Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 8, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 8

Textus Latinus

p. 193

Quaestio II. De forma verbi supra vinum.

Secundo quaeritur de forma verbi super vinum, et haec habetur in canone¹: « Hic est calix sanguinis mei » etc. Sed videtur, haec non esse forma:

1. Propter hoc quod Magister² dicit, quod haec est forma: « Hic est sanguis meus »: cum ergo non sint duae, patet etc.

2. Item, in nullo Evangelistarum habetur haec forma, quia in Matthaeo³ et Marco dicitur: Hic est sanguis meus; in Luca: Hic est calix in meo sanguine: si igitur non debet credi alicui, quod non sit in novo vel veteri testamento, sed novo et veteri simpliciter est credendum: ergo ista forma est abiicienda, et forma, quae in Evangelio traditur, est tenenda.

Item, quaero de huius formae congruentia.

3. Et cum in forma non debeat poni, nisi quod spectat ad essentiam Sacramenti; et calix non sit nec de materia nec de forma, sed vas continens: ergo non debet in forma poni.

4. Si dicas, quod tenetur transsumtive, quaero: ad quid? Si ad passionem, ergo sensus est: haec est passio sanguinis; si ad potum, ergo sensus est: hic est potus; sed sicut sanguis est potus, sic corpus est cibus: ergo si in forma panis non dicitur hic est cibus corporis, nec in forma vini debet dici: hic est potus sanguinis.

5. Item, ubi est sermo translatus, est improprietas, et ubi est improprietas, est occasio erroris; et omnis talis excludenda est⁴; ergo etc.

6. Item, ubi transsumtio, ibi plures intellectus, scilicet proprius et transsumtus; sed multiplicitas intellectuum est ratio evagandi, quod specialiter debet esse alienum a dispensante et conficiente hoc Sacramentum: ergo etc.

7. Obiicitur autem ultra de hoc quod est sanguinis: si enim hoc est principale in Sacramento, videtur, quod debeat exprimi in recto potius quam in obliquo.

8. Item, si calix stat ibi pro contento, et contentum non differt a sanguine, et obliqui sunt transitivi⁵: non ergo debet poni in obliquo.

9. Quaeritur etiam ultra de hoc quod dicit: novi et aeterni testamenti: quia, si testamentum novum, non ergo aeternum: ergo male coniungitur unum cum altero.

10. Item, videtur, quod non deberet poni: Mysterium fidei, quia in aliis Sacramentis est mysterium fidei⁶; et tamen non ponitur: ergo nec in isto.

11. Item, additur: Qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur⁷; quare similiter non dicitur de corpore tradetur?

12. Item, quare distinguit? Cum enim aequaliter pro omnibus sit effusus, videtur, quod non deberet dicere: pro vobis et pro multis, sed pro omnibus.

### Conclusio. Forma, qua consecratur calix, videlicet: hic est calix sanguinis mei, est certa, congrua, et ut videtur, tota.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod haec forma: « Hic est calix sanguinis mei », est forma certa⁸, forma p. 194 congrua; sed utrum sit tota, an quod sequitur sit de integritate, dubium est; creditur tamen, quod est tota. Tamen quod sequitur non est frustra additum, nec debet aliquid resecari.

Quod autem ista sit forma certa, patet per hoc, quod ipsam tenet Romana Ecclesia, quae fuit ab Apostolorum principibus edocta. Unde Innocentius⁹: « Romana Ecclesia illud semper integra fide servavit, quod ab ipsis Apostolis, qui eam praesentialiter factis et doctrinis ecclesiasticos ritus docuerunt, accepit; ab ipsis Apostolis Petro et Paulo, quos vivos auctores habuit et defunctos custodit, hunc ritum sacrificii accepit, quem hactenus immobili cultu servavit ». Accipienda est igitur forma a canone, quia illa traditur non per modum narrationis, sed institutionis; Magister autem non intendit dare formam, sicut nec in aliis Sacramentis fecit, sed illi consimilem insinuare. Accipienda est ab ipsis Apostolis, non ab Evangelistis, quia Apostoli Ecclesiam instituerunt, secundum quod a Domino acceperunt; Evangelistae vero divina verba et opera narraverunt, attendentes ad intellectum, non ad vocem. Ideo nec Evangelistae in forma conveniunt, quia formam fortassis tradere non intendunt; sed conveniunt in sensu, quem narrare volebant. Et sic patet, quod haec est forma.

