PART ONE
PREFIGURATION AND INSTITUTION OF THE EUCHARIST
ARTICLE ONE
ON THE PREFIGURATION OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
QUESTION ONE
WHETHER THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN PREFIGURED
And that this sacrament was prefigured is clear from the assertion of the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 10:3, 11: All ate the same spiritual food, and again, All these things happened to them in figure. And that it should have been so is apparent:
a. Because the Old Law was for us the figure of things to come, and the more noble ones ought to be prefigured even more; and since this sacrament is the most noble then it most fittingly should be prefigured.
b. Again, it can be shown by another reason: that it was fitting that the passage from darkness to light should happen by way of shadow and figure. Just as nature cannot bear sudden changes, so neither can the soul. But since in this sacrament the light itself is present, it needed to be prefigured.
c. Again, this sacrament is the most difficult to believe; but the weak are to be introduced to the most difficult things little by little. Therefore, etc.
To the contrary: 1. Change is not of change; therefore neither is a sign of a sign. But this sacrament, by the very fact that it is a sacrament, is a sign and a figure; therefore it ought not be pre-signed nor prefigured.
2. Again, Confirmation and Extreme Unction are sacraments of the New Law and they have no figuration in the Old. If you speak of the anointing of kings, that says nothing, because the latter annointing in the Old Law was special and the former anointing in the New Law is universal. So neither should this sacrament have a figuration in the Old Law.
3. Again, Baptism has a prefiguration, which was not just a figure, but also a remedy, namely circumcision. However, nothing that would provide a remedy preceded the sacrament of the altar. Therefore this sacrament lacks prefiguration.
I respond: It must be said that this sacrament of the altar was prefigured and it ought to have been prefigured, both by reason of its dignity and by reason of its difficulty. First, by reason of its dignity, it was to be announced and awaited as the most outstanding gift of God. Therefore figures ought to have preceded this sacrament. In them the expectation of the faithful would be revivified and the dignity of this sacrament would be all the more celebrated. Hence the sending forth of these earlier figures was nothing more than the spread of its renown. Second, by reason of its difficulty, it is among all the other sacraments the most difficult to believe. This is even more so when compared to all the other beliefs. Hence humanity by ruminating on these prefigurations was to be trained and prepared for this belief.1
To the objections: 1. To the first objection, that a sign is not of a sign. It must be said that this sign has a truth connected to it. Hence it is not merely a sign, but by reason of its connection it is a truth. Thus because there can be a sign and figure of a truth, it is possible that there be a sign and figure of the sacraments of the New Law, especially this one.
2. To the objection concerning Confirmation and Extreme Unction, there are multiple responses. Some say that all of the sacraments are prefigured in the Old Law, since in Ezekiel’s vision2 the wheel was within the wheel. Specifically the objection concerning these two sacraments is solved through the concept of representation, inasmuch as the three anointings of the New Law were prefigured in the three anointings of David, which are mentioned in 1 Samuel. 16:13 and 2 Samuel 2:4 and 5:3. Thus they respond through the concept of a representative.3
On the other hand, others say that Confirmation and Extreme Unction were not prefigured on account of their perfection. Hence they distinguish three genera of sacraments. Those of the first genus are of the highest order, as those which provide perfect grace both for doing battle and for taking one’s exit. And these are Confirmation and Extreme Unction, which declare perfection in their own right. And because the Law has led no one to perfection,4 so these two are proper to the New Law. Those sacraments of the second genus are somewhere in the middle. They provide a powerful grace, and so belong to the New Law. Nevertheless because they do not proclaim perfection, they are able to be prefigured in the Old Testament. These of the second genus, they say, consist of two: Baptism and the Eucharist. Those of the third genus are the lowest: Matrimony, Orders and Penance. These do not stand out. Indeed they are common and are not at all prefigured; instead they both begin and are perfected in the New Testament. However to place the other sacraments ahead of the two that were prefigured seems absurd in the extreme, since these two sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist, are the most renowned.
And therefore a different solution must be proposed. Although all of them were prefigured in some manner, Baptism and the Eucharist nonetheless are in more figures and in more expressive figures. This is so for three reasons. First is the difficulty in their belief. Baptism is difficult because it is the first sacrament, and the Eucharist is because it is the highest sacrament. The second reason is because of their dignity, which Baptism owes to its effectiveness, and the Eucharist to its content. The third reason is the unity of the Church, where Baptism marks the beginning of this unity, and the Eucharist its consummation—or alternately for Baptism, insofar as it is the seal of Christianity, and the Eucharist insofar as it brings one to the full worship of God. Hence while the other sacraments have their figures in some manner, they are not prefigured in such an outstanding and expressive manner.
3. To the objection that Baptism had a sanctifying prefiguration, it must be said that the reason for this is twofold. The first is that Baptism is the remedy for a deadly and destructive illness; and it is the remedy for infants who are unable to help themselves. This is due to the fact that those who are less able to help themselves require the greater assistance. Therefore a sacrament5 preceded Baptism, which of itself was efficacious. It is not that way for the Eucharist. This is because it is a sacrament for those who are already alive and for adults who can help themselves with the assistance of faith and the application of free will. Therefore, faith supplies in them what was lacking on the part of the sacrament. And thus the questions are clear.
THE NUMBER AND SUFFICIENCY OF FOUR PREFIGURATIONS
The second question concerns the number and sufficiency of the prefigurations of this sacrament; the Master6 names four: the paschal lamb, manna, the sacrifice of Melchizedek, and the blood which flowed from Christ’s side. But it appears that the Master’s fourfold enumeration was insufficient:
1. Because other figures came earlier in the sacrifices and offerings such as the kid offered by Manoah in Judges 13:19 and the honeycomb in 1 Samuel 14:27.
2. Again, it seems wrong to designate manna as a figure, because it contained every delight.7 But the Eucharist does not contain every delight, because then the other sacraments would be superfluous.
3. Likewise, there is an objection concerning the offering of Melchizedek that he offered and gave to Abraham. But the sacrament of the Eucharist is offered to God, and thus this does not appear to be a prefiguration.
4. Again, there is an objection to the paschal lamb and its blood, because it preceded the crossing of the Red Sea. And therefore because the latter is a figure of Baptism, it would seem that if the paschal lamb is genuinely a figure, then the Eucharist preceded Baptism. This is absurd.
5. Again, there is an objection concerning the blood that flowed from the side of Christ. Because that blood is the same as what is truly in this sacrament and what is signified in this sacrament. Therefore this makes the blood a figure of itself and the sign and the thing signified the same thing. This is altogether unsuitable.
I respond: It must be said that the Master adequately assigned figures for this sacrament. In doing so he took into account all the dispensations of the Law. For within the natural law he places the figure of the sacrifice of Melchizedek, and within the law of Moses similarly the lamb and the manna, and within the law of grace the blood of the passion. Similarly, these figures are adequate if attention is given to the things that are prefigured by them. For in this sacrament of Eucharist there is visible form. This is prefigured in the sacrifice of Melchizedek. There is also the matter contained. This is found in the paschal lamb. Furthermore, there is the matter that is only signified. This is found in the manna. Lastly there is the power that provides the effectiveness of this sacrament. This is in the blood that flowed from the side of Christ.8 Thus the first three fit the category of figure, while the last fits more the category of cause. Nevertheless the last also fits the category of figure, considering the circumstances, because from the suffering and death of Christ blood and water flowed.9
To the objections: 1. The objection concerning adequacy of the number of the prefigurations is therefore solved, because all other figures can be reduced to these. For all offerings and all sacrifices can be reduced to the paschal lamb, and all foods to manna.
