask. Hence, just as the canonical hours have been instituted, lest through negligence the hour pass in which God is not praised, and that the people may be kindled to devotion; so also is it to be understood in the matter proposed¹⁷. — For the sake of intention the signs of the cross are made, that the priest may by the act of his heart and his hands be turned upon the Sacrament; therefore when he names, he signs. — For the sake of more express signification: for those signs of the cross which are made there, which are twenty-five, and are made in seven sets, signify expressly the passion of Christ, as Innocent hands down¹⁸: «In the first set they are made three times, to signify the threefold handing-over of Christ, namely by God, by Judas, and by the Jew. — In the second set they are made five times, to signify the five persons who were in the handing-over of Christ, namely the person of the one handed over, of Judas the one handing over, and of the buyers, who were three, namely the chief priests, scribes, and pharisees. — In the third they are made twice, to signify the conversion of the twofold element, namely of bread and wine. — In the fourth they are made five times, to signify the five wounds. — In the fifth they are made twice, to signify the bonds with which the body was bound, and the scourges by which the blood was dashed. — In the sixth they are made three times, on account of the crucifixion made by the tongues of the Jews, when three times they said: Crucify him¹⁹. — In the seventh, five times, three over the body above the chalice and two at the side, that there may be signified the three torments, namely of passion, propassion, and compassion²⁰, and on account of the water and blood which flowed from Christ's side. — All these are twenty-five, which is a number squared with respect to five reflected upon itself, so that it may be designated that, however much the sacrifice be multiplied, it is always one». And thus it is clear that nothing is void of mystery.

Apparatus Criticus

1
Edd. ullius.
The editions read ullius ("of any") [for illius, "of that"].
2
Libr. II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 23. n. 1: Hoc ergo egit foris Dominus in oculis corporis, quod apud ipsos agebatur intus in oculis cordis. — Inferius pro percipere codd. G H recipere.
[Gregory,] Book II of the Homilies on the Gospels, homily 23, n. 1: This therefore the Lord did outwardly in the eyes of the body, which was being done within them in the eyes of the heart. — Below, for percipere ("perceive") codices G, H read recipere ("receive").
3
Luc. 24, 16. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 38. q. 2. ad 3.
Luke 24:16. Cf. III Sent., d. 38, q. 2, ad 3.
4
Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 63. seqq. (c. 6.), distinguit sensibilia in sensibilia per se et per accidens [scil. ipsam substantiam]; sensibilium per se aliud est proprium uniuscuiusque sensus, aliud autem commune plurium sensuum. «Communia autem motus, quies, numerus, figura, magnitudo; huiusmodi enim nullius sunt propria, sed communia omnibus» etc. — De sensu communi i. e. interna organica potentia perceptiva et discretiva sensibilium et sensationum exteriorum, cfr. Aristot., loc. cit. text. 136. seqq. (III. c. 2.), et de Somno et vigilia, c. 2.
Aristotle, On the Soul II, text 63 ff. (c. 6), distinguishes sensibles into sensibles per se and per accidens [namely substance itself]; of sensibles per se one is the proper sensible of each single sense, the other the common sensible of several senses. «Common, however, are motion, rest, number, figure, magnitude; for these are proper to none, but common to all» etc. — On the common sense, i.e. the internal organic power perceptive and discriminative of external sensibles and sensations, cf. Aristotle, loc. cit. text 136 ff. (III, c. 2), and On Sleep and Waking, c. 2.
5
Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic d. 13. a. 3; S. Thom., hic circa lit.
The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here d. 13, a. 3; St. Thomas, here on the text.
6
In cod. Y secunda manus addidit: quod Romae in ecclesia Lateranensi ostenditur. Vide Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 30, ubi etiam docet, Christum resumsisse sanguinem effusum, qui fuit de veritate naturae.
In codex Y a second hand added: that it is shown at Rome in the Lateran church. See Innocent III, On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar IV, c. 30, where he also teaches that Christ took up again the blood that was shed, which was of the truth of his nature.
7
Cfr. infra d. 44. p. I. a. I. q. I. seq. — Ibid. n. 2. q. I. habetur etiam de distinctione carnis secundum speciem et secundum materiam, de qua vide etiam II. Sent. d. 30. a. 3. q. 2.
Cf. below, d. 44, p. I, a. 1, q. 1 and following. — Ibid., n. 2, q. 1, there is also treatment of the distinction of the flesh according to species and according to matter, on which see also II Sent., d. 30, a. 3, q. 2.
