Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

← Back to Distinction 13

Dist. 13, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 13

Textus Latinus

p. 302

Tractatio Quaestionum.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de potestate conficientis.

Secundo quaeritur de sumente.

Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor.

Primo quaeritur, utrum omnis sacerdos possit conficere.

Secundo, utrum soli sacerdotes.

Tertio quaeritur, in quo resideat maior potestas ad consecrandum, in sacerdote, an in verbo.

Quarto quaeritur, utrum melior sit Missa boni sacerdotis quam mali.

Articulus I. De potestate conficientis.

Quaestio I. Utrum omnis sacerdos possit conficere.

Circa primum sic proceditur.

1. Augustinus, in libro Sententiarum Prosperi: «Non est locus veri sacrificii extra catholicam Ecclesiam»; sed haereticus est extra catholicam Ecclesiam: ergo in eo non est verum sacrificium, et sic etc.

2. Item, Hieronymus²: «Panem pollutum comedunt haeretici»; sed panis iste non potest pollui: ergo non comedunt hunc panem.

3. Item, idem Hieronymus³: «Odit Deus sacrificia haereticorum, detestatur foetorem»: ergo non mittit nec se nec Angelos, nec ipsi per consequens mittunt in caelum: ergo non conficiunt nec Missam dicunt et falso dicunt: Ite, Missa est.

4. Item, Cyprianus⁴: «Haereticorum Sacramenta sacrilegia sunt»; sed iste panis sanctus est: ergo etc.

5. Item, ex Concilio Laodicensi⁵: «Non oportet haereticorum benedictiones accipere; sunt enim magis maledictiones».

6. Item, ratione videtur: quia hoc Sacramentum est Sacramentum unionis: ergo qui separati sunt ab Ecclesia omnino alieni sunt ab hoc Sacramento; et si hoc, non possunt conficere⁷.

7. Item, qui separati et haeretici sunt, quamvis habeant ordinem, non possunt solvere et ligare; et si solvunt, nihil faciunt⁸: ergo eadem ratione nec conficere.

8. Item, «privilegium meretur amittere qui concessa sibi abutitur potestate»⁹; sed haereticus et schismaticus abutuntur potestate conficiendi; ergo sicut Deus dedit potestatem, ita et debet auferre.

9. Item, potestatis superioris est compescere inferiorem, si ordinatae sunt potestates: ergo si Papa, vel episcopus vetat sacerdoti, ne conficiat, amplius non potest conficere. Si dicas, quod non potest de iure, potest tamen de facto; contra: hoc solum potest homo apud Deum, quod de iure potest; sed potestas conficiendi est potestas quantum ad Deum: ergo si non potest de iure, nullo modo potest.

Contra: 1. Augustinus ad Parmenianum¹⁰, loquens de haereticis et schismaticis: «Sicut in eis

p. 303

mansit baptismus, sic et ordinatio integra; in praecisione fuerat vitium, quod in unitate pacis est correctum, non in Sacramentis, quae ubicumque sunt, ipsa vera sunt»^1b.

2. Item, Causa prima, quaestione prima^2b: «Sacramenta in modum lucis ab immundis coinquinari non possunt».

3. Item, sacerdos conficit, aut quia bonus, aut quia sacerdos. Si quia bonus; sed non est certus de bonitate: ergo nec certus est, utrum conficiat. Si quia sacerdos; cum propter haeresim non desinat esse sacerdos, patet etc.^3b

4. Item, ad Sacramentum ex parte dispensantis non plus requiritur quam «ordo et intentio et actio»^4b; sed haec omnia sunt in praeciso: ergo etc. Si dicas, quod requiritur bonitas: tunc salus nostra in manu alterius est posita^5b.

Conclusio. In omni sacerdote rite procedente salvatur veritas Sacramenti, non autem eius utilitas conficienti malo, vel excommunicato.

Respondeo: Aliqui voluerunt distinguere, ex quibus videtur fuisse Magister^6b, quod sacerdotes mali quidam occulte sunt mali et de Ecclesia, saltem numero et quoad exteriorem faciem; et tales possunt. Alii vero sunt manifeste mali et ab Ecclesia praecisi; et tales non possunt. — Sed haec positio videtur consonare positioni Cypriani, qui posuit, quod haeretici non habeant vera Sacramenta; quod satis improbat Augustinus^7b.