2. To the objection concerning manna, it must be said that “every delight” is intended to mean the same as “perfect delight.” Or if “every” is understood distributively, it refers to the matter which it contains. Or if “every” is understood as pertaining to its effect, the power of its deliciousness, it is to be understood as pertaining to the act of eating. Therefore the other sacraments are not superfluous.
3. To the objection concerning the sacrifice of Melchizedek, it must be said that the sacrament of the Eucharist is most outstandingly prefigured there and in the manna. The Eucharist is first offered to us for eating and then is offered to God as worship. Hence it is first divinely given to us, and then we offer it to God. This is also signified with the manna, which was kept in a vase before the Lord, because it was given from heaven for eating, and then placed again before the Lord. In the same way is this sacrament given, if one looks more carefully, because it is given from heaven and we eat it, and we nevertheless offer it to God.
4. To the objection concerning the paschal lamb, it must be said that the lamb properly signified the passion of Christ. The passion of Christ was the root and supply of the fundamental power of all the sacraments, and therefore preceded them all. In the sacrament of the Eucharist the suffering Christ is truly contained and all the sacraments draw their efficacy from the passion. Hence the consuming and use of that lamb principally signified in this sacrament preceded the figure of Baptism, not by reason of prefiguration of sacrament but rather by reason of prefiguring the passion.
5. Finally it must be said that the blood of Christ, which flowed from the side of Christ, did not have, properly speaking, the character of figure, because in that instance the blood was truth.10 Nonetheless by reason of the manner of its coming forth, because it flowed from the side of one who was dead, it has in a certain fashion the character of prefiguration, most especially by reason of what is added, namely water. This particular topic was more extensively treated in the beginning of this book.11 And thus the objections are resolved.
The third question concerns the preeminent prefiguration. The question is which figure is more expressive. Is it the one which dates to the time of natural law, or one of those which belongs to the time of the Mosaic Law, or the one which belongs to the time of the law of grace. And it is seen that the more expressive figure belongs to the time of the natural law.
1. On the authority of St. Ambrose in De sacramentis, “it appears that the Christian sacraments were earlier than those of the Jews.”12 This can be said only by reason of the natural law. Therefore the Christian sacraments were in some manner greater in that time. This was not with respect to truth or efficacy, but with respect to the expression of a figure.
2. Again, the law of nature better corresponds to the law of grace or the Gospel than does the law of Moses. This is because the Gospel Law contains more natural precept than institutional precept. The opposite is true of the Mosaic Law. Therefore the figures of the natural law more forcefully stand as figures for the sacraments, it would seem.
3. Again, the same appears from reason. Melchizedek offered bread and wine in sacrifice, and in these same species the sacrament of the altar is now offered and celebrated. Therefore since there could be no more expressive figure than one identical down to the species, it would seem that it would precede as the most expressive figure.
To the contrary: a. Hugh of St. Victor argued just as the passion of the Savior drew near, so the signs must have become more evident.13 The reason for this is that knowledge of the truth had grown. Therefore since the knowledge of truth increased in the time of the written law and the passion of the Savior was drawing near, it would seem that these figures were more expressive.
b. This would seem to be literally realized in the manna. This is because that food was from heaven, refreshed all equally, was common to all, and contained every delight. But the bread and wine of Melchizedek were from the earth. But this sacrament is bread coming down from heaven.14 Thus it would seem that the figure of manna was the more expressive.
I respond: It must be said the figures from those laws mutually surpass one another in expressiveness according to different conditions, as the reasons brought forward indicate. For this sacrament can be prefigured either with respect to its rite, or to its effect, or according to its sign, or to what is signified. With respect to the rite, the more expressive preceding figure is found in the sacrifice of Melchizedek, as the reasons adduced prove; that much is clear. But if related to its effect, it is thus expressly prefigured in the manna, as the aforementioned reasons demonstrate. And so the response to both is clear.
However the further question remains: why did the more expressive figure, with respect to the rite, precede within the law of nature? To this it must be said that the Lord instituted the written law to be fulfilled and subsequently superseded,15 just as the truth supersedes the shadow. Therefore, lest we seem to be judaizing, he provided that express figures be given in the Mosaic Law. However, with respect to the rite, it is different, so that the suspension and imperfection of the Mosaic Law might be clearly demonstrated. Thus Christ declares himself more priest according to the order of Melchizedek rather than of Aaron, in order to show the translation of the law and the priesthood. This is as the Apostle put forward in the Letter to the Hebrews.16 So the whole is clarified.
ON THE INSTITUTION OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
QUESTION ONE
WHETHER THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST WAS INSTITUTED FROM THE BEGINNING
And it would seem that it was instituted from the beginning:
1. Because this sacrament is a viaticum. It provides nourishment for the traveler. Therefore it ought to have been instituted when people began their journey to their homeland. This journey began immediately after the fall. Therefore, etc.
2. Again, this sacrament is the sacrament of the union of the Mystical Body of Christ. Therefore, it ought to have been instituted at the same time as the Mystical Body. This was from the beginning. Therefore, etc.
3. Again, the sacrament of Matrimony did not cease on account of the fall, but rather what served as a duty17 was made also into a remedy. According to Augustine,18 the eating of the tree of life was given to humans as a sacrament. Like Matrimony, neither should this sacramental eating cease. And just as Matrimony was made into a remedy, so also eating of the tree should not now provide bodily life, because humans are now bound to bodily death. Rather, the tree of life was changed so that it would now provide spiritual life. Such is the Eucharist. Therefore, etc.
4. Again, just as Penance is a remedy for mortal sins, so the Eucharist is for venial sins. From the beginning both mortal and venial sins coexisted. Therefore by the same token the Eucharist along with Penance.
To the contrary: a. This sacrament contains the maximum of grace; indeed it takes its name from this.19 Therefore it ought to have been instituted only in the time of the law of grace.
b. Again, this sacrament truly contains the body of Christ, which he drew from the Virgin. Therefore this sacrament was not possible before that body existed. This was only in the New Testament.
I respond: It must be said that this sacrament is proper only to the law of grace. This is true both because of the matter contained, which is the true body of Christ, and because of its effect, which is the bond of charity.20 This bond of charity that appears abundantly in the New Law was possessed only imperfectly beforehand. Thus different degrees of the bond of charity exist in the world,21 just as among individuals.
To the objections: 1. To the objection concerning viaticum, it must be said that it does not apply. This is because they had need of some sort of support, but not the perfect food. And thus this support was only a prefiguration, not the thing itself.
2. To the objection that it is the sign of the Mystical Body, it must be said that this sacrament is the sign not only of the Mystical Body, but also of the true body of Christ and more immediately so. Hence, although the Mystical Body of Christ began with Abel, Christ’s proper body did not then exist, and therefore neither this sacrament.
3. To the third objection, it must be said that Matrimony when considered as an office or duty is proper for persons of every status.22 However this is not so when considered as a remedy. The bodily eating of that tree was suitable for the status of immortality, and the spiritual eating of that tree to every status. However, sacramental eating is only after the birth and fruit of that tree. For sacramental eating is the consumption of this fruit that follows his assumed humanity, which he unveiled for us as a prize and now offers as food. This is shown in John 6:51: and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.
