Dist. 12, Part 1, Art. 3, Q. 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/12/q/bon-sent-IV-d12-p1-a3-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article III. *On the breaking of the species.*

Consequently, as to the third article, it is asked concerning the breaking of those species. And concerning this, three matters are principally asked. First it is asked whether there is a true breaking in the body of Christ. Second, whether there is [a true breaking] in the species. Third it is asked what the parts signify.

### Question I. *Whether the true body of Christ is broken in the Eucharist.*

And that the true body of Christ is broken, it seems:

1. Augustine [seems] to say: "The faithful know, he says: when they eat the flesh of Christ, each one receives his own part"; and if this is true: therefore it is divided.

2. Likewise, it is shown from the confession of Berengarius, which was accepted by Pope Nicholas; for he confessed "that the true body of Christ is handled and broken by the hands of the priest": therefore, if that confession was accepted as faithful, it is clear, etc.

3. Likewise, it seems so *by reason*: because the true body of Christ is eaten; but what is eaten is worn down, and what is worn down is broken: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, this Sacrament is a memorial of the passion, and a memorial in such a way that here there is not only a sign, but also the reality; but in the passion the body of Christ was truly broken and divided: therefore in this Sacrament it is truly broken.

5. *Should you say* that it is incorruptible, and therefore cannot be broken; this is nothing, because the body of Christ, which is by nature [meant] to be in one place, is in many places by a miracle: therefore likewise by a miracle the incorruptible can be broken.

**On the contrary:**
1. An animate body which is divided is corrupted: therefore, since the body of Christ is animate, if it is broken and divided, it is corrupted; and if it is corrupted, the true Sacrament does not remain: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, if it can be broken and chewed, then by the same reasoning [it can] also be digested: therefore also by the same reasoning [it can] be voided in excrement; which it is wicked to say.

3. Likewise, concerning the manna, which was a figure of this Sacrament, *neither did he who gathered more have more, nor did he who [gathered] less have less*: if then it was a true figure, the body of Christ is just as much in a small part of the host as in the whole, or in a great bread: therefore it is not divided.

> **Conclusion.** The true body of Christ is not broken in the Eucharist.

**I respond:** Some have said — whom the Master touches upon in his *text* — that the true body of Christ is broken in the Sacrament, and yet is not corrupted; and this indeed comes about by a power above nature, just as it came about that the passible body of Christ was given to the disciples, and yet was not suffered by their teeth. And in support of their position they wished to have the confession of Berengarius. — But this position cannot stand: because, if it is incorruptible, it is not divided; if it is broken, it is divided: therefore it is at once divided and not divided: then therefore God would bring it about that two contradictory opposites be at once true; which he will never do.

On account of this it must be said that the true body of Christ is not broken; rather, into however many parts the host is divided, it is whole and entire.

1. 2. As to what is objected concerning the confession of Berengarius and the saying of Augustine, it must be said that each was said by reason of the *exterior species*, about which there occurs wearing-down, breaking, and chewing. Nor is this manner of speaking to be held. The Church nevertheless accepted and published the confession of Berengarius, although too explicitly expressed, in order to strike down his error, which did not concede that the true body of Christ was there except as in a sign. Whence on account of this it accepted [it], so that it might be understood that [Christ] is *truly there*, not truly divided.

3. To that which is objected, that the true body of Christ is eaten; it must be said that in eating there are three things: chewing, passing into the belly, and incorporation; and these three correspond to the three things which are in the Sacrament. For chewing is of the species only; incorporation is as regards the mystical body of Christ; the passing into the belly is not only of the species, but also of the true body of Christ, which is there, as long as the species of bread [remain]. Therefore the true body of Christ is not said to be truly eaten bodily, because it is bodily chewed; for just as it is not broken, so neither is it chewed.

4. To that which is objected, that it is a sign of the passion; it must be said that it is not a sign of a passion which is then [happening], because then Christ would always be suffering; but [a sign] of the passion which happened once. — And as to what it objects, that the reality is there; it must be said that the reality of the passion is not there, but the reality of him who suffered.

5. To that which is said, that this can come about by a miracle; it must be said that it is not similar to *being in many places*, because there [is] no contradiction, but here there is.