Dist. 8, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 3
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/8/q/bon-sent-IV-d8-p1-a2-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether the Lord confected the Sacrament of the eucharist before he uttered the word.*

Third, it is asked concerning the manner of instituting the Sacrament of the eucharist. And since the institution of this Sacrament was in the institution of the word, it is asked whether he confected before he uttered the word. And that he did so is shown:

1. From the text of the Gospel. In Matthew twenty-six it is written: *While they were supping, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples, saying: Take* etc.; and afterward: *This is my body.* From this text a twofold reason is drawn: first, that *he first blessed* before he uttered the word; but the blessing was the consecration: therefore he first blessed and consecrated before he uttered the word.

2. Likewise, it is argued from another text: that *he first broke* before he uttered the word; but the breaking follows the confection in this Sacrament, as is evident: therefore he confected before he uttered the words: therefore he did not institute the words by confecting.

**On the contrary:** 1. If he did not utter the words in confecting, then either he confected *with other words*, or *without a word*. If he confected *with other words*: then those words ought above all to have power; if *without a word*: then it seems that the Church does not imitate the highest master in confecting; which seems unfitting, since in this Sacrament especially the highest priest gave the form and the exemplar of consecrating.

2. Likewise, if he did not confect with these words, then the words in Christ's mouth were merely significative, therefore they did not have power nor efficacy: if they did not have it then, it seems therefore that they never have it, since they do not have it now except on account of that which was done then.

### Conclusion. *The Lord, by confecting, instituted the words of the form, and by uttering the words he confected.*

**I respond:** It must be said that concerning this there are three opinions sufficiently probable.

The first is that the Lord confected before he instituted the word, just as he was baptized before he instituted the form of baptism. And their reason is that he himself, who is the Word of the Father, confected by himself without a word: but to us, who lack the power of the Word, he gave the form after the consecration.

Another opinion is that the Lord confected and at the same time uttered the words, but he uttered them twice: first in *secret* for confecting, second *openly* for manifesting the form that was instituted. The first he is understood to have done when it is said: *He blessed and broke*; and they expound: *He blessed*, namely by saying secretly: *This is my body*; and afterward *he broke* and, distributing, he said openly that word: *This is my body*.

The third opinion is that the Lord at the same time confected and instituted the word; and just as he confected only once, so he uttered the words only once; and this seems more fitting. For to what purpose would he utter the words so many times, when he could well do it by uttering once? Furthermore, although he could confect without a word, he nevertheless had to confect by saying the word, in order to hand on the form to the Apostles; for the Lord there was not only displaying his power, but also instructing his disciples. — And this position is the more common and more probable. Holding to this, it must be said that the Lord, by confecting, instituted the words, because by uttering the words he afterward confected.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that he first blessed; it must be said that that blessing was not the consecration, but was a certain preparation or rather a certain prefacing of prayer or of thanksgiving, in which he showed that no food is to be handled by us except with a blessing going before. Hence it is the custom of churchmen to put a blessing before every meal.

2. To that which is objected concerning the breaking, it must be said that for a twofold cause there can be a breaking: either for *signifying*, or for *distributing*; for *signifying*, as the priest breaks at the altar, and this follows the confection. But the other is for *distributing*, and thus, if someone were to confect for many, so that he had one bread, not separate hosts, he could fittingly break first. And thus the Lord did; hence he broke, that he might distribute among the disciples.

---