CONCERNING CONVERSION AND CONFECTION
ARTICLE ONE
ON CONVERSION
The first proceeds thus: and that there is a true conversion of bread into the body of Christ would appear:
a. First of all, by way of the form itself, because when This is my body is said, either the Truth says something untrue, or he converts the bread into the body. However he never speaks untruthfully; therefore, etc.
b. Likewise, this is proven by the authority of the Doctors, namely of Ambrose, and Eusebius, and Augustine and the Damascene: the bread and wine pass supernaturally over into the body and blood.1
c. Likewise, it stands to reason, because it is established and is true that the body of Christ is upon the altar according to truth, and that previously it was not. Therefore this is by way of some mutation in itself or of another: not of itself, because it is immutable; not of another, except for the bread; therefore etc. If you should say that the body of Christ is able to change places, because this is a change of a complete being, and this takes place in the body of Christ – the contrary argument to this is that everything that undergoes change as to place, if it approaches one way, it draws away from another. Therefore, in this view Christ withdraws from heaven. Besides, nothing that is changed as to place at the same time tends toward diverse differences of position. However, the body of Christ is simultaneously consecrated at Rome and in Paris. Therefore, if the body of Christ is moved toward Rome, then it is not moved toward Paris; therefore, etc.
To the contrary: 1. Gregory says, and it is contained in his writing, “Who among the faithful can have any doubt that in the moment of immolation the heavens are opened, and the heights and depths are joined?”2 However these things would not happen if something were changed into the body of Christ; moreover, it seems that according to Gregory that he descends. Therefore there is no conversion there.
2. Again, the Damascene: “Because humans have the custom to eat bread and to drink wine, he joined divinity to them and made them the sacrament of his body and blood.”3 If he joined divinity to them, then they are preserved in their nature. Therefore they are not converted into something else.
3. Again, it stands to reason, if something becomes the body of Christ, either that thing is converted or it is not converted. If something is not converted, then the body of Christ is newly made. Therefore, there are simultaneously several bodies. If something is converted into the body of Christ, the body is increased. Therefore, by way of consecration or conversion the body of Christ becomes bigger.4
4. Again, in no other sacrament is the element changed into that which it signifies, but it is enough that the element be present. Therefore, it would seem that there should be something similar in this sacrament.
5. Again, miracles are not called for in any case in which it can happen equally as well without a miracle. But the body of Christ, since it is glorified, can exist along with the bread and accomplish the same as if the bread were changed. However, that can happen without a miracle; therefore, etc.5
6. Again, food is not converted into any body unless it requires eating. However, it is not a requirement that the body of Christ be eaten; therefore etc. If you should say that it does not absorb like the earth, but as a ray does water, namely not from need but from power, then to the contrary, the ray does not change the water into itself, therefore neither does Christ change the bread into his body.
I respond: As the Master says, it was the position of some that there is no conversion there, but at the invocation of the words, it happened by divine power that the body of Christ is there without any conversion.6 However, this position is contrary to the authority of the saints and to reason. It is contrary to reason indeed because it takes from the sacrament its truth, its fittingness and its usefulness.
It takes from its truth, because it inserts a falsehood in the form.7 It also proposes a mutation as to the substance of Christ, as was proven in the contrary positions.8 It takes away its fittingness, because as long as bread remains there, it does not lead to something else as it does when only the accidents remain, which depend upon it and cannot continue by themselves. It takes away its usefulness, because while it questions the possibility and reason, it diminishes the merit of faith.
For this reason, then, this position is to be rejected. It has no defender among the Doctors. Further, the Church commonly holds there is a conversion there of the bread into the body of Christ—not, I insist, into a part of the body of Christ, but into the whole of it.
To the objections: 1-2. To that objection from the passage of Gregory, it must be said that that language is figurative. The heavens are said to open because the divine goodness abundantly provides us with heavenly bread. Gregory says the heights and depths are joined on account of the presence of Christ. Furthermore, it is said that they are carried through the hands of angels in regard to the devotion of the one who offers, who sends off the sacrifice and prayer unto heaven. It is the angels’ role to present them to the Lord. What the Damascene says, however, is to be understood as pertaining to the containing of the visible species or by reason of the conversion of the substance of the bread. This is because the bread is converted into the body joined to divinity, and after the conversion the species contain it. Thus, divinity is said to be conjoined to them both.
3. The response to the other one is clear, because the whole is converted into the whole, and hence neither does something new happen, nor something greater. That would make sense if it were converted only in part.
4. To the objection concerning the other sacraments, the response is similarly clear that there is no similarity, because this is so much more with respect to the matter contained. Besides, in the others the matter is the grace that is created. However the body of Christ is not created in the sacrament.9
5. To the objection concerning a miracle, it is likewise clear, because a miracle is here proposed on account of the truth, the fittingness and usefulness of the sacrament, as has been seen.10
6. To the final objection concerning the food and its edibility, it must be said that the bread is not converted into the body of Christ as food is prepared for eating. Nor is the body of Christ converted of itself, but God converts it, in such a way that where there was bread, which is a bodily food, there is now the body of Christ. And this is not by way of a change made in the body, but in the bread that is changed into that previously existing body.
Second, it is asked whether the whole of the bread is converted into the body of Christ, or whether something remains beyond the accidents. And that the whole of it is not converted would appear:
1. Because there is nothing in a genus which is not in some one of its species. Transubstantiation is a mutation, and in every type of movement something remains; therefore, etc.
2. Again, just as in a natural change, there is the material potency. Thus there is also in this the obediential potency. On the part of the thing changed, where there is the material potency, it is not altogether removed, and hence there remains that upon which it is founded. Therefore it would seem that in like fashion in this case something should remain upon which the obediential potency is grounded.
3. Again, it belongs to the notion of change that that which is changed exists differently now than before. The bread is changed into the body of Christ; therefore it exists differently now than previously. However, whatever exists differently now than before in some manner remains. Therefore the bread too remains according to something of itself.
4. Again, whenever two extremes share in something, that in which they share remains the same in the whole transmutation. But the bread and the body of Christ share in their material. Therefore the material remains.
To the contrary: a. Transubstantiation happens by the power of the word. The word indicates the substance beneath the accidents, the whole substance. Therefore, I insist, it converts the whole of it.11
b. Again, it converts it into the whole body of Christ. Therefore it converts the whole of the bread also. This is because, if it were only the material of the bread that was converted, then it would seem that the conversion was only into the material.12
c. Again, if there remains anything of the bread, it is either as something common in the change, or not as something common. If it is as something common, then it follows that the body of Christ would have other material or some other form, which is stupid. If it is not as something common, then it would seem that there would remain matter without a form or a form without matter. Both of these are useless. In the sacrament nothing is useless; therefore neither of them remains.
d. Again, if it is converted according to some part of its essence, I ask, According to which? It is indicated that it is according to the form, because it is more susceptible to conversion. Besides, a sacrament is instituted not by reason of its matter, which is common to them all, but by reason of the form. If therefore the words pertain more to the form, then that is what they convert. But on the other hand, then in that case some incomplete matter remains. However, it belongs to divine power not to produce incomplete things, but rather to complete what is incomplete; therefore, etc.
I respond: It must be said that it was the opinion of some—which however the Master did not lay down, because it is of more modern teachers, or also because it is not very probable—that not the whole of bread according to its substance passes over, but that some essential part remains. It is clear that the accidents remain in their existence and operation. Because it appears that they remain in their existence, there were some who said that the matter that supports them also remained, while the form changed. But this amounts to nothing, because matter does not come into being to support accidents, nor to actually exist except along with the form.13
Others, seeing that the accidents maintain their operation and that every operation has its origin from a substantial form, have said that the matter passes over and the form remains. But this again amounts to nothing, because a form does not act except in matter.
For this reason, although this sacrament is filled with miracles, they are not supposed to exist unless they contribute to the sacrament’s truth and its hidden nature.14 Hence teachers commonly hold that the whole passes over into the whole, and only the accidents remain for a necessary and useful purpose. Consequently, putting aside the first opinion, which removes the conversion of material, and abandoning the second, which removes the conversion of the form, we hold it to be the most catholic position that the whole bread is converted into the body of Christ, and that this conversion is best called transubstantiation.15
And if you should ask under which type of motion or change it is contained, it must be said that this is a unique change; nothing is fully like it. It can however be somewhat compared. Since in this change nothing common remains, it is like creation. But since the initial starting point is not nothing but something, therefore it is thus dissimilar to creation, and similar to generation. However, because it does not have something newly made as its final end, but something previously existing, it is thus different from generation and similar to augmentation. Furthermore because the body of Christ does not increase from this, but exists in many places, hence it is dissimilar to augmentation and similar to a change of place. Again, because it exists in another place without leaving its own, but rather something passes over into it, it is thus dissimilar from every motion and change, and is an altogether unique change. In no way can it be likened to corruption or diminution, because these are imperfect operations and are unbecoming for the divine power at work here. Further, because in alteration the sensible accidents are changed, and this does not take place in this sacrament according to faith, it cannot be likened to alteration either.
To the objections: 1-3. From these things the first, second and third objections are clear. This is because they are true with regard to a change in which they possess something common with the term. But in this they have none.
4. To the last objection, that they have something in common, it must be said they have something in common according to the nature of predication, but not according to the nature of change. For in that change they cannot possibly have anything in common, because the body of Christ can have neither new matter nor a new form. Thus if anything remained it would be impossible that the body of Christ would be absolutely the same. Since the whole passes over, absolutely no innovation or formation affects the body of Christ. So that argument has its place in natural change.
WHETHER THIS CHANGE IS ANNIHILATION
The third question is whether this change is annihilation. And that it is would appear:
1. Because annihilation occurs when something is changed such that nothing of it remains. In this proposition, it is such with the substance of the bread. Therefore, it is annihilation.
2. Again, a successive generation does not take away a preceding corruption. Therefore, a subsequent conversion does not take away the preceding corruption. But here the matter and form are corrupted, and thus the whole. Therefore, whatever happens afterward, the bread is nonetheless annihilated.
