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 12: The Truth Is Proved from the Passages of Scripture Containing the Use of This Sacrament, First from 1 Corinthians 10
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).
The fourth argument from the Scriptures we said is taken from those passages which declare the use of the Eucharist in the time of the Apostles. Now there are two chief passages which make for our purpose. One is had in 1 Corinthians 10, in those words: The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?
From this passage several arguments are taken to establish the Catholic truth. The first, from those words: The chalice of benediction which we bless. For by these words it is signified that consecration is necessary for the confecting of this Sacrament; which nevertheless would not be necessary if this Sacrament contained only a figure or representation of the blood of the Lord; for to that the first institution and the will of Christ declared in the Scriptures would suffice. For the manna, and the water from the rock, and the paschal lamb were also figures and signs of the body of Christ, nay even sacraments, according to the adversaries, of the same kind with our Eucharist; and yet no consecration was necessary for this, that the manna and the paschal lamb should be figures or sacraments.
And hence is refuted the exposition of Calvin and Martyr in their commentary on this passage, who say that the benediction of the chalice is the consecration by which it is brought about that common wine becomes a sacrament. For if it were so, it would be either because a sacrament is a sign by convention, or because it has a certain analogy to the thing signified by the nature of the thing. Not the first, because for that the first institution suffices. Not the second, because that analogy, since it is natural, is in the thing before all consecration; for that bread and wine nourish bodies, as the body and blood of Christ nourish souls, they have not from consecration, but from nature. Finally, why in the water of Baptism is no benediction necessary that Baptism may be a sacrament? Why also in the manna, and the water from the rock, and the paschal lamb? Nor can they say that this benediction of the chalice is like that which we use at the common table to bless the foods. For that is to be used lest we seem ungrateful to the Creator; and it is useful, but not plainly necessary; for even without a benediction the foods have savor and nourish. But here even the adversaries confess that consecration is necessary that the wine may be a sacrament.
The second argument is taken from those words: The bread which we break. For in the mystery of the Eucharist the breaking is the same as the immolation or oblation, as is clear from those words of Paul, 1 Corinthians 11: This is my body, which is broken for you. For both Calvin and Martyr and many of the Catholics refer this to the passion; and Calvin says in express words that to break, in that place, is the same as to be immolated. Therefore in this place too the breaking will be an immolation; for it is the word of the same author, in the same epistle, treating of the same matter. And it is confirmed, because Paul described the chalice by the words of consecration, not by the words of distribution; for he did not say, the chalice which we hand around, but which we bless; therefore he ought also to describe the bread by the words of consecration, not of distribution. But if to break is to immolate, it necessarily follows that that word, bread, does not signify wheaten bread, but the very body of Christ, which is the supersubstantial and heavenly bread. For we do not immolate wheaten bread; just as also a little below, when it is said, We being many are one bread, one body, the name of bread is not taken for wheaten bread, but for the body of Christ; for we are not wheaten bread, but a certain mystical bread, that is (as the Apostle expounds), one body of Christ. And hence it is evidently proved that the body of Christ is truly present in the supper. For we do not immolate wheaten bread (as we said), but the body of Christ; nor the body of Christ as it is in heaven; therefore as it is on the very table under the species of bread. To this argument it cannot be answered except by admitting a twofold equivocation, one in the word ‘we break’, the other in the noun ‘bread’; wherefore we shall at least obtain this, that our explanation must be judged more apt, since it admits no equivocations, and expounds Paul by Paul.
The third argument is taken from those words: The communion of the blood of the Lord. And: It is the communion of the body of the Lord. Here it must be noted that the word [koinōnia] is taken in three ways in Scripture. For sometimes it signifies distribution, as Romans 12: Communicating to the necessities of the saints. And that this passage must be expounded in this manner some Sacramentarians deny, as Klebitz in the solution to the first argument, lest they be compelled to admit that with the species of bread the very body of Christ is distributed. But Martyr and others, although they too be Sacramentarians, do not reject this exposition. For they think they have defense enough in their trope against all arguments; for they say that the body of Christ is indeed distributed with the species of bread, but significatively and spiritually only. Sometimes [koinōnia] signifies society or confederation, as Galatians 2: They gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship. And this signification Calvin and Martyr seem to prefer to the rest, so that the sense is that the drink of the sacred chalice is a sign of the society which belongs to all the faithful who are redeemed by the same blood, and are also nourished by the same drunk spiritually. Finally, sometimes it signifies participation of the same thing, as Philippians 4: Communicating to my tribulation, that is, made partakers. And this signification of the adversaries Klebitz follows in the place cited, and, as he himself says, Melanchthon too. But certainly all seem probable, and come to the same; for whether it be distribution, or confederation, or participation, by the consent of all Paul teaches that the body of the Lord is received in the sacrament.