4. To the objection concerning the Eucharist as a remedy for venial sins, it must be said this reasoning fails in three ways. First, a venial illness is not as dangerous as a mortal one. Second, venial sins can be remedied through penance just as mortal sins are. Third, the Eucharist is not principally ordered toward venial sins, as will be seen below.23
WHETHER THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST WAS INSTITUTED BEFORE THE PASSION
The second question concerns the time that it was instituted. It would seem that it was instituted before the passion:
A. Because this sacrament was left by the Lord as viaticum. Therefore it was appropriate that it be instituted at the time that the Lord was traveling. One might say that this does not follow, due to the fact that a viaticum is not called so because it is from a traveler but because it is for a traveler. To this, in turn, it can be objected that by instituting this sacrament the Lord not only provided the form but he also gave an example.
B. Again, it would seem to have been instituted shortly before the passion. This is because this sacrament was given as a sign of love. Since at the end the Lord displayed special signs of love for the consolation of his disciples, this sacrament was instituted near the end. This is shown in John 13:1: Since he had loved his own to the end.
C. Again, this sacrament is refreshing food. Therefore, if the time of the institution and its effect ought to be concurrent, it would seem to have been instituted at the hour of the Supper.
D. Again, this sacrament was the fulfillment of that which was prefigured in the paschal lamb. Therefore, if the truth ought to supplant the shadow, it would seem that it was instituted after the eating of the lamb, which was at the Paschal Supper.
To the contrary: 1. Christ, by effecting the Eucharist, provided the form for effecting it. Therefore in giving it, he provided the form of giving it or, rather, communicating.24 But after Supper is not the proper time for eating. Therefore it would seem that the Lord provided this sacrament in a disorderly fashion. However, this is unseemly. Therefore he did not provide it after the Supper.
2. Again, this sacrament follows Baptism. Therefore it ought to have been instituted after Baptism. But Baptism was instituted after the resurrection, in Matthew 28:19, therefore, then, after the passion.
3. Again, Christ is sacramentally contained in this sacrament. This is so that one who is not sensibly with us can at least be present sacramentally. In his ascension he went away bodily from the disciples; therefore this sacrament must have been instituted at that time.
4. Again, the same would seem to hold because it is a memorial sign. Such are better impressed upon the memory when they are exhibited last, as Augustine says in some homily.25 Therefore among all the things he did this ought to have been the last. Since after the resurrection he did many things in the sight of his disciples, this sacrament ought to have been instituted after all of them.
I respond: It must be said that this sacrament, only insofar as it is visible, contains the true body of Christ. Thus in this sacrament there is truly food and the principal sign of love—food, that is, insofar as it is refreshing and therefore instituted at the time of refreshment, and food insofar as it is paschal and therefore in the paschal supper. This sacrament was also truly a sign of love. Therefore since upon departing, it is appropriate for one to show signs of love and remembrance so that he remain more etched in memory, it was appropriate that this sacrament was instituted at the Last Supper.
To the objections: 1. To the first objection that if it was instituted after the Supper, it is then after the Supper that we ought to use it. It must be said that the Supper hour was fitting for its first institution. However, this hour is not fitting for our use of it. This is because institution deals with the effectiveness of the sacrament, but its further use looks to the worthiness of the one who receives it. A satiated person is not fit for carrying out spiritual matters; therefore the Church does not hold to the Supper hour, nor ought it to. If you should object that the Apostles received it unworthily, it must be said that they partook of it soberly after the example of their Master. Furthermore, they consumed paschal food, which was in some manner spiritual because of its significance.
2. To the other objection concerning Baptism, it must be said it is not credible that the form was instituted at the moment of the Great Commission. He instituted it elsewhere and then confirmed and made it public. He likewise referred to the Eucharist in the Great Commission, saying, and I am with you.…26
3. To the objection concerning his departure, it must be said that Christ did depart in his passion. This was his passing over and going away. That transitus was for our salvation. Hence it was at that moment that he established the paschal food. However, in his ascension, his second transitus was to his glory.
4. To the other objection concerning remembrance, it must be said that before his passion he was with them as a companion, and hence it was then that he left signs of his love. But after the resurrection he was there as master and almost as a stranger; hence he said, This is what I said when I was still with you.27 Therefore, those words of departure were to explain the sign and the sacrament of love.28
WHETHER THE LORD CELEBRATED THE EUCHARIST BEFORE HE SPOKE THE WORD
The third question concerns the manner of instituting the sacrament of the Eucharist. Since the institution of this sacrament took place in the institution of the word, the question is whether he celebrated it before he spoke the words. And that it was thus is shown:29
1. From the text of the Gospel. It is written in Matthew 26:26, During the meal Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying, “Take this…” and afterwards, This is my body. A twofold reasoning is drawn from this passage: the first is that he first blessed before uttering the word; but this blessing was a consecration. Therefore he first blessed and consecrated before speaking the word.
2. Again, it is argued from another text,30 because there he first broke it before uttering the word [of institution]. However, in this sacrament, it is clear the breaking of bread follows after the consecration. Therefore, he celebrated it before he uttered the word, and therefore he did not institute it by speaking the words.
But to the contrary: a. If he did not utter the words in accomplishing it, either he did it in other words or without a word. If he did it with other words, then those ought most particularly to have force. If without a word, then it would seem that the Church is no imitator of its highest master in celebrating it. This is unseemly since in this sacrament most especially its high priest provided the form and model for consecrating it.
b. Again, if he did not accomplish it in these words, then it would seem that the words in the mouth of Christ were just significative, and hence had neither power nor efficacy. And if those words did not have it then, it would seem that they never had it. And therefore they do not now have it, unless they had it then.
I respond: It must be said there are three opinions, each with some probability. The first opinion is that the Lord first celebrated it before he instituted the word, just as he was first baptized before he instituted the form of Baptism. And the reason for this is that he, who is the Word of the Father, accomplished it of himself without a word. However for us, who require the power of the Word, he provided the form after the consecration.
A second opinion is that the Lord celebrated it at the same time as he uttered the word, but he uttered it twice: the first secretly as he accomplished it, and the second openly as he made known the form instituted. Indeed he is understood to have done the first when he said, He blessed and broke it, and they explain: he blessed, means that he said secretly, This is my body. Then he broke it and while distributing it openly he pronounced that form, This is my body.
The third opinion is that the Lord accomplished it and instituted the word at the same time. Just as he did this only once, thus he spoke the words only once. That opinion appears to be the most fitting. For what purpose does it serve that he should speak the words that many times, when he could well make it happen by pronouncing it only once? Further, although he could celebrate it without a word, he had however to do it by uttering the word so that he could pass the form on to the Apostles. This is because in uttering the word he not only demonstrated his power, but he likewise instructed his disciples. This position is the more common and more probable. In support of this, it must be said that the Lord instituted the form in the action, because in speaking the word he afterwards accomplished it.
To the objections: 1. To the one, then, that objects that he blessed it beforehand, it must be said that that blessing was not a consecration but was a kind of preparation or, better, a prefacing kind of prayer which was a prayer of thanksgiving. By this he showed us that no food was to be handled without a prior blessing.31 Hence, it is customary for ecclesiastical persons to preface every meal with a blessing.
2. To the objection about the breaking, it must be said that a breaking can take place for two reasons: either to provide a figure, or for distribution. Therefore, it is to provide a figure, as the priest breaks it at the altar, and this follows the consecration. The other is for distribution, and thus, if someone consecrates for a multitude in such wise that he has a single loaf, and not distinct hosts, he fittingly breaks it beforehand. Therefore, this is the way the Lord did it; he broke it in order to distribute it to the disciples.32
THE FORM AND SIGNIFICATION OF THE EUCHARIST
ARTICLE ONE
ON THE FORM OF THE WORD
QUESTION ONE
THE FORM OF THE WORD OVER THE BREAD
Concerning, then, the form over the bread, which is This is my body, the first question concerns the subject, that is, the pronoun.