3. Again, suppose that with the same power the whole universe were changed into the body of Christ, it would be annihilated. The proof: with the whole universe reduced to nothing, and only Christ remaining, nothing less remains than if all were converted into Christ, because only Christ remains. Therefore, if there were annihilation in that, so too here.
4. Again, this proof is necessary: A is not B nor a part of B nor something of it nor anything other than B. Therefore since it once existed, it is annihilated. Therefore since the bread is not Christ nor a part of Christ nor anything other than bread, therefore, etc.
To the contrary: a. Nothing that is converted into something more worthy than itself is annihilated. Bread is converted into something much more worthy than itself; therefore, etc.
b. Again, an action takes its name from its term. Therefore, since annihilation takes its name from what is nothing, and by annihilation nothing happens, then nothing does not have anything that is good. Therefore neither does annihilation. There is no action of the highest good except something good; therefore, etc.
c. Again, nothing that is good becomes evil by the highest Good. Therefore in a similar fashion, never does that which exists become non-being or nothing.
d. Again, Augustine says, “The Founder of nature does nothing contrary to nature.”16 Every nature is eager for existence, as the Philosopher says: “We hold that nature desires what is better, and it is better to be than not to be.”17
e. Again, the reasoning of a sign or of a fitting signification must be preserved in the sacrament. But this sacrament is not corruptive, but preserving and promoting of betterment. Therefore in it there is no place for annihilation.
I respond: It must be said, as the Master mentions in a note, it was the position of some that there be annihilation of the bread, since nothing of it remains18—or again because it seemed unfitting to say that some extraneous thing should pass over into the body of Christ. Hence it seemed more reasonable to them that the bread should cede to the body of Christ, not by a change of place, but by ceasing to be, and the body of Christ would replace it.
But this position cannot stand, since this would be unbecoming for God to do, since God is the whole cause of this conversion. Nor is such a vile act becoming of the sacrament.
Hence all commonly hold that there is no annihilation of the bread, but rather a change into a better substance. Therefore such a conversion should be called transubstantiation, not annihilation. Further, if the bread were not converted into the body of Christ, there would be no way to understand how the body of Christ would begin to exist upon the altar without a change in itself, as was demonstrated above.19 For this reason it is to be called a conversion of the bread, not annihilation.
To the objections: 1. To the objection therefore that nothing remains of the bread, and it is therefore annihilated, it must be said that this does not follow. Annihilation not only means that nothing of the thing remains, but also that it passes into nothingness. In this case it does not pass into nothing, but rather into something better.
2. To the objection that a subsequent generation does not take away a prior corruption etc., it must be said that it is true. Form is corrupted which does not pass into a contrary form. However if that form is converted into the contrary, it will not be said to be altogether corrupted, but to have passed over into another.
3. To the objection concerning the universe, it must be said that this objection does not argue that the universe be altogether annihilated. What is objected is that not many things would remain. Even if that were true, Christ would still be in many places and beneath all species,20 and he would replace all substances. Thus, those accidents have from the presence of the Lord’s body the same activity as their substance would have, as will be explained below.21 When some activity that belongs to a species is destroyed, by the same miracle the form of bread and its matter returns, as will be better explained below.22 Hence, nothing in nature perishes on this account, but it somehow ceases for a time.
4. To the final objection, it must be said that this division is insufficient. This is because it does not follow that it is annihilated; if it is neither this nor something other, it is because these have two causes for their truth. It is neither this nor something other either because it fell into nothing or because it passed over into something else. For this reason it is true, and this is not to be annihilated.
WHETHER THE BREAD IS CHANGED INTO THE WHOLE CHRIST
The fourth question is whether the bread is changed into the whole Christ. And that it is would appear:
1. Because conversion extends to the point to which its contents extend. The species do not contain anything except by virtue of the conversion. Since the whole Christ is contained there, the bread is changed into the whole Christ.
2. Again, in this special case, that the bread is converted into divinity would appear. The intention of the one who consecrates is that a bodily food be converted into a spiritual one. Spiritual food is God, who is the food of holy spirits. Since, then, the conversion of the element follows upon that intention, it appears that the conversion is into God.
3. Again, that it is converted into the soul appears because the soul of Christ is in one place by nature just as the body. Therefore if the body of Christ does not come to exist in many places unless something is converted into him, by the same token neither does the soul of Christ. However, the soul must be sub sacramento because otherwise the body would be without a soul, which is abhorrent; therefore, etc.
4. Again, that the blood must be there would appear, because either the conversion of the bread awaits the conversion of the wine or it doesn’t. If it does not await, then before the conversion of the wine, by virtue of the phrase this is my body, the blood is there, since the element spreads out passively to that which the word does in action. Therefore the element of bread is changed into the blood. On the contrary, if it awaits the other, then succession is there. If this is the case then the body should not be raised before the people before the consecration of the wine, which is contrary to the accepted rite of the whole Church. This is because then the whole Church would be leading the simple, to the extent that it can, to idolatry, since Christ is not yet there.23
To the contrary: But that it is converted into the body only, and not into divinity would appear:
a. Because, if into divinity, then the creature would be able to become the creator; which is unseemly.
b. Again, divinity is everywhere, so from the conversion it cannot newly exist in a given place. If therefore conversion makes him newly exist where something is converted, then there is no conversion except into the unified body.
Again, that it is not converted into the soul would appear:
c. Because the sacrament’s nature is in signifying and effecting. The nature of signifying by itself spreads further than the nature of effecting. It is clear that the bread does not have a similitude to the soul of Christ. Therefore neither does it have the effect of being converted into it. Besides, if it were converted into the soul, since that is the more worthy part, it ought to take its name from that. Therefore it ought to be said “this is my soul.”
Again, that it is not converted into the blood appears:
d. Because if the bread were converted into the blood just as the body, then this sacrament is uselessly confected under two species. Besides, those two prayers, this is my body and this is the chalice of my blood, have distinct significations. Likewise then they have distinct efficacies.
I respond: It must be said that the bread is precisely converted into that to which it has a similitude. Upon that similitude is this institution founded. Then comes the sanctification of the word. Because the bread has similitude only to the body, it is hence instituted only to be converted into the body. The sanctifying word, namely this is my body, signifies its conversion into the body. Nothing of the bread is converted into the divinity, or into the soul, or into the blood. Nevertheless the body sub sacramento is not without these. They are not there because of the conversion, but rather because of their inseparable conjunction or indivisibility. The blood is there by reason of its commingling, the soul by reason of conjunction, and divinity by reason of union.
To the objections: 1. From these points the objections are solved, because, although the whole Christ is contained, still the conversion is not into the whole. Hence it is false that whatever is contained in the sacrament is there by reason of the conversion. Moreover it either is there by reason of conversion or by indivisibility.
2-3. The response to the second is clear because the body is food by reason of its union with divinity. Likewise the other concerning the soul is clear because the body is in many places by reason of conversion, but the soul is there consequently by reason of union or perfection.
4. To the objection about the blood, in like manner it is to be said that those conversions do not wait for each other, but that the whole is in both. Still the bread and the force of its form are ordered primarily to the body, and to the others as a consequence. Similarly this is to be said of the conversion of the wine as for the bread.
WHETHER THIS CONVERSION IS SUDDEN OR SUCCESSIVE
The fifth question is whether this conversion is sudden or successive. And that it is sudden would appear:
a. Because succession happens through resistance on the part of the receiver, as can be seen in the diffusion of light in the air, where there is no resistance. So on the part of the bread there is no resistance; nor therefore is there any succession.
b. Again, to the extent that action is undertaken by a more potent force, it happens the more quickly, as is clear from IV Physicorum.24 In this case it is done by an infinite power; therefore it happens in an instant.
c. Again, there is succession in an action on account of no other reason than preparation and the introduction of properties. In this case there is no preparation, and so neither any succession.
d. Again, if there is succession, either this is because the bread is successively expelled, or because the body is introduced successively. It is not on account of the bread because there is no reason why one part should be converted more quickly than another, nor the matter more quickly than the form. Nor is it on account the body of Christ, because it can have no other than perfect and whole existence.
To the contrary: 1. Although the divine power is immediately at work there, it still works at the pronunciation of the word. Since the pronunciation of the word is successive, likewise then the conversion.
2. Again, if you should say that conversion does not operate through speech, still it acts along with speech, because conversion happens neither before nor after. The expression of speech is successive. Therefore, since successive is not in step with instantaneous, it is clear, etc.
3. Again, if the conversion happens in an instant, I ask, in what instant does the change takes place? It must be either bread or body. It is not bread, because the bread is the point from which, and not the body because it is the point at which the change ends. Nor is it anything else. Therefore it is nothing. However this is impossible; therefore the change does not happen in an instant.
4. Again, the bread in this conversion is in its final stage of existence. Likewise, the body of Christ is in its first stage of existence, either in the same instant or in another. If it is in the same instant, then it is both bread and the body at the same time. If it is in another instant, but between any two instants, there falls the time between, and in that mid-time the conversion happens; therefore, etc.
I respond:25 1. It must be said that this conversion is sudden and in an instant. For although it happens at the utterance of the word, it does not however happen through the word as the effective principle, but through the uncreated Word which acts in an instant.26
2. To the objection, then, that [bread and body] are not simultaneous, it must be said that whatever follows something is not simultaneous with what is instantaneous in whole or in part. Rather, what is simultaneous is in accord with something of itself. This is, for example, when something is done or said to serve as a means or as a principle in view of a purpose. Hence, it is certain that when the whole has been said, the whole has been accomplished. But, exactly when the Lord does it, only he knows.
3. To the objection, then, concerning that instant, whether it be of the bread, it must be said that in the sudden change the becoming and the accomplished are simultaneous, and simultaneously are ceased and have ceased. So then because it ceases to be bread in an instant, it is not bread. Further because it begins to be the body or is converted into the body, it is the body of Christ.
4. To the question concerning the final existence of the bread, indeed there are many opinions.
For some say that because the bread has temporal existence, and the body of Christ has eternal existence, the final existence of the bread is only in time and the first existence of the body is in an instant. So just as an instant is bound to time, so that there is no mid-point, so they say the matter stands in this case.
