According to a proper acceptation of the term, the previously mentioned conversion or transubstantiation of the bread may not be into the soul, or the divinity, or into an accident of the substance of the body of Christ, or the blood of Christ, but only into the body of Christ. Although, by putting an improper and loose construction upon this term ‘conversion’ or ‘transubstantiation’ it might be able to be conceded that the bread is transubstantiated into the soul or an accident of the body of Christ, or the blood. For the passages of the Doctors prove conclusively that the substance of the bread is not converted into the soul or the divinity of Christ. Whence a gloss on the De Consecratione, Distinction II., above that Chapter, ‘Quid est Christum manducare?’ says: “The bread is converted into flesh alone and the wine into blood.”
Likewise, the Master of the Sentences in Book IV., Distinction XI.: “Although,” he says, “the entire Christ may be assumed under both species, yet no conversion of the bread except into flesh or of wine except into blood takes place.”
From these passages it is clear that the substance of the bread, from which it is converted into flesh alone, is not transubstantiated into divinity or rational soul or blood, nor as a consequence into an accident of flesh or soul; but this is certainly true according to a proper use of this term ‘convertitur.’
From which it must be perceived that the substance of the bread is especially converted or transubstantiated into that which is not, because it is joined to another; but, even if it were separated from others, it begins to be so by divine power under the species of the bread at the utterance of the sacramental words by the priest, with the obligatory intention, over suitable material. But of such is the flesh of Christ, and not the soul, or the blood, or some accident inhering in flesh or soul. For, if the soul were separated from the flesh, no matter how much the priest might with obligatory intention recite the sacramental words over suitable material, the soul of Christ would not begin to be there, but only the flesh.
Similarly, if the blood were separated from the flesh, the blood would not begin to be there, but only the flesh. And the judgment is the same with respect to the accidents of the flesh and the soul. And by virtue of this the Doctors say that the body of Christ is under the species of bread by virtue of the sacramental words and by the power of conversion, and by virtue of this the substance of the bread is converted into the body of Christ and not into soul or deity.
If however any one wishes to use the term ‘conversion’ or ‘transubstantiation’ more improperly, that he may say that the substance of the bread is converted into all that which at the pronouncing of the sacramental words begins now really to be under the species of bread, by so using the term it can be conceded that the substance of the bread is converted into the reasonable soul of Christ; this is to say, that at the utterance of the sacramental words the reasonable soul begins to be under the species of bread. If, however, the sacramental words would have been uttered with the obligatory intention during the three days of the death of Christ, the reasonable soul would not have been in the same place; and the reason for this diversity is, because the intellectual soul was then separated from the body of Christ to which it is now united.
But if they only wish to contend about a term and to say that the substance of the bread is converted into nothing, except that which will begin to be under the species of bread, even if it were separated from others, I do not wish to oppose them since the point is sufficiently obvious.
← Chapter III That the Substance of the Bread Is Converted Into the Body of Christ · Contents · Chapter V That the Substance of the Bread Does Not Remain After Consecration →