But the whole difficulty is whether the blood and flesh are received bodily, really, properly, or only significatively and spiritually. Now that they are received bodily and properly could be proved by all the arguments by which above we proved that those words of institution, This is my body, must be understood properly; but omitting those, we prove it in three ways. First, because the proper and literal sense must always be chosen, unless the contrary be evidently proved. Nor ought the adversaries to ask us why we follow the proper sense of the words; for that would be like as if someone should ask those who are on a journey why they follow the common and beaten way; for no sound man asks this, or why we enter by the door, not by the window.
Secondly, because so the ancient holy men expounded, and especially Chrysostom, whom the others follow. For in his commentary on this passage, that is, homily 24 on the first to the Corinthians, expounding those words, The chalice of benediction, and so forth, he says: “The sentence of these words is this: what is in the chalice, that is, what flowed from the side, and of that we are partakers.” And he adds: that Paul was unwilling to say [metochē], that is, participation, but [koinōnia], that is, communion, to indicate by this that through this Sacrament the body and blood of the Lord are so participated that the partaker and the thing participated become one, by a certain intimate and true conjunction, in the manner in which the Word of God and the flesh are truly conjoined through the Incarnation.
Certainly the Word of God and the flesh are not conjoined figuratively, or by faith only, but truly and really. Cyril too, Book 10 on John, chapter 13, from this passage proves that Christ is united to us through the Eucharist not only by charity, but also truly and bodily.
Thirdly, it is proved from the intention and purpose of the Apostle, which was to turn the Corinthians away from the sacrifices of the Gentiles and from the eating of immolated flesh, as is clear from the whole context; and he turns them away by showing a table and a sacrifice far more excellent, to which they can betake themselves. Now Chrysostom illustrates the whole matter by a notable similitude. For just as a lover, when he sees the person loved by him desire garments or something else of some other, immediately offers his own better and more excellent things to them, so also the Apostle, when he saw the Corinthians desire the blood of sacrifices and the eating of immolated flesh, to recall them, showed them the table of the Lord, in which they have blood and flesh incomparably more excellent. But if the opinion of the adversaries were true, the Apostle would have obtained nothing. For if true flesh and true blood are not on the altar, but only a figure and sign, the discourse of the Apostle will move no more than if one should offer to the person loved a painted silk garment, to turn her away from coveting a true silk garment.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XII. Probatur veritas corporis Domini in Eucha¬ ristia ex locis Scripturae quae * continent usum hujus Sacramenti , ac primum ex cap. x, prioris ad Corinthios. Quartum argumentum ex Scripturis sumi diximus ex his locis, quse declarant usum Eucharistiae tempore Apostolorum. Sunt au¬ tem duo loca praecipua, quae ad propositum faciunt. Unus habetur I Corinth. x. in illis verbis : Calix benedictionis, cui benedicimus, nonne communicatio sanguinis Christi est ? et panis quem frangimus, nonne communicatio corporis Christi est ? (1) Ex hoc loco plura sumuntur argumenta ad veritatem Catholicam comprobandam. Pri¬ mum, ex illis verbis : Calix benedictionis , cui benedicimus. Significatur enim his verbis, consecrationem necessariam esse ad hoc Sa¬ cramentum conficiendum ; quae tamen ne¬ cessaria non esset, si tantum contineret hoc