Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book II: On the Real Presence, from the Testimonies of the Fathers
Chapter 3: The Testimony of St. Dionysius the Areopagite
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book II: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord in the Eucharist, from the Testimonies of the Fathers. 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).
That Dionysius the Areopagite flourished in the time of the Apostles no one doubts; the books which are ascribed to him the heretics deny to be that Dionysius’s, and we have proved elsewhere that they are his. But in this place we may spare that labor, because Peter Martyr not only admits that those books are of some ancient Father, but even dares to take from them an argument for his error. And besides, since this author is cited as an ancient, venerable Father by Saint Gregory, homily 34 on the Gospels, he must altogether have lived within the first five centuries, which are received by Calvin. For if to Gregory, who flourished a thousand years ago, this author was an ancient and venerable Father, what will he be to us?
That author, then, in his book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 3, part 3, besides many other things which he says of this sacrament, thus addresses it: “O most divine and most sacred Sacrament, deign to draw back for us the veils of the signifying signs cast over thee, and show thyself clearly to us, and fill our spiritual eyes with the singular and open splendor of thy light.” So he. But such an invocation would most foolishly and impiously be referred to the sacrament, if it were only wheaten bread, and not the living and divine heavenly bread. Peter Martyr answers, in his book against Gardiner, part 1, objection 150, that Dionysius made an apostrophe to the thing signified, that is, to Christ Himself, who is represented through the symbols of bread and wine: “Just as in the temples of the Papists,” he says, “you may see men fall down before signs and statues, and cry out to them, as though either the Blessed Virgin, or Peter and Paul, were present.”
But this pseudo-martyr sins twice in this answer. First, because he condemns himself with the other Sacramentarians, who are wont most sharply to reprove and accuse the Catholics of idolatry for praying before images or the venerable Sacrament; for now he himself defends that practice, while he attributes it to a most holy Father. Secondly he sins because he does not observe that it is one thing to invoke before images Christ or the saints whom the images represent, which the Catholics rightly do; another to invoke the images themselves, which the Catholics do not do, nor can it be done except foolishly and impiously. But Dionysius invokes the Sacrament itself, and asks of it those things which can rightly be asked of God alone; he thought therefore that in the Sacrament Christ Himself, God and man, is truly contained; nay, that Christ Himself, together with the external symbols, is the Sacrament.
The same Dionysius, in the same place, but a little below, says: “The Pontiff, because he offers the Saviour as a victim, who is above him, excuses himself, crying out to Him: Thou hast said, Do this,” and so forth. But certainly pure bread is not above us; nor would there be need of any excuse, if we had to handle mere bread, even though it signified Christ; otherwise the Aaronic priests too would have had to excuse themselves as unworthy to touch those sheep and oxen, which is ridiculous.
Let us now hear what he brings forward for himself from Dionysius. He brings forward, then, those words from the same chapter 3, part 3: “The Pontiff uncovers the covered and undivided bread, and cuts it into pieces.”
