Dist. 11, Part 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/11/q/bon-sent-IV-d11-p1-littera
----------------------------------------
### Chap. I. *On the manner of the conversion.*

But if it is asked of what kind that conversion is — whether formal, or substantial, or of another kind — I am not competent to determine. That it is not formal, however, I do know, because the species of the things which were before remain, and the savor and the weight. To some it seems to be substantial, who say that the substance is so converted into the substance that this one essentially becomes that one; to which sense the aforesaid authorities seem to consent.

But to this opinion it is thus objected by others: if the substance of bread, they say, or of wine is substantially converted into the body or blood of Christ, then daily some substance becomes the body or blood of Christ which was not before; and today there is something the body of Christ which yesterday was not; and daily the body of Christ is increased and formed from matter from which in his conception it was not made. — To these it can be answered in this manner: that the body of Christ is not said to be confected by the heavenly word in the sense that that very body, formed in the conception of the Virgin, is thereafter formed; but because the substance of bread or wine, which before was not the body or blood of Christ, becomes by the heavenly word his body and blood. And therefore the priests are said to confect the body and blood of Christ, because by their ministry the substance of bread becomes flesh, and the substance of wine becomes the blood of Christ; yet nothing is added to the body or blood, nor is the body or blood of Christ increased.

### Chap. II. *How the body of Christ is said to be confected from the substance of bread.*

« But if you ask the manner in which this can come to be, I answer briefly: the mystery of faith can be wholesomely believed, but cannot be wholesomely investigated ». Therefore, that the body of Christ is not increased in itself by the change of bread, nor his blood by the conversion of wine, let it be ascribed to the will and power of him who drew the same body out of the Virgin; thus therefore that substance becomes this one without any increase of the latter. And yet not[?]...

opinion 1. Certain men grant that the substance of bread sometimes is the flesh of Christ, even though it become the flesh of Christ; just as flour has become bread, and water has become wine, yet it is not said: flour is bread, and water is wine. — opinion 2. Others, however, concede that what was bread or wine, after the consecration is the body and blood; yet it does not follow: bread is the flesh of Christ, or wine is blood, because the substance of bread or wine, after it has become the flesh or blood of Christ, is not the substance of bread or wine, but flesh and blood. Therefore it seems that a distinction must be made, when it is said: *the substance of bread,* or *that which was bread, is now the body of Christ* — for bread remaining is not the body of Christ — but *changed,* that is, *that which it has become is the body of Christ.* Nor do we say that the substance of bread or wine is the matter of the body or blood, because the body is not formed from it as from matter; but it itself is formed into that and is made that. Whence Augustine: « We call the body of Christ that which, taken from the fruits of the earth and consecrated by the mystical prayer, we receive in memory of the Lord's passion. And when this is brought by the hands of men to that visible appearance, it is not sanctified, so as to be so worthy a Sacrament, except by the Spirit of God working invisibly ».

But some say that that conversion is to be understood thus: that under those accidents, under which the substance of bread and wine was before, after the consecration there is the substance of the body and blood, yet in such a way that nothing is added to them. And so they assert that bread is said to pass over into the body of Christ, because, where bread was, now is the body of Christ. But if this is so, what then becomes of the substance of bread and wine? They say it is either resolved into the underlying matter, or reduced to nothing. — Others, however, supposed that the substance of bread and wine remains there, and in the same place the body and blood of Christ are; and that on this account that substance is said to become this one, because, where this is, there also is that; which is astonishing; and they say that the very substance of bread or wine is the Sacrament. But that there is no substance there except the body and blood of Christ is clearly shown from what has been said and what is added below. For there says Ambrose: « That bread which we receive in the mystery, I understand assuredly to be the one which was formed by the hand of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin and cooked by the fire of the passion on the altar of the cross. For the bread of Angels has become the food of men; whence he says: *I am the living bread, who came down from heaven;* and again: *The bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.* For from these two sayings it is clearly given to be understood that that bread and this are not two, but one bread and one flesh, and without doubt are made one body — that one truly, that one indeed, which was taken from the Virgin, which rose again and ascended into heaven ». Likewise Gregory: « What of the faithful could have any doubt that, in the very hour of the immolation, at the voice of the priest the heavens are opened, that in that mystery of Christ the choirs of Angels are present, that the highest and the lowest are joined together, that one thing is made out of the invisible and the visible ». The same: « In the same moment it is also caught up into heaven, to be united by the ministry of Angels to the body of Christ, and before the eyes of the priest it is seen upon the altar. Just as the Divinity of the Word fills the whole world, so in many places that body is consecrated; yet there are not many bodies of Christ, but one body and one blood. And therefore whether one receive more or less thereof, all equally receive the body of Christ most entire ». — After the consecration, therefore, there is no substance of bread or wine there, although the species remain. For there is there the species of bread and wine, as also the savor; whence one thing is seen, another is understood.

