Dist. 13, Art. 2, 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/13/q/bon-sent-IV-d13-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article II. *On him who receives the Eucharist.*

Consequently, as regards the second article, inquiry is made concerning the one who receives. And concerning this, two things are asked. First, it is asked whether the body of Christ passes into the belly of a mouse; Second, it is asked whether it descends into the belly of a man.

### Question I. *Whether the body of Christ passes into the belly of a mouse.*

And that a mouse passes [it] into its belly, it seems:

1. Because he who receives anything receives also that which is inseparably united [to it]; but a mouse receives the species, and in those species the body of Christ is inseparably [present]: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, God shrinks from sin more than from any creature whatever; but the body of Christ passes into the belly of a sinner, if the sinner receives [it]: therefore also into [the belly] of a mouse.

3. Likewise, I ask: what does the mouse eat? Either the *substance*, or the *accidents*. If the substance; but there is nothing there except the substance of the body of Christ: therefore it eats the body of Christ. If the accidents; but the accidents are not without a subject, except so long as the body of Christ is there: therefore if the accidents descend into the belly of the mouse, it likewise seems that the body of Christ does too.

4. Likewise, what would be unfitting about this, since we see that the body of Christ is in a polluted vessel just as in a clean one?

**On the contrary:**
1. The Master says in the text that it does not receive the body of Christ.

2. Likewise, *by reason* it seems so: because he who by chewing passes some food into the belly eats it: therefore if a mouse passes [it] into its belly, it eats [it]; but not *sacramentally* nor *spiritually*: therefore in no way [does it eat the body of Christ].

3. Likewise, if a mouse were baptized in the name of the Trinity, it would receive nothing more than if it were washed in plain water, because it is not capable of the Sacrament: therefore by parity of reasoning it receives nothing more than if it had eaten plain bread.

> **Conclusion.** The opinion is preferred that, when that case occurs, the body of Christ does not descend into the belly of a mouse.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that concerning this there were two opinions.

For some say that the body of Christ is contained in those species inseparably, so long as they are the Sacrament. Now they are the Sacrament by the nature of the bread and by the nature of the consecration of the Word; and therefore, since the consecration does not release the host so long as the form of the bread is intact; so long it is the Sacrament, as long as the form of the bread is intact. And therefore, since the Sacrament is containing of the true body insofar as it is the Sacrament; so long does it contain [it], as long as the species of bread is intact in a small part. And these [people] say that wherever the species are placed, whether in a clean place or an unclean one, whether in the belly of a mouse or in any other place, they say that the body of Christ is there. And because they seem to detract from the body of the Lord and from the Sacrament, they say that this is rather to the praise of both. For the body of Christ suffers no injury, since it is glorified and can in no way be defiled. The Sacrament too is praised, in that it is so sacred and joined to so noble a thing that its containing power cannot be separated or taken away from it by anything, so long as the form is intact. And because wherever the Sacrament is, those species also are of the most holy symbols, in which Christ is; wherever it is, it is nobly. They say also that we are rebuked in this, that we despise lowly places and change our garments, whereas Christ, wherever that species is placed, has His being [there]; since also He does not leave that covering until it is corrupted. — And if you then object that the mouse eats; they respond that this is false, because it ought not be said to receive the body of Christ nor to eat [it], since it in no way attains it, neither by affinity in nature nor by any cognition however small nor by love. — But however much this opinion is fortified, never is it so fortified but that pious ears shudder to hear this, that in the belly of a mouse, or in a sewer, the body of Christ should be, so long as the species subsist there.

On account of this there is another opinion, that the body of Christ in no way descends into the belly of a mouse. — Now the reason that moves these [people] is this: that Christ is not under that Sacrament except insofar as it is orderable to human use, namely to eating; but as a mouse gnaws, so also it renders [it] unfit, and thus it ceases to be the Sacrament, and the body of Christ ceases to be there, and the substance of bread returns; as Innocent says, and the authority was set forth above in the preceding distinction, where it was asked whether the accidents nourish. And this opinion is more common and certainly more honorable and more reasonable.

1. To that, therefore, which is objected, that it is inseparably united to the species; it must be said that this is true so long as they have the character of the Sacrament and are fit for human use; but this is not [the case] when a mouse eats [them].

2. To that which is objected, that [God] detests sin more; it must be said that in a sinner there is nature and there is fault; and although the fault displeases, yet He does not hate the nature, which He made; nay, He so loves [it] that He is ready to remit the fault, if [the sinner] himself consents; and by reason of natural fitness the sinner is more suited to receive than the mouse —

— although the mouse is not a sinner — because sin never so vitiates nor corrupts the rational nature but that it is nobler than the irrational.

3. To that which is asked: what does it eat? the answer is twofold according to the two opinions: either that it eats the accidents, which are by a power above nature able to be converted into a substance; or that it eats the *substance of the bread*, which returns, as was touched on above.

If you ask: what becomes of the body of Christ? Does it fly away? it must be said that, just as in the conversion of the bread the body of Christ does not descend locally nor is changed by any change, but by the conversion of the bread alone begins to be under those species; so by the reversion of the bread alone it ceases to be there, in such a way that no change is made in it, neither local nor any other. *Let him who can grasp [it] grasp [it]*, and let him who cannot, believe, and let this suffice for him.

4. To that which is objected concerning the polluted vessel, it must be said that it is not similar; because the pollution of the vessel does not yet take away the fitness for use, and through this it does not take away its being the Sacrament, and thus it does not remove what is contained.