Propter hoc dicendum aliter, quod in Sacramento duo attenduntur, scilicet Sacramenti veritas, quae consistit quantum ad rem primam^8b, et Sacramenti utilitas, quae consistit quantum ad rem ultimam, quae est incorporatio vel unio quantum ad corpus mysticum. Si de veritate Sacramenti loquamur, veritas salvatur, ubi est ex parte ministri ordo et intentio et verbi prolatio, cum adest debitum elementum. — Si autem loquamur quantum ad utilitatem, dicendum, quod sacerdos bonus conficit ad utilitatem suam et assistentium; malus occultus ad damnum suum, nihilominus tamen ad utilitatem assistentium, qui cum fide et devotione Missam audiunt; sed praecisus et haereticus ad damnationem suam et omnium assistentium^9b. — Quia ergo in praecisis et haereticis manifestis privatur Sacramentum omni fructu, quamvis sit ibi corpus Christi verum; ideo loquuntur sacri canones et auctoritates Sanctorum, ipsorum sacrificia detestantes, non ratione operis operati, sed damni.

1–5. Et sic solvuntur auctoritates, et sic credendum est intellexisse Magistrum^10b.

6. Ad illud autem quod obiicitur, quod non possunt praecisi, quia est Sacramentum unionis; dicendum, quod Sacramentum unionis est ratione efficientiae^11b, et praecisi sine efficacia et fructu conficiunt.

7. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non possunt solvere; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia potestas solvendi est potestas ad alterum ordinata, quae non tantum consistit in ordine, sed in iurisdictione, quam non habet haereticus^12b.

8. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod privilegium debet amittere; dicendum, quod dignus est de se, sed tamen Dei largitas non subtrahit quod imprimit ut perpetuum; et quia talis est character sacerdotalis, ideo manet ad divinae largitatis gloriam et malorum perpetuam damnationem et ignominiam, et per consequens ad manifestandam Dei iustitiam.

9. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod superior potestas potest cohibere inferiorem; dicendum, quod secundum illud potest cohibere, secundum quod superior; sed non est superior quantum ad potestatem conficiendi — omnes enim sacerdotes aequaliter possunt conficere — sed quantum ad ordinatam debitam et ordinatam exsecutionem est superior, et quantum ad hanc bene cohibet. Unde si praecisus vel excommunicatus conficiat, facit quidem hoc, ad quod habet potentiam, sed tamen non facit debite et ordinate, immo ad damnationem suam.

Scholion

I. Opinio, cui favet Magister (hic c. 1.), quod sacerdotes excommunicati non possint valide eucharistiam consecrare, est prorsus erronea et obsoleta; quam etiam nonnulli antiqui doctores, ut Geroch Reichersbergensis († 1169, de quo vide Dr. Bach, Dogmengeschichte des Mittelalters, I. pag. 435 seqq.), Petrus Cellensis et Petrus Pictaviensis, discipulus Magistri, tenuerunt. In eundem scopulum impegit Hugo a S. Vict., qui in Quaestion. in Epist. S. Pauli (q. 102.) ait: «Qui autem excommunicati sunt non videntur hoc [consecrare] posse». Idem in opere ipsi a plerisque tributo Sum. Sentent. (tr. 6. c. 9.) eandem opinionem praefert, quod scilicet, «cum alia Sacramenta extra Ecclesiam possint fieri; haec nunquam extra». Hic error eliditur duplici principio: primo scilicet, quod «Christus non deserit Sacramentum, etiam si habuerit malum instrumentum»; altero vero, quod potestas ordinis, distincta a potestate iurisdictionis, fundatur in sacerdotali charactere prorsus indelebili. Cfr. supra d. 5. a. 1, ubi in scholio citantur decreta Ecclesiae, quae generaliter de ministris Sacramentorum loquuntur, praesertim Concilii Trident. (Sess. VII. de Sacram. in genere can. 12, et de baptism. c. 4; item Sess. XIV. can. 10.). — Ultima propositio responsionis respicit sacerdotem excommunicatum et vitandum et leges disciplinares ea aetate vigentes; cfr. S. Thom., S. loc. infra cit. a. 9. — De hac 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 5. a. 1. § 4. 5. 6. — Scot., de hac et seqq. qq. hic in utroque Scripto q. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3. 4: S. III. q. 82. a. 7. 8. — B. Albert., hic a. 29. 30. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica a. 2. 3. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — De hac et seqq. qq. Durand., hic q. 2; Dionys. Carth. hic q. 1.