1. For since “this” is a pronoun, and not a relative, it is demonstrative. Otherwise it wouldn’t have any meaning, as Priscianus says.33 If, then, it demonstrates, it is either to the intellect or to the senses. If it is to the intellect, I then ask, What? This can be nothing else but the true body of Christ. The meaning then would be “my body is my body”; but this comes to nothing because it lacks any notion of accomplishing anything. If it is to the senses, then the meaning is “the bread is my body”; but this is simply erroneous. Therefore it can be taken in neither way.
2. Again, this pronoun conveys demonstration not as an idea, but as an act. However, demonstration is not applied except with regard to something that exists as an act at the time of its expression. Therefore if, when the pronoun is expressed, there is nothing there but bread, then what is demonstrated is bread. Therefore the conclusion is the same as above.
3. Again, the rule is that a term underlying a word that currently does not have the force of extension supposes that which in fact exists. But in fact there is nothing there but bread. Therefore “this” is taken for bread. But the predicate does not agree with that; it is therefore a false assertion.
Questions also arise about the connector, namely the verb “is.”
4. Since this form is a form to effect something, it would seem in this place a transitive verb should be used. However the one used is intransitive, that is, a verb that excludes action. Therefore in no way is it fitting there.
5. Again, with this word Christ celebrated and the priest intends to celebrate in the same way that God created with uncreated Word. Therefore, if suddenly the sacrament is effected at the pronunciation of this word, that is, as in a command, then it would seem that an imperative verb should be used, as if to say “let there be my body,” just as in creation “become” is not used, but let there be light.34
6. Again, the subject and predicate present incompatible forms. However, the substantive verb in the present tense speaks to the agreement of the forms of subject and predicate. Therefore it should not be spoken of in the present tense, “this is,” but in the future tense, “this will be.”
There are questions too about the predicate, “my body.”
7. It would seem better to say “flesh” because flesh is more fitting for eating. Hence it is written in John 6:56: My flesh is truly food.
8. Again, if those words are pronounced by the celebrant, therefore, since the celebrant speaks of Christ as of a third person, he ought not to say “my body” but “the body of Christ.” You might say Christ gave to these words their force just as he gave it to expel demons in his name when he said, They will use my name to expel demons.35 Nevertheless those who expelled them said “in the name of Christ.”
9. Again, since the forms in the other sacraments are acts that pertain to the intention and use or pertain to the one who consecrates, it would therefore seem that what precedes, Take and eat, as well as what follows, Do this in remembrance of me, belong to the form.
The question therefore is, What precisely is the form? Why does it not rest in a word that expresses the act of the minister?36
I respond: It must be said that in this matter there are many opinions. For, some say that the priest says those words not as his own words, but as those of Christ. Hence they are materially retained. Therefore there is no reason to question what is there denoted in the pronoun or what is joined by the verb. But this is not sufficient. This is first of all because, although the words are pronounced in the person of another, it is not altogether for this reason that they are retained materially. Rather they are retained materially on account of their signification, since they are repeated in the sense in which he spoke them. Besides, we would also have to ask exactly how they were pronounced by Christ.
Others say that the words are retained on account of their signification. The prayer holds no truth for the moment in which it is spoken, but rather for the moment for which it was spoken. This is like the expression “I drink.” This is not true for the moment of its speaking, but for a moment adjoining it. However that is no solution, because what is there pointed out is either the bread or the body of Christ. If it is the bread, at no time is the expression true. If it is the body of Christ, it is true at every moment.
Others say that the expression retains its signification and is true even at the moment in which it is spoken. However what is indicated there is not something for the senses, but for the intellect. For the intellect, I hold, not as like to like, as when one says “this plant grows in my garden,” but as something signified in a sign. So that according to the senses, this, is signified through is my body. This meaning of the expression is true, even if nothing were to happen. However, divine institution’s most effective power is added to this true meaning. The expression is transformative because of the Lord’s institution and the priest’s intention37—so much so that, that which is signified through this conversion into my body, is my body.38
This opinion is more probable than the previous ones; but it is still not fully satisfactory. For if, as Augustine says,39 the word must be applied to the element for a sacrament to happen, then the element is not signified there as element itself, but only insofar as there is intention for it to be converted into the body. What is indicated therefore is not the body of Christ, but the substance of bread under its accidents, which can be seen with the eyes. And this is indeed true, especially when the intent of the celebrant is brought to bear upon the bread in order that it be converted into the body,40 and that indicates what his intent is brought to bear upon.
And for this reason it should be noted that this expression is unique among all expressions. For other expressions indicate a truth or something existing, but this expression accomplishes the very thing it represents.41 Hence it is an effectual word (verbum operativum), and effectual not successively but instantly. It is effectual not of something new or previously nonexistent, but its outcome is rather a being previously actually complete and not changed. It results in something which is “the sign of something further,” namely, the Mystical Body of Christ.42 Therefore it does all this by the power of the uncreated Word conjoined by a minister who has no effect on the matter.43
From these six conditions, if one looks closely, the rationale for all the words in this form becomes apparent. First, this statement accomplishes a work, that is, it converts and transforms44 or is ordered to transubstantiation, and its effectiveness is directed to the substance of bread.45 Hence the pronoun46 points out the substance of bread under its accidents, which can be looked at with the eyes. Furthermore, the thing that is changed is handled through the subject, just as the thing into which it is changed through the predicate. Second, the outcome of this work is actually existent, not newly created. Therefore a verb of being must be used there instead of a verb of becoming. This is in order to signify that the change happens without a change in its end, namely in that which it is.47 Third, because it is instantaneous, and hence the becoming and having become are simultaneous, therefore the instantaneous present tense verb, and not the future tense is used. Such is the use of the present of the verb “is.” Hence “is” serves better than “will be.” Fourth, the end of this work is the true body of Christ as a sign of the mystical one, in which there is a diversity of operations; it is therefore better termed “body” and not “flesh,” because the body is common to the totality of either heterogeneous or homogeneous operations, while “flesh” speaks only to the homogeneous.48 Fifth, this operates by the conjoined power of the uncreated Word. Thus, as conjoined, “my” is used. Also the priest speaks in the person of Christ. Therefore he says “my” for Christ. Sixth, since the minister does nothing regarding the matter and does not change it, there is not more to the form. Moreover, if the minister neither touches nor breaks it, so long as he intends it and speaks the words, it is accomplished. This is not so in Baptism.
To the objections: 1-6. From the above, all of the objections become clear, with one exception, namely concerning the truth of the sentence. For how can a sentence be true if what is pointed out is the substance of bread? For this statement is always false—“the bread is the body of Christ”—since these are incompatible forms. And if you should say that the verb “is” does not there bespeak inherence, but rather conversion, then as a consequence in this respect an imperative verb would be more fitting.
And moreover it must be noted that just as in the eternal Word, in the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, is truth and omnipotence, so also in his word, spoken by him, is truth and efficacy, so that it is this word which belongs to the sacraments of the New Law. Hence he had so to speak the word that proclaims the truth, because it is itself true, and for this reason the verb is in the indicative mood and not in the imperative. And because it would not be true by simple enunciation, in order that it not be false he joined efficacy to the word in his own mouth. And because he commanded others to do and say it, and because he does not command anyone to be false, thus in the mouth of those to whom he gave the command, he gave efficacy to that word. Therefore, this word “is” in this prayer does not signify identity or similarity, but that this is the body, that is, at the speaking of this word, the totality of bread is converted into the body.
