Dist. 11, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 6
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-q6
----------------------------------------
### Question VI. *By what words that conversion ought to be expressed.*

Sixth and last it is asked, by what words this conversion ought to be expressed. And it is shown that [it is to be expressed] through a substantive verb, so that one says: The bread will be the body of Christ; and: what was bread, etc.; and this both by authority and by reason.

1. *By authority:* because Ambrose says: « What was bread before the consecration is the body of Christ after the consecration ».

2. Likewise, it seems by reason: because where a whole passes into a whole, a greater union comes about than where a part [passes] into a part; but where a part [passes] into a part, it is true, as for instance with respect to an *accident* the white will be black, and with respect to

substance, as what was under the form of fire is now under the form of air: therefore much more strongly here, where a whole passes into a whole.

Likewise, it seems [it should be] with the verb *of changing.*

3. Damascene: « He made the bread and the wine to be his body and blood ».

4. Likewise, it seems by reason: because what is changed, and is not annihilated, does not become nothing, but something; but the bread is changed, and is not annihilated nor does it become anything other than the body: therefore, etc.

Likewise, [it should be] with the verb *of being able:*

5. Ambrose: « What is bread is able to be the body by the consecration, which comes about by the word of Christ ».

6. Likewise, it seems by reason: because everything that is changed into something has a *power* toward it, since some potency precedes every act; but the bread is changed into the body of Christ: therefore, etc.

Likewise, [it should be] with a *preposition:*

7. Ambrose, *On the Sacraments*: « When the consecration has come, from bread the body of Christ comes about ».

8. Likewise, it seems by reason: because here there is transubstantiation; therefore [it is] either from something or from nothing. Not from nothing: therefore from something: therefore from the bread, since there is nothing else to point to.

**On the contrary:** 1. This verb *is* denotes identity; but between bread and the body there is no identity, neither in form nor in matter: therefore such a locution, namely with the substantive verb, which denotes identity, is false.

2. Likewise, every becoming is terminated at a having-been-made-to-be; but in this Sacrament nothing has been made, because the body is not now made there: therefore neither is there a becoming: therefore [the locutions] are false with the verb of becoming.

3. Likewise, every potency is either active or passive; in the bread there is neither active nor even passive [potency], because then it would be ordered toward act: therefore with this verb *is able* the locution is false.

4. Likewise, this preposition *from* (*de*) and *out of* (*ex*) denotes causality or order, as from morning noon comes about. This cannot stand, neither according as it denotes causality, nor according as it denotes order, because then the sense is: after the bread is the body; by the same reasoning it could be said of the word: the body [is] after the word

if it be said: the bread is able to be the body. But if order according to higher causes be meant, then there is truth in the locution, as if it be said: the bread is able to be converted by God. — And thus Ambrose says, and the reasoning concludes, because that act is from a higher power.

> **Conclusion.** That proposition alone is true and proper in which the verb signifies neither identity nor innovation nor natural ordination, but only conversion with a preposition importing transit, not cause.

**I respond:** It must be said that this conversion is singular, because a whole passes into a whole, and this by a power above nature; therefore between bread and the body there is no identity, there is no causality, in the body of Christ there is no innovation, in the bread there is no ordination according to lower causes. From these four rules are drawn.

The first is, that all words signifying identity of the bread to the body of Christ make the statement false. Hence all such locutions are improper and must be expounded: the bread will be the body of Christ, or, what was bread is the body of Christ, that is, it has been converted into the body; absolutely they are not to be admitted with a relative and a substantive verb. — And therefore the reasoning he adduces is invalid. For because a whole passes into a whole, there is not a greater identity, but rather less, indeed none.

The second rule is, that all words signifying innovation concerning the body of Christ are falsely said; but those which signify conversion and transit are truly said. And because *to be generated* states innovation, *to become* can state transit, as when it is said: this becomes that; therefore with the verb of becoming it can be conceded, not with the verb of generating. And the reasonings to this effect are to be conceded. — The reasoning to the opposite is invalid, because it objects from *becoming* insofar as it states a generation of something; but it is not so taken here. Hence this is more proper: the bread becomes the body, than: from bread the body comes about; and this is absolutely improper: the body of Christ comes about, but it is conceded: it comes about here.

The third rule is: because there is no ordination of the bread to the body of Christ according to lower causes, therefore words signifying this, such as this verb *is able*, said absolutely, make the locution false, as if it be said: the bread is able to be the body. But if order according to higher causes be meant, then there is truth in the locution, as if it be said: the bread is able to be converted by God. — And thus Ambrose says, and the reasoning concludes, because that act is from a higher power.

The fourth rule is: because there is no causality, but only transit of the bread into the body of Christ; [so] that all prepositions importing causality render the locution improper. Hence locutions with this preposition *from* (*de*) or *out of* (*ex*) are improper, according as they state causality; but when there is some sense of order, it can be sustained, yet not according to that sense altogether proper. — And it must be said that that is the true and proper conclusion in which the verb signifies neither identity nor innovation nor natural ordination, but only conversion with a preposition importing transit, not cause. Hence this is proper: the bread is converted into the body of Christ.