Utrum autem illa quae traditur in Evangeliis, sit forma, in qua conficiatur; quis audeat negare, aut quis praesumat asserere, cum nesciamus, an ipsi intenderint formam describere, an verba narrare? Quod si intenderunt formam dare, forma in illis verbis omnibus salvatur, et modica variatio verbi salvo sensu, formam non mutat: et ita ex hoc non habetur, quod ista quae habetur in canone, non sit forma, immo vere est forma, cum in sensu cum aliis conveniat. Quod si non intendant, tunc restat, quod ista est forma; ac per hoc haec forma est certa.

Ad 1, 2. Et patet responsio ad obiecta duo prima.

Est etiam congrua, quia in hoc Sacramento significatur sanguis Christi ut effusus in pretium et ut administratus in potum; sanguis autem neutrum dicit de se expresse, sed per coniunctionem cum calice, quia sanguis in calice ut effusus et potandus proponitur. Ideo calix in Scriptura significat aliquando passionem, ut Matthaei vigesimo^1b: Potestis p. 195 bibere calicem, quem etc. Significat et potus refectionem per transsumtionem, ut in Psalmo: Calix inebrians quam praeclarus est! Propter hunc duplicem tropum melius dicitur calix sanguinis quam sanguis per se. — Si ergo quaeratur: ad quid transsumitur? dico, quod ad contentum. Unde dicitur calix sanguinis, sicut calix vini, cum dicitur: bibe calicem. — Si quaeras: quare non de corpore dicitur cibus corporis? dicendum, quod corpus Christi de se panis^2b est; sed sanguis non dicitur potus, nisi prout propinatur in calice passionis.

Ad 5, 6. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de transsumtione, quod est occasio erroris et evagationis; dicendum, quod hoc verum est, ubi est transsumtio occulta, impropria et inconsueta; sed sic non est hic.

Ad 7, 8. Ad illud quod ultra quaeritur: quare sanguis ponitur in obliquo? dicendum, quod in recto intelligitur, nec obliquus et rectus construuntur transitive ut diversa, sed identitas est, sicut cum dicitur potus vini, vel creatura salis^3b. Et sic patet, quod est forma congrua.

Est etiam tota et perfecta; sufficiens enim est ad significandum transsubstantiationem vini in sanguinem Christi. Unde quod additur est de bene esse, quia in sequentibus describuntur effectus sanguinis in hoc Sacramento significati et in passione effusi, qui triplex est. — Unus est testamenti innovatio et innovati confirmatio, quia in morte confirmatur testamentum et novum efficitur; quia vetus, quod in sanguine taurorum fuerat confirmatum, ibi est evacuatum^4b.

Ad 9. Ideo dicit: Novi et aeterni testamenti.

Alius effectus effusionis sanguinis est fidei manifestatio, quia quod erat sigillatum et secretum in passione Agni est apertum^5b.

Ad 10. Ideo dicit: Mysterium fidei, id est secretum; hoc enim erat in fide secretissimum, et hoc revelato, revelata est fides; vel quia difficilius ad credendum.

Tertius effectus est salus quorundam Iudaeorum et multorum gentilium.

Ad 11, 12. Ideo dicit: Qui pro vobis, per Apostolos intelligens iudaeos; et pro multis, per hoc intelligens gentiles. — Vel ideo dicit, quia in hoc Sacramento sacerdotes debent pro se specialiter et pro aliis rogare; ideo dicit: pro vobis sacerdotibus, et pro multis subditis, per vos convertendis¹.