Hence this prayer in the mouth of another other than in the mouth of the priest is false, because it neither converts or transubstantiates this into that; nor is it true by identity. Thus, this meaning, although it is proper to this prayer, and in like manner to the form for the blood, is not foreign to reason when the conditions above are taken into consideration.
7-9. From these observations, the other objections become clear. It seems suitable to say that this verb “is” in this prayer does not indicate identity, but rather conversion. Thus this prayer is not only significative, but it is also effective. There was greater need to use a verb of being rather than of acting, because this verb works better with the form because it communicates efficaciousness along with pronunciation of a truth. Also by this verb of being, both the immutability of the end and the conversion are noted simultaneously.
THE FORM OF THE WORD OVER THE WINE
The second question concerns the form of the word over the wine as it appears in the Canon: “This is the chalice of my blood,” etc.49 However, this would seem not to be the form:
1. For the reason that the Master50 says that form is “This is my blood.” Since therefore there are not two of them, it is clear, etc.
2. Again, this form is not contained in any of the Gospels, because in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24 it says, This is my blood. However, in Luke 22:20 it says, This is the chalice in my blood. If, then, credence ought not to be given to anything that is not in the Old or New Testament, but what is in the Old and New is simply to be believed, then therefore this form is to be rejected, and the form which is passed down in the Gospel is to be retained. Again, I question the appropriateness of this form.
3. And since nothing should be included in the form unless it pertains to the essence of the sacrament, and the chalice belongs neither to the matter nor the form but is the vessel of the contents, so it should not be part of the form.
4. If you should say that it is taken metaphorically, I ask, For what? If it stands for the passion, then the sense is: this is the passion of the blood. If it stands for drink, then the sense is: this is a drink; but just as the blood is a drink, so the body is food. Therefore, if in the form for the bread it does not say “this is the food of the body,” so neither in the form for the wine should it be said “this is a drink of blood.”
5. Again, whenever speech is translated, there is some impropriety, and where that is, there is an occasion for error; and all such is to be put aside; therefore, etc.
6. Again, where there is transferal of meaning there are several understandings, such as the proper and the metaphorical. However, a multiplicity of meanings is the ground of evasion, which ought particularly to be foreign to anyone who dispenses or celebrates this sacrament. Therefore, etc.
7. But it is objected further about that which is “of the blood.” For, if this is the main element in the sacrament, it would seem that it should be expressed directly rather than indirectly.
8. Again, if chalice there stands for its content, and the content does not differ from the blood, then this statement is indirect. It should not then be spoken of indirectly.
9. There is further question about the expression “of the new and eternal testament,” because if it is the New Testament, then it is not eternal. Therefore the one is poorly conjoined to the other.
10. Again, it would seem that “mystery of faith” should not be included, because in the other sacraments there is a mystery of faith, and it is not affirmed in them. Therefore neither should it be affirmed in this one.
11. Again, concerning the addition “which will be poured out for many,” why in similar fashion is “handed over” not said of the body?
12. Again, why make a distinction? Since it was poured out equally for all, it would seem that it should not be said “for you and for many,” but for all.
I respond: It must be said that this form, “this is the chalice of my blood,” is certainly the form, and the fitting one. But whether it is the complete form, or whether what follows belongs to its integrity, is doubtful. It is nevertheless believed that it is the complete form. However it doesn’t follow that what is added is superfluous. Therefore nothing should be excised from it.
And that it is the certain form is clear from the fact that the Roman Church, which was instructed by the princes of the Apostles, retains it. Hence Innocent said, “The Roman Church has always kept with full faith what it received from the Apostles, who instructed her personally by deeds and doctrines in the ecclesiastical rites; from the Apostles Peter and Paul, who had them as founders in life and whom she guards in death, she received this rite of sacrifice that she has retained in unchanging worship till now.”51 Therefore, the form is to be received from the Canon because it is handed down not by way of narration but by institution.
And the Master did not intend to provide the form, just as he refrained from doing in the other sacraments, but to suggest something similar to it. It is to be received from the Apostles themselves, and not from the Evangelists, because the Apostles founded the Church according to what they received from the Lord. The Evangelists, on the other hand, narrated divine words and acts, concentrating on understanding, and not on the words. Hence it is that the Evangelists do not agree on the form, because perhaps they did not intend to provide the form; but they agree in the meaning they wanted to narrate. And thus it is clear that this is the form.
But whether that which is handed on in the Gospels is a form with which it could be celebrated, who would dare to deny or who would presume to assert, since we do not know whether they intended to outline the form or to narrate the words? And if they intended to provide the form, the form is preserved in all their words, and a small variation in words while the sense is retained, does not change the form. Thus from the fact that there is not contained (in the Gospel) what is found in the Canon, it is not the form. Indeed what is in the Canon is truly the form, since it agrees with the others (the Gospels) in meaning. So even if they did not intend to provide it, it still remains that it is the form. For these reasons, the form found in the Canon is certain.
To the objections: 1-2. The response to the first two objections is now clear.
3-4. It is also suitable, because in this sacrament the blood of Christ is signified as poured out for a price and as administered as drink. Blood of itself conveys neither of these expressly, but by way of conjunction with the cup. This is because blood in a cup is presented as poured out and to be drunk. Hence “cup” in the Scriptures sometimes signifies the passion, as in Matthew 20:22: Can you drink of the cup which…? It also signifies the refreshment of drink through drinking, as in Psalm 23:5: My cup overflows! Since this is a twofold figure, it is better to say “cup of blood” than “blood” alone. If then it should be asked to what the change refers, I say that it refers to the contents. Whence it is called “cup of blood” just like a cup of wine when someone says “drink the cup.” If you ask, Why with respect to the body do we not say “food of the body?” it must be said the body of Christ is in itself bread. However the blood is not called drink except as it is offered as drink in the cup of the passion.
5-6. To the objection, then, concerning metaphor, which is an occasion of error and evasion, it must be said that this is true when the metaphor is secret, improper or unusual. However it is not thus here.
7-8. To the further question, Why is the blood indicated indirectly? it must be said that it is understood directly. For the indirect and direct are not constructed differently in the transitive. But it is the identity, just as when one says “a drink of wine” or “a creature of salt.” And so it is clear that this is a fitting form.
It is also complete and perfect. For it is sufficient to signify the transubstantiation of the wine into blood. Hence what is added concerns the well-being, because by what follows are explained the effects of the blood signified in this sacrament and poured out in the passion, which is threefold. One is the renewal of the Testament and the confirmation of the one renewed, because a testament is confirmed in death, and the New is effected, since the Old, which was confirmed in the blood of bulls, has been emptied there [in the New].
9. Hence it says “Of the New and eternal Testament.” Another effect of the shedding of blood is the manifestation of faith, because what was sealed and secret has been uncovered in the passion of the Lamb.52
10. Hence it says “Mystery of faith,” that is secret. For this was most secret in faith, and once this was revealed, faith is revealed. Or this is because it is more difficult to believe. The third effect is the salvation of some Jews and of many gentiles.
11-12. Hence it says “which for you” as understanding the Apostles, the Jews, and “for the many” as understanding the gentiles. Or it says this because in this sacrament they ought to especially pray for themselves and for others; so it says, “for you” priests, and “for the many” subjects to be converted through you.
