ON THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR
ARTICLE ONE
THE TRUTH AND MODE OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR
QUESTION ONE
WHETHER CHRIST IS IN THE SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR ACCORDING TO TRUTH
And that he is upon the altar according to truth would appear:
a. Because the Lord said, This is my body.1 Therefore if he was incapable of lying, what he demonstrated was his body. Thus he provided the rite according to what he effects. Therefore when it is now effected according to that rite, the true body of Christ is upon the altar. If you should say that is not to be understood through identity, but through signification,2 as in that passage The rock is Christ,3 then accordingly through signification the same could be said of the manna, the paschal lamb and the sacrifice of Melchizedek.4 If this is the case there will be no difference between the sacraments of the New Law and the Old.
b. Again, in 1 Corinthians 10:16, And the bread, which we break, is it a participation in the body of the Lord? Therefore, etc. If you should say that this is likewise said by way of signification, the Apostle says to the contrary in 1 Corinthians 11:27, Therefore, whoever eats and drinks unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But if this were true because it is a sign, then similarly, because this word “Christ” is a sign, whoever pronounces it in a sinful way would be guilty of his body and blood, which is false.
c. Again, Matthew 28:20, Indeed, I am with you until the consummation of the age. It is clear that he did not say this just for the Apostles, because they died beforehand. Therefore he said it for believers. But not with respect to the effect of his divinity and grace, because in his divinity he is present to all peoples, and with respect to his grace he is not always with all the faithful. Therefore he intended it with respect to his humanity. But this is not accomplished visibly, but sub sacramento; therefore, etc.5
d. Again, it stands to reason because the flesh of Christ truly is food.6 However, food that is not presented for eating is useless. Therefore if the flesh of Christ is not useless, it is presented for eating. But this is not flesh in itself nor visibly, lest it generate horror. Therefore the true flesh of Christ is rather present sub sacramento.
e. Again, Christ set forth his true flesh to suffer for our salvation when we were yet unjust.7 Therefore, if he had so much more love for the just, he would set forth his true flesh for refreshment, not only signs; therefore, etc.
f. Again, difficult things require skill and strength, and the more difficult something is to believe, it is that much more meritorious. But that Christ should be present in a sacrament as a sign alone causes no difficulty. However that he truly is in sacrament as in heaven, this presents the greatest difficulty. To believe this carries the greatest merit. Therefore if he had to do what provided the greater merit, it should be clear, etc.
To the contrary: 1. It can be shown that he is not there according to truth.8 First of all it is impossible because the body of Christ was not previously upon the altar, and now it is. Therefore it was changed by some manner of motion. But this cannot be by local motion, because then he would have left heaven. Thus it must be by some other type of change. However, the other sorts of motion fall only under the changeable and alterable. But the glorified body of Christ cannot be altered; therefore, etc.9
2. Again, nothing is or can be outside the limit of its substance.10 However the body of Christ exists in heaven and there has the limit of its substance. Therefore it is impossible that he should be anywhere but in heaven. Therefore it is impossible that he should be in this sacrament according to truth. Therefore, if he is there,11 it is only as in a sign.12
3. Again, this very thing is shown through its fittingness. This is because the sacraments were instituted for the sake of humiliation so that humans should seek and find salvation in things inferior to themselves. Therefore, since the true body of Christ is not inferior, it does not befit the sacrament.
4. Again, all the sacraments are for the giving of honor and reverence to God. However if the true body of Christ were there, since to reverence God is to distance oneself from the place where he is, as was said to Moses in Exodus 3:5, Put off the shoes… no one ought to approach this sacrament. If, then, it was instituted for humans to approach, reverence aside, the true body is not there.
5. Again, the same is shown also from its uselessness. This is due to the fact that John 6:64 says, the flesh profits nothing. Therefore flesh according to its truth does not refresh. Therefore, if nothing in this sacrament should be without a purpose, Christ is therefore not there according to the flesh.
6. Again, the grace that is given in this sacrament is from God. But the God-Christ works equally as well where he is present bodily as where he is not. This is clear in the case of the ruler’s son, whence the ruler was rebuked, because he sought bodily presence.13 Therefore there is no gain there.