Posset hic quaeri de harum formarum variatione quantum ad additionem, diminutionem et cetera consimilia; et de hoc sentiendum est, quod dictum est circa formam baptismi. Hic enim sunt diversae opiniones; nam quidam dicunt, quod qualiscumque variatio, salvo sensu, non tollit efficaciam formae; alii vero dicunt, quod minima mutatio tollit, quia his verbis sic ordinatis data est virtus. — Sed sicut tactum fuit supra distinctione tertia², melius est viam mediam tenere; unde quae ibi dicta sunt hic etiam supponenda sunt³.

Scholion

p. 193

III. In 2. quaestione agitur de forma consecrationis calicis. Sententiam, quam S. Bonav., Alex. Hal., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., Scot., Henr. Gand. tanquam probabiliorem tenent, quod speculative loquendo, sola verba: hic est calix sanguinis mei (vel sanguis meus), sint forma essentialis, nunc fere communiter tenetur. Attamen S. Thom. (hic q. 2. a. 2; S. loc. cit. 3; ut eius verba exprimere videntur et antiqui eius discipuli eum interpretati sunt) putavit, etiam verba, quae in Missali sequuntur usque ad: Haec quotiescumque (exceptis, ut nonnulli volunt, verbis: mysterium fidei), « ad substantiam » et essentiam formae pertinere. Duce vero Caietano, plures recentiores Thomistae, inter quos est Gotti, aliam sui magistri interpretationem, quae convenit cum communi opinione, tentaverunt, distinguentes inter esse de essentia et esse de substantia (scilicet integritate); quae explicatio quomodo applicari possit verbis in Comment. cit. prolatis, aliis discutiendum relinquimus. De hac 2. quaestione praeter S. Thomam: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 4. — Scot., hic q. 2. n. 6. seqq. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 2. — Henr. Gand., Quodl. 9. q. 10. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 6.

---

English Translation

Question II. On the form of the word over the wine.

Secondly it is asked about the form of the word over the wine, and this is had in the canon¹: « This is the chalice of my blood » etc. But it seems that this is not the form:

1. On account of the fact that the Master² says that the form is: « This is my blood »: since therefore there are not two, the matter is plain, etc.

2. Likewise, in none of the Evangelists is this form found, since in Matthew³ and Mark it is said: This is my blood; in Luke: This is the chalice in my blood: if therefore one ought not to give credence to anything which is not in the New or Old Testament, but credence is to be given simply to the New and the Old: therefore that form is to be rejected, and the form which is handed down in the Gospel is to be held.

Likewise, I inquire about the fittingness of this form.

3. And since nothing ought to be placed in the form except what pertains to the essence of the Sacrament; and the chalice is neither of the matter nor of the form, but the containing vessel: therefore it ought not to be placed in the form.

4. If you say that it is taken transumptively, I ask: for what? If for the passion, then the sense is: this is the passion of the blood; if for the drink, then the sense is: this is the drink; but just as blood is drink, so the body is food: therefore if in the form of the bread it is not said this is the food of the body, neither in the form of the wine ought it to be said: this is the drink of the blood.

5. Likewise, where the speech is transferred, there is impropriety, and where there is impropriety, there is an occasion of error; and every such thing is to be excluded⁴; therefore etc.

6. Likewise, where there is transumption, there are several meanings, namely the proper and the transumed; but the multiplicity of meanings is a cause of wandering, which ought especially to be foreign to the one dispensing and confecting this Sacrament: therefore etc.

7. But it is further objected concerning the word "of the blood": for if this is the principal thing in the Sacrament, it seems that it ought to be expressed in the nominative rather than in the oblique case.

8. Likewise, if "chalice" stands there for the thing contained, and the thing contained does not differ from the blood, and oblique cases are transitive⁵: therefore it ought not to be placed in the oblique case.