One could here inquire about the variation in these forms with respect to their addition, subtraction, and similar things. Concerning this, the position to be held is what was said concerning the form of Baptism. For in this matter there are various opinions. Some say that any variation whatsoever, while retaining the sense, does not take away the efficacy of the form. Others say that the least change removes it, because the power was given to these words arranged in this manner. However just as was touched upon above, in the third distinction, it is better to adopt a middle solution; and hence what was said there is to be supposed here as well.53
THE SIGNIFICATION OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
QUESTION ONE
WHAT IN THE EUCHARIST IS THE RES AND WHAT IS THE SACRAMENTUM
Concerning the first we thus proceed. The Master says that [in the Eucharist] “something there is the sacrament only (sacramentum tantum), namely the visible appearance of bread and wine. Furthermore, there is also something that is the res only (res tantum), namely the Mystical Body of Christ. Something else [in the middle] is the res and the sacrament (res et sacramentum), namely the true body of Christ.”54 The true body of Christ is the res of the first (sacramentum tantum), and the sacrament for the third (res tantum). And so it would first of all seem that the visible species is not the sacrament of the body.55
1. Because a sacrament must have a natural similitude to the res; but the species has no similitude, because both the true body of Christ and the mystical are totally heterogeneous, but the species is homogeneous; therefore etc. If you should say that the species is made up of many grains, that proves nothing, because they are not heterogeneous, but uniform. Besides, the species is an accident, and is therefore not composed.
2. Again, a sacrament of the New Law is efficacious; but the species have absolutely no activity with respect to the content; they are therefore not the sacrament.
Second, it would appear that the true body of Christ is not the sacrament of the Mystical Body:
3. Because a sacrament is a sign, and a sign is what presents itself to the senses. However the body of Christ, as it is under those species,56 does not present itself to the senses; therefore, etc.
4. Again, if it is a sacrament, then it is a sign which signifies from its institution. However the true body of Christ was not instituted in order to signify the Mystical Body, nor should it have been instituted, because he is far more noble, as the head to the whole body; therefore it is not a sacrament.
Third, there are objections concerning the Mystical Body, that it is not the res:
5. Because the res of any sacrament is a certain grace, inasmuch as a sacrament is called the visible form of invisible grace. Therefore, since the Mystical Body is not a grace, it is not the res of this sacrament.
6. Again, the res of any sacrament of the New Law is its effect. However the Mystical Body of Christ is not the effect of this sacrament, because the effect does not precede the cause. But the Mystical Body does precede the sacrament; therefore, etc.
I respond: As the Master says,57 there are three things in this sacrament: the visible species, the true body of Christ, and the Mystical Body. And according to what Hugh says, “the first is the sign of the second and third; the second is the res of the first and the sign and cause of third, and the third is the res of the second and the truth of the first.”58 Hence is found here the notion of effecting and of signifying. Thus it is a true sacrament of the New Law.
To the objections: 1. To the one that it (the sacrament) ought to have (natural) similitude (to the res), it must be said that the species bears some comparison to the matter that composes it or from which it exists, because it is from grains, or it bears comparison to the effect that follows or which it provides, which is feeding. If you look to the material, it is likewise composed from the purest of grains joined to one another; and thus it bears a likeness to the Mystical Body, which consists of the pure faithful linked by faith and charity.59 And if you should object that the Mystical Body consists of different activities, the objection does not hold, because they are united as those alike in their unity of faith and charity. And if it be compared to the effect, which is feeding, then it bears a similitude to the true body of Christ, which is truly food.60
Still this can be said in comparison to both the matter and the effect by reason of the things from which they are made. The true body of Christ is from the purest of blood, and the Mystical Body from the pure faithful. In the Mystical Body the variety of members is signified; this is through the accidents, namely by reason of the body of Christ, which he took from the Virgin, which is an organic body.61 And if you object that the species is neither composed nor does it refresh, it must be said that it retains the attributes62 of the substance which was first there, and for that reason they are fitting signs.
2. To the objection concerning causality, it must be said that that which is sacrament only (the bread, the wine), if it be compared to the middle term (the true body of Christ), of itself contains no notion of effecting anything or causing unless by adding the word, as is clear concerning the water with respect to the character.63 Thus this is also the case with the species with respect to the body. Similarly if compared to the third (the Mystical Body), it has the notion of effecting something by means of the second, just like the exterior washing with the character.64 Similarly here the external species effects the third by reason of (the middle term) the true body of Christ contained within, which itself unifies and incorporates the Mystical Body.
3-4. To the objection concerning the true body, it must be said that of itself it possesses a natural aptitude for representation. But what it represents, it does not represent in and of itself, but only inasmuch as it lies under the visible instituted species. And in this respect, that is, under the visible species, it is a visible sign which is willingly established in some other form. Furthermore it is not established in order to signify, but to effect something more noble. Yet for the purpose of signification, it is contained within another thing, which takes nothing away from it.
5-6. To the objection concerning the Mystical Body, that it is not the res, it must be said that the res of this sacrament is not the Mystical Body by reason of its parts, but by reason of its union; and that union is the grace and effect of the sacrament. If you should object that the effect follows the cause, it must be said that the union in the Mystical Body can exist in two ways: either from the unity of the virtues coming together, or from the sacramental grace, according to which those who partake are the more incorporated into Christ, and thus as a consequence are the more united with one another. The first way of conceiving of the Mystical Body precedes and is not the res; but the second way, that the sacrament makes those who partake of it more in union, follows and is the effect and res of this sacrament. And thus that is cleared up.
THE UNITY OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
The second question concerns the unity of this sacrament. And that it is one sacrament is proven:
a. Because Ambrose65 says that a sacrament is simple. This is a sacrament, therefore simple, therefore one.
b. Again, it appears to reason, because this sacrament is the cause of one effect and therefore is ordered toward a single thing. Therefore it is one and not many.
c. Likewise, the sacraments are only seven. But if this were not one, the sacraments would be more than seven; therefore, etc.
To the contrary: 1. Among the Collects:66 “May the sacraments we have received, O Lord, purify us,” and in many other instances; therefore, etc.
2. Again, the things signified in this sacrament are several, namely the true body of Christ and the Mystical Body of Christ, which absolutely have differing unity: for the true body of Christ is one by the unity of integrity, but the Mystical Body is one by unity through a form of aggregation. Therefore, etc. If you should say that they are ordered to one another, and thus one through the other, the objection is that several things are signified immediately and equally, such as body and blood. If you should say that they are connected, this does not solve it, for according to the truth of the sacrament, they do not exist as connected.
3. Again, a sacrament is essentially a sign. But, when the higher is made plural, so also is the lower made plural. In the Eucharist, there are several signs, therefore also several sacraments. If you should say there are several signs by reason of species, but one thing signified—and hence one sacrament—to the contrary, in a name there is the word and what is signified, just as in the sacrament. However, Marcus and Tullius, even though they signify the same person (Cicero), are still different names; therefore also in this sacrament, even though the matter is the same, still the sacrament should be called several.
4. Again, these two things constitute a sacrament, the word and the element, and the element in the nature of material, and the word in the nature of form. Therefore, where there are several words and elements, there are several sacraments; and that is the way it is in this case. If you should say that they are ordered to one thing, and hence they are one, the response is that a universal cause and a particular one are ordered to a single effect, and are not for this reason one, but several causes; therefore, etc.