I respond: As the Master mentions,14 it was the opinion and worst errors of some that Christ is not present on the altar except only as in a sign, and he is said to be eaten because the sign of him is received and eaten. And they wish to hold to this because of the similarity with other sacraments. For in the water of Baptism there is no grace as contained, but only as in a sign. And they seem further to be moved by piety, as if no one is worthy to touch, much less to consume, the true flesh of God. However this is the worst error and is contrary to the piety of faith. Piety recognizes the great benefice given by God, and gives thanks that he is present to us in his own flesh and proper nature. Furthermore this error is opposed to the dignity and excellence of the sacrament in which the divine power, wisdom and goodness shine forth in a way that surpasses the other sacraments. For this reason it surpasses the other sacraments, and is as if it were the consummation of all the others, just as charity is of all the other virtues.
Moreover, here in the singularity of this work, the power of God is manifested. For when the bread is changed on many altars into the true and whole body of Christ, which happens in an instant, nothing common remains. Therefore, God shows himself in this conversion to have power over every other power, beyond all imagination. This is shown in the fact that the same is in many places. Furthermore, it is beyond the power of the intellect to grasp the fact that something so great and whole can exist in such a small species without being diminished.
To the objections: 1. From this the reply to the objection concerning impossibility is clear. For it must be said that although nature cannot accomplish this, nor can reason understand, still God can change many things into the body of Christ.15 For this reason the body of Christ exists in many places, not through any change brought about in Christ, but in the bread that is changed into him.16
2. The second is likewise clear. For although the body of Christ has its limit in heaven as far as natural existence is concerned, still it has none with respect to the power of changing, according to which a body can be changed elsewhere into himself. Hence by that supernatural power it happens elsewhere that something is changed into himself. This will be more clear in the third objection.
Still, wisdom stands out in its fittingness.17 Christ our Lord acquired a great number of people by uniting them in his Mystical Body. In this body, which is the Church, there are many and diverse peoples: there are wayfarers and the infirm, and there are those entangled in daily sins. Because they are many in one body, they need to be connected to one another. Because they are wayfarers, they need refreshment. Because they are involved in daily sins, they need an oblation. These things were not to be accomplished only interiorly through the grace of the virtues, but externally through the grace of the sacraments.
It was therefore fitting that they should have one exterior connection just as they had one interiorly.18 However, that one connection had to be where the members were. Since the members are in many places, it had to be such as would be fitting in many places. But this is not so except for God or what is united to divinity. However while God is within, what is joined to divinity is the body of Christ. Therefore the body of Christ ought to have been given in an external sacrament, which is the one in which all the faithful are united in eating the one and same food.19
It was also fitting that they have external refreshment in the sacrament. However, that which refreshes the soul is none other than God or what is united to God. This is the true body of Christ. Thus it was fitting that the true body of Christ be in this sacrament.
It was also fitting that they have an exterior oblation. But the Lord, by offering himself in a unique oblation, rendered naught all other oblation. Therefore, if it ought not revive what he had destroyed, it should give us the very same one that he offered, and none other. Therefore just as the true body of Christ was offered upon the cross, so he is sacrificed upon the altar.20
3. From all this it is clear that the objection about fittingness does not stand. To the objection that humanity is not humbled in this sacrament, it must be said that this is by no means true, for the humiliation lies in the external visible sign.21 Furthermore, in this, above all others, is the human intellect humbled and taken captive. This is because it is forced to believe what it can in no way comprehend. Beyond this also in this sacrament there is the example of utter humility. For the Lord of majesty is clothed in such a mean and poor garment as a further example of humility and poverty.22
4. To the objection concerning reverence. It must be said that there is reverence not only in drawing back from God but also in humbly approaching him, especially when he calls. This is because if a person does not come when he calls, it would not be reverence but stupidity.
Furthermore the divine goodness appears also in its usefulness. For from the fact that Christ is bodily present there, the merit of faith is increased when it believes what it in no way apprehends by reason. The devotion of charity is inflamed when it senses its Lord is present to it in the flesh. For just as cold is driven out in the presence of fire, so lukewarmness is driven out in the presence of the flesh of Christ. Thus the Damascene says that “the flesh of Christ is like a burning coal.”23 Likewise, the confidence of hope is uplifted, for it offers to the Father the very same thing that was offered upon the cross. Who, then, is there who would not be confident of being heard?