9. It is further asked about what it says: of the new and eternal testament: because, if the testament is new, then it is not eternal: therefore the one is badly joined with the other.

10. Likewise, it seems that it ought not to be placed: Mystery of faith, since in the other Sacraments there is a mystery of faith⁶; and yet it is not placed there: therefore neither in this one.

11. Likewise, it is added: Which shall be poured out for you and for many⁷; why is it not likewise said of the body, shall be handed over?

12. Likewise, why does it distinguish? For since it was poured out equally for all, it seems that it ought not to say: for you and for many, but for all.

### Conclusion. The form by which the chalice is consecrated, namely: this is the chalice of my blood, is certain, fitting, and, as it seems, complete.

I respond: It must be said that this form: « This is the chalice of my blood », is a certain form⁸, a p. 194 fitting form; but whether it is complete, or whether what follows belongs to its integrity, is doubtful; yet it is believed that it is complete. Nevertheless what follows is not added in vain, nor ought anything to be cut away.

That this is a certain form is plain from this, that the Roman Church holds it, the Church which was instructed by the chief of the Apostles. Hence Innocent⁹: « The Roman Church has always preserved with whole faith that which it received from the very Apostles, who taught it the ecclesiastical rites by deeds and doctrines while present; from the very Apostles Peter and Paul, whom it had as living authors and guards as deceased, it received this rite of sacrifice, which until now it has preserved with unmoved observance ». The form is therefore to be taken from the canon, since it is handed down not by way of narration, but of institution; the Master, however, does not intend to give the form, just as he did not in the other Sacraments, but to convey something like it. It is to be taken from the very Apostles, not from the Evangelists, because the Apostles instituted the Church, according to what they received from the Lord; the Evangelists, however, narrated the divine words and works, attending to the meaning, not to the wording. Therefore neither do the Evangelists agree in the form, because perhaps they do not intend to hand down the form; but they agree in the sense which they meant to narrate. And so it is plain that this is the form.

But whether that which is handed down in the Gospels is the form in which it is confected — who would dare to deny, or who would presume to assert, since we do not know whether they themselves intended to describe the form, or to narrate the words? But if they intended to give the form, the form is preserved in all those words, and a slight variation of the word, the sense being safe, does not change the form: and thus from this it does not follow that the one which is had in the canon is not the form; rather it is truly the form, since it agrees in sense with the others. But if they did not so intend, then it remains that this is the form; and through this this form is certain.

To the first and second. And the response to the first two objections is plain.

It is also fitting, because in this Sacrament the blood of Christ is signified as poured out as a price and as administered as a drink; but the blood expresses neither of these of itself expressly, but through the conjunction with the chalice, since the blood is set forth in the chalice as poured out and as to be drunk. Therefore the chalice in Scripture sometimes signifies the passion, as in Matthew chapter twenty^1b: Can you p. 195 drink the chalice which etc. It also signifies the refreshment of drink by transumption, as in the Psalm: How excellent is the chalice that inebriates! On account of this twofold trope it is better said chalice of blood than blood by itself. — If therefore it be asked: to what is it transumed? I say, to the thing contained. Hence it is called chalice of blood, just as chalice of wine, when it is said: drink the chalice. — If you ask: why is it not said of the body food of the body? it must be said that the body of Christ is of itself bread^2b; but the blood is not called drink, except insofar as it is offered to drink in the chalice of the passion.

To the fifth and sixth. To that, then, which is objected concerning transumption, that it is an occasion of error and wandering; it must be said that this is true where there is a hidden, improper, and unaccustomed transumption; but it is not so here.

To the seventh and eighth. To that which is further asked: why is "blood" placed in the oblique case? it must be said that it is understood in the nominative, nor are the oblique and the nominative construed transitively as diverse things, but there is identity, just as when one says drink of wine, or creature of salt^3b. And so it is plain that it is a fitting form.

