Dist. 11, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2
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/11/q/bon-sent-IV-d11-p1-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether the whole bread is converted into the body of Christ, or whether something remains besides the accidents.*

Secondly it is asked, whether the whole bread is converted into the body of Christ, or whether something remains besides the accidents. And that the whole is not converted seems to be the case:

1. Because «nothing is in a genus that is not in some species of it»; but transubstantiation is a change, and in every species of motion something remains: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, just as in a natural change there is the potency of matter, so also in this [change] there is a potency of obedience; but on the part of what is transmuted, where there is a material potency, it is not wholly removed, and therefore that in which it is founded remains: therefore it seems that likewise in this [change] something remains in which the potency of obedience is founded.

3. Likewise, it belongs to the account of a change that what is changed is otherwise now than before; but the bread is changed into the body of Christ: therefore it is otherwise now than before. But what is otherwise now than before, in some way remains: therefore the bread too remains according to something of itself.

4. Likewise, whenever any two extremes share in something, that in which they share remains the same throughout the whole transmutation; but the bread and the body of Christ share in matter: therefore the matter remains.

**On the contrary:** 1. Transubstantiation comes about by the power of the word; but the word indicates the substance under the accidents — the whole substance of the bread, I say: therefore it converts the whole.

2. Likewise, it converts into the whole body of Christ: therefore it also converts the whole bread: for if [it converted] only the matter of the bread, then it would seem that the conversion was into matter alone.

3. Likewise, if something of the bread remains, either [it remains] as common in the transmutation or not as common. If as common: then the body of Christ would have another matter, or another form; which is foolish. If not as common; then it seems that matter would remain without form, or form without matter. But each of these by itself is idle; but in the Sacrament nothing at all is idle: therefore neither remains.

4. Likewise, if it is converted according to a part of its essence, I ask: according to which? and it is shown that [it is] according to the *form*, since that is more suited to conversion. And besides, the Sacrament was instituted not by reason of the matter, which is common in all things, but by reason of the form: if therefore the words regard the form more, then they convert it. But *on the contrary*: then incomplete matter remains; but it does not belong to the divine power to make [things] incomplete, but rather to complete the incomplete: therefore etc.

> **Conclusion.** The whole bread is converted into the body of Christ, the accidents alone remaining.

**I respond:** It must be said that there was an opinion of certain men — which however the Master does not set down, since it is also [the opinion] of the moderns, [and] because it is not very probable — that not the whole bread passes over according to substance, but some essential part remains. For it is established that the accidents remain according to *being* and *operation*. Because it seems that they remain according to *being*, there were those who said that *matter* too remains, which sustains them, and that the form passes over. — But this is nothing, because matter is not fitted to sustain accidents nor to be in act except with form.

Others, *seeing* that the accidents have operation, and that every operation has its origin from substantial form, said that the matter passes over and the form remains. — But this again is nothing, because form does not operate except in matter.

On account of this, although this Sacrament is full of miracles, yet because there are not posited to be [present] except those things that serve the truth of the Sacrament and its concealment; therefore the doctors commonly hold that the whole passes over into the whole, the accidents alone

remaining for a necessary and useful cause. And therefore, having abandoned the first opinion, which takes away the conversion of the *matter*, [and] having abandoned the other, which takes away the conversion of the *form*; we hold the more catholic [view], that the whole bread is converted into the body of Christ, and in the best way this conversion is called *transubstantiation*.

But if you ask, under what genus of motion or change it is contained; it must be said that this is a *singular* change, which has no full likeness; yet it is likened in something. For because in this change nothing common remains; it is likened to *creation*. But because the initial principle is not nothing, but something; therefore it is unlike creation and like *generation*. But because the final term is not something newly made, but [something] previously existing; therefore it is unlike generation and like *increase*. But because the body of Christ does not grow from this, but exists in several places; therefore it is unlike increase and like *change of place*. But because it exists in another place and does not withdraw from its own, but something passes over into it; therefore it is unlike every motion and change, and is altogether a *singular* change. — But to *corruption* and *diminution* it is in no way likened, because [these are] imperfect operations, which do not befit the divine power operating here. *Again*, because in *alteration* the sensible accidents are varied, and this does not happen to this Sacrament on account of faith; nor is it likened to that.

1. 2. 3. From these things the first, second, and third [objections] are clear, because that is true of a change in which the terms have something common; but here they have nothing.

4. To the objection raised last, that they have something common; it must be said that they have something common according to the nature of *predication*, but not according to the nature of *change*. For in that change they can have nothing common, because the body of Christ can have neither new matter nor new form; and if anything remained, it would be impossible that the body of Christ should be wholly the same; whereas, since the whole passes over, no innovation at all nor formation comes about concerning the body of Christ. Whence that argument has its place in a natural change.