I answer: Wonderful is the importunity of the adversaries, who, if they read in one or another Father that the Eucharist is called bread, immediately cry out that the Eucharist is nothing but bread properly so called; and when in all the Fathers, in countless places, they read that the Eucharist is the body of Christ, yet will not admit that ‘body’ is taken properly in any place. I say, then, that the Eucharist is called bread, but heavenly and divine bread, not wheaten; for a little before (as we said) the same Dionysius writes that this bread is a victim far more worthy than the Pontiff himself, so that he needs an excuse for daring to handle so exalted a thing.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT III. Testimonium S. Dionysii Areopacjitx. Dionysium Areopagitam apostolorum tem¬ pore floruisse nemo dubitat : libros qui ei adseribuntur, negant haeretici illius Dionysii esse, et nete alibi probavimus esse. Sed hoc loco supersedendum est hoc labore, quia Petrus Martyr non solum admjttit, cos libros esse alicujus antiqui Patris, sed etiam ar¬ gumentum inde petere audet pro suo errore. Et praeterea cum citetur hic auctor tanquam antiquus, venerabilis Pator a S. Gregorio hom. 34. in Evangelia ; necesse est omnino vixisse illum in primis quinque saeculis, quae a Calvino recipiuntur. Nam si Gregorio, qui nn te annos mille floruit, fuit hic auctor anti ¬ quus, et venerabilis Pater, quid erit nobis? Ille igitur auctor in lib. de Hierarchia ec¬ clesiaste cap. 3. par. 3. praeter alia multa, quae de hoc sacramento dicit, ita ipsum allo¬ quitur : « 0 divinissimum, ct sacrosanctum Sacramentum, obducta tibi significantium signorum operimenta dignanter aperi, ct perspicue nobis fac appareas ; nostrosque spirituales oculos, singulari, et aperto tuae lucis fulgore imple. » Haec ille. At ejusmodi invocatio stidtissime, ct impie referretur ad o 66 LIBER II. sacramentum, si solum esset panis triticeus, non autem panis coelestis vivus, et divinus. Respondet Petrus Martyrio lib. contra Gar- dinerum , par. i. objecto 150. Dionysium apo¬ strophen fecisse ad rem significatam, id est, ad ipsum Christum, qui per symbola panis, et vini repraesentatur : « Quemadmodum in templis Papistarum, inquit ipse, videas procumbere homines ante signa, et statuas, et ad illas exclamare, quasi aut B. Yirgo, aut Petrus, et Paulus praesens esset. » At bis peccat in hac responsione Pseudo- martyr. Primo, quia se ipse damnat cum cceteris sacramentariis, qui acerrime repre¬ hendere solent, et idololatriae accusare Ca¬ tholicos, quod orent ante imagines, aut ve¬ nerabile Sacramentum : nunc enim usum istum ipse defendit, dum eum sanctissimo Patri tribuit. Secundo peccat, quod non ad¬ vertit, aliud esse ante imagines invocare Christum, vel sanctos, quos imagines reprae¬ sentant, quod catholici recte faciunt ; aliud invocare ipsas imagines, quod Catholici non faciunt, nec potest nisi stulte, et impie fieri. Dionysius autem ipsum invocat Sacramentum atque ab ipso petit, qua? a solo Deo recte peti possunt : existimavit igitur in Sacramento vere Christum ipsum Deum, et hominem contineri, imo ipsum Christum una cum externis symbolis Sacramentum esse. Idem Dionysius ibidem, sed paulo inferius : « Pontifex, inquit, quod hostiam salvato¬ rem, quae supra ipsum est, litet, se excusat ad ipsum exclamans : Tu dixisti, IIoc facite etc. At certe purus panis non supra nos est ; neque esset opus ulla excusatione, si merum panem tractare debemus, etiamsi is Christum significaret : alioqui debuissent etiam Aaronici sacerdotes se excusare, quod indigni essent, qui tangerent oves, et boves ill os, quod ridiculum est. Audiamus nunc quid ipse pro se afferat ex Dionysio. Affert igitur illa verba ex eodem cap. 3. par. 3. « Pontifex opertum panem et individuum aperit, et in frusta con¬ cidit. )> Respondeo : Miram esse adversariorum importunitatem, qui si in uno, vel altero Pa¬ tre legant Eucharistiam vocari panem, sta- tim clamant, Eucharistiam nihil esse, nisi * panem proprie dictum : et cum in omnibus Patribus in infinitis locis legant Eucha¬ ristiam esse corpus Christi, tamen non volunt admittere corpus ullo in loco pro¬ prie accipi. Dico igitur panem voca¬ li Eucharistiam, sed panem coelestem, et divinum, non triticeum : nam paulo ante (ut diximus) idem Dionysius scribit eum panem esse hostiam ipso Pontifice longe digniorem, ita ut excusatione illi opus sit, quod rem tam eximiam tractare audeat.