Sacramentum figuram, seu repraesentatio¬ nem sanguinis Domini : ad hoc enim suffice¬ ret prima institutio, et voluntas Christi decla¬ rata in Scripturis. Nam manna, et aqua de petra, et agnus paschalis erant etiam figu¬ rae , et signa corporis Christi , imo et sacramenta secundum adversarios ejusdem generis cum nostra Eucharistia, et tamen nulla erat necessaria consecratio ad hoc, ut manna, et agnus paschalis essent figurae, vel sacramenta. Atque hinc refellitur expositio Calvini, et Martyris in commentario hujus loci qui dicunt benedictiopem calicis esse consecra¬ tionem, qua efficitur, ut vinum commune sit sacramentum. Nam si ita esset, vel quia sa¬ cramentum est signum ad placitum, vel quia habet analogiam quamdam ad rem signatam ex natura rei. Non primum, quia ad illud sufficit prima institutio. Non secundum, quia illa analogia cum sit naturalis, in re ante omnem consecrationem : quod enim panis, et vinum alant corpora, sicut Christi corpus, ot sanguis animas, non habent ex consecra¬ tione, sed ex natura. Denique cur in aqua Baptismi nulla est necessaria benedictio, ut (1) I Cor. XII, 16. CAPUT XII. 47 Baptismus sit sacramentum? cur etiam in manna, et aqua de petra, et agno paschali ? Neque dicere possunt, hanc benedictionem calicis esse similem illi, quam adhibemus in mensa communi ad benedicendos cibos. Nam illa adhibenda est, ne videamur ingrati creato ri; et est utilis, non autem plane neces¬ saria : nam etiam sine benedictione cibi sapiunt, et nutriunt. At hic fatentur etiam adversarii necessariam esse consecrationem, ut vinum sacramentum. Secundum argumentum sumitur ex illis verbis : Panis quem frangimus. Nam in my¬ sterio Eucharistice fractio idem est, quod immolatio, sive oblatio ; ut patet ex illis ver¬ bis Pauli, I Corinth. xi : Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis frangitur (1). Nam et Calvinus, et Martyr, et multi ex Catholicis referunt hoc ad passionem ; et Calvinus di¬ sertis verbis dicit : Frangi, in eo loco idem esse, quod immolari. Ergo etiam hoc loco fractio erit immolatio : est enim verbum ejusdem auctoris, in eadem epistola, et de re eadem tractantis. Et confirmatur, quia Pau¬ lus calicem descripsit per verba consecratio¬ nis, non per verba distributionis : non enim, dixit, calix, quem propinamus, sed cui bene¬ dicimus ; ergo etiam panem describere debuit per verba consecrationis non distributionis. Si autem frangere est immolare, sequitur ne¬ cessario, ut vox illa, panis , non significet pa¬ nem triticeum sed ipsum Christi corpus, quod est panis supersubstantialis, et coelestis. Neque enim panem triticeum immolamus; sicut etiam paulo infra, cum dicitur : Unus panis , unum corpus multi sumus, non accipitur nomen panis pro pane triticeo, sed pro corpore Christi : non enim sumus nos panis triticeus, sed panis quidam mysticus, id est (ut Apo¬ stolus exponit) unum corpus Christi. Hinc autem evidenter probatur, Christi corpus vere esse praisens in coena. Nam non immo¬ lamus panem (ut diximus) triticeum , sed corpus Christi ; neque corpus Christi, ut est in coelo ; ergo ut et in ipsa mensa sub specie panis. Ad hoc argumentum responderi non potest, nisi admittendo duplicem Eequivoca- tionem ; unam in verbo, frangimus, alte¬ ram in nomine, panis : quare id saltem obti¬ nebimus, ut nostra explicatio sit censenda aptior, cum non admittat sequivocationes, et Paulum per Paulum exponat. Tertium argumentum sumitur ex illis verbis : Communicatio sanguinis Domini. Et : Communicatio corporis Domini est. Ubi no¬ tandum est vocem xomovla tripliciter accipi in Scriptura. Aliquando enim significat dis¬ tributionem, ut Roman. xii : Necessitatibus Sanctorum communicantes (2). Et hoc modo exponendum esse hunc locum negant aliqui Sacramentarii, ut Klebitius in solut. i. arg., ne cogantur admittere, distribui cum specie panis ipsum Christi corpus. Sed Martyr, et alii, et si ipsi quoque