I respond: It must be said that the unity of this sacrament is not a simple unity. This is because it consists of word and element. Rather, the unity of this sacrament is a unity of integrity. And this is not of absolute integrity, but in comparison, because word and element are not united in a third thing as in a form, but rather as in a sign. Because, then, this sacrament, although it contains two signs and two words, there nevertheless results from these a perfect sign which is ordered to a single thing, namely to the union of the Mystical Body. For this reason, it is one sacrament.
The reason for such integrity and ordering toward one comes from nature, because neither does bread in itself fully refresh, nor does wine, but the two together. For in nature full refreshment comes only from both of them together, and these two are thus disposed to signify one refreshment. But by way of completion, this unity comes from divine institution, which by a single institution ordained these two signs to signify one perfect refreshment; and hence it is one sacrament by reason of nature and by reason of divine institution. Hence because it is an integration of several, Gregory, speaking materially, says “sacraments.” But because it is ordered by a single ordinance, he immediately after says, “and grant that this your sacrament…”67
To the objections: 1. Thus the passage from Gregory is explained.
2. To that first objection that the things signified are several, it must be said there is only one, because one (the mystical body) is by means of and through the other (the true body of Christ). This is because the true body signifies the mystical. To the objection concerning the blood, it must be said that body and blood are conjoined. Hence just as the offering of the lamb and of its blood are not two offerings or sacrifices, so it is to be understood in this case. And if that is not enough, it should be said that they are ordered toward one final signification.
3. To the objection that there are several signs, it must be said that speaking integrally and materially that is true, because the species are several. However, they are still one integral sign, as has been shown. Diverse words are thus not one name. On the contrary, they have diverse grounds for making known diverse principles and hence several names. But, if these diverse words had only one principle, there would be only one name, like the name Bonaventure or the name Bonushomo.68
4. The response to the other is likewise clear, because, although there are two words and two elements, still the sacrament is one. This is because the word and element do not coalesce in one sacrament except by reason of the institution ordering them to unity. In this case it is the institution that orders those several elements into one. Therefore, there is one sacrament. That said, it is clear that this case is not like that of a universal cause, because a universal cause is not ordered to the one effect of a particular cause, but toward many others. However, these two are ordered to one perfect sacrament—perfect, I emphasize, with respect to its signification, because in neither is the notion of perfect natural refreshment preserved in itself alone, but in both together, as has been touched upon.69
_______________
1 Latin: …ideo debuerunt homines ad hoc assuefieri quadam figurarum manuductione.
2 Ezek 1:16, 10:10.
3 Latin: …per interemptionem.
4 Hebr 7:19.
5 Here Bonaventure refers to circumcision.
6 Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 8, c. 2.2-4, 281: Sicut ergo in mari Rubro figura Baptismi praecessit, ita in manna significatio dominici corporis. Haec duo sacramenta demonstrata sunt ubi de latere Christi sanguis et aqua fluxerunt, quia Christus per sanguinem redemptionis, et aquam ablutionis nos redimere venit a diabolo et a peccato; sicut Israelitas per sanguinem agni paschalis ab exterminatore, et per aquam maris Rubri ab Aegyptiis liberavit. Hujus etiam sacramenti ritum Melchisedech ostendit, ubi panem et vinum Abrahae obtulit.
7 Behind this expression “contained every delight” is a text from Wis 16:20, which in the Vulgate reads as follows: …pro quibus angelorum esca nutristi populum tuum et paratum panem e caelo praestitisti illis sine labore omne delectamentum in se habentem et omnis saporis suavitatem.
8 Latin: …et est res contenta, et haec in agno paschali; et res signata tantum, et haec in manna; et virtus dans efficaciam, et haec in sanguine, qui fluxit de latere Christi.
9 John 19:34.
10 The terms figura (figure) and veritas (truth) come into the theological language of the Eucharist from the theology of Paschasius Radbertus in De corpore et sanguine Domini, IV (CCCM XVI). Bonaventure exclusively uses the term veritas to refer to the res of the sacrament. The term “real” is misleading for this reason. The editors prefer the expression “true presence” instead.
11 Cf. above, on Baptism, d. 3.
12 Ambrose, De sacramentis, IV, c. 3, n. 11 (PL 16, 458A): Ergo primo intellige sacramenta haec quae accipis, anteriora esse quam sint Moysi sacramenta, quaecumque Judaei habere se dicunt; et prius coepisse populum Christianum, quam coepisse populum Judaeorum: sed nos in praedestinatione, illum in nomine.
13 Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis, I, p. 11, c. 6 (PL 176, 345CD; Corpus Victorinum, 245-6): Sed sciendum quod divinae dispensationis ordo et ratio hoc poposcit, ut sicut ab initio, procurrente tempore, magis semper ac magis adventus salvatoris appropinquavit; sic semper magis ac magis effectus salutis cresceret, et cognitio veritatis. Propter quod et ipsa signa salutis per successionem temporum; alia post alia mutari debuerunt, ut cum effectus gratiae divinae in salutem cresceret, simul quoque et ipsa sanctificatio in ipsis signis visibilibus evidentior appareret.
14 John 6:50.
15 Latin: …ut implendam et evacuandam.
16 Cf. Hebr 7, especially verses 11-12.
17 Latin: …officium.
18 Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram, VIII, c. 4, n. 8 (PL 34, 375; CSEL 28.1, 236): Erat ergo ei in lignis caeteris alimentum, in illo autem sacramentum; quid significans, nisi sapientiam, de qua sic dictum est, Lignum vitae est amplectentibus eam: quemadmodum de Christo diceretur, Petra manans est sitientibus eum?
19 The Greek eucharistein means “to give thanks.” Here, however, Bonaventure is following the etymology of Isidore, who divides the word into two parts eu- “good” and “charis,” which means “grace” in Greek. Cf. Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, VI, c. 19, p. 38, (PL 82, 255B): Sacrificium dictum, quasi sacrum factum, quia prece mystica consacratur in memoriam pro nobis dominicae passionis; unde hoc eo jubente corpus Christi et sanguinem dicimus, quod, dum sit ex fructibus terrae, sanctificatur, et fit sacramentum, operante visibiliter Spiritu Dei, cujus panis et calicis sacramentum Graeci Eucharistiam dicunt, quod Latine bona gratia interpretatur. Et quid melius corpore et sanguine Christi?
20 With the use of the expression “bond of charity,” vinculum caritatis, Bonaventure brings forth an expression often used by Augustine in reference to the Eucharist. For example, see Augustine, In Ioannis Evangelium Tractatus, tr. 26, n. 13 (PL 35, 1613; CCSL 36, 266): O Sacramentum pietatis! O signum unitatis! O vinculum caritatis! Bonaventure himself will also frequently use this expression in reference to the Eucharist.
21 Bonaventure here uses the term mundum, by which he means through time and space found in the history of the world.
22 Latin: …dicendum quod Matrimonium quantum ad officium omni statui conveniebat, quantum autem ad remedium non. In this context Bonaventure refers to marriage as an “office,” which is found throughout the whole scope of salvation history, beginning in creation.
23 Cf. d. 12, p. 2, a. 1, q. 3.
24 Latin: Christus conficiendo dedit formam conficiendi; ergo dando dedit formam dandi vel communicandi.
25 Cf. Augustine, Epistola 54, Ad inquisitiones Januarii, c. 6, n. 8 (PL 33, 203): Namque Salvator quo vehementius commendaret mysterii illius altitudinem, ultimum hoc voluit altius infigere cordibus et memoriae discipulorum, a quibus ad passionem digressurus erat.
26 Matt 28:20.
27 Luke 24:44.
28 By departure, Bonaventure here means the ascension of Christ. Christ in his ascension explained the sign as opposed to leaving the sign (reliquere), which he did before the passion. This fits with his answer to objection two, where he says that Jesus confirmed the Eucharist and made it public at the giving of the Great Commission.