### Part II.

### Chap. III. *Why under another species.*

But under another species Christ handed over flesh and blood, and instituted them to be received thereafter, for three reasons: namely, that faith might have merit, which is of the things that are not seen; for « faith has no merit, where human reason supplies experience ». And also for this reason, lest the mind should shrink from what the eye beheld, since we are not in the habit of eating raw flesh and blood. Therefore, since it is not lawful for Christ to be devoured by the teeth, he committed to us flesh and blood in a mystery. And also for this reason, lest the Christian religion be insulted by unbelievers. Whence Augustine: « Nothing is more reasonable than that we should receive the likeness of the blood, so that both the truth may not be lacking, and no ridicule be made by the pagans, that we drink the gore of a slain man ». Lest, therefore, this should happen, « and lest, as it were, there should be a certain horror of gore; we receive the Sacrament in a likeness ». — From what has been set forth it is now clear why under another species, and why under this one, the Lord celebrated this Sacrament and instituted it to be celebrated by us.

### Chap. IV. *Why under a twofold species.*

But why is it received under a twofold species, since under either alone the whole Christ is present? « That it might be shown that he assumed

the whole human nature, in order to redeem the whole. For bread is referred to the flesh, wine to the soul, because wine produces blood, in which the seat of the soul is said by the physicists to be. Therefore it is celebrated in two species, that the assumption of soul and flesh in Christ, and the liberation of both in us, may be signified ». For it avails, as Ambrose says, « for the protection of body and soul that which we receive; because the flesh of Christ is offered for the salvation of the body, but the blood for our soul, as Moses prefigured: *The flesh,* he says, *is offered for our body, but the blood for the soul* »; yet « it is received under each species, which avails for both, because under each the whole Christ is received. But if it were received under one only, it would be signified to avail for the protection of the one only, that is of the body or of the soul, not of both alike. Yet under each species the whole Christ is received; neither more under each, nor less under one alone is received ». « For the same reasoning holds, as Hilary says, in the body of Christ, which preceded in the manna; of which it is said: *He who had gathered more had no more, nor did he who had prepared less have less* ». And although under each species the whole Christ is received, yet the conversion of the bread is only into the flesh, and of the wine only into the blood; nor ought they to be called *two* Sacraments, but one, because under each species the same is received; nor is the Sacrament to be repeated, because the blessing is not repeated over the same species; nor ought other substances to be offered in the sacrifice of the truth, because from others the body of Christ or his blood cannot be consecrated.

### Chap. V. *Why water is mingled.*

But water is to be mingled with the wine, because water signifies the people which has been redeemed by the passion of Christ. « The Lord's chalice, therefore, according to the precept of the canons, ought to be offered mixed of water and wine; because we see that in the water the people is understood, in the wine is shown the blood of Christ. When, therefore, in the chalice water is mingled with wine, the people is united to Christ, and the throng of believers is joined to him in whom it believes; which joining of water and wine is so mingled in the chalice of Christ that that mixture cannot be separated. For if anyone offer wine only, the blood of Christ begins to be without us ».

But if it is asked whether what is done is null, if the water is omitted; hear what follows in the same canon: « *It cannot be,* he says, *that the Lord's chalice be water alone, or wine alone, unless both be mingled* ». Likewise Cyprian: « The Lord's chalice is not water alone, or wine alone, unless both be mingled; just as neither can the body of the Lord be flour alone, nor water alone, unless both have been joined together and made solid in the compacting of one bread ». If, however, anyone, not intending to introduce heresy, by forgetfulness or ignorance omit the water, the Sacrament does not seem to be null; but he is to be gravely rebuked; for the Church of the Greeks too is said not to add water. Which can also seem to be gathered from the words of Cyprian. For he says: « If any of our predecessors, whether by ignorance or by simplicity, has not observed this which the Lord taught us to do both by example and by teaching; the pardon of the Lord's indulgence can be granted to his simplicity. But to us it cannot be forgiven, who now have been instructed by the Lord, to offer the Lord's chalice mixed with wine, according as the Lord offered it ». — From this it seems that, if anyone simply or ignorantly offer wine without water, he confects the Sacrament. But water can in no way be offered alone in sacrifice without wine, nor bread except of grain, nor a grain of wheat unless it has been made into bread, because Christ calls himself both bread and compares himself to a grain of wheat. Therefore what was said above, that wine alone cannot be offered, ought to be qualified; for it admits an exception: it cannot, unless it be done simply or ignorantly; or it cannot, that is, it ought not. To some, however, this seems to be generally true.

### Chap. VI. *What kind of body Christ gave to the disciples at the supper.*

It is also gathered from what has been said that Christ gave wine mixed with water to the disciples. But he gave such a body as he then had, that is, mortal and passible; whereas now it is received by us immortal and impassible; nor yet does it have greater efficacy. The Eucharist, moreover, dipped, ought not to be given to the people as a supplement of communion, because it is not read that Christ gave dipped bread to any of the disciples except Judas. And then Judas did not receive the body of Christ, but only bread; for he had received the body and blood of Christ beforehand with the other disciples.

---