Dist. 10, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1
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-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article II. *On the Eucharist by comparison to the apprehending power.*

Next there is inquiry concerning the power that apprehends the true existence of Christ on the altar. And concerning this two things are asked. *First* it is asked, whether such existence is above the intellect of the wayfarer. *Secondly* it is asked, whether it is above the sense of the comprehensor.

### Question I. *Whether the existence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament is above the intellect of the wayfarer.*

That it is above the intellect of the wayfarer is shown thus.

1. Every intellective cognition, according to the mode connatural to our intellect, begins from sense — on account of which the Philosopher also says that "there is nothing in the intellect which was not previously in sense" — but for the body of Christ to be under those species is such a thing as never was in any sense, neither in itself nor in something similar: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, what is above experience is above human understanding — since cognition is generated in us through experience, as the Philosopher says: "From many sense-perceptions one memory is made," etc. — but the existence of the body of Christ under the Sacrament is above experience, because "faith has no merit where human reason furnishes proof": therefore it is above our understanding.

3. Likewise, our intellect supposes this as a principle known through itself, which it cannot contradict by interior reasoning, namely that everything containing a body is greater than or equal to that which it contains; but the species or host is neither greater nor equal, as faith declares: therefore if the intellect posits this, it posits against itself.

4. Likewise, every human intellect declares this, that if something is in some whole and comes to be in a smaller, it must necessarily be contracted, or else it exceeds [it] simply; but our faith declares that in this Sacrament the body of Christ is in a large host, and again in half the host equally great and not contracted: therefore the intellect cannot grasp this.

**On the contrary:**

1. No one is bound to the impossible: therefore if this is altogether above the *power* of our intellect, no one is bound to believe: therefore one who does not believe the body to be there, as faith proclaims, does not sin.

2. Likewise, Augustine says: "What we believe, we owe to authority; what we understand, to reason"; but we have no reasons for demonstrating that there is the *true* body of Christ, and that, if it is true, it is *whole* and *living*: therefore it seems that we do understand.

2. Likewise, what is above the intellect is above word and speech, because speech takes its origin from the intellect: therefore it does not seem that anyone can speak of this Sacrament.

It is also asked alongside this: if everything that is in this Sacrament is of faith; it seems that whoever undertakes to dispute about it sins.

And again, since the other articles of faith are above the intellect, on what account is this said more [of this one] than of the others?

> **Conclusion.** The existence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar is above or contrary to the intellect, as it is human; but the faithful intellect suffices in assenting and concords in reasoning, although it does not comprehend.

**I respond:** It must be said that some wished to be subtle here and to say that this was in some way intelligible. And although such an existence is above

the nature of the *non-glorified* human body, it is nevertheless not above the nature of the *glorified* body, because that body has the properties of light and the nobilities of light; but a body of light of such great nobility is by nature such that it can be in a greater and a smaller space, in such a way that it is neither greater nor smaller. — They give an example thus: if the light of a candle, or the gleam, is in a great house and afterward is transferred into a small one, the light of the candle is as great in the small as in the great, neither rarer nor denser; likewise a ray, whether it is directed near or far. They wish to say the same of the glorious body, and most of all of the body of Christ. — But this leading-by-the-hand toward understanding rather obscures the intellect than opens it: first, because the example is not fitting *in itself*; for "light is neither a body nor an effluence of a body," nor is it rarefied nor condensed. *Again*, it is not fitting *to the point at issue*, because the diffusion of light, since it is constrained according to space, is configured according to that into which it is diffused. If therefore the body of Christ were thus in the host, it would be necessary that the figure of the nose and of the other members be configured to the flatness of the host. And *again*, it cannot be understood that it is *contracted*, without one part of the body entering under another; and through this the body's quantity and figure do not remain, and many incongruities follow upon this.

Therefore it must be said otherwise, that it is above the nature of the glorified body, nor can those properties belong to anything by nature; and if they do belong, this is only through miracle; and therefore one is not to seek a similitude by which it may be grasped.

If therefore a reason is sought by which it may be understood, or whether it is intelligible; it must be said that there is speaking of our intellect as it is *human*, or as it is *faithful*. If as it is *human*; thus it understands by turning to imagination and sense and judges according to intrinsic and lower causes. And therefore it fails in assenting, because it assents only according to a leading-by-the-hand which takes its origin from imagination and sense. Likewise, because it judges according to intrinsic and created causes, and so by comparing the power of containing of the host itself to the power of being contained passively of the body itself; and because it finds repugnance and disproportion: therefore it contradicts in reasoning. And so this article is said to be above the intellect and contrary to the intellect, according as it is human intellect. — But if we speak of the intellect according as it is *faithful*; it must be said that it assents according to the dictate of faith and according to the rule of eternal truth; therefore it suffices in assenting and concords in reasoning. For the intellect having faith straightway believes, once this is proposed to it, namely that Christ is under those species, and this aided by the light of faith. Likewise it concords in reasoning, because it looks to higher causes. For thus says the intellect: God can do everything that is fitting; and faith assumes: it is fitting that the flesh of Christ be set forth as food; and therefore reason concludes that God can do this there. Likewise, the intellect says that Truth cannot speak what is false; and faith assumes: Truth said: *This is my body*, and commanded that it be said: therefore it said the truth.

Since therefore there is in us a twofold intellect, namely the faithful and the human; therefore we sometimes feel in ourselves conflicts; yet the faithful intellect prevails over itself as it is human, because it elevates it beyond animality; nevertheless it does not so elevate it that it comprehends, so that the merit of faith may remain whole. And this is clear: for the human intellect says that it is impossible that a greater be contained by a lesser; and the faithful [intellect] responds that this is true *locally*, and the great body of Christ is not there *locally*, but *sacramentally*; and although that be impossible, yet it can be possible to God. And because we do not know what God can do, the mode of being being changed: therefore, although the intellect prevail over itself, yet it does not yet comprehend.

And thus the reasons on either side are clear. For the first proceed from the intellect according as [it is] human, and the second from the intellect according as [it is] faithful.

To that, however, which is asked, why this is said more to be above the intellect; it must be said that in this our imagination in some way shares, since the body of Christ is imaginable; and because it is deluded in this, that, as it is under the Sacrament, [the body] eludes the imagination, nay rather is *above* it, as has been

held before, since it takes on the mode of being which a spirit has: therefore, since the imagination resists, it is more *contrary* to the intellect. But in the other articles, namely of the Divinity, [the intellect] altogether fails and does not so resist.

To that which is asked, why there is disputation about this Sacrament, since the whole is of faith; it must be said that [it is] not for *generating* faith, but for *nourishing* it, lest through ignorance anyone concede what is repugnant to faith, or deny what is consequent upon faith; and this is most useful and necessary, because many things are posited in this Sacrament by the incautious, in which there is danger in asserting. Hence we dispute, not that we may believe better, but that we may keep our faith unimpaired, while, it being known, we may guard against errors and by guarding may persist in the truth.