II. Quoad seq. (2.) quaestionem cfr. definitio Concilii Trident. (Sess. XXII. c. 1, can. 2, et Sess. XXIII. can. 1.) nec non Lateranensis IV. c. 1. — De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 2. 3. — S. Thom., hic loc. cit. quaestiunc. 1; S. loc. cit. a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2.

III. In 3. quaestione solvenda S. Doctor repetit cum summa moderatione eadem principia, quae posuit supra d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 3, et quae saepius explicavit, praesertim supra d. 1. p. I. q. 3. 4, et III. Sent. d. 40. dub. 3. — De hac quaestione non invenimus explicite tractantes nisi Alexandrum Hal., loc. cit. q. 10. m. 4. a. 2. § 6. (quaestio: de comparatione ad ordinem sacrum).

IV. Quoad 4. quaestionem Innocentius III. in professione fidei praescripta Waldensibus docet: «In quo [sacrificio] nihil a bono maius, vel a malo minus perfici credimus sacerdote, quia non in merito consecrantis, sed in verbo efficitur Creatoris et in virtute Spiritus S.»; cfr. Magister, hic c. 1, supra d. 5. a. 2. q. 1; Breviloq. p. VI. c. — Distinctio inter opus operatum et opus operantis est ab omnibus recepta. — De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal. rem tangit loc. cit. m. 3. a. 1. § 4. 5. 6. — Scot., loc. cit., et Quodl. 20. praesertim n. 20. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 5; S. III. q. 82. a. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 31. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. ad 5.

---

English Translation

Treatment of the Questions.

For the understanding of this part, two things are principally asked.

First, there is asked concerning the power of the one who confects.

Second, there is asked concerning the one who receives.

Concerning the first, four things are asked.

First, it is asked whether every priest can confect.

Second, whether priests alone [can].

Third, it is asked in what the greater power for consecrating resides, in the priest or in the word.

Fourth, it is asked whether the Mass of a good priest is better than that of a bad one.

Article I. On the power of the one who confects.

Question I. Whether every priest can confect [the Eucharist].

Concerning the first [point], one proceeds thus.

1. Augustine, in the book of the Sentences of Prosper: «There is no place of true sacrifice outside the Catholic Church»; but a heretic is outside the Catholic Church: therefore in him there is no true sacrifice, and so on.

2. Likewise, Jerome²: «Heretics eat polluted bread»; but this bread cannot be polluted: therefore they do not eat this bread.

3. Likewise, the same Jerome³: «God hates the sacrifices of heretics, he detests the stench»: therefore he sends neither himself nor the Angels, nor consequently do they themselves send [anything] into heaven: therefore they do not confect, nor do they say Mass, and they say falsely: Go, the Mass is [ended].

4. Likewise, Cyprian⁴: «The Sacraments of heretics are sacrileges»; but this bread is holy: therefore, etc.

5. Likewise, from the Council of Laodicea⁵: «One ought not to receive the blessings of heretics; for they are rather maledictions».

6. Likewise, it seems by reason: because this Sacrament is the Sacrament of union: therefore those who are separated from the Church are altogether alien from this Sacrament; and if this be so, they cannot confect⁷.

7. Likewise, those who are separated and heretics, although they have order, cannot loose and bind; and if they loose, they do nothing⁸: therefore by the same reasoning neither [can they] confect.

8. Likewise, «he deserves to lose the privilege who abuses the power granted to him»⁹; but the heretic and schismatic abuse the power of confecting; therefore, just as God gave the power, so too he ought to take it away.

9. Likewise, it belongs to a superior power to restrain an inferior one, if the powers are ordered [to one another]: therefore if the Pope, or a bishop, forbids a priest to confect, he can no longer confect. If you say that he cannot by right, yet he can in fact; on the contrary: a man can do before God only that which he can by right; but the power of confecting is a power with respect to God: therefore if he cannot by right, in no way can he.

On the contrary: 1. Augustine to Parmenianus¹⁰, speaking of heretics and schismatics: «Just as in them

p. 303

baptism remained, so also ordination [remained] intact; in the separation there was a fault, which is corrected in the peace of unity, not in the Sacraments, which, wherever they are, are themselves true»^1b.