5. This also clarifies the objection concerning uselessness. When the Lord says the flesh profits nothing, what he means is “carnal understanding.” However, the one who understands carnally is not he who understands that the flesh is present, but rather he who understands that Christ is eaten in the same manner as the flesh of any animal. This later is “carnal understanding,” and such eating is of no purpose. But it is of great benefit to the one who truly partakes of it sub sacramento.
6. The other is similarly clear, for the presence of the body does not increase the power of God. However, it is fitting that the Lord should impart from his bodily presence some special favor. This is so, granted that it provides nothing for the one who believes that the Lord cannot function except where he is bodily present. To the believer, however, it counts for much, as the presence of the body did for Zacchaeus.24
The second question is whether the body of Christ is on the altar according to his natural quantity, or whether he is there separate from quantity. That it is, rather, separate from quantity would appear:
1. Augustine, On consecration, dist. II: “The body in which he rose again must be in only one place; but his truth is spread everywhere.”25 In the sacrament therefore is his truth, not however his corporeality or quantity.
2. Likewise it stands to reason, for in this sacrament Christ is present only as spiritual food. However, quantity contributes nothing to it being spiritual food. Therefore, etc.
3. Again, it is impossible and unintelligible that the two dimensions should exist simultaneously. Therefore, if the divine majesty condescends itself to our infirmity in this sacrament, then it should not do this, namely that the body of Christ be present with its quantity, since its separation from quantity is more reasonable and more intelligible, and God does what is the more reasonable.
4. Again, it is more fitting that a substance be separated from its accidents than the opposite. However, in this case an accident is separated from its substance in the species. Therefore the substance is contained in the thing apart from its quantity.
To the contrary: a. Augustine in On the Words of the Gospel: “The whole in the sacrament is eaten by way of the parts, and the whole remains integral in heaven.”26 But the whole and part indicate quantity. Therefore, etc.
b. Likewise, the body of Christ is living, and if living, organic, and if organic, quantifiable. Therefore, if on the altar it is not apart from life, then neither from quantity.
c. Again, the body of Christ, or Christ, sees and hears there, even though he neither speaks nor is detected. The exterior senses presuppose quantity. Therefore he is present there according to quantity.
d. Again, if quantity were not there, it would put aside quantity. But the deposition of an absolute accident brings about transformation according to form. Therefore the glorified body of Christ is transformed.
I respond: Some have said that in the sacrament of the altar Christ is present, not only as signified, but also contained. However, he is not present according to his quantity, nor according to other accidents as well, because these provide nothing to the end of this sacrament, which is to nourish. And the reason for this is that they hold, from the fact that the body of Christ is there, something is transformed into him. However that is purely substance and not accident, because the other accidents remain. Thus it is transubstantiated into a substance in such wise that it is separated from all accidents. But this position, although it is not erroneous as laid out above, is close to error, for the reason that, although a bodily substance can be understood to exist without quantity and other accidents, still this would never be a good way to exist. If, then, it does not have quantity and other accidents, that is not good. Further, although a substance can be separated from its quantity, still in order that a body live and be organic and not be quantifiable, this can neither be nor be understood. Hence from this it follows that the body of Christ neither exists well there nor lives, and that is impious to say.
It must therefore be said that upon the altar there is not only the truth of the body of Christ, but also its quantity as well.
And for an understanding of the objections, it should be noted that although miracles must happen in this sacrament, still only those which are fitting with the sacrament ought to take place. This sacrament is a mystery of faith, and hence it is true and hidden. Because it is true, therefore when This is my body is said, the bread is changed into the body of Christ, and this wherever it is said. From this a twofold miracle occurs: the first, that the bread passes over into the whole and perfect body of Christ, and the second, that the whole body of Christ is wherever this transubstantiation takes place. Thus it is whole and perfect in a small place and one in many places. Furthermore, since it is hidden, so the species and all its sensible properties must remain, while he does not appear. From this there is a twofold miracle: the one, that the accidents are without a subject; and second, that there lies the most brilliant of bodies: it is present and is not seen. Having said this, the objections become clear.
