Dist. 11, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 4
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-q4
----------------------------------------
### Question IV. *Whether the bread is converted into the whole Christ.*

Fourthly it is asked whether the bread is converted into the whole Christ. And that it is so, it seems:

1. Because *conversion* extends itself to that to which *containment* extends — for the species do not contain except by virtue of the conversion — but there the whole Christ is contained: therefore the bread is converted into the whole Christ.

2. Likewise, that the bread is converted specially into the *Divinity*, it seems: because the intention of the one consecrating is that the bodily food be converted into spiritual food; but spiritual food is God, who is the food of the holy spirits: since therefore the conversion of the element follows the intention, it seems that the conversion is into God.

3. Likewise, that it is into the *soul*, it seems: because the soul of Christ is in one place by nature, just as the body is: therefore if the body of Christ does not come to be in many places unless something be converted into it, by parity of reasoning neither does the soul of Christ. But the soul is under the Sacrament, otherwise the body would be without soul, which is unfitting: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, that the *blood* is there, it seems: because either the conversion of the bread *awaits* the conversion of the wine, or not. If it *does not await* it; then before the conversion of the wine, by virtue of this word: *This is my body*, the blood is there. But the element extends itself *passively* to that to which the word [extends] *operatively*: therefore the element of bread is converted into blood. If it *awaits* it; then there is a succession there: therefore the body ought not to be elevated in the sight of the people before the consecration of the wine, which is against the common rite of the whole Church; for then the whole Church, as far as in it lies, makes the simple folk commit idolatry, since Christ is not yet there.

**But that it is converted into the body alone and not into the Divinity, it seems:**

1. Because, if into the Divinity, then a creature could become a creator; which is unfitting.

2. Likewise, the Divinity is everywhere: therefore by conversion it cannot anew be in some place: if therefore the conversion makes there to be anew, where the thing is converted; therefore it is not converted except into the united body.

**Likewise, that it is not into the soul, it seems:**

3. Because the Sacrament has the character of signifying and of effecting, and the character of signifying extends itself as far as, or further than, the character of effecting; but it is established that the bread does not have a likeness to the soul of Christ: therefore neither can it be converted into it. — Moreover, if it were converted into the soul; since that part is more worthy, it ought to be denominated from it: therefore it ought to be said: this is my soul.

**Likewise, that it is not into the blood, it seems:**

4. Because, if the bread were converted into the blood, as into the flesh; then this Sacrament would be made under two species in vain. — Moreover, these two utterances: *This is my body*, *this is the chalice of my blood*, have distinct significations: therefore also distinct efficacies.

> **Conclusion.** The bread is converted precisely into the body of Christ, not into the Divinity nor into the soul nor into the blood, which nevertheless are there by concomitance.

**I respond:** It must be said that the bread is converted precisely into that with which it has a likeness; for upon this likeness the institution is founded, and the sanctification of the word supervenes. Since therefore the bread has a likeness only to the body, for that reason it was instituted to be converted only into the body; and the sanctifying word, namely: *This is my body*, signifies a conversion into the body; nothing of the bread is converted into the Divinity nor into the soul nor into the blood. — Nor yet is the body under the Sacrament without these, because they are not there on account of the conversion, but on account of the inseparable conjunction or indivision. For the blood is there by reason of *commixture*, the soul by reason of *conjunction*, but the Divinity by reason of *union*.

**To the arguments:**

*To 1.* From these the objections are clear: because, even though the whole Christ is contained, yet the conversion is not into the whole; whence it is false that whatever is contained in the Sacrament is there by reason of the conversion — rather, by reason of the conversion or of the indivision.

*To 2 and 3.* To the other [objection] the response is clear, because the body is food by reason of its union with the Divinity. — Likewise the other concerning the soul is clear, because the body is in several places by reason of the conversion, but the soul consequently by reason of the union or perfection.

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning the blood, it must likewise be said that those conversions do not await one another, but in both there is the whole. The bread, however, and the power of its form is ordered to the body primarily, to the rest as it were consequently; likewise it must be said of the conversion of the wine, as also of the bread.