However, this avoids the issue—first of all because, if the bread never had existence in an instant, the objection would stand and there is no solution in this. Second, it is a temporal matter that the body of Christ be present upon the altar or sub speciebus. And third, because both have permanent existence; consequently the existence of both is in the instant.
So there is a second position that in the same instant there is the final existence of the bread and the initial existence of the body. These two are the same, they say, in substance, while differing according to notion. This is because to the extent that it is the measure of the final existence of the bread, it is the terminus of the past. Further, to the extent that it is the initial existence of the body, it is the beginning of the future. But this opinion cannot hold, because, whatever the diversity of notion in one instant, never are contradictory things at the same time true within the same thing. Therefore also there are neither opposite things concerning the same. Besides, if the past were at its end and the future were in its beginning, they would never continue through one instant; rather they would be at the same time.
So there is a third position. It is in one instant in reality, but virtually in several. Just as one point becomes two points by the division of a line and symmetry, as for example, if of two lines a contact happens upon an underlying continuous line. That one point at which contact is made is the equivalent of two. Thus in an instant, although it is not multiplied because time is not divided, nevertheless it is equivalent to two on account of the symmetry of two endings, the duration namely of the bread and the body. But that cannot stand, because in things that are contiguous their final states are simultaneous. However, in the duration of things, which are conditioned by before and after, it is impossible that their ends be simultaneous. Hence in that contact the underlying point does not become two, but two points are united into one. Nor still do they give way to one on account of the distinction of the bodies in which they are found.
Again, however much it might be true that two indivisible things be simultaneous, still it is never true that two contradictory opposites are simultaneously present in the same thing, because they are incompatible. Neither are things that necessarily require order, not only by reason of cause or according to nature, but likewise according to their actual existence and actual duration.
Hence there is a fourth position, that it happens in a first and second instant materially, in the manner in which several instants are supposed in time, because it is one according to its essence, whose passing is continuous. Hence this is not to suppose several instants as consequently directed in themselves, but as it measures two discontinuous actions, it has the capacity to signify two. This is just as when a line intersects another it signifies two points. But that cannot be held, because in no continuous thing—in neither the existence nor the understanding nor signification—can two indivisible things consequently distinguish themselves while the continuum remains. Otherwise it would of necessity be understood as multiplied. If therefore time remains not intersected, it is clear, etc.
Hence it must be finally said that the time or instant, the measure of the final existence of the bread and the first existence of the body, can be taken in two ways. In the proper duration of each one, as the Philosopher says that “each one is measured by its proper period,” which is the point at which a thing begins and ceases.27 Thus there are diverse discontinuous measures and diverse instants related consequently to one another, just as there are two existences, the existence namely of the bread and of the body. If an instant is taken according to common measure, which is continuous time, not intersected, as is the measure of the motion of a prime mover, or also as time is considered according to essence, not according to existence, then it receives a determined instant according to our assignment. Therefore, one instant in time is assigned which is the last of the bread.28
Is then another instant assigned which is the first of the body? I hold that one is not assigned, because there is no assigning of two instants related consequently to one another on a continuum while that continuum continues. Therefore, either one of these may in itself be assigned, but it is impossible to assign the two together. So it is clear that the bread and the body have existence in one and another instant as a matter of fact and according to what is the real and proper measure, although according to the common measure to assign the two instants immediately following one another does not happen.
This manner of solving the issue seems more reasonable and certain than the aforementioned because it is founded upon three certain principles. The first is that in one simple instant it is impossible for contradictory things to exist, no matter what diversity the instant has according to its consideration. The second is that in a continuum, as long as it lasts, it is impossible for instants to exist consequently, nor can they really be assigned. The third is that between the existence of bread and the body of Christ, or between two contradictory things there is no mid-point.29
WHAT KIND OF VERBS OUGHT TO BE USED TO DESCRIBE THIS CONVERSION
The sixth and final question is with what words this conversion ought to be expressed. And it is demonstrated that it is by way of a substantive verb, such as is the case when one says, The bread will be the body of Christ; and what was the bread etc.; and this is demonstrated by citing authorities and by reason.
a. By authority: for Ambrose says, “What was bread before the consecration is the body of Christ after the consecration.”30
b. Again, it appears from reason. Where the whole passes into the whole, a greater union happens than where a part passes into a part. When a part passes into a part, for example, such as when white becomes black, change happens according to its accidents. When change happens according to substance, as when what was under the form of fire comes under the form of air, there is a more forceful change. Here, the whole passes into a whole.
Again, by a verb of change it is seen.31
c. The Damascene: “He made them, the bread and wine, into his body and blood.”32
d. Again, it stands to reason, because what is changed and is not annihilated does not become nothing, but something. The bread is changed and not annihilated; nor does it become something other than the body; therefore, etc.
Again, by verb of potential, it is seen:
e. Ambrose: What is bread can be the body by consecration, which is by the words of Christ.33
f. Again, it stands to reason; everything that is changed into something has the potential for change, because some potency precedes any act. Since the bread is changed into the body of Christ, therefore, etc.
Again, by a preposition:
g. Ambrose in De sacramentis: “When consecration is applied, the bread becomes the body of Christ.”34
h. Again, it stands to reason, because transubstantiation is operative here, that either the body is from something or from nothing. It is not from nothing, therefore it is from something. Therefore, it is from bread, since there is no other at hand.35
To the contrary: 1. The verb “is” denotes identity.36 There is no identity of bread to body, either in form or in matter. Therefore such an expression, namely with a substantive verb that denotes identity, is false.
2. Again, every becoming terminates in having become; but in this sacrament nothing has become, because the body is not just then made: therefore neither is there becoming there. Therefore those expressions which use the verb “becoming” are false.37
3. Again, every potency is either active or passive. In the bread there is neither active nor even passive potency, because then it would be able to act. Therefore, an expression with the verb “can” is false.38
4. Again, the prepositions “from” and “out of” express causality or order,39 as in “from morning becomes noon.” But this cannot be upheld according to its denoting causality nor according to denoting order, because then the sense would be: after the bread there is the body. For the same reason it would be possible to say the expression “the body after the word.”
I respond: It must be said that this conversion is unique, because the whole passes over into the whole, and this happens by a power beyond nature. Hence, there is no identity between bread and body, nor is there causality. In the body of Christ there is no innovation, and in the bread there is no ordering according to inferior causes. From these things four rules are drawn.
The first is that all verbs which signify an identity of the bread to the body of Christ produce a false statement. Hence all such expressions are improper and must be abandoned: “The bread will be the body of Christ,” or “what was bread is the body of Christ”—that is, has been converted into the body. Those with a relative and a substantive are simply not to be accepted. Hence the reason that is adduced has no validity. For because the whole passes over into the whole, there is no more identity, even less, even none.
The second rule is that all verbs that signify an innovation regarding the body of Christ are falsely used. Those however that signify conversion and passing over are rightly used. This is because “to be generated”40 denotes an innovation, while “to become”41 can be taken for passing over, as when it is said “this becomes that.” Hence the word “becoming”42 can be allowed, but not “generating.”43 The reasons for this are to be conceded. The reason for the opposite is not valid, because it objects to “becoming” as if it denoted the generation of something. However, it is not used here in this way. Hence this is the more appropriate: “bread becomes the body,” rather than “from the bread becomes the body.” Simply speaking, the following is simply improper: “the body of Christ becomes,” but “here becomes” is conceded.
The third rule is that because there is no ordering of the bread to the body of Christ following inferior causes, hence verbs that signify this, such as the verb “can,”44 strictly speaking, produce a false statement. This is as if one were to say, “the bread can become the body.” But, if one were to speak about superior causes, then there is truth in the statement, as if one were to say “the bread can be converted by God.” Thus speaks Ambrose, and reason concludes, because that act is by a superior power.
The fourth rule is, since there is no causality but only a passing of the bread into the body of Christ, all prepositions that suppose causality render an improper expression. Hence, those with the preposition “from” or “out of,”45 because they suppose causality, are improper. However, when there is a certain acceptance of order, it can be tolerated. But, this is not altogether proper in this sense. Therefore, it must be said that that is true and proper which uses a verb signifying neither identity nor innovation nor the natural order, but only conversion with a preposition that connotes a passing over, not a cause. Hence, the following expression is proper: “the bread is converted into the body of Christ.”46
CONCERNING THE MATERIAL IN WHICH THE CONFECTION OF THE EUCHARIST OUGHT TO BE DONE
ARTICLE ONE
CONCERNING THE SPECIES WITH WHICH THE CHURCH NOW CELEBRATES
QUESTION ONE
WHETHER THE EUCHARIST OUGHT TO BE CELEBRATED WITH THE SPECIES OF BREAD AND WINE
a. This sacrament must be celebrated with the species of bread and wine. The Lord’s very institution, or consecration, and the custom of the catholic Church offer sufficient authority and reason.
But the case for the contrary is seen:
1. Because, according to what Hugh says, as knowledge of the truth increases, its signs ought to be more apparent.47 Therefore, since bread and wine were sacraments of the law of nature,48 in no way ought they to be sacraments of the law of grace, in which the knowledge of the truth is so advanced.
2. Again, the written law provided and contained so much more understanding than did the natural law. Therefore its signs were more certain and expressive than were those of the natural law. Therefore the New Law ought to celebrate with sacraments or signs conveyed in the time of the written law rather than those of the law of nature, among which are the species of bread and wine.49
3. Again, it is seen that in the written law the lamb and its blood were offered. Flesh better expresses flesh, and blood better expresses blood. Therefore the sacrament of the Eucharist ought to be celebrated in these species rather than in bread and wine.
4. Again, the species of the sacrament are to represent naturally. Since bread and wine are artificially made, they do not therefore befit the sacrament.
5. Again, this is especially evident in the bread, because the suffering of Christ must especially be signified in this sacrament. For as he says, “Do this in memory of me.”50 However, fresh bread does not signify the passion, therefore it is not fit for this sacrament.