To the objections: 1-2. For the first, what Augustine says about truth everywhere, does not distinguish the truth according to quantity, which is concerning truth of the body, but according to its appearance to the senses, which appears only in one place. The following one is also clear, because quantity contributes to the truth and perfection of the sacrament: that the body contained should have every perfection.
3. To the other it must be said that divinity accommodates itself to our infirmity, while saving the integrity of the sacrament. And besides, he so accommodates himself as to surpass the intellect, so that faith might have its place and its merit.
4. To the last it must be said that although God might do both, still there would be usefulness neither with respect to the truth nor with respect to its concealment, if the truth of the body of Christ were separated from its quantity. Therefore, it is not valid, because nothing should be done here unless it is fitting to the sacrament.27
WHETHER THE BODY OF CHRIST IS LIMITED UNDER THE SPECIES
The third question is whether the body of Christ is limited to where the species are present. And that it is not would appear:
a. Because what is in only one place is limited as to place. However, the body of Christ sub sacramento is in many places. Therefore, etc. The proof for the minor: Whatever is, wherever it is consecrated, if it is consecrated in many places, is in many places. This is so for the body of Christ; therefore, etc.
b. Again, everything which is able to be converted in many places is capable of existing in many places. Since the body of Christ is this sort of thing, therefore etc. Further, since nothing of this sort has limited existence, therefore, etc.
c. Again, wherever the power of the word and the element extend, so is the sacrament extended. However, the power of the word is not determined as to place, as is clear. Similarly neither is the element, which is bread. Therefore neither is this sacrament. Thus neither is the body of Christ contained within the sacrament limited to a place.
d. Again, whatever is in one place and is able without change in itself to be in another place is not limited there. However, the body of Christ is of this sort, because it is in heaven and is able without change in itself to be in another place, as upon the altar; therefore, etc.
To the contrary: 1. Every individual is here and now. Since the body of Christ is an individual, therefore it is here and now. However because it is here and now it is limited to a place; therefore, etc. If you should say that the body of Christ, although it is an individual, is nevertheless united with an immense substance, and by reason of that union it possesses the potential of being in many places, if that is a sufficient reason, then from the instant of his conception he was in many places, and to say that is stupid. Besides, that union does not take away from him being an individual. Therefore it does not take away his existing here and now; neither does it take away from his limited existence.
2. Again, if Christ in the sacrament is able to be in many places, suppose that only three places exist. Given that it is possible for the body of Christ to be in those three, it would then be possible for the body of Christ to be everywhere. However this, since it belongs only to God, cannot belong to another; therefore, etc.28
3. Again, whatever is in something in such a way that it is moved along with the movement of that other is limited to it. Therefore since Christ is moved when the whole species moves, therefore etc. Proof for the minor: when the species is transported, it is rightly said that the true body of Christ is transported; therefore, etc.
I respond: As Innocent says, just as the Son of God according to his divinity has a threefold manner of existing—in all things through existence, in the just through grace, in Christ through union—so the body of Christ is locally in heaven, personally in the Word, and sacramentally upon the altar.29 This third manner requires that he be found in many places, because there are multiple species that contain him. Hence, strictly speaking, he is in only one place in which he is defined as an individual. However because many are changed into him and these are in diverse places, he as a consequence exists in diverse places according to that manner through which many are changed into him, and this is sub sacramento.30
Hence it must be noted for understanding the objections that the body of Christ is an individual, and an individual into whom many are changed as such. Because he is an individual, he is in his own defined place in heaven. But because many are changed into him, he does not have a substantial barrier limited to a single place, but extends himself to the place of the change. Thus because these places of conversion cannot be all places or just one, but rather many, in this respect he is neither immense as God nor altogether defined as any individual, but in a middle way, just as God according to his manner of existence through grace is not in all, but in many.
