Dist. 8, Part 2, Art. 1, 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/8/q/bon-sent-IV-d8-p2-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *On the form of the word over the wine.*

Secondly it is asked about the form of the word over the wine, and this is had in the canon: « This is the chalice of my blood » etc. But it seems that this is not the form:

1. On account of the fact that the Master says that the form is: « This is my blood »: since therefore there are not two, the matter is plain, etc.

2. Likewise, in none of the Evangelists is this form found, since in Matthew and Mark it is said: *This is my blood*; in Luke: *This is the chalice in my blood*: if therefore one ought not to give credence to anything which is not in the New or Old Testament, but credence is to be given simply to the New and the Old: therefore that form is to be rejected, and the form which is handed down in the Gospel is to be held.

Likewise, I inquire about the fittingness of this form.

3. And since nothing ought to be placed in the form except what pertains to the essence of the Sacrament; and the chalice is neither of the matter nor of the form, but the containing vessel: therefore it ought not to be placed in the form.

4. If you say that it is taken transumptively, I ask: for what? If for the passion, then the sense is: this is the passion of the blood; if for the drink, then the sense is: this is the drink; but just as blood is drink, so the body is food: therefore if in the form of the bread it is not said *this is the food of the body*, neither in the form of the wine ought it to be said: *this is the drink of the blood*.

5. Likewise, where the speech is transferred, there is impropriety, and where there is impropriety, there is an occasion of error; and every such thing is to be excluded; therefore etc.

6. Likewise, where there is transumption, there are several meanings, namely the proper and the transumed; but the multiplicity of meanings is a cause of wandering, which ought especially to be foreign to the one dispensing and confecting this Sacrament: therefore etc.

7. But it is further objected concerning the word "of the blood": for if this is the principal thing in the Sacrament, it seems that it ought to be expressed in the nominative rather than in the oblique case.

8. Likewise, if "chalice" stands there for the thing contained, and the thing contained does not differ from the blood, and oblique cases are transitive: therefore it ought not to be placed in the oblique case.

9. It is further asked about what it says: *of the new and eternal testament*: because, if the testament is new, then it is not eternal: therefore the one is badly joined with the other.

10. Likewise, it seems that it ought not to be placed: *Mystery of faith*, since in the other Sacraments there is a mystery of faith; and yet it is not placed there: therefore neither in this one.

11. Likewise, it is added: *Which shall be poured out for you and for many*; why is it not likewise said of the body, *shall be handed over*?

12. Likewise, why does it distinguish? For since it was poured out equally for all, it seems that it ought not to say: *for you and for many*, but *for all*.

> ### Conclusion.
> The form by which the chalice is consecrated, namely: *this is the chalice of my blood*, is certain, fitting, and, as it seems, complete.

**I respond:** It must be said that this form: « This is the chalice of my blood », is a certain form, a

fitting form; but whether it is complete, or whether what follows belongs to its integrity, is doubtful; yet it is believed that it is complete. Nevertheless what follows is not added in vain, nor ought anything to be cut away.

That this is a certain form is plain from this, that the Roman Church holds it, the Church which was instructed by the chief of the Apostles. Hence Innocent: « The Roman Church has always preserved with whole faith that which it received from the very Apostles, who taught it the ecclesiastical rites by deeds and doctrines while present; from the very Apostles Peter and Paul, whom it had as living authors and guards as deceased, it received this rite of sacrifice, which until now it has preserved with unmoved observance ». The form is therefore to be taken from the canon, since it is handed down not by way of narration, but of institution; the Master, however, does not intend to give the form, just as he did not in the other Sacraments, but to convey something like it. It is to be taken from the very Apostles, not from the Evangelists, because the Apostles instituted the Church, according to what they received from the Lord; the Evangelists, however, narrated the divine words and works, attending to the meaning, not to the wording. Therefore neither do the Evangelists agree in the form, because perhaps they do not intend to hand down the form; but they agree in the sense which they meant to narrate. And so it is plain that this is the form.

But whether that which is handed down in the Gospels is the form in which it is confected — who would dare to deny, or who would presume to assert, since we do not know whether they themselves intended to describe the form, or to narrate the words? But if they intended to give the form, the form is preserved in all those words, and a slight variation of the word, the sense being safe, does not change the form: and thus from this it does not follow that the one which is had in the canon is not the form; rather it is truly the form, since it agrees in sense with the others. But if they did not so intend, then it remains that this is the form; and through this this form is certain.

**To the first and second.** And the response to the first two objections is plain.

It is also fitting, because in this Sacrament the blood of Christ is signified as poured out as a price and as administered as a drink; but the blood expresses neither of these of itself expressly, but through the conjunction with the chalice, since the blood is set forth in the chalice as poured out and as to be drunk. Therefore the chalice in Scripture sometimes signifies the passion, as in Matthew chapter twenty: *Can you*

*drink the chalice which* etc. It also signifies the refreshment of drink by transumption, as in the Psalm: *How excellent is the chalice that inebriates!* On account of this twofold trope it is better said *chalice of blood* than *blood* by itself. — If therefore it be asked: to what is it transumed? I say, to the thing contained. Hence it is called *chalice of blood*, just as *chalice of wine*, when it is said: *drink the chalice*. — If you ask: why is it not said of the body *food of the body*? it must be said that the body of Christ is of itself bread; but the blood is not called drink, except insofar as it is offered to drink in the chalice of the passion.

**To the fifth and sixth.** To that, then, which is objected concerning transumption, that it is an occasion of error and wandering; it must be said that this is true where there is a hidden, improper, and unaccustomed transumption; but it is not so here.

**To the seventh and eighth.** To that which is further asked: why is "blood" placed in the oblique case? it must be said that it is understood in the nominative, nor are the oblique and the nominative construed transitively as diverse things, but there is identity, just as when one says *drink of wine*, or *creature of salt*. And so it is plain that it is a fitting form.

It is also complete and perfect; for it is sufficient to signify the transubstantiation of the wine into the blood of Christ. Hence what is added is for well-being, because in what follows are described the effects of the blood signified in this Sacrament and poured out in the passion, which are threefold. — One is the renewal of the testament and the confirmation of the renewed, since in death the testament is confirmed and made new; for the old, which had been confirmed in the blood of bulls, is there made void.

**To the ninth.** Therefore it says: *Of the new and eternal testament*.

Another effect of the pouring out of the blood is the *manifestation of faith*, because what was sealed and secret in the passion of the Lamb is opened.

**To the tenth.** Therefore it says: *Mystery of faith*, that is, secret; for this was most secret in faith, and this being revealed, faith was revealed; or because it is more difficult to believe.

The third effect is the *salvation* of certain Jews and of many gentiles.

**To the eleventh and twelfth.** Therefore it says: *Which for you*, understanding by the Apostles the Jews; and *for many*, understanding by this the gentiles. — Or it says it because in this Sacrament the priests ought to pray specially for themselves and for others; therefore it says: *for you* the priests, and *for many* the subjects, to be converted through you.

It could here be asked about the variation of these forms as to addition, diminution, and the like; and concerning this it is to be held what was said about the form of baptism. For here there are diverse opinions; for some say that any variation whatsoever, the sense being safe, does not take away the efficacy of the form; others, however, say that the least change takes it away, because to these words so ordered the power has been given. — But just as was touched upon above in the third distinction, it is better to hold the middle way; whence what was said there is to be supposed here also.