2. Likewise, Cause one, question one^2b: «The Sacraments, after the manner of light, cannot be defiled by the unclean».

3. Likewise, a priest confects either because he is good or because he is a priest. If because he is good; but one is not certain of [his] goodness: therefore neither is one certain whether he confects. If because he is a priest; since on account of heresy he does not cease to be a priest, it is clear, etc.^3b

4. Likewise, for the Sacrament, on the part of the one dispensing it, no more is required than «order and intention and action»^4b; but all these are present in the one cut off: therefore, etc. If you say that goodness is required: then our salvation is placed in the hand of another^5b.

Conclusion. In every priest proceeding duly the truth of the Sacrament is preserved, but not its usefulness for the one confecting if he be bad or excommunicate.

I respond: Certain men wished to distinguish — among whom the Master seems to have been^6b — that some bad priests are bad secretly and [yet] are of the Church, at least by number and as to outward appearance; and these can [confect]. But others are manifestly bad and cut off from the Church; and these cannot. — But this position seems to accord with the position of Cyprian, who held that heretics do not have true Sacraments; which Augustine sufficiently disproves^7b.

On account of this it must be said otherwise, that in the Sacrament two things are to be considered, namely the truth of the Sacrament, which consists with respect to the first thing^8b, and the usefulness of the Sacrament, which consists with respect to the ultimate thing, which is incorporation or union with respect to the mystical body. If we speak of the truth of the Sacrament, the truth is preserved where, on the part of the minister, there is order and intention and the utterance of the word, when the due element is present. — But if we speak with respect to usefulness, it must be said that a good priest confects unto the usefulness of himself and of those assisting; a secretly bad one unto his own harm, yet nonetheless unto the usefulness of those assisting who hear the Mass with faith and devotion; but a cut-off and heretical one unto the damnation of himself and of all those assisting^9b. — Since therefore in the manifestly cut-off and heretical the Sacrament is deprived of all fruit, although the true body of Christ be there; therefore the sacred canons and the authorities of the Saints speak, detesting their sacrifices, not by reason of the work worked, but of the harm.

1–5. And thus the authorities are resolved, and thus it is to be believed that the Master understood [it]^10b.

6. To that which is objected, that the cut-off cannot [confect], because it is the Sacrament of union; it must be said that it is the Sacrament of union by reason of [its] efficacy^11b, and the cut-off confect without efficacy and fruit.

7. To that which is objected, that they cannot loose; it must be said that it is not similar: because the power of loosing is a power ordered to another, which consists not only in order, but in jurisdiction, which the heretic does not have^12b.

8. To that which is objected, that he ought to lose the privilege; it must be said that he is deserving [to lose it] of himself, but nevertheless the bounty of God does not take away what it imprints as perpetual; and because the priestly character is such, therefore it remains unto the glory of the divine bounty and unto the perpetual damnation and ignominy of the bad, and consequently unto the manifesting of God's justice.

9. To that which is objected, that a superior power can restrain an inferior; it must be said that it can restrain according to that respect in which it is superior; but it is not superior with respect to the power of confecting — for all priests can equally confect — but with respect to ordered, due, and orderly execution it is superior, and with respect to this it rightly restrains. Whence if a cut-off or excommunicate person confects, he does indeed do that for which he has the potency, but nevertheless he does not do it duly and in an orderly way, nay rather unto his own damnation.

Scholion

I. The opinion which the Master favors (here c. 1.) — that excommunicated priests cannot validly consecrate the Eucharist — is altogether erroneous and obsolete; an opinion which certain ancient doctors too held, such as Geroch of Reichersberg († 1169, on whom see Dr. Bach, History of Dogma of the Middle Ages, I. p. 435 ff.), Peter of Celle, and Peter of Poitiers, a disciple of the Master. Upon the same rock Hugh of St. Victor struck, who in his Questions on the Epistles of St. Paul (q. 102.) says: «But those who are excommunicated do not seem able to [consecrate] this». The same [author], in the work attributed to him by very many, the Summa Sententiarum (tr. 6. c. 9.), prefers the same opinion, namely that «although the other Sacraments can be performed outside the Church, this one never [can] outside». This error is struck down by a twofold principle: first, namely, that «Christ does not abandon the Sacrament, even if he should have a bad instrument»; second, that the power of order, distinct from the power of jurisdiction, is founded in the wholly indelible priestly character. Cf. above d. 5. a. 1, where in the scholion are cited the decrees of the Church which speak generally of the ministers of the Sacraments, especially of the Council of Trent (Sess. VII. on the Sacraments in general, can. 12, and on baptism c. 4; likewise Sess. XIV. can. 10.). — The last proposition of the response regards the priest excommunicated and to be shunned and the disciplinary laws in force in that age; cf. St. Thomas, S. loc. cited below a. 9. — On this 1st question: Alex. of Hales, S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 5. a. 1. § 4. 5. 6. — Scotus, on this and the following questions here in both Writings, q. 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 1. little-questions 3. 4: S. III. q. 82. a. 7. 8. — Bl. Albert, here a. 29. 30. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. unica a. 2. 3. 4. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 1. — On this and the following questions Durandus, here q. 2; Denis the Carthusian, here q. 1.

