Question One. Whether Wheat Bread Prepared with Elemental Water is the Appropriate Matter for Conversion into the Body of Christ

I. The Response is Affirmative

362. As to the first question, the answer is plain in d.2 ‘On Consecration’ [Rep. IVA d.11. q.6; Gratian Decretum p.3 d.2 chs.4, 5].

363. The principal reason is that Christ instituted such matter, and as sign of his institution he used such consecrated matter.

364. That he also used wheat bread and not other bread is contained in the same place [n.362].

365. And the fittingness of this is taken from the words of John 12.24-25, “Unless a grain of wheats,” where Christ compares himself to a grain of wheat. Hence Augustine [On John tr.51 n.9, and Nicholas of Lyra in the Gloss], says on that place, “Although there are many grains from crops, he compares himself only to this one. Hence began the custom of the Church to confect the body of our Lord the Savior only from this grain.”

366. From this flour too, taken from wheat and prepared with elemental water, the bread should be made, because thus is it supposed that the bread was made which Christ used in his consecration; nor does bread paste [Latin: pasta] suffice, but bread, for so was it instituted.

367. And in all respects is there fittingness, for since this sacrament is a sign of spiritual nutriment it is fittingly instituted in those things that are signs of the principal nutriment of the body, and wheat bread is the principal nutriment as far as food is concerned.

II. Three Doubts

368. But there is doubt here: first about wheat starch (amidon), whether consecratable bread can be made from it; second whether the sacrament can be confected from wheat flour, made into bread paste, not baked; third whether unleavened bread or leavened bread or both can be used.

A. About the First Doubt

369. As to the first doubt, it would seem prima facie that such bread would be consecratable, first because it is usually reckoned to be wheat bread and Christ instituted the sacrament in the usual wheat bread, and second because the purifications done in preparing starch do not seem to be alterations from the species of wheat flour (for only colorings and purifications and the like are done there, and these do not seem to alter the core of the wheat away from its species).

370. However, if one is to believe the experts in given subjects about the qualities consequent to those subjects - subjects that are made known through the effects by which we recognize qualities and functions and distinguish substances (for we do not recognize the distinction between fire and water otherwise than through what becomes known to us from their effects), and each species, according to medical doctors, gets from the whole species any quality and function that does not belong to it through such and such mixing but follows the form proper to such species, and this sort of quality and function is different in the whole species in starch and in wheat bread (as is plain to those who inspect them and assign them such properties as concerns their effects) - if all this is so, it seems that starch is of a totally different species from wheat bread.

371. And there is a confirmation: for the fact that vinegar and sour grape juice differ from wine in species, and are consequently not matter for consecration as to the wine, we do not otherwise prove than by reference to their qualities and functions, namely because vinegar is cold from its whole species and wine is warm from its whole species.

372. Here it can briefly be said that, since it is certain that wheat flour ground in the common way of grinding, namely in the way that millers are accustomed to grind it, is suitable matter for making consecratable bread, and since it is doubtful whether starch is matter of this sort, and the negative side is much more probable, not without sin would anyone expose oneself to such a doubt, especially he who prepares hosts for consecration, since the fact that he is preparing them from this sort of matter is simply certain to him. Perhaps the user can be more excused of sin, because he supposes that such matter has been well prepared. But if this matter is not in truth fit for consecration, he effects nothing [when consecrating it]. There is, however, no idolatry for the people or occasion of idolatry, since the people, as far as is in themselves, are supposing that the matter is suitable and is to be adored both by themselves and others.

B. About the Second Doubt

373. As to the second doubt, it is very probable that bread paste and bread do not differ in species, because by the cooking of bread paste in the oven, or by fire in some other way, only the watery fluid mixed with the parts of the flour is drawn out, and this mixture is one of juxtaposition. Now such separation does not change the species, for the mixing too does not change it. But neither can the sacrament be confected from bread paste, because Christ did not want to impose on us in his sacraments a subtle disputation about specific differences, but that we should have commonly for the matter of consecration the usual wheat bread. And so according to Damascene, Orthodox Faith ch.86, the sacrament instituted for us ought to be what, either it or the like, is commonly accustomed to be nutriment.

374. And if you argue that bread becomes bread paste through a little kneading by the fingers, but it seems, after such kneading by the fingers, to be matter for consecration, therefore before baking too - I reply that this proves bread does not differ in species from bread paste, but it does not prove that bread paste is consecratable matter.

And if you ask about such bread, recent and reduced to paste, whether it is consecratable - I reply that it is, because as much remains of its accustomed hardness as is accustomed to be in the hardness of bread; yet from the fact that it was once baked and was bread (unless it departs from the idea of usual bread), it does not depart from the idea of consecratable bread.

C. About the Third Doubt

1. Opinion of the Greeks

375. The third doubt contains greater difficulty. For the Greeks say that it is necessary to confect the sacrament using leavened bread, and so they deny that the Latins confect it.This dispute is dealt with at length by Eusebius Ecclesiastical History V.23-25, IV.26, and by Innocent III, On the Sacrament of the Altar IV ch.4, on whom Scotus here draws. ³⁵

376. And they try to prove the antecedent with the Gospels. For they say that Christ suffered on the fourteenth day of the month, so that the figure of the Law might be fulfilled about the paschal lamb, which was sacrificed on the fourteenth day [Exodus 12.1-28, 34.18; Leviticus 23.5-8; Numbers 28.16-25; Matthew 26.17-20 etc.]. And Christ who foreknew that this was going to be, anticipated the eating of the paschal lamb before the fourteenth day. Now the Greeks say that leavened bread was in use among the Jews at that time; and it was licit then and commonly maintained among the Jews. For leavened bread was not forbidden them before the fourteenth day of the first month toward evening. From this the Greeks conclude that Christ then used leavened bread and that consequently he confected the sacrament with leavened bread.

