Dist. 13, Art. 2, 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/13/q/bon-sent-IV-d13-a2-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether the body of Christ descends into the belly of a man.*

Secondly, it is asked whether the body of Christ descends into the belly of a man. And that it does, it seems:

1. *By authority*: in *On the Consecration*, distinction two: "Let those who consume the remains of the Lord's body, which are left in the sacristy, not at once come together to receive common foods, lest they be thought to be mingled with the sacred participation"; but he would not say this unless it descended into the belly: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, Bede in the same place: "If anyone through gluttony or greed vomit up the Eucharist, let him do penance forty days"; but nothing is vomited unless it is swallowed down: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, the body of Christ is conjoined to those species, as long as they remain under their forms; but they are not transmuted at once, rather they descend into the belly under their own properties: therefore the body of Christ also [descends] with them.

4. Likewise, the body of Christ either goes into the belly, or into the mind; not into the mind, because God alone enters in: therefore into the belly.

5. Likewise, in what sense is the body of Christ said to be eaten sacramentally? If on account of mastication only: then if anyone should chew the species and spit them out, he would be said to have eaten sacramentally; which is false: therefore it is necessary that not only mastication take place, but also incorporation. But if the species without their content are passed into the belly, they cease to have the character of the Sacrament: therefore on this account there will be no sacramental eating: it is necessary, therefore, that one eat the true body.

6. Likewise, what unfitting [thing] is there, if it should descend into the belly? For we see that the body of light passes through all things unstained, and shrinks from nothing, neither clean nor unclean:

therefore likewise, indeed much more strongly, the glorious body of Christ.

**On the contrary:**
1. Matthew the fifteenth: *Everything that enters the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the privy*; but the body of Christ is not cast out into the privy: therefore it is established that from the mouth it does not go into the belly.

2. Likewise, Ambrose: "This bread is not that which goes into the body, but the bread of eternal life, which sustains the substance of the soul."

3. Likewise, *by reason* it seems so: because it is established that the body of Christ is not the food of the belly, but of the mind: therefore it does not pass into the belly, but into the mind.

4. Likewise, if it passes into the belly, it goes to the offices of the belly, which are to digest and distribute and to transmit to the several parts, or to cast out into the privy; but this is false: therefore, etc.

> **Conclusion.** Of the four opinions related, the safer one is declared to be that which asserts that the body of Christ remains in the stomach under the species, as long as these are under their own form and have the character of refreshing.

**I respond:** It must be said that to go into the belly is twofold: either as to *substance*, or as to *the efficacy of feeding*. In the first way some body descends into the belly, even if it is not food; in the second way only food [does]. — Likewise to go into the mind is twofold: either as to substance, and thus there goes that which enters into the soul, and this is God alone; or as to efficacy, and thus that is said to go into the mind which refreshes it. — If therefore we speak as to the efficacy of feeding; thus it is certain that the body of Christ does not go into the belly, but into the mind, because the flesh of Christ does not refresh the belly, but the mind, as the last four reasons show. — But if we speak as to substance; thus it is certain that it does not go into the mind. But whether it goes into the belly is doubtful on account of the diversity of opinions. Whence it is to be noted that there were four opinions here.

For some said that [it goes] not only into the belly, but also wherever those species are carried, their nature being preserved, whether into the belly of a mouse or into an unclean place. Some said that it not only goes into the belly of a man, but remains there, as long as those species are ordainable to refreshment. Whence they said that it goes into the belly and tarries until the operation of refreshment be completed. Some said that it reaches the belly, as long as they are in the state of being consumed, and tarries no longer. Some said that it is with those species only as long as they are [perceptible] with some sense, as sight, or taste. And they say that Hugh held this, who says: "In sight, touch, and savor it is with you; as long as the bodily sense is affected, the presence of the body is not taken away; but after the bodily sense fails in perceiving, thenceforth the bodily presence is not to be sought, but the spiritual [presence] to be retained: the dispensation completed, the Sacrament is perfect, the power remains, Christ passes from the mouth to the heart; it is better that he go into your mind than into your belly."

Now the reason for the diversity of these opinions is this: for all agree in this, that the body of Christ is in those species as long as there is the character of the Sacrament. The first, therefore, say that the species of the consecrated bread is the Sacrament as long as it is the species of bread, since the power of the consecration regards it inasmuch as it is bread; therefore it never ceases, that property being preserved. And from this arises the first position. — But others say that the character of the Sacrament is preserved only as long as the species is fit for human refreshment; for it was instituted and ordained to this, and has this when it is outside and in the stomach, because it refreshes. And from this arises the second position. — The third say that it is preserved as long as it is received into the use of eating; and when the eating is completed, now it is not the Sacrament, but was. And from this the third position has its origin. — Others say that because the Sacrament is a sign, and a sign is what offers itself to the senses, the species is the Sacrament as long as it is of a nature to be perceived by some sense; and therefore, when the perception of the senses fails, the character of the Sacrament and the bodily presence fail.

But what is to be held amid so great a diversity is difficult to judge. Nevertheless the first opinion,

which says that it is carried wherever the species are carried, seems too broad; because then it would also pass into the belly of a mouse, and descend into the sewer; which pious ears abhor; and if we should say [so], heretics and unbelievers would deride and mock us. — Likewise the fourth opinion, which says that it fails when the sense-perception of those species fails, seems to be too narrow. For according to this it could never be said that the body of Christ is truly received, since that food is not said to be received which is not perceived nor reaches the stomach. Whence neither is the saying of Hugh to be understood as to the act of perceiving, but as to fitness. And besides, sense is not only by the taste of the tongue, but a man also perceives the descent of food, until it comes to rest in the stomach.

Of the two middle positions, which is the truer, it is not easy to judge, since each is very probable. For it is probable that, the receiving and eating being completed, when now the Sacrament has had its end, for which it was, it ceases to be the Sacrament: and this Hugh of St. Victor seems to have held. For he says thus: "After you have eaten, [if] you seek the bodily presence of Christ, seek it in heaven, there it is at the right hand of the Father"; and this seems probable enough. For as long as Christ is under those species, he is to be adored; but he would be foolish who should adore Christ in the belly of the one eating.

Nevertheless another [position] seems safer and to agree more with the authorities, [namely] that the body of Christ with those species descends to the stomach and is under them, as long as they are under their own form and have the character of refreshing, because according to their ordination to human refreshment they were the Sacrament; whence they grant that the body of the Lord is in the stomach, because there the species are as food; and therefore, if the species are vomited up, the Eucharist is vomited up, and if the species could be discerned by others, they would have to be received. But if those species pass through the stomach undigested through some infirmity, then they are outside the property of refreshment; and therefore, if they go into the privy, the body of the Lord is not there. — But whether this be true, I know not; nevertheless it seems safe to me that if anyone should vomit up perceptible species, great reverence is to be shown; and great diligence employed, lest anyone vomit; and it is dangerous to give [it] to one of whom it is presumed that he cannot keep [it down].

According to this position the response to the objections is plain enough, except for those which are objected concerning the mingling and the vomiting, to which it can be answered: to the first, that the decree does not say that they are mingled, but are thought to be mingled. But to the second, that what Bede says, that someone vomits, this is said and the penalty imposed only because those species were containers of the Lord's body; and therefore they are to be held in great reverence, especially because they were consecrated with the most holy symbols; and therefore they are burned, and the ash is reserved with due reverence. But he who vomits is gravely punished, because, as far as in him lies, he vomits the body of Christ; and so it would have to be said of him who should cast [it] into the sewer. The penalty to be imposed on those who vomit is determined in *On the Consecration*, distinction two.