6. Again, Christ is contained in this sacrament as the food of infants, which was previously the food of angels. Since the food of infants is milk, therefore it ought to be celebrated with milk.51
7. Likewise there is objection concerning the wine, because here Christ is signified as food or healing drink. Since wine is not offered to the sick, therefore this sacrament which is healing for spiritual sickness should not be celebrated with wine.
8. Again, the effect of this sacrament is to extinguish the sickness of lust. However the effect of wine is to inflame it—Proverbs 20:1; Wine is wanton, etc.52 Therefore, etc.
I respond: It must be said that the res of this sacrament is twofold: namely the true body of Christ and the Mystical Body. Because signs are instituted for their expression of the res signified, such signs ought to be those which of their very nature were born to express both (the true body of Christ and the Mystical Body). Since the Mystical Body is of many joined into one, such elements ought to be those that produce one out of many. Such is bread, because bread is of many spotless grains. So also is wine, which is of many spotless grapes.53 Hence they aptly signify the union of the Mystical Body.
In addition, the true body of Christ is contained in this sacrament as food, because the sacrament was instituted for this reason. And this is not just as food of any sort, but as suitable food, effective food, healing food, a food available to all. Hence a sign ought to have been instituted which would be a food that possesses all these properties. Now the most fitting food is bread from grain, and wine. The sign of this food by nature does not give rise to disgust from frequent use. This does not happen with any other food. This food from grain and wine is also efficacious in that it emboldens, because bread provides strength, and wine, rejoices. It is also healthy, as Isaac says in Daily Meals [Dietis particularibus] that both promote good health.54 Further it is a common and much used food, especially among peoples who live reasonably. Thus, the Damascene: “People are accustomed to eat bread and drink wine. Hence the Lord joined divinity to them, and made them his own body and blood, so that through these things that are customary according to nature, in which life is conserved, the soul is transported to things which are beyond nature.”55
To the objections: 1. From these assertions the objections are solved. For to the objections that the sacrament is more visible, it must be said that it is made more visible by reason of the added word, This is my body. However nothing was needed with regard to the elements, because their visibility was sufficient.
2-3. To the objection concerning the signs of the written law, it must be said that the more visible signs were of the passion, because, as was said above,56 they were principally ordered to signify that. However, they were not more visible with respect to the expression of sacramental grace. This is what is principally signified in the sacraments of the New Law. Thus it is concerning the flesh, because what is signified is not flesh as flesh, but as invigorating.
4. To the objection that they are produced by artifice, it must be said that the capacity is of nature, but the perfection from human labor. So even Christ had the capacity of being eaten from his origins, but he actually became food by being cooked in the fire of the passion and the compression in the winepress of the cross; thus is he in this sign, namely in the bread and wine.57
5. And this solves the following objection that bread does not signify the passion. For it must be said that this is false, and as well that it signifies the passion through the cooking and through the compression. Still it can be said the suffering Christ is not principally expressed as suffering, but rather as food.
6. To the objection that it is the food of infants, it must be said that it is the food of infants and of the humble. However, it is for those who have somewhat grown up, and not for those who are approaching the faith. Hence Augustine: “This is the food of grown-ups; grow up and you will partake of me.”58 Thus for this reason it was instituted with bread and not with milk.
7. To the objection concerning the wine, that it does not heal, it must be said that wine is given to those already healing and not actually sick. This sacrament, by which it is signified, ought to be given to those who have trust in good conscience, not to those who lie on the bed of sin.
8. To the objection that it increases lust, it must be said that it does this when it is imbibed to drunkenness, not when it is taken for refreshment and enjoyment while maintaining sobriety.
WHETHER BOTH SPECIES BELONG TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE SACRAMENT
The second question is whether both species belong to the integrity of the sacrament. And that they do would appear:
a. Because the Lord, when he handed this sacrament over, celebrated it under both species. There is not a complete sacrament except according to the manner in which he instituted it; therefore, etc.
b. Again, the form of the words belongs to the integrity of the sacrament. Since the form for the body is applied only to the bread and the form for the blood is only over the wine, therefore each species belongs to its integrity.
c. Again, no sacrament is to be repeated so long as it remains. Therefore neither is a consecration to be added to a consecration, since it is perfect. However the consecration of wine is added to the consecration of the bread. Therefore it is not yet perfect; therefore, etc.
d. Again the mystery of our redemption is expressed in this sacrament. This does not happen only in the bread, or in the body, but also in the blood; and thus, etc.
To the contrary: 1. In this sacrament with respect to the species of bread the whole Christ is contained. Nor is there anything more in the two than in one. Nor is there anything different, but they are exactly the same. Therefore it would seem that the species of wine does not belong to its integrity, because when that is removed the whole remains complete.
2. Again, the faithful receive the whole and perfect sacrament, whether they receive it only in one or the other; therefore, etc.
3. Again I ask, what necessity is there in this sacrament that the blood of Christ be signified? If the necessity is because it belongs to the integrity of the sacrament, then how much more does the soul belong to it. Therefore how much more ought the soul to be signified. If you should say that the soul is signified because of what the Master says, “the site of the soul is in the blood,”59 the answer is as follows: the perfection of the soul is present in the whole body and in each of its parts, and not therefore only in the blood. Besides, some animals exist without blood.
4. Again, Baptism is a sacrament effective for the remedy of body and soul, and nevertheless there is in Baptism but one sign; so likewise here.
I respond: It must be said that in this sacrament there are two components, namely efficacy and signification.60 Therefore there are two elements for the integrity of the sacrament. It is either with regard to efficacy or with regard to signification. With regard to efficacy, neither species belongs to its integrity, but only in a certain totality that is efficacious. With regard to signification, both components belong to its integrity, because the res of the sacrament is not expressed in either of them per se, but rather in both of them together.61 And thus this is clear.
Christ is here signified as the food which perfectly refreshes those who partake of it sacramentally and spiritually.62 Perfect refreshment is not in the bread alone or in wine alone, but in both. Hence it is not perfectly signified as refreshing in one of them, but in both of them together. Still this sacrament refreshes not just anyone, but those who partake of it spiritually. To eat of it spiritually means to recognize and be affected by his passion, which consisted in the many afflictions of his body and the shedding of his blood, and in which the immense charity of God was manifested. In this the soul is perfectly refreshed and delighted. Hence each bears a distinct signification, namely the body and the blood.
Again, delight and refreshment is not in the passion because it is the passion, but because it is our redemption. There likewise our marvelous gain delights us because we have been redeemed in body and soul. For this perfect redemption Christ exposed his body and soul. Hence in order that this redemption be perfect and be signified, out of this perfect refreshment the body must be signified in the bread, and the soul, whose seat is in the blood, in the wine.
The reason, then, for the integrity lies in its signification of Christ perfectly refreshing us as we meditate upon his most loving passion and upon our joyous redemption. This redemption could not perfectly be signified by either of these, but only through both together.63 The reasons pertaining to the first part are treated with respect to their signification.
To the objections: 1-2. Then, the first objection to the opposite is clear, because, although the whole is contained in either species, it is nonetheless not perfectly signified through either of them.64 In terms of efficacy, however, the faithful receive the complete sacrament. However with respect to its signification it suffices that the Church carries it out in their presence. Nor is it necessary that they receive it [the species of wine], because of the danger of spillage or on account of the danger of error, because the simple would not believe that they receive the whole Christ in the other species [of bread]. There is an example at hand of the one for whom blood oozed from the host, because he did not believe that the blood was present in the species of the body.65
3. To the third objection—what necessity is there why the blood must be signified?—it must be said that this is both on account of the passion as well as the soul’s redemption. For the soul, since it is spiritual, could not in itself be signified, but only in that to which it is attached. This is in the blood, in which is the seat of the soul. This is not because it is in the blood only, but because the rational soul is joined to it by way of its potency of feeling. This latter is by way of its potency for animate life, which has three capacities. The first and basic of them all is the nutritive. This is nutrition of the blood, or of something in its place—wherefore, etc.
4. To the fourth objection concerning Baptism, it must be said that Baptism principally signifies death and burial, but this sacrament signifies the suffering of Christ. Because he suffered in soul and in the flesh, he suffered through the affliction of his body and the shedding of his blood. Therefore in this case both should be signified. Hence there is no similarity in this to baptism. Nevertheless that is not the whole or principal reason, but the principal one is the signification of perfect refreshment according to one’s status on the way.
Now the sources of congruence are many, and they are gathered both from the particular signification of the res that the sacrament produces, and that is our nourishment, as well as from the res that it signifies allegorically, and that is the passion of Christ. Nourishment can however be signified as perfect. It is thus signified by these two with respect to two ways, because some are pleasantly nourished, while others are nourished with greater exertion. The first are signified by the blood and the species of wine, the second by the species of bread. This can also be with respect to their effects, inasmuch as it comforts, it is through the species of bread. Inasmuch as it gives joy and delight, it is through the wine. With respect to its allegorical significance, body and soul ought to be signified, because Christ assumed both, and in both did he suffer, and he redeemed both. All of these make for congruence; and the subsequent institution, which required a prior congruence, introduces necessity.
WHETHER WATER BELONGS TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
The third question is whether water belongs to the integrity of the sacrament of the Eucharist. And that it is would appear:
1. Cyprian: “Just as in blessing the Lord’s cup water alone cannot be offered, so neither can wine alone.”66 Wine belongs to the integrity, and without it there can be no sacrament—therefore neither without water.
2. Again, it seems so from reason. This is because a sacrament of the body cannot happen with flour alone but only by the admixture of water does it become bread. Therefore neither can the sacrament of blood happen without the admixture of water.
3. Again, either the Lord imposed it or he did not. If he imposed it, then what he institutes belongs to the integrity of the sacrament, because anyone who acts otherwise accomplishes nothing; therefore, etc. If he did not impose it, it was presumptuous to require it.
4. Again, whatever signifies something which is of the substance, and prominently so, belongs to its substance of the sacrament. The commingling of water with wine signifies union with the head, as Bede says.67
5. Again, the wine stands for the blood which flowed from the side of Christ. Not only did blood flow, but rather blood and water.68 Therefore the sacrament is imperfect unless both are used.
