Dist. 10, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 3
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-p2-a1-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether the power of transubstantiating is given to the uttered word, or is the power of the uncreated Word alone.*

Thirdly, inquiry is made concerning the power of transubstantiation in relation to the word; and it is asked whether the power of transubstantiating is given to the uttered word, or is the power of the uncreated Word alone. And that it is [given] to the uttered word, it seems thus.

1. Ambrose: "The speech of Christ changes the creature"; but every action that is from anything is by means of a power, and this [action is] by means of the uttered word: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Eusebius: "The invisible priest changes the visible creatures into the substance of the body and blood of his Word by the secret power of his word."

3. Likewise, it seems by *reason*, because everything that comes to something which is in mere potency toward something, and makes it to be in act, has some power; but when the word comes to the element, it [the element] at once passes into the body of Christ: therefore in the word there is some power for this.

4. Likewise, since there is no power in the species; if there is no power in the word, then therefore there is no Sacrament of the new law, whose property is "to effect what it figures."

5. Likewise, in every natural work, where God operates by means of a creature, a power is given to the creature, by which it operates: therefore by like reasoning in the work of a miracle: therefore if that [transubstantiation] is worked through the word, it is plain that a power has been conferred on the word.

**On the contrary:**
1. Augustine, *On the Words of the Lord*: "Just as from the Virgin, through the Holy Spirit, the flesh of Christ is created without intercourse, so through the same [Spirit] the same body of Christ is mystically consecrated out of the substance of bread and wine"; but that comes about solely by the uncreated power: therefore this also.

2. Likewise, Ambrose: "The speech of Christ changes the creature"; "which speech? This one, through which all things were made"; but that Word is uncreated, not created: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, it seems by *reason*, because the body of Christ is the most noble among created things; but the power of transubstantiating has efficacy upon it, because it converts another thing into it; but nothing has power over another thing unless it be more noble; and nothing created is more noble than it [the body of Christ]: therefore it comes about by no created power: therefore not by the power of the uttered word either.

4. Likewise, if power is given to the word by Christ, [it is given] either to the word in the mind, or in writing, or in utterance. Not in the mind nor in writing: therefore in utterance; but the word that Christ uttered can never be taken up again: therefore another [word] is spoken. But that [word] never existed except now: therefore neither has power or virtue been given to it.

5. Likewise, if it is given in utterance; [it is given] either suddenly, or successively. If *successively*, then it operates successively, which is foolish to say, as is manifest. For it does not follow that one part of the *bread* is transubstantiated before another, since the word regards the whole equally; nor that one part of *Christ* exists before another, because then the parts of the glorified body of Christ would be separable; which is foolish to say. If *suddenly*, [it is given] either at the *beginning*, or in the *middle*, or at the *end*. If at the *beginning*, and as soon as it exists, it operates: therefore at the beginning the transubstantiation comes about: therefore if one did not complete the words, it would [already] be done. Likewise concerning the *middle*. If at the *end*; but the word does not exist at the end: therefore it is given to a non-being. Likewise, if at the *end*; it is established that, when the word ceases, the power also ceases: therefore in the same instant the power begins and ceases, and both is and is not.

6. Likewise, if power is given, [it is given] either to the *whole*, or to *some* part. If to the *whole*: then either each part has the *whole* power, or a *part* [of it]. If the *whole*: then each part effects [the change]; if a *part* of the power; since the parts are not simultaneous, neither will the power be simultaneous nor the operation simultaneous. If to *some* part, I ask, to which?

7. Likewise, if God gives power to the word in utterance; then, when the uttered word fails, it seems likewise that that noble power at once ceases to be; and it would be unfitting that God should so give so noble a power, which at once ceases to be.

8. Likewise, if it is corrupted, I ask: into what does it pass? either into *something*, or into *nothing*. Into *something* it does not [pass], because it is not from anything; if into *nothing*, then it seems [to be] against the common opinion both of the Saints and of the philosophers, which is that nothing which is corrupted passes altogether into non-being.

### Conclusion.

> *The more intelligible opinion is that there is not given to the word any quality which works transubstantiation, but only an efficacious ordination to this.*

**I respond:** To this it must be said that here there is a twofold opinion, as was touched on above in the first distinction.

For some hold that there is given to the words a certain *spiritual power*, by which they work transubstantiation, God nevertheless operating intimately. And this power of the word has *possibility* and regards the *bread*; for it does not extend to the *body of Christ*. — And there is an example: if there were a giver of forms, as some have held, the particular agent would operate only in relation to the term *from which*, not [the term] *to which*. And this power is given to the word *above nature* and *above understanding*, and is given *suddenly*, as they say. But it is not necessary that it *operate* at once when it is given, because it operates according to the will of the giver. And it is a *simple* power, operating *instantaneously*; and yet it is in a *composite and successive subject*, since it is there above nature.

But because it seems most difficult and unintelligible, when that power is given to the word, whether it is given *then*, or has been given *before*, and *how* and *in what manner it is given*, and how it operates, if it is posited to be some quality in the word; therefore there is another way, namely that the *power of the word* is so called by an extended use of the name, not because some quality has been given to the word by which it operates, but [because] from divine institution this has been established, that, when this word is uttered by the priest over the bread with the intention of consecrating, the bread is transubstantiated. Hence at the utterance of that word the uncreated Word effects [it]. That infallible *ordination*, then, of the word to such an effect is called *power*, which is not any quality given to the word nor anything created anew.

And from this the reasons on both sides are plain. To the arguments, [it is to be said] that the first ones proceed concerning power as *commonly* spoken, except the last. To which it must be said that it is not alike, because nature is the principal agent and the efficient [cause], but here God alone is the one who influences.

The reasons for the opposite are plain, because I concede that, just as the creation of things is from the uncreated power alone, so also is transubstantiation. But in this there is here an addition, namely that this comes about at the utterance of a created word, that [creation] without any ministry.

All the other reasons are plain, because nothing *absolute* has been given to the words, but Christ by a single institution ordained, above nature, not only the word which he uttered, but every like [word] uttered by a priest, so that at once, when it is uttered, the priest himself, invisibly assisting, would convert [the bread]. Hence nothing is given to the word anew, when the priest pronounces it. But by that primary institution it had an efficacious ordination to this: on account of which it is not undeservedly said to have *power*. — In this manner also I understand the Sacraments of the new law to be a *cause* and to *effect*, as was determined above: not because they bestow grace, but because they have an efficacious ordination from the divine compact unto grace. Not so the Sacraments of the old law, with the exception of circumcision. — Nevertheless this Sacrament has causality by reason of the *thing contained*, namely the flesh of Christ, which disposes unto grace. — And this position is that of great men and of those who understand well.

---