29 The reason for this question is found in the apparent discrepancy between the Gospel accounts and the Roman Canon with regard to the timing of the saying of the words of institution and the fractioning of the host. In the Roman Canon, the words are said and then the host is broken, while in the Gospel accounts it appears that the fraction precedes the words of institution. This is an issue because of the Ambrosian theology that the miracle of conversion lies in the power of Christ’s words spoken. Thus while in the East the conversion would be placed at the saying of the blessing (epiclesis), in the West, following Ambrose, the conversion is placed at the saying of the words. See Ambrose, De mysteriis, c.9, p. 52-54 (PL 16, 407B); here is paragraph 54, where the words of institution are discussed: Ipse clamat Dominus Jesus: Hoc est corpus meum. Ante benedictionem verborum coelestium alia species nominatur, post consecrationem corpus significatur. Ipse dicit sanguinem suum. Ante consecrationem aliud dicitur, post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur. Et tu dicis: Amen, hoc est, verum est. Quod os loquitur, mens interna fateatur: quod sermo sonat, affectus sentiat.
30 Luke 22:19.
31 Cf. 1 Tim 4:3-5.
32 This answer to objection 2 finally deals with the apparent discrepancy mentioned above. Bonaventure argues that when the Gospels record Jesus breaking, it was not a part of the rite, but only a practical matter so he could distribute it to his disciples.
33 Cf. Priscianus, Grammatica, XII, c. 1 and XVII, c. 9 (I, 541 and II, 39) in Prisciani Caesariensis Grammatici Opera. Edited by Avgvstvs Krehl. Volumes I and II. (Leipzig, Weidmann, 1819-1820).
34 Gen 1:3.
35 Mark 16:17.
36 This would be the case in Baptism when the minister states, “I baptize you….”
37 For further reflection on Ambrose’s thought, see footnote 44, p. 196.
38 Latin: Sed rursus, quia significationi verae addita est ex institutione divina virtus efficacissima, ulterius oratio illa et ex domini institutione et ex sacerdotis intentione est conversiva, ut sit sensus.
39 Augustine, In Ioannis evangelium tractatus. tr. 80, n. 3 (PL 35, 1840; CCSL 36, 529): Accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum, etiam ipsum tanquam visibile verbum.
40 Bonaventure indicates “conversion” here without using the term “transubstantiation.” Transubstantiation is properly an Aristotelian explanation of what happens in conversion. Although Bonaventure references “substances and accidents,” he does not use Aristotle’s categories here to explain his position. Latin: …ut convertatur in corpus.
41 Latin: …haec autem id ipsum quod figurat facit.
42 This “sign of something further” refers to the res et sacraementum, to be explained below. See d. 8, p. 2, a. 2, q. 1.
43 Cf. Ambrose, De sacramentis, IV, c. 4, n. 14-16, 19-20 (PL 16, 440A-441A, 442B-443A; CSEL 71, 51-4).
44 Latin: Quia enim hic sermo conversivus et transitivus sive ad transubstantionem ordinatus est operativus….
45 Here again, transubstantiation is in the context of converting and transitioning.
46 The pronoun referred to here is “this” in the statement “this is my body.”
47 Bonaventure here means to say that the conversion is with regard to the substance of bread, but that the physical body of Christ in heaven neither begins to be nor is changed.
48 Here again, the end of the Eucharist (res tantum) is the Mystical Body, not simply the body of Christ which itself points further to the Mystical Body.
49 Bonaventure here refers to the Canon of the Mass found in the Roman Missal.
50 Peter Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 8, c. 4, 282: Consecratio quibus fit verbus? Attende quae sunt verba: Accipite et edite ex eo omnes: hoc est corpus meum; et item: Accipite et bibete ex hoc omnes: hic est sanguis meus. Lombard here quotes Ambrose.
51 Innocent III, De sacro altaris mysterio, VI, c. 4 (PL 217, 858A): Romanam autem Ecclesiam super apostolicae fidei petram, stabili soliditate fundatam, nulla prorsus haereticae pravitatis procella potuit conquassare. Sed illud semper integra fide servavit, quod ab ipsis accepit apostolis, qui praesentialiter eam sacris vel instituere doctrinis, et ecclesiastici ritus regulam docuere. Ab ipsis ergo beatis apostolis Petro et Paulo, quos et vivos habuit, et defunctos custodit, hunc sacrificii ritum accepit, quem hactenus inviolabili cultu servavit.
52 This is the second of the threefold effects.
53 Cf. above, p. 1, a. 2, q. 3.
54 Peter Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 8, c. 7.2, 285: Sunt igitur hic tria distinguenda: unum quod tantum est sacramentum, alterum quod est sacramentum et res, et tertium quod est res et non sacramentum. Sacramentum et non res est species visibilis panis vel vini; sacramentum et res, caro Christi propria et sanguis; res et non sacramentum, mystica eius caro.
55 Articulating the signification of the Eucharist in this manner originated in the Parisian schools of the mid-12th century. It is not clear whether Peter Lombard originated the idea, or several others who make reference in their writings, including Stephen of Autun, Zacharias Chrysopolitanus, and Hugh of St. Victor. See Joseph W. Goering, “The Invention of Transubstantiation,” Traditio 46 (1991), 151; Damien van den Eynde, Les définitions des sacrements: pendant la première période de la théologie scolastique (1050-1240) (Rome: Antonianum, 1950), 70; Gary Macy, The Theologies of the Eucharist in the Early Scholastic Period: A Study of the Salvific Function of the Sacrament According to the Theologians, C. 1080-C. 1220 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), 39-40, 50-53. Also, see above in the General Introduction.
56 Latin: …ut est sub illis speciebus.
57 Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 8, c. 7, 285.
58 Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis, II, p. 8, c. 8 (PL, 176, 467D; Corpus Victorinum, 407): …in primo quidem signum invenitur secundi; in secundo autem causa tertii; tertio vero virtus secundi, et veritas primi: et haec tria in uno sunt, et unum sacramentum.
59 Bonaventure draws this image from Peter Lombard’s citation of Augustine. Cf. Peter Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 8, c. 7.2, 285. See also, Augustine, Sermo 229 and Sermo 272 (PL 38, 1103; 38, 1246-8).
60 John 6:55.
61 Thus, the heterogeny of the true organic body of Christ signifies the variety of members of the Mystical Body.
62 Latin: …idiomata.
63 As in Baptism, it is not the water, but the word of Christ that effects character.
64 Once the word of Christ is added to the bathing water in Baptism, the exterior washing effects an interior cleansing.
65 According to note 6, Bonaventure, Opera Omnia, IV, 75, different Scholastics have doubted whether this citation is truly from Ambrose. For example, Alexander of Hales understood this to be from Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.
66 A variety of prayers in the Roman Missal contain this phrase, for example the postcommunion for the living and deceased, which is also located on Ash Wednesday; Cf. Gregory I, Liber sacramentorum (PL 78, 207D): Hujus operatio nos, Domine, sacramenti, quaesumus, purificet semper et muniat.
67 Cf. Gregory I, Liber sacramentorum (PL 78, 207D).
68 Bonaventure here asserts that the example given above in objection 3, “Marcus Tullius,” is not an appropriate analogy for describing the Eucharist. Rather, a name like “Bonaventura,” which is two words ordered to one principle, is a more apt analogy.
69 Cf. above, this question, “I respond….”