8
Ut ostensum est II. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 2. — Inferius post esse cod. II addit integer.
As was shown in II Sent., d. 8, p. II, q. 2. — Below, after esse codex II adds integer ("whole").
9
Vers. 17. — Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic d. 13. a. 12. quaestiunc. 2. seq.; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.
Verse 17. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here d. 13, a. 12, little-question 2 and following; St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.
10
Cap. 1. ubi Gilbert. Porret. ait: In quibusdam [formis] autem dubitatio est, utrum a natura, an ab actu [i. e. artis operatione] incipiant esse, ut in figura incisionis; nam nihil additionis est, sed separatio quaedam partium. Dico autem figuram [i. e. materiam figurae] esse a natura, sentiri [figuram apparere et visu percipi] vero ab actu; sed quae coniunctionis est, ab actu est, ut domus. Cfr. B. Albert. in hunc loc. tr. 1. c. 5. — Superius pro Dicunt enim edd. Debet enim.
Six Principles, c. 1, where Gilbert of Poitiers says: But in certain [forms] there is doubt whether they begin to be from nature or from act [i.e. from the operation of art], as in the figure of a carving; for there is nothing of addition, but a certain separation of parts. I say, moreover, that the figure [i.e. the matter of the figure] is from nature, but to be perceived [for the figure to appear and be perceived by sight] is from act; but what is of conjunction is from act, as a house. Cf. Blessed Albert on this passage, tr. 1, c. 5. — Above, for Dicunt enim ("for they say") the editions read Debet enim ("for it must").
11
Qui continet Epist. 53. (alias 103.) ad Paulinum, ubi sub n. 3. textus originalis post si artificis legit: et plastae cessent manus, tamen τῇ δυνάμει [virtute] totum est, quidquid esse potest. Unus alterve tantum cod. pro intus exhibet cum textu originali et edd. totum. Idem recurrit aliquanto inferius.
[The prologue] which contains Letter 53 (otherwise 103) to Paulinus, where, under n. 3, the original text after si artificis ("if of the craftsman") reads: and though the hands of the modeler cease, yet in potency [τῇ δυνάμει, virtute] the whole is whatever it can be. Only one or another codex, for intus ("within"), gives, with the original text and the editions, totum ("the whole"). The same recurs a little below.
12
Cod. X sed est tantum.
Codex X reads sed est tantum ("but it is only").
13
Edd. quod cum semel contineant, et... continetur non.
The editions read quod cum semel contineant, et... continetur non ("that since they contain only once, and... is not contained").
14
Cfr. supra d. 10. p. I. q. 5; Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 7. a. 3. § 5. ad 1; B. Albert., hic d. 13. a. 13.
Cf. above, d. 10, p. I, q. 5; Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV, q. 10, m. 7, a. 3, § 5, ad 1; Blessed Albert, here d. 13, a. 13.
15
Vid. supra lit. Magistri, d. III. c. 1. — Mox pro mutaret formam, quod habent codd. B F G H L Q bb, cod. I non teneret formam, cod. K imminuet formam, alii codd. et edd. citaret [vitaret?] formam.
See above the Master's text, d. III, c. 1. — Soon, for mutaret formam ("were to change the form"), which codices B, F, G, H, L, Q, bb have, codex I reads non teneret formam ("would not keep the form"), codex K imminuet formam ("will diminish the form"), other codices and the editions citaret [vitaret?] formam ("would cite [shun?] the form").
16
Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. VIII. c. 4.
Cf. above the Master's text, d. VIII, c. 4.
17
Libr. V. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 14. In seqq. verbis textus originalis plura interserit.
[Innocent III,] On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar V, c. 14. In the following words the original text inserts much more.
18
Marc. 15, 13. seq.; Luc. 23, 21. seq. — Superius pro allisus, quod habet etiam textus originalis, multi codd. illisus, cod. Y fusus, edd. effusus.
Mark 15:13 ff.; Luke 23:21 ff. — Above, for allisus ("dashed"), which the original text also has, many codices read illisus, codex Y fusus, the editions effusus.
19
Vide III. Sent. d. 15. dub. 4. et d. 16. a. 2. q. 3.
See III Sent., d. 15, doubt 4, and d. 16, a. 2, q. 3.
20
Innocent. III, loc. cit., haec recolligens. — Mox post unum edd. addunt cetera.
Innocent III, loc. cit., gathering these things up. — Soon after unum the editions add the rest.