II. As to the following (2nd) question, cf. the definition of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII. c. 1, can. 2, and Sess. XXIII. can. 1.), as also of the Fourth Lateran, c. 1. — On the same question: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. § 2. 3. — St. Thomas, here loc. cit. little-question 1; S. loc. cit. a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 2.

III. In resolving the 3rd question the Holy Doctor repeats with the utmost moderation the same principles which he laid down above d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 3, and which he has often explained, especially above d. 1. p. I. q. 3. 4, and III Sent. d. 40. dub. 3. — On this question we do not find [anyone] treating it explicitly except Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. q. 10. m. 4. a. 2. § 6. (the question: on relation to sacred order).

IV. As to the 4th question, Innocent III, in the profession of faith prescribed for the Waldensians, teaches: «In which [sacrifice] we believe that nothing more is accomplished by a good priest, or less by a bad one, since it is effected not by the merit of the one consecrating, but by the word of the Creator and in the power of the Holy Spirit»; cf. the Master, here c. 1, above d. 5. a. 2. q. 1; Breviloquium p. VI. c. — The distinction between opus operatum and opus operantis is received by all. — On the same question: Alex. of Hales touches the matter loc. cit. m. 3. a. 1. § 4. 5. 6. — Scotus, loc. cit., and Quodl. 20. especially n. 20. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 1. little-question 5; S. III. q. 82. a. 6. — Bl. Albert, here a. 31. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 3. little-question 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 1. ad 5.

