Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book I: On the Real Presence of Christ the Lord, from the Word of God
Chapter 6: The Truth of the Body of the Lord in the Eucharist Is Proved from John 6
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book I: On the Real Presence of Christ the Lord in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, from the Word of God. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Now, a most solid foundation being laid, we can thence take an equally solid argument to prove the true presence of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist. For the Lord, speaking of the bread which He was about to give in the supper, said in express words: The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.
Now this argument could be refuted in two ways. First, if someone should say (which in fact the heretics say) that by bread in this place is understood Christ absolutely, but not as He is in the Sacrament under the species. But this solution has already been overthrown by all the arguments which we made in the preceding chapter.
Secondly, if someone should admit that by bread the Eucharist is understood, but should say that that Eucharistic bread is called the flesh of Christ not properly but figuratively, whether the trope be in the word is or in the noun flesh.
But this solution must be refuted more at length in the explanation of those words, This is my body; now, however, it can be refuted from the words of this very passage in many ways, and indeed most solidly. First, from the comparison of the loaves multiplied by miracle, and of the manna which rained in the desert. For the Lord contends that this His bread, which He promised He would give, is more excellent than both. But certainly simple bread, on account of the mere signification of the body of Christ, does not excel those loaves created by miracle, and much less the manna itself, which also signified Christ, as we showed above. Besides, they asked a sign of Christ, objecting to Him the manna, which rained not without a great miracle upon the fathers in the desert; but Christ answers that He will give the true bread from heaven. Now there is no miracle in common bread signifying the body of Christ; nor either in the apprehension and eating of Christ by faith. Finally, the Lord promised something which the Fathers had not, just as they had the manna, which we have not. But the flesh of Christ, by figure and significatively, the fathers too had.
Secondly, from the doubt of the Capharnaites, who without doubt understood true flesh promised by Christ; and likewise from the offense of the disciples, who had understood the words of Christ in the same manner: whose opinion the Lord did not correct, but reproved their doubting. But who would believe that the Lord, who so greatly thirsted for the salvation of men, would have suffered so many disciples to depart from Him, if He could have recalled them with one word, by saying that He spoke figuratively, and that He had proposed a thing most easy to be believed?
Thirdly, from those words: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood. For in the apprehension of Christ by faith, not only is there no true eating, but no distinction can be imagined between meat and drink, as we said above; therefore here is promised true flesh, and true blood, which can be eaten and drunk.
Fourthly, from those words: Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? For these are wont to be expounded in two ways, and either exposition confirms our opinion. One exposition is that the Lord willed to confirm one marvelous thing by another more marvelous, or equally marvelous. For just as, when the Jews doubted whether Christ could forgive sins, He proved it by healing the paralytic, Matthew 9, and did the same often elsewhere, as in John 1 with Nathanael, and John 3 with Nicodemus. From which exposition follows the truth of our opinion; for if the Lord had not promised that He would give His true flesh in the Sacrament, there would have been no need to prove His power by the example of the Ascension.
The other exposition is that which Chrysostom seems to me to indicate in his commentary, and indeed a very literal one: that the Lord reproves the incredulity of the disciples, and teaches that they would have greater occasion of doubting in Christ’s absence, if in His presence they doubt; as if He said: Doth this scandalize you, that I will give you My flesh to be eaten? What then will you do when I shall have ascended into heaven, and My body shall have gone so far from you? How then will you be able to believe that the same body is exhibited to you present in the Eucharist? Now this exposition too wonderfully confirms the Catholic truth. For if the Lord had only promised His body to be received by faith, it would have been not more difficult, but easier, so to receive it for those who had seen the Ascension of Christ; for the Ascension beheld strengthened the Apostles in faith; the Lord therefore would not say: What then if you shall see the Son of man ascending?