But to the contrary: a. There is nothing that belongs materially to the substance of this sacrament that does not remain either in substance or in accidents. Since water is of this type, therefore, etc.
b. Again, any element that belongs to the substance of one sacrament does not belong to the substance of another, since they are distinct sacraments. However water is the element of Baptism; therefore it is not of necessity for this sacrament.
c. Again, everything that belongs to the substance is so with respect to its signification or to its efficacy. It is not with respect to its signification, because the true body of Christ and the Mystical Body must be signified. The blood is adequately signified by the wine, and likewise the union of the Mystical Body. Nor is it with respect to its efficacy because transubstantiation takes place without water.
Likewise whatever the case of integrity, I ask about congruity. And it would seem to be incongruous for water to be applied:
6. This sacrament concerns something that has the sweetness of every taste.69 Water is tasteless, therefore it is not fitting.
7. Again, nothing is added to the bread, therefore neither to the wine, or if something is added, the question is, Why?
8. Again, we do not read that the Lord used it. Therefore it would seem that the one who does not use it does not sin, but rather the one who uses it.
However that it is of necessity and congruous with the command, Cyprian writes, “It can absolutely not be unknown to us who have been advised that we offer the Lord’s chalice with wine mixed with water after the manner the Lord offered it.”70
The question, then, is whether one who omits it sins gravely.
I respond: It must be said that four things belong to the integrity of this sacrament, namely the material and form and the order and intention of consecrating. Concerning the congruity of the sacrament and its well-being, there are things which are added to these four. Water therefore, since it is not one of those, is not of necessity, but is connected to the material, namely wine, because it is added to the wine and is absorbed into it and then later into the blood. Hence it belongs to its fittingness. The reason for this connection is for more expressive signification. This is because the water signifies the people. Through its mixture with the wine it signifies the unity of the head with the members. Through the wine, then, the union of the members to one another is signified. Hence the reasons showing that water does not belong to the substance of the sacrament are to be conceded.
To the objections: 1. To the objection therefore from Cyprian, it must be said that when Cyprian says that it cannot be done, he means when it cannot be done well or correctly. Hence, Alexander says, “ought not,”71 where Cyprian says, “cannot.”
2. To the objection concerning flour, it must be said that there is no similarity, because flour unmixed or in of itself is not food. However wine in of itself is drink.
3. To the objection whether the Lord added water, it must be said that he did, but not as something necessary, but as fitting. This is clear because it was wine from which he confected it. Therefore the water had passed over into wine before he confected it.72 Thus because he added it he who does not add it sins; nevertheless he still effects it.
4-5. To the objection concerning the union, it must be said that that union is signified by the wine, because the union of the members to one another and consequently to the head is signified. This however is not done very expressively; therefore it is fitting to add water.73 Likewise that it is said that they flowed together, it must be said that through this water, that water is not signified, nor the other way around. That water signifies baptismal water. Or it could be said that from this it is hinted that water is to be mixed with wine. Hence that was a figure of this, not this the sacrament of that. For this blood, not only that, but everything that flowed from his body is signified and contained.
To the question about being congruous, it must be said that it does belong to congruity.
6. As to what is said about tastelessness, it must be said that this signifies the people, who are tasteless and become tasteful through their communion with Wisdom, namely Christ, just as does water when it is added to wine.
7. To the objection that nothing is mixed in with the bread, it must be said that there is no similarity. This is because it is impossible for anything to be mixed into it and pass over into it, because of its hardness. Hence it does not have the potential for admixture as wine does. Besides, its more central reference is to signifying our redemption.
8. To the other objection it must be said that the Lord added it. Some conjecture this on account of the Lord’s sobriety, that he would not drink pure wine, especially if it were strong—just the kind that is found in the Promised Land. But this conjecture is weak. However, we know that the Apostles, who were present at the Lord’s Supper, so left it to the Church. Neither does the objection about the Gospel count, because not everything was written there. The reason why nothing is written about water is so that it not be considered of the substance of the sacrament. Lest however it be considered beyond necessary, it was insinuated in the Lord’s passion, when blood and water flowed.74
And therefore the one who omits it commits a sin. Anyone who omits it out of heresy or contempt, sins mortally. Anyone who neglects it for the reason that he has no diligence, sins mortally. Anyone who neglects this for the reason that he has only partial diligence, sins venially, but still he is guilty of grave sin. This is because this sacrament is to be celebrated with every diligence. Thus, to the extent that this work and this sacrament surpass other undertakings, to that extent negligence in this matter outweighs other acts of negligence.
WHETHER THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST CAN BE CELEBRATED WITH ANY BREAD AND WINE
The fourth question is whether this sacrament can be celebrated with any bread and wine. And that it can would appear:
1. Because it is common food. Therefore it ought be done with common material, just as Baptism, for the protection of the poor—therefore with any bread and any wine that have the capacity to refresh and be drunk.
2. Again, it is demonstrated that it can be celebrated with spoiled bread and wine, for Innocent says, “Although the best wine is to be sought with diligent care, still a faulty wine does not stain the cleanliness of the sacrament.”75 By the same token likewise this can be said about the bread; therefore, etc.
3. Again, it can be shown to be in mixed bread and mixed wine, because just as the water is mixed into the wine, so other grains can be mixed into grains of wheat. Since, in the case of mixture with the wine, the water becomes and ought to become the sacrament, therefore it can similarly in the case of grain.
4. Again, it would seem to be done with any water, because all water can be converted into wine, and what is converted can be changed into blood; therefore, etc.
To the contrary: a. It would seem that not with just any bread, because just as the Lord in baptizing provided the power of regeneration to water, so in consecrating he established the material of this sacrament. He consecrated with bread from grain (de frumento), because that is the only food with which the Passover was celebrated, and with wine from the vine; therefore, etc.
b. Again, it would appear that neither can it be done with spoiled bread or wine because spoiled wine is not wine, just as a dead person is not a person; hence “vinegar,” as the Philosopher says in Metaphysica VIII, “is neither wine, nor can it be.”76 This is likewise true with bread; therefore, etc.
c. Again, it would seem that neither can it be done with a mixture, because a mixture is the union of changing mixable things. Hence in a mixture the forms of the things mixed are interchanged, and there results some third substance. Therefore mixed wine is not wine, and the same with the bread; therefore, etc.
d. Again, that it cannot be done with non-natural water, because Baptism, which is a necessary sacrament, cannot be so done. Therefore this neither ought to be done for that which is more solemn.
I respond: It must be said that the fitting matter for this sacrament is of its nature bread from grain and wine from the vine. This is for the following reasons: that food among all foods and that drink among all drinks is more available, more effective, more healthy and more common. Hence the Lord compared himself to a grain of wheat in John 12:24 and to the wood of the vine in John 15:1. For this reason he confected it with these two species, and by confecting he instituted. Therefore it cannot be confected in any other bread than that of grain nor in any other wine than that from the vine, as the Council of Carthage so determined.77 Furthermore it can be celebrated with any bread from grains just as with any wine from the vine, whether there be any accidental or specific differences, as some say, as long as the appearance of that bread or that wine be preserved.
To the objections: To the objection therefore concerning any bread on account of its commonness, it must be said that not just commonness but also fittingness must be considered here. Besides, Baptism is a sacrament of necessity, but this is not. Therefore there is no similarity. Besides, every water is naturally of the same species as any other water, but not every dough is.
2. To the question about corruption, it must be said that there is a certain corruption which is apart from its best state but yet not apart from its simple reality. This is in the example of wine when it becomes cloudy or turns sour. However there is another kind of corruption which is apart from its simple reality, as when it simply ceases to have the form of bread and wine. This is the case when wine is completely changed into vinegar. The first corruption does not remove the potential for confecting, but the second does. Furthermore, this sort of corruption can be detected through taste by those familiar with the nature of things.
3. To the objection concerning admixture, it must be said that admixture can be taken two ways, namely commonly and properly. Admixture is taken commonly when something is mixed with something of a differing nature, but what is mixed in does not become a [significant] proportion. On the other hand, admixture is taken properly when what is mixed is the dominant portion and absorbs the species and converts it into itself. Thus, [in the case of water and wine] there is no mixture properly speaking, and such can exist in this sacrament. Of this there is mention at the end of De Generatione I, where it says, “if a drop of water is mixed into an amphora of wine, there is no mixture because the species is dissolved.”78 There is, however, a mixture properly so called, “the union of mixable opposites.” This type of mixture is unacceptable. Hence, when too much grain [of differing types] is mixed into the grains of wheat, and when too much water is added to the wine so that they change from their natural taste, this removes the potential for confection. Therefore the grains of wheat are to be carefully set aside and very little water is to be added to the wine, especially when the wine is weak.
4. To the last question about the water, it must be said that neither the oil of roses nor any other artificial “water” can be added, but only natural water which is called “living water.”79 If another water is added so that it dissolves into wine, the sacrament is confected, but the one who adds it commits sin, just as the one who omits the addition of water. This is because the water should signify the people, and this by reason of the multitude. Such is not artificial but natural water.
CONCERNING THE MANNER IN WHICH CHRIST CONFECTED
QUESTION ONE
WHETHER CHRIST CONFECTED WITH UNLEAVENED OR LEAVENED BREAD
The first question, then, is whether he confected with unleavened or leavened bread. And that he did so in unleavened would appear:
a. Matthew 26:17: On the first day of the feast of unleavened Bread.
b. Again, Mark 14:12: On the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the paschal lamb, and Luke 22:7: The day of the feast of unleavened bread arrived on which it was necessary to slaughter the paschal lamb. On that day leavened bread was not to be found in all the confines of Israel. Therefore since he consumed the paschal lamb while in the home of Jews, he could not have confected it only with unleavened bread.
c. Again, it stands to reason, for the Lord came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill the commands of the Law.80 It was commanded in Exodus 12:8 and Deuteronomy 16:3 that they partake of the paschal lamb with unleavened bread. Therefore he partook of unleavened bread. Since he confected with the bread that he had partaken in the Supper, therefore etc.
d. Again, the Lord must have confected in the manner that is most fitting for the sacrament. Unleavened was more fitting for this sacrament by reason of its integrity. Therefore he must have confected it with unleavened bread. Hence 1 Corinthians 5:8: not with the old leaven, but with the unleavened.
