Dist. 9, Art. 1, 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/9/q/bon-sent-IV-d9-a1-q1
----------------------------------------
ARTICLE I.

*On the eating of the eucharist in general.*

QUESTION I.

*On the twofold mode of eating the eucharist.*

As regards the first, then, one proceeds thus. That there ought to be *two* modes of eating, namely "the sacramental and the spiritual," as the Master says, is shown:

1. First by the authority of the canon, John 6: *He who eats me lives because of me,* here the spiritual mode is touched upon; but 1 Corinthians 11: *He who eats unworthily eats judgment to himself,* and here another mode is touched upon, which is not spiritual: therefore the eating of the body of Christ is manifold.

2. Likewise, by the authority of Augustine: "He eats spiritually who abides in the unity of Christ and the Church, which the Sacrament signifies": "but he who is at variance with Christ neither eats the flesh of Christ nor drinks the blood, even if to his judgment he daily receives the Sacrament of so great a reality."

3. Likewise, this same thing is shown *by reason:* for, since there are only two realities of this Sacrament, and it is possible to receive one without the other: therefore there are two distinct modes.

4. Likewise, eating bespeaks the use of the Sacrament; therefore, since here there is a Sacrament inward and outward, it is plain that there are two eatings.

On the contrary: 1. It seems that there is but *one:* for "where one is for the sake of another, there is but one thing": therefore if the sacramental is for the sake of the spiritual, or toward the spiritual, as a sign toward what is signified: therefore there is but one eating.

2. Likewise, *the flesh of Christ is truly food,* therefore just as it belongs to light to illumine, so it belongs to that flesh to feed: but not corporeally, therefore spiritually; but he who receives sacramentally receives the flesh, and so is fed spiritually: therefore there is but one mode of eating, namely the spiritual.

3. Likewise, it is shown that there are several modes: for, as is said above in distinction four, some receive in baptism the reality only, some the Sacrament only, some both: therefore three modes; for the same reason then here too there are three eatings.

4. Likewise, union is threefold: in nature, in faith, and in charity; but to the union of faith there corresponds the sacramental eating: therefore also to the union of charity the spiritual: therefore there will be a third mode corresponding to the union in nature.

5. Likewise, the theological virtue is threefold in us, and each in its own way unites: therefore since one mode of eating corresponds to faith, another to charity; another will correspond to hope.

CONCLUSION.

*The eucharist is eaten in a twofold mode, namely sacramentally and spiritually.*

I respond: It must be said that the mode of eating is twofold. The distinction of this arises from a threefold source, namely from the *disposition of those receiving:* for some approach ill-disposed, and these eat sacramentally; some well, and these spiritually. — Further the distinction arises secondly from the *mode of receiving:*

for some receive *with the mouth of the body,* and these sacramentally; but some *with the mouth of the heart,* and these spiritually: hence according to the twofold mouth the eating is twofold. — Thirdly it arises from *the Sacrament itself:* for it has a twofold reality, of which one can be received without the other; thus just as baptism is twofold, namely of water and of the Spirit, from a twofold reality, so too the mode of eating is twofold. — And this last is the complete one, since one reality can be received without the other.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that *where one is for the sake of another;* it must be said that this is true, if the one is so for the sake of the other that it cannot be separated; but when it is separated, then it no longer remains one.

2. To that which is objected, that the flesh always feeds; it must be said that that act always regards the disposition of the one receiving, like *illumining;* hence as the disposition is doubled, so too the mode of eating.

3. To that which is objected, that there are three modes in baptism, and so forth; it must be said that that third mode is distinguished only *materially* from the other two.

4. To that which is objected concerning the union of nature, it must be said that eating regards the act of the person, and so according to nature there is no eating, but it is presupposed.

5. To that which is objected concerning hope, some say that it does not unite, because hope properly is of the future; yet it must be said that these eatings are not distinguished according to the virtues — for spiritual eating is according to faith and charity — but according to the *realities of the Sacrament.* Hence every Sacrament which indeed has two realities can be received sacramentally and spiritually.

SCHOLION.

I. Augustine's distinction of the twofold mode of eating this most august Sacrament, which is treated in these 4 questions, is commonly received as an adequate division. Yet the one mode does not exclude the other; rather, by right, with the sacramental eating, which is done with the mouth of the body, the spiritual, which is done with the mouth of the heart, ought to be joined. In use, however, they can be and are separated from one another. Yet the eating which is done with the bodily mouth alone is not always sacramental on the part of the one eating, namely when he uses the species not insofar as they are the Sacrament, but purely materially; thus he who does not know that the species are consecrated does not receive the Sacrament sacramentally, since he receives it only accidentally (cf. below q. 3.). — Spiritual eating too can take place in various modes. Hence S. Thom. (S. III. q. 80. n. 1. ad 3.) teaches that it is spiritually eaten not only out of desire of receiving this Sacrament already instituted, but also "on account of [its] figure, as the Apostle says 1 Cor. 10, 3. 4, that the ancient Fathers... ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink." Yet the same author in his Commentary (here q. 1. n. 2. little-question 1.) distinguishes between *eating Christ spiritually* and *eating this Sacrament spiritually;* and on this supposition he says (ad 2.) "that the ancient Fathers did not eat *this Sacrament* spiritually, since it was not yet instituted... yet they ate *Christ* spiritually." The same is taught by Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 11. m. 2. n. 2. § 1, and B. Albert., here a. 5. But in these things the dispute is more about the name than about the reality. — Scot. (IV. Sent. d. 8. q. 3. n. 2.) says that this Sacrament can be received in a fourfold mode, namely neither sacramentally nor spiritually [that is, purely materially]; or sacramentally, but not spiritually; or sacramentally and spiritually; or only spiritually and not sacramentally.

On this 1st question: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 1. a. 1. n. 1. 2. — Scot., in both Writings the cited question. — S. Thom., here q. 1. a. 1. little-question 3; the cited Summa article. — B. Albert., here a. 1. 3. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 1. a. 2. little-question 1. — Richard. a Med., here a. 1. q. 3. — On this and the following questions Durand., here q. 1; Dionys. Carth., here q. 1.