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VI. Probatur veritas corporis Domini in Euchari¬ stia ex cap. VI. Joannis. Nunc jacto fundamento solidissimo, possu¬ mus inde sumere aeque solidum argumentum ad probandam veram praesentiam corporis Domini in Eucharistia. Dominus enim loquens de pane, quem daturus erat in coena, diserte dixit : Panis , quem ego dabo , caro mea est pro mundi vita (2). Posset autem dupliciter hoc argumentum refutari. Primo, si quis diceret (quod revera dicunt haeretici) per panem hoc loco intelligi Christum absolute, non autem ut est in Sa¬ cramento sub speciebus. Sed haec solutio pro¬ fligata jam est omnibus airgumentis, quae fe¬ cimus capite superiori. Secundo, si quis admitteret, per panem in¬ telligi Eucharistiam, sed diceret, panem illum Eucharisticum dici carnem Christi, non pro¬ prie sed figurate, sive tropus sit in verbo est sive in nomine caro. Haec autem solutio refutanda est fusius in (1) Math. XXVI, 26. - (2) Joan. VI, 52. CAPUT VII. explicatione verborum illorum : Hoc est cor¬ pus meum ; nunc autem refutari potest ex verbis hujus ipsius loci multipliciter, et qui¬ dem solidissime. Primo, ex comparatione panum miraculo multiplicatorum, et mannse, quod pluit in deserto. Dominus enim conten¬ dit panem hunc suum, quem daturum se pollicebatur, preestantiorem esse utrisque. At certe simplex panis ob solam significatio¬ nem corporis Christi non praestat panibus il¬ lis miraculo creatis, et multo minus ipsi mannae, quod etiam Christum significabat, ut supra ostendimus. Praeterea ilii signum petebant a Christo, objicientes illi manna, quod non sine magno miraculo pluebat patri¬ bus in deserto; Christus autem respondet se daturum panem de coelo verum. Nullum au¬ tem est miraculum in pane communi signifi¬ cante corpus Christi ; neque etiam in appre¬ hensione, et manducatione Christi per fidem. Denique Dominus aliquid promisit, quod Pa¬ tres non habuissent : sicut illi habuerunt manna, quod nos non habemus. At carnem Christi per figuram, sed significative etiam patres habuerunt. Secundo, ex dubitatione Capharnaitarum, qui sine dubio intellexerunt veram carnem a Christo promissam ; et similiter ex offensione discipulorum, qui eodem modo verba Christi intellexerant : quorum opinionem Dominus non correxit ; sed arguit eorum dubitatio¬ nem. At quis credat, Dominum, qui tantope¬ re sitiebat hominum salutem, passurum fuis¬ se, ut tot discipuli ab ipso discederent, si po¬ tuisset uno verbo eos revocare, dicendo se figurate loqui ; et rem facillimam creditu se proposuisse? Tertio ex illis verbis : Qui manducat meatu carnem , et bibit meum sanguinem. Nam in appprehensione Christi per fidem, non solum non est vera manducatio, sed nulla potest fingi distinctio inter cibum et potum, ut su¬ pra diximus ; ergo hic promittitur vera caro, et verius sanguis, qui manducari et bibi pos¬ sunt. Quarto, exiliis verbis: Hoc vos scandalizat? Si ergo videritis Filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius ? Ista enim dupliciter exponi solent, et utraque expositio confirmat no¬ stram sententiam. Una expositio est, quod voluerit Dominus rem unam mirabilem alia mirabiliore, vel teque mirabili confirmare. Sicut enim cum dubitabant Judeci, an Ghri- (1) Joan. VI, 55. — (2) Joan. VI, 02 et 03. 19 stus posset remittere peccata, id ipse proba¬ vit, sanando paralyticum, Matthan ix, et idem saepe alibi fecit, ut Joan. i. cum Nathanaele, et Joan. m. cum Nicodcmo. Ex qua exposi¬ tione sequitur veritas nostrae sententia? : si enim Dominus non promisisset veram carnem suam se daturum in Sacramento, non fuisset opus probare potentiam suam exemplo As¬ censionis. Altera expositio est, quam indicare mihi videtur Chrysostomus in commentario, et sane valde litteralis, quod Dominus repre¬ hendat incredulitatem discipulorum, ac do¬ ceat, majorem occasionem eos habituros du¬ bitandi in Christi absentia, si in ejus prse- sentia dubitant, quasi dicat : Hoc vos scan¬ dalizat, quod carnem meam vobis edendam dare velim? quid ergo facietis, quando in coelum ascendero, et tam procul a vobis 'abierit corpus meum ? quomodo tunc pote¬ ritis credere idem corpus vobis in Eucharistia praesens exhiberi? Porro haec etiam expositio mirifice confirmat Catholicam veritatem. Nam si Dominus solum promisisset corpus suum fide percipiendum, non fuisset diffici¬ lius, sed facilius ita illud sumere i s, qui vi¬ dissent ascensionem Christi : ascensio enim conspecta roboravit Apostolos in fide ; non ergo Dominus diceret : Quid ergo si videritis Filium hominis ascendentem ?