---

Apparatus Criticus

2
Num. 15. Cfr. C. Extra catholicam (71.), C. 1. q. 1.
Num. 15. Cf. the chapter Extra catholicam (71.), C. 1. q. 1.
3
Comment. in Osee, 9, 3: Et in Assyriis pollutum comedit. Et in Aggaeum, 2, 11. seqq., ubi ait in fine: Quamvis enim sancta videantur specie sui quae offeruntur a talibus, tamen, quia tacta sunt ab eo qui pollutus in anima est, omnia polluentur. Vide C. Sic populus (61.), C. 1. q. 1. — Comment. in Amos, 5, 22; quod etiam allegatur in C. Odit Deus (62.) C. 1. q. 1.: sacrificia haereticorum et a se proiicit, et quotiescumque sub nomine Domini fuerint congregati, detestatur foetorem eorum etc. — De aliis propos. arg. vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1, et infra dub. 3.
Commentary on Hosea, 9, 3: And among the Assyrians he eats what is polluted. And on Haggai, 2, 11 ff., where he says at the end: For although the things offered by such men seem holy in their own appearance, nevertheless, because they have been touched by one who is polluted in soul, all things will be polluted. See the chapter Sic populus (61.), C. 1. q. 1. — Commentary on Amos, 5, 22; which is also alleged in the chapter Odit Deus (62.) C. 1. q. 1.: He casts away the sacrifices of heretics from himself, and as often as they are gathered under the name of the Lord, he detests their stench, etc. — On the other authorities of the argument see here the text of the Master, c. 1, and below dub. 3.
4
Epist. ad Magnum, n. 1. Cfr. C. Si quis, inquit (70.), § 1. C. 1. q. 1.
Letter to Magnus, n. 1. Cf. the chapter Si quis, inquit (70.), § 1. C. 1. q. 1.
5
Allegatur C. 1. q. 1. C. Non oportet haereticorum (66.) benedictiones accipere, quoniam magis sunt maledictiones quam benedictiones.
Alleged at C. 1. q. 1. the chapter Non oportet haereticorum (66.): One ought not to receive the blessings of heretics, since they are rather maledictions than blessings.
7
Cap. Audivimus, quod (4.), C. 24. q. 1. Gratianus sub § 1. ait: Quicumque ergo ab unitate Ecclesiae, quae per Petrum intelligitur, fuerit alienus, exsecrare potest, consecrare non valet.
The chapter Audivimus, quod (4.), C. 24. q. 1. Gratian under § 1 says: Whoever therefore shall be alien from the unity of the Church, which is understood through Peter, can curse [but] is not able to consecrate.
8
Cfr. infra d. 19. a. 2. q. 2.
Cf. below d. 19. a. 2. q. 2.
9
Cap. Tuarum (11.), X. de Privileg. et excess. privileg. (lib. V. tit. 33.) et ibid. C. Ut privilegia (24.); suntque Innocent. III. — Post Item cod. G addit Gregorius, scil. IX, in suis Decretal., loc. cit.
The chapter Tuarum (11.), X. on Privileges and the abuse of privilege (bk. V. tit. 33.) and ibid. the chapter Ut privilegia (24.); and they are of Innocent III. — After Item codex G adds Gregorius, namely IX, in his Decretals, loc. cit.
10
Sive contra epist. Parmeniani, lib. II. c. 13. n. 28, ubi textus originalis post integra prosequitur: quia in praecisione.
Or Against the Letter of Parmenianus, bk. II. c. 13. n. 28, where the original text after intact continues: because in the separation.
1b
Cap. Remissionem (39.), cui Gratianus haec verba subiungit.
The chapter Remissionem (39.), to which Gratian subjoins these words.
2b
Hug. a S. Vict., Sum. Sent. tr. 6. c. 4.
Hugh of St. Victor, Summa Sententiarum tr. 6. c. 4.
3b
Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1, et supra d. 5. a. 2. q. 1. fundam. 2.
Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1, and above d. 5. a. 2. q. 1. fundamentum 2.
4b
Hic in lit. c. 1.
Here in the text [of the Master], c. 1.
5b
Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. VI. c. 2; et in Decretal. Causa 1. q. 1; Causa 24. q. 1; de Consecrat. d. 4.
See above the text of the Master, d. VI. c. 2; and in the Decretals, Cause 1. q. 1; Cause 24. q. 1; on Consecration d. 4.
6b
Codd. N aa addunt scilicet corpus Christi verum (cfr. supra d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.). Inferius post corpus mysticum iidem codd. N aa subiungunt vel remissio venialium et augmentum virtutum (cfr. supra d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 3.).
Codices N aa add namely the true body of Christ (cf. above d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.). Below, after mystical body, the same codices N aa subjoin or the remission of venial [sins] and the increase of virtues (cf. above d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 3.).
7b
Cod. M scienter assistentium. Cfr. C. Si quis dederit (41.), C. 24. q. 1, et infra q. 1.
Codex M [reads] of those knowingly assisting. Cf. the chapter Si quis dederit (41.), C. 24. q. 1, and below q. 1.
8b
Vide ea quae Gratianus ad C. Quod quidam (97.), C. 1. q. 1. sub § 3. seqq. notat.
See what Gratian notes on the chapter Quod quidam (97.), C. 1. q. 1. under § 3 ff.
9b
Codd. F I K efficaciae, econtra mox pro efficacia codd. G U efficientia. Cfr. supra. lit. Magistri, d. IX. c. 2. seq.
Codices F I K [read] of efficacy, on the contrary shortly after, for efficacy, codices G U [read] efficiency. Cf. above the text of the Master, d. IX. c. 2. f.
10b
Codd. N aa subiungunt: sed conficiendi est potestas absoluta. Vide infra d. 19. a. 2. q. 2.
Codices N aa subjoin: but the power of confecting is absolute. See below d. 19. a. 2. q. 2.
11b
Cfr. supra d. 6. p. I. q. 1. seq.
Cf. above d. 6. p. I. q. 1. f.
12b
Vide Gratian., loc. superius cit. § 3. et C. Miramur, quomodo (37.), § 1. C. 24. q. 1.
See Gratian, loc. cited above § 3 and the chapter Miramur, quomodo (37.), § 1. C. 24. q. 1. ---