Dist. 10, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 5
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/10/q/bon-sent-IV-d10-p1-a1-q5
----------------------------------------
### Question V. *Whether the body of Christ is in every part of the host.*

Fifthly it is asked whether the body of Christ is in every part of the host. And that it is so, seems the case:

1. For so says Hilary, and it is found in *On Consecration*: "Where the part is, there is the whole": therefore, since in every part of the host there is something of Christ to be placed: therefore in every part the whole is to be placed.

2. Likewise, let us mark out one part equally great: it seems impossible that a foot should be there, just as that the whole body should be there: therefore, since it is of greater nobility to contain the whole than a part, and it is no greater impossibility, it seems that this is to be held.

3. Likewise, it is agreed that after the breaking the whole Christ is in the individual parts, into however many the division is made; but by the breaking nothing new is effected there: therefore before the breaking the whole was in every part. If you should say that this is by consequence, as in a mirror; this does not hold, because in a mirror a species is generated in the individual parts from the object; but here there is not anything more twice making the body of Christ come anew, because the words were spoken long before: therefore the whole is *always* there.

4. Likewise, the body of Christ under the Sacrament is exalted to a more excellent mode of being than a spirit — for a spirit is only in one place, but the body of Christ is present to many — therefore if a spirit is in the whole in such a way that it is in every part, much more so the body of Christ.

5. Likewise, in the conversion of the bread the whole is homogeneous, therefore every part has the character of the whole: therefore, since there is no greater reason why this part should be converted into this part rather than that one, by the same reasoning that it is into one, so also into all: therefore if every part into the whole, it is clear, etc.

6. Likewise, this same thing is shown through the *impossible*. Let us mark out some part of the host: either the *whole* is there, or a *part*. If the *whole*, I have what was proposed; if a *part*, then let the host be divided; here either there is a *part* or a *whole*. If a *part*, then Christ is divided; if a *whole* and previously it was not: then this *part* of the host contains more than before: therefore of necessity something has been converted there into parts which was not there before; and further, the place has been changed, because that part has yielded to other parts which begin to be there anew.

7. Likewise, suppose the consecration were done over bread that was of greater quantity than the body of Christ; then either some *part* of the host would be *empty* of the containment of the body of Christ, or the *body* of Christ is there *greater* than it is by nature, or it is in *every part*. But the first is against the perfection of the Sacrament; the second against the perfection of the body of Christ: therefore the third is to be posited.

**On the contrary:** 1. If where the part is, there is the whole: therefore where one part is, there is every part: therefore the part is not distinct from the part: therefore the body of Christ is there confused.

2. Likewise, if the whole is in every part: therefore, since it is possible for the host to be divided to infinity, it seems that the body of Christ will be there infinitely many times.

3. Likewise, it accomplishes just as much if the whole is in the whole as if the whole is in every part: therefore to posit that it is in every part is to posit a superfluity.

4. Likewise, for this Sacrament there concur the word and the element and the intention; but the intention of the minister is that under the total species the whole Christ should be, nor is his intention borne upon the parts, because the parts are innumerable: therefore in them he is not whole.

### Conclusion.

> The body of Christ is in the whole in such a way that it is whole in every part in which the species of the whole is preserved.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is here a twofold position.

For the position of some is that under the total species there is the whole body, in such a way that under no part is the whole before the breaking, but after the breaking the whole is in every part: and this they say comes not from the *power of converting*, because this is not through the conversion, but through an *inseparable union*. For just as where the body is, there is the soul of Christ by reason of the conjunction;

so, since this part of the host contains some part of the body and inseparably; again, since that part cannot be divided from the others — because the body is incorruptible — by reason of the conjunction; whoever separates a part from the host draws the whole with it. — And they offer the example in a mirror: because the image has spiritual *being*, which cannot be divided, and in the other part of the mirror there remains a part of the image, and likewise the whole. They say something similar also of the sensitive soul, which is born to be in a ringed body by reason of a like character in the parts and the whole; whence, when a part is divided from the whole, the whole soul remains in it. So in its own way in the matter at hand. Whence, because nothing is to be posited in this Sacrament except what is necessary; and reason compels that after the breaking it is in the divided parts of the host, but it does not compel us to posit that before the breaking it is in all the parts: they are unwilling to posit more.

The opinion of others is that the body of Christ is in the whole in such a way that it is in every part in which the species of the whole is preserved. And this indeed they posit not on account of *necessity*, but on account of an *inducing reason* both in the *conversion* and in the *breaking*. In the conversion, because, since the whole is homogeneous, there is no greater reason why one part should be converted into one part rather than into the whole; from which no determinate part is required. Whence Innocent: "I would indeed grant that the total bread is converted into the total body, yet in such a way that no part of the bread passes into any part of the body." — In the breaking likewise we see that by whatever reason He is *afterward* whole in every part, by the same reason likewise also *before*. Whence Innocent: "I think, the faith of the Majesty being safe, that where there is consecrated bread, the whole is contained in the individual parts; which I conjecture from this, that into however many parts the species is divided, in the individual parts is the whole Christ."

And this position is the more probable, and to this I more consent, because it makes for the *truth of the Sacrament* and the usefulness of faith: for the *truth*, because Christ is there contained as the thing signified in the sign, and because the character of signifying is uniformly in the parts and in the whole; it pertains to the truth of the Sacrament that it be uniformly in the parts and in the whole. — It makes for the *usefulness of faith*, because a fanciful imagination greatly impedes us from elevation to contemplating the things to be believed. But if the body of Christ be posited there, in such a way that part is in part, and whole in whole; there is not a complete abstraction from the imagination. But when it is posited in such a way that the whole is under every part, this in no way falls under the imagination. Whence man is greatly lifted up to purity of understanding.

1. To that, then, which is objected to the contrary, that there is confusion there; it must be said that there is not: because, although the parts are not distinguished according to position in *place*, they are nevertheless distinguished according to position in the *whole*; and therefore there is no confusion there, because there is there position, which is the ordering of parts in the *whole*.

2. To that which is objected, that it would be there infinitely many times; it must be said that, although the soul is in every part of the body, yet it is there once, because there is one body; similarly in one host, although in all the parts, it is there nevertheless once; nor is the host divisible into infinite parts in such a way that the character of the whole, namely of bread, or of the consequent property, is preserved, because in the division of a continuum there is a natural limit, with respect to the parts according to form.

3. To that which is objected concerning superfluity, the response is clear from what has already been said. For that the body of Christ is in the individual parts, this makes for the *truth of the Sacrament* and makes for the *usefulness of faith* in advancing the understanding itself, and therefore it is not superfluous.

4. To that which is objected concerning the intention, it must be said that it is not necessary that the intention of the minister be borne specifically and distinctly upon all the parts, but, because all the parts have the character of the whole, it suffices that it be upon the whole; and thus in every part is what is in the whole.

---