Dist. 11, Part 1, Dubia
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-dubia
----------------------------------------
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that the Master says: *The mystery of faith can be believed wholesomely, but cannot be investigated wholesomely.* For it seems, according to this, that all sin gravely who dispute about those things which pertain to faith.

**I respond:** It must be said that emphasis is to be placed both on this, that he says *mystery of faith,* and on the word *investigating.* For a *mystery* is something secret, and that is not to be *investigated,* such that a man should wish to comprehend by reason what the Lord willed to conceal; and one who does otherwise sins and is presumptuous, while he raises himself up to that which he cannot reach. But one who disputes about the faith not for the investigation of the mystery, but rather for its defense, he does not act against this which Augustine and the Master say.

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says that this proposition is to be conceded: *That which was bread or wine, after the consecration is the body of Christ.* For it seems to be said falsely, because *which* is a relative of identity; but there nothing common remains: therefore such a locution is false. — Moreover, I ask: for what does it supposit, when it is said: *that which was bread?* Either for the supposit *bread,* or *Christ.* If for the supposit *bread:* on the contrary, the predicate never belongs to it. If for the supposit *of the body:* therefore the implication is false, because the body of Christ was never bread.

**I respond:** It must be said that, properly speaking — since this relative *which* is a relative of identity, and the supposit is not the same as the predicate — that, simply speaking, it is properly false; nor does the Master say it is to be conceded according to his own opinion. But if it is read by the Saints, I believe it is to be expounded. Hence when Augustine says that «we call the body of Christ that which is gathered out of the fruits of the earth» etc.; it must be said that that statement is made as to the *exterior sign,* and is to be understood according to metaphor, in that the *sign* is put for the *signified;* and here the *body of Christ* is called the Sacrament of the body of Christ.

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked: what is it that Gregory says, that *in the very hour of the immolation the heavens are opened?* For it seems to be said badly, because, if they are opened; I ask, for what? If in order that it may descend, it seems false, because it can descend without the opening of the heavens. And again, for what does it descend, if the bread is converted into his body here below? If you say this is said tropically; I ask, by what trope?

**I respond:** It must be said that this bread, which is confected on the altar, is heavenly bread; and the heaven is said to be opened, when a vehement influence comes from on high. Since therefore in the hour of the immolation heavenly and supersubstantial bread is bestowed on us; hence it is that Gregory says the heavens are opened; just as at his nativity it is said that «throughout the whole world

the heavens were made to flow with honey, because there has been given to us that one who is sweeter than honey and the honeycomb.»

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *It is caught up into heaven, by the ministry of the Angels, to be associated with the body of Christ.* For it seems to be said falsely, because that body is taken by the priest, therefore it is not caught up by ministry. — Likewise, how is it associated with the body of Christ, since it is the same body? — Likewise, it is asked: how is that understood which is written in the canon: *Bid these things to be carried up by the hands of thy holy Angel?* What is it that is carried up? and who is the Angel, who carries up?

**I respond:** It must be said that, just as the aforesaid words concerning the confection are to be understood figuratively and according to trope, so also these. Hence, just as the hands of the Angels are not understood corporeally, so neither is the catching-up of this Sacrament to be understood locally or corporeally; likewise neither the association in place. But this is to be understood, that just as the Angels are understood to offer to God our prayers and petitions, likewise also our desires — not on account of God's ignorance, but on account of our advantage, because by their holy pure affections they help us and lay our merits again before the sight of God, so that from their holy purity and fervent affection, by reason of the dignity of the messenger, they may be acceptable — so it is to be understood that they offer sacrifices, because, assisting at the sacred mysteries together with us, they pray that our gifts may be accepted, and together with us they revere the most holy body of Christ, as in heaven. Therefore they are said to catch up into heaven and to associate, as to this, that they reckon worthy of honor on the altar what is so in heaven. By this manner also is to be understood the prayer of the canon: because, as Innocent expounds, that *Angel of great counsel* is Christ; through *his hands* we pray that the sacrifice be carried up, that is, that by his merits and prayers our sacrifice be accepted by God. Hence he himself is *our pontiff and advocate* and appears continually *to the face of God to intercede for us.* And thus the things asked are made clear.