It is also complete and perfect; for it is sufficient to signify the transubstantiation of the wine into the blood of Christ. Hence what is added is for well-being, because in what follows are described the effects of the blood signified in this Sacrament and poured out in the passion, which are threefold. — One is the renewal of the testament and the confirmation of the renewed, since in death the testament is confirmed and made new; for the old, which had been confirmed in the blood of bulls, is there made void^4b.

To the ninth. Therefore it says: Of the new and eternal testament.

Another effect of the pouring out of the blood is the manifestation of faith, because what was sealed and secret in the passion of the Lamb is opened^5b.

To the tenth. Therefore it says: Mystery of faith, that is, secret; for this was most secret in faith, and this being revealed, faith was revealed; or because it is more difficult to believe.

The third effect is the salvation of certain Jews and of many gentiles.

To the eleventh and twelfth. Therefore it says: Which for you, understanding by the Apostles the Jews; and for many, understanding by this the gentiles. — Or it says it because in this Sacrament the priests ought to pray specially for themselves and for others; therefore it says: for you the priests, and for many the subjects, to be converted through you¹.

It could here be asked about the variation of these forms as to addition, diminution, and the like; and concerning this it is to be held what was said about the form of baptism. For here there are diverse opinions; for some say that any variation whatsoever, the sense being safe, does not take away the efficacy of the form; others, however, say that the least change takes it away, because to these words so ordered the power has been given. — But just as was touched upon above in the third distinction², it is better to hold the middle way; whence what was said there is to be supposed here also³.

Scholion

p. 193

III. In the second question the form of the consecration of the chalice is treated. The opinion which St. Bonaventure, Alexander of Hales, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Middleton, Scotus, and Henry of Ghent hold as more probable — that, speculatively speaking, the words alone: this is the chalice of my blood (or my blood) are the essential form — is now held almost universally. Nevertheless St. Thomas (here q. 2, a. 2; S. loc. cit. 3; as his words seem to express and his ancient disciples interpreted him) thought that even the words which follow in the Missal up to: As often as you do these things (excepting, as some hold, the words: mystery of faith) pertain « to the substance » and essence of the form. But under the lead of Cajetan, several more recent Thomists, among whom is Gotti, attempted another interpretation of their master, which agrees with the common opinion, distinguishing between being of the essence and being of the substance (that is, integrity); how this explanation can be applied to the words set forth in the cited Commentary, we leave to others to discuss. On this second question, besides St. Thomas: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 4. — Scotus, here q. 2, n. 6 ff. — Blessed Albert, here a. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit. q. 2. — Henry of Ghent, Quodl. 9, q. 10. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 6.