If it is therefore asked why the body of Christ is in many places, I believe that this is the reason: that many are changed into his whole self, and in many places. If it is asked why many, it must be said that the Lord instituted it to be so. And if the reason for the institution be asked, it must be said that it is because he is spiritual and common food. Therefore he was born to feed many, and thus many are changed into him. Furthermore he has the aptitude for nourishing spiritually from his union with divinity, and in act from his existence sub sacramento. Hence it was instituted that many be changed into his body, and this sub sacramento.
To the objections: 1. Concerning the first objection about the individual, it is clear that, beyond the notion of individual, he has the capacity for many to be changed into him in diverse places. Hence just as an individual into which other things can be converted in part, can also exist in a principal place, so also that into which other things are totally converted in diverse places, can exist in many places.
2. The response to the second is clear, because conversion is not able to happen in all places, because the priest would then not have a place for his ministry to take place. However, supposing that there were only three places for conversion is impossible. Then it would be said that he would be everywhere. However, this would not be as God is, because God is everywhere by way of his immensity. In this case, then, he could be absent to none; however, the body of Christ would be everywhere only on account of the scarcity of places.
3. To the objection concerning the motion of translation,31 it must be said that the body of Christ holds a middle way between immense existence and limited existence. Hence it is in some manner immobile and in another way mobile: movable indeed in one place and immobile in another. In the same host, the body of Christ is not moved with the movement of the parts of the host, neither in it nor through the accidents, unless the whole host is transferred.32 If, then, it were simply and altogether changed, the argument would stand; but this is not the case.33
_______________
1 Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19.
2 Latin: Si dicas quod illud non intelligitur per identitatem, sed per significationem, sicut illud… The notion of signification can be understood broadly (such as the rock, the lamb, etc.) and also very specifically as effecting in conjunction with the Word something (res) spiritual, namely grace, or in this case the body of the Lord according to truth.
3 1 Cor 10:4.
4 These are the prefigurations of the Eucharist. Cf. above, d. 8, p. 1, a. 1, q. 2.
5 Bonaventure uses the notion of sub sacramento only in relation to the Eucharist. He obviously takes this from Peter Lombard. Cf. Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 9, n. 2-3, 286-9. In this way, Bonaventure emphasizes the uniqueness of the sacrament of the Eucharist. It signifies a specific sacramental grace, but it also contains the body and blood of Christ. Sub sacramento identifies what is contained in this sacrament.
6 John 6:56.
7 Rom 5:8.
8 Latin: …secundum veritatem, “according to truth.” Often this expression of the manner of Christ’s presence in the sacrament is translated “really” or “truly,” which is not correct.
9 This argument asserts that Christ could be present on the altar only if he either left heaven or had a change in his glorified body, but both are impossible, so Christ cannot be present on the altar.
10 Cf. Aristotle, Physica, Book IV.
11 This is to say, if Christ is on the altar.
12 Latin: …solum sicut in signo. Here Bonaventure contrasts this phrase with the issue in question, secundum veritatem. Sicut in signo is not to be equated with significatio.
13 John 4:46-54. In this story, the ruler of a synagogue asks Jesus to heal his son, who was in another place. Jesus rebukes the ruler because he would not believe without having a sign from Jesus.
14 Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 10, c. 1, 290: Sunt item et alii praecedentium insaniam transcendentes, qui Dei virtutem juxta modum naturalium rerum metientes, audacius ac periculosius veritati contradicunt, asserentes in altari non esse corpus Christi vel sanguinem, nec substantiam panis vel vini in substantiam carnis et sanguinis converti, sed ita Christum dixisse: Hoc est corpus meum, sicut Apostolus dixit: Petra erat Christus. Dicunt enim ibi esse corpus Christi tantum in sacramento, id est, in signo, et tantum in signo manducari a nobis.
15 Ambrose has a discursus on the ability of God to change the natures of things, cataloguing several miracles of the Gospels as proof. He does this in both De sacramentis and De mysteriis. Paschasius Radbertus pulls from this in the first chapter of his De corpore et sanguine Domini. Bonaventure’s use of the terms nature and change are a direct reference to this tradition. Ambrose, De mysteriis (PL 16, 389ff.) 9:50-53; De sacramentis (PL 16, 417) 4:4:17-19. Paschasius Radbertus, De corpore et sanguine Domini (CCCM 16) 1:56-109.
