Dist. 12, Part 1, Art. 3, Q. 2
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-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether in the species there is a true breaking.*

Secondly it is asked whether in the species there is a true breaking. And that there is not, seems to be the case:

1. Because what truly comes to be in a sign is signified to come to be in the thing signified; but in the thing signified there is no breaking, as was proven: therefore neither in the sign.

2. Likewise, every action is terminated at some this-something; but there is no substance there except the substance of the body of Christ: therefore nothing is broken there. And it seems to be broken: therefore there is there only an apparent breaking.

3. Likewise, although accidents seem to be there in a subject, nevertheless they are in no subject; nor is there any falsity there: therefore it seems likewise that, although a breaking seems to be there, if it is not, there is no falsity there.

**On the contrary:** 1. It is said in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke that He blessed and broke; but there was there a true blessing: therefore also a true breaking; otherwise the Truth itself, in the Sacrament of truth, and the Gospel of truth, recounts as true what appears, and it is false.

2. Likewise, that white species of bread truly is, and can truly be blackened: therefore by the same reasoning it can truly be divided.

3. Likewise, division follows upon quantity: therefore if there is true quantity there, then also a true division and breaking: therefore not only apparent.

4. Likewise, if it is only apparent: therefore it is not necessary that any violence be done by the fingers, nor that any bodily act be used, but the act of the soul alone would suffice: since therefore it is necessary that violence be applied by the fingers, it is clear that there is a true division there.

> **Conclusion.** In the breaking of the Eucharist there is a true division, and indeed in the species.

**I respond:** The opinion of certain men was that there is no true division there, but only an apparent one; and yet there is no falsity or deception there, because it is not done to deceive, but to instruct; just as the Lord also appeared otherwise than He was to the disciples going to Emmaus, and there was no falsity there. — But this opinion cannot stand: because, if there is no true breaking there, then neither are the species truly masticated, and thus the whole seems to be a fiction.

On account of this there was another opinion, which said that a man breaks, since the act is on the part of the man; but yet nothing is broken there, because accidents cannot be broken of themselves. — This position too cannot stand: because an action, if it is completed, necessarily entails a being-acted-upon.

And therefore there is another reasonable position, that the division is true there and in the species, because true quantity and true solidity remain; and because division follows quantity of itself; as there is true quantity there, so also true breaking.

1. To the objection therefore that there is no breaking in the thing signified; it must be said that that breaking does not signify the breaking of the body of Christ contained there, but signifies the suffering which has passed by.

2. To the objection that an action is terminated at a substance; it must be said that this is true by nature; but if an accident could subsist of itself, it would surely be receptive of action; now, however, it stands by miracle; and therefore the accident is receptive of action.

3. To the objection that just as accidents appear etc.; it must be said that this is by consequence, but the division appears first. Hence the accidents appear and by consequence lead to a knowledge of the subject, and before one comes to this, faith can intervene. But there the division appears at first glance, and therefore it would be necessary that there be deception there without any truth, [whereas] on the other side there is truth without deception.