---

Apparatus Criticus

1
Missalis Romani.
Of the Roman Missal.
2
Hic in lit. c. 1.
Here in the text [of the Master], c. 1.
3
Cap. 26, 28: Hic est enim sanguis meus. — Marc. 14, 24. — Luc. 22, 20: Hic est calix novum testamentum in sanguine meo.
Chapter 26, 28: For this is my blood. — Mark 14, 24. — Luke 22, 20: This chalice is the new testament in my blood.
4
Cfr. Aristot., VI. Topic. c. 2.
Cf. Aristotle, Topics VI, c. 2.
5
Vide Priscian., V. Grammat. c. 13. et XVIII. c. 1.
See Priscian, Grammar V, c. 13, and XVIII, c. 1.
6
Cfr. supra d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 3.
Cf. above, d. 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 3.
7
Multi codd. et ed. 1 tradetur.
Many codices and ed. 1 [read] tradetur ["shall be handed over"].
8
Ita cod. L, cuius lectio cum subnexis, ubi etiam alii codd. exhibent forma certa [edd. forma recta], congruit; alii codd. et ed. 1 recta, Vat. hic et in fine corp. recta et certa.
So codex L, whose reading agrees with what follows, where also other codices exhibit forma certa ["a certain form"; the editions, forma recta, "a correct form"]; other codices and ed. 1 [read] recta; the Vatican edition, here and at the end of the body, recta et certa ["correct and certain"].
9
Libr. IV. de Sacro altaris Mysterio, c. 5: Romanam autem Ecclesiam... nulla prorsus haereticae pravitatis procella potuit conquassare. Sed illud semper integra fide servavit, quod ab ipsis accepit Apostolis, qui praesentialiter eam sacris vel instituere doctrinis et ecclesiastici ritus regulam docuere. Ab ipsis ergo beatis Apostolis Petro et Paulo, quos et vivos habuit et defunctos custodit, hunc sacrificii ritum accepit, quem hactenus inviolabili cultu servavit. — In nonnullis codd. inveniuntur lectiones, quae cum textu originali magis conveniunt, ipsum tamen integrum non exhibent, ideoque vel incongruae vel minus congruae sunt; sic pro factis cod. F substituit sacris, cod. A sacris et, cod. M factis et sacris; post doctrinis plures codd. subiungunt et.
Book IV, On the Holy Mystery of the Altar, c. 5: But the Roman Church... no storm whatsoever of heretical depravity could shatter. But it has always preserved with whole faith that which it received from the very Apostles, who while present taught it both to be established by sacred doctrines and the rule of ecclesiastical rite. From those blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, then, whom it both had alive and guards as deceased, it received this rite of sacrifice, which until now it has preserved with inviolable observance. — In some codices are found readings which agree better with the original text, yet do not present it whole, and are therefore either incongruous or less congruous; thus for factis codex F substitutes sacris, codex A sacris et, codex M factis et sacris; after doctrinis several codices add et.
1b
Vers. 22. — Seq. textus est Ps. 22, 5.
Verse 22. — The following text is Ps. 22, 5.
2b
Vat. cibus.
The Vatican edition [reads] cibus ["food"].
3b
Pro sic, quod plurimi codd. omittunt, codd. II L hoc. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 3. p. II. dub. 3. — Pro ut diversa cod. W ut sit diversitas.
For sic, which very many codices omit, codices II L [read] hoc. Cf. I Sent., d. 3, p. II, dub. 3. — For ut diversa codex W [reads] ut sit diversitas ["that there be diversity"].
4b
Vide Hebr. 9, 15. seqq. et Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro altaris Mysterio, c. 28.
See Hebrews 9, 15 ff. and Innocent III, On the Holy Mystery of the Altar IV, c. 28.
5b
Cfr. Apoc. 5, 6. seqq., et III. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 1. seqq.
Cf. Apoc. 5, 6 ff., and III Sent., d. 23, a. 2, q. 1 ff.
1
Paschas. Radbert., de Corp. et sang. Domini, c. 15. n. 3, ubi ostendens, quod Christus dixerit pro vobis et pro multis, ait: « Quia hic sanguis et pro Apostolis et pro multis, qui credituri erant per verbum eorum, effusus est ». Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro altaris Mysterio, c. 41, utitur distinctione, quam etiam Magister (III. Sent. d. XX. c. 5.) exhibet: Pro solis praedestinatis effusus est quantum ad efficientiam; sed pro cunctis hominibus est effusus quantum ad sufficientiam. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 19. a. 1. q. 2. ad 4. et q. 3. in corp.
Paschasius Radbertus, On the Body and Blood of the Lord, c. 15, n. 3, where, showing that Christ said for you and for many, he states: « Because this blood was poured out both for the Apostles and for the many who were going to believe through their word ». Innocent III, On the Holy Mystery of the Altar IV, c. 41, uses the distinction which the Master also presents (III Sent., d. XX, c. 5): It was poured out for the predestined alone as to efficacy; but it was poured out for all men as to sufficiency. Cf. III Sent., d. 19, a. 1, q. 2, ad 4, and q. 3 in the body.
2
Partis a. 2. q. 3. Vide etiam Innocent. III, loc. cit. c. 18.
[Of this] Part, a. 2, q. 3. See also Innocent III, loc. cit. c. 18.
3
Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
See the scholion to the preceding question. ---