Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 12, Part 2, Dubia

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 12

Textus Latinus

p. 298

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit, quod in hoc Sacramento fit memoria illius quod factum est semel. Si enim hoc verum est, ergo tantum semel deberet fieri ab uno sacerdote et semel manducari. — Item, baptismus, quia significat passionem Christi, non iteratur¹: ergo nec illud Sacramentum.

Respondeo: sicut dicit Magister in littera, hic² significatur passio Christi tanquam in signo et tanquam in signo rememorativo; et quoniam frequenter rememorari debemus Christi semel passi: ideo illud Sacramentum iteratur pluries. — Sed si tunc obiicias de Sacramento baptismi; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia baptismus significat passionem, prout nos per illam morimur peccato originali, quod traximus ab Adam: et hoc non facit passio in quolibet nisi semel; hinc est, quod baptismus non potest iterari, et si quis iterat, facit contumeliam Sacramento.

p. 299

In hoc autem significatur Christus passus ut nos reficiens; et quoniam saepe reficit in omni³ memoratione, ideo saepe iteratur illud Sacramentum sine contumelia; nec dicitur proprie iterari Sacramentum, sed frequentari; quoniam unum et idem continetur in hostia hesterna et hodierna; tunc autem iteraretur, si super eandem hostiam fieret iteratio formae⁴; et hoc non posset fieri scienter absque peccato.

Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod quotidie offerimus ad recordationem mortis. Est enim instantia in die Veneris sancto, quando sacerdos non conficit nec sacrificium offert⁵; et videtur, quod tunc magis deberet. Si enim hoc est memoriale passionis: ergo cum illo die specialiter memoria habeatur, videtur, quod tunc magis esset conficiendum. — Item, quaeritur iuxta hoc: quare Sacramentum reservatur sub forma panis, non vini?

Et respondetur ad primum, quod aliud est conficere sive consecrare, aliud est offerre; et quamvis in illo die non fiat confectio, fit tamen oblatio, quia sacerdos corpus in praecedenti die consecratum offert in altari. — Si vero quaeras: quare fit oblatio et non consecratio? respondetur, quod oblatio sive sumtio fit a sacerdote, ne oratio dominicalis, quae dicitur quotidie et illo die ab Ecclesia, in qua petitur: Panem nostrum quotidianum⁶ etc., vacua fiat. — Sed consecratio non fit, sed reservatio propter hoc, quod in illo die fuit Dominus passus in propria effigie, non in signo. Et quia tota dies est memoriale passionis et totum officium; ideo non fit consecratio a Coena usque ad Sabbatum, in quo est memoria resurrectionis; unde cantatur Missa de resurrectione.

Quod quaeritur de sanguine: quare non reservatur? aliqui dicunt, quod non oportet, quia vinum, quod sacerdos ponit in calicem, per appositionem corporis consecratur. — Sed illud non potest habere veritatem, sicut probari potest de facili, quia nullo modo fit transsubstantiatio sine verbo⁷. Et ideo dicunt alii, quod triplici de causa non reservatur: una est propter periculum effusionis; alia propter verbum Domini, quod dixit super calicem⁸: Non bibam de hoc genimine etc., et ideo non sumit sanguinem sacerdos a Coena usque ad resurrectionem; tertia est, quia sacerdos magis sumit ad refectionem quam ad significationem, et quia totus Christus est perfecte sub specie panis, quamvis non perfecte significetur; ideo solum in specie panis sumit, et solum sacrificium sive Sacramentum corporis reservatur⁹.

Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod semel immolatus est Christus. Si enim semel immolatus est Christus, videtur, quod saltem in die non liceat sacerdoti pluries conficere. — Quaeritur ergo quomodo liceat sacerdoti pluries conficere et sumere in eodem die, cum populo non liceat nisi semel; et videtur, quod magis sit licitum populo, cum minus sit horum alterum, scilicet sumere, quam utrumque, scilicet conficere et sumere.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod propter reverentiam Sacramenti sunt duo instituta circa modum sumendi hoc Sacramentum, scilicet quod sumatur ieiuno stomacho, et quod tantum semel, ut ab aliis cibis discernatur. In primo communicat sacerdos et populus; oportet enim, quod sacerdos ieiunus sit, sicut populus; et hoc habetur in quadam Decretali de Celebratione Missarum¹⁰: Ex parte vestra; et infra: «Semper sacerdos vino perfundere debet, postquam accepit totum eucharistiae Sacramentum, nisi cum eodem die aliam Missam celebrare debuerit, ne, si forte vinum perfusionis acciperet, aliam celebrationem impediret». — Sed in alio differt, quia alicui¹¹ bis communicari non licet, sed licitum est sacerdoti, propter hoc quod est persona communis et debet celebrare Missam omni populo. Et quia potest esse, quod unus sacerdos propter tenuitatem et vicinitatem deservit duabus ecclesiis, vel quia in eadem ecclesia propter solemnitatem officii oportet plures Missas cantari, sicut in Nativitate Domini; et quandocumque celebrant, tenentur communicare: ideo indultum est eis, plures Missas celebrare in eodem die et pluries hoc Sacramentum sumere¹².

Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus, quod quotidie peccamus peccatis, sine quibus haec mortalis infirmitas duci non potest. Videtur enim male dicere: quia «nullus peccat in eo quod vitare non potest¹³»: ergo talia non videntur esse peccata.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ad hoc potest dupliciter responderi: uno modo, quod quamvis non possint vitari generaliter et universaliter, possunt tamen vitari particulariter hoc et illud; et ponitur exemplum in navi, in quam ingreditur aqua¹⁴. — Sed quomodo possunt vitari motus, qui veniunt ex surreptione, etiam in particulari, difficile est dicere.

p. 300

— Et ideo alius modus est dicendi, quod est distinguendum in necessitate et in peccato. Est enim necessitas ex naturae institutione, et est necessitas ex corruptione. Prima est data; secunda est, quam incurrit homo ex culpa. Prima necessitas omnino excludit culpam; secunda vero excludit culpam actualem mortalem, non tamen venialem. Unde, sicut vult Augustinus de Perfectione iustitiae hominis¹⁵, «quia homo noluit vitare peccatum, cum potuit; inflictum est ei non posse, cum velit».

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 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 repeated¹: therefore neither [should] that Sacrament [be repeated].

I respond: As the Master says in the text, here² 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 every³ 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 made⁴; 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 sacrifice⁵; 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 bread⁶ 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 word⁷. 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 chalice⁸: 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 reserved⁹.

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 Masses¹⁰: 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 anyone¹¹ 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 times¹².

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 avoid¹³»: 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 enters¹⁴. — 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 Man¹⁵, «because man would not avoid sin when he could; it was inflicted upon him to be unable [to avoid it], when he wills [to]».