377. In favor of this opinion they adduce other texts from the Gospels:

As John 18.28 where it is written that the Jews themselves “did not enter the Praetorium so that they might not become unclean but eat the Pasch.” Now ‘Pasch’ there is taken for the paschal lamb which had to be eaten on the fourteenth day of the month. Therefore, on the fourteenth day they handed Christ over to Pilate.

Again in John 13.1-2 is read that it was “before the feast day of the Pasch,” and then follows everything about the cena and the institution of the Eucharist [Matthew 26.20-29 and the parallels in Luke and Mark]. Therefore it was before the day on which the paschal lamb was sacrificed, and consequently before the fourteenth day of the month.

Again in Matthew 26.5 is said how the Jews thought to kill Christ, and they said “Not on the feast day.” Now that principal feast day was the fifteenth day of the month, according to Numbers 28.16-17, “On the fourteenth day of the first month you will celebrate the Pasch, and on the fifteenth day there will be a solemnity (that is, the principal day).”     Therefore , the verse in John, where it says “Before the feast day etc     .,” is understood of that day.

2. Refutation of the Opinion

378. But in the issue at hand both the antecedent [n.375] and the consequence are false, for the first consequence [n.376] is nothing and the second is not necessary [n.377]. For that he suffered on the fifteenth day and consequently that he had the cena on the fourteenth is expressly proved by Matthew 26.17, “On the first day of unleavened bread, the disciples asked, ‘Where do you wish us to prepare for you to eat the pasch?’,” and Mark 14.12, “On the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the pasch, they asked, ‘Where do you wish us to go and prepare to eat the pasch?’,” and Luke 22.7-8, “The day of unleavened bread arrived, on which it was necessary to eat the pasch, and he sent two, Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and prepare for us to eat the pasch.’”

379. From these it is plain that on the first day of unleavened bread, namely on the fourteenth day, he ate the paschal lamb, and this in accord with the place in Numbers that was just cited [n.377]; and “on the fifteenth day there will be a solemnity,” that is, the first complete day of the solemn Pasch, and on that day Christ suffered. And thus at the hour on which the paschal lamb had to be eaten according to the Law, namely the fourteenth day of the first month, the disciples ate the true lamb.

380. As to their proofs, which they adduce for the antecedent [nn.378-379], the answer is plain from a distinction set down by Innocent III On the Sacrament of the Altar IV ch.4, that ‘Pasch’ is said in five ways: in one way for the solemnity of the day of unleavened bread, which was the fifteenth day; in another way for the day on the evening of which the lamb was eaten, which was the fourteenth day; third for the hour of the sacrificing of the lamb, which was part of the fourteenth day; in the fourth way for the lamb that was eaten or sacrificed; in the fifth way for unleavened bread.

381. As to the issue at hand, one member of the distinction suffices for solving the first authority from John 18 [n.377], and likewise for solving the second authority from John [ibid.].The solution is that ‘pasch’ refers sometimes to the day of unleavened bread, and sometimes to the day of the paschal sacrifice, so that Christ could institute the Eucharist on one day (the Thursday) and suffer on the next (the Friday) and both days be days of the pasch. Nevertheless the timing of the cena (the Last Supper) and the institution of the Eucharist in the Gospels is puzzling, and Scotus’ treatment does not entirely solve that puzzle (even if his answer is sufficient against the Greeks). The Gospels put the cena on Thursday evening and suppose that the paschal sacrifice proper, which the Chief Priests and Pharisees celebrated, was later on Friday afternoon. Consequently the cena took place before the paschal sacrifice, and Christ himself suffered and died after the cena, at the same time as that sacrifice (being himself, of course, the true Lamb of God). Now in Jewish reckoning each day begins on the previous evening, so that Friday begins on Thursday evening and ends at Friday evening (when Saturday begins). So the cena, though it occurred on the Thursday evening, did occur on the fourteenth day; it just occurred much earlier in that day than the paschal sacrifice proper. The cena, then, could have used leavened bread since it occurred before the legal requirement for unleavened bread came into effect, but it could have used unleavened bread if it was an anticipation of the paschal sacrifice. So, from this point of view, the requirement that the bread for the Eucharist be leavened or unleavened does seem a matter of choice, to be determined by the Church’s law. ³⁶

3. Scotus’ own Opinion

382. Accordingly, then, one must hold that it is not of the necessity of the consecratable bread either that it be unleavened or that it be leavened, because according to Anselm, Letter on the Sacrifice of Leavened and Unleavened ch.1, “leavened and unleavened do not differ in substance.” And therefore we do not deny that the Greeks truly confect [the sacrament].

383. This is also plain because, at the time of Leo IX, it was established that the sacrament would be confected with leavened bread. But this was for a time, so that the heresy of the Ebionites might be extinguished, who said that it was necessary for Christians to Judaize, and as a result they confected their pasch with unleavened bread, as the Jews did; and consecration with leavened bread was ordained for extinction of this heresy. But afterwards, when the heresy was extinct, the Western Church returned to its first custom, which was in conformity with the institution of Christ and the promulgation made through his vicar, St. Peter.

384. But today it is of the necessity of the minister, at least in the Latin Church, to confect with unleavened bread, as was said above in the second conclusion of this distinction [n.379, cf. nn.140-141]. And perhaps too the Greeks sin gravely who do not conform themselves to the Church of Peter, especially since here the solid foundation is held, because Christ did thus institute the celebrating of this sacrament. At least, although it is not necessary that it could not be done differently, yet thus is it more fittingly celebrated.