16 Latin: …sed in pane qui convertitur in ipsum. This is a unique point where Bonaventure focuses on the conversion of the species.
17 In this section, Bonaventure repeatedly argues ex congruitate, “from congruity,” which we have translated “fittingness.” These things do not have to be so, but they are fittingly so due to the following arguments.
18 Thus, it is fitting that the means of grace be exterior because the Church has an exterior component. It is visibly made up of many people.
19 1 Cor 10:3.
20 Here, Bonaventure may be drawing from Augustine’s definition of sacrifice. Cf. Augustine, De civitate Dei, b. 10, c. 6 (PL 41, 284; CSEL, 40.1, 456): Hoc est sacrificium Christianorum: multi unum corpus in Christo. Quod etiam sacramento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat Ecclesia, ubi ei demonstratur, quod in ea re quam offert, ipsa offeratur.
21 Thus, humans are humiliated in receiving grace through something inferior to themselves, i.e., bread and wine.
22 St. Francis of Assisi offers a similar insight in The Admonitions. See Francis of Assisi, Admonitions, 1.16-18 in Kajetan Esser, Die Opuscula des hl. Franziskus von Assisi (Grottaferrata: Editiones Collegii S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas, 1976), 107: Ecce, quotidie humiliat se, sicut quando a regalibus sedibus venit in uterum Virginis; quotidie venit ad nos ipse humilis apparens; quotidie descendit de sinu Patris super altare in manibus sacerdotis. See also, Francis of Assisi: Early Documents (FA:ED). Edited by Regis Armstrong, OFM Cap., J.A. Wayne Hellmann, OFM Conv., and William Short, OFM, 1.129: “Behold, each day He humbles Himself as when He came from the royal throne into the Virgin’s womb; each day He Himself comes to us, appearing humbly; each day He comes down from the bosom of the Father upon the altar in the hands of a priest.”
23 Cf. John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa, IV, n. 13 (PG 94, 1150B). This is a reference to Isaiah 6:6-7, where an angel touches the prophet’s lips with a coal in order to cleanse him of his sins and make him worthy to stand in God’s presence. Here the flesh of Christ is that coal; by touching the flesh of Christ with our lips we are made worthy to receive it.
24 Cf. Luke 19:9.
25 Ap. Gratian, Decretum, III, d. 2, c. 44 (I, 1330): Corpus enim, in quo resurrexit, uno loco esse oportet; veritas autem eius ubique diffusa est.
26 Ap. Gratian, Decretum, III, d. 2, c. 70 (I, 1341) … unusquisque suam partem accipit; per partes manducatur, et manet integer totus; per partes manducatur in sacramento, manet integer totus in caelo, manet integer totus in corde tuo.
27 Again, we see argument ex congruitate.
28 This argument constructs a hypothetical situation which attempts to refute the argument that Christ can be present in many places.
29 Innocent III, De sacro altaris mysterio, IV, c. 44 (PL 217, 886A): Cum ergo Christus secundum naturam divinam tribus modis in rebus existeret, localiter in coelo, personaliter in verbo, sacramentaliter in altari. Sicut enim secundum divinitatem totus essentialiter est in omnibus rebus, ita secundum humanitatem totus sacramentaliter est in pluribus locis. Hujus sacramenti virtute possibile fit, ut qui de terra sunt, in coelum ascendant.
30 Paschasius Radbertus originates this line of thought concerning the modes of existence of the body of Christ in his seminal treatise De corpore et sanguine Domini, from whence Innocent III acquires it and develops it. In chapter seven, Paschasius argues that there are three modes in which the body of Christ is said to exist: locally in heaven, ecclesially as the church, and mystically on the altar (Paschasius Radbertus, De corpore et sanguine Domini [CCCM 16] 7:1-32).
31 Latin: Ad illud quod obicitur de motu translationis… Here, translationis means moving a body to another place.
32 In other words, the body of Christ is not mechanically moved by the motion of the host. It moves only with the host.
33 Since the change is spiritual and mysterious, and not simple, the body cannot be said to move mechanically with the host.