sacramentarii sint, non rejiciunt hanc expositionem. Nam satis pu¬ tant se praesidii habere in suo tropo contra omnia argumenta : dicunt enim distribui quidem corpus Christi cum specie panis, sed significative, et spiritualiter tantum. Ali¬ quando xotvwvla significat societatem, seu confoederationem, ut Galat. n. Dederunt mihi et Barnabx dexteras societatis (3). Et hanc significationem videntur Calvinus, et Martyr anteponere cmteris, ut sensus sit, calicis sacri potum signum esse societatis, quae est omnibus fidelibus, qui eodem sanguine redempti sunt, atque eodem etiam spiritua¬ liter hausto nutriuntur. Denique aliquando significat participationem ejusdem rei, ut Philipp. iv : Tribulationi rnex communican¬ tes (4), id est, participes effecti. Et hanc signi- cationem sequitur ex adversariis Klebitius loco citato, et ut ipse dicit, etiam Melanch- thon. Sed certe omnes videntur probabiles, et in idem recidere : sive enim sit distributio sive confoederatio, sive participatio, omnium consensu, Paulus docet sumi in sacramento corpus Domini. Sed tota difficultas est, an corporaliter, realiter, proprie sumatur sanguis, et caro, an solum significative, et spiritualiter. Quod autem corporaliter, et proprie, probari posset omnibus argumentis, quibus supra probavi¬ mus proprie esse intelligenda illa verba in¬ stitutionis : 7/oc est corpus meum; sed illis omissis, tripliciter id probamus. Primo, quia sensus proprius, et litteralis semper est eli¬ gendus, nisi evidenter probetur contrarium. Neque debent a nobis petere adversarii, cur sequamur proprium sensum verborum : si¬ mile enim id esset, ac si quis peteret ab iis, qui sunt itinere, cur sequantur viam com¬ munem ettritam : nemo enim sanus id qumrit, vel cur ingrediamur per portam, non per fenestram. Secundo, quia sic exposuerunt veteres (1) I Cor. XI, 24. — (2) Rom. XII, 13. - (3) Galat. II, 9. — (4) Philipp. IV, 14. 48 LIBElt 1. sancti, ac praesertim Chrysostoinus, i|uem alii sequuntur. Nam in commentario hujus loci, id est, liorn. 24. in priorem ad Corinth. exponens ista verba : Calix benedictionis ctc. <( Horum, inquit, verborum haec senten¬ tia est ; quod est in calice, id est, quod a la¬ tere fluxit, et illius sumus participes. » Et addit : Paulum noluisse dicere gsxo/rjv, id est participationem, sed xotvwvtav, id est, com¬ municationem, ut indicaret per hoc Sacra¬ mentum ita participari corpus, et sanguinem Domini, ut fiant unum participans, et res par¬ ticipata, intima quadam, et vera conjun¬ ctione, quomodo vere conjuncta sunt per In¬ carnationem Verbum Dei, et caro. Certe Dei Verbum, et caro non sunt con¬ juncta figurate, aut per fidem tantum, sed vere, et realiter. Cyrillus quoque lib. 10. in Joan. cap. 13. ex hoc loco probat Chri¬ stum per Eucharistiam nobis uniri non solum per eharitatem, sed etiam vere, et corpora¬ liter. Tertio, probatur ex intentione, et propo¬ sito Apostoli, quod erat avertere Corinthios a sacrificiis Gentilium, et ab esu carnium im¬ molatarum, ut patet ex toto contextu : aver¬ tit autem illos ostendendo mensam, et sa¬ crificium longe praestantius, quo fini possunt. Illustrat autem rem totam Chrysostomus in¬ signi similitudine. Sicut enim amans quis¬ piam, cum videt personam a se amatam desiderare vestes, aut aliud aliquid alicujus alterius, continuo offert ipse sua illis me¬ liora, et praestantiora : ita etiam Apostolus, cum videret Corinthios desiderare sangui¬ nem sacrificiorum, et esum carnium immola¬ tarum, ut eos revocaret, ostendit illis men¬ sam Domini, in qua sanguinem, et carnem habent sine comparatione praestantiorem. Sed si vera esset sententia adversariorum, nihil Apostolus obtinuisset. Si enim vera caro, et verus sanguis non est in altari, sed tantum figura et signum, non magis movebit oratio apostoli, quam moveret qui personae amatae offerret vestem sericam depictam, ut eam averteret a veste serica vera concu¬ piscenda.