To the contrary: 1. The Lord anticipated the day of unleavened bread. However before that day they did not eat of unleavened bread; therefore, etc. That he anticipated it is shown because if the truth must correspond to the figure, and since the lamb, which was the figure of this, was sacrificed on the fourteenth of the month, then Christ was crucified on the fourteenth of the month. However, he celebrated on the day before the crucifixion. Thus it was with leavened bread.
2. This same is proven from authority, because John 18:28 says, They did not enter the praetorium themselves, because they had to avoid ritual impurity if they were to eat the Passover supper. Therefore he was led to his passion before he could eat the Passover supper. Therefore he anticipated, and thus this is the same as the prior argument.81
3. Again, the feast day of the Passover is said to be the first day on which the Passover could be eaten. According to John 13:1, the day when he confected the supper with his disciples is said to be before the feast of Passover; therefore, etc.
4. Again, the same is proven by Luke 23:56, where it is said that the women on the day of the crucifixion prepared spices and perfumes, and on the following they rested. The Glossa says that it was not permitted to prepare anything according to the Law.82 Therefore the great festival day was the one following the crucifixion. Since the great festival day was the first day of the unleavened bread, therefore, etc.
5. Likewise it stands to reason, because if the Lord did not wish that we observe a Jewish rite, it would seem that he would not observe it either. Therefore he did not confect with unleavened bread.
Accordingly it is sought, from whence did the controversy between the Greeks and Latins arise? It would seem that this controversy should not have happened. They both received from the Apostles, and the Apostles from their one Lord. Therefore either the Apostles were in error or the Greeks made it up. It could also be asked who does it better, and whether they both do it well, while some do not hold to the Lord’s way.
I respond: To the first it must be said that the Lord celebrated the Passover on the fourteenth of the month. It follows that he did not anticipate it, as three Evangelists expressly agree. Nor should he have anticipated it. If therefore the eating of the figurative lamb is emptied out by the eating of the true Lamb, the eating of the true Lamb had to come after the figurative one, not before it. Hence because he observed the Passover on the fourteenth of the month, when only unleavened bread was eaten, it is clear that he celebrated with unleavened bread.
To the objections: 1. To the objection that he anticipated because he was crucified on the fourteenth of the month, some respond that he was crucified on the fourteenth of the month, because the solemnities lasted from evening to the next evening. Hence on the first evening he partook of the lamb and before the next evening arrived he was crucified.83 A better alternative is that the passion was begun immediately after the Supper, because he was then in his agony and was captured etc. Hence it beneficially happened that the eating of the lamb and his immolation took place on the fourteenth of the month, not that it was then completed, but was underway.
2. To the objection that they did not enter the praetorium lest they become impure, it must be said that Passover can be understood in three ways. In one way the Passover is called the paschal food, such as unleavened bread, which was eaten by the Jews for seven days. Another meaning is the paschal lamb in Luke 22:7: on which it was appointed to slaughter the paschal lamb. The third meaning of Passover means the true Lamb, as in 1 Corinthians 5:7: Christ our Passover has been sacrificed. In John 18, he references the first meaning.
3-4. To the objection concerning the feast day, it must be said that those seven days were all feast days, but the first day was the preeminent feast day, that is, the fifteenth day. By far of greater excellence was the Sabbath that fell during those feast days. On it nothing ought to have been prepared, both on account of its solemnity and on account of the feast of the unleavened bread. What John says therefore concerns the fifteenth of the month, before which the supper was held. Thus what the Jews said, Not on the feast day, is understood as the Sabbath.84 Likewise that the women were at rest, this is out of reverence for the Sabbath, not because it was the first day, because on the first day preparing something was allowed, but on the Sabbath nothing was allowed to be prepared.
5. To the objection that the Lord should not have made us Judaizers, it must be said that the Lord did not take it over from the Law, but instituted it anew. It is just as apparent in the case of Baptism, for they were purified with water, just as we are purified with water. Thus he established this because it was fitting for the sacrament.
To the question about the controversy between Greeks and Latins, it must be said, just as Pope Leo says, because the feast of unleavened bread was an institution of the Jews, when the error of continuing observance of the law was common, the Fathers of old decreed with the counsel of the Holy Spirit that it should cease.85 This was to allow that error of continuing to observe the law to lessen, just as they decreed concerning baptizing in the name of Christ. Hence at first every church celebrated with unleavened bread, and later for this reason with leavened bread. But when that situation ended, the Roman Church then returned to the earlier rite.
But the Greeks, proud as they are, were unwilling to return to the earlier rite. Therefore from that time they have been forced to put up a defense, at first saying that this was what they had received. Then second, because this did not suffice, they added a reason, to the end that they not become Judaizers. Third, since this did not suffice, whether the Lord confected with unleavened bread, they dared to say that the Lord confected with leavened bread. Thus because the Evangelists say the opposite, they dared to say that they were mistaken and were persuaded by John. Behold how such a minor error at first became a great one in the end. Nonetheless they confect just as we do.86 For this is not of the substance of the sacrament, but part of its fittingness. And this is clear from the imitation or practice of the saints.
WHICH BODY CHRIST GAVE THE DISCIPLES AT THE SUPPER
The second question concerns the mode with which Christ confected with respect to its inner content. The question is, Which body did he give to the disciples at the Supper? That it was his impassible and immortal one would appear:
1. Matthew 17:2: He was transfigured before them. The Glossa: “that body that he had by nature he gave to his disciples at the Supper, not mortal and not passible.”87
2. Likewise it would stand to reason, because all passible flesh is changeable. Therefore, if he gave them a passible body, it was convertible into those who partook of it, which is unbefitting.
3. Again, suffering can be inflicted upon every passible thing, and everything upon which suffering can be inflicted is injured through the strong contact of the agent. If therefore Christ under the form of bread were passible, then it would be injured through the thrust of the teeth and chewing.
4. Again, if it was the passible and mortal body, suppose that it would have been reserved during the triduum.88 Then therefore he would die, and in that case his soul would not be present—therefore not the full sacrament. Since, then, there can be no question of this, it should be clear that he would not die; therefore, etc.
5. Again, suppose that someone had consecrated during the triduum. It is clear that the words would have the same power. By virtue of the words there is now there present the whole Christ, so the whole Christ would have been there also. Therefore he would be at the same time alive and dead, alive sub sacramento, dead outside it. Therefore, for the same reason, immortal sub sacramento, mortal outside it.
6. Again, that nothing be unbefitting, it would seem because, if any body were in several places, it could at the same time be moved and be at rest, and at the same time, be moved and not be moved. Then, by the same token at the same time, suffer and not suffer, die and not die; therefore, etc.
To the contrary: a. On 1 Corinthians 11:24 the Glossa says, “It is often asked which body the Lord gave his disciples,” and it responds, “Just as it was, passible and mortal.”89
b. Again, if he gave them the impassible and immortal, while he held the passible and mortal within himself, then he gave in the sign something other than in himself. Thus there was there some deception.
c. Again, if the immortal one, suppose that it were reserved, he would at the same time be alive and dead. Therefore he would at the same time live and not live. If this was so, two contradictory opposites would be at the same time true of the same thing. This cannot be believed or understood.
d. Again, when this is my body is said, the bread is changed only into the body. The soul is there only through concomitance. Therefore, had it been confected during the triduum, it would be a dead body, separated from the soul. Similarly had it been reserved, it would then be the passible and mortal body.90
I respond: There are two opinions in this matter. The first is one of Master Hugh and his followers: that Christ gave his immortal and impassible body sub sacramento.91 It is not unfitting that he be in possession of one or other mode of existence as habit or in act. Indeed by habit he was mortal, but for some purpose he took on immortality for a time; just as he took on simplicity in his birth, agility upon the sea, brightness on the mountain, so he took on immortality beneath this sacrament.92
Nor is there any real contradiction, because the body of Christ for the reason that it is in many places, has contrasting properties, such as to carry and be carried, to be at rest and be in motion, so too to suffer and not to suffer. To this extent he takes on the character of a universal, though he is truly singular. Thus according to their opinion, if he had been reserved, he would not have died in the pyx. But because this opinion proposes that contradictory things be simultaneously said of the same thing in the same respect, and it is not necessary to affirm such in this sacrament, this opinion is accordingly less reasonable.
For this reason there a second opinion. It is the opinion of the Master93 and Innocent and their followers: that “he gave to his disciples such a body as he had.”94 For although the body of Christ is at the same time in many places by virtue of the sacrament, he still has the same absolute properties as if he were one in number.
Hence to understand the objections to the contrary, it must be said that there is a twofold property that befits the body of Christ. Some properties are absolute and some properties are related to place. An absolute property which befits the body of Christ as it is in one place, since it is one, still befits it as in all of them. But a property relative to place, since it exists in diverse places, though it befit him in one place does not necessarily befit him in all places. Hence it is not necessary that, if the body of Christ is in many places, that if he should be moved in one place, then he be moved in the other. Likewise it is not necessary that if someone should strike him in one place then someone similarly should strike him in another, because such an action depends on the presence of an agent in that [specific] place. So similarly it is not necessary that if he should be seen in one place that he should be seen in another. This depends on the presence and place of an onlooker.
It is to be conceded therefore that Christ had his passible and mortal body sub sacramento, but nevertheless suffering could not be inflicted upon him there, no matter how much a person might strike him. Hence although it ought to be said that he was passible under those species, he was there impassibly. Hence when speaking of the passion brought to bear, if the question arises whether he could suffer there, this distinction is to be made.