Apparatus Criticus

1
Vide supra d. 6. p. I. q. 6.
See above, d. 6, p. I, q. 6.
2
Hic c. 5.
Here, c. 5.
3
Cod. U quoniam nos saepe reficit in sui.
Codex U [reads] quoniam nos saepe reficit in sui ("because he often refreshes us in himself").
4
Ut docet supra Magister in lit., d. XI. c. 4. in fine. — Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic d. 13. a. 23; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.
As the Master teaches above in the text, d. XI, c. 4, at the end. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here d. 13, a. 23; St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.
5
Cod. O offertur, edd. omittunt nec et offert.
Codex O [reads] offertur ("is offered"); the editions omit nec et offert ("nor offers").
6
Luc. 11, 3. — Paulo ante pro et illo die, quod habent codd. F G H, in aliis et edd. male tantum in illo die.
Luke 11:3. — A little before, for et illo die ("and on that day"), which codices F G H have, in the others and the editions wrongly only in illo die ("on that day").
7
Vide supra p. I. a. 2. q. 2.
See above, p. I, a. 2, q. 2.
8
Marc. 14, 25. Cfr. Matth. 26, 29.
Mark 14:25. Cf. Matthew 26:29.
9
Cfr. supra d. 11. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. — Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic d. 13. a. 24; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.
Cf. above, d. 11, p. II, a. 1, q. 2. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here d. 13, a. 24; Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.
10
Hoc decretum Innocentii III. ad clericos s. Petri in Magdalona, quod incipit: Ex parte vestra (Migne, Patrol. Lat. tom. 215. col. 442. n. 130. alias 401.), duas partes habet, quarum prima invenitur in C. Ex parte vestra (1.) X. (libr. III. tit. 46.) de Observ. ieiun.; secunda vero [ideo hic dicitur et infra] in X. (libr. III. tit. 41.) c. 3: Ex parte vestra, et infra: Postulationi vestrae taliter respondemus, quod semper sacerdos... acceperit [ed. Migne perceperit] etc.
This decretal of Innocent III to the clergy of St. Peter at Magdalona, which begins: Ex parte vestra ("On your part") (Migne, Patrol. Lat., vol. 215, col. 442, n. 130, otherwise 401), has two parts, of which the first is found in the chapter Ex parte vestra (1), [Decretals] book X (lib. III, tit. 46), On the Observance of Fasts; but the second [whence here it is said and below] in [Decretals] book X (lib. III, tit. 41), c. 3: Ex parte vestra, and below: To your request we answer thus, that the priest should always... have received [ed. Migne perceived] etc.
11
Edd. addunt de populo. Aliquanto inferius pro tenuitatem cod. aa communitatem.
The editions add de populo ("of the people"). Somewhat below, for tenuitatem ("slenderness") codex aa [reads] communitatem ("community").
12
Cfr. decretum Innocentii III. in C. Consuluisti (3.) X. (libr. III. tit. 41.), de Celebrat. Missar. — Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic d. 13. a. 24.
Cf. the decretal of Innocent III in the chapter Consuluisti (3), [Decretals] book X (lib. III, tit. 41), On the Celebration of Masses. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here d. 13, a. 24.
13
August., III. de Lib. Arb. c. 18. n. 50: Quis enim peccat in eo quod nullo modo caveri potest?
Augustine, On Free Will III, c. 18, n. 50: For who sins in that which can in no way be guarded against?
14
Cod. H (bb a secunda manu) addit: per multa foramina... licet non posset homo unus evitare (cod. bb obturare) universaliter, potest tamen hoc et hoc etc. particulariter (cod. ... hoc et illud). Cfr. II. Sent. d. 41. a. 2. q. 1, ubi hic modus dicendi exhibetur, et in solut. ad 1. idem exemplum proponitur. — Superius post quamvis edd. supplent peccata.
Codex H (bb by a second hand) adds: through many openings... though one man could not avoid [it] universally, yet he can [avoid] this and this etc. particularly (cod. bb stop up) (cod. ... this and that). Cf. II Sentences, d. 41, a. 2, q. 1, where this way of speaking is set forth, and in the solution ad 1 the same example is proposed. — Above, after quamvis ("although") the editions supply peccata ("sins").
15
Cap. 4. n. 9. sententialiter; verba ipsa potius habet III. de Lib. Arb. c. 18. n. 52. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 949, nota. De hoc secundo modo vide II. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XXXVI. et Comment. dub. 4. Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 15. m. 3.
[On the Perfection of the Justice of Man] c. 4, n. 9, according to the sense; the very words it has rather in On Free Will III, c. 18, n. 52. Cf. vol. II, p. 949, note. On this second way see II Sentences, the text of the Master, d. XXXVI, and the Commentary, dub. 4. Cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV, q. 15, m. 3.