For the fact that he is “there” determines either the act or the composition understood about the subject. If it determines the act, the statement is false, because the meaning is that sub sacramento suffering could be inflicted upon him. This is false because just as he could not be felt there, so neither could suffering be inflicted upon him. If, however, it determines the composition understood of the subject, then the expression is true and the meaning is that existing there he could suffer. This is because if suffering were to be inflicted upon him elsewhere, there too he would feel the suffering and die. Hence, if that body had been reserved, it would have had the wounds sub sacramento just as outside it, but still suffering would not have been inflicted upon him under such a manner of existence.95
For this reason the masters say that existing there [sub sacramento] he was passible by suffering inflicted upon him elsewhere, but he was still there impassibly. If this is how Master Hugh understood it, he is right. However, then that adjustment of endowments cannot stand, for if endowments mean some sort of qualities, then I do not see how the body is not altered, at least for a time. But it is correct that when he gave the sacrament, his body had in habit and act the property of passibility. Therefore it did not have the opposite. However he had another mode of existing96 in something other, and that mode lifted him above having a position. Through this, he was there above the possibility of feeling or of being touched. Hence although he was passible, still he could never be felt there, and neither could suffering be inflicted upon him there.
To the objections: 1-2. From this the objections are clarified, because the Glossa says that he gave his immortal and impassible body, because there neither suffering nor death could be inflicted upon him, but elsewhere they could. The following one is similarly clarified, why he was not changeable there, because he was not passible there.
3. The third is likewise clarified, because suffering could be inflicted upon him, but not with respect to every condition, as for example with respect to that according to which he is insensible.
4-6. To the question if it had been reserved during the triduum, it must be said that he would have been dead sub speciebus. Likewise, if someone confected, there would not be anything there but a dead body. To the further objection that then he would have been imperfect, etc. it must be said that the sacrament would be perfect with respect to its efficacy, because the body was united to divinity, perfect with respect to signification, but not with respect to its content. The reason for this is that the imperfection was in the very thing signified, because the body was dead. Likewise it must be said that the soul is not there by virtue of the words, but only on account of its conjunction. Hence, because during the triduum it was not conjoined, it would not be there. This is not because the power of the words is greater now, but because of the different status of the body. For the sacramental words are ordained to the conversion into the body just as was the case according to the status of the pronunciation of the words.
But could Christ, if his body were dead sub sacramento, arrange that his soul, which was exiting from his body while hanging upon the cross, would enter his body sub sacramento, and thus be at the same time dead and alive? It must be said that to do this would be nothing other than to return from where he exited. Hence this would be to revive his body, because it is absolutely one. Thus, the one body of Christ is envisioned as singular among diverse bodies. It is an unacceptable image that one be both perfect and live and the other not. But this ought not to be envisioned, because the body is one.
_______________
1 To support this position, Bonaventure appeals to the authority of the doctors. For example, see the following text from Ambrose and the subsequent references. Ambrose, De sacramentis, IV, c. 4, n. 14 (PL 16, 458C-459A): Sed panis iste panis est ante verba sacramentorum: ubi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. Hoc igitur astruamus. Quomodo potest qui panis est, corpus esse Christi? Consecratione. Consecratio autem quibus verbis est, cujus sermonibus? Domini Jesu. See also, Eusebius, De corpore et sanguine Domini, n. 2 (among the works of Jerome and Isidore (PL 30, 272; 83, 1225); Paschasius Radbertus, De corpore et sanguine Domini, c. 4, n. 1 (CCCM 16, 28-29). John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa, IV, c. 13 (PG 94, 1143-46).
2 Gregory I, Dialogorum, IV, c. 58 (PL 77, 425D-428A.): Quis enim fidelium habere dubium possit, in ipsa immolationis hora ad sacerdotis vocem coelos aperiri, in illo Jesu Christi mysterio angelorum choros adesse, summis ima sociari, terrena coelestibus jungi, unumque ex visibilibus atque invisibilibus fieri?
3 John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa, IV, c. 13 (PG 94, 1143A): Consimili modo, quia hominum consuetudo fert ut panem edant, vinumque et aquam bibant; idcirco, conjuncta cum illis sua divinitate, haec corpus et sanguinem suum fecit, uti per usitata et naturae consentanea, assurgamus ad ea quae supra naturam sunt.
4 The wording of this argument to the contrary is somewhat confusing. Thus, the editors took some liberty in the translation for the sake of clarity. Latin: Item, ratione videtur quia, si aliquid convertitur in corpus Christi, aut quod est aut quod non est. Si quod non est, ergo corpus de novo fit: ergo plura corpora simul. Si quod est, sed quandocumque aliquid convertitur in id quod est augetur: ergo corpus Christi consecratione sive conversione fit maius.
5 The text reads quod non potest esse sine miraculo, which seems to be a mistake in the text. We have corrected it to read quod potest esse sine miraculo, “But this is able to be so without a miracle.”
6 Peter Lombard lists various opinions about the nature of the move from the substance of bread to the flesh of Christ by divine power but without the use of the notion of conversion. Bonaventure, on the contrary, understands that the notion of conversion is essential to this change. Cf. Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 11, c. 2, 294-6.
7 Latin: Hoc est corpus meum.
8 Cf. above, c.
9 In Baptism, for example, grace is created where none was before. But the body of Christ is not created for the first time here, since it was created in the womb of the Virgin.
10 Cf. above, this question, “I respond….”
11 The notion of “transubstantiation” is important for Bonaventure because it presents a metaphysical tool for emphasizing that the conversion of the substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is a total and complete conversion. The totality of the substance of the bread and wine becomes totally the flesh and blood of Christ. The reason why this is important for Bonaventure is because of the importance of the sign. If the whole substances of bread and wine are not completely converted, then the sign (significatio) of the bread and wine is lessened, incomplete, and deficient. The sign must completely be devoted to pointing to the truth of the body and blood of Christ. Nothing can be left in the sign that points to anything else.
12 Substance is not material. Therefore, a change which is only material does not affect the substance.
13 Therefore, matter is of itself non-being. It “comes into being” when a substance gives it form.
14 So, there are no superfluous miracles in the sacrament, i.e., “bleeding hosts.”
15 Latin: Magis catholicam tenemus quod totus panis in corpus Christi convertitur, et optimo modo ista conversio transsubstantiatio dicitur. Transubstantiation is not a dogma or an object of faith. Bonaventure simply sees it as the best current description to describe the conversion.
16 Augustine, Contra Faustum, b. 26, c. 3 (PL 42, 480; CSEL, 25.1, 731): Deus autem creator et conditor omnium naturarum, nihil contra naturam facit: id enim erit cuique rei naturali, quod ille fecerit, a quo est omnis modus, numerus, ordo naturae.
17 Cf. Aristotle, De generatione et corruptione, II, c. 10 (356b in WAE 2).
18 Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 11, c. 2.5, 296: Illi dicunt vel in praeiacentem materiam resolvi, vel in nihilum redigi.
19 Cf. above, d. 11, p. 1, a. 1, q. 1, obj. c.
20 Latin: …sub speciem.
21 Cf. below, d. 12, p. 1, a. 2, q. 1, ad 1.
22 It is interesting that eucharistic conversion can work both ways. Cf. below, d. 12, p. 1, a. 2, q. 1, ad 1.
23 This argument appeals to the practice of the whole Church: tota ecclesia facit.
24 Cf. Aristotle, Physica, IV, c. 8 (215a in WAE, 2).
25 Here, Bonaventure simply responds to the objections in his respondeo, or it can be viewed that the respondeo consists only of the first sentence of this section.
26 The effective principle of the change is the “uncreated Word,” verbum increatum. This becomes important throughout Bonaventure’s sacramental theology. The effective principle is Christ’s action, not the action of a priest.
27 Aristotle, Physica, II, c. 10 (336b in WAE 2): “… and every time (i.e., every life) is measured by a period.”
28 Latin: Signetur ergo unum instans in tempore in quo ultimo est panis. In this section, Bonaventure uses the verb signare several times in order to identify the uniqueness of specific instants.
29 The problem here lies in the fact that between any two points on a line there are an infinite number of points in between. Thus only one point can be defined; otherwise either there would be a successive change, or, there would be a time when neither the bread nor the body existed in the sacrament. Bonaventure’s answer therefore is that we can define only one of the points (when the bread ceases to be) and then leave the rest to mystery and not mathematics.
30 Ambrose, De sacramentis, IV, c. 4, n. 16 (PL 16, 461A): Ergo tibi ut respondeam, non erat corpus Christi ante consecrationem: sed post consecrationem dico tibi quia jam corpus est Christi.
31 In verbum mutandi as opposed to verbum substantivum. The question is a grammatical one as to what type of verb to use in theological reflection concerning the conversion.
32 John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa, IV, c. 13 (PG 94, 1139C): Si denique ipse Deus Verbum pro sua voluntate homo factus est, atque ex sanctae semperque Virginis purissimis et intaminatis sanguinibus ipse sibi nullo semine carnem compegit, cur demum panem corpus, vinum item et aquam, sanguinem suum efficiendi potens non sit?
33 Ambrose, De sacramentis, IV, c. 4, n. 14 (PL 16, 458C-459A): Quomodo potest qui panis est, corpus esse Christi? Consecratione. Consecratio autem quibus verbis est, cujus sermonibus? Domini Jesu. Nam et reliqua omnia quae dicuntur in superioribus, a sacerdote dicuntur, laudes Deo deferuntur, oratio petitur pro populo, pro regibus, pro caeteris: ubi venitur ut conficiatur venerabile sacramentum, jam non suis sermonibus utitur sacerdos, sed utitur sermonibus Christi. Ergo sermo Christi hoc conficit sacramentum.
34 See previous footnote.
35 Here the preposition de (“from”) is said to be the most apt preposition to use in reference to the conversion.
36 Latin: …est.
37 Latin: …fiendi.
38 Latin: …potest.
39 Latin: De and ex.
40 Latin: …generari.
41 Latin: …fieri.
42 Latin: …fiendi.
43 Latin: …generandi.
44 Latin: …potest.
45 Latin: De or ex.
46 Thus, Bonaventure prefers the preposition in as opposed to the prepositions de and ex because these latter connote the ability of the bread to become the body of Christ, of which power the bread has none. The power is in the uncreated word.
47 Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis, I, p. 11, c. 6 (PL 176, 345D; Corpus Victorinum, 246): Postea vero paulatim ejus adventu appropinquante, oportebat ut eodem ordine, et fides in cognitione, et gratia in salute cresceret; et eadem gratia in sacramentis foris, et signis fuisse, evidentius se manifestaret.
48 The “law of nature” refers to the prefiguration of the sacrament of the Eucharist by Melchizedek in Genesis 14.
49 The “written law” refers to the law of Moses, the “natural law” refers to the time period before the Mosaic Law, and the “New Law” refers to the time period after Christ.
50 Luke 22:19 and 1 Cor 11:24.
51 1 Peter 2:1-3.
52 Latin: …luxuriosa vinum res. Wine produces an effect to make one sexually aroused.
53 Cf. above, d. 8, p. 2., a. 2, q. 1, ad. obj 1.
54 Cf. cod. Vat. Reg. 1304 (Romae) fol. 79 et fol. 105-108 as cited in footnote 4 of Bonaventure, Opera omnia, IV, 255:…vinum bonum dat nutrimentum corpori, sanitatem reddit et custodit, si accipiatur, secundum quod oportet.
55 John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa, IV, c. 13 (PG 94, 1143A): Consimili modo, quia hominum consuetudo fert ut panem edant, vinumque et aquam bibant; idcirco, conjuncta cum illis sua divinitate, haec corpus et sanguinem suum fecit, uti per usitata et naturae consentanea, assurgamus ad ea quae supra naturam sunt.
56 Cf. d. 1, p. 1, q. 5; d. 2, a. 1, q. 2, ad 3 and dub. 2; see also d. 3, p. 2, a. 3, q. 1; See also d. 8, p. 1, a. 1, q. 2, ad 4.i
57 Here, Bonaventure makes allusion to an image used by Ignatius of Antioch. Cf. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans 4.1 (The Apostolic Fathers, Greek Texts and English Translations. Third edition. Edited and translated by Michael W. Holmes. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 229: “I am God’s wheat, and I am being ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may prove to be pure bread.”
58 Augustine, Confessions, b. 7, c. 10, n. 16 (PL 32, 742; CSEL 33, 157): Cibus sum grandium; cresce, et manducabis me. Nec tu me in te mutabis, sicut cibum carnis tuae; sed tu mutaberis in me.
59 Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 11, c. 4.1, 300: Panis enim ad carnem refertur, vinum ad animam, quia vinum operatur sanguinem, in quo sedes animae a physicis esse dicitur.
60 Latin: Dicendum quod in sacramento duo sunt, scilicet efficacia et significantia. Here Bonaventure uses the term significantia, which we have translated “signification.” Significantia is a key term that Bonaventure consistently utilizes to explain his sacramental theology.
61 Latin: …et sic sunt de integritate, quia in neutra per se exprimitur res huius sacramenti, sed in utraque simul.
62 Here, Bonaventure makes an important distinction between eating sacramentally and eating spiritually.
63 Therefore in order for there to be perfect refreshment, there must be participation in the signification of the blood.
64 Bonaventure argues forcefully that the sacrament is not fully signified except in both bread and wine. This could lead to the conclusion that the faithful should communicate sub utraque species. However, here he argues in terms of full signification, not in terms of fullness of efficacy. Thus, only in terms of fuller participation in the natural sacramental signs, not in terms of the efficacy of grace, could one argue from his position for sub utraque species.
65 The body of this reply to the objection acknowledges the sacramental practice of his day. The last sentence, however, seems out of context of his sacramental theology with its emphasis on significatio. Strange that, in the extensive development of his emphasis on the distinct signification of bread and wine, he should draw upon an example of blood becoming visible in the visible species of bread. This is not consistent with the position he articulates above in d. 11, p. 1, a. 1, q. 4, ad resp. Perhaps this was added later. Bonaventure would have written this text before the popular stories of eucharistic miracles emerged.
66 Cyprian, Epistola 63, n. 13 (PL 4, 395B): Sic autem in sanctificando calice Domini offerri aqua sola non potest, quomodo nec vinum solum potest.
67 Bede, In Marci evangelium expositio, 14, 23 (PL 92, 272CD; CCSL 120, 611-12): Verum quia et nos in Christo, et in nobis Christum manere oportet, vinum dominici calicis aqua miscetur. Attestante enim Joanne, aquae populi sunt. Et neque aquam solam, neque solum vinum, sicut nec granum frumenti solum sine aquae admixtione et confectione in panem cuiquam licet offerre, ne talis videlicet oblatio quasi caput a membris secernendum esse significet, et vel Christum sine nostrae redemptionis amore pati potuisse, vel nos sine illius passione salvari ac Patri offerri posse contingat. Cf. Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 11, c. 5.1, 301-2.
68 John 19:34.
69 Wis 16:20.
70 Cyprian, Epistola 63, n. 17 (PL 4, 399AB): Nobis vero non poterit ignosci, qui nunc a Domino admoniti et instructi sumus ut calicem Dominicum vino mistum, secundum quod Dominus obtulit, offeramus; et de hoc quoque ad collegas nostros litteras dirigamus, ut ubique lex evangelica et traditio Dominica servetur, et ab eo quod Christus et docuit et fecit non recedatur. Bonaventure here seems to be paraphrasing or using a slightly different version of this text.
71 Alexander, Ap. Gratian, Decretum, III, d. 2, c. 1 (I, 1314): Non enim debet in calice Domini aut vinum solum, aut aqua sola offerri, sed utrumque permixtum….
72 This seems to be an argument that water was mixed with wine in the Passover meal by the custom of the Jews.
73 Wine signifies union with the head because blood connects the head to the parts of the body. However, since this is not very expressive as a sign, water is added to intensify this signification.
74 John 19:34.
75 Innocent III, De sacro altaris mysterio, IV, c. 29 (PL 217, 876CD): Licet autem diligenti studio vinum optimum sit quaerendum, ut sacrificium offeratur, vitium tamen vini non maculat munditiam sacramenti. Quocirca sive vinum novum, quod dicitur mustum, sive vinum acidum, quod appellatur acetum, in sacrificium offeratur, sacramentum conficitur et divinitus consecratur.
76 Aristotle, Metaphysica, b. 7, c. 5 (1044b in WAE 8).
77 Ap. Gratian, Decretum, III, d. 2, c. 5 (I, 1315): Nec amplius in sacrificiis offeratur quam de uvis et frumentis.
78 Aristotle, De generatione et corruptione, I, c. 10 (328a in WAE 2).
79 It seems that some were adding the oil from roses into the wine as a reference to Christ being the Rose of Sharon. All other types of so called “water,” however they be produced are also excluded. Only “living water,” which is natural running water, is to be used.
80 Matt 5:17.
81 The Last Supper occurs in John 13, which is prior to the events mentioned here.
82 Cf. Glossa ordinaria, IV, 219, Luke 23:56. See also Jerome, Evangelium secundum Lucam (PL 114, 350AB).
83 Christ’s partaking of the lamb and his crucifixion happened on the same day according to the Jewish reckoning of days, which spanned from evening to evening.
84 Matt 26:5; Mark 14:2.
85 For sources relevant to this controversy, cf. Bonaventure, Opera Omnia, IV, 262, note 4.
86 Ultimately, Bonaventure concedes that the Greeks do still participate in the Lord’s body.
87 Glossa Ordinaria, IV, 57, Matt 17:2: Illud autem corpus quod habuit per naturam dedit discipulis suis in cena non mortale non corruptibile. Bonaventure’s Latin: …non mortale, non passibile.
88 The triduum is the three-day period in which Christ was in the grave. The argument is that the body of Christ which was reserved would not have died when Christ was dead.
89 Cf. Glossa ordinaria, IV, 325, 1 Cor. 11:24: Cum fregit spontaeam passionem suam ostendit. See also, Peter Lombard, In epistolam I ad Corinthios, c. 11, v. 24 (PL 191, 1645B): Solet etiam quaeri quale dederit apostolis, dicemus quale tunc erat, id est passibile et mortale.
90 The implicit part of this argument is that if part of the bread confected by the Lord at the Last Supper had been reserved, then there would have been a part of the body of Christ which did not die on the cross, and this cannot be. Therefore, the body confected must have been his mortal body.
91 Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis, II, p. 8, c. 3 (PL 176, 462D, Corpus Victorinum, 401): Solent quidam quaerere quale corpus suum discipulis suis Dominus Ihesus Christus tradiderit. Hoc est passibile an impassibile, mortale an immortale et cetera quae ad hanc pertinent quaestionem. Ego in ejusmodi sicut et in aliis professus sum divina secreta magis veneranda quam discutienda censeo.
92 Jesus was born in a stable and laid in a manger (feeding trough)—thus simple or plain, though it is not in God’s nature to become plain (Luke 2:7). He took on the ability to walk on water, though his natural body could not do so (Matt 14:25). He was transfigured on the mountain and shone bright as the sun, though his natural body did not have the ability to do so (Matt 17:2). All these point to the ability of Jesus to change the mode of his existence.
93 Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 11, c. 6, n. 1303: Corpus vero tale dedit, quale tunc habuit, id est, mortale et passibile.
94 Cf. Innocent III, De sacro altaris mysterio, IV, c. 12 (PL 217, 863D-864A): Hic scilicet pro facto concedunt, posito quod pars aliqua sacramenti per triduum mortis Christi reservata fuisset, idem corpus simul et jacebat mortuum in sepulcro, et manebat vivum sub sacramento. In ara crucis patiebatur, et sub forma panis non laedebatur. Sed quoniam incredibile judicatur, ut secundum eamdem naturam simul esset mortalis et immortalis, quod tamen congruebat ei secundum eamdem personam.
95 Thus the conclusion is that whatever the condition or state that Christ’s physical body is in will be the condition or state of the sacramental body, and that any change that occurs to the physical body of Christ will also occur to the sacramental body. Yet no change that is inflicted upon the sacramental body can ever affect the physical body of Christ, because it is not there physically but sacramentally. Thus, and this is important regarding the tradtion, chewing the sacramental body of Christ with the teeth in no way affects the physical body of Christ or causes it to suffer. In fact, no suffering can be caused to Christ himself through any action taken regarding the sacramental body of Christ in the Eucharist.
96 Bonaventure here has in mind a sacramental mode of existing.